Lords Sitting of 12 July 1932

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House at what time to-morrow the House will sit?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I think it would be convenient if we met at half-past eleven to-morrow and have the Royal Commission at half-past twelve, which I understand is likely to be in accordance with the convenience of the other place. Some little discussion may arise with regard to the Humber Bridge Bill, about which the Lord Chairman of Committees has something to say. Half-past eleven would give time to dispose of that and also give time for the Royal Commission at half-past twelve.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments insisted upon by the Lords and the Lords Amendment in lieu of an Amendment disagreed to by the Commons, agreed to.

DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scot-

769
land) Act this Bill passes straight to its Third Reading and therefore, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, I move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

OXFORD AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1932.
SHEFFIELD GAS ORDER, 1932.
YEOVIL GAS ORDER, 1932.
NEWBURY GAS ORDER, 1932.
CAMBRIDGE GAS ORDER, 1932.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name with regard to these Orders.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BATH GAS ORDER, 1932.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE had given Notice that he would move, That the Special Order, reported from the Select Committee on the 29th of June last, be approved as deposited and without modification. The noble Lord said: My Lords, as regards the Motion in my name relating to the Bath Gas Order, 1932, the Board of Trade have received a proposal from the parties concerned that in the circumstances which have arisen, and into which I need not go, it would be in the interests of everyone if the Order were not moved now but were postponed till next Session. The Board of Trade gladly assent to this proposal, and I understand that my noble friend Lord Bath, who was Chairman of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House which dealt with the matter, also assents. Accordingly, with your Lordships' concurrence, I do not propose to move to-day the Motion standing in my name.
THE MARQUESS OF BATH THE MARQUESS OF BATH, in whose name stood an Amendment to the Motion, to leave out the words after "approved" and insert "with the modifications proposed by the Select Commit-
770
tee," said: My Lords, of course the House will understand that if this Motion had been proceeded with by my noble friend it would have been my duty to ask the House to support its own Committee, but in view of the fact stated by Lord Templemore, that the parties are agreed to the course which he is taking, I, of course, speaking on behalf of my noble friends who sat with me on the Committee—we take no sides—are quite content to leave the matter there, on the understanding that the Order, which is still in the possession of your Lordships, will be brought forward at a later stage.
I should like, however, just to say this on the point that came before us. It is one of considerable importance, and I think I am speaking from the strong point of view held by my noble friends, when I say that we felt that it was one which was worthy of the consideration of Parliament in some way, but that it was not the proper place and time to bring it forward in an Order—I even go further and say in a Bill—which had the assent of all the parties concerned in that Order. I throw out the suggestion that it is a matter—a question of one or more basic prices of gas—which ought to be decided probably on the lines on which other gas questions have been dealt with, or by a Joint Committee or something analogous thereto, such as those two Committees which have already sat under the Chairmanship of two members of your Lordships' House, Lord Chalmers and Lord Marks. Having said that, and on the understanding that this Order will be proceeded with later, I have nothing more to say.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I should like to understand exactly what it is that Lord Templemore has told us. As your Lordships know, there has got to be an affirmative Resolution by both Houses before any Order can come into operation. This Order went before the Special Orders Committee. They recommended that a Special Committee should sit upon it. That Committee sat upstairs and heard counsel on behalf of everybody, and made a report to this House. Then the Government, at the last moment, put down in the name of Lord Templemore a Motion that the Committee's recommendations should not be followed and that the original Order should be left. Surely the Government must have

771
realised that your Lordships would never disagree with the findings of your own Committee without hearing arguments, and evidence if necessary. If that has all got to be gone into again on the floor of this House, is it reasonable that the Government should have put down this Motion on the last day of the Session, when they know that we could not possibly deal with it in that way?
I hope that Lord Templemore meant, and will tell your Lordships that he meant, that next Session we shall have before us, for our consideration, the Report of our Committee as it stands now, and not as possibly modified at the express desire of some particular bureaucratic Department, who, I have no doubt, can bring pressure to bear upon the other parties. We are entitled to see the Report of our Committee, and to see if we can approve it, and if necessary have arguments about that Report. That I think is a very important matter in your Lordships' House. These Orders and these Private Bills that come before your Lordships' House, have got to be looked at carefully, or there is a grave danger sometimes of something slipping in to which the attention of the House has not been called. There is the historic case of a Private Bill relating to a borough, where the town clerk happened to be on bad terms with his wife. He succeeded in slipping into a Private Bill dealing with sewage a clause to this effect: "The marriage between the town clerk and his wife is hereby annulled." One has to be a little careful that something of that kind does not happen again. I do hope that we may have the Report of our own Committee for our consideration unaltered, even though, through the exigencies of time, if cannot be taken this Session, but will be taken next Session.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that this does require rather more explanation from the Government than has been given to us. I do not pretend to be an expert in the procedure in your Lordships' House, but I attended the Special Orders Committee when this Bath Gas Order came up, and I think that what we decided was that the matter was going to be referred to a Committee of your Lordships' House, and that the Report of that Committee would be received. I was very much mystified when I saw that the Government had gone back, and had
772
put down a Motion that the original Order should be passed. I did not really gather from the noble Lord who is in charge of this part of the business what exactly has persuaded the Government to take the course they have. I cannot help being rather suspicious. We have had Government Departments quoted often, and in this case again it is the Board of Trade which persuaded the Government to take this action.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord clear up the position? We are in great uncertainty as to whether this Order is to be brought forward at the end of the current Session, or whether the whole thing will have to start in the next Session. If a new Order must be proceeded with in the next Session I think the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Halsbury cannot possibly be carired out. I fear the matter is bound to start all over again, and probably entirely new proposals will be forced upon the parties. I feel very strongly as to the impropriety of that. We have had two separate systems of basic gas prices existing side by side. We were given a list in the Committee. I think all of us felt that there is a great variation in local conditions. The case was given to us of Middlesex where a large increment in revenue came like ripe fruit to the gas company without any effort; it does not necessarily apply to a rural area in the surroundings of Bath. Although since 1920 these two different systems have existed side by side, although the Board of Trade themselves strenuously fought the very system which they want to impose by a ukase now uniformly throughout all these Gas Orders, it is now suggested that a complete veto should be applied to the system of multiple basic prices. I do think we should be told whether this issue is coming up in its simple form when this Order again comes up or whether the whole thing is going to start afresh next Session, the parties to be put to the expense and inconvenience of an entirely fresh hearing, and whether the issue which I think was brought out very plainly as between the multiple and the single basic price will again come before your Lordships' House.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I will try to answer the various questions

773
which have been put. As regards the question of Lord Halsbury, he asked whether the House was to be allowed to see the Report of the Select Committee. The modifications in the Order approved by the Select Committee have been published as a White Paper and I think it is lying on the Table now. I was also asked as to whether this Motion was to be moved at the end of this Session. The answer is that supposing we had gone on with this matter to-day and the Motion had been defeated, I understand the Order would have been killed, but, as it is, it remains alive and can be brought forward either at the end of this Session or at the beginning of, or any time in, the new Session, and that it will not involve the parties concerned in any fresh expenditure. As regards the question asked by the noble Marquess, Lord Bath, about an undertaking that this matter will be brought forward again, that is certainly what I intended to convey. It is not at all a matter of killing the thing now; it is merely postponed. As regards the reasons which induced His Majesty's Government to take the line they did, I should have been able to explain that, had this matter been proceeded with. I had a fairly long speech ready in which I could have explained it to your Lordships. I can assure your Lordships that there were very good reasons why His Majesty's Government assented to the agreement which had been come to between the parties in this case.
LORD JESSEL: I am not at all clear. I do not understand what the noble Lord means by "postponed." Does he mean that this stage will come on at the end of this Season? Or will the Order have to go before the Committee again?
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, what the House would like is to have an opportunity of hearing the views of the Select Committee and to see the evidence that would enable them to judge of what the Select Committee suggest should be done. If that is so, should it not be an understanding that no pressure should be brought to bear by a Government Department on the parties to this Order when they discuss it afresh, so that it should not be said: "Oh well, the Report of our Select Committee is immaterial; it has all been settled between the two
774
parties"? What I should suggest is that there should be an undertaking on the part of the Government that the Government Department concerned—I suppose it is the Board of Trade—should not enter into communication with the parties to this Order till your Lordships' House have had an opportunity of hearing the recommendations of the Select Committee.
LORD JESSEL: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, how exactly this will operate? Will this Order have to go before a Committee upstairs, or will the Government decide here in the House? Can that be done in the very few sittings after the resumption, or can the Order be carried over? I understand the Chairman of Committees brings up a Motion that certain Private Bills are carried over from one Session to another. Is that so, and will this Bill only be discussed in the week before Parliament is prorogued?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I understand that this matter cannot be moved at once, but must take two or three days. As regards the Session in which it is moved I do not know, but I understand that it is doubtful whether we shall meet again this Session.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: We meet again on October 27.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I did not know, but I now understand we meet again in this Session on October 27, and the matter can then be brought forward.
LORD JESSEL: But if that continuation of the Session only lasts a week, can the Bill be carried on to the next Session?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My noble friend informs me that it cannot.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: What does that precisely mean—that this matter cannot be moved at once, but must take two or three days?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I think three days are needed in order to pass it through. That is the necessary time in one Session. If we have three days then I believe it will be possible to proceed with the Motion as it stands, but, supposing there are only two days, and the House is prorogued, and Parlia-

775
ment meets again, then the Special Order would have to be reintroduced. I do not think that any unnecessary expense would be entailed, but it would be possible to reintroduce the Special Order with certain modifications, and, as I understand from what Lord Templemore said, it is hoped that agreement may be reached between the Board of Trade and the Bath Corporation and the gas companies which will render it possible to bring before your Lordships a settled and agreed proposal. That will come before your Lordships as a Special Order, and it will go before the Special Orders Committee, and be dealt with in the ordinary way.
At the same time, as your Lordships will observe, it is said in the Motion—
"That the Special Order, reported from the Select Committee on the 29th of June last, be approved as deposited and without modification."
Therefore the Report of my noble friend Lord Bath's Committee is before your Lordships' House. It will remain before your Lordships' House, and when the Special Order in its modified form, or in its original form, comes up after Prorogation in the next Session your Lordships will have everything before you, and be able to deal with the matter in such a way as your Lordships think right—to modify it in any way, to refer it to a Select Committee, or take any action which your Lordships think proper. But I think it ought to be quite clear that if it is after Prorogation it will be really a new Special Order with such modification as may be agreed upon between the various parties, or may not be agreed upon. As in this case there may be a difference, then it will be for your Lordships to decide, but you will always have before you the Report of the noble Marquess, Lord Bath's Committee.
May I say one word with reference to what fell from the noble Marquess? If it would be possible to appoint a Joint Select Committee, or some such body, to consider the whole of this question it seems to me it would be advantageous. It has been done in the original case of the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Chalmers—the case of the question of basic prices—and it has been dealt with by the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in regard to the investment
776
clause, and a very useful settlement has been obtained. As regards this question of single and multiple basic prices it seems to me the suggestion of the noble Marquess may possibly commend itself to His Majesty's Government and to your Lordships' House. I think that is the state of affairs as regards the question of the Special Order and the procedure which will be followed by your Lordships if your Lordships agree.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, I am sorry to be persistent, but the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, has not answered the question I put. It was this. Very properly your Lordships' House attached the greatest importance to the recommendation of their Select Committee. After all, what is the use of having a Select Committee unless you pay attention to what they recommend? What, I apprehend, would occur, and probably will occur, is that during the Recess the Government Department concerned, who can put a great deal of pressure upon local authorities—I know that myself—will go to these various authorities and say: "Now cannot you come to an agreement? Never mind what the Committee recommend; come to an agreement," and the agreement will be come to, and then the Government, when Lord Bath's Committee bring forward their recommendations, will say: "It has all been settled, and your recommendation is a back number and out-of-date." I do not want that to happen. I want the Government to say: "We will not interfere with these local authorities during the Recess." We shall then be able to have the spokesmen of the local authorities if necessary, and above all the recommendations of the Committee, before us, and on that Committee's recommendations I should wish to judge the Order.

KILMARNOCK GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (SHREWSBURY CORPORA- TION) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ELHAM VALLEY WATER AND HERTS AND ESSEX WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to this Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Schedule, page 4, line 36, leave out from ("owner") to ("afford") in line 38 and insert ("which term when used in this section shall include the owner, lessee or occupier for the time being of a private well")
page 5, line 22, leave out ("by the owner under this section") and insert ("under this section by an owner, lessee or occupier")
page 13, line 41, after ("recoverable") insert ("as a civil debt")
line 43, leave out from second ("occupier") to the end of line 44.
page 14, line 9, after ("under") insert ("the")
page 31, line 24, leave out lines 24 to 27.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move that we agree with the Amendments of the Commons.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Gage.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I should like to draw attention to one Amendment in this Bill. I have no doubt that it is a very excellent Amendment; it is the last on the Paper —page 31, line 24, leave out lines 24 to 27. Those lines read:
"If any money is payable to a shareholder mortgagee debenture or stock holder being a minor idiot or lunatic the receipt of the guardian or committee of his estate shall be a sufficient discharge to the undertakers."
Two Bills follow—the Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hailsham Water) Bill, and the Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Henley-on-Thames Water) Bill—and that clause word for word appears in those two
778
Bills. The Commons have not moved to leave that clause out, and I should like some explanation.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend, who is so industrious in these matters, in asking the representative of the Board of Trade for the reasons. The only thing I can attribute it to is some influence of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I beg to remind your Lordships that it, is in the Hailsham Water Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is not the Hailsham Water Bill; this is the Elham Valley Water Bill.
LORD JESSEL: The Leader of the House says "No," but I would point out that I am drawing attention to the Hailsham Water Bill. The point of my noble friend is that this paragraph is in both Bills. It reads:
"If any money is payable to a shareholder mortgagee debenture or stock holder being a minor idiot or lunatic the receipt of the guardian or committee of his estate shall be a sufficient discharge to the undertakers."
That provision is also in the Hailsham Water Bill. All I was going to say was that I did not know whether it was due to the influence of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that this provision remains in this Bill. Both Bills are connected with water, and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is about to embark upon water, and I desire on behalf of the Back Benches of this House to wish him a safe return from the journey he is going to begin to-morrow. Let us hope that the Conference which he is going to attend will be a useful one and that it will be very successful.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, perhaps it is rather unusual to introduce into this matter a wish that the Leader of the House may have a safe journey to Canada. As regards the matter under discussion, I should have been able to give the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, fuller information had I been given a little longer notice. In the circumstances it is difficult for me to give very full information. I understand this particular sub-section has been left out of the Elham Valley Water Bill because the company in this case is incorporated under the Companies Act, whereas in the other case it is incorporated under a Special Act of Parliament
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount. I expect that his explanation is quite watertight.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA TION (HAILSHAM WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA TION (HENLEY-ON-THAMES WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE FIRE BRIGADE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PIERS IN THE HIGHLAND COUNTIES.
LORD LOVAT LORD LOVAT rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the question of piers in the Highland counties, and to ask His Majesty's Government what is their policy in regard to the construction of new piers and the maintenance and upkeep of old piers, especially in the districts that are not served by any other means of communication. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government what is their policy about piers in the Highland counties and in that I include of course boat slips. I believe that a Commission was set up and toured this district, but I have heard of no result from its inquiries. The position as regards communications in the Highlands is very serious. Your Lordships are aware of the state of agriculture generally, so that you can imagine what is the position
780
when farmers receive low prices for their products and at the same time have to pay heavy charges—perhaps £1 for rail freight or cartage and a similar amount for steamer transport. With such conditions the position of agriculturists is not a happy one.
My information is that a very large proportion of these piers are getting into such a state of disrepair that if the present neglect is continued it will have a very serious effect on the whole of this part of the Highlands. The tenure of the piers varies considerably. They are financed in some cases partly by the landowner, partly by the parish council, and partly by what used to be the Congested Districts Board and is now the Ministry of Agriculture. If the Ministry of Agriculture will not do anything, the landowner certainly cannot, because the majority of the piers do not give any financial return, and the parish council, of course, is defunct and no longer functions. Therefore nothing is being done and unless something is done it will be, as I say, a great blow to agriculture. The present condition of the piers is undoubtedly resulting in a considerable movement of population. If the Government is unable at this time, when the need for economy is so pressing, to provide money for putting these piers into repair, I would suggest that some money might be obtained by not spending the whole of the grant now made for providing new small holdings. Your Lordships are probably aware that something like £200,000 a year is spent in that way and the average cost of providing a small holding is something in the neighbourhood of £900. A sum of £30,000 or £40,000 spread over a period of five years would probably suffice to put these piers in order, and I believe it would result in keeping more people on the land than is being done to-day by the small holdings policy.
What happens at present is that a large farm is broken up and actually fewer people remain on the land than were there before. We cannot afford to let that state of affairs go on. If the Government would cut out of its small holdings programme those divisions of farms which do not definitely increase the number of people on the land, then I believe they could get enough money—£30,000 or £40,000 a year—to put these piers in repair in a period of four or five years

781
There is a further suggestion I would like to make to the Government, and that is that when the piers have been put into repair it is essential that arrangements should be made to keep them in repair. The only authorities who can do that are the county councils, and I suggest that there should be a definite rating for this purpose in pier areas just as there is a definite rating in water areas or scavenging or lighting areas. In that way I think that those who benefit by the piers will be brought to see that it is to their advantage to keep the piers in order. The position is definitely serious and is getting worse. Many of the crofts in the Western Highlands are not occupied to-day by able-bodied men. They are occupied by old people, and when those people die the young folk will refuse to return to these crofts because they know that agriculture is impossible there under present conditions.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for suiting the convenience of His Majesty's Government and of myself in regard to this Question. I am glad to have an opportunity of informing your Lordships of the present position in regard to the piers in the Highland counties. The problem of communications in the Highland districts is one that has engaged the attention of successive Governments for many years. There have been projects for light railways, and projects for roads, but the fundamental problem, naturally enough when you are dealing with Highland and mountainous country sparsely populated, has been that of securing the supply by sea of the necessities of life to the people and an outlet by sea for the products of their industry, fish, wool, live stock and so on.
As long ago as 1891 Parliament passed the Western Highlands and Islands (Scotland) Works Act to enable county councils in the Highland counties with the aid of Government grants to provide piers and harbours in those counties. Under that Act a number of useful piers and harbours were built. In addition to these numerous piers were built by the proprietors of the estates on which they were situated. These constitute the great majority of the piers in these counties. There are also a few piers vested in statutory trusts. The public money
782
granted under the Act of 1891 has long since been exhausted, but the procedure of the Act is still applied in connection with small works such as jetties and slips, which are from time to time constructed with the aid of grants from the sum of £10,000 which has been voted for many years to the Department of Agriculture of Scotland for the purpose of aiding the provision or improvement of piers, boat slips, roads and other works in the congested districts.
In course of time many of the piers and harbours which were built by estate proprietors or county councils have fallen into disrepair. The causes are not far to seek. Even when powers were taken to charge dues the revenue from that source has been far from sufficient to defray the cost of upkeep. In many cases it is so small as hardly to defray the cost of collection and often no dues are charged at all. So far as county council undertakings are concerned the Act of 1891 gives a power to levy a rate to supplement revenue from dues, but the rate which can be levied in respect of the undertakings in a county is limited to a penny in the pound leviable over the whole county and it will be readily appreciated that this rating power is of no great value. We have the situation now that there is an urgent need for the renovation of a number of essential piers throughout the Highland districts, piers which are essential for the maintenance of communications. The shipping companies, which have been busy reorganising their transport arrangements, are hampered by the conditions prevailing at their places of call and in some cases have had to contemplate the abandonment of calls.
At the present time of intense stringency, it is quite impossible for the Government to embark upon any new scheme of State assistance to pier and harbour undertakings, but they are of the opinion that, whether or not it may be found possible within a measurable period to place additional funds at the disposal of the Department of Agriculture or the Fisheries Board, it is desirable without delay to confer new powers on local authorities to acquire and to provide for the proper maintenance of such undertakings. Accordingly the Secretary of State has it in view to introduce a Bill empowering local authorities to acquire piers and harbours by

783
simple transfer from private owners, to fix schedules of dues and charges subject to appeal to a central Department, and to levy rates to make good any deficiency in the revenue from dues. In the case of a pier or harbour so acquired by a county council, or by a county and town council in combination, the proposal is that a special rating district should be constituted. I have noted the noble Lord's suggestion as regards small holdings, but the noble Lord will not, I hope, expect a definite answer under that head. I shall bring it to the notice of the Secretary of State and may be able to give an answer at a later date.
The noble Lord referred to the construction of new piers. I think that the view of the Departments principally concerned is that in general there is no pressing need for new piers. Indeed I am not sure but that under the stimulus of the Act of 1891 piers were in some cases built which were not economically sound propositions and for which there was—I will not say no need, but at any rate not sufficient need to justify the expenditure entailed. However that may be, there is no reason why in the proposed legislation dealing with this subject such powers as may be necessary should not be given to the appropriate local authorities to undertake with the minimum of expense, the construction of new works which may seem to them to be required. It is proposed therefore to include in the Bill provisions similar to those contained in the Fishery Harbours Act, 1915, an Act which applies only to England, for a simple procedure by Provisional Orders made by the Secretary of State for Scotland. These provisions are directed primarily to another kind of case, that of the fishery harbours on the East coast, but they will also be available for works of the type which the noble Lord has in view.
Perhaps I ought to add that there are a number of points on which a final decision has not yet been reached. It is not altogether easy, for example, to determine whether and to what extent the new code should be applied to those piers and harbours at present vested in local authorities, whether under the Act of 1891 or by Provisional Orders. Whatever may be the ultimate decision on that point, the Government's view is that in future it should be an essential condition of any State contribution towards the construe-
784
tion or reconstruction of pier and harbour works that the authority responsible should accept the obligations and conditions of the new Act with respect to the future maintenance of the works. It is only on such terms as these that further expenditure of public money could be justified.
I agree with the noble Lord that the position is a very serious one and I can assure him that the Government have the interests of agriculturists in the Western Islands and Highlands very much at heart. The noble Lord referred to the question of jetties and boat slips. The legislation proposed by the Government will cover that type of works as well as larger works, but I fear what I have said as to the impossibility of any new scheme of State assistance for pier and harbour undertakings applies also under the present financial stringency to these smaller works. I have no doubt that the noble Lord's representations on this question will receive the fullest possible consideration from the Department in considering the allocation of funds at their disposal. In the near future the Secretary of State will, as I have said and hope, introduce the Bill and it is hoped that opportunitites will be given to local authorities and others interested to examine the Bill before it is passed through this and the other House. I am advised that there are several points in the Bill which require consultation with other Departments and that probably accounts for any delay so far in its introduction. I hope I have dealt with all the points the noble Lord has raised and I am only sorry that the circumstances of the day render the substance of my answer not as satisfactory as I should like it to be.

INDIAN FRANCHISE COMMITTEE.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lloyd, who is unable to be present today, I beg to ask the four Questions standing in his name.
[The Questions were as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether the Franchise Committee will reassemble in London when the communal questions have been decided, in order that the necessary changes in their report may be made and the gaps filled in?

785

2. Whether His Majesty's Government agree with the Franchise Committee that secret voting can be secured by the adoption of coloured ballot boxes, each representing a candidate, thus getting over the difficulty of placing a mark on the ballot papers.

3. Whether His Majesty's Government agree with the Franchise Committee in setting up two Labour constituencies: namely: — "Special Labour constituencies," and "Trade Union constituencies," while providing no constituency for agricultural labour, in which industry the vast majority of Indians are employed.

4. Whether there is any precedent in any country for reserving seats for women, as recommended by the Franchise Committee for the Assembly and Provincial Councils.]

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, the question of the future of the Franchise Committee can only be settled after the communal decision has been announced. It is receiving the attention of His Majesty's Government, but I can give no answer about it at the present time. As regards the second and third Questions asked by the noble Lord, His Majesty's Government cannot, in advance of the decisions to be taken in due course, express opinions on isolated proposals contained in the Committee's Report. As regards the reservation of seats for women, so far as I am aware, there is no country at present using this practice. The principle of the reservation of seats for special interests is, of course, familiar in India to-day under the present Constitution.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I do not quite understand the answer to the second Question:
"Whether His Majesty's Government agree with the Franchise Committee that secret voting can be secured by the adoption of coloured ballot boxes, each representing a candidate, thus getting over the difficulty of placing a mark on the ballot papers."
Am I to understand that the voters who are going to be enfranchised are unable to put a mark on the paper? If that is so, it does not seem to me to be a very good omen for the future of India. Secondly, if the ballot boxes are coloured, surely everybody will see who you are voting for and there will be no secrecy?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I cannot add anything to my answer so far as the policy of His Majesty's Government is concerned. They must reserve judgment till they consider the problems as a whole. As to the adoption of coloured ballot boxes, might I refer the noble Lord to the appendix in the Franchise Committee's Report which deals fully with the matter?
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:

Irish Free State (Special Duties),

Marriage (Naval, Military and Air Force Chapels),

Patents and Designs,

Rating and Valuation (No. 2),

British Museum,

Agricultural Credits,

Carriage by Air,

Solicitors,

Hire Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland),

Extradition,

Gas Undertakings,

Isle of Man (Customs) (No. 2),

Public Works Loans,

Malta Constitution,

Bills of Exchange Act (1882) Amendment,

Rights of Way,

Children and Young Persons,

Town and Country Planning,

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Shrewsbury Corporation) Confirmation,

London Midland and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation,

London and North Eastern Railway Order Confirmation,

Grangemouth and Stirling Water Order Confirmation,

Leven Burgh Extension Order Confirmation,

Kilmarnock Gas Order Confirmation,

Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation,

Provisional Order (Marriages) Confirmation (No. 2),

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Fire Brigade Provisional Order Confirmation,

787

London United Tramways (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation,

South Lancashire Transport Company (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation,

Sea Fisheries (Lynn Deeps and Lynn) Orders Confirmation,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Abergavenny and Newcastle-upon-Tyne),

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bridlington and Wells),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Leyton),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Oxford),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Paignton),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (River Dee),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hertford),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Watford),

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Elham Valley Water and Herts and Essex Water),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hailsham Water),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Henley-on-Thames Water),

Kettering Gas,

Kendal Corn Rent,

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply,

Commercial Gas,

Oakham Gas and Electricity,

Sidmouth Water,

Bury Corporation,

London County Council (General Powers),

Hove Pier,

London County Council (Money),

Southern Railway,

Trent Navigation,

Mid Southern Utility,

Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier,

Gateshead Extension,

Wokingham District Water,

South Suburban Gas,

Nottingham Corporation,

Birkenhead Corporation,

Gas Light and Coke Company,

788

South Metropolitan Gas,

Chester Corporation,

Metropolitan Water Board,

Lindsey County Council (Sandhills), Chesterfield and Bolsover Water,

Warrington Extension,

Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch Electricity,

Wolverhampton Corporation.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.