Lords Sitting of 7 March 1934

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
BIRMINGHAM UNITED HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
DURHAM COUNTY WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

CONTRACEPTIVES BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
The Title:
An Act to restrict the sale, display and advertisement of contraceptives.
LORD DAWSON OF PENN LORD DAWSON OF PENN moved to leave out "restrict" and insert "regulate." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this Amendment because I think that the word "regulate "will more aptly describe the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("restrict") and insert ("regulate").—(Lord Dawson of Penn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to leave out "display." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the word "display" is no longer appropriate to the Title owing to the fact that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill moved in Committee to leave out the "display" of these things. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("display").— (Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1:
Restriction of sale, display and advertisement of contraceptives.
1.—(1) It shall not be lawful—
(c) to display in, on, or outside any shop, so as to be visible to persons outside the shop, any picture or written description of any contraceptive, or any

51
illuminated sign advertising contraceptives;
Provided that nothing in the foregoing provisions shall render unlawful:
(ii) the sending or delivery to any person of any book, newspaper or magazine containing advertisements of contraceptives, unless the book, newspaper or magazine is published wholly or mainly for the purpose of advertising contraceptives.
(2) If any person contravenes any provision of this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction, in the case of a first offence, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and, in the case of a second offence, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and, in the case of any second offence, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and such imprisonment:
Provided that it shall be a defence to any charge brought under paragraph (d) of the foregoing subsection to prove that the person charged had reasonable grounds for believing that the person to whom the document was sent or delivered had attained the age of eighteen years or was a married person.
Loan DAWSON OF PENN Loan DAWSON OF PENN moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (1), to leave out "or written description" and insert "diagram or written matter illustrating or describing the use or effect." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to distinguish between what may be described as a label and, on the other hand, what corresponds to description. Since contraceptives may be shown in a shop window, it is reasonable that there should be permitted a display of labels which merely describe the character of the contraceptive offered for sale, yet at the same time, as we are aiming against obtrusiveness, one wishes to prohibit any description of the use of contraceptives which might involve giving also anatomical details. My Amendment promotes the object of the Bill and does not interfere with labels, and yet prevents the use of pictures or diagrams which might give anatomical details.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, leave out ("or written description") and insert ("diagram or written matter illustrating or describing the use or effect").—(Lord Dawson of Penn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DAWSON OF PENN LORD DAWSON OF PENN moved, in proviso (ii) in subsection (1), to leave out "advertising" and insert "the
52
commercial advertisement of." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment will distinguish more clearly between the ordinary use of the word "advertisement" and "advertisements for commercial purposes," which would take place in the sending round of circulars for the almost exclusive purpose of advertising contraceptives.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("advertising") and insert ("the commercial advertisement of").—(Lord Dawson of Penn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DAWSON OF PENN LORD DAWSON OF PENN moved, in the proviso in subsection (2), to leave out "document" and insert "circular or advertisement." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have been advised that this is a better way of expressing the meaning of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("document") and insert ("circular or advertisement"). —(Lord Dawson of Penn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
Interpretation.
2. In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:—
"Public place" includes any public park, garden, sea beach, pier, market, fair, public garage, licensed premises, place of entertainment or railway station, and any ground to which the public for the time being have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise;
"Shop" includes any premises where any retail trade or business is carried on;
"Street" includes any highway and any public bridge, road, lane, footway, square, court, alley or passage, whether thoroughfare or not, and includes any doorway or open porch adjoining any street.
Loan DAWSON OF PENN Loan DAWSON OF PENN moved, in the definition of "public place," to leave out "public" ["public garage"]. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in approaching this Amendment I have been influenced by the words which fell from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Han-worth, in which he advised simplicity, as far as possible, in the definition clause. I beg to move to leave out the word "public" and the reason for that is that it is unnecessary, because the word "public" occurs earlier at the beginning

53
of that line "—'public place' includes any public park, garden," etc. There is objection to putting in "public" because it would appear that if you put in that word "public" before "garage" you almost, by imputation, suggest that some of the other places are not public, whereas if it is simply "garage" it is governed by "public" already in the previous line of the definition.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 41, leave out ("public").—(Lord Dawson of Penn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DAWSON OF PENN LORD DAWSON OF PENN moved, in the definition of "public place," to leave out "licensed premises." The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is a later Amendment in which I bring up the words "licensed premises" again, in a form more fitting to the Bill, and I content myself now with moving the omission of these words.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1 leave out ("licensed premises").—(Lord Dawson of Penn.) On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTLE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTLE OF THAME moved, in the definition of "public place," after "entertainment," to insert "lavatory or sanitary convenience." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I notice that the next Amendment, in the name of Lord Dawson of Penn, proposes to insert simply the word "lavatory." I suppose he thinks that by that euphemism he will cover "sanitary convenience," but I can assure him that that is not so. If he will refer to the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, Section 44, subsection (1), he will see that
"Every sanitary authority may provide and maintain public lavatories and ashpits and public sanitary conveniences,"
so that in that Act there is a distinction between a lavatory and a sanitary convenience. Having said what I have I hope the noble Lord will see his way to accept my Amendment. I do not propose to include the word "public," which appears on the Paper, for the reason given by the noble Lord himself —namely, that "public" governs the whole definition.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1, after ("entertainment") insert ("lavatory or sanitary convenience").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD DAWSON OF PENN: My Lords, these are matters on which I am an ignoramus. I have sought the best advice at my disposal from noble and learned Lords, and I am informed that these words are redundant, that they are covered by the word "lavatory." I think the more simple we can keep these definitions the better. We may go on and on in the hope of including everything under the sun. I therefore cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD ASKWITH: Can the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, describe the difference between the two?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, in one you wash your hands, the other is a urinal. There is that distinction in the Act I quoted. I ask the noble Lord to accept the Amendment now, and if his advisers are still of the same opinion he can always take it out again on the Third Reading.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I cannot help hoping that my noble friend will see his way to accept this important and far-reaching Amendment, because the noble Viscount has called attention to a Public Health Act, in which this distinction is expressly made. It cannot take away from anything that the noble Lord desires. It might conceivably be an advantage, since this distinction is already made in legislation.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DAWSON OF PENN: My Lords, I beg to move to add certain words to the definition of "public place."
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 5, at end insert ("and also includes any licensed premises within the meaning of the Licensing Acts, 1910 to 1923").—(Lord Dawson of Penn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in the definition of "street," after "lane," to insert "mews." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, you may be surprised to hear that a mews is not a street, and to support my contention I quote from Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, which says:
"Qua Metropolitan Management Act, 1855, "Street" shall apply to and include any highway (except a carriage way of any turnpike road) and any road, bridge (not being a county bridge), lane, footway,

55
square, court, alley, passage, whether a thoroughfare or not, and a part of any such highway, road, bridge, lane, footway, square, court, alley, or passage,' which definition was subsequently amplified so as to include 'any mews and a part thereof.'"
If under one Act a mews is not a street, surely under this Bill it may not be. There may be a technical defence unless "mews" is inserted. This Amendment is only moved to make the clause watertight.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 9, after ("lane") insert ("mews").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD DAWSON OF PENN: My Lords, it is really refreshing to find other professions than my own where differences of opinion exist. I have had the advantage of the opinion of two lawyers on this, and I am advised that as the definition includes a public road, lane and footway, the word "mews" is unnecessary as it is covered by the other words in the clause. The noble Viscount thinks otherwise. I do not think it matters very much, except that it is rather a mistake to amplify where you can avoid it. I have the high authority of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hanworth, who warned us last time against multiplying these terms. I would much rather keep the simpler form.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, it seems to me that there is a loophole for a technical defence here if these things are hawked about in mews, but I do not feel very strongly on the matter, and perhaps we might have the Amendment negatived.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in the definition of "street," after "footway," to insert "subway." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, a footway has a very special meaning. Again I refer to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary. For "footway" Stroud refers you to "footpath," and under "footpath" you see this:
"Footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers."
A subway is not that. I hope the noble Lord will let the Amendment go in now and take it out, if he thinks it unnecessary, on Third Reading. However, if he likes to leave loopholes for technical defences it is not a matter which concerns
56
me very much, except that I do not like to see in the papers that so-and-so is not a "place" within the meaning of the Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 9 after ("footway") insert ("subway").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE MARQUESS OF BATH: My Lords, may I speak from the point of view of a magistrate? I suppose a magistrate's court would have to deal with this Bill. It seems to me that if you multiply these definitions there is far greater chance of loopholes, because the defence will be that the word "subway" was deliberately inserted. The wider you leave your definitions the better.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I beg to move another Amendment to the definition of "street."
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 9, after ("alley") Insert ("arcade").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD DAWSON OF PENN: My Lords, for the reason I gave before, I must oppose this Amendment. "Arcade" is covered by "alley" or "passage".
On Question, Amendment negatived.

SUPPLY OF WATER IN BULK (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Supply of water in bulk.
(3) The Minister of Health shall not give his consent to an agreement if it appears to him that the giving of the supply would be likely to interfere with the supply of water for domestic purposes within the limits of supply of the supplying undertakers.
(4) The powers conferred by this Act on statutory water undertakers—

(a) shall not be deemed to authorise them to lay mains or other pipes, or to interfere with any street, beyond their limits of supply;

(b) shall be deemed to be in addition to, and not in substitution for, any powers conferred upon them under any other enactment.

(5) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them—
"Limits of supply" means in relation to any undertakers the limits within which they are for the time being authorisecl, under ally Act of Parliament other than this Act, or under any order confirmed by Parliament, to supply water:
"Statutory water undertakers means—

(a) the following local authorities, that is to say, the council of any borough or urban or rural district and a joint board, or joint committee, constituted under the Public Health Act. 1875, or under a local Act for the purposes of the provision of a common water supply; and

(b) any company, board or persons empowered by Act of Parliament or an order confirmed by Parliament, to supply water:

"Supply of water in bulk" means supply of water for distribution by the undertakers taking the supply.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH had on the Paper an Amendment to insert after subsection (2):
"(3) Before giving his consent to an agreement under this Act for the supply of water in hulk by any statutory water undertakers whose source or sources of supply is or are situate within the limits of the watershed of the Thames above Teddington as shown on the 'deposited map' referred to in Section 119 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1932, to any other statutory water undertakers for consumption or use within the said limits the Minister of Health shall cause notice to be sent to the Conservators of the River Thames and shall consider any representations which may be made on behalf of the said Conservators and may cause a local inquiry to be held.
(4) The Minister of Health shall not give his consent to an agreement under this Act for the supply in bulk of water abstracted by any statutory water undertakers from any source within the limits of the watershed of the Thames above Teddington as shown on the said map to any other statutory water undertakers for consumption or use outside the said limits."
The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading I foreshadowed certain objections with a view to the protection of the water supply of the Metropolis and also of other places on the Thames, which I think would be endangered if the Bill passed in the form in which it was presented, and therefore I put this Amendment on the Paper. Since then Lord Amulree, who is promoting this Bill, has met the two objections which I raised,
58
and I will therefore not move my Amendment, but withdraw it in favour of his Amendment and the new clause which appear in the name of Lord Amulree after Clause 1.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) Before giving his consent to an agreement under this Act the applicants to give notice of the application by advertisement in a local newspaper or newspapers circulating within the limits of supply of the parties to the agreement and in such other manner (if any) as may be prescribed 120, the Minister and every such notice shall specify a date not being earlier than one month after the last publication of the notice within which representations may be made to the said Minister who before giving his consent shall consider any representations which are duly made and not withdrawn."
The noble Lord said: The case of my Amendment is, I think, very similar to that of the preceding one which was not moved. Lord Amulree has been good enough to incorporate the substance of my Amendment in the new clause proposed to be added to the Bill. There is only one point of difference that arises between my Amendment and his, and that is that I suggest that a month's notice should be given whereas his Amendment suggests that the period of notice should be fourteen days. I move my Amendment on behalf of the Municipal Corporations' Association and the Water Companies' Association. Both are in agreement, and they feel that a month would be the proper period of time for notice to be given by advertisement. I do not feel very strongly on the matter, however, and perhaps Lord Amuiree will be good enough to extend the fourteen days and offer a compromise of three weeks, which will ensure the advertisement appearing in at least two issues of the local papers circulating in the respective areas. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 23, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Eltisley.)
LORD AMULREE: I do not think there is much difference between fourteen days and three weeks. The question is one of public notice. If my noble friend feels very keenly about the notice being three weeks, when your Lordships come to my Amendment I should be quite prepared to suggest three weeks.
VISCOUNT GAGE: May I say on behalf of the Ministry that my instructions are that they prefer fourteen days?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD moved, in subsection (3), after "domestic," to insert "or other." The noble Lord said: I understand this Amendment is being agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, after ("domestic") insert ("or other").—(Viscount Knutsford.)
LORD AMULREE: The object of this Amendment is to provide that when application is made to the Minister to give his consent he is not to give his consent to an agreement which appears to him to be likely to interfere with the supply of water for domestic purposes. The noble Viscount's Amendment is that after the word "domestic" there should appear "or other" so that the Bill would read:
"The Minister of Health shall not give his consent to an agreement if it appears to him that the giving of the supply would be likely to interfere with the supply of water for domestic or other purposes."
As a rule the statutory obligation on water undertakers is to supply only for domestic purposes, but if a water undertaker supplies water under agreement for any other purpose it would be unreasonable for that authority to enter into an agreement with any other authority to supply water in bulk which would have the effect of reducing the supply unduly to their own trade consumers. In these circumstances I think the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount is an improvement on the Bill, and I suggest to your Lordships it might be accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved to insert after subsection (3):
"(4) For the purpose of giving or taking a supply of water in pursuance of an agreement made under this Act, statutory water undertakers may exercise either within or beyond their limits of supply any of the powers which, under Sections twenty-eight to thirty-four of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847 (which relate to the breaking up of streets for the purpose of laying pipes) are exercisable by undertakers within the limits of a special Act for the purpose of supplying water to the inhabitants of the district included within those limits:
Provided that the consent of the persons under whose control or management a street or bridge is shall be required to the
60
opening or breaking up thereof, but that, consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and any question whether or not consent is unreasonably withheld shall be decided by the Minister."
The noble Lord said: In subsection 4(a) it is provided that the powers conferred by the Bill
"shall not be deemed to authorise them to lay mains or other pipes or to interfere with any street, beyond their limits of supply."
In this respect the Bill conforms to the model clause on the subject in the House of Lords Model Water Bill. The position under the Bill as it now stands is that (a) where the receiving authority is a local authority supplying water under the Public Health Acts, Section 54 of the Public Health Act of 1875 gives them power to lay mains in any area which may intervene between their district and the limits of supply of the supplying authority for the purpose of conveying water; and (b) local authorities and water companies supplying water under special Acts of Parliament have no power of laying mains outside their limits of supply unless the special Act under which they work confers such powers. The object of this Amendment is to meet a case where the areas of the supplying and receiving authorities do not adjoin. It has been represented that for the purpose of bulk supply under the Bill all statutory water undertakers should have the power to lay mains beyond their limits of supply. It is reasonable that desirable provisions for bulk supply from one authority to another should not be made impossible because of the absence of powers to lay the necessary mains.
This Amendment is moved in order that all statutory undertakers shall have the power to lay mains in intervening territory where necessary for giving a bulk supply. On the other hand high-way authorities, and in particular county councils, as the authorities responsible for main roads (outside county boroughs), are naturally averse from unlimited powers to statutory undertakers to break up their roads. Many of these roads are very costly to construct, and when broken up, even if repaired with care the strength of a road is often impaired. The Amendment therefore provides that the consent of the highway authority shall be required before mains can be laid in highways.

61
The County Councils' Association are prepared to agree to such a provision being included in the Bill. If consent is unreasonably withheld there may be a reference to the Minister to determine the question. With the Amendment, water undertakers will also have the power to lay mains on private land by agreement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Amulree.)
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: I am such a new boy at this business that I do not quite understand the procedure. I want to know whether, if I mention objections to this Amendment, they can be considered on the Report stage, or whether in mentioning them now it would handicap me on the Report stage?
VISCOUNT GAGE: I suggest that the Committee should allow this clause to pass without prejudicing in any way any Amendment which the noble Viscount may feel inclined to move on Report.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: Then if that is so I would like to say this. Speaking for the railway companies we ask that instead of going before two justices of the peace sitting in petty sessions, when there is any disagreement or when there is any scheme to be approved, we may have an engineer approved by some authority to settle the differences. If you go before two justices, while they may be very wise in the administration of justice, they are often extraordinarily ignorant in the matter of engineering, and, therefore, you have to bring a large amount of expert evidence before them before you can make out a case. An engineer of approved capacity would settle the matter between the companies and the authority in ten minutes. That is one objection.
The next is that the railway companies require all works to be constructed so as not to cause injury to their railways, bridges, or other works, or any interruption to the passage of traffic on the railway. Under the Waterworks Act there is no power of compensation for the interruption of traffic. There is no power to enable a railway company to obtain damages in respect of a burst pipe which is not on their property but which may be in a road over which their bridge goes. The railway companies think that
62
that should be allowed to them. The protective clauses generally obtained in Private Acts cover mains, pipes, and other works over and under railways. The railway companies object to the wide powers now sought unless the Bill contains protection for the railways and their bridges on the lines I have indicated. I have in my hand a printed statement showing what we agree with hundreds of companies on matters of this sort, and I should like to hand that to the noble Lord as an instance of the powers, or rather privileges, for which we ask.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Ministry agree with the suggested clause of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, but in regard to the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Knutsford, I world point out that it has only been raised a very short time before this debate and it is difficult to express an opinion. I would only say that from the Ministry's point of view it would appear at first sight that it is claiming an extension of the safeguards under the existing law. This Bill and the new clause as suggested by Lord Amulrce are an extension of a principle which appears in the Public Health Act. I think the effect of the noble Viscount's suggested Amendment to this new clause would be, in fact, to ask for an amendment of the general law. May I suggest that the clause should go forward as it is and if the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, sees fit to move an Amendment on Report there will be no prejudice against him?
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: Of course, the Public Health Act does not apply to statutory undertakings.
LORD AMULREE: I would remind the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, that all the Bill does is to enable the water undertakers to lay a main in a public road or in private land. In the case of a public road the opening up of the street is done with the consent of the authority. In the case of a main road the public authority would be the county council, and in the case of a district road the authority would be the district council. In the case of a railway bridge it would be the railway company.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: No, it does not belong to us.
LORD AMULREE: I take it that a railway bridge belongs to the railway

63
company, and in that case the railway company would be the body to give consent.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: I need not prolong the debate, because that would be to waste time. I can raise the matter on Report.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AMULREEmoved, in subsection (4), to leave out paragraph(a), The noble Lord said: This is consequential upon the Amendment which has just been accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, leave out paragraph (a).—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELTISLEYhad an Amendment on the Paper to add to paragraph (a) in subsection (4) the words "except with the consent of the county council or other highway authority within whose area any such pipes are proposed to be laid, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld." The noble Lord said: I think the second paragraph of the main Amendment which has just been accepted by the House covers all the ground which is before your Lordships in the Amendment standing in my name. Therefore I need not move it.
LORD AMULREEmoved to insert the following proviso in subsection (4):
"Provided that this Act shall not be deemed to authorise statutory water undertakers who have power under a local Act to supply water in bulk, subject to a prohibition against supplying water outside the catchment area which includes their limits of supply, to supply water in bulk outside that catchment area."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a proviso which seeks to meet a point raised by my noble friend Lord Des-borough during the Second Reading and also in the Amendment of which he gave Notice. It provides that where an agreement is made under the Bill for a supply of water in bulk, and the water undertakers have the power to supply in bulk under a local Act, they shall be subject to the restriction, if any, contained in the local Act. My noble friend's Amendment was confined particularly to the Thames Conservancy Board, and the Amendment which I am now moving makes it general so as to apply to all catchment areas. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 13, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Amulree.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: So far as the Thames Conservancy Board are concerned, they are quite ready to fall in with the suggestion made by my noble friend in this Amendment. It is in more general terms than my Amendment, and is quite satisfactory as far as we are concerned.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: This is preliminary to an Amendment I shall move presently. The only change made by the two Amendments will be that, whereas the interpretation provisions are at present included in subsection (5) of Clause 1, they will more appropriately constitute a separate clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 1:
Procedure on application for the Minister's consent.
"—(1) Statutory water undertakers who propose to enter into an agreement under this Act shall cause a notice to be published in one or more local newspapers circulating within their respective limits of supply, stating the effect of the proposals, and that objections with respect to the proposals may be made to the Minister within fourteen days after the publication of the notice, and shall send a notice in similar terms to the catchment board of any area from which water is obtained by the undertaker who proposes to give the supply.
(2) The provisions of Section two hundred and ninety of the Local Government Act, 1933 (which relates to the holding of local inquiries in certain cases, including where the Minister is authorised by that Act to give a consent to any matter) shall have effect, before as well as after the coming into operation of that Act, as if the consent of the Minister to an agreement under this Act were a consent Which he is authorised to give under that Act."
The noble Lord said: The two new subsections which I am moving are designed to meet points raised by my noble friends Lord Eltisley and Lord Desborough. During the Second Reading

65
it was stated that parties other than the parties to the agreement may be affected by the supply of water in bulk by one authority to another. Accordingly it was suggested that they should be notified by public advertisements in local newspapers and elsewhere of the proposals, and given an opportunity to make representations to the Minister, who would consider the representations before he decided whether or not to give consent to the proposed agreement. The first subsection deals with that point and makes provision for such advertisements to be published and for such objections to be received. Another part of the clause deals with the point raised with regard to the catchment area, more particularly to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Deshorough in connection with the Thames Conservancy Board. The proposal is that, instead of making I particular to the Thames Conservancy Board, it should apply to catchment areas generally. Accordingly the new clause proposed provides that "a notice in similar terms" shall be addressed "to the catchment board of any area from which water is obtained by the undertaker who proposes to give the supply." There was a question raised about the length of notice upon which I am afraid that I have got into some trouble. My Amendment suggests fourteen days; my noble friend Lord Eltisley suggests that it should be a month. I shall wait until my noble friend Lord Gage, who speaks for the Department, expounds his view upon that part of the Amendment.
With regard to subsection (2) of the proposed new clause, that deals with a point also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Deshorough—namely, with regard to the holding of inquiries. Having regard to the general powers which the Ministry of Health have, it is not really necessary to make special provision for holding inquiries: if the proposed new clause is adopted, but it is important, with regard to the holding of an inquiry, to provide who shall bear the expense of the inquiry, and subsection (2) of the proposed new clause deals with that point and provides that the expenses shall come within Section 290 of the Local Government Act, 1933. That section provides that the Minister shall have power to deal with the costs and expenses in connection with the inquiry. I think that the proposed new clause, as
66
drawn, deals with the points raised by the two Amendments, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Amulree.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: This new clause meets one of the two objections or criticisms which I made on the Second Reading of this Bill. Although it is much wider in its application than what I suggested in my Amendment, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Amulree for having met my objections in this very broad and, I venture to think, wise manner. I cordially support the new clause.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I have ascertained that the Ministry have no objection to prolonging the period from fourteen days to twenty-one days, and that they have no objection to the clause.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I beg to move, in Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, to leave out "fourteen" and insert "twenty-one."
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
Subsection (1), line 7, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("twenty-one"),—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
On Question, the original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:
Interpretation.
"In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them—:
'Limits of supply' means in relation to any undertakers the limits within which they are for the time being authorised, under any Act of Parliament other than this Act, or under any order confirmed by Parliament, to supply water:
'Statutory water undertakers' means—

(a) the following local authorities, that is to say, the council of any borough or urban or rural district and a joint board, or joint committee, constituted under the Public Health Act, 1875, or under a local Act for the purposes of the provision of a common water supply; and

(b) any company, board or persons empowered by Act of Parliament, or an order confirmed by Parliament, to supply water.

67
'Supply of water in bulk' means supply of water for distribution by the undertakers taking the supply."
The noble Lord said: It will be remembered that I asked a few minutes ago that the interpretation subsection in Clause 1 might be struck out for the purpose of being insetted as a separate clause. The Interpretation Clause which I now propose is in exactly the same words as those in the original subsection in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

THE TWENTY-FOUR-HOUR SYSTEM.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved to resolve, That it is desirable that the Motion for the adoption of the twenty-four-hour system, agreed to by this House on 7th December, 1933, should now be put into operation. The noble Lord said: My Lords, for some years I have brought forward this question about the twenty-four-hour system, and I have always had the vigorous support of Lord Newton. I regret that he is now away on a long journey abroad, but before he left he wrote to me hoping that I would persevere in getting this reform (as I call it) carried. It is very surprising, in view of the fact that this House has given its decision in favour of the adoption of the twenty-four-hour system, that the Government should have absolutely ignored our decision. I do not think that they have taken a single step to put it into force.
Seeing this, I thought the only thing was to try in another place, and I got two or three Members there to take an interest in the matter. Among them was Sir Arnold Wilson, who on Monday asked a Question with reference to it and received a reply which I propose to read so that your Lordships shall know the nature of it. The reply given by the Postmaster-General was:
"I understand that the British Broadcasting Corporation intend at at early date to adopt the twenty-four-hour system of expressing time for general use and on an experimental basis. This will afford an opportunity for testing the attitude of public opinion, and I propose therefore to await the result of the experiment before coming to a decision."
68
Yesterday another Question was put by Mr. Whiteside, the Member for South Leeds, and the Home Secretary answered in terms fairly similar to those which I have just read out; but the Home Secretary, on being also asked whether the Post Office had adopted the system, said: "Certainly not." Of course the Post Office has adopted the system with regard to cablegrams; all cablegrams sent or received are timed on the twenty-four-hour basis, so that the Home Secretary has been badly advised.
This House has twice given its decision in favour of this system. On one occasion two years ago—by a misconception, as I think the noble Viscount on the Woolsack will agree—it was treated as having decided otherwise; but at any rate last December a Motion similar to that was carried by this House. That being the case, I am not going to weary your Lord ships by going through the whole of what I call the merits of this reform. In view of the reply given in another place your Lordships may wonder why I should say anything at all. I do it because I think the action proposed in reference to the British Broadcasting Corporation is dilatory, and wantonly dilatory. Yesterday the Home Secretary again mentioned that he wanted to test whether there was a popular demand for this reform. Having regard to the expression of opinion of this House, whose composition I think is generally allowed to be extraordinarily representative—all industries, professions, Government Departments, and every other sort of activity in life being represented in this House—it is a remarkable thing that it should be absolutely disregarded and ignored. That I was justified, having regard to the attitude of the Government to your Lordships' House, in asking Members in another place to take up the matter, is shown by the fact that at once the walls of Jericho trembled, and the two Departments concerned made a very slight concession. I may not be accurate in saying that the Post Office have been the principal objectors to the scheme; I think it is the Home Office. What in the world the Home Office have to do with it I do not know; however, that is the fact: they have been the real opponents of the proposal. I should like to make this one further point, that not a single valid objection of any sort has ever been raised to this proposal except that of my noble

69
friend on my right (Lord Banbury of Southam) who said that under the twenty-four-hour system he would not know what time to go out to dinner, or something like that.
Another point Trade by the Government's spokesmen has been that there is no public demand for the change. Well, there was no public demand for summer time. That is a feeble excuse. On previous occasions spokesmen for the Government have expressed their personal approval of the proposal, but they seemed to have to submit to some official of the Home Office or the Post Office who says there is no public demand. It is very probable that Ministers themselves would like to see the change made, but again they are overawed by some superior person in one of these two offices. I should have thought the mere fact that your Lordships' Louse had expressed approval constituted a demand for it. In addition to that, Lord Stonehaven's Committee in 1919 approved the change. The only difference in that case was that they wanted the railways to give the lead whereas other people say that the Government ought to give the lead. It is very like a modern version of the dispute between the famous Earl of Chatham and Sir Richard Strachan. Neither side would make an advance.
I should like very briefly to state what outside opinion there is in favour of the change. In the first place the Navy, Army and Air Services have the system in use. I wrote to the Astronomer Royal, and he replied that, having expressed his opinion already, he did not think it necessary to take any further action. Among those supporting the proposal are the President of the Royal Society, the President of the Royal Astronomical Society, the President of the British Astronomical Association and also Mr. Frank Pick, a great authority on the Underground railway system of London. Support is also given by a number of publications, including Nature, Modern Transport, and the Electrician and, to my surprise, I received a letter—it was quite unsolicited by me—from the Editor of the Nautical Magazine, a very well got-up journal. In that letter the Editor of the Nautical Magazine referred to the interest I have taken in this matter and went on to say:
"I have written to every member of the British Nautical Instrument Trade 70
Association and have had several replies, all in approval of the change.
"What I was endeavouring to find out was, would it be policy to give the tides in Brown's Nautical Almanac in the twenty-four-hour system, or a.m. and p.m. as at present—While the nautical trade and navigators would welcome the twenty-four-hour system, until it is adopted on shore it might not be policy to give the tides in the twenty-four-hour system.
"I intend each second month to have an article furthering the subject of the twenty-four-hour clock. The Nautical Magazine is entirely at your disposal if you wish your views brought before officers and shipowners of the world's mercantile marine. The Nautical Magazine is read and referred to by those connected with shipping in all maritime countries as well as Britain."
I call that very powerful support.
Then, in Tire Times yesterday there was a letter from Mr. Dennis Handover, the traffic manager of Imperial Airways, advocating the change. The British Chamber of Commerce have sent me a copy of a letter which they addressed to the Government strongly supporting the change. The Meteorological Office uses the twenty-four-hour system, and the Royal Geographical Society now ask their correspondents and anyone who is sent abroad under their auspices to keep their diaries and records on that system. I asked my noble friend Viscount Bridgeman what was the attitude of the British Broadcasting Corporation and he very kindly wrote to me and said:
"The British Broadcasting Corporation are favourably disposed towards a twentyfour-hour system."
Now they are to be the testing authority as regards public interest in the matter. What they are going to do I have not the remotest idea, or how they are going to carry out this test. I should have thought it absolutely unnecessary. People from every quarter—land, sea and air—all ask for a change, but the Government apparently are content to ignore these representations. As my noble friend Lord Newton has said, the only way to convince them apparently would be to get an excited mob with banners marching in procession up and down Whitehall to tell the Home Office what to do. There is really plenty of public support for making the alteration.
I was talking recently to a man who is not a member of the Government but who is connected with the Government, and his objection was that it would be

71
such an upset of the habits and customs of the people of the country. I suppose that 90 per cent. of the public would be perfectly untouched by the change. It would make no difference to their lives. If they found the time stamped on their letters was 17.30 they would have to deduct 12, and that might take them some time, but otherwise they would see no change. As regards railways I think there would be a very great advantage in making the change, and my noble friend behind me (Viscount Knutsford) ought to get the railways to introduce the system at once. It would make matters much easier when one was planning a journey to the North of England or Scotland. I hope that he will try to induce his co-directors to take steps to have the system put into force very soon. In India even they have the twenty-four-hour system. Surely if the people of India can live under that system people here would not be very much upset by it. There is one other section of people who raise objections. I refer to the ladies who say:" Oh, no, what about five o'clock tea?" Well, it would have to be seventeen o'clock. Really it would not affect them in the slightest. Then another member of the Government made the objection that all the dials of clocks and watches would have to be altered, and my noble friend on my right (Lord Banbury of Southam) said that if I would give him a watch with the twenty-four hours on it he would support me. I would gladly give him a watch if he finds it necessary.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Mine is not a very good one. Perhaps yours would be better.
LORD LAMINGTON: I am sure my noble friend will not want it. The change will not really affect him. He can have his dinner at the usual time and it will be cooked all right. I think it is an absolutely unnecessary, dilatory move on the part of the Government to say that they are going to wait for the British Broadcasting Corporation. Suppose the British Broadcasting Corporation—I think it quite improbable—report adversely; does that mean that the Government would then drop the matter and not carry out the proposal? I think if they did they would find themselves very much abused. Of course the British Broadcasting Corporation of all people would
72
agree to it. If they approve, why this long delay? If the Government are not really honest in their proposal, it means that they want to shelve it. If they are honest, and want. to see whether the country approves, then do not let us have this long delay.
Let the railways get to work and prepare their summer time tables as soon as possible, particularly with all these foreigners coming over from abroad, and, as the Chairman of the London Chamber of Commerce has pointed out, foreigners are very much confused when they try to work out our system of a.m. and p.m. I really think these Government offices might realise that the world is contracting as regards modern intercourse, that modern inventions are going on so that the bonds of intercourse, visible and invisible, are making the world much smaller as regards all human activities. Therefore I do hope that the Government will accept this Motion, and if they do I would like to amend it further, so that this change shall be carried out as early as possible, and that we shall not have this delay in changing to a system which is advocated so strongly in every class of life.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that the motion for the adoption of the twenty-four-hour system, agreed to by this House on 7th December, 1933, should now be put into operation.—(Lord Lamington.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord who has moved this Motion, not for the first time, has placed me, as representative of the Home Office, in a somewhat difficult position, as indeed he has done on previous occasions. I feel that the noble Lord has no doubt whatsoever as to the nature of my reply, for your Lordships have seen, and indeed the noble Lord has quoted, the answers that both the Postmaster-General and Home Secretary gave on the 5th and 6th of this month. I am surprised that the noble Lord who has moved this Motion believes that the action which has been adopted, or is about to be adopted, for an indefinite period, as an experiment by the British Broadcasting Corporation, is, as described by him, "wantonly dilatory."
Although we have of recent months, perhaps through the persistency and activity of the noble Lord, Lord

73
Lamington, and his noble friend Lord Newton, had representations from authoritative persons for the adoption of the twenty-four-hour system, it is believed by the Department which I represent that there is no very strong general demand for the change, and that it would be wrong to impose upon the public a system of notation which might confuse rather than assist the general public. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lamington, has heard that, not once but several times during the course of the last five years. It would appear that by the British Broadcasting Corporation adopting the twenty-four-hour system for a period, extending it not only to their internal work but also to their external contacts by using it in their correspondence and over the microphone, and in the journals issued by the corporation, it will be proved, one way or mother, whether the general public support this system or whether they are in direct opposition to it.
The noble Lord asked me a direct question, whether in the event of the British Broadcasting Corporation receiving a strong measure of apposition to their experiment the Government would ignore the representations that have been made from time to time by Lord Lamington and Lord Newton. My Lords, I suppose that the Government would only be carrying out their functions as the Government of the country by taking action according to the representations made, and if there was very strong opposition to any change in our system of the clock, then I say with confidence that the Government would not adopt the scheme, because, as was said this day three months ago, when a similar Motion to that which the noble Lord has now moved was discussed, the British public are conservative and do not like change unless it is imperatively necessary.
The noble Lord has quoted instances, to-day, such as India, where the twenty-four-hour system has been adopted, but I would point out that in Australia, New Zealand, Canada. and Japan, and in the United States of America, the twenty-four-hour system has not been adopted. I would also point out that the distances of travel in this country are not sufficiently great to warrant. a twenty-four-hour system, as they may be on the Continent. You can journey from London to Edinburgh in eight or nine hours, and
74
in an equivalent time from London to Penzance. On the other hand, travel on the Continent necessitates going from one twenty-four-hour period into another. The noble Lord has referred to the fact that the railways and the Post Office employ to some extent the twenty-four-hour system. But I do not think it is to an extent which affects the convenience or inconvenience of the great majority of the people of this country.
It is true that this House has, on two occasions, given assent to the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, but. for my part—I have had experience in a Yeomanry Regiment and in the Army the twenty-four-hour system is adopted—I think that persons who have not had the opportunity of a lengthy military training, and who are typical of the man-in the street, continually get confused through the difference from the ordinary timing to which they have been accustomed. The noble Lord referred to the confusion that might arise amongst the female population of the country, which I understand is larger than that of the male, and I think it is quite possible that one would find, particularly in country districts, that there would be utter confusion, in regard both to travelling and to the Post Office.
The noble Lord will have heard on previous occasions that if the Post Office is to adopt the new system of notation it would first like a lead from the public. It has been said previously that such a change would not entail any considerable expense, but I think that, your Lordships' House, and indeed the general public, will be better able to judge whether the comparatively small expense that would be entailed is warranted after the British Broadcasting Corporation have made their experiment. This will not be the first experiment made by the British Broadcasting Corporation, and it would appear that it is a very good agency to determine the measure of support or opposition that may come from the public at large. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that it is largely due to the persistency and persuasion of the noble Lords, Lord Lamington and Lord Newton, that this experiment of the British Broadcasting Corporation is taking place. I believe that if the noble Lord would be so good as to delay the matter again for a few months, then

75
both he and your Lordships will be better able to judge whether the proposed change has the support that he believes it to have.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I am still not convinced by the Government reply. it is certain that the great mass of the people would be absolutely unaffected by the change and that those who would be affected are practically unanimous in wanting it. When it is made all that the Post Office will have to do is to take twelve from whatever number is in question. For a certain period you might have both systems on the printed paper just to show the people. I do think it is a pity that there should be this delay. It would take the railway companies some time to issue new time tables, and therefore I thought it was important for the sake of the summer traffic to get the change made as quickly as possible. The noble Earl spoke of a delay of a few months. Could he give me something less vague?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: There is no fixed period for the experiment.
LORD LAMINGTON: Could you define exactly what will be done by the British Broadcasting Corporation in this experiment
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The system would be used both in internal work and external work. That means that the twenty-four-hour system would be adopted in the announcements at the microphone, it would be used in the programmes in the journals published by the Corporation, and it would be indicated on the correspondence of the Corporation.
LORD LAMINGTON: I am afraid I am not satisfied. I think prompt action should be taken, and I must press my Motion.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I was for twenty years a director of the Great Northern Railway Company and for six years I was Chairman. During that time I was never asked by anybody to alter the system of time tables on the railway because it would be more convenient to the public. No
76
one ever suggested it. Of course, if it were done it would mean the alteration of the clocks and the alteration of all the time tables. It would mean great confusion, and all for no reason whatever so far as I can see. The only argument I have ever heard advanced is that sometimes people confuse 12 a.m. with 12 p.m. They may perhaps have dined not wisely but too well, but that is no reason why we should go to the trouble and expense of altering the method to which we have all become accustomed. I am always in favour of a change if it is a good change, but not if it is a bad change and if it is going to cost money. I am sorry that the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has left the House, because not very long ago I found to my great astonishment that the I noble Marquess was in favour of economy, and I remember telling him that now that I had such an eminent leader we might perhaps get some little economies. I have not noticed them in the interval. In spite of the magnificent offer of my noble friend to give me a new watch. I shall resist that form of bribe, and shall strenuously oppose any alteration of the present system.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I venture to suggest that this Motion would be intensely unpopular in the country districts. I only rise to say that in my part of the country there are very many of the older people who are firmly convinced—and who knows whether they are right?—that the drought of last year and the floods of previous years are entirely due to the imposition of summer time. If that was the result of summer time I shudder to think what the result of this change in the clock would be.
On Question, Motion negatived.

PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION.
Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Wednesday next.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past five o'clock.