Lords Sitting of 22 March 1934

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND TOWN WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CROSBY, LITHERLAND AND WATERLOO JOINT CEMETERY DISTRICT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (ROCHESTER, CHATHAM AND GILLINGHAM JOINT SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WIRRAL JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 2:
Provision in time of war.
"After Section one of the principal Act the following section shall be inserted, that is to say—
'2. During any time when a state of war exists between His Majesty and any foreign Power, His Majesty may make such Orders-in-Council as appear to him to be expedient for the purpose of securing that the existing supplies of the goods specified in Section one of this Act and the production of further supplies are controlled by His Majesty for the defence of the realm.'"
The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Marley I beg to move the Amendment which is on the Paper in his name. The Amendment really explains itself. My noble friend's object in asking your Lordships to accept this Amendment is this. We give a great advantage to the dyestuffs manufacturing industry in this country by regulating the import of foreign dyes and by preventing unfair or rigorous competition. Indeed, we guarantee them a secure market within the boundaries of the realm. In those circumstances it would appear to be reasonable that in time, of national emergency, in fact in time of war, we should have first call on their plant, factories and so on for the production of explosives and other munitions. It seems a reasonable provision to insert in the Bill and I hope very much that it will be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD TEMPLEIVIORE: I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend, but I am afraid the Government cannot accept the Amendment. Your Lordships will remember that at the outset of the Great War the Defence of the Realm Acts were passed very soon after the declaration of war giving the Government of the day power to regulate the output of factories of all kinds and authorising His Majesty in Council during the War to issue regulations to give effect to this power. I do not think there is any doubt whatever—there cannot any doubt in your Lordships' minds—that similar legislation
370
would be passed by any Government of whatever complexion that happened to be in power if another conflict like the last ever broke out. The Government do not think it desirable to insert a clause in a Bill of this kind which only deals with one particular substance out of a great many which may be used in the making of munitions of war. They think it is much better to deal with the matter by comprehensive legislation which undoubtedly would be passed within a very few days of the outbreak of war.
LORD ST1LABOLGI: In view of the explanation given by the noble Lord I will not press the Amendments
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

JUDICIARY (SAFEGUARDING) BILL. [H.L.]
Report of Amendments (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Wednesday next.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Issue of capital by undertakers.
(3) Where, on such an application, it appears to the Board that the share capital of the applicants, being capital of the same class as that to which the application relates, is not quoted on the London Stock Exchange or has not been dealt in on that exchange during the month immediately preceding the application, the Board shall not authorise the capital to be offered as aforesaid unless they are satisfied that the proposed terms of the offer are the best obtainable by the applicants, and for that purpose the applicants shall furnish the Board with such documents and information (including a written opinion of the secretary of, or a member of, some recognised stock exchange in Great Britain as to the said proposed terms) as the Board of Trade may require.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in subsection (3), after "not" ["not quoted on the London Stock Exchange"] to insert "officially." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the insertion in Committee of the word "officially" in

371
Clause 1, page 1, line 19. The Amendment should have been made during the Committee stage and I apologise for the omission.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, after ("not") insert ("officially").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Publication of prices by undertakers and consequences thereof.
(5)In relation to any thermal unit undertakers, being the council of a county or county borough, the provisions of this section shall have effect as if references to the Board of Trade were substituted for references to the local authority or local authorities.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, at the end of subsection (5), to insert:
"Provided that where the limits of supply of any thermal unit undertakers, being the council of a county borough, extend beyond the boundaries of the borough, references to the Board of Trade shall be added to, and not substituted for, references to the local authority or local authorities."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is necessary to provide that where the council of a county borought are undertakers and are authorised to supply gas beyond the county borough the local authorities in the outer area of supply shall be entitled to receive notice of the published price of gas. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 35, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7:
Imposition of statutory powers and duties on non-statutory undertakers.
(3) A notice under this section shall require the undertakers within six months from the date of the notice to make an application to the Board of Trade for a special order under Section ten of the principal Act containing provisions—
(d) regulating the capital of the undertakers and the dividend payable by them and the price to be charged by them for gas;
but any draft order submitted by the undertakers in pursuance of the notice may vary or except any provision of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, or of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1871, in manner provided by any special
372
Act for the time being in force, and may contain any other provision which could lawfully be made by an order made under Section one or Section ten of the principal Act.
VISCOUNT MERSEY VISCOUNT MERSEY moved, in paragraph (d) of subsection (3), to leave out "the capital of the undertakers and the dividend payable by them and". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this really is a purely drafting Amendment. Clause 7 sets out the procedure whereby the Board of Trade can impose statutory powers and duties upon non-statutory undertakers with a certain output. Non-statutory undertakers may be company undertakers or local authority undertakers, and in the latter case of course the words "capital" and "dividend" are not applicable. If your Lordships accept this Amendment I will then move a consequential Amendment. Both these Amendments are put forward by the National Gas Council and I understand they are approved by the Board of Trade.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("the capital of the undertakers and the dividend payable by them and").—(Viscount Mersey.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the Government fully realise that a few such cases as my noble friend referred to may arise and they are prepared to accept this Amendment and the next Amendment on the Paper.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I now beg to move my second Amendment, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 9, at end insert ("and in the case of the undertakers not being a local authority the capital of the undertakers and the dividend in respect thereof").—(Viscount Mersey.)
On Question, Amendment agreed.
Clause 12:
Amendment as to deficiency in calorific value.
12.—(1)If in any quarter the average calorific value of the gas supplied in an examination area by any thermal unit undertakers is ascertained to be less than the declared calorific value, the Board of Trade shall determine as nearly as may be the sum (in this subsection referred to as "the excess revenue") by which the revenue of the undertakers has been improperly increased thereby, and—

373

(a)where the excess revenue when divided by the number of therms supplied by the undertakers in the said area in the next following quarter produces a sum less than one-fifth of a penny, an amount equal to the excess revenue shall be paid by the undertakers (over and above the amount payable under Section seven of the principal Act) into the gas fund in the next following year;

(b)where the excess revenue when divided as aforesaid produces a sum not less than one-fith of a penny, the undertakers shall allow to every consumer in respect of each therm so supplied to him a credit of one-fifth of a penny or, where the sum so produced is not less than twofifths, of a penny a credit equal to such simple multiple of one-fifth of a penny as most nearly approximates to without exceeding the sum so produced, and the difference (if any) between the excess revenue and the aggregate amount of such credits shall be paid into the gas fund as aforesaid.

VISCOUNT MERSEY VISCOUNT MERSEY moved in paragraph (b) of subsection (l), after "consumer," to insert "who is a consumer in the said area at the end of the next following quarter." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this clause imposes a penalty upon undertakers who any quarter supply gas the average calorific value of which is less than the prescribed calorific value. The penalty takes the form of restoring to the consumers a sum of money equal to the loss they sustain by reason a the calorific value being less than that prescribed. Where a consumer, however, has changed his premises, and therefore in all probability cannot be found, it will be impossible for the gas undertaker to restore to him the proportion of the money to be returned. The Amendment is necessary to meet this eventuality.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 15, after ("consumer") insert ("who is a consumer in the said area at the end of the next following quarter").—(Viscount Mersey.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the Government are much obliged to my noble friend for moving this Amendment and I am pleased to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Interpretation]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(4) Where any non-statutory undertakers carry on two or more gas undertakings. which are not connected with each
374
other by pipes, the gas supplied by the several undertakings shall, for the purpose of any provision of this Act relating to non-statutory undertakers be deemed to be supplied by different undertakers."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are some companies which own non-statutory undertakings in different parts of the country and the Amendment makes it clear that such undertakings shall be treated as separate undertakings for the purpose of Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill. As the Bill is at present drafted it would appear that if the aggregate quantity of gas supplied by the several undertakings exceed in any year thirty or twenty million cubic feet, as the case may be, they would all fall within the provisions of those clauses notwithstanding that all or some of them individually supply less than the specified quantity of gas. It is thought a good thing that each undertaking should be dealt with as a separate unit. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 30, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: On behalf of the National Gas Council I wish to thank the noble Lord for accepting this Amendment. They brought the matter to the notice of the Government, and in consequence this Amendment has been put in.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MINING INDUSTRY (WELFARE FUND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, and in doing so I wish to make one or two introductory remarks. The Bill is to give legislative effect to nearly all the provisions requiring legislation which were recommended by the Departmental Committee of Inquiry of 1931, set up by the late Minister of Mines in the Labour Government. This Committee was presided over by the late Lord Chelmsford, and contained representatives of both

375
sides of the industry. Its terms of reference were:
"To enquire how far the objects of Section 20 of the Mining Industry Act of 1920 had been met, what remains to be done and whether the scope of the Fund and the existing machinery for its administration as defined in that section and as developed in practice are satisfactory for the future, and to report on all these matters with particular reference to the question of the amount and duration of the levy in future."
I mention these terms of reference to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Labour Government of the day were doubtful whether, in view of the fact that the welfare levy of one penny per ton had then been in force for more than ten years, and that upwards of £9,000,000 had been collected, a sufficiently good case could be made out for a further extension of the levy at the existing rate.
On the one hand, they were faced with the views of the miners, who expressed their belief that the levy should continue at a penny per ton, and on the other hand, by the mine owners, who thought the levy should be reduced to a figure in the neighbourhood of one farthing per ton output. Unfortunately, no compromise between the different views could be reached, and the then Secretary for Mines agreed to set up a Departmental Committee, whose terms of reference. I have read to your Lordships. The outcome of that Committee is the Bill I present to your Lordships to-day. The original Miners' Welfare Fund was constituted under Section 20 of the 1920 Act, and provided for an annual levy of one penny per ton of coal output for a period of five years, and it was renewed for two further periods by the Acts of 1925 and 1931. The Bill which I present to-day proposes to reduce the rate of levy from one penny to one halfpenny per ton, but to extend the period of the levy for twenty years from 1932. This was the first recommendation of the Majority Report of the Committee.
The second recommendation, which is accepted and included in the Bill, amounts to nothing more than a declaratory provision. Doubts have arisen from time to time whether certain objects of expenditure and certain classes of persons were strictly within the legal scope of the Miners' Welfare Fund as defined in the principal Act, and those doubts are now to be removed by a declaration
376
in terms that expenditure in those particular directions is in fact within its scope. The third legislative recommendation of the Chelmsford Committee suggested that in view of the proposed reduction in the rate of the levy, and the consequent need for strict economy and wise and careful planning of expenditure, the existing statutory obligation upon the Miners' Welfare Committee to allocate four-fifths of the levy for purposes in the various districts should be removed, so as to leave the Committee with full and unfettered discretion to deal with the whole of the levy as they thought fit, and without reference to the claims of individual districts. But owing to the unanimous opposition of both sides of the industry to this proposal, His Majesty's Government have decided not to do away with the one-fifth and four-fifths division, and so they have embodied in the Bill certain other proposals of their own in order to safeguard the most important objects of expenditure.
I hope I have explained clearly the reasons for the appointment of this Committee, and I have dealt with the recommendations which call for legislation. Clause 1 of the Bill provides for the continuation of payments to the Fund and that they should be extended for twenty years from 1932. The Act of 1931 extended the levy for five years from that year; the present Bill partially supersedes that provision and makes the twenty-year extension operate from the year 1932 to 1951. Clause 2 reduces the amount of the levy from one penny per ton output to one halfpenny per ton output. Subsections (2), (3), and (4) deal with the machinery of collection and accounting. Clause 3 concerns the purposes for which the Fund is to be applied. Subsection (1) brings within the definition of "pithead baths" such facilities as canteens, which have proved both popular and successful. Subsection (2) makes special provision for the two really outstanding purposes of the Fund—namely, pithead baths and health and safety research. It provides for a total expenditure of £375,000 per annum upon pithead baths and canteens. Of this amount, about £200,000 will be available from the royalties levy, which your Lordships may remember was imposed by Part III of the Mining Industry Act, 1926, at the rate of one shilling in the pound on the annual value of mineral

377
rentals. The remainder will come from the output levy.
It also provides, for the purpose of promoting research into methods of improving the health and safety of workers in or about coal mines, the sum of £20,000 per annum. The object of this provision is to secure that these contributions to pithead baths and research shall be a first charge upon the reduced output levy before the proceeds arc divided into one-fifth and four-fifths, or the general and district funds. Subsection (3) gives the Miners' Welfare Committee authority, if they so wish, to devote additional sums of money for the purposes set out in subsection (2) of the clause. If they do this, however, it is laid down that these sums must come from the General Fund and not from the district funds, unless with the specific consent of the district committee concerned. Subsection (4) is simply declaratory, and gives effect to the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee already referred to. It clears up any doubt as to the strict legality of certain objects of expenditure and brings within the scope of the Fund aged miners who have given up work, unemployed miners, and their dependants. Clause 4 is the short title of the Bill. I trust that I have covered the necessary ground to indicate to your Lordships the desirability of this Bill. It removes any existing doubts as to the proper mode of expenditure of the money obtained from the output levy, and it gives effect to the principal legislative recommendations of the Departmental Committee of Inquiry. If there is any further point on which I can give your Lordships some information I shall be happy to do so. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of munster.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, in spite of the invitation of the noble Earl to put further questions to him I am afraid, however lucidly he might answer them, he could not make this Bill into a good Bill. It is an extremely bad Bill, as I shall endeavour to show. The mining industry in this country, as we are all painfully aware, is in a very depressed condition, and has been in that condition ever since the great slump following the War. Its condition was made worse by our premature return to the gold
378
standard—this is generally admitted now, it is not a matter of argument any longer—when Mr. Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The whole industry needs re-planning and reorganising, and I know that in saying that I shall carry with me the whole of your Lordships, in whichever part of the House you sit. The industry is in a chaotic condition. You have approximately 2,000 separate pits, which are managed, or mismanaged, by a thousand separate companies, each with its board of directors, each with its buyers, each with its selling agents, each with its technical staff, and in very many cases cutting each other's throats and unable to work the best seams of coal because they would get in each other's way. You have a situation wherein, in my County of Yorkshire, our pits, the best and most up-to-date of them, are paying good profits; while others, notably in South Wales, where the finest steam coal in the world comes from, are being run at a heavy loss. You have a condition under which miners ate engaged underground in their very arduous and dangerous undertaking in a high temperature, and very often, in some of the pits working the whole of their time stretched on their stomachs and their faces, and at the end of a week's work they only take home to their families forty shillings.
Now, that is the situation for which Parliament is responsible, for it has persistently refused to step in and do for this industry what it has been unable to do for itself: that is, to reorganise and re-plan it. In these circumstances we have tried to do something for the miners themselves by this Welfare Fund, under which one penny on every ton of coal produced is put into this special Fund, which is administered for the welfare of the miners. It has provided recreation halls, playing fields, bowling greens and all kinds of amenities in these villages, which are very often scattered and hideous. Many of the coalfields are remote from other centres of industry, the miners have in the past, as they do to a certain extent now, led isolated lives—if you like, narrow lives—and this Fund has done something to brighten these villages, to give an intellectual centre of life in the village hall that has been provided and in its library, so that the miners have something else to do besides toil and sleep.

379
A penny a ton! That did not come out of the pockets of the coalowners or of the royalty owners or of the shareholders. The present system of ascertainment is as follows. Of the proceeds of the sale of the coal 13 per cent. goes to capital charges—interest and so on, in many cases to try to pay off the debts to the banks. The other 87 per cent. goes to wages. You are, therefore, if you pass this Bill, not by any means relieving the coal owners of a halfpenny on a ton, you are only relieving them of 13 per cent. of a halfpenny, and that is not going to make the difference in any mine between profit and loss, and is not going to prevent it from closing down. The other 87 per cent. will, to a very slight extent, benefit the miners, but the miners do not want this reduction. They would far rather—and they are unanimous on this point—keep the Fund on its present basis of a penny per ton output. The Bill is therefore received with a good deal of hostility by the 600,000 miners engaged in the industry. The only good point about it is the one made by the noble Earl, that it does continue the Fund for a definite number of years.
There is, however, another very bad aspect of this extremely obnoxious Bill, and that is that it is made retrospective—a most mischievous principle in a Bill of this kind. May I ask your Lordships to look at Clause 2 (2)? You will see there that if any person or company producing coal has paid the penny a ton for last year, he gets half the money back by being excused the payment for next year to that extent. I cannot see that there is any defence for that, at all. I understand that the official apologia is that some of the companies have had great difficulties in paying the money and have fallen into arrears and that this will relieve them, and that some of them might be in danger of closing down if the full payment were insisted upon. Hard cases do not make good law if we legislate only for the hard cases. I suggest that it would be far better if the clause had been more narrowly drawn, so that in certain cases, where a real hardship could be shown, some easing of the burden might have been made. But to make the Bill retrospective for the benefit of the rich companies, which are making big profits in the North of England, and to excuse them the money
380
which they have been slack in paying, because they were given to understand that the Government were going to be very tender with them, is a very bad principle indeed in legislation. Suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is to introduce the Budget in a few weeks' time, were to do the same thing and that any concessions to the taxpayers were made retrospective, what would be the condition of the finances of the country?
I should like to ask the noble Earl a question. He spoke of certain services that are safeguarded. I ask this question principally on behalf of my noble friend below me, Lord Sanderson, who has taken a great interest in this matter. There has been an admirable system of scholarships established for young miners who have been pit boys and have shown themselves suitable for higher education, and also for miners' sons; and this system has enabled the flower of the young miners of the country to have the opportunity of higher education. Will there be any reduction of those scholarships as the result of this Bill? If we could have any information on that point my noble friend and myself would be very grateful. I have had to speak against this Bill because we are opposed to it from every point of view. We think it is unnecessary, and we think, as I said before, that it is a mean Bill. We do not think it will help the mining industry, and we think it will inflict injury upon a great body of men who, through no fault of their own, have suffered terribly in recent years. I trust that the Bill will be so altered by the time it leaves this House that its worst features will have been taken out.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I will endeavour to answer some of the questions and queries which the noble Lord has seen fit to address to me. In the first place I fear that he is wandering, happily I hope, but alone, in a wilderness. He could have read, as no doubt he did, the remarks which were made by Mr. Shinwell in 1931 in the Committee stage in another place, and I propose with your Lordships' permission to read that statement, for I think it will show the noble Lord that his opinion is evidently quite contrary to the one which Mr. Shinwell accepted in those days. This is what he said:

381
"I would say to my honourable friends, and particularly to those who represent mining constituencies, who are interested in the mining industry, that there is a case for very careful consideration of the whole question of administration, the amount of the Fund, and more particularly whether the Fund should be of a permanent or of a temporary character…. It appears to me, if I may say this in passing, that if you have to deal with a Fund of a permanent character, for one thing you do not require to impose the same amount of levy, and it is possible to reduce it; and, moreover, you can plan ahead, having the assurance that the Fund at no time is likely to be thrown out of gear."
I believe, my Lords, that it is better to give these Miners' Welfare Committees the right to legalise and spread over a period of twenty years the work they propose to do in the mining districts, rather than give them a short period of time, of five years, at the end of which period the Fund may be reduced or increased.
There is another point which I would impress upon the noble Lord. The summary of recommendations on page 73 of the Department Committee's Report, said:
"That, owing to the present economic depression, the output levy should be reduced to a halfpenny per ton of coal raised, commencing with the levy in respect of the output for the year 1932, and that it should be continued for twenty years, but if and when the financial state of the industry permits, the amount should be increased."
The noble Lord will observe that there is nothing to stop future Governments altering and amending the Act if so required.
The next point the noble Lord made was that he objected to the retrospective character of the Bill. I do not think that is quite right, for the levy is legally payable on March 31, and on March 31, 1933, there had not been sufficient time to consider this Report and introduce a Bill before that date. The penny has therefore remained legally due in respect of the 1932 output, payable on March 31, 1933, and will remain so unless this Bill becomes law. The Government, however, did give specific notice, in answer to Parliamentary questions, on April 5 last, that they intended to introduce a Bill to implement the recommendations of this Committee, so that there can be really no question at all of freir intention about this Bill being sprung upon Parliament or the industry at the last moment.
382
On the other hand, if, as I trust he has, the noble Lord has made himself acquainted with the Miners' Welfare Committee's Report for 1931, he will read there a reference to the appointment of the Chelmsford Committee, and they point out that it would be wise both for themselves and for the district welfare committees not to become too deeply committed as regards the application of future revenue, lest some modification in the rate of the levy, or the purposes on which it, may be spent, be recommended and adopted by the Government before the expiration of legislation recently enacted. I hope that that will clear up the point which the noble Lord made.
The next question he put to me was concerning really the wages agreement, which exists in the collieries, and the divisible figures are fifteen to eighty-five and not as mentioned by the noble Lord. Then, prosperity in the coalfields is certainly not apparent at the present moment, although the output is considerably better than it was a short time ago. But the greater part of the money which has been paid into the Miners' Welfare Fund has been paid by the owners for the greater part of the period, for there has been insufficient money in many cases to meet not only standard wages but standard profits as well, and the owners have therefore been asked to contribute the full amount. The last question put by the noble Lord was concerning scholarships. They, I am advised, will remain exactly as at present, for they are established upon a fund which will remain unaltered by the legislation I am asking your Lordships to pass. I hope I have dealt with all the questions raised, and that by my remarks I have converted the noble Lord to the view that this Bill is a highly desirable one.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the leave of the House I would like to make one reply. When the noble Earl speaks about my being in the wilderness, and quotes the statement of Mr. Shinwell in 1931, I would ask him to remember that that is three years ago, and I am talking of the present time. He must be aware that the whole of the miners' lodges in the country are against this reduction, because they have been converted to the great value of this Fund. This was part of the original Bill founded on Lord Sankey's Report—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order.
LORD STRABOLGI: I will merely add that therefore I am not altogether in the wilderness.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NORTH ATLANTIC SHIPPING BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, this is a short Bill of only three operative clauses, but it is one about which your Lordships will expect me to say something, because it brings into operation the Agreement which has been made between the Cunard Steam Ship Company, the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company and the Treasury, and which was published last month in Command Paper 4502. When work on the mammoth passenger ship No. 534 was stopped, I think the country generally and most members of your Lordships' House felt that a very great blow had been delivered not only to shipbuilding and to the heavy industries by the loss of employment which that stoppage of work entailed, but also to our prestige as a maritime and shipbuilding nation. The blue riband of the Atlantic has been wrested from us after we have held it for very many years; other nations have recently been building not only faster but larger ships, and the cream of the North Atlantic passenger traffic was passing to other nations. Some of your Lordships may have views as regards these mammoth passenger ships, but at any rate there can be no doubt that as regards passengers generally they prefer to travel on these very large fast ships rather than on the smaller ones, and therefore not only do we find ourselves with smaller ships than other nations, but the result is that we lose the passenger traffic which we used to hold.
One of the main objects of the scheme is to lead to the elimination of wasteful competition between the two great British companies which for many years have been engaged in the North Atlantic passenger trade. The fusion of the North Atlantic interests of these two companies will secure very great economies, and the scheme is designed to create a single
384
and powerful unit amply supplied with working resources, which will be well equipped to maintain the traditional preeminence of British shipping upon the North Atlantic. Secondly, the completion of the Cunard liner No. 534 will create a considerable volume of employment in a distressed area, and that at a time when it is badly needed. Moreover, British trade in the North Atlantic will be supplied with the most modern passenger vessel in existence. It is designed to be of such a speed as to be capable of making a weekly passage across the Atlantic, that is to say, a fortnightly service in each direction, and so provide a service which at present cannot be provided by any other vessel.
The Agreement provides for the fusion of the North Atlantic interests of the Cunard and Oceanic companies into a new operating company which is to be called "The Cunard White Star Limited" or some similar title. The Cunard will hand over free of incumbrance its North Atlantic fleet of fifteen vessels, the names of which are given on page 9 of the White Paper, and the Oceanic will hand over its ten vessels, those being the North Atlantic fleets of both companies. Also the Cunard will hand over to the merger company the uncompleted No. 534 and the benefit of its contract with Messrs. John Brown & Co. Limited, the builders. The consideration for the transfer of these ships will be an issue of shares in the merger company credited as fully paid and in the proportion of 62 per cent. to the Cunard and 38 per cent. to the Oceanic.
The Government ask Parliament to agree to a loan not exceeding £3,000,000 for the completion of No. 534. I understand that £1,750,000 has already been spent upon the ship and that when completed she will cost somewhere about £4,500,000 sterling. Further the Government is providing a loan to make advances of working capital to the extent of £1,500,000. It is provided that all these advances shall be made as required, that is to say, that we shall not have to find straight off £4,500,000, but that the Treasury will advance the money as the contract proceeds. Thirdly, it is provided that in the legislation to be promoted—which is now before your Lordships—the Government will take power to advance a sum not exceeding £5,000,000

385
for the construction of a second ship, or of other ships, for the merger company. When it is seen how the prospects work out, it will be decided whether there shall be a sister ship, so that there will be a weekly service in each direction instead of a fortnightly service. This advance will be made on terms analogous to those on which the advances not exceeding £2,000,000 are to be made to the merger company for the completion of No. 534. The Government are not in any way committed to this last advance for the second or more vessels, and the Agreement specifically provides that the legislation shall give the Treasury power in their discretion to advance this money for any additional ship or ships.
I do not know whether your Lordships desire me to go into the question of the security for the loan. It is a somewhat complicated question, but I may say briefly that £1,000,000 will be advanced to the Cunard Company and will be secured upon Cunard assets, ranking immediately after any charges given to secure the existing first debenture stock of the Cunard. The second and third sums of £1,000,000 each will be advanced to the merger company, the first half of these on the security of first debenture stock in the merger company, that being a first mortgage on No. 534, and the second half—that is to say, the third sum of £1,000,000—being secured by an issue of income debenture stock, Class A, of the merger company. secured by a second mortgage on No. 534. Then the advances for working capital are in one case secured by first debenture stock in the merger company up to £750,000 and with regard to the remaining £750,000, secured by Class B income debenture stock of the company.
The interest will be, in regard to the debenture stock, one-half per cent. below bank rate until January 1, 1940, and then at such rate as the Treasury determines to be the appropriate rate for interest on loans guaranteed by the Government. In regard to the third amount of £1,000,000 on No. 534 which is to be secured by income debenture stock, Class A, the interest will be three per cent, up to December 31, 1939, and five per cent. thereafter; and in regard to the second advance of £750,000 for working capital, the interest upon that will be five per cent. throughout. I do not know whether
386
I need tell your Lordships anything more about this matter at this stage, but I will endeavour to answer any questions which your Lordships may put to me in the course of the debate. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD STRAHOLGI: My Lords, I am sorry to have to detain your Lordships again on this Bill and to speak a second, or indeed a third, time this afternoon, but it raises such very important principles that my noble friends on this side of the House have asked me to put our point of view. With regard to the main objects of the Bill—to enable this great liner and possibly a second great liner to be built—we are not in disagreement. We would far rather have the men engaged in building these ships and in making the tremendous variety of equipment for them which affects almost every trade in the country, than standing about idle. From that point of view we therefore welcome this rather belated effort. We regret that it was not embarked on about twelve months ago, when the building of the large liner on the Clyde was first stopped. Apart from that, however, we have certain grave objections to raise in detail.
In the first place, we think that the venture itself, apart from being regarded as a means of getting men at work rather than paying unemployment insurance to the same men while they deteriorate and rot in idleness—apart from that aspect of it, we think that the financial basis of this transaction is unsound, and we think it very doubtful that the taxpayers' money will ultimately be recovered, the reason being, as your Lordships are aware, that there is heavy competition in the North Atlantic luxury passenger trade, and it is also a diminishing market. There is no certainty that the revival in the transatlantic passages will be such as to make these great ships pay their way. The emigrant traffic, for example, which was almost the bread and butter of the liners a few years ago, has dwindled away very greatly, for very well understood reasons, and there is the heavily subsidised competition of the great liners built, and already on the water, by the French, Italians, Germans and others.

387
Your Lordships will have noted in the remarks of the noble Earl introducing this Bill that this money is not secured as a first debenture. At least the first £1,000,000 is not. It is a second charge. We went behind the first class of shareholders. I speak of "we" as the taxpayers of this country. If this money was to be spent on shipbuilding at all it is at least arguable that it might have been better spent in encouraging the rebuilding of a large part of the cargo-carrying fleet of this country, a great deal of which is out of date. The so-called tramp steamers, which, after all, are the backbone of the mercantile marine of this country, are many of them obsolete, and it would be good policy to encourage or help in any way the shipowners in this country to scrap about two-thirds of their existing fleets of cargo steamers and build modern-engined ships of modern construction capable of competing for freights all over the world. That would give a great deal of very badly needed employment and once more put the mercantile marine of this country into a pre-eminent position as merchant carriers for the world. I hope that that is eventually to be part of the present Government's policy, if the present Government remain in office, and that this is the first step to encouraging the rebuilding of a great part of the British mercantile marine, which, apparently, is only going to be rebuilt very slowly owing to the reluctance of investors to invest in shipping enterprises.
The next objection—I think it is a very serious one indeed—is that if the second ship is proceeded with this Cunard-White Star merger will have brought to its assistance £9,500,000 of Government money, a very large investment indeed. The least the Government should have done, my noble friends think, is to have reserved the right to be directly represented on the board of the merger. There are many precedents for this. I will quote to your Lordships a very old one, the case of the Suez Canal Company. Our predominant position as shareholders there is due to the action of a very distinguished member of your Lordships' House. There are Government directors on the board of the Suez Canal Company. A more recent case before the War is that of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. It was necessary to secure supplies of oil for the Royal Navy. Certain moneys were advanced
388
on loan to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and there are Government directors in that company to watch over the interests of the taxpayer and also the interests in this case of the Royal Navy. A third example, and this time a transport undertaking, is Imperial Airways. In Imperial Airways we have Government directors on the board. An even closer analogy is that of the MacBrayne Steamship Company which plies in the Western Islands and Highlands. That company had got into a bad state, its ships were out of date and unsuited for the traffic in the Highlands and the Government came to the rescue. The Postmaster-General has the right to appoint a director on the board of the MacBrayne company because we, as a nation, are shareholders and therefore interested in the undertaking.
If your Lordships will glance at the White Paper you will see that again and again the Treasury has to be consulted at second hand. For instance, the articles of association and memorandum of this merger company cannot be altered without reference to the Treasury; the capital cannot be increased without reference to the Treasury. Article 13 of the White Paper states that advances from time to time for working capital can be made in instalments against the certificate of the chairman and the directors of the merger company. They have to go to the Treasury to say that money is needed and another advance is then made. Therefore there is a good deal of Treasury control. But it is indirect control, and the consideration I would put before your Lordships is that it would be far better and fairer to the taxpayers of the country, and in accordance with precedent, if there had been nominees of the Treasury on the board until such time as this money was repaid. Upon the board of this merger is a very distinguished member of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Essendon, who is extremely successful as a shipowner and has the highest reputation. The protest I make in this House is no reflection on the boards of these two great shipping companies at all, but, in private affairs, not one of us in this House could for a moment object in any company to a large block of shareholding, a large financial interest, being directly represented on the board, and, the company

389
having received assistance in exactly the same way, I suggest to your Lordships that the Treasury should be directly represented. In fact, I am not sure that the taxpayers of this country should not have a controling interest on the board until this money is repaid.
The excuse of the noble Earl will be, I suppose: "Well, we don't want the Government engaged in the shipping business." But we are engaging ourselves in the shipping business to the extent of £29,500,00, and we cannot pretend that the British nation does not stand behind this merger as a competing shipowning compary in the North Atlantic trade. Why cannot we in this case do the thing thoroughly and have the Treasury properly represented on the board of directors? I suggest that these are matters of substance. This last point particularly is one of substance, and we should certainly have a much more satisfactory answer to this matter than has yet been given. This Bill has not been certified as a Money Bill and, therefore, we are quite in order at a later stage in attempting to alter it, and I hope your Lordships will be prepared to agree to an Amendment to put this particular matter of representation on the board right. Nor do I think we need be reluctant to do so, because if ever there was a case for this House functioning as an advisory House I submit this is one. The Committee stage of this Bill was taken in another place at a late sitting in the small hours of the morning and, therefore, I suggest we should have no hesitation in amending this Bill as required.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I never expected to find myself in agreement with the noble Lord who sits opposite so quickly after be joined this House, but I can only explain that by the fact that, very wisely discarding the arguments given by the official Opposition in another place, he took the better reasons given by certain of my friends who sit on the Government side. I must first of all beg your Lordships' pardon for intruding into the debate, as I have no particular qualification for doing so. My excuse is that the only member of the Government who had a particular qualification to intrude into the debate in another place, the President of the Board of Trade, did not
390
do so. Let me say at once that I welcome this Bill because it does show that the Government have changed their attitude towards the constructive development of capital enterprise. It does show that the Government have realised, as we all hoped they would realise, that it was impossible any longer to pursue a policy of laissez faire towards industry in the present changed economic condition of the world. It does show that they are prepared to face certain cooperation between the State and industry which we cannot fail to welcome. But, if we are going to have this change, it does seem to me that sporadic incursions into industry by the State are of no use whatever. We must pursue a consistent policy, a policy which we lay down in advance and a policy which is going to follow well-defined principles.
It is in an endeavour to elucidate the principles which are to govern the Government's actions in this matter that I venture to ask two questions which, in fact, have already been covered by the noble Lord opposite. First of all, I want to know by what classification the Government are going to decide among various competing interests which are going to ask for subsidies. What are the conditions going to be before a subsidy or Government help is granted to an industry? In particular I want to know why the Cunard line was selected for the first experiment in this way. I ask that because it seems to me that the Cunard line offers as unfavourable an opportunity for Government subsidy as one could well find. It is perfectly true, as the Treasury representative has said, that if we are going to get our money back and interest is to be paid on this subsidy, we must gamble on, or hope for, world recovery in trade. That must apply to any subsidy given at the present moment, but in this particular case we are not merely gambling on a recovery of world trade; we are also gambling on the proposition that a particular type of vessel is going to be able to take full advantage of that recovery when it comes. In fact, two things in regard to this particular subsidy have to happen before we can ever hope to get our money back.
As the noble Earl who will reply for the Government knows perfectly well, there is at least a very wide difference of opinion as to whether this particular type

391
of ship will, in fact, be able to take full advantage of world recovery. I am told that for the amount of money we are going to spend on one liner we can build 100 modern tramps, and also that a modern tramp even now is able to make a profit in the present state of world trade. It is therefore very difficult to understand why the Cunard line was chosen and tramps ignored. It seems to me rather unfortunate that when the Government decided to risk—I will not say gamble with—the taxpayers' money, they should elect to play their game on a board with two zeros instead of one.
The second point on which I would like information has also been mentioned by the noble Lord opposite. What are the subsequent relations—very delicate relations—to be between the Government and the subsidised industries? Is there going to be some form, not of control, but of relationship which will enable the Government to know if at any moment the taxpayers' money is not being used to the best advantage? Why is there to be nobody on the board of the new merger company? I understand that one reason given is that the Government trust the Cunard Company. Naturally, the Government trust the Cunard Company if they are going to subsidise the company. They trusted the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, but the Government are represented on the board of that concern, and no one supposes that that is because they do not trust the company.
The other reason suggested is that the Government will be a mortgagee of the merger company and that it is not the practice of the mortgagee to control the business of a company. Even if that were so I would say that £9,500,000 deserves special treatment, and further I would say that the State is in this matter in a very peculiar position because, although a mortgagee, it is unable really to take up its mortgage. If the company gets into a bad state owing to bad management it will be extremely difficult for the Government to take up its mortgage inasmuch as it would have to take over the line and run it. I do not see how a Government of the complexion of the present Government can possibly take that course. It seems to me that in view of these facts the Government should have insisted on having an everyday observer on the board of this company,
392
able to inform them how things are going, particularly in view of the fact shown by an official of the Treasury that such a very large number of the vessels which are going to be transferred to the company are, in fact, obsolescent and only valuable as scrap. That should give the Government pause and make them want very much to know how things are going. I trust I have not taken up too much time in discussing these matters. I feel that they are so important that we should know exactly how the Government propose to go on with this new development, and I hope I shall receive a helpful answer.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, both noble Lords who have criticised this Bill have done so not on its main principles, although I fully admit that the points raised are matters of real substance. In regard to the first question asked by the noble Lord opposite, why this was not done twelve months ago, I would say that if he studies the Agreement he will find that the first essential was to get these two big shipping companies to combine. He will realise how difficult an operation that was when he sees what each has to contribute to the merger company and the actual amount which has to be credited to them in fully-paid shares. It was only quite recently, within the past few weeks, that an agreement has been arrived at. Even at this moment the two companies have not got authority to carry through this merger. I read in The Times on Tuesday that the Oceanic Company had held a meeting of debenture holders and with only one dissentient it was agreed to. Regarding the Cunard Company a meeting of debenture holders was convened, but there was not a sufficient quorum and therefore a second meeting has been convened for next Tuesday. They have no doubt that they will get full agreement to the merger because, I understand, the debenture holders in these two companies are satisfied that they will be more secure once they have combined operations than if they continued in competition.
The noble Lord opposite said that the financial basis was unsound. I have no hope of converting him when my noble friend Lord Munster has already failed to do so, but I hope that a short period in this House will make him less pessimistic than he appears to be on arrival here

393
from another place. He maintained that passenger traffic in the North Atlantic is going to be at as low a figure as it is at this moment. That to my mind is an extraordinarily pessimistic view. Moreover, many of us hope that as conditions throughout the Empire improve, so too will the chances of emigration for some of our surplus population become available once more, and we shall be able to send out citizens of the very highest quality to people the waste spaces of the Empire which at present need population. In regard to both of these points quite obviously the chances of increased traffic in the North Atlantic will be considerable. Therefore, when we take the figures at the present moment, I suggest to him that with a little more optimistic outlook he may realise that the picture is very much rosier than he painted it.
He suggested that it would be better to give assistance to tramp steamers rather than to this one big steamer. The whole difficulty in regard to the shipping industry at this moment, as I had to tell your Lordships only a short time ago in this place, is the surplus amount of tonnage. It is not merely a question of ships being out of date, but there is such a vast number of ships of all nationalities all over the world, in tramp shipping particularly, that freights at this moment are impossible even for modern ships. Even modern ships have to travel without sufficient freights, not to mention package cargoes which are more profitable. Therefore, to add a large number of new tramp steamers at this moment would not be a thing that the shipping industry would welcome by any means.
My noble friend Lord Dufferin raised a question. He said that the Government had changed their policy and were ceasing to be laissez faire. This Government ceased to be that some time ago, as I think your Lordships will agree if you will look into what has been done for agriculture and what has been done in regard to trade agreements with other nations. giving opportunities for exports from this country to get a market in other countries as well as giving a chance in our home markets. The noble Marquess asked why the Cunard Company had been selected. That company was selected for several reasons. In the first place, stopping work on this ship was felt to be a very serious blow to the shipbuilding
394
industry and to our prestige as a maritime nation. Your Lordships must also remember that about £1,750,000 had been spent on this work, and here was the ship lying a skeleton on the building slip with many men standing about idle. It looked to the world as if we were no longer capable of building ships of the kind recently built by other nations. That being the case the Government felt—and I think your Lordships will agree wisely felt—that it was essential to go on with this ship if there was a fair chance of her being able to pay her way.
Noble Lords may have their own views as to whether a vast ship of this kind, 73,000 tons, is the right type of ship. I need hardly say that the Government took advice on this matter, and they consulted amongst other people Lord Weir, and naturally the directors of the Cunard Company, who are very experienced people, and Lord Weir and others agreed that a ship of this size and character was such as might win the cream of the passenger traffic of the North Atlantic. Therefore, both from the point of view of business and from the point of view of prestige, it was felt that this was the best way in which we could help the industry at this moment. I am not going to say that that cuts out other help to the industry in other ways—that question does not arise on this Bill—but at any rate from both those points of view we felt we were justified in making this advance.
Both the noble Lord opposite and my noble friend raised the question of Government representation in the management of this merger company, and the noble Lord opposite quoted cases in which the Government had had direct representation on such boards. He quoted the Suez Canal Company, the Anglo Persian Oil Company and others. Really he proved his case in my favour, because he showed in regard to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company—and we know it equally applies to the Suez Canal Company—that there were Imperial interests, quite apart from the business side, to be considered. The Suez Canal Company of course owns a route to vast parts of our Empire which it was essential to maintain in the Imperial interest, and therefore it was necessary that the Government should be directly represented on the board of the company in order that that side should

395
be kept constantly in view. Similarly in regard to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, in which the Government invested directly in order to get an oil supply for the Navy. This is a different proposition. This is merely a business concern, not affecting the Imperial and the strategic side as these other companies do.
The noble Lord said: "We have of course considerable trust in the Cunard Company." Of course we have, but it is more than that. We feel that a board such as that which has been engaged in that traffic for many years is probably far more likely to make a financial success of the matter—and that is all we are interested in as a Government in this case—than we should be if we increased the board by putting on Government representatives. After all, unless they are experts on shipping matters they are not likely to be of any real value to the board. May I quote to the noble Lord what was said in another place by someone not entirely unknown to him, Mr. Kirkwood? He said this:
"One would think that the individuals who are running this business were apprentices. They are the most astute business men not only in this country but in the world, those men who are projecting this merger company; none more astute, none more capable."
With a board of that kind, is it worth while to add one representative, or possibly two, as directors representing the Government? After all, they could be outvoted when it came to the point, and the Government felt that the control of this company was better maintained, without interfering with the actual running of the company, by having the conditions which the noble Lord quoted from the White Paper—that is to say, they are not entitled to raise any further money; they have to come to the Treasury for any change in the articles of association, and matters of that kind.
Then I think my noble friend raised the point as to how we were to keep in touch with the company. If he will examine the White Paper he will find that every year a balance sheet is to be made up of the amount due to the Government in regard to the second debentures and to the income debentures, and further that every three years there is to be a financial inspection by the Treasury to see what the position actually is.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I asked what day-to-day touch.
EARL STANHOPE: If it is day-to-day touch, that entails our going into the management of the company and really taking the part of directors of a shipping company. Now for the reasons I have given, the fact that these directors know far more about it than anybody in the Government service whom we should be able to appoint, we felt that the best method was not to go into the management of the company but to keep control of their financial operations. I think I have met all the questions that the two noble Lords put to me. I do not know whether I have convinced them, but I have hopes at any rate that they will feel that this is a good Bill and one that ought to be supported through all its stages.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I only rise for a moment to say that we have listened with great attention to the noble Earl's explanation and replies to the questions put, and, knowing his skill, I was surprised at the end to find how weak his case was in arguing against a representative of the Government on the board. I do not want to go over that ground again, because I think our criticism has been put very ably by my noble friend behind me and endorsed by the noble Marquess opposite. But I do feel it is an important point and one upon which I believe that many of your Lordships would desire to say something, and indeed even to support us. Here is a large sum of Government money going to be invested in an enterprise which the noble Earl regards as certain to be successful. He takes a very rosy view, but it is an enterprise about which others are a little doubtful. The Government have decided to do this. They remind me very much of an obstinate man who refuses to give in, and at last, when he does give in, he gives in on the wrong point. They have refused money for public works, they have refused to invest money on very much more remunerative work that might have been undertaken in various parts of the country; but, being pressed very strongly, they decided that 9½ millions could be invested in this enterprise.

397
I do not think it is unreasonable on our part to ask that if this is going to be done—and we fully realise the amount of employment that will result—the Government should be represented on the board controlling this enterprise. The noble Earl referred to the Suez Canal and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, but he did not say anything about the further instance which my noble friend behind me gave, which was that of the MacBrayne Shipping Company, where the Government had a representative. However skilled and necessarily acquainted with a very intricate and difficult business the directors of this board may be, I feel convinced that we have at the Board of Trade people who are perfectly well qualified to sit on the board and to watch the proceedings from the Government point of view. Therefore I am advising my noble friend behind me to raise this question once again by putting down an Amendment on the Committee stage, in which he will suggest that the Government should appoint a representative on the board.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I do not wish to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but I desire to call attention to the one point that has been discussed considerably to-day, and on which I admit that I do not find that the noble Earl's reply is satisfactory. That is, why we are not to have a representative or representatives on the board of the company. I find that the answer that the noble Earl has given is quite unconvincing. He told us that the Suez Canal Company and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company were companies in which the Government had an interest apart altogether from the mere investment of the money; but that does not meet the point, because in this case there is to be a certain amount of control by the Treasury. I cannot for a moment think it satisfactory for the Treasury to be merely informed by the balance sheet what the position is from one year to another. It would be infinitely better for the Government, as the representatives of the taxpayers, to have representatives on the board who would be familiar with what is happening in the general business of the company. They would then be in a far better position to advise the Treasury as to what should be done.
EARL STANHOPE: The noble Marquess will realise that the interests of the Government and of the company in this case are identical—both of them are interested in making a profit; whereas in the other case there was the Imperial or strategic interest, which was not necessarily the same as the business interest.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am not Sure that that is very convincing, because I have definite, recollections of sailing during the War at least three times, once on the Olympic, arid once on the Aquitania, carrying soldiers from America. I do not use that as an answer in this particular case, but it does show that these ships may become available for use in case we should unfortunately be involved again in war. But the noble Earl's answer in any case does not meet the point that we need to have somebody on the board who would be able to watch the interests of the Government. The noble Earl said that there would be representatives of the Services, but that is exactly what we do not want. They are not in as good a position to judge of the business as those men who give their whole time to it. What is necessary is to select those who have a knowledge of affairs, who are engaged in the business, and who are not officials of the Government, who would sit on the board and keep themselves acquainted with what is happening. I do not want to press this point at the moment, but I would ask the noble Earl to consider it, and I suggest that they should give more attention to the possibility of selecting someone to represent them from among those who are specially familiar with the shipping business and with commercial business. I ask the Government to give further consideration to this matter, so that when we come to the Committee stage it may be dealt with on rather different lines.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned during pleasure; and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

RURAL WATER SUPPLIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Government contributions towards expenses of local authorities for rural water supply.
(4) The Minister may withhold, or reduce the amount of, a contribution which he has undertaken to make towards the expenses to be incurred by a local authority in respect of any works or transaction, if it appears to him either—
(a) that any of the works have been executed in an unsatisfactory manner; or
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (4), after "executed," to insert "by direct labour." The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I move is not intended in any way to challenge the principle of the Bill, which was affirmed the other day on Second Reading, but my object is simply to ask for some information from the Government as to the position of local authorities under this measure. The Bill proposes that the Government, that is to say, the Minister of Health, should be empowered to spend up to £1,000,000 in improving water supplies in rural areas. I am sure we all welcome such a measure, as the drought of the last six months has abundantly proved that in many localities the inhabitants are miserably served with water, and in some cases have to go without water at all unless it is carried from a very long way off.
I think, however, that if you will look at the text of the Bill your Lordships will see that it is extremely doubtful, if the Minister of Health interprets his powers at all strictly, whether more than a small proportion of the £1,000,000 will be spent, because, quite properly, it is a permissive Bill. The Minister of Health "may," when the district council and the country council come together, give a grant in aid, or so much a year, towards the expenses of a scheme. Then, if he has made up his mind that he will try and do something, he is faced with Treasury Regulations and, as your Lordships all know, Treasury Regulations are not easy to get round. They generally safeguard the taxpayer in the most rigorous way, and put a strong limit upon any excessive expenditure or extravagance. I do not challenge those two principles, but I would ask
400
your Lordships to turn to page 2 of the Bill, paragraph (a) of subsection (4), where you will see that:
"The Minister may withhold, or reduce the amount of, a contribution which he has undertaken to make towards the expenses to be incurred by a local authority in respect of any works or transaction, if it appears to him either—
(a) that any of the works have been executed in an unsatisfactory manner…."
He may withhold all or part of the money which he has promised to give if any of the works have been executed—that is to say, under the auspices of the local authorities—in an unsatisfactory manner.
I have put down an Amendment to insert, after the word "executed", the words "by direct labour." I will explain my reason for doing so. If a local authority chooses, and many will no doubt choose, to carry out their new works to improve the supply of water by direct labour, and they bungle the work, or in any way do not carry out the work in the most efficient and economical way, then I concede that the Minister of Health would be quite justified in withholding either all or part of his contribution. He would say: "You have not carried out the work as you said you would carry it out." I think it is very different, however, where the work is carried out under contract, and I suppose there is no doubt that the majority of such works will be so carried out. What will have happened? The local authorities, the county council and the district council, will have approached the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Health will, of course, have asked for particulars. He will have gone very carefully into the scheme, and, what is more, unless he did not carry out his duties properly, will have satisfied himself generally that the contractor whom the local authorities proposed to employ was a man of experience and financial stability, and a man who, owing to his past good work or because of his references, would be expected to carry out the works in an efficient and expeditious manner. Therefore I submit to your Lordships that the Minister of Health in those cases is a partner, practically, with the local authorities, because if he is not a partner with the local authorities he ought not to promise to advance the money, and he must be a partner if he has carried out

401
his duties by assuring himself, as far as he can, that the contractor is a reliable man.
Yet under the Bill, if things go wrong, it is the local authority who is to shoulder the whole of the burden, and the Minister is free to say: "The bargain is off and I will not contribute anything." It is a matter of importance from two aspects. If that idea gets into the heads of the local authorities, is it likely to help them in carrying out the work of improving our water supplies in rural areas? And is it consistent with the plighted word of a Government Department to local authorities, that such a thing should be possible? I await with interest what the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill may say. He may say we do not intend to use this power; that it is only a useful weapon in case of unforeseen occurrences. If he says that, I should reply that it is better not to put anything in the Bill which you are not prepared and are not likely to use. It would be much more fair to say that having gone into partnership with the local authorities you are going to share the burden, and not to leave lurking in their minds the idea that if, for instance, a contractor has gone bankrupt the local authorities will be left to shoulder the whole burden while the taxpayer gets off lightly. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to state on behalf of the Minister of Health that he is most anxious to work in cordial co-operation with the local authorities, and that this particular power given him in the Bill will only be used in the most extreme and unforeseen circumstances.
Amendment, moved—
Page 2, line 14, after ("executed") insert ("by direct labour").—(Lord Mount Temple.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My right honourable friend has considered this suggestion very carefully—
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Do you mean the Minister?
VISCOUNT GAGE: Yes; and I think he fully appreciates the motives which have led the noble Lord to put down this Amendment. We can assure the noble Lord that it is not with the slightest intention of exercising this power otherwise than in a perfectly sympathetic spirit that the clause was drawn as it is. The noble Lord says, and I think quite rightly, that the work will usually
402
be done by contract. It will be to the advantage of the local authority in most cases that it should be done by contract, and the Ministry will do what it reasonably can to make sure that contracts are made with persons who are likely satisfactorily to carry out the work. But I do not think it is practicable, as the noble Lord himself may well realise, for the Ministry in every case to have a, detailed knowledge of each contractor. And even when all care has been taken about the contractor himself, I do not think it can be expected that the responsibility of the local authority will stop there. It is obviously their duty to take reasonable care that the work is executed properly. They should do this through competent officials—surveyors, or possibly even special clerks of the works.
I may also add that, as the noble Lord knows much better than I do, it is quite a common thing, as I understand, to put into contracts a penalty clause whereby the contractor is compelled, if there is any default in the actual execution of the works, to put that right. I agree, of course, that if a contractor goes bankrupt there is not much help for the local authority there, but it is nevertheless quite a common clause, as I think the noble Lord will agree. Surely the Ministry must have some protection to meet the case where the local authority seriously neglects its duty, and I think that the noble Lord himself will agree that if there had been serious neglect, with the result that the work was very unsatisfactory, it would not be right for the local authority to get off without any penalty.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: If I may interrupt the noble Viscount, surely Clause 1, subsection (4) (b), would meet that particular case of neglect, would it not? However, I will not press it.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I do not think the noble Lord made that point in his speech.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: No, I did not.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I have not considered the matter. It may be as the noble Lord said, but my instructions are, as I understand, that it does not. I do not think it is practicable for the Ministry to make sure in the hundreds of cases all up and down the country with which they will have to deal that the work is being satisfactorily

403
carried out, because it would mean a very large number of additional inspectors, the nature of the work being such that it can be properly examined only while in progress. But I can assure the noble Lord that it is the aim of the Ministry to deal with any difficulties or questions which may come before them with the fullest appreciation of their position and in the most sympathetic spirit. After all, it is the hope and intention of my right honourable friend to move forward with this question of rural water supplies, and it will surely be the most efficient way of doing that if a proper co-operative spirit develops between the local authorities and himself. I hope the noble Lord will he satisfied with what I have said.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

BRITISH HYDROCARBON OILS PRODUCTION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
AIR FORCE RESERVE (PILOTS AND OBSERVERS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PETROLEUM (PRODUCTION) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to vest in the Crown the property in petroleum and natural gas within Great Britain and to make provision with respect to the searching and boring for and getting of petroleum and natural gas, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

THE TWENTY-FOUR-HOUR SYSTEM.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lamington, who unfortunately is ill, I
404
beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether the British Broadcasting Corporation have started to test the twenty-four-hour system, what methods have they used, and whether they can state what results have been obtained. I am sure that this question is one which must interest the vast majority of the people, because, while in a way it is relatively unimportant, on the other hand it does affect a great deal of our lives, though it does not in any way change our habits. I understand that the British Broadcasting Corporation propose to commence their experiment for the testing of this twenty-four-hour system on April 22, when summer time comes in. As a strong supporter of the twenty-four-hour system, I welcome that as a good augury, because for a considerable number of years summer time was vehemently opposed by many people, including myself, whereas now that it has been in operation for some years I find that it is a great boon and a great improvement on the old non-summer time system. I hope, therefore, that this twenty-four-hour system, which will be inaugurated on April 22 next by the British Broadcasting Corporation, will be so successful that it will be adopted as a national time measure very shortly. I beg to put the Question to the Government.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord has lessened my task in answering this Question, for he has to a very large extent answered it himself. That is to say, he has reminded us that the British Broadcasting Corporation have already made an announcement—it was made on March 15—to the effect that they will commence this experiment on Sunday, April 22, the day when summer time commences. As your Lordships will recall, when the noble Lord, Lord Lamington, raised the question only a very short time ago, on March 7, I stated that they would use the twenty-four-hour system both externally and internally, both in the programmes printed in the various journals published by the Corporation and in their microphone announcements. I understand that the noble Lord wishes to know for what period the experiment is to last. At present it is undecided.
The method employed will be the four-figure method. That is to say, 2.5 a.m. will be printed as "02.05" and an

405
nounced over the microphone either as 2 hours 05 minutes or 2.05 hours. Similarly 2.5 p.m. will be printed as 14.05 and announced as either 14 hours 05 minutes or 14.05 hours. The noble Lord said he was strongly in favour of the twenty-four-hour system but I wonder whether, with that announcement, there will not be certain confusion existing in the countryside. For the time being, however, they will announce simultaneously both the twenty-four-hour system and the ordinary time as we know it. to-day, so that the public can have an opportunity of getting used to the new system. The Government propose, after the experiment has been given a thorough trial, to ask the Corporation for a report on the matter, with particular reference to the attitude that the public have taken towards the innovation. I trust that that is sufficient explanation to please both the noble Lord who has asked the Question to-day and the noble Lord, Lord Lamington, who asked it only a short time ago.
Limn PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I did not quite understand the noble Earl. May I ask him how you use this system internally?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I think that the explanation of using it internally is in relation to the staff of the British Broadcasting Corporation in their arrangements and notices on boards.

HOUSING STANDARDS IN GREATER LONDON.
LORD MOYNE LORD MOYNE had the following Notice on the Paper:—To ask His Majesty's Government whether they can give any figures for Greater London or any appropriate area, comprising a radius of about fifteen miles from Charing Cross to show what acreage of land is still available for building; what proportion of this acreage is zoned for a greater density of development than twelve to the acre; whether closer zoning by which alone houses can be provided at lowest rentals is limited in many districts to those areas scheduled for industrial purposes as being least desirable for residential development; whether any standard has been prescribed by the Minister of Health as to the number of flats or separate tenements which are to be considered the equivalent of a given
406
number of houses; whether regulations that building must not cover more than a quarter of the curtilage are ever relaxed and on what terms; whether the Minister possesses and will exercise powers to increase the number of houses and tenements to be allowed per acre where existing town-planning regulations are shown by the promoters of a building scheme to interfere with the provision of working-class accommodation; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have rather a long Question on the Paper, and its object is to obtain information upon the effect of town-planning, as applied especially to Greater London, on the provision of working-class accommodation at low rents. I am afraid the noble Viscount may find it a little difficult to answer some of my questions, which have been purposely framed in rather loose terms, because I do not know quite what kind of information may be in his possession. There is very general agreement, as expressed in this House yesterday, that it is of vital importance that the efforts of the Government to relieve overcrowding in central areas should be facilitated by drawing people out to the suburbs into new and low-rented accommodation. In the suburbs there is a great field for private enterprise, and it is very urgent that restrictions should be avoided which would have as their effect the increase of rents to be paid for working-class accommodation.
I have made what inquiries I could, and I must say the position seems very disquieting owing to the lack of coordination between these innumerable authorities. I have only been able to make researches in the outer Metropolitan area, and nothing that I say applies to the London County Council area. Their regulations are entirely different. They allow flats, and I have no comment to make on their practice, but it does appear to me that the present administration of town-planning often proves an effective obstacle against the provision of the cheapest accommodation for the working classes. The town-planning authorities often seem to be entangled in their own regulations, and if my generalisations seem perhaps in some cases unduly critical, I want at once to say that I am quite aware that some town-planning authorities go all out to help, and are

407
trying to find a way through the regulations to enable up-to-date and cheap accommodation to be put up.
The problem has become acute since the Act of 1932, which provided, for the first time, town-planning for built-up areas, and there is now, I am informed, only an infinitesimal portion of land in the outer ring of London zoned for over twelve houses to the acre. This is not the fault of the Ministry of Health model clauses, because they say that the authorities should not rigidly adhere to a maximum of twelve where conditions justify a higher figure; in fully or partly-developed areas a higher density than twelve will frequently be necessary. All the same, twelve to the acre is, in most cases, a maximum, and the only chance of closer development is in land excluded altogether from the zone as dedicated to industrial purposes, and there, if the builder can convince the local authority of the wisdom of his scheme, he may be allowed to build houses at a closer interval. The result of that is that working-class accommodation is too often being driven into the most undesirable places. If you drive through Northern London you see lots of places along the river valleys and so forth where they are bound to put up working-class accommodation because they are not considered fit for anything else. They have been zoned for industrial purposes, and these are the only places where people who want to build close have the slightest chance of being allowed to carry out their schemes, unless they are able to get relaxation in the zone provisions. I think it is very undesirable that the working classes should be limited to these lowlying sites. The cost of building is also increased owing to awkward lay-out and to the very costly foundations which are often involved.
I shall no doubt be told that the Ministry of Health have power to vary these regulations, but appeals are, of course, a very expensive method, and builders tell one that they have a great dislike of fighting the town-planning authorities because they are completely in the power of the borough surveyors and town clerks and people who carry out these regulations. One builder who works in Northern London, Mr. Heath. tells me he has £60,000 worth of land tied up because he cannot get his scheme through. In Kingsbury he has had an
408
area tied up for seven years. First of all the local authority said it was to be a cemetery. Then, without any compensation, they threw the area back at him, and he began to work out plans. When he put in those plans they said: "No, you cannot do this; it has got to be an open space." Then he had the cost of an appeal to the Ministry of Health and won his appeal. He now has put in what he believes to be a very economical plan for flats, and that has been turned down. I think now the area has been merged with Hendon. So for seven years he has had a site, which was going to be covered with working-class accommodation, completely held up, and he will never he able to use it for this cheap type of development unless he is successful on the second appeal in defeating the obstruction of the local authority.
But appeals really do not altogether solve the problem, because the builder cannot appeal until he has bought his land, and, naturally, he does not want to buy his land until he is certain how he is to be allowed to develop it. He may negotiate with the owner for him to approach the local authority, but that is a very slow procedure and it is a great obstacle to satisfactory development. There is another point in connection with these appeals. Appeals to the Ministry of Health are only possible while these schemes remain provisional. Once they become final these powers will lapse. Then, if people want to get any relaxation of the zoning provisions, it can only be done by the local authority putting forward a new scheme or an amended scheme for the Minister s approval. That is very cumbersome and costly machinery and is even more effective in preventing any relaxation of zoning if and where that zoning is unreasonable.
I believe that the lack of suitable provision is often due to the narrow view taken by some local authorities as to the interests of their districts. From the point of view of rates they often admittedly want to avoid unprofitable development for low-rated accommodation. I have had several cases sent me by different builders to say that town clerks and others have publicly announced that this low-rated accommodation involves very heavy burdens on the other rate-

409
payers and that they are not going to have it in their districts if they can help it. And, of course, that attitude is very popular with local householders because they feel that it spoils the value of their property if there is any admixture of working-class accommodation. Building societies have sunk huge sums of money in this kind of property at high valuations and naturally they do not wish to see their security diminish in value. There are therefore many interests who are now combining to cause the well-to-do and the poor to live apart in separate territories, and I do not believe that that is a fair or indeed an economical arrangement.
Then there is the difficulty about flats. A builder in Harrow, Mr. Nash, writes to me:
"Flats are a more economical proposition than cottages, the saving being effected on the foundations, roofs, land and road charges. I work at the present time under four councils and each has a different interpretation of the Town Planning Act. I also have had great difficulty in getting plans approved for blocks of flats as up to the present the different councils consider one flat to equal one dwelling."
That does not apply everywhere, but still there is great diversity of opinion amongst these councils and the erection of flats is being held up. In no case that I can hear of do local authorities approve two units which cover about the same area to be erected in place of single houses. That is not the fault of the Ministry of Health. They have laid down no standard. They say it is a matter for local consideration. But at the same time local authorities say that they cannot settle this and that the Ministry of Health do not wish that flats should be erected on the generous basis that is claimed.
The position is really absurd. I was told of one area where the town-planning scheme allows twelve six-roomed houses per acre. Each of those six-roomed houses has one sanitary convenience and each six-roomed unit has a sub-tenant. Therefore there are two families sharing one lot of sanitary accommodation and twenty-four families with insufficient sanitary accommodation. Yet the builder, who has put forward a scheme for putting up two self-contained flats of the non-parlour type on the same area, one on top of the other, is not allowed to do so. They say that twenty-
410
our flats, although they cover no more space, must be looked upon as twenty four separate houses. They profess in that case that they have no power to make a relaxation, but even if they had it seems doubtful from their attitude whether they would be willing to use it.
Closer zoning obviously means a big economy in rent. It is difficult to assess the building factor, but, although large tenement buildings are costlier per unit than single houses, the double flat unit is definitely cheaper than two single cottages. There is a difference of opinion about the cost of roads and sewers under closer planning. Some experts say that it is cheaper under that heading when you build sparsely, but builders contradict that and say that the greater run of sewers, fences and paths per house with sparse planning increases the costs under those heads. I will take the same figure for both. I will take £600, which has been given me by two builders as being the figure per acre. I do not want to give too much arithmetic but this is very simple.
If you make an addition of £1,000 for land, then you have £1,600 per acre for these costs of land, roads and sewers. If you put on the land twelve houses to the acre and divide £1,600 by twelve you get £133 as the cost per tenement or house. if you put forty-five tenements on the land that means that £1,600 has to be divided by forty-five, and you get £35, showing a saving of practically £100. We were told in evidence before the Departmental Committee that, the cost of capital under the building societies' scheme was £6 2s. per cent. That includes interest and sinking fund for thirty years. It allows no profit to the builder, so I do not suppose that the speculative builder could possibly work at the price. Even with no profit to the speculative builder the difference between twelve and forty-five tenements weans an extra rent of 2s. 4d. per week on the non-parlour house.
Already there is an advantage in favour of local authorities building with public money. The difference between their cheap money and long-term repayment and the dearer money and shorter-term repayment of the building societies is 2s. a week in the rent. How on earth can private enterprise be expected to provide houses at a rent below 10s. a week if they start with this unnecessary handicap

411
of at least 5s. a week if builder's profits are to be allowed? I have a lot of evidence that builders are being deterred at the present time. I have a letter from Messrs. Costain, who are reputed to be among the biggest builders, and they say:
"It is our view that town-planning restrictions in areas where the poorer classes obtain, has limited the activities of private enterprise…. Frankly, areas of this type have been severely left alone by us and our business confined to building for occupier-owners only, so that it can be generally inferred that building of houses of the type evidently required has been left almost entirely to the local authorities concerned who willingly vary restrictions to their own requirements."
I have other evidence of the same kind to show that local authorities compel builders to adopt a more costly standard than they apply to themselves. Messrs. John Laing, another well-known firm of builders, report that in most areas they have to put in separate drains for each house whereas local authorities have often put six houses on one drain. Surely it is unreasonable that these varying standards, increasing the cost as against private enterprise, should be allowed to continue.
Mr. Costain continues:
"Again, the limitation of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act in regard to curtilage, in our view, totally rules out the possibility of private enterprise producing dwellings of the nature called for at a cost that will provide for rentals as laid down. Given proper scope by waiving such restrictions, it is felt that adequate provisions could be made on a much reduced scale."
These curtilage requirements lay it down that three-quarters of the total area occupied by each house must be unbuilt. This apparently applies to each plot separately. I was shown by another builder, who had almost completed two houses, notices he had just received to the effect that he had got to suspend work because the local authority had discovered that the plot did not fulfil the curtilage requirements. Owing apparently to the site tapering back, the back garden was smaller than was called for by a strip a foot wide. Surely these restrictions are absolutely unreasonable, and I should like to know how far there is any power of varying these curtilage regulations. I am informed that the combined effect of town-planning and curtilage regulations effectually prevents the erection of small houses
412
in rows. Human wants are very varied in houses. A lot of us have always lived in rows and done without gardens, and if some people want to do that, why should we not let them? Are we not losing our sense of proportion in compelling everyone, whither they can afford it or not, to pay for the luxury of a private open space when they may prefer to save the money and devote it to greater necessities of life such as food? Then, again, some families only need two bedrooms. Why should these town-planning restrictions make it impossible for the builders to provide these absolutely reasonable requirements?
I think the lack of adequately-zoned land for these small dwellings is shown by the general agreement among builders that where land is at the higher zoning its price is always higher. Surely the fact that there are these inflated prices for high-zoned land shows there is a very great shortage of that type of property on the market. An automatic cure would be to give the Ministry of Health or some authority—perhaps it should be the Greater London Zoning Committee—powers to break through these zoning regulations where it is shown to be in the interest of working-class accommodation and these powers would, I think, break the "corner" in this type of land and reduce prices. It would be perfectly reasonable that higher zoning should be allowed, and therefore the "corner" in that type of land would be destroyed when some authority is satisfied that the benefit will go to working-class occupiers.
I apologise to the noble Viscount for having asked him so many questions. My main points are that at present it does appear to me that restrictions are not consistent with the provision of the cheapest houses and with what the working classes need. Was the maximum of twelve fixed in view of the necessities of the working classes or was it only for the people who are well-to-do and do not mind very much what they pay? Also, what is the prospect of some action to cut red tape and obstruction on the part of local authorities, and what provision will still exist when town-planning schemes, a couple of years from now, become final? Are we then to be throttled with absolutely rigid regulations from which there will be no escape? The trouble, I am sure, round London is in the multiplicity of authorities who take a narrow view

413
of what they consider to be local advantage, and at present there seems to be no provision for imposing a wide view on those parochial authorities. If, as I believe, a conflict exists between local desire to keep areas sparsely built and the public need for facilities for housing the very poor at the lowest rents, will the Ministry of Health take powers to step in and ensure that no district wriggles out of its responsibility by passing on this unpopular baby to its neighbours, but that each accepts its share of providing the public need for housing the working classes? I beg to move for Papers.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I should like to support the plea of the noble Lord for rather more elasticity in the town-planning regulations. I think there is a very great deal of force in the case which he has made for greater density than twelve houses to the acre in some of these areas. My noble friend, I think, was speaking very largely of the outer Metropolitan area. That, I think, is an area which is covered, as far as town planning is concerned, by the Greater London Regional Town Planning Committee, but that Committee, I believe, has no executive powers. There are in that area, I understand, 150 authorities each of which has town-planning powers, and what the noble Lord said is perfectly true. Not only do they administer their powers in different ways, but there is very little coordination between them. At the end of his remarks my noble friend suggested that there ought to be means of compelling each of these authorities to take its share of what might be the unpopular zoning of working-class dwellings and industries. I agree with that. I agree that there is a tendency on the part of local authorities to seek to avoid this burden, but I am inclined to suggest that proper town planning would take a wider view. Instead of forcing each of these 150 local authorities to take its share, it would be better to have one large authority—let it be this Greater London Regional Town Planning Committee—to take a wide view of the zoning area on a big scale. It seems to me that can be accomplished by giving that Committee executive powers to over ride these individual, small, local authorities who are inclined to be obstructive.
414
With regard to the question of density, I share the view of my noble friend that twelve to the acre is too low. Of course we have got to bear in mind, and start from the standpoint, that these regulations are directed primarily towards the prevention of new slums. I think it behoves primarily those of us who sit on these Benches, and who are supporters of private enterprise, to remember that the slums are a product of private enterprise, and we have to realise that private enterprise, if left uncontrolled, might produce more slums in the future. Therefore we must not cavil too much at regulations directed to the control of private enterprise. I remain quite unrepentant in my conviction that private enterprise will always be the dominant factor in making the wheels of life go round, but it must be within its proper sphere and subject to proper control. In this matter of town planning we are really still rather groping for the proper way of exercising control without going, as we may be in danger of doing, too far in the other direction. I should like to ask the noble Viscount who will answer for the Government whether that would not be a possibility.
On the subject of density, I quite agree with my noble friend that flats could very well be at a much greater density than twelve to the acre. My noble friend Lord Dudley yesterday took me to task for saying that I regarded flats as a necessary evil. I am quite prepared to stand by what I said. Yesterday I said that five-storey flats were necessary evils, ten-storey flats an abomination. I think that is a perfectly exact description. Five-storey flats may suit some people very well—people who do not require gardens, people who are content with a large communal open space. I see no reason why proper town planning should not provide for five-storey flats. They must be provided with proper open spaces and with proper regulations. I would like to support my noble friend's plea that town planning should be reasonably elastic on these points, and above all that burdens should be equitably distributed. My noble friend referred to taking people out into the suburbs, and said that his Question was directed to making it more easy to do that. I do not much care about the expression "taking people out into the suburbs." I should prefer to

415
get the people out into new towns. Let industry go out with the houses. But even so, even if you are planning a new town on perfectly undeveloped land, there is no reason why you should not have flats, if that will add to the economic development, and provide people with houses at low rents, which is the object we are really aiming at.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Moyne has asked a sort of omnibus Question, which really embraces six rather different questions, so I hope he will excuse me if my answers are somewhat short; there is a good deal of ground to be covered. In answer to the first Question, there is no precise record what area of land is available for building in Greater London, but it was estimated a year ago that over 200,000 acres of vacant land were suitable for building within a radius of about fifteen miles from Charing Cross. I cannot, of course, say how many of the owners of this land would be willing to sell for building. With regard to the second Question, in the planning proposals which have come before the Ministers, which do not cover the whole of this area, only a small proportion of the land is zoned at more than twelve to the acre. I think that in the schemes that have been submitted covering a large proportion of the undeveloped land within that radius of Charing Cross, approximately 7,200 acres, have been zoned at more than twelve to the acre.
It must be remembered that these proposals refer chiefly to the areas of open land not hitherto developed. Hitherto it has been considered that the average density of working-class houses newly erected on open land should not usually exceed twelve to the acre. The proportion of land zoned at not less than that density is from 40 to 50 per cent. Naturally, it varies greatly from district to district according to the local conditions; in some instances all the land which is zoned for density is at twelve to the acre or more. The Minister of Health watches proposals to see that a fair proportion of laud is so zoned, in order that plenty of land shall be available for working-class houses. It has to be remembered that these proposals have hitherto related for the most part to open land not yet developed. In the density of twelve to the acre, as in other densities, the area of land occupied by
416
roads is included. There have been very few representations to the Minister on planning proposals for a higher density than twelve to the acre.
With regard to the third Question, the records of the Ministry do not show that densities of more than twelve to the acre, or densities of twelve to the acre, have been limited to areas scheduled for industrial purposes as being least desirable for residential development.
LORD MOYNE: May I be quite clear about that? I suppose that that statement does not contest the point that it is only the industrial areas which are excluded from the zone, and therefore where there is any chance of special conditions?
VISCOUNT GAGE: I think I am right in saying that if residential development is permitted in industrial zones it must be covered by some density regulation.
LORD MOYNE: Ad hoc?
VISCOUNT GAGE: I think that any proposal for building in an area covered by town planning must be scheduled in some way, and covered by a density schedule. Therefore my information is that these particular regions are really treated exactly like other regions.
On the fourth Question, that of flats, investigation has been made to see whether some definite ratio can be fixed to determine the number of flats or separate tenements which may be erected in place of each separate house, but this has not been practicable because so much depends on the particular local circumstances. In several instances the Minister on appeal has permitted two or more flats for each house. Where provision should be made for large flats or tenements the best course is expressly to provide for them in planning proposals. The Minister is also prepared to consider express provision for maisonettes with a higher density of dwellings per acre than for single family houses. On that matter of the flats, any proposal to erect a large block of flats or tenements would be considered on its merits. In future proposals for the re-planning of already developed areas of towns, it is to be expected that provision will frequently be included for allowing large blocks of flats or tenements.
With regard to the fifth Question, the provision that not more than a quarter

417
of the curtilage shall be built upon is contemplated only for houses of two or more storeys, newly erected on open land at all average density of twelve to the acre or less. The Minister is always prepared to consider proposals for a higher proportion of building. Provision is also made for special local conditions. With regard to the sixth Question, when a final planning scheme has already been made and is operative, its provisions are binding until amended, and I must point out that the Minister has power, even after the scheme has become operative, to make amendments. That is to say that amendments have to come before Parliament and be confirmed. Where a resolution has been passed, but a final scheme is not yet operative, that is, in the interim period, there is an appeal to the Minister for refusal to permit proposed developments. In such cases, and on planning proposals, the Minister always considers any representations made to him by interested parties for permission to build at higher densities. He also has to consider representations made against such permission.
I think there may be some misapprehension about this definition of twelve houses to the acre, or whatever the average density may be. It does not mean that each acre must have twelve houses on it, much less that each house must have its twelfth of an acre. If the unit of development is, say, ten acres, what it means is that not more than 120 houses are to be erected on those ten acres. It is for the developer to decide how those houses are to be arranged, provided that he complies with the other requirements, such as space about buildings. I think uniform development is more often than not to be deprecated. It would often be far better to build more closely, leaving larger open areas of land for small playgrounds, allotments, and so forth. I would like to point out that according to the Ministry's calculations it by no means follows that a limit of twelve to the acre really adds to the cost. On the contrary, unless the value of the land is high, development may be cheaper, especially where the area of land is sufficient for good lay-out of the houses and advantage can be taken of the valuable concessions in costs of road construction which are then permitted. I have a note here to the effect that where land can be obtained at below £300 per acre, and
418
advantage is taken of the reduction which may be effected in street costs, development at twelve to the acre should certainly be not more costly than at higher densities. Where the contours of the land present difficulties twelve to the acre may be more economical even at a substantially higher figure of price of land.
I have attempted to answer the specific Questions put to me. On the general question I think your Lordships will agree that yesterday we spent a considerable time in discussing extensive and drastic methods of dealing with bad developments, and it would be really absurd for these same conditions to start again. It is obvious that the only way to prevent that kind of thing is to lay down certain standards and certain regulations. It may be argued, of course, that any standard or regulation is likely to add to the cost of building, and to some extent that may well be true, particularly in the first instance. It is a dilemma which no Government, I think, can hope to solve by rule-of-thumb methods. We can only lay down a certain standard. I recollect that only a short time ago we had a debate on the density proposals initiated by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and then I was able to show that it is not in the Ministry but in another place that the desire for that standard of twelve to the acre was insisted upon.
Obviously you cannot have too rigid rules, because the conditions of every county are far too various. Surely, the only thing we can do is to give the Minister fairly wide powers of discretion. I understand that Lord Moyne is not complaining of that idea, but he says that the machinery for the exercise of that discretion is too cumbersome. I am not by any means going to insist that this Government, or the Ministry, have nothing further to learn about town planning—I am sure that the information given to us by the noble Lord will be most useful—but I must point out that workable machinery does already exist whereby appeals for the relaxation of the zoning restrictions can be submitted to the Minister, and the Minister is able to release those restrictions before they have been confirmed by Parliament in a final scheme, and he is willing to do so if good cause is shown. Builders may find some difficulty in the procedure, but

419
I do not think those difficulties are insuperable.
The noble Lord mentioned a difficulty arising from the uncertainty of whether the zoning restrictions would be relaxed or not. I think that can be got over by making your contract of sale conditional upon permission having been got to have the land zoned at the higher level. In fact, I have a form here which includes such a provision. I cannot help recollecting that at the time when the Town Planning Bill was being introduced there was some apprehension lest the Government were going too far in giving the Minister power to compel local authorities, but perhaps there is growing up a spirit in favour of compelling local authorities rather generally. While, however, we have local authorities we must rely to some extent on their discretion.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh suggested that the only way of arbitrarily dealing with London was to entrust these things to the Regional Committee. My information is that of the 150 authorities which, he says, are comprised within that area, not one has asked that these general powers should be given to that Committee. Of course it is quite true that these executive powers can be given to the Committee if the authorities them selves desire it, or if the Minister insists, but it is quite obvious that even the most despotic Minister can hardly insist upon the uniting of all these authorities in London against their wish. We must work with the local authorities if we are going to have them at all, and we are waiting for some expression of desire from some local authorities as to their wish to be united. I do not think I have very much to add. I am quite aware of the very wide knowledge which the noble Lord has of this subject, and I may say that we shall carefully consider everything that the noble Lord has said.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for the very interesting information which be has afforded us. I need hardly assure him that I fully realise the necessity of avoiding the mistakes of the past, and the dangers of making any such relaxation of town planning as would allow of a repetition of the slum problem; but I am still unconvinced that the present machinery is adequate to allow quick reaction to new needs for working-class
420
facilities. The very fact that very few appeals are taken to the Ministry, when you consider the number of authorities involved, shows that those who are dealing with those authorities do not feel that it is a very profitable line for them to take to get up against the building authorities. I still feel that the Ministry ought to take every step to see that reasonable provision is made in advance of requirements for the securing of land in suitable areas.
I was very much attracted by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, that further responsibilities should be given to the Greater London Regional Town Planning Committee, and I was strengthened in that view by the information given by the noble Viscount, that so far not one single authority has asked to share its power. That seems to me to point to the fact that they are very jealous of their privileges and very anxious to see that their own districts are developed according to their own prejudices and not necessarily according to a wider public advantage. I think that there may well be a case for an ad hoc reconsideration by some such authority as the Great London Committee as to the adequacy of these provisions at the present time, so that the Ministry of Health might, if necessary, embody further over-riding powers in their Bill. After the gallant effort made by the noble Viscount to give me information on this largely unexplored field, I will certainly not be so unreasonable as to persist in my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, before the House adjourns, perhaps the Leader of the House may have something to say about business next week, in view of the fact that we have thought it right to put down Amendments to the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Bill and also to the North Atlantic Shipping Bill, not without hopes that perhaps one of them may be accepted, in which case perhaps that may make a little alteration in the business arrangements?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am

421
obliged to my noble friend for having put this question. What we are proposing is to suspend Standing Orders on Tuesday next so as to enable us to get the remaining stages of such Bills as have to become law before the House adjourns. Your Lordships will appreciate that if there were to be an Amendment—and I have no knowledge as to whether the noble Lord's enthusiasm for either of his two Amendments is well founded—obviously we should have to get the remaining stages the same day in order to get the Amendment considered in another place and the Royal Assent given on Wednesday. Accordingly I am proposing that on Tuesday we shall take the remaining stages of the Bills which we have been discussing to-day, and that we shall also take the remaining stages, that is to say Report and Third Reading, of the Shops Bill and of the Indian Pay (Temporary Abatements) Bill with which we dealt earlier in the week. I understand that my noble friend Lord Eltisley has a small Bill about extending the hours in which it is legal to get married, for which he asks a Second Reading on Tuesday next. Then, if that programme is agreeable to your Lordships, on Wednesday we will take all stages of the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, which
422
in this House is mainly a formality; and I think my noble friend Lord Rankeillour (who unfortunately had not appreciated that we were meeting earlier this afternoon and so was not able to move the Report stage of the Judiciary (Safeguarding) Bill) is proposing to take the Report stage of that Bill on Wednesday. There will be a Royal Commission some time later in the afternoon in order to give the Royal Assent to such measures as have passed both Houses; and I am proposing then to move, as I indicated on Thursday last, that the House do adjourn for a fortnight.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. Did I understand him to mean that on Wednesday we should meet at the usual time?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes, my Lords, I think so, because in another place they are not adjourning until Thursday of next week and therefore they will be meeting at the usual time on Wednesday, so that there would be no useful purpose served by your Lordships meeting earlier; we should have to wait until they were ready.
House adjourned at five minutes before six o'clock.