Lords Sitting of 5 July 1932

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD ESSENDON.
Sir Frederick William Lewis, Baronet, having been created Baron Essendon of Essendon in the County of Hertford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD RANKEILLOUR.
The Right Honourable James Fitzalan Hope, having been created Baron Rankeillour of Buxted in the County of Sussex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LEVEN BURGH EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ELHAM VALLEY WATER AND HERTS AND ESSEX WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (HAILSHAM WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HENLEY-ON-THAMES WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with certain of the Amendments made by the Lords agreed to, certain other Amendments agreed to with Amendments, and certain other Amendmets disagreed to, for which disagreement the Commons assigned Reasons.
BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
WOKINGHAM DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Received 3a, and passed.
CHESTERFIELD AND BOLSOVER WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

ROTHERHAM GAS ORDER, 1932.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Motion standing in my name in reference to the Rotherham Gas Order be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LIVERPOOL ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1932.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, with reference to the Liverpool Electricity Extension Order, 1932, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.— (The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SEA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (WATFORD) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

HIRE PURCHASE AND SMALL DEBT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 7 [Amendment of law as to imprisonment on small debt decree for delivery]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendments standing in my name upon the Paper. These are purely drafting and are intended to correct errors which crept in in the amendment of the Bill during Report stage in the House of Commons. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Clause 7, page 5, line 33, leave out ("owner") and insert ("pursuer")
line 34, leave out ("hirer or purchaser") and insert ("defender")
line 37, leave out ("owner") and insert ("pursuer").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and referred to the Commons.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 6:
Preparation or adoption of schemes.
(2) A resolution passed under the foregoing subsection shall not take effect unless and until it is approved by the Minister….
Provided that nothing contained in this subsection shall prevent the Minister from approving a resolution adopting a scheme in the case of land described in this paragraph proposed by the owners of not less than two-thirds of that land and approved by not less than three-fourths of the owners of that land.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in the proviso in subsection (2), to leave out "in the case of land described in this paragraph" and insert "comprising land in respect of which he is not satisfied that the conditions specified in this subsection are complied with, if the scheme has been." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is merely a drafting Amendment to the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Phillimore that was inserted in Committee. It is felt that the wording of the clause as it stands in the Bill is somewhat ambiguous. Otherwise the intention in this Amendment is absolutely preserved.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 3, leave out ("in the case of land described in this paragraph") and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the Amendment to this clause in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 15, leave out ("which") and insert ("who").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Notices in relation to the making of, or under, schemes]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Lords, my Amendment to this clause also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 37, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
Approval, validity, coming into effect, variation and revocation of schemes.
8.—(1) A scheme prepared or adopted by a local authority or joint committee shall require the approval of the Minister, and the Minister may approve any scheme either with or without modifications:
Provided that, where the resolution passed by the local authority or joint committee in pursuance of Section six of this Act was a resolution to prepare a scheme, the draft scheme prepared in pursuance of the resolution shall, before submission to the Minister, be adopted by resolution of the local authority or joint committee at a meeting specially convened for the purpose:
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in the first proviso in subsection (1), to leave out "specially convened for the purpose" and insert "of which special notice indicating the business to be transacted has been given to each member." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think the object of the mover of the original Amendment in Committee was to make certain that the members of the authority would have an opportunity of knowing the scheme in detail, and of forming a view of the facts which that scheme might contain. I think that is referred to in column 227 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is felt that this object would be fully secured if a special notice of the meeting and of the business to be transacted is sent to each member. If a special meeting is to be convened it is thought that it might involve a great deal of unnecessary trouble and expense to the members of the authority and perhaps unnecessary expense to the ratepayers. The intention which I think the noble Marquess had in mind might, if I may so describe it, be dodged. I think the noble Marquess will agree to this.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 35, leave out ("specially convened for the purpose") and insert ("of which special notice indicating the business to be transacted has been given to each member").—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, my noble friend the Marquess of Linlithgow who moved the original Amendment is not in
544
his place, but as I supported the Amendment I should like to say a word or two. I must take this opportunity of making a protest because we have only received many of the Government Amendments within the last few hours. I myself only received the printed paper at two o'clock this afternoon, and I have had no time to go through the Amendments. During the discussion on this question in the Committee stage I said that I thought it would be a very good thing if the local authority had to hold a special meeting to deal with town-planning schemes, and I reminded your Lordships that that is what county councils have to do when dealing with matters under the Local Government Act. Now I understand my noble friend Viscount Gage proposes simply that the local authority should put on the agenda notice that a town-planning question will come up at the meeting. Of course, that will not give it anything like the same amount of attention as if a special meeting were called for the purpose. It will be taken amongst all the other business and probably rushed through. However, as my noble friend the Marquess of Linlithgow is not here, I shall not do more than enter my protest.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 32, after ("who") insert ("appear or").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10:
Interim development orders.
The decision of the Minister on an appeal under this subsection shall be final and conclusive and shall have effect as if it were a decision of the authority.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in the last paragraph of subsection (5), to leave out "and conclusive." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, if my noble friend Viscount Gage refers to Murray's Dictionary he will find that "final" means "putting an end to something; putting an end to strife or uncertainty; not to be undone, altered or revoked;

545
conclusive." If he looks at "conclusive" he will find it means "final." Therefore the words which I propose to be left out are unnecessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 33, leave out ("and conclusive").—(Viscount Bertie, of Thame).
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, as usual I am persuaded by my noble friend. I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, after subsection (6), to insert:
"(7) Where expenditure is necessarily incurred on buildings or works in order to comply with a condition confirmed or imposed by the Minister on an appeal to him under this section, and the condition was imposed in anticipation of the reservation of land for a public purpose or the execution of works under the scheme, then if the scheme as proposed to be approved by the Minister does not contain a provision for such reservation or execution of works, and the Minister, on representations made to bite, is satisfied that the expenditure which has been so incurred is wholly or partly abortive on that account, the scheme shall provide that the person by whom the expenditure was incurred shall be entitled, if he makes a claim in that behalf within twelve mouths from the date on which the scheme comes into operation, to recover as compensation from the responsible authority so much of that expenditure as is abortive."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this subsection is proposed to meet a point made by my noble friend the Earl of Radnor. I think he has had an opportunity of examining this proposed subsection which protects the owner in a case where expenditure has become abortive through failure of the authority to carry out work. I think he will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 8, at end insert new subsection.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I think this meets the point I made in Committee, and I am very grateful to my noble friend Viscount Gage for proposing this new subsection.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Power to permit building operations pending the coming into operation of a general development order]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the Amendment I have on the paper is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 36, leave out ("and conclusive").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17:
Power to make orders for preservation of certain buildings.
(4) Nothing in an order made under this section shall be construed as requiring the consent of the council to the taking of proper measures for the protection, preservation, or maintenance of a building.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 39, leave out ("and conclusive").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment consequential on the omission of the power to restrict alterations of historic buildings. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 42, leave out subsection (4). —(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19:
Power of Minister to exclude compensation in certain classes of cases.
(2) The Minister shall not approve the insertion in a scheme of a provision excluding compensation under the last preceding subsection or himself insert in a scheme such a provision—
(ii) if the provision in respect of which compensation is to be excluded is such a provision as is mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d), or (g) of the said subsection, unless the scheme contains also provisions satisfactory to him for securing that—
(c) a new building so substituted as aforesaid may be used for any purpose of the same or a similar character as that for which the previous building was last used before its destruction or demolition, notwithstanding that its use for that purpose would be contrary to the provisions of the scheme, unless such a use is declared in the scheme to be both contrary to the provisions thereof and also seriously detrimental to the neighbourhood
(iii) if the provision in respect of which compensation is to be excluded is such a provision as is mentioned in paragraph (f)

547
of the said subsection, in so far as that provision—
(c) prohibits or restricts as respects any land so reserved the winning by surface working of minerals, which, or the right to win which, had before the material date been acquired by some person for the purpose of winning them or had before that date devolved upon any person desirous of winning them;
(4) Notwithstanding the insertion in a scheme of such provisions satisfactory to the Minister as are mentioned in paragraph (ii) of subsection (2) of this section, if and in so far as the continuance of any existing use of an altered, extended or substituted building is not in conformity with or contravenes any provisions of the scheme, nothing in that subsection shall be construed as precluding the responsible authority from exercising at any future time their powers under Section thirteen of this Act in respect of that use, subject, however, to payment of compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (2) (ii), to insert:
"(a) existing buildings may be maintained and their existing use continued."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment and later Amendments are moved to fulfil a pledge given to the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. They are intended to make it absolutely clear that the owner of an existing building has an absolute right either to maintain his building and its existing use or to receive full compensation and that the Minister has no power to lessen or qualify this right under Clause 19. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 17, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (2), at the end of paragraph (ii) (c), to leave out "seriously detrimental to the neighbourhood" and insert "of a noxious or otherwise offensive character." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is moved in consequence of a rather important concession which I am glad to have obtained from my noble friend. It puts it out of the power of the local authority to use the general words "seriously detrimental to the neighbourhood" and substitutes words which I believe have a definite legal meaning. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 43, leave out ("seriously detrimental to the neighbourhood") and insert ("of a noxious or otherwise offensive character").—(Lord Phillimore.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, we accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (2) (iii) (c), to leave out "which or the right to win which" and insert "if the Minister is satisfied upon representations being made to him that the minerals or the right to win the minerals." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is necessitated by the acceptance of an Amendment moved by my noble friend the Earl of Radnor to insert a reference to any person upon whom the minerals or the right to win minerals had devolved and who is desirous of winning them. The question whether a person is desirous of winning minerals is one which can only be answered by the person himself. Accordingly, it is necessary to secure that at the date when the scheme is made the Minister's attention is directed to the point. Hence, the words "upon representations being made to him," which correspond with similar words in paragraphs (iv) and (v) of the subsection, have been inserted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 14, leave out ("which or the right to win which") and insert ("if the Minister is satisfied upon representations being made to him that the minerals or the rights to win the minerals").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 18, leave out ("any") and insert ("some").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next two Amendments, in subsection (4), are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 30, line 19, leave out ("use of an") and insert ("building or of any existing use of an existing").
line 26, after ("provisions") insert ("of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section eighteen").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 20:
Exclusion or limitation of compensation in certain other cases.
(3) Where any provision contained in a scheme could immediately before the scheme came into operation have been validly included in a scheme, order, regulation or by-law by virtue of any other Act, then—
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the next two Amendments on the Paper, in subsection (3), are intended to fulfil a pledge which I gave to my noble friend Lord Cranworth to make it clear that the "other Act" mentioned in subsection (3) of this clause must be an Act in force when a scheme under the Bill comes into operation, and accordingly cannot cover the local Acts which are to be repealed by the Bill and will therefore have disappeared from the Statute Book long before any scheme under the Bill can be made. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 31, line 12, after ("before") insert ("the date on which").
line 14, after ("Act") insert ("in force at that date").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 21:
Recovery of betterment from owners of property increased in, value.
(2) Where a notice has been given in respect of any property under the last preceding subsection the responsible authority shall be entitled to make a fresh claim against the person who gave the notice—
(c) in the ease of property which was at the date of the original claim used for the purposes of any business or industry, and in respect of which there has not within the period of five years next after the date of the service of the notice been made any claim under paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection, at any time within a period of twelve months after the expiration of the said period of five years:
Provided that no claim shall be made—

(i) under paragraph (b) of this subsection in the case of property used at the date of the original claim as arable, meadow or pasture ground, or as market gardens, nursery grounds, orchards or allotments, or for a plantation or a wood or for the growth of saleable underwood, or as allotment gardens within the meaning of the Allotments Act, 1922, or (being land which exceeds one quarter of an acre) for the purpose of poultry farming, if the new use of the property is a use for one or more of those purposes; and

550

(ii) under paragraphs (b) or (c) of this subsection in the case of property belonging to a statutory undertaker.

(5) In assessing the amount of any sum payable under this section in respect of any property account shall be taken—
(b) of any gift of land, or money, or any concession made by any person against whom the claim under this section in respect of the property is made or his predecessors in title with a view to facilitating the making or carrying into effect of the scheme.
(6) Any sum recoverable under this section may be paid either immediately or by such instalments spread over a period not exceeding thirty years as may be agreed or determined under this Act, and where payment is made by instalments interest at such rate as may from time to time be fixed by the Treasury shall be chargeable on the aggregate amount of the instalments for the time being outstanding.
(8) A claim made on a disposition of property taking effect or on a change taking place in its use shall be made not later than the expiration of twelve months from the date on which notice is given to the responsible authority under subsection (7) of this section of the disposition or change of the use or, where particulars are demanded by the authority, the date on which the particulars are furnished to the authority.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (2), after "fresh claim" to insert "in respect of any increase in the value of property due to the coming into operation of any provision contained in the scheme, or by the execution of any work by the authority under the scheme." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is proposed with the idea of making it quite clear that the profits of a business or industry are not to be taken into account in the recovery of betterment. The words are agreed to by my noble friend Viscount Gage. By the insertion of the word "property" the question of profits is taken out of consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 32, after ("claim") insert the said words.—(Lord Phillimore.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept our wording? There is a very slight difference, but the Amendment following is in almost precisely the same words.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords. I am afraid I had not appreciated that there

551
was this alternative Amendment. If it is not too late I am willing to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (2), after "notice" and immediately before paragraph (a), to insert "in respect of any increase in the value of the property due to the coming into operation of any provision contained in the scheme or by the execution by the authority of any work under the scheme." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the Amendment to which I have just referred.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 32, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 37, leave out ("in the") and insert ("of").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in the first proviso in subsection (2), to leave out "in the case of property used at the date of the original claim," and insert "if the new use of the property is a use." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment was put down to meet the point that park or garden was not covered by the clause. I think I said it was covered, but perhaps there is some slight possibility of misapprehension, and we have placed this Amendment on the Paper to make it clear that if any land is converted to those purposes it would not be liable for betterment.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 7, leave out from ("subsection") to ("as") in line 9 and insert ("if the new use of the property is a use").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 17, leave out from ("farming") to ("and") in line 18.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the next two Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 33, line 35, after ("change") insert ("of use of property")
line 35, leave out ("in the use of property").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (5) (b), to leave out "land or money" and insert "property whether real or personal." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these words were inserted in the Coal Mines Bill to cover every conceivable money's worth in the case of reserved funds. The Amendment is, I understand, accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 10, leave out ("land or money") and insert ("property whether real or personal").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (5) (b), after the first "may," to insert "or any works executed under arrangement with the responsible authority." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment put down to make it absolutely clear that in assessing betterment the arbitrator is not to take into account any works which the owner may do under arrangement with the planning authority. It is doubtful whether the words are necessary, but the Government is prepared to insert them to meet fears which have been expressed.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 11, after ("made") insert ("or any works executed under arrangement with the responsible authority").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to add to subsection (6):
"but notwithstanding any such agreement the person from whom such instalments are due may, on giving not less than six months' notice to the authority of his intention so to do, pay to them the whole of any outstanding instalments, together with any interest accruing due thereon to the date of repayment."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the sum recoverable by the authorities is in the nature of a mortgage and I submit that the person from whom they are due should be in the same position as the mortgagor. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 23, insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, we accept this Amendment. We do not consider it very probable that the authority would not accept an offer, but as the clause stands there would be no legal obligation and there seems to be no harm in imposing the obligation.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the first of the next two Amendments is drafting and the second consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 34, line 41, leave out ("user") and insert ("use").
Page 35, line 2, leave out ("taking place in its use") and insert ("of use taking place").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to insert at the end of subsection (8):
"Provided that where a disposition is by way of lease or tenancy agreement for a term of less than seven years, the claim shall be made not earlier than the expiration of the seventh year from the date on which the said term commenced."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is in answer to an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, who pointed out that if an assessment was made in relation to a lease which did not run for a long time it would be impossible to determine accurately how much of the increased value was due to the scheme. By this Amendment we make it clear that betterment cannot be levied until at least seven years after the lease has been made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 8, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the next two Amendments are respectively drafting and consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 35, line 10, leave out ("in the") and insert ("of").
line 13, leave out ("in the") and insert ("of").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to add to the clause:
"(12) For the purposes of this section a change of use of property shall not be deemed to have occurred if the character of the new use is similar to that of the previous use."
554
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this again is an Amendment put down to meet a point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, in Committee. I explained that the noble Viscount's words were not very suitable and we hope that those we have now put down will meet his complaint.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 43, at end insert the said subsection (12).—(Viscount Gage.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Viscount for the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Acquisition of land to which scheme applies]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the Amendment on the Paper in my name to this clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 23, after ("purchase") insert ("any").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36:
Power of Minister to require preparation or adoption of scheme, and to require execution of scheme.
36.—(1) If the Minister is satisfied after the holding of a local inquiry that a scheme ought to be prepared by any authority as respects any land, he may by order require the authority to prepare a scheme and to take such other steps as may be necessary for bringing it into operation, and the order of the Minister shall have the same effect as a resolution to prepare a scheme for the area to which the order relates passed by the authority and approved by the Minister.
(2) If the authority fail to prepare a scheme to the satisfaction of the Minister within such time as may be specified in the order, or to take any other steps which they are required by this Act, or by regulations made thereunder, or by order of the Minister thereunder, to take, the Minister may himself act in the place and at the expense of the authority, or in the case of the council of a rural district, or the council of an urban district which for the time being contains, according to the latest published return of the Registrar-General, a population of less than twenty thousand, may, if he thinks fit, and after consultation with the council of the county in which the district is situate empower that council so to act.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to leave out subsection (1) and (2). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment

555
was put down in Committee by Lord Phillimore and not moved, and your Lordships will remember that we discussed the question of the removal of this clause entirely from the Bill. I have put down this Amendment again at this stage because, as I stated in the discussion on the proposal to delete Clause 36, if this clause, or the whole of it, remains in the Bill, the Amendment to Clause 52 that we passed, which renders the question of the preparation of schemes optional as it stands, now becomes more or less inoperative because of subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 36. The Minister has those powers virtually in his hand, to compel local authorities to prepare schemes whether they want to or not. It is absolutely compulsory in that way. The point has been put to me that it is necessary to have these subsections in the Bill in the ease of a small authority within an area which refuses to have anything to do with a scheme, and stands out of it, but if you will turn to Clause 4 you will find that the Minister has plenty of power to compel the local authorities who stand out of a scheme, to the detriment of a scheme, to come in under a joint committee. The final subsections of this clause, subsections (3) and (4), and so on, are probably necessary to the Minister in order to insist on the carrying out of any schemes which have the force of law in actual fact, but I cannot see that subsections (1) and (2) are necessary. In fact, I think they are extremely undesirable in the Bill, as the Minister has power under the rest of the clause to compel a defaulting authority.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 35, leave out subsections (1) and (2).—(The Earl of Radnor.)
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Radnor has quite rightly stated the situation as regards Clause 36. I remember that on the Committee stage, when there was an Amendment moved to delete the whole of Clause 36, I suggested that that would not be advisable. I did not see my way to taking out the whole of the clause, but the Amendment now is to leave out subsections (1) and (2), leaving the Minister with plenty of power under the remaining subsections of dealing with many events. I think we could quite well do without subsections (1) and (2), for the reasons that have been stated, and I hope your Lord-
556
ships will support my noble friend in deleting these two subsections.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, certainly it was a very curious matter to many of us who had followed the Committee stage of the Bill and the Amendments put down, suddenly to find, without any notice to those who were interested in the matter, that two of the Amendments were withdrawn at the last moment, and I shall be very anxious to see, if we go to a Division, in which way the noble Lord who put his name to the Amendments in the Committee stage is going to vote when we insist upon a vote being taken on the first two subsections of this clause. If I may say what occurs to me about the Bill it is this. On the Committee stage the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill referred to this clause many times as a default clause, and he said it was necessary in this Bill to have a default clause. If I may say so I entirely agree. You must have a default clause; but if your Lordships will look at Clause 36 you will find that while subsections (3) to (8) may be properly called a default clause, subsections (1) and (2) may not. They are a totally different thing. They do not relate to any question of default by any local authority. They relate to the question whether the Minister chooses to say to himself that anything they have done has not been done under the Bill, or has not been done to his satisfaction, and if so he can take it into his hands to do something else. That is not default. That is a power given to the Minister to say that if he does not agree with the local authority he can take it upon his own shoulders to do something else.
The noble Earl who has moved this Amendment is quite right. I would like humbly to congratulate the people who thought out Clauses 3 and 4. If your Lordships will consider them I think you will find that they are most carefully thought-out and carefully arranged, so that you will not have any impediment between two adjoining authorities. They can be put together as a joint committee. If there is a little odd bit of land belonging to a third authority there are powers for the Minister to insist upon that third authority coming in, and so you will get a prepared and reasonably thought-out scheme. I suggest that we do not want subsections (1) and (2), be-

557
cause they are trying to get in the Bill something entirely different, and that is ministerial bureaucratic power over-riding the local authority. I do not want to weary your Lordships, but later on we shall come to Clause 51, which used to be Clause 52. You will find that there are two Amendments standing in my name, which I believe are nothing more than drafting Amendments, because the Amendment passed by your Lordships on the Motion of Lord Strachie deleted that clause, and if you are going to delete that, and leave in subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 36, you are going to reverse what you have already done.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, as the person who put down the original Amendment to delete subsection (1) and (2), and as I have been challenged to give my reasons for withdrawing my Amendment, I am very happy to state them. They are these. I became convinced on further study of the Bill that my Amendment was in the nature of a wrecking Amendment; in other words, that if my Amendment were passed it would seriously deprive the Bill of its powers for seeing town-planning carried through. Secondly, I was assured that in all Acts effecting local government the residuary power had to be left to the Minister, to see that the Act was in fact carried into execution. Whether that is so or not it is not for me to instruct your Lordships, but because of that I withdrew my Amendment, and at present I am still under the same impression, and I think my reasons hold good.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I think perhaps it might have been more convenient if this matter had been debated in Committee, when I think the opportunity presented itself. The Amendment of Lord Phillimore was withdrawn by leave of the House, and I think the noble Earl was in his place at the time. I only mention that because I think the Amendment should be considered in relation to the general debate on the whole clause. Your Lordships have been reminded that strong arguments were put forward for the omission of the whole clause, and in reply we submitted that it was necessary for the Minister to have default powers to act in the case, and only in the case, of obvious and gross neglect on the part of a local authority. We also submitted that there was nothing in the least unusual in
558
the granting of these powers, that they had existed under the Public Health Acts for very many years and had recently been reaffirmed by Parliament in the Local Government Act, 1929. We submitted that these powers had never been abused by a Minister and that there was no reason to suppose that they would be abused in the future. In the Division Lobby your Lordships supported that view, and I think that Lord Dynevor went so far as to say that without these powers the Bill would be perfectly useless.
LORD DYNEVOR: Was I not referring to the whole clause?
VISCOUNT GAGE: I admit that, but was going on to show your Lordships that what the noble Earl proposes to do is to limit the power of the Minister to act, not only in cases where there has been gross and obvious neglect of the local authorities, but also in cases where the owners were sufficiently public spirited and sufficiently capable to propose a scheme of their own. No doubt the noble Earl has had experience of attempting to prepare town-planning schemes, but my experience certainly is that it is no easy matter, even where one is provided with expert advice. I think there would be many cases where you would find, not large owners but quite a number of small owners in the case of whom organisation would be very difficult; and you might have absentee landlords or large areas of land held by trustees, who could hardly be expected to take the initiative in matters of this sort.
It seems to me that if a principle is right, as your Lordships have agreed that it is, it is really somewhat illogical to exclude from the scope of that principle cases where local authorities are lazy and neglectful, and also owners who are lacking in energy or for some reason are unable to make a scheme of their own. I suggest that in that combination of circumstances there arises exactly the kind of ease where default powers would be very valuable, and we should regard it as a very serious matter if the Minister's powers were limited in that regard. Mention has been made of Clause 4. That really raises an entirely different point, and I do not think there is any reason, when we are considering a default clause like this, to presuppose that there might be another contiguous area where a scheme was in force. I do

559
not think that is a consideration which really need apply in this particular case. I hope my noble friend is satisfied, because I think nobody could accuse us of being unreasonable in the conduct of this Bill. We have conceded freely, and I think that in this matter, which we regard as very necessary to the Bill, the noble Earl might agree with our view.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am rather frightened of supporting the Government in resisting this Amendment, in case I should strengthen the opposition against them, but I only want to say that I do support the noble Viscount in the view he holds, and that we on this side of the House regard this as a very essential part of the Bill. We should not like to see the powers of the Minister further diminished, as they would be if these two subsections were taken out. The Bill has been rather dangerously emasculated in Committee and we should certainly divide against this Amendment if it were pressed.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I ought to have explained when I moved the Amendment that it was my own ineptitude perhaps which failed to prevent Lord Phillimore from withdrawing his Amendment. I was not quick enough in the uptake. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for the concessions he has made so far to the Amendments that I and others associated with me have moved. They have been extremely helpful and we are very grateful. But on these two subsections the reply that I have had has been to the effect that powers in case of default are necessary to the Government, and I confess that they are necessary to any Government Department in a Bill of this nature. I do not want my Amendment to be in any way a wrecking Amendment, as Lord Phillimore said it was. But I think that these two subsections go a great deal further than giving the power to the Minister to deal with cases of gross neglect by local authorities. After all, if you read the first few lines of subsection (1):
"If the Minister is satisfied after the holding of a local inquiry that a scheme ought to be prepared by any authority …"
you will see that within those words the Minister has all the powers that have been deleted from the Bill by your Lord-
560
ships' House under the old Clause 52, which is now Clause 51. I do not know whether the noble Viscount can suggest any possible alteration of the words so as to give the Minister the necessary powers in case of difficulty with a local authority, without giving him the wider powers that there are in these two subsections, and can put down an Amendment for Third Reading? If he can do anything of that kind I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, but if he cannot I am afraid I must insist on carrying my Amendment to a Division.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I must say I very greatly regret the attitude of the noble Earl. I think the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, was quite convincing, not only as to the equity but as to the convenience of the course proposed in this clause. The idea that the Ministry of Health tramples upon local authorities is really one of the most fantastic ideas that could be advanced. No Government Department is—I will not say more scrupulously fair, but more scrupulously timid, in its dealings with the local authorities, and they cannot proceed under this clause until a local inquiry has been held. They do not propose—the terms of the Bill show it—to proceed under this clause until default has actually occurred. The object of this is to prepare or to adopt a scheme; that is to say, to carry into execution something that the local authority, in spite of the Statute, has refused or has failed to carry into effect. That is called the default clause. But they can do nothing until after a local inquiry.
Everybody knows how tiresome to a Government Department a local inquiry is. Every conceivable grievance against the Government, relevant or irrelevant, is aired at such an inquiry, and no Government Department wants a local inquiry involving all this inconvenience. The normal obligation of every progressive and self-respecting authority in this country is to prepare a town or country planning scheme. The proper obligation of every such authority is to take its share in the greater regional scheme, but in a primary scheme the duty of the local authority to deal with this matter is as great and implicit in my opinion as it is to look after its public utilities, its drainage, lighting and so forth, and, where there is a default, to deny, as Lord

561
Radnor proposes, the right of the Government to intervene, seems to me to cut the whole root of the modern view of the obligation which a local authority has to see that the planning of its area is carried out with dignity, with good sense, and with propriety. This is the existing law. Nobody has risen in your Lordships' House to say it has been abused, and I hope the subsections will not be cut out, because, as Lord Radnor admits, it would be in the nature of a wrecking Amendment.
LORD BANBURY of SOUTHAM: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Craw-
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the Amendment down in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 12, leave out ("is") and insert ("are"). —(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
Clause 40 [Power to refer certain disputes to arbitration or to Minister]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I have a drafting Amendment to leave out "and conclusive." Owing to carelessness I have not put down an Amendment to leave out the same words a few lines further on. I beg to move to omit the words in both lines 18 and 21.
ford. Let me point out what may happen. A local inquiry is held. The result of the local inquiry is that they hold that the local authority ought not to promote a scheme. Then the Minister comes down and says: "I do not agree with you. I think you ought to promote a scheme." Thereupon the Minister promotes a scheme against the result of the inquiry and against the wishes of the local authority. I shall certainly vote with my noble friend.
On Question, Whether subsections (1) and (2) shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 8.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Mersey, V.

Mamhead, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mount Temple, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Phillimore, L.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Buxton, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Cavan, E.

Addington, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

De La Warr, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Redesdale, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Remnant, L.

Plymouth, E.

Clwyd, L.

Rhayader, L.

Stanhope, E.

Danesfort, L.

Rochester, L.

Strafford, E.

Desborough, L.

Snell, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Somerleyton, L.

Allendale, V.

Gainford, L.

Stanmore, L.

Exmouth, V.

Hampton, L.

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Hailsham, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Woodbridge, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Banbury of Southam, L.

Strachie, L.

Radnor, E. [Teller.]

Clinton, L.

Wavertree, L.

Dynevor, L.

Wharton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved—
Page 49, line 18, leave out ("and conclusive")
line 21, leave out ("and conclusive").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 41 [For the protection of statutory undertakers]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in the proviso, to leave out ("is") ["the Ministry of Health is"] and insert ("are"). The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment I had put down in Committee but the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, frightened me out of it because he said the grammar was wrong. If your Lordships will turn to pages 42 and 81 of the Bill you will see that the Government "treats" or "treat" a Department as plural, and what the powers that be say to-day I ex-

563
pect your Lordships will have to accept to-morrow. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 40, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 45:
Powers as to the preservation of trees.
"—(1) The provisions to be inserted in a scheme with respect to securing amenity and the protection of existing amenities may include provisions for the preservation of single trees and groups of trees, and in addition may specify areas of woodland as areas to be protected under this section.
(2) Where an area is so specified, the scheme may impose an obligation on the owner, if any part of the woodland is felled or otherwise destroyed, to undertake siuh replanting as would be in accordance with the practice of good forestry, but save as aforesaid the scheme shall not impose any control over forestry operations in the area.
(3) If any question arises between the responsible authority and the owner whether any replanting of land carried out or proposed to be carried out by the owner is or would be in accordance with the practice of good forestry, it shall, on the application of either party, be determined by the Forestry Commissioners, whose decision shall be final."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a new clause that we are asking your Lordships to insert in place of the old Clause 46 removed from the Bill in Committee. I have been in close consultation with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, on the matter, and I understand that this suggestion meets his views. I think that the clause was criticised on the ground that an owner was not free to fell timber in woodlands when he thought fit and that that restriction might prevent the raising of money, for example, to pay Death Duties. I think the new clause meets that criticism. It provides as regards woodlands that the only obligation is to replant according to good forestry—that is to say, as good forestry requires and not just tree for tree. I do not know if it is necessary to say any more, as I think my noble friend will accept the proposed clause. I should add, however, that the words "and conclusive" which appear at the end of the new clause on the Paper should be omitted to conform to the drafting of other clauses consequent on the Amendments moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie,
564
which have been accepted. I therefore beg leave to move in that form.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 45 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble friend for proposing this new clause. Your Lordships will recollect that during the Committee stage we took very strong objection to the power to be exercised by local authorities over woodlands which practically would prevent any owner from carrying out the ordinary rights of ownership without their consent and would make it exceedingly difficult for him to carry out the most ordinary forest operations. I think this clause meets that point very fairly. Full rights remain with the owner subject to the condition that he should replant if he fells. I think that it is an exceedingly reasonable condition to make in the circumstances and I personally am quite in agreement with it. There was one point raised in the debate on the Committee stage as to what was meant by the practice of good forestry, and it was suggested that in certain cases there might be some difficulty and very likely disagreement among foresters, who are perhaps not more ready to agree than other experts. This clause, however, only applies to replanting. What happens in such cases is that the owner who wishes to replant applies to the Forestry Commissioners for a grant for replanting and when that is agreed to the Commissioners lay down, in agreement with the owner, what is the proper method of replanting. I do not think any difficulty can occur.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, I hope I shall not be thought ungrateful for the new clause which has been proposed, but I want to raise one point which I think is of some substance. Subsection (2) of the new clause reads:
"Where an area is so specified, the scheme may impose an obligation on the owner, if any part of the woodland is felled or otherwise destroyed, to undertake such replanting. …"
I think it is quite right and proper if an owner for his own profit chooses to cut down trees that he should be obliged to replant, but suppose, as sometimes happens, trippers go into the woods, make a fire and the woodland is largely destroyed owing to the action of tres-

565
passers. I think it is a little hard on the pecunious landlord that he should be bliged to replant in those circumstances. Probably he has not insured his trees and he will not only lose his trees but will have to find money for replanting. I would like to ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill whether he has considered that point, because I think there is a possibility in certain cases of great hardship.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, I think it is quite possible, as my noble friend says, that cases of hardship may be involved. Perhaps the noble Viscount will agree to consider the point between now and Third Reading. I think there is substance in the point raised by my noble friend Lord Mount Temple.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I will certainly undertake to consult my advisers on this matter and see if it is likely that any hardship will be placed upon owners in this way. It was not intended that there should be such a hardship, but I will undertake that the matter shall be reconsidered before Third Reading. I think the point is covered, but I will undertake to look into it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46 [Powers with respect to advertisements]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 33, leave out the first ("or") and insert ("of").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Expenses of, and borrowing by, local authorities]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 4, leave out ("and conclusive").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 50:
Compensation to officers.
50.—(1) Every officer of a council who, in consequence of the relinquishment, delega-
566
tion, or transfer of any powers or duties of that council under any provision contained in Sections two to five of this Act, suffers any direct pecuniary loss by determination of his appointment or by diminution or loss of fees, salary, or emoluments, and for whose compensation for that loss provision is not made by any other enactment for the time being in force, shall be entitled to recover compensation under this Act for that loss from that council.
(2) For the purposes of this section an officer of a council by or from whom any powers or duties are so relinquished, delegated, or transferred—
(b) whose appointment is determined or whose salary is reduced within five years after the said date because his services are not required or his duties are diminished, and not on the ground of misconduct;
shall be deemed, unless the contrary is shown, to have suffered a direct pecuniary loss in consequence of that relinquishment, delegation, or transfer.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice to move in subsection (1), after "Every officer of a council who," to insert "immediately before the coming into operation of the scheme had held office under that council for a period of not less than two years, and who." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I understand that there are difficulties in the way of accepting this Amendment, and therefore I do not propose to move it as I never like to be obstructive, or not too obstructive, anyhow.
But I propose to move my Amendment, at the end of subsection (2) (b), to insert "or inefficiency." It seems to me that if an employee is inefficient he ought not to get compensation. For that reason I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 39, at end insert ("or inefficiency").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, on behalf of the Government I should like to express thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie. This is a point which we ought to have seen ourselves. I am obliged to the noble Viscount for drawing attention to it and we accept his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 51:
Duty of certain councils to prepare schemes.
51. The council of every county borough or urban district containing a population according to the census taken in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-one of more

567
than twenty thousand may before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, or such later date before the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, as the Minister may in any case allow, prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme in respect of all land within their district in respect of which a scheme might have been so prepared and submitted under Section one of the Town Planning Act, 1925, if this Act had not been passed, and containing provisions with respect to such matters as may be prescribed.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved to leave out Clause 51. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is really in the nature of a drafting Amendment. When Clause 52, as it then was, was debated in Committee there were two Amendments on the Paper. One was moved by my noble friend Lord Strachie and was accepted by your Lordships. The effect of that Amendment was really exactly the same as leaving out the whole clause. It has been represented to me that it would be better that the Bill should pass with the omission of this clause, which is now meaningless. For that reason I beg now to move the Amendment which stood in my name but which I did not move in Committee, to leave out this clause.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 51.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, we agree with the noble Earl in thinking that the clause as it stands in the Bill is entirely superfluous. Of course the question of principle does not arise at this moment. That was thoroughly debated at the Committee stage. As this is now really only a drafting Amendment we agree to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53:
Interpretation.
53. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, that is to say:—
"Existing building" and "existing work" mean respectively a building or work erected, constructed or carried out before the material date, and include also a building or work—

(iii) erected, constructed or carried out in accordance with the terms of an interim development order, or of permission granted under such an order:

VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the first Amendment standing in my name is drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 27, leave out ("Improvements") and insert ("Improvement"). —(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in paragraph (iii) of the definition of "Existing building" and "existing work," after "order" to insert "whether made under this Act or any Act repealed by this Act." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is proposed in order to make it quite clear that owners who have developed in accordance with consents given under the existing law will retain the safeguard which they have secured when the existing law is superseded by this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 15, after ("order") insert ("whether made under this Act or any Act repealed by this Act").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 2, at end insert ("whether made under this Act or any Act repealed by this Act").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54:
Repeals.
54.—(1) The enactments mentioned in the Fifth Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule, and, subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of Section fifty-three of this Act, such of the provisions of any local Act as modify the provisions of the Town Planning Act, 1925, in its application to a particular locality are also repealed:
Provided that—
(a) nothing in this repeal shall affect any appointment, scheme, order, regulation, or agreement made or any approval, consent, permission or notice given under any enactment repealed by this Act, and any such appointment, scheme, order, regulation, agreement, approval, consent, permission or notice may be enforced and carried into effect as if this Act had not been passed, but may be amended, varied, repealed or revoked under this Act;
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (1), after "local Act," to insert "including any local Act passed on the

569
same day as this Act." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to meet the case of a local Bill, the Bury Bill, which I think is to be submitted for the Royal Assent on the same day as this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 26, after ("Act") insert ("including any local Act passed on the same day as this Act").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next two Amendments on the Paper are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 64, line 33, leave out ("permission")
line 36, leave out ("permission").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to add to subsection (1):
"(e) except as expressly provided in the section of this Act of which the marginal note is 'Special provisions as to the Surrey County Council Act, 1931,' nothing in this Act shall repeal or affect any provisions of the Surrey County Council Act, 1931."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to lead up to the next Amendment on the Paper dealing with the Surrey County Council Act. Perhaps it would be convenient if I made the remarks I have to make in reference to that on this first Amendment. There are a number of provisions in the Surrey County Council Act, which is a general Act dealing with matters in addition to town planning and in regard to which it is impossible to say with certainty whether they fall within the repeal clause of this Bill or not. In other local Acts it is clear which are town-planning provisions and which are not, but in the Surrey Act there are some provisions on the border line between town planning and other subjects. The Surrey Act also sets up a Committee called the Surrey Joint Planning Committee which consists of representatives of the County Council and the local authorities. This Committee is empowered to discharge certain functions connected with planning, arterial roads, open spaces and so forth, and the County Council is anxious to extend the scope of that Committee to functions under the new Bill. I understand this is agreed between the Ministry and the Surrey County Council.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 25, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, after Clause 54, to insert the following new clause:
Special provisions as to the Surrey County Council Act, 1931, 21 & 22 Geo. 5. c. ci.
".—(1) Sections seventy-three to eighty-one and Section eighty-three of the Surrey County Council Act, 1931 (in this section referred to as 'the Surrey Act'), are hereby repealed:
Provided that the repeal of Section eighty of the Surrey Act shall be without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (2) of Section fifty-two of this Act.
(2) So much of subsection (1) of Section ninety-seven of the Surrey Act as relates to any of the sections repealed by subsection (1) of this section and subsections (2) and (3) of that Section ninety-seven are also hereby repealed.
(3) In the Surrey Act (except in Section one hundred and seventy-four thereof) references to a town planning scheme or to a town planning scheme made or approved under or in pursuance of the Town Planning Act, 1925, shall be construed as including references to a scheme under this Act, and the words 'whether under the Town Planning Act, 1925, or the section of this Act of which the marginal note is "Extension of powers of local authorities to make or adopt town planning schemes "' in paragraph (a) of subsection (6) of Section sixty-eight of the Surrey Act are hereby repealed.
(4) In subsection (8) of Section ninety-six of the Surrey Act references to a joint committee appointed under Section two of the Town Planning Act, 1925, shall be construed as including references to a joint committee appointed under this Act.
(5) The following section shall be substituted for Section eighty-two of the Surrey Act:
'(1) A local authority may with the consent of the Surrey Joint Planning Committee constituted under Section ninety-six of this Act delegate to that committee, with or without restrictions, any of their powers and duties in connection with the preparation or adoption of a town planning scheme, other than the power to borrow money or levy a rate, and shall pay any expenses incurred by the said committee in the exercise of any powers and duties so delegated.
'(2) (a) Where two or more local authorities are desirous of acting jointly in the preparation or adoption of a scheme, they may, with the consent of the Surrey Joint Planning Committee concur in delegating to that committee with or without restrictions any of their powers and duties in connection with the preparation or adoption of a town planning scheme, other than the power to borrow money or levy a rate.

571
'(b) The expenses incurred by the said committee in the exercise of any powers and duties delegated under this subsection shall be paid by the local authorities who have concurred in the delegation, or some or one of them, as they may agree, and if any question arises as to the local authorities or local authority by whom, or the proportions in which, any such expenses are to be paid, that question shall be determined by the Minister.
'(c) The provisions of Section fifty-eight of the Local Government Act, 1894, with respect to accounts and audit shall, with any necessary modifications, apply in relation to the expenses incurred by the said committee in the exercise of any powers and duties delegated under this subsection as though the said committee were a joint committee of which the local authorities who have concurred in the delegation were constituent authorities.'
(6) A scheme applying to land in the administrative county of Surrey may, with the consent of the Surrey Joint Planning Committee constituted under the Surrey Act, provide that the said committee or a body consisting of such number of members of the said committee to be nominated by the said committee for the purpose, as may be specified in the scheme, shall be the authority responsible for enforcing and carrying into effect all or any of the provisions of the scheme, and where a scheme provides for a body consisting of such persons as aforesaid being the responsible authority for any of the purposes of the scheme it may authorise that body to co-opt additional members, so however that at least three-fourths of the members of that body shall be persons who are members of the said committee."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 54 insert the said new elapse.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule:
FIRST SCHEDULE.

PART II.
Provisions as to the Validity and Date of Operation of Schemes.
5. Except by leave of the Court of Appeal no appeal shall lie to the House of Lords from a decision of the Court of Appeal under this Part of this Schedule.

PART III.
Provisions as to the Validity and Date of Operation of Compulsory Purchase Orders.
4. Except by leave of the Court of Appeal no appeal shall be to the House of Lords from a decision of the Court of Appeal under this Schedule.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name on this Schedule is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 24, leave out ("an") and insert ("any").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out paragraph 5 of Part II. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. Paragraph 5 says:
"Except by leave of the Court of Appeal no appeal shall lie to the House of Lords from a decision of the Court of Appeal under this Part of this Schedule."
I do not see why your Lordships who are the highest Court in the Realm should not have an appeal allowed to it. This Bill is going to cause a considerable amount of change in the holding of property and in town planning, and I think it is necessary that your Lordships, or rather the Court of your Lordships' House, should have the opportunity of considering appeals from the lower Courts. I take some interest in observing what takes place in His Majesty's Courts of Law, and though I do not say that this is invariable I find it often happens that in the High Court a decision is given, the Court of Appeal alters it, and your Lordships' House alters the decision of the Court of Appeal. If you do not accept my Amendment you are going to say to the Court of Appeal, whose decisions are often altered by your Lordships' House: "You are not to allow an appeal to the highest Court of the Realm unless you wish it yourself." That seems absurd. I feel almost certain that the Government will accept my Amendment. This provision, so far as I know, is quite unusual, and if it is necessary to have an appeal from the Court of Appeal it should certainly lie to your Lordships' House.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 28, leave out paragraph 5.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE of THAME: My Lords, I also have this Amendment on the Paper, but I put it there for a different reason. If you turn to page 70, lines 36, 37, and 38, you will see exactly the same words covering the whole of the section. Therefore the paragraph under discussion is redundant.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, m sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, but I think then he has heard the explanation he will desire to withdraw his Amendment with a two-fold object. One of those objects is, I know, extremely dear to his heart. I suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn, first, in the interests of economy and, next, in the interest of the private litigant. The paragraph which he proposes to omit provides that without the consent of the Court of Appeal there is to be no appeal to the House of Lords from decisions to which Part II of the Schedule relates. Your Lordships all know that we are endeavouring to get some reform in the law of England and especially to get final decisions quickly and without expense. As Lord Chancellor a very large number of communications reach me and I should think that 99 out of a 100, certainly nine out of ten, complain of the mutiplicity of appeals, and especially in those cases where a private litigant is proceeding against some Government Department as would be the case here. I beg Lord Banbury of Southam to consider the interests of the private litigant who is being—I do not like to say dragged from Court to Court, but being taken from Court to Court by a Government Department.
May I say one word on the procedure? This is no new paragraph. It follows the line adopted by Parliament in similar Schedules in the Housing Act, 1930, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930. It saves expense to litigants, but at the same time it enables cases involving issues of special importance to be taken to the House of Lords. But I particularly recommend it bearing in mind what people say with regard to the multiplicity of appeals. This paragraph is particularly appropriate to the kind of litigation which will take place between an individual landowner and a planning authority who will frequently be a powerful local authority with more or less unlimited rate resources at its back. The fear of being taken to the House of Lords frequently acts as a deterent against embarking on litigation no less with local authorities than with the Crown. This is really a great reform of the law. It is in the interests of the private litigant; it does not do away with the right of appeal, as the Court of Appeal can give
574
leave to appeal; and it is not, as Viscount Bertie of Thame suggests, redundant. I beg your Lordships to allow this small endeavour to prevent expense to be made in the law. The Government will certainly oppose the Amendment and I can hardly think that the noble Lord means it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor for his kindness in making a very clear statement. He says I have been in favour of economy. It is true I have been, but nobody has paid any attention, and I might just as well not have been for all the attention that has been paid to me. The Lord Chancellor says that two Acts passed in 1930 have the same effect. That does not appeal to me, because in 1930, according to my view, we had about the worst Government we have ever had, and it did about the worst things that have ever been done. Therefore an argument based on what took place in 1930 does not very much appeal to me. What does appeal to me is this, that I think we are going to put a little brake upon the power of the Minister. If I understand the Lord Chancellor aright, he says that the Minister, or a local authority, with command of the rates, could appeal against an unfortunate person like myself who has no money and cannot afford to go to the expense of an appeal. I am afraid that is the case not only with Governments from the other side of the House but this Government too. They sometimes do appeal to the House of Lords on points which are absurd, in the hope that the unfortunate individual will be afraid to defend the appeal. In the circumstances I do not press my Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord proposes to withdraw his Amendment, and I am entirely in favour of that. I rose only to refer to an observation made by Lord Bertie of Thame, who drew attention to the fact that there is another Part of the Schedule, and that paragraph 4 of Part III says that no appeal shall lie "under this Schedule." That refers apparently to the whole Schedule, whereas this paragraph 5 refers only to "this Part of this Schedule."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Marquess is quite right, and I

575
am perfectly prepared to leave out the words in paragraph 5 "under this Part of this Schedule."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): If I might suggest it, it would appear to me that that would be going a little too far.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think on reflection that it does perhaps go a little too far, and if the Amendment is negatived I will move to insert, in Part III, paragraph 4, the words "this Part of."
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 38, after ("under") insert ("this Part of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule [Matters to be dealt with by schemes]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert:
"4. The reservation of sites for places of religious worship or for residence houses or burial places in connection therewith and preservation of sites held for any of those purposes."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have been asked to move this Amendment on behalf of Earl Grey. It was moved by him in Committee and withdrawn, on the understanding that the Government would consider the matter and be prepared to deal with it at this stage. The object of the Amendment is twofold. First, it is to secure that in all schemes involving housing development on a large scale opportunities shall be given to the representatives of all denominations to secure suitable sites for building places of worship; and, secondly, to ensure that where the authorities of these denominations, by foresight, have secured such sites beforehand, they shall not be lost to those denominations by reason of a town-planning scheme being produced.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 6, at end, insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I would venture to recall to his mind what passed in Committee the other night. It was rather late, but still I have a clear recollection of what passed. The real point is this, that unless it is quite clearly
576
recognised by the local authority that this provision for places of worship really essential in any building developments in this country, a great wrong w be done to a great number of His Majesty's subjects. My noble friend will remember that it is not new that in our legislation special recognition is given to places of worship, and they are treated as a particular case which has to have special regard paid to it. There is an Act called the Places of Worship Sites Act, under which places of worship get special provileges for securing sites, and rating relief is also granted to them as such, because they belong to what in this country is deemed to be essential for the people of the country.
In this particular case we are considering what particular directions schemes may provide for, and Lord Grey suggests that places of worship ought to be included in the list. It may be said, of course, that the matter is dealt with generally in the Second Schedule, but that is unfortunately not the case, because you will see that in paragraph 4 special provision is made for aerodromes. If you are going to have special provision for aerodromes I think places of worship stand in quite as good a position, and indeed in a far better position. I hope your Lordships will realise that as the Bill is framed this is not a coercive provision. It does not follow because these words are inserted in the Bill that in every case the local authority will be bound to make provision for places of worship, because under Clause 11 it is only what they deem to be expedient that is to be included. Therefore, it is permissive in the accurate sense of the word.
At the same time the fact that this Amendment appears on the face of the Bill, as a deliberate provision of Parliament, is of the greatest importance from the point of view of places of worship, because then a local authority, when approaching the subject of a scheme, will see that this is a matter which is not to be lightly passed by or ignored but to which Parliament has specifically directed their attention. They may for good cause think it inexpedient to make provision in a particular case, but the matter will never be ignored. It is with a view to that situation that my noble friend Lord Grey, who unfortunately cannot be in his place this afternoon, put down the

577
Amendment. I hope that my noble friend on consideration will see his way to accept it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we have the greatest sympathy with this Amendment and we think that words which carry out the intention of the Amendment ought to be inserted and I am perfectly ready to insert them. The noble Marquess on the last occasion was good enough to refer us to the Places of Worship Sites Act, 1873, and so we looked into that and adopted the words of the Act of Parliament to which he referred. He is quite right in saying that the Second Schedule contains matters to be dealt with by schemes and we are of opinion that this is one of the matters which ought to be included. We do not think it is possible to accept the last few words of the Amendment:
"and preservation of sites held for any of those purposes."
I have the words here taken from the Places of Worship Sites Acts, 1873, and I shall read them to the House:
"The reservation of sites for places of religious worship or for houses of officiating ministers or burial places in connection therewith."
Those words will carry out exactly what the noble Lord wants. It is impossible to put in the last words of his Amendment, which are really not wanted, and, if he will move his Amendment in that form, I shall have the greatest possible pleasure in accepting it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his offer and have pleasure in moving the Amendment in that form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 6, at end insert
("4. The reservation of sites for places of religious worship or for houses of officiating ministers or burial places in connection therewith.")—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, this Amendment has only appeared on the Paper this afternoon and seems to deal with a complicated matter off-hand. It creates and acknowledges a claim on the part of any religions denomination in any scheme, even in a regional planning scheme, in any part of the country, whether urban or rural, to a site for a
578
burial place, a parsonage or ministerial residence. That is a right which the existing Statutes do not confer. These are not mentioned in the Schedule but neither are schools nor hospitals. You cannot set out in the Schedule the individual types of buildings for which these schemes ought to make provision. Here alone we lay down the right of any denomination to exercise its claim to three sites, one for the church, one for the burial ground, and one for the vicarage house. It is very objectionable that religious bodies should have a right in these schemes to claim a site for a burial ground. We do not want burial grounds scattered all over Great Britain. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has said that aerodromes are included, but aerodromes are specific things and are mentioned but churches are not. It is very obvious that you can easily find a site for a church or a vicarage. It is not easy, on the other hand, to find a site for an aerodrome which occupies one or two hundred acres.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Or for a burial ground.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: A burial ground can be put on a hillside but not an aerodrome. An aerodrome has a special geographical and stratigraphical connotation which these places have not. I thought it was very objectionable in the legislation we are passing about cinemas to put upon local authorities the duty of deciding whether a cinema should be opened on Sundays or not. Here you place upon a local authority the duty of accepting or refusing or fighting the scheme of any denomination which may apply for a burial ground or vicarage or place of worship. I am sorry that so controversial a matter should be inserted in this town-planning scheme, which I hoped was outside the area of controversy. Another point that has just struck me is that there should be a time limit. It is not right to give these people the right of sterilising ground for the purpose of these sites and yet not insist that, if they do not occupy the ground, they must surrender it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 25, leave out ("money or property") and insert("property whether real or personal").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule:
THIRD SCHEDULE.

PART I.
Provisions as to the Compulsory Acquisition of Land.
3. The modifications, subject to which the Land Clauses Acts and the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, shall be incorporated in the order are as follows:
(ii) No person shall be required to sell a part only of any house, building or manufactory, or of any land which forms part of a park or garden belonging to a house, if he is willing and able to sell the whole of the house, building, manufactory, park or garden unless the arbitrator determines that in the case of a house, building or manufactory such part as is proposed to be taken can be taken without material detriment to the house, building or manufactory, or, in the case of a park or garden, that such part as aforesaid can be taken without seriously affecting the amenity or convenience of the house, and, if he so determines, he shall award compensation in respect of any loss due to the severance of the part so proposed to be taken, in addition to the value of that part, and thereupon the party interested shall be required to sell to the responsible authority that part of the house, building, manufactory, park or garden;
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph 3 (ii), after the first "park," to insert "pleasure ground," The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have some recollection that in recent Bills where parks were mentioned pleasure grounds were also mentioned. I regret that I cannot quote any Bill but I think that, where parks are mentioned, pleasure grounds which are not parks should also be included.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 42, after ("park") insert ("pleasure ground").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the Government must at last make a stand against the drafting zeal of the noble Viscount. The words "park or garden" are wide enough to cover all likely cases. The objection to including these words is that the Bill as drafted follows a
580
well recognised code. The same provision is in the Housing Act, 1930, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1931, and the effect of inserting "pleasure ground" may be to limit the meaning of "park or garden" in the other Acts.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, I am not quite satisfied with the answer of my noble friend. In the first place, although, like my noble friend Lord Bertie, I cannot call to mind a specific case in which the words "pleasure ground" appear, I have a recollection that in Mr. Lloyd George's Land Tax proposal those words played a very prominent part indeed on the question as to whether or not they should be exempted. In any case, surely, there are parcels of land which appertain to a mansion in the country other than a park or a garden. A garden may be a kitchen garden or a flower garden, while it is obvious what a park is. There are, however, many places of quite considerable area which are certainly not parks because they are enclosed in a comparatively small compass. They have no flowers or fruit and they are what I call shrubberies. I do think that if you are going to try to keep for the owner, and not oblige him to sell compulsorily, the land round his house it would be a good thing to put in "pleasure ground." I can see no objection to doing so. It seems to me that if the Government really want to make the wording water-tight they ought to agree to my noble friend's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the Amendment I now move is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 11, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, has referred to the fact that in another Amendment of a similar character to this I took objection to his emendation of the grammar. I have been scratching my head about it and looking at it again, and I still think that I am right. Just let me read part of the sentence. It says:
"but the Minister, before giving his decision … shall, where any Government De-

581
partment other than the Ministry of Health is concerned. …"
That is perfectly intelligible. Where any Government Department other than a particular one is concerned the Minister has to consult. That is quite clear. But the noble Viscount proposes to make it read thus:
"but the Minister, before giving his decision …shall, where any Government Department other than the Ministry of Health are concerned. …"
Surely if he says are, "Government Department" is wrong. "Department" ought to be "departments."
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I think the attitude of the Government is expressed by the phrase Quis custodiet ipsos custodies? We have accepted a good many grammatical Amendments of the noble Viscount, and if they prove to be wrong I do not know where we stand. Actually my instructions are to accept the Amendment. But the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, have great force. The only trouble is that we have accepted similar Amendments in previous cases. I suggest that we should accept this Amendment and leave it to the Government draftsman to consider the whole matter.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Might we have the opinion of the Lord Chairman of Committees?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I suggest that it be referred to the member for Oxford University, and then we could decide what to do on Third Reading.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that Lord Ullswater is right, but it is a terrible blow to think that the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, is capable of making such an error, because I take it for granted he is right every time he has an Amendment, and I agree that we ought now to start the proceedings again and go through all his Amendments.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Are we in this and future Acts of Parliament to treat a Government department as a plural? If not, why should we here?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I am simply following out what the Government have put in this Bill and other Bills. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, must not think I am always right;
582
very likely I am often wrong because I try to follow the Government. But I cannot understand why, if the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, disagrees with this Amendment, he does not, on page 42 and page 81, put "Government department" with a singular verb, because in this very Bill the Government draftsman has treated it as a plural.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, may I suggest that we follow the advice of Lord Gage and leave it to the draftsman and the grammatical authorities to put their heads together and see that this is put right? I think we have accepted Lord Bertie's Amendments before, and if we follow the other course now we may get into difficulties. On Third Reading, with the advice of all the eminent authorities, we might get it straight.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, I think we might console ourselves with this thought. This matter will come before the Courts. It will then go to the Court of Appeal, and, with the leave of the Court of Appeal, it will come before your Lordships' House, and your Lordships in your judicial capacity will give your final decision.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Adaptations and modifications of this Act in its application to Scotland]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the next two Amendments are drafting or consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 82, line 41, leave out ("which") and insert ("whom").
Page 83, line 10, leave out ("(4) and (6)") and insert ("and (5)").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I have a drafting Amendment here.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 34, leave out ("and conclusive").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 38, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 2, leave out ("which is") and insert ("who are").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the four next Amendments are consequential or drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 88, line 3, at end insert:
("S. 54.—Paragraph (e) of the proviso to subsection (1) shall be omitted
S. 55.—The section shall be omitted ")
Page 89, line 16, leave out ("is") and insert ("are")
line 40, leave out from ("bridge") to the first ("or") in line 41, and insert ("by which a highway is carried over or under any railway, canal or navigable water")
Page 90, line 11, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 9 agreed to.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER)THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER) moved, after Clause 9, to insert the following new clause:
Repeal of s. 44 (7) of 15 & 16 Geo. 5 c. 70.
.—(1) Subsection (7) of Section forty-four of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, (which subsection relates to the reckoning, for certain purposes, of insurance in Northern Ireland and contributions paid in that country) is hereby repealed.
(2) For the purposes of any financial adjustments to be made under Section thirty-three of the said Act, this section shall be deemed to have come into operation on the same date as the reciprocal arrangements first made between Great Britain and Northern Ireland under the said Section thirty-three.
The noble Lord said: It will not be necessary to detain your Lordships many moments, but a point has arisen affecting Northern Ireland in connection with the National health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Bill and the Amendment on the Paper. I think I can best explain by saying that subsection (7) of Section 44 of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, which it is proposed to repeal, provides that in the case of an insured person who has a period of employment in Northern Ireland the weeks of insurance in Northern Ireland and the contributions paid into the National Health Insurance Fund of that country in respect of him shall count as weeks of insurance and as contributions paid in respect of him for the purposes of the statutory conditions under the Contributory Pensions Act.
At the time when the Act of 1925 was introduced it was not known whether a similar scheme would be set up in Northern Ireland, and this provision was accordingly made in order that an insured person might not be prejudiced by the fact that he had worked for a time in that country. But as soon as the Bill of 1925 was published the Government of Northern Ireland announced that they proposed to have a similar scheme. That being the position, the right course obviously was to make provision in the schemes of both countries for the institution of reciprocal arrangements under which periods of insurance, contributions paid, and residence in one country should, for the purposes of qualification for pensions in the other country, count as weeks of insurance, contributions paid, and residence in that other country. A Government Amendment, which became Section 33 of the Act of 1925, was accordingly introduced for the purpose of authorising the making of reciprocal arrangements and any necessary financial adjustments in connection therewith.
The inclusion of this provision rendered unnecessary the special provision made by subsection (7) of Section 44, but that provision was by inadvertence allowed to stand. Reciprocal arrangements have been in operation since the Acts came into force in the two countries in January, 1926, but the question of financial adjustments in connection with the arrangements has only recently been taken up. So long, however, as sub-

585
section (7) of Section 44 is in existence, the scope of the financial adjustments which can be made under the reciprocal arrangements is severely restricted, and it is desirable for the equitable working of the reciprocal arrangements between the two countries that the restriction should be removed. That is the reason for this Amendment. I therefore move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9, page 9, line 19, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Title:
An Act to amend the enactments relating to National Health Insurance; to amend the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, by making provision for the payment of pensions thereunder in respect of the insurance of persons who cease to be insured within twelve months before death or before attaining the ago of sixty-five, and by modifying the statutory conditions applicable to such pensions in the case of persons who, after, ceasing to be insured, again become insured; and for purposes connected therewith.
LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved, after "become insured", to insert "to repeal subsection (7) of Section forty-four of the said Act." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequent upon the one which your Lordships have just accepted. I
586
suggest that it is necessary to insert these words. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, page 1, line 11, after ("become insured") insert ("to repeal subsection (7) of Section forty-four of the said Act"). —(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, before the House adjourns, I would like to express if I might my regret that your Lordships should have been invited to meet early this afternoon when business, as it turns out, could have been finished at the ordinary time. I would like to explain that the Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning Bill took two sittings, including one till nearly midnight, and the fact that we have been able to get through the Report stage so expeditiously is largely due, I think, to the manner in which the. Ministers in charge were able to meet the critics of the Bill and to reach an accommodation, which only took effect very late yesterday evening. I should not like your Lord-ships to imagine I was inviting the House to sit unnecessarily early without some grounds for doing so.
House adjourned at five minutes before five o'clock.