Lords Sitting of 15 July 1935

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
SOUTH SHIELDS CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BECKENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ASCOT DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CUDDINGTON JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EAST SURREY WATER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HARPENDEN WATER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (RAINHAM WATER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (SOUTH OX FORDSHIRE WATER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (MONKS AND PRINCES RISBOROUGH WATER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).

MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIMITATION OF LIABILITY CONVENTION) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to the liability of shipowners and others, and to move that it be now read a. first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

LAW REFORM (MARRIED WOMEN AND TORT-FEASORS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered and agreed to.

HOUSING BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 3:
Offences in relation to overcrowding.
(2) The occupier of a dwelling-house which is occupied on the appointed day shall not be guilty of an offence under this section in respect, of the overcrowding thereof so long as all the persons sleeping in the house are persons who were living there on the
330
appointed day and thereafter continuously live there, or children born after that day of any of those persons, unless—

(a) suitable alternative accommodation is offered to the occupier after the appointed day and he fails to accept it; or

(b) suitable alternative accommodation is so offered to some person living in the house who is not a member of the occupier's family and whose removal is reasonably practicable in all the circumstances, and the occupier fails to require his removal.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to insert in subsection (2):
"Provided that if before the appointed day the medical officer of health of a local authority certifies in reference to a dwelling-house the number of persons which in his opinion is the permitted number of persons as defined in the First Schedule to this Act and a copy of his certificate is served upon the occupier of the dwelling-house personally or by post, this section shall have effect in respect of such house as if the date upon which such certificate is so served were substituted for the appointed day."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to make an improvement in the administrative machinery. The proposed arrangement would correspond to the arrangement by which decontrol took place under the Rent Restrictions Act. Your Lordships will remember that when the Rent Restrictions Act was in full force, when there was a. change of tenancy, so, automatically, decontrol came about. The object of this Amendment is to simplify the coming into force of the new Bill. Your Lordships know that there is to be an "appointed day," and it seems to the local authorities—this Amendment is supported by the Association of Municipal Corporations and the London County Council, and I think it commends itself to every local authority which has to administer the Act—that it would make this provision in simple language. If before the appointed day—and it will not be convenient to have the appointed day at once—a house becomes decrowded, then it shall be automatically illegal to overcrowd it again beyond the standard in. the Bill. That should relieve the local authority of having to decrowd the same property more than once. I offer it to your Lordships as a simple improvement in administration, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 16, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the objection to this Amendment is that it proposes, first, that the provisions of the Bill shall come into force before the appointed day; and secondly, apparently, that the medical officer of health shall have power to give his own official ruling as to whether there is overcrowding or not. Instead of being controlled by the local authorities, houses will be controlled by the medical officer of health. An Amendment of this kind has, I venture to think, nothing to recommend it. It would only be productive of very great confusion and different treatment in different districts. I can see nothing that simplifies the Bill in this Amendment.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, I rather hope that my noble friend will not press this Amendment. He recommended it as an improvement in the administrative machinery, but I think there is some force, though from a slightly different angle from that to which he addressed himself, in what fell from the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame. Although the medical officer of health is the servant of the local authority and must be expected to act with their sanction and approval, there would be likely to be some inconvenience in having the operation of the appointed day made in fact to depend upon the certificate of the medical officer given in respect of each individual house. I am advised that it would be likely to cause considerable difficulty by way of the somewhat elaborate machinery that it would necessarily involve, and also the difficult questions of administration that it would be likely to raise. For example, I can well suppose that it would be inconvenient for people who were moving into one district out of another to be placed under the necessity—perhaps the difficult necessity—of ascertaining whether the particular house was subject to this overcrowding standard or not. Of course it must be remembered that in this matter we are imposing penalties. Therefore, without underrating the value of what the noble Lord said upon the other side, there is a great deal to be said for making the provision as plain and as clear as possible. I am satisfied that that will be done rather by having a single appointed day for the whole place than by trying to do it by way of individual houses.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Viscount will not accept this Amendment. One objection seems to me that it would be retrospective, which is also rather objectionable. Another objection, as the noble Viscount said, is that there would be great difficulties in this matter. To put these words in would make it very complicated, and I cannot see any necessity for the Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURURLEIGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for what he has said, and in deference to the view that he takes I will not press the Amendment. I am not entirely convinced that it would not be a simplification, but in view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12:
Definitions for purposes of provisions relating to overcrowding.
12. In this section and in the foregoing, provisions of this Part of this Act, and in the First Schedule to this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively:—
"Suitable alternative accommodation" means, in relation to the occupier of a dwelling-house, a dwelling-house in which the occupier and his family can live without causing it to be overcrowded, being a house which the local authority certify to be suitable to the needs of the occupier and his family as respects security of tenure and proximity to place of work and to be suitable in relation to his means.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to substitute the following as the definition of "suitable alternative accommodation."
"'Suitable alternative accommodation' means, in relation to the occupier of a dwelling-house, a dwelling-house as to which the following conditions are satisfied, that is to say—

(a) the house must be a house in which the occupier and his family can live without causing it to be overcrowded;

(b)the local authority roust certify the house to be suitable to the needs of the occupier and his family as respects security of tenure and proximity to place of work and to be suitable in relation to his means; and

(c) if the house belongs to the local authority, they must certify it to be suitable to the needs of the occupier and his family as respects extent of accommodation having regard to the standard specified in paragraph (ii) of Section thirty-seven of the Act of 1930."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on the Committee stage some Amendments were suggested by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester to the effect that it was not clear under what section of the Bill rehousing by local authorities had to be conducted on the standard of Section 37 of the 1930 Act. We are now putting in the Bill, in a more simple form, a provision to make that quite clear, and in doing so we have redrafted the definition without making any other difference except that particular one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, leave out lines 1 to 9 and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, owing to the change in the Bill which has been made by the Government's Amendment which has been accepted, the words "and otherwise," of which I gave notice to move in at the end of the definition of "suitable alternative accommodation" in the Bill, must be inserted in a different place, and I suggest that the appropriate place will be after the word "means" at the end of paragraph (b) of the Amendment. My object is to widen the discretion of the local authority in dealing with the question of alternative accommodation. The provision as it stands definitely limits the local authority in considering the suitability of alternative accommodation to three definite points. It gives no discretion to the local authority, and I am proposing to add these words in order to give that wider discretion. The paragraph lays it down quite clearly that the local authority must certify the house to be suitable as regards these points—namely, no overcrowding; security of tenure; proximity to place of work, and suitability in relation to means. In the absence of any wider discretion what I fear is that the local authority will consider themselves bound legally not to look beyond those considerations in considering whether the proposed alternative accommodation is suitable.
I do not think it would matter very much if all the suitable accommodation was going to be provided by local authorities because I think we might rely upon their using their discretion in enforcing the strict reading of the law, but. I apprehend that cases will arise in
334
which a private landlord may offer to some tenants accommodation which he holds to be suitable, and if it is suitable in regard to those three points, I think the local authority will deem themselves forced to certify it as suitable, however unsuitable in other ways. That it may be unsuitable in other ways I can show your Lordships. A family may be living in a house which we will call house A. It has three rooms of 210, 100 and 68 square feet, or a total of 378 square feet. It is large enough for a total of four units under the Bill. We will suppose it, has a family of five units living in it and it is therefore overcrowded to the extent of one adult. Now this private landlord, in my hypothesis, may offer as alternative accommodation, a house of three rooms of 112, 112 and 72 square feet or a total of 296 square feet which, under the Bill, would certainly legally hold five people, but would only give 59 square feet per head over all as against 75 square feet per head in house A, and as far as the living room is concerned, would only give 22 square feet per head as against 42 square feet per head in the accommodation in which the family was overcrowded. The local authority would have to certify it as suitable.
Then again there are numerous other conditions which might be inferior in the alternative house as compared with the original house. It may be that a family with children was living in comparatively airy rooms on the first floor, and they may be offered alternative accommodation in the basement, in a noisy street, where the children are in danger if they run straight out into traffic. Numerous other conditions exist which might render the alternative accommodation less suitable than the accommodation which the family is being forced to leave. In those circumstances, I feel that it is necessary to widen the discretion of the local authority, and the words which I have suggested are designed to meet that end.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, strictly speaking, there is some difficulty in moving the Amendment in the form which the noble Lord proposes, because we have already carried the words of the Government. Amendment down to the end of paragraph (c) and this Amendment is intended to affect the limited words in

335
paragraph (b). I think the only way to do it would be to treat the Government Amendment as having been carried down to paragraph (b).
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for his suggestion.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: Before you decide to put the question in that way I may say that I am advised that if these words are inserted, they ought to come in after the word "work" in line 4 of paragraph (b).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Strictly it is irregular, but I think perhaps it would be for the general convenience if we treated the Government Amendment as carried down to the words "place of work" in line 4 of paragraph (b), and the noble Lord can then move to add his Amendment after those words.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Before the House accepts the Amendment I wish to put another point of view to that which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has put. If the addition of these words has any serious meaning, which I rather doubt, it would obviously very much complicate ever finding suitable accommodation for a tenant at all, because it would so widen the definition of "suitable alternative accommodation" that it might be impossible to find it.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I rather agree with the noble Viscount who has just spoken that the words do not add a great deal to the clause as it stands, and I do not think that they would really, on the other hand, impose any very much greater obligation on the local authority, but I can imagine cases which might arise, such as the noble Lord quoted, in which the local authority, conceiving somewhat narrowly of its duty, might think itself to be restricted. Therefore I shall be prepared to accept this Amendment in the place in which it has been suggested it should be moved, although I confess I do not think it will either do quite the good which the noble Lord anticipates, nor quite the harm which the noble Viscount behind me anticipates.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I understand that the Government will accept these words, and I therefore move to insert them in the place suggested.
Amendment moved—
In paragraph (b) of the Government's Amendment, line 4, after ("work") insert ("and otherwise").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Application of certain provisions of the Acts of 1925 and of 1930 for purposes of redevelopment provisions.
(2) The provisions of subsections (3), (4) and (5) of Section eleven of the Act of 1930 (which relate to the validity and date of operation of certain orders) shall have effect in relation to the Minister's approval of a redevelopment plan or a new plan and in relation to a compulsory purchase order made under the last foregoing section, as if references thereto had been substituted in the said subsections for references to the orders therein mentioned, and as if for references therein to the Act of 1930 and to confirmation of the orders therein mentioned there had been substituted references to this Part of this Act and to the Minister's approval of a redevelopment plan and of a new plan and to confirmation by him of a compulsory purchase order made under the last foregoing section.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved to insert at the beginning of the clause:
"(1) The provisions of Section forty-one of the Act of 1925 (which relates to costs incurred in connection with certain orders) shall have effect in relation to a redevelopment plan and to a new plan and to the Minister's approval of any such plan and in relation to a compulsory purchase order made under the last foregoing section, as they have effect in relation to the orders mentioned in the said section."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Section 41 of the Act of 1925 enables the Minister to award costs to objectors who have appeared at public local inquiries in connection with clearance orders, etc., and whose objections have later been sustained by the decision of the Minister on the order. It is obviously desirable that the Minister shall have a similar power to award costs in the case of a person who successfully objects against a local authority's proposals in regard to a redevelopment plan and this Amendment gives the Minister that power.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 7, at the beginning insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: These are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 14, line 26, after ("mentioned") insert ("and to publication of notice thereof under that Act")
line 30, at end insert ("and to publication of notice thereof under this Act")
—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 24:
Central Housing Advisory Committee.
24.—(1) The Minister shall appoint a committee, to be called the Central Housing Advisory Committee, for the purpose of—
VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX had given Notice of an Amendment to insert at the end of subsection (1):
"(d) considering the operation of the enactments relating to housing and making to the Minister such representations with respect to matters of general concern arising in connection with the execution of those enactments as the Committee think desirable."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, before moving the next Amendment on the Paper I want, with your Lordships' permission, to make a short statement on a matter that arose while your Lordships' House was in Committee ten days ago on this Bill, and in regard to which it seems appropriate that something should be said, and said now. Your Lordships will remember that on that occasion the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, who, I see, is not in his place, but whom I told of my intention to make this observation, quoted a case that seemed to him to contain the elements of some misconduct in Bacup. The suggestion, not made by the noble Earl but that seemed to his informants to emerge from the facts, was that the local authority had used a clearance order to depress the market price of the property, and that at that depressed price it had been bought by some members of the Town Council for their own private advantage and gain. I undertook to ask my right honourable friend to look into the case, and I think it is only right, both to your Lordships' House and also to the Town Council, that the facts should be stated.
The objectors to the purchase make quite clear, I understand, their view that in this particular case there was no question of making the clearance order with a view to the subsequent purchase on
338
behalf of the Corporation of the property at a figure less than market value. No attempt was made to compel any person to sell under the threat of a, clearance order. So far as the purchasers were aware, the vendors were well satisfied with the transaction, and, so far as the purchasers are concerned, on the completion of the transaction they made it clear in a letter addressed to the town clerk that it was their intention to vest the property in the Corporation at a suitable and convenient time. My information is that the bank which advanced the money for the purchase required them to undertake not to make any private profit, and this undertaking was given. They have subsequently made a declaration that the properties acquired by them were bought in the interests of the town as a whole, with a view to central improvement and development, and are held by them at the disposal of the Corporation at the net cost for which they were acquired. I think that is all that it is on this point relevant for me to say, but I thought it just to say so much to remove what might have been a continuing unjust imputation.
The Amendment which I now move is put down to meet a promise given to the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, the Committee stage. The object is to extend the powers of the Central Housing Advisory Committee by specifically providing that they could on their own initiative consider questions in regard to housing matters and make representations thereon to the Minister.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 22, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Halifax.)
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for adding this subsection, and I am sure it will go far to strengthen the status and usefulness of the Housing Advisory Committee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26:
Definition of housing association.
26. For the purposes of the three next following sections of this Act the expression "housing association" means any society, body of trustees or company established for the purpose of, or amongst whose objects or powers are included those of, constructing, improving or managing, or facilitating or encouraging the construction or improve

339
ment of, houses for the working classes, being a society, company or body of trustees who do not trade for profit or whose constitution or rules prohibit the issue of any capital with interest or dividend exceeding the rate for the time being prescribed by the Treasury, whether with or without differentiation as between share and loan capital.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved to leave out" For the purposes of the three next following sections of this Act the expression 'housing association' means" and insert: "For references in the Act of 1925 and in the Act of 1930 to a public utility society there shall be substituted references to a 'housing association,' that is to say." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the first of a good many Amendments which have the effect of changing the title of public utility society throughout the Bill to that of housing association. Altogether I think they may be taken as drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 9, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("any") in line 11 and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Power of local authorities to make arrangements with housing associations]:
VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved to insert:
"(5) If a housing association represent to the Minister that they have submitted to the local authority proposals for arrangements under this section and that the local authority have unreasonably refused to make arrangements in accordance with the proposals, the Minister may require the authority to furnish him with a report as to the matter stating the reasons for their refusal."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment also is to meet a promise that was given to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I think the Amendment is self-explanatory, and I hope the noble Lord will think that it carries out the promise.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Halifax.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, as the noble Viscount has said, this is, if I may say so, the authorised version of an Amendment which he was good enough to say he would accept. There is only one point on which I should like an assurance. In my Amendment as originally drafted, provision was made for the
340
Minister to hold a local inquiry in the event of a local authority unreasonably refusing to make arrangements. This subsection permits the housing association to make representations and the Minister to require the authority to furnish him with a report on the matter stating the reasons for their refusal. I assume that the Minister automatically thereafter, if dissatisfied with the reasons furnished, would hold a local inquiry, or at all events is empowered to hold a local inquiry by some other part of the Bill. I would like an assurance on that point.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I cannot of course give an assurance that every Minister would automatically hold an inquiry, but there is nothing in this to prevent him holding an inquiry, and no doubt if he thought it necessary on the facts as emerging from the report, he certainly would.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am much obliged.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Amendments of the Act of 1925 as to public utility societies, etc.]:
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, of the next three Amendments the first two are consequential and the third is drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 27, line 18, leave out from the first ("association") to the end of the subsection
Page 27, line 32, leave out subsection (3)
Page 27, line 37, leave out ("the said Section ninety") and insert ("Section ninety of the Act of 1925").—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 31:
Exchequer contributions towards provision, of flats on sites of high value.
(2) A contribution under this section shall be the appropriate sum as defined in the Third Schedule to this Act, payable annually for a period of forty years, in respect of each flat which is with the approval of the Minister provided for the purposes of such accommodation as aforesaid in such a block as aforesaid.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY THE EARL OF DUDLEY moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
"Provided that the approval of the Minister be not given unless he is satisfied that each flat in a block exceeding three storeys in height is provided with a balcony."

341
The noble Earl said My Lords, you may remember that on the Committee stage of the Bill I moved this Amendment with a view to making the provision of balconies in flats statutory. I pointed out that medical evidence showed very strongly that the health of young children suffered considerably where the parents lived on the top storeys of these flats, because the mothers were unable to take them out into the air and the sunshine; and that the architectural and technical research for the provision of suitable balconies cost very little—only about £1 a balcony. The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill kindly told me that he would consult with the Minister on this subject, and your Lordships showed considerable sympathy with the principle of the Amendment.
Since then I have had an opportunity of consulting with the Minister, in company with the medical experts and technical and architectural experts, and I am satisfied that the Ministry recognise very sincerely the desirability of these balconies. There are, however, certain difficulties in making their provision statutory on account of the difficulty of defining the word "balcony"—I do not quite know why it should be more difficult to define than a bathroom, but apparently it is—and also because a certain amount of experimental work would be necessary, which I readily understand. The Minister, however, was willing to give an assurance—which I hope he has passed on to the noble Viscount—that he would embody his sense of the desirability of providing these balconies in a circular memorandum to local authorities. Recognising as I do the genuine sympathy of the Minister, that would meet our case perfectly well, and if the noble Viscount would give me that assurance that the Minister will embody it in some future circular to local authorities, that would meet the case.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 29, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Dudley.)
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I am glad to be able to assure my noble friend that the liaison between my right honourable friend and myself is so good that I find myself in complete agreement on my right honourable friend's behalf with the version that the noble Earl has given of his conversation with my right honourable friend. I am able formally to give the
342
assurance that the noble Earl desires, that my right honourable friend will see to it that this matter is mentioned in the circular he proposes to send to local authorities. I am sure he will share the gratification your Lordships will share with me that that seems to be the appropriate course to the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount and, with your Lordships' permission, I shall withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [Local authorities' contributions towards expenses of accommodation provided for the purposes of Part 1]:
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 7, leave out ("this section") and insert ("the foregoing section").—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Review of Exchequer contributions in case of new houses provided at future times]:
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 14, leave out ("alterations") and insert ("alteration").—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Temporary application of moneys in housing accounts]:
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, these two Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 43, line 19, leave out ("the general rate, or")
line 30, leave out ("the general rate, or").—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 61 [Application of certain provisions of Act of 1930 to demolition orders under this Part]:
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, the Amendments to this clause, are, I think, almost drafting. The purpose of all these Amendments is to apply the provisions of the principal Act of 1925 to the new procedure in this Bill for the demolition of obstructive buildings. These provisions did apply to the procedure of 1925, for which the new

343
procedure in this Bill is now being substituted.
Amendments moved—
Page 52, line 9, leave out ("in the Act of 1930").
Page 52, line 13, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("the Act of 1930").
Page 52, line 17, leave out ("that is to say") and insert ("and the references therein to Part I of the Act of 1925 or to Part II of the Act of 1930 included references to the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, that is to say,—

"(a) Section twenty-nine of the Act of 1925 (which relates to notices and applications to the court in relation to demolitions);

"(b) Section thirty-one of the Act of 1925 (which relates to remedies of owners for breach of covenant);").

Page 52, line 18, after ("twenty-two") insert ("of the Act of 1930").
Page 52, line 21, after ("thirty-nine") insert ("of the Act of 1930").
Page 52, line 24, after ("forty") insert ("of the Act of 1930").
Page 52, line 28, after ("fifty-nine") insert ("of the Act of 1930").—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 62:
Amendment as to buildings in clearance area on ground of bad arrangement, &c., and repeal of provision for reduction of compensation.
62.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in Part I of the Act of 1930, there shall be excluded from a clearance order made there-under any dwelling-houses or other buildings properly included in the clearance area only on the ground that by reason of their bad arrangement, or the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets, they are dangerous or injurious to the health of the inhabitants of the area, and, if a compulsory purchase order is confirmed with respect to the site of any such dwelling-house or other building as being land comprised in a clearance area, the compensation to be paid for the land including the buildings thereon shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions contained in Part II of the Third Schedule of the Act of 1930:
Provided that the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply to a building constructed or adapted as or for the purposes of a dwelling-house, or partly for those purposes and partly for other purposes, if any part (not being a part used for other purposes) is by reason of disrepair or sanitary defects unfit for human habitation.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, after the first "arrangement," to insert "in relation to other buildings." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this
344
Amendment has also emerged from the discussion which took place on the Committee stage. The discussion turned on whether or not some words in the clause in the Bill were intended to refer to internal bad arrangement or only to external bad arrangement. I have had some discussion with the Ministry on this subject since the last stage of the Bill, and I hope to find that the liaison between the noble Viscount and the Minister is also sufficient to secure that he will find himself able to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 36, after the first ("arrangement") insert ("in relation to other buildings'').—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I opposed this Amendment in Committee, and I propose to oppose it again. This is an attempt to whittle down the compensation given by the Minister of Health, which is really very long overdue, because great scandals were caused by not giving proper compensation hitherto. My noble friend proposes that this particular provision for the reduction of compensation shall only apply to buildings Which have bad arrangement in relation to other buildings. This would very much narrow the effect of the Government's proposal, and I suggest, therefore, that it is far better to leave the broad interpretation of what "bad arrangement" really means rather than to limit it as this particular Amendment does. But, having heard what my noble friend has said, I fear that the Government mean to give way.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I very much hope that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will be able to accept this Amendment in spite of the words that have fallen from the noble Viscount opposite, because they do make perfectly plain a meaning which was, I think, extremely obscure previously. If I recollect rightly, during the discussion in Committee there did not seem to be any two interpretations of these words "bad arrangement'' which were precisely the same. Therefore I very much hope the Government will accept this Amendment, and accept in in the form in which it has been put down by the noble Lord, which makes it perfectly

345
plain that "bad arrangement" refers to the relation in which a house stands to its immediate environment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the noble Lord is so well informed as to the intentions of the Government that my task is considerably lightened. In accepting this Amendment, I may perhaps say to the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, that I am informed it was always the intention of the Government that this exception should be limited only to the fact of bad external arrangement. We, in fact, never believed that the possibility envisaged by my noble friend Lord Balfour could arise, but as the House did not seem to be satisfied that this was so, with the usual reasonableness of the Ministry of Health we propose to accept this Amendment, which we believe makes quite clear our original intention.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 63:
Obligation of the Minister to state reasons for deciding that a building is unfit for human habitation.
63. Any person who objects to a clearance order on the ground that a building included therein, being a building in which he is interested, is not unfit for human habitation, or who objects on the like ground to a compulsory purchase order made under Part I of the Act of 1930, or under Part I of this Act, and who appears at the public local inquiry in support of his objection, shall, if the building is included in the order as confirmed as being unfit for human habitation, be entitled on making a request in writing to be furnished by the Minister with a statement in writing of his reasons for deciding that the building is so unfit.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved to insert at the beginning of the clause:
"(1) Where a person upon whom notice of a clearance order or of a compulsory purchase order made under Part I of the Act of 1930 or under Part I of this Act is required to be served has duly made objection thereto on the ground that a building included therein is not unfit for human habitation, and the objection has not been withdrawn, the Minister shall not cause the public local inquiry with respect thereto to be held earlier than the expiration of fourteen days after it has been shown to his satisfaction that the local authority have served upon the objector a notice in writing stating what facts they allege as their principal grounds for being satisfied that the building is so unfit."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment Which I move in fulfilment of an undertaking given to my noble friend Lord Mount Temple on the
346
Committee stage. It is not exactly in the form in which he moved it. Your Lordships will observe that the period of time mentioned in my Amendment is fourteen days, whereas he had moved it in relation to a period of twenty-eight days. We prefer fourteen days because, while we have no objection to the general principle of the right given by this Amendment, we do not wish to involve the operation of the Bill in any unnecessary procedure, and we think fourteen days are enough. Otherwise, I think it is substantially in fulfilment of the undertaking I gave to the noble Lord.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 27, at the beginning insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 64:
Payments in respect of well-maintained houses.
(2) A payment under this section shall be of an amount equal either—

(a) to the amount by which the aggregate expenditure which is shown to the satisfaction of the local authority to have been incurred in maintaining the house during the five years immediately before the date on which it is inspected exceeds an amount equal to one and one-quarter times the rateable value of the house; or

(b) to one and a half times, or, if at that date the house is occupied by an owner thereof and has been owned and occupied by him or by a member of his family continuously during the three years immediately before that date, three times the rateable value of the house;

whichever is the greater.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in subsection (2) (a), to leave out "it is inspected" and insert "the order was made". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a clause which has to do with compensation in respect of a well-maintained house. The clause provides in the subsection to which the Amendment refers that payment under this section shall be of an amount equal
"to the amount by which the aggregate expenditure which is shown to the satisfaction of the local authority to have been incurred in maintaining the house during the five years immediately before the date on which it is inspected exceeds an amount equal to one and one-quarter times the rateable value of the house."
The point is to ascertain what has been spent on repairs during time five years

347
preceding the date which has to be specified in the Bill.
This refers to property in a clearance area, and there are three possible dates which can be specified. You can take the date when the area was represented for clearance, or the date on which the order was made, or the date on which the final inspection took place by the inspector of the Ministry at the time of the inquiry. In the Bill as it stood when it came to your Lordships' House the phrase was "the date when the order was made." I had an Amendment to substitute the date on which the representation was made. The Government altered the Bill to read as it now stands "the date on which it is inspected." Local authorities are rather concerned about this, because it has been the practice of certain owners, not of the highest class, to rush through repairs, some of which I might call of a show kind to impress the inspector rather than materially to improve the house. Local authorities, generally speaking, are satisfied that from an administrative point of view they would rather have "the date on which the order was made" than "the date on which it was inspected." This Amendment is an attempt to restore the Bill to the state in which it was when it came to your Lordships' House, and I hope that the noble Viscount may feel able, on the representations of the local authorities concerned, to restore the words. It is a mere matter of administration and we think this is the best way to do it.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 15, leave out ("it is inspected") and insert ("the order was made").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, this Amendment, which is obviously intended to whittle down compensation, suggests that no payment shall be made between the difference of the market value of the house and the site value—an expression which is used here as including the value of the house in a clearance order. The latter is of course nil, so, presumably, my noble friend Lord Balfour means that compensation shall not exceed the value of the house sold by a willing seller to a willing purchaser in the open market. Under the Government Bill, there is not the least likelihood of this taking place—
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think the noble Viscount is talking about the next Amendment and not this one.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I apologise.
VISCOUNT GAGE: It is true that the Government are not unsympathetic to the point of view put forward by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. At the same time I think we must bear in mind that it would be very unfortunate if we unnecessarily discouraged the ordinary process of straightforward repair being carried out. Obviously, if one says that after a certain date no amounts expended on repairs of any sort are likely to be taken into consideration the result will be to discourage any repairs. But that is inevitable, and all we can do to meet the objections to the making of spurious repairs with the object of getting compensation is to select a date for the purposes of making the calculation for compensation which has the fewest disadvantages. I must confess that this is very largely a matter of experience, and if, as I understand is the case, the Association of Municipal Corporations support this Amendment, that would move the Government very largely in favour of it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That is the case.
VISCOUNT GAGE: Unless the House has any strong objections to it, I think the Government will accept the Amendment.
LORD JESSEL: Are we certain the Municipal Corporations are in favour of it?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Yes. On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to insert at the end of subsection (2):
"Provided that a payment under this section shall not in any case exceed the difference between the full value of the house (that is to say the amount which would have been payable as compensation if it had been purchased compulsorily but not as being unfit for human habitation) and the site value thereof (that is to say the amount which is payable as compensation by virtue of its being purchased compulsorily as being unfit for human habitation, or which would have been so payable if it had been so purchased), and

349
any question as to such value shall be determined, in default of agreement, as it it had been a question of disputed compensation arising on such a purchase."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad to have had the advantage of hearing some of the objections of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, to this Amendment before I had to move it. I think I can reassure him, because the object of this Amendment is merely to see that the owner does not get more than market value. I do not think the noble Viscount would wish the owner to get more than market value. All that this Amendment does is to provide that the maximum shall be the market value. I was apprehensive of the clause as it stood, as it provides that the owner may get the amount spent on repairs in the previous five years. Certain property with which I am familiar would certainly tend to provide this result, that if an owner got all he had spent on repairs in the previous five years he might easily get more, in the case of old and dilapidated property, than it was worth. I want to secure that the owner shall not get more than market value, and that is what he will get under this clause if the amount of repairs amounts to that sum.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 24, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for having mixed up my notes, although I think I share that failing with some members of the Front Bench on occasions. I should rather like to look into what my noble friend Lord Balfour has said and reserve my right to move an Amendment if I should think one necessary on the Third Reading.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I think this represents the undertaking that the Government gave in regard to this question aid we propose to accept the Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am much obliged.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Arrangements where acquisition of land in clearance area found to be unnecessary]:
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, the Amendment down in my name on this clause is drafting, and was put down to
350
meet the wishes of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 11, leave out ("agrees") and insert ("agree").—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68:
Amendment of Act of 1925, s. 6, as to by-laws.
68.—(1) The following amendments shall be made in Section six of the Act of 1925 (which relates to the making of by-laws respecting houses intended or used for occupation by the working classes).
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(7) By-laws under the said Section six may be made applicable to—

(a) any part of a building consisting of not more than two rooms and occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, whether or not the occupier of such dwelling is entitled to the use of any other part of the building in common with other persons; and

(b) any part of a building wholly or mainly divided into such separate dwellings as aforesaid used in common by the occupiers of any two or more of such dwellings;

notwithstanding that such building or part of a building may not be a house intended or used for occupation by the working classes."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, again, is a different version of an Amendment which was under discussion on Committee stage, and which the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill was kind enough to say would be taken into consideration, although without any undertaking that it was going to be accepted. The position is this. The subject with which the Amendment deals is one now rapidly becoming a source of trouble, particularly in certain parts in the West of London, for instance, Kensington, Paddington and Chelsea, where certain large houses are being subdivided and let off to a large number of different tenants. I know of one particular house of nineteen rooms in a very good residential area which has been divided up into nineteen separate flatlets, as they are called. The process is to put a bath into a corner of a room, sometimes a gas cooking stove, sometimes a washhand basin, but, as a rule, not a water closet, and then these separate rooms are let off as separate dwellings

351
to people of the class of young professional men and people who are definitely not within the definition of working classes.
It is quite certain that this kind of case is not covered by Section 94 of the Public Health Act, 1891. It was thought we might at one time have power to make by-laws under that Act, but it is now definitely agreed that we have not such power, nor can the local authority make by-laws under Section 6 of the 1925 Act, because the property is being let at rents of 25s. to 30s. a week for a single room and is not suitable for occupation by the working classes. But it does not alter the fact that during the last two or three years, when this class of conversion has been under our observation, we have seen a very swift and progressive deterioration of property, and I think I shall not be contradicted when I say that every authority—the Ministry and the local authorities in London, including the London County Council—is anxious to see this matter dealt with. In fact, I think I could almost say that undertakings were given in another place during the course of the debate that sufficient provision would be put into the Bill to enable this property to be dealt with. Such provision has not appeared up to the present time and this Amendment is an attempt to extend the Bill in order to allow local authorities to make suitable by-laws for this class of property which, it is agreed, will rapidly become a menace to public health. I hope the noble Viscount will be able to accept the Amendment, which is the only way I can suggest of carrying out the intention of the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 26, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I am interested in the object which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has in view in moving this Amendment. It may interest him to know that so far as Kensington is concerned, some three or four years ago a great many houses were being converted into flats. Fortunately a town-planning scheme was in operation in quite a large portion of Kensington and whenever these applications came forward I put into the consent under the Town Planning Act conditions which resulted in everything desired being obtained. I understand from what the noble Lord said
352
that he has in view chiefly three boroughs in London. Now that the whole of London is under town-planning control the object he has in view can be obtained by the town-planning authority, that is, by the London County Council. I have reason to believe that my successor in the office of Chairman of the Town Planning Committee is very much alive to this particular aspect of the problem and that as opportunity offers, whenever applications come along, the conditions which I drafted originally will be put into any future consent for the conversion of houses. I must say that I agree that something is necessary to prevent these small flats being created without specific conditions or control, but as far as London is concerned I think that with town-planning powers covering the whole county there is sufficient power to do what the noble Lord desires.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I can only speak again by the leave of your Lordships, but I should like to be permitted to deal with the point raised by the noble Marquess. We did make an attempt in Kensington to get these places dealt with under town-planning powers and I have here a letter from the Town Clerk to myself in which he says:
"Our second line of approach was to get the County Council to prevent the conversion into undesirable flatlets by imposing restrictions under their town-planning powers, but after they had imposed such restriction in a number of cases they wrote a letter on 13th July, 1934, of which I enclose a copy."
One paragraph in the letter from the Clerk of the London County Council to the Town Clerk of Kensington was as follows:
"The Council have been advised that the matters referred to in the conditions clearly relate and have reference to the contractual relation between the landlord and tenant as to the interior of domestic management of the room, and to sanitary and other matters which are subject to the inspection and control of the borough council and that the conditions should not be legally enforced by the Council under its town-planning schemes."
I did not trouble your Lordships with that when I was speaking because I did not know that the noble Marquess was going to raise this point, but I think it is quite conclusive.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to bear out what the noble

353
Lord has just said with reference to the present powers of borough councils. I do not think the noble Marquess is quite sufficiently informed, because it is the explicit desire of the London County Council to support this Amendment and I cannot imagine that they would wish to do that if they were satisfied that the borough councils with their present powers were able to control conditions in these particular dwellings. I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept this Amendment because it does seem to make more explicit provisions they have laid down themselves, carrying them a. little further in a logical direction. Clause 68 governs the by-laws under the Housing Act, 1925, which are to be applied to all categories of houses that may be inhabited by working-class families. Surely there is no logical reason why a house, because it is not occupied by a working-class family but is occupied by a small middle-class family, should be exempt from inspection and be outside the control of the local authorities.
I cannot think that the Government would not deem it desirable to carry their own reasoning to a legitimate conclusion, and I therefore hope that they will enable local authorities to deal with these small flats, or flatlets as they are sometimes referred to, in order to provide a minimum of hygienic and sanitary conditions whether they are in fact occupied by the working classes or by what are sometimes called the lower middle classes.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I was very glad to hear the speech from the noble Earl opposite because it shows there is no class feeling about this matter. As regards the suggestion that the London County Council has asked for this power I think it should be borne in mind that town-planning is an enormous task for the London County Council to undertake and with so many big problems to be settled I do not think the Council should be loaded up with details of this kind. This is a matter entirely for the local authorities. They are on the spot and know what is happening. These flatlets last only for a short time and, as my noble friend Lord Balfour has said, they soon deteriorate. The one object of this Bill is to prevent slums, but the creation of slums is what is going to happen unless there is some control. The places some
354
people of the better classes have to go into are painful, but they have to do it because they cannot get other accommodation. Something should be done to safeguard their health as well as the health of the working classes.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I can assure those noble Lords who have spoken from both sides of the House that my right honourable friend is quite alive to the reality of this problem, and I am quite sure also that he would entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Jessel that in this matter of housing there should be no class distinction of the kind that would lead us to say that the accommodation for one class is all-important but the accommodation for another class matters little if at all. Therefore on fundamental things I do not think there is much difference between us. The difficulty I feel in accepting the Amendment is of a rather different kind.
It is, as the noble Lord said, a problem that is one rather particularly concerning three or four boroughs in London. Although they are all conscious of the problem they are not at all in agreement, I am advised, as to the best method of dealing with it. I understand that discussions are proceeding between the boroughs involved and the London County Council. Therefore I suggest to your Lordships, as it has been suggested to me, that the proper course is to allow these discussions to continue between the boroughs and the London County Council and if, and when, they reach a conclusion it would then be quite possible if that conclusion entailed legislation for it to be incorporated in the London County Council (General Powers) Bill. It is really a London problem and I suggest to your Lordships that that is the most appropriate way of dealing with it, because apart from the difficulty of reaching a definition I think that it would at this stage of the Bill involve too much delay.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the noble Viscount has been so very kind in regard to various Amendments that I do not think it would be proper to put your Lordship to the trouble of a Division on this Amendment, particularly as the remedy he has suggested is not altogether an unreasonable one. I would only like to say to your Lordships that the boroughs in question

355
have been trying now for two or three years to find a remedy, and it is a little hard when the fruit which we were almost tasting to-day is wrested from our mouths. But in view of the noble Viscount's kindness I will withdraw my Amendment, only asking to be allowed to express the hope that the Minister will not lose sight of the matter and that if and when a proposal for a clause in the London County Council (General Powers) Bill comes forward it will receive the Ministry's approval and support.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70:
Power to purchase compulsorily land not immediately required.
70. Notwithstanding anything in subsection (3) of Section fifty-eight of the Act of 1925, a local authority may be authorised to purchase land compulsorily for the purposes of Part III of that Act although that land is not immediately required for those purposes, and accordingly the words "by agreement (but not otherwise)" in the said subsection shall cease to have effect.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice of an Amendment, at the beginning of the clause, to insert the words "For the period of five years from the date of the passing of this Act." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as I perceive my noble friend has an Amendment to meet to some extent the point which my Amendment raises, I think that his Amendment will act as some brake, and therefore I will hastily devour the crumb which falls from my rich friend's table.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved, after "those purposes," to insert "if it appears to the Minister that it is likely to be so required within five years." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to impose a movable time limit upon the operations of local authorities in this matter of purchase of land in advance of their requirements. I most gladly pass it as a full meal to my noble friend Viscount Bertie of Thame.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 38, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 41, at end insert ("and at the end of the said subsection the following proviso shall be inserted—
'Provided that a local authority shall not be authorised to purchase any land compulsorily for those purposes unless it appears to the Minister that it is likely to be required for those purposes within five years from the date on which he confirms the compulsory purchase order.'")—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 79 [Service of notices, &c.]:
VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved to insert:
"(2) Subsection (3) of Section nineteen of the Act of 1930 shall have effect, and shall be deemed always to have had effect, as if for the reference therein to service of a demolition order made thereunder there had been substituted a reference to service of a copy of the order."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is only a small point, but it is introduced to meet a point raised by the Association of Municipal Corporations. The Bill provides in the Sixth Schedule that a copy of a demolition order instead of the original order may be served on the persons concerned. That is, of course, necessary, since there is only one original order and there may be more than one person to be served. The Association pointed out that in some cases local authorities have usually served copies in the past, and unless this procedure is regularised by making this Amendment—as noble Lords will see—retrospective, it is feared that there might be litigation, which would be unnecessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 30, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 82:
Power of local authority to cleanse from vermin building to be demolished under clearance or demolition order.
82.—(1) If it appears to the local authority that a building, to which a clearance order or a demolition order under Section nineteen of the Act of 1930 applies, requires to be cleansed from vermin, the authority may, at any time after the order has become operative, serve notice in writing on the owner or owners of the building that the authority intend to cleanse it before it is demolished.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "after the order

357
has become operative" and insert "between the date on which the order is (in the case of a clearance order) confirmed or (in the case of a demolition order) made and the date on which it becomes operative in relation to the building." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this also is a small point. As the Bill stands, a local authority may not give an owner notice that they intend to cleanse the buildings until after an order in relation to that building has become operative. That may have the effect of placing both the owner and the local authority in a. position of some awkwardness, because an owner must have received a formal notice to demolish his house by a certain specified day before the local authority can send in another notice saying that he may not demolish it, and he may already have entered into a contract for its demolition before he receives a second notice. In those circumstances it seems desirable that the notice of the local authority that they propose to cleanse a building before demolition should be served on the owner before the order for demolition actually becomes operative.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 24, leave out ("after the order has become operative") and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved, after Clause 82, to insert the following new clause:
Limitation of time for offer to repair insanitary house.
"83.—(1) In Section nineteen of the Act of 1930 the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1):
'(1a) A person upon whom notice is served under the foregoing subsection shall, if he intends to submit an offer with respect to the carrying out of works, within fourteen days from the date of the service of the notice upon him, serve upon the authority notice in writing of his intention to make such an offer, and shall, within such reasonable period as the authority may allow, submit to them a list of the works which he offers to carry out.'
(2) The following proviso shall be inserted at the end of subsection (2) of Section twenty-two of the Act of 1930:
'Provided that the Judge shall not accept from an appellant upon whom such a notice as is mentioned in subsection (1) of Section nineteen of this Act was served an undertaking to carry out any works, unless the appellant complied with the
358
requirements of subsection (1a) of the said Section nineteen.'"
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a slight re-draft, but without altering the sense, of a clause that was moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I am advised that this is a better form of words for carrying out an intention that is common to us both. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 82, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 83 [Extension of power to make a closing order as to part of a building]:
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, to insert after subsection (1):
"(2) Subsection (i) of Section eighteen of the Act of 1925 shall have effect as if the words 'habitually used as a sleeping place' had been omitted."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another Amendment which concerns a matter of local administration. Clause 83 enables a basement to be closed which is not actually occupied, and that is a very useful amendment of the existing law. Clause 18(1), however, which is referred to, only refers to a room habitually used as a sleeping place. The object of this Amendment is to omit those words "habitually used as a sleeping place." This, again, is a matter which has been under considerable discussion during the various stages of the Bill. The history of the matter is that Kensington, through a London County Council General Powers Bill, obtained powers to close these basements in the way for which I am now seeking by this Amendment; but the passage of this Bill has taken away those powers. If this clause stands as it is at present in the Bill, we shall be deprived to a certain extent of powers which we already have and which, I think it is admitted, we have administered properly. The object of the Amendment is simple: it is to carry out an undertaking which was given in another place that this Kensington Clause shall be made a general one, and I hope the noble Viscount will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 38, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, in the view of those who have

359
advised me, this is an attempt to make a room used for any purpose to be scheduled "as so dangerous or injurious to health" as to be unfit for human habitation, if the surface of the floor is more than three feet below the surface of the part of the street adjoining or nearest to the room, and also if it is not "on an average at least seven feet in height from floor to ceiling." In the law as it stands at present, when such rooms are habitually used as sleeping places they are to be closed by the local authority. My noble friend really wants them to be closed even when they are not used for sleeping places and are perfectly good for ordinary accommodation even in the daytime. I do not think that that can really be his intention, but now that I have pointed it out to him, perhaps he will be ready to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I do not suppose that is precisely the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and I do not think that will be the effect of the Amendment, and of the clause if the Amendment were inserted. I would ask your Lordships to look at Clause 83. In the proposed substituted Section 20 these words appear:
"they shall make a closing order prohibiting the use of the part of the building or of the room, as the case may be, for any purpose other than a purpose approved by the local authority, but—

(a)the approval of the authority shall not be unreasonably withheld; and

(b)the authority shall determine the closing order on being satisfied that the part of the building or the room to which it relates has been rendered fit for human habitation."

Then, if your Lordships will turn to the top of page 65 of the Bill, you will see that it is proposed to insert a paragraph allowing the right of appeal to the County Court against an unreasonable restriction by the local authority on the use of any such premises.
In these circumstances I think your Lordships will agree with me that, provided that the right of appeal is maintained, as it is maintained in the latter half of the clause, there is nothing objectionable in giving the power to the local authority to be able to enforce such a standard as they, being reasonable—as I think most authorities are—may consider desirable; and also supposing that
360
there is reasonable protection for the subject by appeal to the County Courts.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 86 [Exclusion on certain appeals of questions not raised on consideration by local authority]
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: This Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 86.—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.—
Clause 88:
Amendments as to allowances in respect of demolitions, &c.
(2) The following subsection shall be inserted at the end of the said Section forty one—
" (2) Where as a result of action taken by a local authority under Part I of this Act the population of the locality is materially decreased, they may pay to any person carrying on a retail shop in the locality such reasonable allowance as they think fit towards any loss which in their opinion he will thereby sustain, but in estimating any such loss they shall have regard to the probaable future development of the locality."
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in subsection (2), before the second "locality," to insert "immediate." The noble Lord said: This is an attempt to limit the operation of this clause, which again was the subject of some discussion in the Committee stage. This is the clause which gives permission to the local authorities:
"Where, as a result of action taken by a local authority under Part I of this Act"—
that is clearance—
"the population of the locality is materially decreased, they may pay to any person carrying on a retail shop in the locality such reasonable allowance as they think fit towards any loss which in their opinion he will thereby sustain."
I think on the Committee stage all your Lordships felt that this was a very wide power, and we felt that if seine limiting words could be found, it would be desirable. Obvious analogies spring to mind which may be very dangerous and very wide. I cannot say that I think my contribution is a very important one here, but I am trying to limit the word "locality," and I think the word "immediate" may have some limiting effect.
My object is to limit the area of this compensation, which I consider is too dangerously wide.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 28, after ("the") insert ("immediate").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I am in considerable sympathy with the nobly Lord in his desire to limit this clause, so far as may reasonably be done, and I have myself an Amendment, the next on the Paper, which is designed to that end. I venture to think, though one must always be on one's guard against the pride of paternity, that it is a better Amendment. I do not think the word "immediate" in this place would greatly help us. The word "locality" occurs in two places, and I would have supposed that the occurrence of the word "locality" in the third line of the proposed new subsection (2) does put a rather useful limiting effect upon the implication of "locality" where it occurs two lines later. I am advised that it would not be possible to insert the word "immediate" without defining what the locality was immediate to, and that we should get into considerable drafting difficulties. Therefore, while I sympathise with the noble Lord's purpose I do not think I am able to be enamoured of his methods, and I prefer my own.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I recognise that we are working in the same direction, but I had hoped that the noble Viscount would think that my Amendment was not contradictory to, but indeed complementary of, his Amendment. I cannot see why we cannot have both.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I do not want to leave my noble friend without an answer. If he looks at the clause he will see that, with his Amendment, it would read as follows:
"Where as a result of action taken by a local authority under Part I of this Act the population of the locality is materially decreased, they may pay to any person carrying on a retail shop in the immediate locality such reasonable allowance as they think fit."
What is the locality which is eligible, so to speak? What is it immediate to? What is the locality in which the population has been decreased? It really does
362
not get you forward, and I think you must trust the common sense of the responsible authority.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I naturally was interested to hear the noble Viscount's criticisms of his own clause, but in view of the opinion to which he has given expression I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved, in subsection (2), after the first "loss," to insert "involving personal hardship." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment has the same purpose of limiting the compensation clause, and as your Lordships will see it attempts to do that by imposing the condition that the payment must be in respect of loss involving personal hardship. Therefore, it is designed to rule out the branch of a multiple shop, which might otherwise be a beneficiary.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 29, after ("loss") insert ("involving personal hardship").—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to insert at the end of subsection (2):
"Provided that a person carrying oh a retail shop does not mean a branch establishment of a multiple shop or a public house."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put down this Amendment again by arrangement with the noble Viscount, because in Committee we had some discussion as to whether a public-house or a branch of a multiple shop would be a retail shop within the meaning of this clause, and so qualify for compensation. I under stand that a public-house is not a shop, but I would be very glad to have an authoritative statement from the noble Viscount. I suppose the words we have just put in, "involving personal hardship," may be held to rule out the branch of a multiple shop, and I should like to have an authoritative statement that a public-house is not a shop, and therefore not a retail shop for the purpose of this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 32, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD JESSEL: Might I ask whether that would apply to the tenant of a public-house?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, the noble Lord who moved this Amendment is quite right in thinking that the Amendment you have just inserted, on my Motion, would have the effect of meeting the case of the multiple shop. He is also right in understanding that the Government's view is that this clause would not enable an allowance to be given in respect of a public-house. The question which Lord Jessel has just asked me, as to whether it would apply to a tenant of a public-house, therefore, in the parlance of another place, does not arise—I mean the paragraph does not apply to a public-house at all.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 97 [Interpretation,]
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 24, at end insert:
("Housing association ' has the meaning assigned to it by Section twenty-six of this Act.")—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Number of Persons permitted to use a House for, Sleeping.
For the purposes of Part I of this Act the expression "the permitted number of persons" means, in relation to any dwelling-house, either—

(a)the number specified in the second column of Table I in the annex hereto in relation to a house consisting of the number of rooms of which that house consists, or

(b)the aggregate for all the rooms in the house obtained by reckoning, for each room therein of the floor area specified in the first column of Table II in the annex hereto, the number specified in the second column of that Table in relation to that area,

whichever is the less:
Provided that in computing for the purposes of time said Table I the number of rooms in a house, no regard shall be had to any room having a floor area of less than 50 square feet.

ANNIEX
Table II.
Where the floor area of a room is—
(a) 110 square feet or more … 2.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to insert before the Annex:
364
"Provided also that in computing for the purposes of Table I and Table II the number of persons in a house which has more than two rooms one of such rooms shall be regarded as the living room and shall not be counted."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now approach what is really the most formidable matter which we have to discuss this afternoon. In Committee your Lordships may recollect that I moved and withdrew an Amendment to substitute a different Schedule for the Schedule in the Bill. The system of calculating population for the purpose of overcrowding which I advocated was one which I thought would give greater elasticity in allowing rather more people in the small numbers of rooms in a house and rather fewer where one living room has to serve as living room for a house with more rooms.
I would like to state the case against the Schedule as it stands in respect of counting the living room because I think there has been a good deal of misconception, not from one angle alone in this matter. I think confusion has arisen from the fact that the Bill attempts to impose one standard on the whole country irrespective of the very different conditions which prevail in different parts of the country. The difference of habit of the working-class population in the matter of beds in the living room is very marked, and the difficulty of finding a suitable standard which will apply all over the country is very largely due to the fact that in London the congestion is such that the living room has almost invariably to be occupied as a sleeping room; whereas in the provinces, particularly in the North—I am thinking of places like Leeds, Bradford and Manchester—it is universally the habit not to have beds in the living room, and the overcrowding consequently is very severe in those rooms which are used as sleeping rooms.
One of the fundamental points in the standard of overcrowding which must not be exceeded and is laid down by this Bill is the point which occurs in an early clause of the Bill, that the accommodation must be such as to permit the proper separation of the sexes. It is admitted on all hands that one of the greatest evils that occur from overcrowding is the fact that adolescent children of different sexes are all too often forced to share bedrooms; and while the Bill

365
lays down, quite rightly, that the accommodation must be such as to permit the separation of the sexes, in point of fact, owing to the non-exclusion of the living room, the Bill is going to have precisely the opposite effect in the North. Take the case of a three-roomed house that has a living room and two bedrooms occupied by five persons. It is sufficiently large to permit of the separation of the sexes, and therefore there is no overcrowding in the sense of the Bill. But your Lordships know very well that, habit being what it is, those people will not sleep in the living room, and therefore there will continue to be the sharing of bedrooms by the different sexes, and that will be legal in the terms of the Bill.
The Association of Municipal Corporations takes a very strong view on this subject. It so happens that the Housing Committee of that Association has had a meeting since the Committee stage of this Bill, and the view there was expressed unanimously by representatives of many different local authorities all over the country that the Schedule, as amended by the Amendment I proposed in the Committee stage, would have offered no greater difficulties of administration than the Schedule which is at present in the Bill, and it would have had this great disadvantage of setting the standard of no beds in the living room. If it had only had to do with the Association of Municipal Corporations I think it is fair to say that something on these lines would have been in the Bill from the start. But there came very strong opposition, an opposition which is very comprehensible, from the London County Council.
The fact is that it is quite impossible to have one standard in the Bill which will suit everybody. You have either to have a standard which will be opposed for some parts of the country—I have in mind London and possibly Scotland—or else you will have to have a differing standard for different places. The Government have taken the view that it is quite impossible to have differing Standards for different parts of the country; therefore they have the standard which is in the Bill. The standard, it is true, is a penal standard. I shall be told that I am seeking unduly to tighten up the standard, and that if my Amendment were accepted it would
366
indefinitely postpone the arrival of the appointed day. There is some truth in that objection as far as London is concerned, but I believe none as far as the rest of the country is concerned. What the Government are doing if they insist on retaining the Schedule in the Bill is to sacrifice the standards in the rest of the country because no immediate improvement can be effected in London.
That that is not a valid reason I venture to submit to your Lordships for this reason. In the Committee stage in another place when the clause defining "suitable'. alternative accommodation" was under discussion an Amendment was made. The definition, as it originally stood, laid down that any house belonging to a local authority might be suitable alternative accommodation. It did not have to be suitable as regards the three specific points which I have already mentioned to your Lordships. Any house belonging to a local authority might be suitable, and the house belonging to a private owner would be suitable if it complied in those three respects. An Amendment was made in the Bill to make those three specific requirements apply also to houses belonging to the local authority. And this is the point: when that Amendment was made the representatives of the London County Council on Standing Committee A, representative of both the political Parties, expressed the view that if you did that, if you so far widened the definition of "suitable alternative accommodation," you might as well put in a clause saying "This Bill does not apply to London." The London problem is so immense, and the 'prospect of having an appointed day within the near future is so remote, that I venture to say that to hold up the rest of the country and to oppose the wishes of the Association of Municipal Corporations on this point is really rather letting down the rest of the country for the sake of an object which cannot be achieved.
I have asked over and over again when the Government expect the appointed day to happen in London. I find it very hard to get a mental picture either of when the appointed day will come or of what will happen when the appointed day does come. The first Amendment on the Paper to-day, which I moved, would have produced a series of changes leading up to the appointed day. I am rather afraid that some people think that one fine

367
morning there is going to be a miracle, and suddenly everybody living in small overcrowded houses is going to burst forth and find himself in a large and spacious dwelling. I am not very optimistic about the appointed day and I would welcome any assurance that I can have from the Front Bench as to when they expect the appointed day to come in London. I feel that unless we can be told that without my Amendment the appointed day is going to come quite soon, and that with my Amendment the appointed day will be indefinitely postponed, and unless very good reasons can be given for supporting that view, this Amendment is one which ought to be pressed. It is an Amendment which I offer to your Lordships and I hope I shall receive some support. I should not think of pressing the Amendment to a Division unless I received general support at his late stage in the Bill. If I did receive general support I should be willing to go to a Division.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 20, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I am afraid again I have to oppose my noble friend's Amendment because I think this is an attempt once more to drag in the elimination of the living room as a room which must be counted in assessing accommodation for a family. This point has been raised over and over again by the Socialist Party, but without success, and some people seem to forget that there are thousands of people living in bed-sitting rooms and in two rooms whose comfort and convenience would very seriously be restricted by an Amendment of this nature.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, we again return to this question of standards, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has very much at heart. I must point out that it is regarded by the Government as one of the most important matters in the whole Bill, and has been considered so throughout the proceedings. The noble Lord says that this Amendment is supported by the Association of Municipal Corporations, but I can only repeat what I have said before that, throughout, the Government have been in the closest possible consultation with the Association of Municipal Corporations.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Viscount will not dispute that there have been fresh representations within the last few days from the Association of Municipal Corporations.
VISCOUNT GAGE: That is so, but it is somewhat late in the day to seek to make a change of this magnitude in the Bill. I must also remind your Lordships that this Amendment was only submitted, I think, on Friday morning. The noble Lord pointed out the difficulty, as to which I think everybody will agree, of having the same standard all over the country. It is obviously a very difficult thing to apply this standard all over the country, but there are also very grave difficulties in applying more than one penal standard in various parts of the country. I do not think I need go into them, but it is clearly a matter that demands the very closest attention if you are proposing to make a change of that sort. I would also remind the House that this question has not only been closely considered by the Association of Municipal Corporations and local authorities generally; it has also been debated at considerable length both in another place and in this House. And I think those debates have shown two things. They have brought out the point that the noble Lord himself admitted—namely, that insistence on a higher standard would produce very great difficulties for the authorities, and great delays, and the problem we are trying to solve might not be so easily solved by insistence on these high standards. They also have brought out the point that it is not so very easy to suggest alternatives which carry into effect the intention of those who wish to insist on a higher standard. We had a fairly good example of that on the last occasion, when my noble friends Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Lord Dudley, no doubt with the great knowledge they have and after very careful consideration with their advisers, put down Amendments which, as was conclusively shown to your Lordships, would have very anomalous results. I think the noble Lords themselves admitted that the Amendments would have those results.
The present Amendment gets over some of the anomalies arising from the point in his original Amendment that the number of people allowed in a house should be determined by the size of the living

369
room. This is a variation of that Amendment, and it does meet some of the objections we put forward. But there are still anomalies in the present Amendment. For instance, a house of three rooms would, under this Amendment, be allowed the same number of tenants as a house of two rooms, which is a somewhat surprising provision. It also leads to other anomalies, because, although a house of three rooms containing four persons would be overcrowded under the noble Lord's present standard, that overcrowding would be got over if one of these rooms were let to a different family separately. That is an illustration, I think, of the extreme difficulty of drafting Amendments to bring about a situation that might be desired. Apart from these anomalies, we consider that to insist that not more than three persons should inhabit a house of three rooms is too high a standard for general application. I quite agree with what the noble Lord said as to the undesirability of persons sleeping in the living room where it is not necessary, but it is an exceedingly difficult thing to define a "living room." As I have said on a previous Amendment put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, all classes would resent very strongly the degree of inspection, inspection into the minute details of family life, which would be necessitated before we could say definitely that one room is habitually used as 'a "living room." Although we sympathise with the objects of the noble Lord's Amendment, we think that the broad effect of this very high standard makes it impossible for the Government to accept it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I am sorry that even at this late hour the Government are not prepared to accept this Amendment. I have always thought that "Better late than never" had a great deal of truth in it. I would rather like to have said a word about our discussion on the Committee stage, for the noble Viscount rather twitted me with having produced an anomaly. He overlooked the fact that the square feet provision did apply to the smaller house as well as to the larger. I did not debate the point at that time. Now he has produced another anomaly, to which I have no doubt, when I submit it to my advisers, I shall find there is a complete answer, if only I were clever enough to
370
think of it now. The only consolation I can derive from the present position is that I hope—and I hope the noble Viscount will be prepared to say—that the present position may be regarded as experimental.
If the present position may be regarded as experimental, I hope I can have an assurance on the point—as I am sure I can have, because it is not committing the Government to anything—that the working of this Bill is going to be very closely watched, and that the local authorities will be consulted on the subject, so that the anomalies, if and when they arise, which we all fear, and also the failure to lay down a proper standard, about which I am apprehensive, will be closely watched and amending legislation, if necessary, introduced. That is as far as we can take the matter to-day. I recognise that the noble Viscount has been extraordinarily kind. He has made a. number of concessions, and I like to think they have all been in the direction of improving the Bill. The fact that the noble Viscount has accepted these Amendments, I think, shows that there must have been some force behind them, and I should like to express my gratitude to him. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I do not think my noble friend would expect me to give any assurance as regards amending legislation before the legislation it is desired to amend has reached the Statute Book, but I can say this, on behalf of my right honourable friend the Minister of Health, that he will obviously have to keep a very close eye on the working of these provisions, and if, at any time, a case were made out for further reference to Parliament, that reference should certainly be made.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Fourth Schedule:

FOURTH SCHEDULE. PART III.
Local Authorities' Contributions.
1. In respect of a scheme carried out by the local authority under the Act of 1919, a contribution for each financial year during the remainder of the period during which loan charges in respect of money borrowed for the purposes of the scheme are payable, of an amount equal to the produce, ascertained as provided by paragraph 8

371
of Part II of this Schedule, of a rate of one penny in the pound for that year levied in the area chargeable with the expenses of the scheme, together with the amount of any loan charges for that year in respect of money borrowed for expenditure in connection with the scheme which was not approved by the Minister for the purpose of the determination of the Exchequer contributions:
Provided that in respect of any year during which no contributions are payable by the Minister in respect of the scheme, this paragraph shall have effect with the substitution, for the reference to an amount equal to the produce of such a rate as is therein mentioned, of a reference to an amount equal to the estimated loss (ascertained as provided by paragraphs 3 to 7 of Part II of this Schedule) for that year in respect of the scheme.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR had given Notice of an Amendment in the proviso in paragraph 1, after "Provided that," to insert "(a)," in order to insert the following at the end of the proviso:
"(b) where the area chargeable with the expenses of a scheme or schemes is or has been altered by reason of the coming into operation of the provisions of an order made by the Minister under Section 46 of the Local Government Act, 1929, the Minister shall make such equitable adjustment by reduction of the amount ascertained in accordance with paragraph 8 of Part II of this Schedule as is required by the circumstances in respect of each year subsequent to the date of alteration."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a highly technical matter. It has reference to a situation which, I think, only arises in certain places, but it does cause considerable grievance in certain places, and particularly to some of my country neighbours. Put very shortly, it is this, that before the last Local Government Act certain small councils, rural district councils or, possibly, urban district councils, incurred a certain liability in respect of the houses they built, that liability being limited to a penny rate. These areas have been merged in larger areas, and, through some wording which I believe was not foreseen, the amount payable locally in consequence of the amalgamation is very much higher than it was. The Treasury is relieved of a burden to that extent, while the localities are burdened in respect of houses with which the major part of the area had nothing to do and for which up to 1929 they would have had no liability. All this Amendment asks is that the Minister shall have power to make such
372
adjustments as he considers equitable in a matter like this. It does not press for any hard and fast rule, but merely asks that he shall be given a certain dispensing power in respect of a situation which was certainly quite unforeseen, and, in certain areas, has caused considerable hardship. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 3, after ("Provided that") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Bankeillour.)
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, this matter, as my noble friend has said, is an extremely technical one, and it arises, as he has also said, in consequence of the readjustment of local boundaries following upon the county review that was consequent upon the Local Government Act of 1929. The point is really not a difficult one. The arrangement, as I understand it, was that the houses that are commonly called Addison houses, after the then Minister of Health, were to be built on the financial basis that the local authority was to find the produce of a penny rate and the Exchequer was to make up any loss there might be over and above what that penny rate represented. On that basis the finance was arranged. My noble friend will observe that there was no undertaking that the Exchequer should pay a fixed sum to any particular local authority. The Exchequer undertaking was that it should pay whatever might be the difference between the yield of a penny rate and the loss on these particular houses. The yield of a penny rate does, in fact, vary from time to time. It may go up and it may go down, and in some cases indeed, either owing to industrial causes or owing to rearrangement of local authority boundaries, the yields of a penny rate have varied sometimes in favour of the Treasury, sometimes against it, and the thing has more or less equalised itself out from the general point of view of the Exchequer.
The general principle of the difference between the yield of the penny and the economic cost of the houses has been maintained. It will be observed that no ratepayer who is in a local authority area to which area some other area has been added, with the consequent result that the yield of a penny rate has been increased and the sum to be drawn from the Exchequer has been diminished, is any worse off, because he continues to pay the same as he paid before; but,

373
owing to the inclusion of other people into that area, the general yield of a penny rate is greater, and therefore the call upon the Treasury is less. It is not unreasonable, I think, to point out that in this particular branch of the housing question last year the figures were something like £6,000,000:paid by the Treasury as against £1,000,000 paid by local authorities through the penny rate. Therefore, while very naturally any local authority will deplore the fact that not so much money is coming to it from the Exchequer as was coming before, yet, having regard to the fact that the strict pledge of the Exchequer is being faithfully kept and that no ratepayer is worse off, and that in fact even if this Amendment were adopted it would be impossible to give effect to it without a new Financial Resolution in another place—and that is very difficult at this stage of the Bill's fortunes—I do hope that my noble friend will not think it necessary to insist on his Amendment.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, think the strongest argument put forward by my noble friend was that a new Financial Resolution would be required. Is it quite certain that that is so?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: Yes.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Well, if that is so, I admit that the position at the moment is hopeless and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, in view of what the noble Viscount has said, do not move the next Amendment in my name.
Sixth Schedule [Consequential, drafting and minor Amendments]
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, all the Amendments down in my name to this Schedule are either drafting or consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 90, line 41, after ("houses") insert ("or other work")
Page 91, leave out lines 11 to 13.
Page 91, line 41, at end insert:
("The Local Government Act, 1933.—In the Eighth Schedule, for the reference to public utility societies there shall be substituted a reference to housing associations.")
Page 92, line 39, at end insert ("In Section ninety, in subsection (4), in paragraph
374
(b), after the words fee simple ' there shall be inserted the words absolute in possession '".)
Page 93, line 21, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("in") in line 23.
Page 94, line 8, after ("Schedule") insert ("for the words ' sub-paragraphs (i) and (iii) ' there shall be substituted the words sub-paragraph (iii) ',").—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Seventh Schedule [Enactments repealed Os from the commencement of this Act]:
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, on this Schedule these is a small consequential Amendment which is necessitated by the Amendment that my noble friend was good enough to accept with regard to the omission of the words "habitually used as a sleeping place" from subsection (1) of Section 18 of the Act of 1925. The Amendment is at page 95, line 25, where the necessary consequential words should be inserted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 25, column 3, at end insert ("In Section eighteen the words habitually used as a sleeping place '").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, the Amendment in my name to this Schedule is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 50, column 3, at end, insert:
("In Section one hundred and thirty-five, the definition of 'Public utility society '").—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE ADEN PROTECTORATE.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government for information as to the affairs of the Aden Protectorate, also as to our relations with the Imam of the Yemen subsequent to the signing of the Treaty; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, for several years I have from time to time raised questions in regard to the Aden Protectorate. Since the signing of the Treaty, I really have had no information as to what has taken place in Aden or the hinterland, and I have, therefore, put this Question down in order to elicit information. I shall be glad to know whether since the signing of the

375
Treaty the Audali tribe, to which I have repeatedly called your Lordships' attention, are free from all usurpation by the Imam of the Yemen.
I have privately given notice to my noble friend who I understand will reply to this Question, that I should like to know what will be the effect upon Aden of Clause 287 of the Government of India Bill, which removes Aden from the jurisdiction of India altogether, I understand. In the past it has always been a problem how Aden would get on should India in its new state impose heavy duties against the import of salt from Aden. The salt business in Aden is one of the greatest sources of revenue for Aden itself. There is another interesting point. I understand that it is now believed that the demand for Aden salt is so very strong in India, particularly in Bengal, that there will be still a very important export of salt from Aden to India. In the past the Government of India, the Government of Bombay, the War Office and the Colonial Office have all had their fingers in the pie.
I do not know whether it has been contemplated in this re-settlement of the administration that there should be a separate Department dealing entirely with the Arab-speaking people in that part of the Near East. I will not go into detail further than to say that to the North of Iraq, down to Aden, on the east Persian Gulf and west of the Egyptian frontier you find practically one set of people who speak the same language, Arabic, and are of one religious creed. It seems to me, therefore, very desirable that there should be a separate Department dealing entirely with these Arabic-speaking States. By that means you would be able to set up a cadre of officials who could be posted to that large area. At present each Department which has dealings with any of these Arabic-speaking States has to find some special official; there is no service from which they can draw people who know Arabic and have experience of the area. I will not say more at the present moment, but will content myself by putting the Question standing in my name.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, your Lordships all know what
376
a very strong interest my noble friend Lord Lamington has taken in the question of Aden in the past and its relationship with the King of the Yemen. I am therefore very glad that I am in a position to give him what I hope he will consider a more satisfactory reply than I have been able to give on some past occasions. A Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Cooperation was signed with the King of the Yemen on 11th February, 1934. This Treaty was ratified on the 4th September in the same year. The noble Lord will, I am sure, have seen and read that Treaty. Before the Treaty was signed the King evacuated those parts of the Aden Protectorate including the Audali Territory which for some years previously he had occupied. He returned the hostages which he had held, and he 'agreed to lift the embargo which had previously existed upon trade between the Yemen and the Aden Protectorate. Since the signature of the Treaty relations with the King of the Yemen have been cordial and are better than they have been for a long time past. A Frontier Officer was appointed to the staff of the Aden Residency after the signature of the Treaty and this officer co-operates with the Yemeni frontier officials, and questions of frontier relations have been amicably adjusted in this way. The Frontier Officer also pays periodical visits to Sanaa and discusses with the Yemeni officials there any questions that need adjustment. Every effort is being made to make the trade routes in the Protectorate secure so that trade between the two countries may develop.
As regards the present working of the administration in the Aden Protectorate, the noble Lord will probably be aware that there is no direct administration in the Protectorate. The various Sultans are in treaty relations with His Majesty's Government and the Political Officers on the Staff of the Aden Residency maintain contact with the Chiefs and tribes and assist in the settlement of disputes. Communication with the outlying parts of the Protectorate is becoming easier year by year owing to the greater ease with which the more distant areas can now be reached by air. Efforts are also being made to develop more progressive ideas amongst the tribes. A college for the education of the sons of the Chiefs of the Protectorate or their near relatives has been established at Aden. Moreover, a system which already exists of training

377
certain natives of the Protectorate in elementary hygiene and health services is being extended. This training has resulted in the setting up of what may be termed native dispensaries, which are necessarily of a somewhat elementary nature but which are able to do very valuable work, and these dispensaries are supervised by the Political Officers. Besides that, communication by wireless is being developed as far as possible.
I now turn to the present position and the future position at Aden as discussed by my noble friend. As your Lordships know, His Majesty's Government have been responsible since 1927 for the defence of Aden and for political relations with the Protectorate. The Aden Settlement is part of British India and is administered by the Government of India. There is, however, as your Lordships know, in the Government of India Bill at present before Parliament a clause providing that the Chief Commissioner's Province of Aden—that is, in effect, the Aden Settlement—shall be separated from India and that His Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the future administration of the Aden Settlement. If this clause becomes law, fie intention is that the Secretary of State for the Colonies should assume responsibility for the administration of the Aden Settlement. His Majesty's Government would then be entirely responsible for the whole of the Aden area. They are already, as I have explained, responsible for the defence of Aden and relations with the Protectorate, and they would take over from the Government of India the administration of the Settlement. So far as it is possible to judge at present this should not affect in any way our position in the Protectorate which should continue much as heretofore. The noble Lord made no reference to the Abyssinian crisis but I think lie would like some information about that.
LORD LAMINGTON: I gave notice of that to the noble Earl, although I forgot to mention it when I was speaking.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I noticed that the noble Lord did not mention that matter but I know he would like some information on the subject. I am afraid I am not in a position give very much. As far as we are able to judge the Abyssinian crisis has not reacted much upon the position in Aden. There was a
378
question of recruitment which was raised. In the past there has been in operation a system, which has lasted for many years, whereby the Italians were permitted to recruit a certain number of natives from certain parts of the Aden Protectorate and also Yemenis through Aden for service with the Italian Forces in Eritrea and Italian Somaliland. Some months ago the Italians made a request for permission to recruit in excess of the numbers formerly permitted, but in view of the position between Abyssinia and Italy it was decided that this request could not be acceded to. Beyond this, as I have said, as far as we are able to judge we do not think that the crisis in that part of the world has reacted in any way upon Aden affairs.
There is one other point which the noble Lord raised, and that was in connection with the proposed transfer of the Aden Settlement to His Majesty's Government, whether any move has been made to bring all the Arabic-speaking countries with which His Majesty's Government are concerned in the Middle East under one Department—namely, either the Foreign Office or the Colonial Office. That is a matter which has been under discussion on a number of occasions previously in your Lordships' House and it has been discussed pretty thoroughly. On those occasions explanation was given of the difficulties which obviously exist in the way of adopting any such arrangement. But I should like to inform your Lordships that there has been in existence, for some years, machinery amongst the various Departments of His Majesty's Government with the purpose in view of co-ordinating policy in the Middle East. This was an arrangement which was set up, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1931. This machinery is working quite satisfactorily, and in the circumstances I do not think there is any occasion to make any alteration in the system by which this co-ordination is maintained.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for what I term a very satisfactory reply as to the condition of affairs in the Aden Protectorate since the signing of the Treaty with the Yemen, which I hope will produce beneficial results. I am also glad that the unfortunate tribe the Audali have now

379
been freed from oppression by the Imam. It is satisfactory to know that a college is going to be started in Aden for Chiefs' sons coming from the Protectorate. I only wish that some kind and humane people would also start a hospital on the Isthmus there: it would have a tremendous effect in drawing people from the far interior to have medical treatment. Even now they sometimes come from the Yemen right down to Aden. It would have a most beneficial effect, not only in doing good by giving medical treatment, but also in maintaining satisfactory relations with various tribes.
Referring to that other point about having a special Department concerned with the Arabic-speaking people, I am glad to hear that this co-ordinating body between the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office—
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: All Departments that may be concerned.
LORD LAMINGTON: It seems rather anomalous—I have often drawn your Lordships' attention to it—that the Colonial Office should be concerned with a vast number of questions that arise with foreign countries. Taking Palestine, for example, I do not know whether the Colonial Office deal with Saudi Arabia, or whether that has been handed over to the Foreign Office, but certainly Ibn Saud objected very strongly to having anything to do with the Colonial Office. He called himself an independent monarch, and therefore wished to have relations with the Foreign Office. I should have thought that in the same port there might be a cargo of officers who could be posted anywhere in these great Arabic-speaking countries. It would be worth anything to get one Department to deal with that subject. It 1920 it was proposed that the Foreign Office should have a special Department to deal with the matter, but for some reason or other that fell through. I believe Lord Curzon was, at one time, very strongly in favour of the idea that the Foreign Office should have the matter in hand. It does seem anomalous that only in the case of Aden, and, I suppose, of Palestine, the Colonial Office should have its officers there. I should have thought that it would have been better for the whole administration of our relations with foreign countries had it been placed under one Department
380
of State, but it is very good news to hear that there is a co-ordinating authority now to meet together to deal with these questions. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MALTA: PROPOSED SEAPLANE STATION.
LORD STRICKLAND LORD STRICKLAND had the following Notice on the Paper:—To ask whether His Majesty's Government will take steps to bring up to date at the expense of the Government of Malta the estimates and plans and reports on financial and engineering proposals for the construction of a central station for flying boats at Malta in view of the proved advantages offered by the geographical position of the Island and the natural opportunities offered by its harbours; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion as it stands on the Notice Paper asks for very little. It asks that His Majesty's Government should take steps to bring up to date plans and estimates already prepared with the very best technical advice from naval authorities for establishing a first-class flying-boat base at the south-east bay of Malta. As your Lordships will remember, the whole administration of Malta now rests directly on the responsibility of the Colonial Department, which is responsible to the Imperial Parliament. I therefore trust that some indulgence will be extended to the discussion in detail in the Imperial Parliament of questions which would be within the province of other parts of His Majesty's Dominions if representative government were to continue therein.
Thanks are due to the present Secretary of State for Air for his courtesy in being ready to take with him to his new Department his great interest in Malta and its progress. Although it is clear that, for the present, he is unable to hold out prospects of being able to deal definitely with the main question, I trust that the Department will be able to deal with so small a feature as bringing up to date plans and estimates. It will not cost more than a couple of hundred pounds. Thanks are also due to his predecessor as Secretary of State for Air, who has on former occasions, when this question has been before your Lordships' House,

381
dealt with it with the greatest courtesy and sympathy, and has pointed out the difficulties that have to be overcome. Those difficulties relate principally to finance, which constitutes a difficulty that has to be met on all questions in every direction. Nevertheless, His Majesty's Government should be prepared for future action. Circumstances may arise with reference to the necessity for this particular enclosure of the bay similar to those which arose in connection with the main harbour of Valetta itself. Plans were prepared and matured, and a time came when Lord Fisher, as Commander-in-Chief in Malta, suddenly saw that the time had come to put those plans into effect, and it was of material importance that those plans should be ready. I ask that a similar policy should be followed now on this occasion.
The urge to bring forward this question for a third time before your Lordships' House does not arise from any conditions in Abyssinia, or the Haifa pipe-line, or the Suez Canal. It comes from the fact that, upon the recent revolution in Greece, the great seaplanes of the main routes had to leave their usual route over a country troubled by civil commotion and go where nature dictated and indicated. They came to Malta. They came to this bay. That shows the foresight and the wisdom of the late Secretary for Air, Lord Thomson, who in this House announced his opinion that Malta was destined to become the "Clapham Junction of the Air." But there are considerations even more potent and more weighty. They are the adaptibility of Malta as a base for flying boats and the necessity of using Malta for such a base. At present the harbours of Malta are so overcrowded and congested that naval shipping has been driven to occupy the anchorages and water rights which by most solemn agreement have been reserved for mercantile purposes. We are by stress of circumstances being deprived not only of our Constitution in Malta but also of our water rights. I hope the Government will feel that some restitution is necessary, and the restitution which I suggest is that more attention should be given, and quick attention, to the adaptability of the south-east bay of Malta as a great flying-boat base.
The population of Malta is increasing at the rate of 3,000 a year. We are already 2,000 to the square mile. We are entitled
382
to trade, and no doubt it is the duty of everybody concerned with the Administration to look out for openings for the extension of the tourist traffic. Yet there is in Malta—and it is really a reproach to the Administration—no single deep-water wharf where a big tourist ship can come alongside. It is really surprising that, while everywhere else in the world every effort is made to meet the needs of this great traffic, in Malta nothing whatever is being done, and very little can be expected under the present Administration. In my opinion it possible to solve the question of water rights in such a way as to solve several other problems too. There is a wharf known as the Hay Wharf, with deep water, and very suitable for the tourist traffic. It was the Hay Wharf which was used for fodder brought to Malta for the mules at a time when motor traffic was unknown. Why should that wharf remain idle merely because it is under military control?
Another aspect of this question is that the Maltese have a right to be defended in their convenanted connection with the Empire, whatever may be the opinion of passing authorities as to whether Malta is defensible from the air or not. Any official dallying with the view that Malta cannot be defended against attacks from the air cannot sound to the loyal Maltese otherwise than as disloyal and cowardly. I know it is repeatedly stated that Malta, as well as London, cannot be defended from the air. We heard similar talk when the submarine menace first made itself felt; but remedies were found. I assert that Malta can be defended from the air more easily than London can be defended. We all know that the one defence against air attack is counter attack. If Malta is made as effective as possible for counter attack we shall not be attacked, because the danger of reprisals will be a great deal too great.
There are special opportunities in the Island for providing underground hangars. There is a vast mass of soft sandstone with outstanding cliffs where at very small expense underground hangars could be constructed for a certain number of small aircraft, which would be absolutely immune from bombing and yet would have facilities for exit in every direction. Moreover, for the purposes of bombproof hangars, Malta is especially fortunate in having many large disused quarries and ditches of old

383
fortifications that could be cheaply covered. The mere presence of a certain strength of aircraft that cannot be attacked would in itself constitute a valuable means of defence. Then, the flying boat has many advantages in comparison with land armaments. Flying boats can in time of war be dispersed and concentrated in unexpected localities. They can refuel from submarines where least expected, whereas the location of aerodromes for land planes is known, and they can be broken up to an extent that requires time to rehabilitate them.
Every time this question has been before this House we have been asked what Malta is going to contribute. There are several ways in which Malta contributes. The illegal acquisition of Malta's water rights is one contribution. The fact that Malta is entitled to be defended should also be regarded as a consideration of importance. Let it be remembered that Malta is not a conquered country. Malta had the great blessing of becoming part of this Empire because the Maltese were with the English, Portuguese, Neapolitans and other allied co-belligerents that obtained Malta by right of the sword from the French. Napoleon had previously acquired the sovereignty by right of conquest from the sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, and the King of Naples had lost his rights as overlord to any reversion because the conquest of the Maltese was not from the Knights of St. John but from the French.
If the Government and the Air Force authorities are not in a position to deal, to-day, with this necessity of making use of what Providence has put before England, the natural makings of the best flying-boat station in the world, and if they say that at present for financial or other reasons, the main problem is not to be tackled, I hope we shall hear that at all events a little money will be spent to bring these plans up to date when there is a quarter of a million in the Maltese chest. If only £200 or £300 were devoted to this purpose it would at all events show that something is being done. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, this is by no means the first occasion on which the noble Lord has pressed upon this House the strong views which
384
he holds upon the subject of which he has just spoken. The present is, indeed, the fourth time—not the third, as he stated—this Question has been, raised by him within the last six years. I would offer my respectful tribute to the tenacity with which he pursues this matter, to the strong sense of local patriotism on which his interest in it is based, and to his obvious and justifiable pride in the past history of Malta and its present importance in the scheme of maritime and air communications. It is perfectly true that the specific point which the noble Lord raises in his Motion is a comparatively small one, but a large part of his speech was concerned with the merits of his actual proposal, and I shall find it difficult, I am afraid, in the course of my reply to divorce the one from the other.
As regards the particular proposals which he has urged upon your Lordships, the reply of His Majesty's Government must, I fear, be that they can see no ground for departing from the substance of the answers which were given to him when he has raised this Question on previous occasions. This, however, is not to be taken as implying in any degree that His Majesty's Government are failing in their recognition of the importance of Malta As a British possession and as a link in the chain of Imperial defence. On the contrary, they do not in any way abate their determination to preserve the Island in the important position which it now holds. But, having regard to the technical advice before them and their financial commitments for defence in other directions, they are frankly not prepared to proceed with the scheme suggested by the noble Lord. It is quite clear that Malta on her own resources would be unable to finance the scheme, and as, at the present moment, His Majesty's Government cannot see their way to provide any contribution towards it, no profitable purpose would be served by the preparation of plans or undertaking the other inquiries proposed by the terms of the noble Lord's motion.
The noble Lord said a good deal about the importance of Malta as a key base for flying boats, and he was apparently, as I understood, thinking in that connection both of military and of civil possibilities. Now, as regards the use of flying boats for military purposes at Malta, I am advised that there is no prospect of the number of flying boats which are at

385
present stationed at Malta being increased in any foreseeable future, and if it is a question of taking further measures to provide aircraft for defence of Malta. against air attack, priority will probably be given to increasing the facilities at Malta for the operation of land-based aeroplanes.
The noble Lord has in mind the larger size of flying boats and the possibility of concentrating and refuelling them at sea. There are, perhaps, interesting possibilities in that direction, but the technical advisers of the Secretary of State for Air could not, I understand, for one moment agree that the advantage would lie with flying boats, as compared with land-based aircraft, for the defence of Malta against air attack. The larger size, for example, of the flying boat is not, I believe, an unmixed advantage, and, generally speaking, the view of the Air Ministry is that Service requirements for the operation of flying boats are fairly satisfactorily met with the facilities at present available, and that it would certainly not be justifiable on defence grounds to undertake the expenditure of the £22,500,000 which would be involved in the noble Lord's proposals.
From the point of view of civil aviation again, it seems more likely, according to present intentions, that the development of Malta will be in connection with its use by landplane services rather than by a service operated with flying boats. The noble Lord has very properly reminded us—or at all events, whether he did or not, it is the case—that during some recent brief disturbances in Greece, when Athens had to be closed to foreign aircraft, the flying boats of Imperial Airways were diverted to Malta, and I agree that it is not to be denied that similar contingencies might arise again. But for regular operation of any Imperial air services passing through Malta it is probable that the landplane will be preferred, and that Malta will take its place in the chain of air communications rather as a station for land aeroplanes than as a base for the operation of flying boats. This aspect of the matter, as I am informed, has received a good deal of attention in the Air Ministry in recent months in connection with the Empire air mail scheme which it is hoped to introduce in 1937. I am sorry not to be able to give a more favourable reply to the noble
386
Lord, but he will, I hope, take some comfort to himself in the prospect of the island becoming a centre for landplane traffic in connection with the Empire air mail scheme.
LORD STRICKLAND: My Lords, the most striking feature of the reply on behalf of the Government is that it contained no word of comfort in reference to the rights of the Maltese to be defended in case of war—defended as an integral part of the Empire, apart from the difficulties connected with that defence. As to technical opinion, well, technical opinion can be had for the choosing. I know of the best technical opinion which is most strongly in favour of carrying out the construction of these two breakwaters, and I know how to find opinion to the contrary. I know also where it comes from in the contrary direction as regards Malta, and I hope there will soon be a change with regard to that.
We hold Malta, first of all, for war purposes. Everything must be subordinated and co-ordinated to that main interest. I ask, What is the good of having Singapore as a base, so far advanced and costing so much money, if every link in the chain to bring reinforcements to Singapore is not brought up to its maximum efficiency? Are our land planes to be any use in time of war to Singapore, Haifa, or the Suez Canal? You need not be an expert to say that will not be the case. To squeeze down the reply of the noble Earl to its lowest terms, it means this: "We do not want to spend money on seaplanes for the present." "For the present"—that is the one consoling phrase I have heard from those in authority on this subject. What happened with reference to dirigible airships? Perhaps it was not the third attempt—it might have been the fourth—when I brought up this Question and urged that dirigible airships were useless, dangerous, and a, waste of money. The official reply was that money was to be spent on them, and not on flying boats. The consequence was that the Secretary of State for Air lost his life, and the flying-boat is now coming daily and daily more into its own.
Why should there be this refusal to bring these plans up to date? If we had not had plans for the Valetta breakwater,

387
the shipping there during the War would have been at the mercy of enemy submarines, and the resources of Malta would not have been one-fourth of what they were. These plans were laid at my private expense. The whole thing was ridiculed for years, and no encouragement whatever was given for years, but at last it was done. Lord Charles Beresford said that the Mediterranean was to be abandoned in case of war, and that a great base was to be made at Gibraltar and another at Suez. That was one expert, Lord Charles Beresford. Then another expert, Lord Fisher, carried out the plan and the breakwater was built just in time. At all events, the existence of the plan was helpful. Now apparently no help is wanted. We are deprived of our Constitution, we are deprived of our water rights; we cannot even speak in Malta but have to come here to submit our case, and we get very little consolation. The Navy has occupied our wharves and taken possession of our water rights. They have done it illegally, but they cannot help it. They are there temporarily, but they cannot go away. What is wanted is a Round-Table Conference to consider all these questions as a whole, and to allow a certain selection of experts by those who have the interests of Malta at heart. I hope your Lordships will allow me to bring up this question again next year for the fifth time.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.
Amendments reported (according Order).
ASSURANCE COMPANIES (WINDING UP) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

MONEY PAYMENTS (JUSTICES PRO CEDURE) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I should like, on behalf of the noble Marquess who speaks for noble Lords on these Benches, to say that he wishes to associate himself with what was said on the Second Reading from the Front Opposition Bench and by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, and to express his agreement with the principles of this Bill, and his good wishes for its success. He also desires to associate himself with the tributes which have been paid to the noble Earl, Lord Feversham.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn till Wednesday next at three o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at three minutes before seven o'clock.