Lords Sitting of 14 March 1935

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—

London County Council (General Powers),

South Shields Corporation,

West Hampshire Water,

Rhyl Urban District Council,

Fylde Water Board,

Harrogate Corporation,

Derwent Valley Water Board,

Easington Rural District Council.

And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petitions for the following Bills:—

Bridgwater Corporation,

Camborne Water.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on the 19th of March last and the 10th of April last discharged, and Bill committed.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill. Ordered, that the Bill be not further proceeded with.

BRIDGWATER CORPORATION.
PETITION FOR BILL.

CAMBORNE WATER.
PETITION FOR BILL.
Examiners' Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of
864
the Petition for the Milford Docks Bill ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill;
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for an additional provision in the Birmingham Corporation Bill [H.L], ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional provision;
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for a further additional provision in the Stourbridge Navigation Bill [H.L.], ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the further additional provision;
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petitions for additional provisions in the following Bills:

Sunderland Corporation Bill,

Ascot District Gas and Electricity Bill,

London Passenger Transport Board Bill,

ought to be dispensed with;
That the Committee have considered the Special Report from the Examiner in respect of the petition for additional provision in the
Sunderland Corporation Bill
and are of opinion that Standing Order No. 44 should be dispensed with:
Read and agreed to.

MILFORD DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day); read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:

V. Plumer,

L. Braye,

L. Dorchester,

L. Askwith (Chairman),

L. Rennell:

865
Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

HERRING INDUSTRY SCHEME, 1935.
Scheme with a view to reorganisation, development and regulation of the Herring Industry, under Section 2 of the Herring Industry Act, 1935:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
HERRING INDUSTRY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
COVENTRY CANAL NAVIGATION BILL.
Read 2a.
MEDWAY LOWER NAVIGATION BILL.
Read 2a.
OXFORD CANAL BILL.
Read 2a.

ROCHDALE CANAL BILL.
Read 2a.
SALTBURN AND MARSKE-BY-THE- SEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 2a.

WEAVER NAVIGATION BILL.
Read 2a.

CRIMINAL LUNATICS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY or STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provision for the establishment of a criminal lunatic asylum in Scotland, and for purposes connected therewith. I move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (COUNTY OF HOLLAND JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GUISBOROUGH JOINT SMALL-POX HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HUNTINGDONSHIRE JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOUTH CHILTERNS JOINT SMALL-POX HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (AMENDED PROCEDURE) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill perhaps I may be permitted to say that I had a little discussion with my noble friend who represents the Home Office here. I knew that he could not be present to-day because of official duties elsewhere, but I told him that I should move the Third Reading in order that the Bill might proceed to the House of Commons, where I have every reason to expect it will be proceeded with and will be generally accepted. But I told my noble friend also that I had no intention of pressing the Bill to its final stage while the Committee, which he has mentioned to the House on one or two occasions, which is discussing kindred topics to that with which the Bill deals, is still in action, provided that the proceedings of the Committee are not unduly extended. It is a Departmental Committee and everybody who has had experience knows that such a Committee may go on indefinitely. I am told, however, that this Report is expected early in this year, and I shall ask my friends who will take charge of this Bill in the House of Commons to take reasonable account of that. On the other hand, I hope that the Home Office will take reasonable account of the Bill. Everybody who knows about the matter knows that there is a strong
122
demand that something should be done, and if no other definite proposal is made I think the proposals in the Bill should be accepted.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE SOUTH DOWNS.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND had the following Notice on the Paper:—To call attention to the Report of the Select Committee on the South Downs Preservation Bill and to move, That it is desirable that the Minister of Health should make an Order under Section 4 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, providing for the constitution of a joint committee of the authorities, other than the Corporation of Brighton, interested in the preservation of the downlands.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I am sure that everybody who is interested in the preservation of the South Downs will share with me and with the National Trust, which I represent in this matter, our feelings of profound regret that the Select Committee which considered the South Downs Preservation Bill, to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading early last year, should have felt obliged to recommend to your Lordships that the Bill should not be proceeded with. May I very briefly remind your Lordships of the circumstances in which that Bill came into existence. Development in the neighbourhood of the South Downs, and threatened development, have created for some years past grave apprehensions in the minds of the public, and various steps of a rather tentative character have been taken with a view to preventing further undesirable developments of that kind. In 1926, for example, the Corporation of Eastbourne acquired downland in this neighbourhood with a view to preserving its amenities; and in 1931 the National Trust secured some 400 acres of downland between Beachy Head and the Cuckmere River, embracing two of the famous Seven Sisters cliffs, and having procured those 400 acres proceeded by means of negotiations with the landowners of adjacent tracts to secure so far as possible restrictive covenants for that land.
Then, coming further west, in 1926 the Brighton, Hove and District Town Planning Joint Advisory Committee came into existence and, after pondering on this question for six years, reported in 1932 in favour of the preservation of the Downs. But, as your Lordships know, an advisory committee of that kind, established under the Town Planning Act, has no executive authority, and its report merely consists of recommendations. That was the position when, in 1933, apprehension was once more aroused by the revival of a proposal for the construction of a motor-racing track just outside the boundaries of the Brighton Borough Council. I am not now pronouncing any opinion upon the merits or the demerits of that particular proposal; all I am doing is to refer to the fact that it did create a great deal of apprehension in the minds of the public. There was a wide agitation in regard to it, and it was objected to by a number of the constituent bodies of the Brighton, Hove and District Joint Town Planning Committee. Indeed the Corporation of Brighton, who sponsored the proposal, were asked to refer it to the Joint Advisory Committee. They were unwilling to do so, and eventually they resigned from that body.
It was in these circumstances that the East Sussex County Council introduced their Bill for the protection of the South Downs. The Bill went before a Select Committee. The Committee held a large number of meetings, but it became clear as the examination of the matter proceeded that there was a fundamental difference of outlook with regard to the preservation of the Downs between the Brighton Corporation on the one hand and the rural communities on the other, and in July last the Committee, of which my noble friend Lord Redesdale was the Chairman, made a pronouncement. They declared that they were of opinion that efforts should be made immediately for the preservation of the Downs, but they went on to say that they did not think that that could be effected equitably by the Bill as it stood. They desired an agreement between the Brighton Corporation and the other interested bodies, and they gave the protagonists in the controversy until October to come to terms. They made various other suggestions for improvements in the Bill. The East Sussex
124
County Council were prepared to meet almost all the proposals submitted to them by the Select Committee, and they at once entered into negotiations with the Brighton Corporation with a view to seeing whether an agreement between them was not possible. I regret to say, however, that the negotiations failed, with the result that when October came no agreement had been reached, and the Committee consequently, in accordance with their declaration, recommended that the Bill should not be proceeded with.
Everything that has happened since then goes to show that the difference of outlook between Brighton on the one hand and the rural authorities under the Town Planning Act on the other hand, has become greater rather than less, and only so recently as the end of last month the General Purposes Committee of the Brighton Corporation submitted to the Corporation certain proposals which they wished the Corporation to press for in connection with town planning schemes which had been provisionally drawn up by three rural district councils—namely, Chailey, Cuckfield, and Portslade-by-Sea. Among the proposals which they wished to press for was one that provision should be made under the Chailey Council scheme permitting the Corporation to erect on its land at High Park estate near Ditchling Beacon a hotel or tea gardens with roads and similar appurtenances; and they also proposed to press, in the case of all three of these schemes—that is to say, the schemes provisionally drawn up by these three rural district councils—for an interpretation of "downland preservation" which will include the following purposes: The creation of aerodromes and gliding grounds; the construction of such buildings as hotels, hostels, and hospitals; the laying-out of golf courses, tennis courts, and bathing pools; the use of land for agriculture, including forms of agriculture for which it may not at present be used; the creation of small holdings in carefully selected parts, and for works required in connection with the Corporation's electricity and water undertakings.
Your Lordships will see, therefore, that the view taken by the Corporation of Brighton with regard to the preservation of the downlands is a very different one to that taken by the other authorities. What the authorities desire is, so

125
far as possible, to retain the downlands in their present natural state, and it was quite clear, therefore, that there was no hope, and there is no hope now, of any agreement between the two parties with regard to this matter. The Bill having failed, what is to be done next? There seems to be no other course which it is possible to pursue except to proceed under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act. The Town and Country Planning Act is very far from a suitable instrument for effecting the preservation of large tracts of country of this kind; and may I make one general observation with regard to the disadvantages of that Act which has come to my knowledge as Chairman of the National Trust? Under the provisions of the Bill which the East Sussex County Council promoted in this House compensation would have fallen upon the general county rate, but under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act compensation falls upon the particular authority within whose jurisdiction the land lies in respect of which compensation is claimed. Many of these authorities are small rural district councils whose land is of a very low rateable value, and it is quite obvious, therefore, that in many cases, if compensation is claimed in receipt of any restrictions which they may place upon their land, they are not in a position to meet it. That being so, they have no option but to agree to the development of the land to which they object.
The particular case which is under consideration at the moment provides a striking illustration of that disadvantage of the Town and Country Planning Act. The land on which the Brighton Corporation wish to erect a hotel near Ditchling Beacon happens to lie within the jurisdiction of the Chailey Rural District Council. The Chailey Rural District Council are mostanxious to avoid development of that kind in the case of land within their jurisdiction; but supposing they are faced with a large sum, as they might very well be, for compensation to the Corporation of Brighton for prohibiting them from electing the hotel or tea gardens, or whatever they desire, the Chailey authority will find that they are in no position to meet the bill, and they will therefore be forced, whether they like it or not, to agree to the demands of the Brighton Corporation. That
126
is an example of the disadvantages of the Town and Country Planning Act when it is a matter of preserving large tracts of country of this kind. But, of course, there is another disadvantage. In the case of the Sussex Downs, there are something like twelve different authorities concerned under the Act, and it is inevitable, if you have to try to get complete agreement and uniformity of procedure with no fewer than twelve different bodies, some of them very differently circumstanced, you will have to put up with immense delay, even if you are successful in arriving at an agreement at all. It is for that reason that I have given the Motion which stands upon the Paper in my name this afternoon the particular form which it takes—namely, an expression of opinion that it is desirable that the Minister of Health should, acting under Section 4 of the Town and Country Planning Act, set up a joint statutory committee of all the rural authorities interested in this matter.
I am quite aware that there are various schemes for restricting development in this area which are at different stages of progress. For example, in the Eastern area, the scheme of the Hailsham District Council is in a very advanced state. It is, I believe, almost ready to be presented to the Minister of Health, and it might be thought desirable, therefore, that rather than ask the Minister of Health to create one joint statutory committee for the whole of the area, he might be asked to appoint one or more. Let him appoint the East Sussex County Council and the Hailsham Rural District Council as one statutory committee, since their scheme is much further advanced than the schemes of any of the other authorities. I am not wedded to the actual wording of my Motion. I should be just as glad to see more than one statutory committee appointed as I should be to see one committee appointed. The noble Earl who will respond this afternoon on behalf of the Ministry of Health will possibly tell me that the Minister of Health cannot act under Section 4 of the Act unless he is first requested to do so by one or more of the authorities concerned. If the noble Earl tells me that, I can assure him that if the Minister of Health declares himself to be willing to take action under that section the request will at once be forthcoming, as will be perfectly clear

127
from a resolution which was passed by the East Sussex County Council only a few days ago.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who, as I said, was Chairman of the Select Committee, has tabled an Amendment to the Motion which I have put on the Paper. The effect of his Amendment, if carried, would be that we should declare it to be desirable that the Minister of Health should appoint a joint statutory committee including not only the rural authorities but also the Brighton Corporation. I would like to put to the noble Lord this consideration. I feel convinced myself that if a committee of that kind was to be appointed we should simply reach a deadlock. I have already made it clear, I hope, to your Lordships that the outlook of the Brighton Corporation and that of the rural communities on this question are profoundly different. It is because they have been unable to come to an agreement that we have not been able to make further progress up to the present time, and is it conceivable that if you included these two antagonistic parties in one executive committee you would ever be able to make any progress at all? Surely the only result would be a continuation of the present deadlock, and in those circumstances is it not a much more practicable proposition that we should say: "Let Brighton in the circumstances go her own way"?
She has got a very large area for which she is the local authority—an area which only six or seven years ago was enlarged by five times—so that at the present time the boundaries of the Brighton Borough Council include no less than 3,000 acres of actual downland. I should object to see those 3,000 acres developed in the way Brighton would like to see them developed, but I admit that, within her own boundaries, she has the right. Let her develop her own land as she thinks right, but why should we put her in a position in which she can endeavour to force her will upon other communities outside her own borough boundaries? It is quite true that Brighton Corporation do own certain land outside their own county boundaries, but in respect of that land they are to-day, and will be in the future, in exactly the same position as any other landowner in the area. The Corporation will always have the right,
128
if they object to particular schemes promoted by other authorities, to raise objection, to be represented and to be heard in any inquiries which the Minister of Health may decide to embark upon in connection with town and country planning schemes.
After all, Brighton has not done too badly. She has already got her motor track and that motor track is not within her own boundary. That motor track is within the territory of the Portslade Urban District Council. But that has been conceded to her, so that, as I say, she has not done badly. I do plead with your Lordships on behalf of those other far less powerful bodies, far less affluent bodies—namely, the rural district councils within whose jurisdiction falls by far the greater part of the downland, and who earnestly desire to prohibit undesirable development of that downland. I plead with your Lordships on their behalf. If the noble Lord wishes to press his Amendment to my Motion I confess I think that the situation would be worse than it is at the present time, and if the noble Lord, after what I have said on that point, still presses his Amendment to my Motion, I should prefer, with your Lordships' permission, to withdraw the Motion itself. I beg to move.
Moved, That it is desirable that the Minister of Health should make an Order under Section 4 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, providing for the constitution of a joint committee of the authorities, other than the Corporation of Brighton, interested in the preservation of the downlands.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
LORD REDESDALE,LORD REDESDALE, who had given Notice that he would move to delete the words "other than the Corporation of Brighton," said: My Lords, the reason for the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper is, of course, the fact that I had the honour to preside over your Lordships' Committee when the Bill for the preservation of the South Downs was sent upstairs, and that I am absolutely convinced that the carrying of the noble Marquess's Motion in the form in which it appears upon the Order Paper would constitute a gross injustice to Brighton. I shall attempt very briefly to show your Lordships why. It is quite safe to say that everybody was in complete sympathy with the main intention underlying the

129
Bill. That was certainly the attitude of the Committee and it was equally certainly the attitude even of learned Counsel who were appearing for the opponents. But there were three great questions to be decided: (1) Was new legislation necessary? (2) Was the suggested new legislation equitable? And (3)—and this, of course, is the most vexed question—What was to be meant by preservation?
As to the first question, it was contended by the opponents of the Bill that existing legislation—namely, the Town and Country Planning Act of 1932—afforded ample protection. The promoters, on the other hand, contended that the difficulties of working the Act are almost insuperable and that the danger resulting from inevitable delay was very grave. By "almost insuperable" they meant that they had so far failed to agree in the setting up of a joint executive committee, but of course that can be enforced by the Minister of Health under the Act; and as to the danger of delay, it was shown in evidence that in practice nobody does in fact proceed with any work in defiance of the refusal of an Interim Development Order for the obvious reason that they may be required to demolish any such work at a moment's notice.
As to the second question, whether it was possible to frame legislation in such a way as to attain the objects of the promoters without inflicting at least any undue hardship, in the case of this Bill it must be abundantly clear that there was no lack of people who considered that they would suffer very considerably under the provisions contained in it, because even the opponents agreed with the principle of the Bill and would obviously never have gone to the enormous expense of petitioning merely on the ground that they thought the. Bill an unnecessary one.
Then comes the third question. That is, what is meant by preservation. If preservation is to mean complete and absolute sterilisation for all time, for the enjoyment of the general public to look at, not to go on, that is one view and one which would undoubtedly please a section of the public. But it would be only a section, and I. venture to suggest a very small section at that. There are those who love solitude and to whom the
130
mere sight in the distance of another human being really means the destruction of an otherwise perfect day. Speaking personally, I can quite understand their point of view. I do not know how many of this class could be catered for in the area included in the Bill, but the number quite certainly would not be a large one. Then there are at the opposite extreme people—I suggest to your Lordships far more numerous—who must have crowds and a variety of noises and so-called amusements. Now I am not for one moment suggesting that these noises and amusements should be imported on to the Downs for the delectation of these extremists—no one has ever suggested that—but I do say that if you are going to preserve the amenities of the Downs for the public it must be for the average public.
That was really not the intention of the promoters. The Downs were not to be preserved for the public. May I read to your Lordships a short extract from the minutes of evidence which will show you exactly what I mean? The witness in the chair was the chairman of the East Sussex County Council, and he was under cross-examination by Mr. Pritt, who was the learned Counsel appearing for Brighton. In reply to a question he said to Mr. Pritt that he definitely did not like to see people in any numbers going from the Dyke Hotel to the Devil's Dyke for the purpose of looking at the Devil's Dyke and walking on it. Then I asked him a question and I think I had better read exactly what is printed in the minutes of evidence:
"The CHAIRMAN: Colonel, the object of this Bill was to preserve the Downs for the public?—Yes.
The CHAIRMAN: And for use, that the public should have the enjoyment of it?"
Then Mr. Tyldesley Jones, learned Counsel for the promoters of the Bill, intervened and said:
"No, my Lord. May I say at once."
Then the report goes on:
"The CHAIRMAN: It is only the inhabitants, the people who live there.
Mr. TYLDESLEY JONES: I hope your Lordship does not think this Bill is to turn this into a public place. It is not. We are not giving the public any rights; it is for the preservation of the Downs in the present state.
The CHAIRMAN: The whole question is, who is to enjoy the Downs in the present state.

131
Mr. TYLDESLEY JONES: Anybody who can go there lawfully or look at it, but this is not an area to be open to the public. The Downs are indeed just as much in view by people who do not walk on them as people who do. If you are at Brighton or Hove you can enjoy the view of the Downs whether you go on them or not. You can go on the public ways, but we are not making it public.
The CHAIRMAN: It is to preserve them for the public to look at from a distance.
Mr. TYLDESLEY JONES: And to go on them when they can.
The CHAIRMAN: But how can they go on to them?
Mr. TYLDESLEY JONES: We are not giving any rights to the public."
Your Lordships will see that those are not words uttered by a witness who might be a little flustered in unaccustomed surroundings. They are the words spontaneously spoken by learned Counsel who has immense experience at the Parliamentary, Bar, and who knows his case inside out and the intention of the promoters. By all means exclude the public from the Downs, but then you must not say you are preserving the Downs for the public. At least be honest and say you are preserving the Downs for the Society of Sussex Downsmen and the actual inhabitants of the Downs. It is some such rigid and inflexible treatment of the area right up to her borough boundary that Brighton would have to expect from a body set up under the Town and Country Planning Act on which she was not represented in any way, and in my opinion, as I have said, that would constitute a really grave injustice to Brighton. There is nothing to show that Brighton is less worthy of confidence in the matter of development and preservation than any other authority. But she certainly was singled out for special treatment. Sir Herbert Carden gave it in evidence—and I have never heard a better or fairer witness upstairs—that Brighton had spent over £400,000 mostly for the purpose of preservation. Surely, my Lords, that is some indication of the intention of Brighton. Is it likely that after spending so vast a sum on preservation Brighton would allow the destruction of the Downs by plastering them with little houses or anything else of the kind? And in any case the sanction of the Minister of Health would be necessary.
Brighton has expressed over and over again not only her willingness, but her
132
anxiety, to join a joint committee and—this is worthy of notice, my Lords—on the committee she would join she would only have four votes out of sixteen. It is probably perfectly true that Brighton caters for a more varied class of visitor than is the case with certain other seaside resorts. But supposing she does is she to be penalised for that? There must be hundreds of thousands of people who are very glad indeed of the existence of Brighton and grateful for the facilities they have at Brighton which enable them to enjoy their holidays in the way they prefer. Many of these people have only too short a time in which to indulge in any form of amusement. Many of them probably only have the four Bank Holidays. Any attempt—and in saying what I am going to say let me point out that it has no reference to anything which has fallen from the noble Marquess—any attempt to point a finger of scorn at those who provide facilities for these people to enjoy the few moments they have for recreation in their own way, or any attempt to curtail the provision of such facilities is, in my opinion, very much to be deprecated.
Reference was made by the noble Marquess to the motor track. Let me say this much, without entering into any detailed argument on that subject, because it is too late for that, that if any noble Lord had wished to do so he had a perfect right between July 12 and November 1 to move in your Lordships' House for recommitment of the Bill. I understand it was even contemplated, but nothing of the sort was ever done. If it had been, of course I should have been perfectly prepared to advance arguments, but now I do not think it would be suitable, and I am sure your Lordships do not wish for arguments about this race track. I honestly believe it is no exaggeration to say that every member of your Lordships' Committee, when he first went upstairs, had a feeling almost amounting to indignation at the very idea that it should ever have been suggested to put a race track on the Downs, but after hearing the arguments and evidence on both sides, and, above all, after inspecting the proposed site, the Committee were unanimously of the opinion that the track should be allowed, and that it would not interfere with the amenities of the Downs proper.
On that view the motor track, of course, is part and parcel of what is described as the northern approach to the race track. That is a road which it is proposed to build to give access to the north. This has undoubtedly a very unsavoury sound, or it may be made to have. It is not difficult to conjure up a vision of a great arterial road, cutting the beautiful Downs in halves—a road swarming with chars-a-bancs and the noisiest forms of so-called sports cars. But what are the facts? How many of the critics who write to the Press have made the least effort to ascertain what the proposal really is? Let me tell your Lordships in two words. The motor track lies just to the south of the Dyke Hotel. The Dyke Hotel is, to-day, reached by a road which runs very nearly south towards Brighton. There is a service of omnibuses running up and down this road to-day, and in the summer, when we went clown to look at the track, there was an incessant line of cars. This idea of the northern approach, which has been described as a nightmare, will consist of nothing more nor less than a road running from the northern limit of the track area to the Dyke Hotel, where it will join the existing omnibus route, which I have just described, and turn south to join the main London-Brighton road. The total length of that road will be about 400 yards, and it will run practically on an old road, which has been a right of way for hundreds of years, and is so to-day. It is part of an old Roman track.
Further than that, this northern approach, about which there is such an outcry, has actually been approved by the East Sussex County Council. During the time of the adjournment, that is, between July 12 and November 1, when the parties were trying to get together, the clerk of the East Sussex County Council addressed a letter to the clerk of Brighton, and in that letter are tabulated the differences between the two parties. The third difference is this—the motor race track, as it is called. This is what Brighton proposed:
"The Corporation propose that so much of the land which they have agreed to lease to the racing company which is in the green area and the intended approach roads from north and south should be excluded from the provisions of the Bill."
134
That was what Brighton wished, and the County Council in their answer state:
"The County Council are willing to amend the Bill so that nothing in it should prevent the construction and use of the track and the intended approach roads."
Therefore you will see, my Lords, that it cannot now be said that the East Sussex County Council are seriously opposed to that road, and I do not think many of your Lordships will be after you have heard what it really amounts to.
Unfortunately the interests in the area in question are harshly divergent, but I am perfectly certain that with reasonable unselfishness, and a little give and take, all these matters are capable of adjustment. It would be perfectly simple to relax rigid sterilisation in certain areas without materially interfering with the main bulk of the Downs. Brighton is a very large landowner in the County of East Sussex, and would therefore contribute largely to any joint scheme. How, then, is it possible to deny Brighton a voice in the scheme, without inflicting upon Brighton, as I have said, a gross injustice? Brighton would naturally be apprehensive that any body set up, and excluding Brighton, would produce a scheme equal in every respect to the Bill right up to the borough boundaries. If Brighton is to be excluded from any scheme, then ordinary justice, it seems to me, would demand that she be given elbow room—that is to say, complete liberty of action—subject only to the Minister of Health, for a radius from the Town Hall, not necessarily confined to her borough limits. Some such arrangement as this would be the only equitable method of carrying the Motion of the noble Marquess into effect without my Amendment.
There is just one other thing which I should like to point out. The noble Marquess has referred to it, and it is this: I do not believe the Minister could make an Order, as a result of the noble Marquess's Motion, even if you agree to it, because under Section 4 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, it is laid down that the request is to come from one or more of the authorities, and even then, if such a committee were set up under Section 4, under Section 5 Brighton could apply to be included in the joint committee—an application which could only be refused by the Minister, who

135
would, I imagine, find some difficulty in refusing it. I can only say that the Amendment which stands in my name is what I believe to be the only fair thing to Brighton, and I very much hope your Lordships will support it.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("other than the Corporation of Brighton.")—(Lord Redesdale.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that His Majesty had issued a Commission for giving His Royal Assent to several Bills agreed upon by both Houses of Parliament.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

Herring Industry,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Leicester and Warwick),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Cumberland and Lancaster),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Gloucester and Warwick),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Holland and Kesteven),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Holland and Lindsey).

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

THE SOUTH DOWNS.
Debate resumed.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, as I am connected with this part of the world, both as a landowner and as a member of the local authorities, perhaps I might be allowed to say something, not as representing the Ministry of Health, but just as an ordinary member of your Lordships' House. As the noble Marquess who opened the debate stated, now that the Bill has failed we are thrown back on town planning. I must say I think it will be not quite so easy to preserve the Downs under town planning as under
136
some form of Bill, for the reasons which the noble Marquess gave, and also because under town planning we have little control over agricultural buildings, and one of the difficulties which we have had is the development of small shacks and tin huts which are often associated with some form or other of agriculture. But, in spite of all these difficulties, I do not think we need despair of doing a good deal under town planning. As has been stated, although the interval has been very long, there has been control under the interim procedure, and the development which is taking place to-day is certainly of a more orderly description than that which took place immediately after the War.
Again, it is rather encouraging to notice that in this large area- the landowners on the whole are, I think, in sympathy with the objects of preservation. The controversy that took place about the motor track somewhat obscured the fact that out of some 350 notices that were served under the Bill, only about half-a-dozen landowners objected on principle to the provisions of the Bill, which of course were more rigid than those under the town planning schemes. The cooperation of landowners is tremendously important, because although there is machinery provided under town planning for settling disputes between landowners and the local authorities, nevertheless, if every landowner insisted on obtaining every penny of compensation to which he would be entitled, the burden on the local authorities would be very great, and the legal formalities in negotiating between owners and the local authorities would drag out proceedings to an almost impossible extent.
Another hopeful sign, I think, is that there is considerable agreement between the planning authorities as to what ought to be done. Although, as I have said, most of the landowners are in agreement with the objects, and many of them are not claiming compensation, nevertheless there is bound to be some compensation to be paid, and it will no doubt be beyond the means of most of the small rural districts to meet these claims out of their own revenues. Therefore, it is necessary that there should be an agreement, not only between the various planning authorities themselves but also between the planning authorities connected with

137
the Downs and other authorities in the rest of the county; because, unless that agreement exists, unanimity between the County Council and the rural districts will probably not be forthcoming. At the present moment I think it is hopeful to know that on the whole there is unanimity between the rural districts and the County Council.
I have been referring to compensation, but there is a class of owner whose objections to schemes that may be made are not likely to be met by compensation, I refer to the municipalities as owners of land within the boundaries of other local authorities. The dispute between Brighton and the County Council on the Bill did not turn on the question of compensation, it turned on the restrictions that were to be placed on the use of the land. The question of the motor-racing track
was settled by the Committee, but if other points of dispute still arise, I do not think anybody need be surprised or alarmed. We must all realise that these important watering places depend for their existence on their tourist traffic, and we can hardly blame the representatives of these boroughs if they try to do their duty by the ratepayers who elect them. At the same time, it must be realised that the difficulties of the rural districts in planning this land are very considerable. They have to negotiate with large numbers of private owners; they have to appeal to these owners to allow all kinds of restrictions to be placed on their land; and, in the interests of the ratepayers, they have to appeal to these owners to claim as little compensation as possible. Appeals of that sort are going to lose a good deal of their force if it is known that land belonging to corporations is going to be treated in some different way, and given exceptional facilities as corn-pared with the land of private owners.
Everyone realises that facilities must be given for essential public services, but if you are going to appeal to the ordinary landowner to allow restrictions to be placed on his land so that he should not be able, it may be, to build a house for his own occupation on his own land, he may not be entirely convinced by that sort of appeal if a few hundred yards away hotels and tea houses are being erected for the benefit of boroughs whose boundaries may be a long way off. Indeed, I think the moral effect of that sort of concession is going to be greater than
138
the harm caused to the amenities by buildings erected in that way. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has been discussing the question of Brighton, but it ought to be remembered that Brighton is not the only big watering-place in the district. There are several others, and if a precedent is set, there is no reason why one of the other boroughs should not ask for the same facilities. I am not trying to convince your Lordships that either the one authority or the other is likely to take an unreasonable view in these matters. I am all for conferences and settling as much as we can by agreement, but what I am trying to do is to show your Lordships that, however you organise or re-organise these authorities for the purpose of planning, when you start preserving a great area like this it may well be that there are genuine conflicts of interests between one group of ratepayers and another, and if they do emerge the sooner they are settled by arbitration, as provided under the Act, the better.
In spite of the fact that the decision on the motor track went against us in Committee, I think most of us would have been perfectly prepared to accept the arbitration of that Committee on the other issues between the County Council and Brighton. It is a somewhat unfortunate thing that after some twenty thousand pounds of ratepayers' money in Sussex has been spent, the only contribution Parliament has made for the preservation of the South Downs is to sanction a motor track on it. But we must realise, and I do realise, the limitations of Standing Orders, and we must all thank the noble Lords who sat on that Committee for the care and labour with which they executed their task. The noble Marquess has suggested a joint committee exclusive of Brighton as the best step to solve this problem. That is an idea which has considerable support in certain quarters, and may eventually prove to be the most feasible way of dealing with this problem; but speaking entirely for myself, I should prefer to go on a little longer with the present arrangement whereby the rural districts are each trying to negotiate agreements with owners in consultation with the County Council, because after the experience we have had of committees over such a long period I am somewhat apprehensive of yet another committee.

139
The work that is being done is very intricate and detailed, and I feel it is important not to interrupt it and not to form a joint committee until all the authorities involved have expressed themselves in favour of it. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, assumed that Brighton would wish to be represented on such a committee, and would feel aggrieved if it were not included. I do not know if he speaks with the authority of any of Brighton's representatives, but I have no reason to believe that that is an absolute sine qua non. As I have stated, I do not know if all these difficult points that exist between Brighton and ourselves will be solved by a joint committee of this sort, and I do not know whether Brighton thinks they will be. I personally believe that if any of our authorities do ask for a joint committee, either on the lines suggested by the noble Marquess in his Motion, or in one of the alternative forms which he mentioned, my right honourable friend the Minister of Health will, in view of the interest taken in this matter in the county and also in your Lordships' House, be most ready to consider the question sympathetically.
LORD CARNOCK: My Lords, I shall only occupy a few minutes, and I should not have risen to address your Lordships if it had not been for the fact that I was a member of the Select Committee on the South Downs Preservation Bill, which was presided over so admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. For that reason I most emphatically support his Amendment. The Committee sat for twenty-two days—I am speaking from memory—with a very long adjournment for several weeks, indeed months, in the middle in order to see if the various parties could come to any agreement. As your Lordships know, they came to no agreement, and therefore it was with the very greatest reluctance indeed that the Committee decided that the Bill could not proceed. So far as I am personally concerned, that decision was reached with the very greatest reluctance. The Committee did not reach its decision in a hasty manner. Those of your Lordships who have sat upstairs in these Committees realise that the learned Counsel engaged leave no path unexplored and no stone unturned. Every single thing that could be said for and against the Bill was said there, and
140
still we were bound to come to the conclusion that the Bill could not proceed. I feel quite convinced that if any of your Lordships had sat there hour after hour, as we sat, listening to the examination, cross-examination, and re-examination, you would have come to the same decision.
Brighton is the most vital factor in the South Downs. She is, I think, the largest and the richest town on the South Downs. She is also one of the largest landowners of the Downs. By that I do not mean in her area, but she has purchased, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale said, land outside her own boundaries, and she has purchased that land for one reason and for one reason only, and that is to preserve the amenities of the Downs. It would be idle to imagine that any scheme, even a scheme under the Town and Country Planning Act, could possibly be successful unless Brighton was a willing participant in that scheme. You must get a willing and contented Brighton or the scheme will fail. Without that it is just as though you were trying to drive a coach with one of the wheelers kicking over the traces all the time. There is an idea that Brighton wishes to destroy the amenities of the South Downs. This is quite false. Brighton is just as anxious to preserve the natural amenities of the Downs as the most rabid Sussex downs-man. But it is perfectly true that the visitors to Brighton are perhaps of a different kind from the visitors at other parts of the Downs. They are mostly town dwellers, perhaps from London, who prefer the amusements and enjoyments of a town to the peaceful solitude of the Downs. The Corporation of Brighton is bound to cater for those people; it can do nothing else; and it is essential that those persons who come from the industrial North of England, which they do—we have plenty of evidence about that—to Brighton should find what they expect to find there. It is deplorable, and many of us feel sorry about it, but it is a fact, and we have nowadays got to face facts.
I want to mention for a few seconds the question of the motor track. I do not know if any noble Lords have been to see where it is. I should like first of all to tell your Lordships that there is a railway station, which was built some years ago, in the middle of it, and a railway line. I do not know if there was

141
much opposition to the building of the railway line and station. The whole place is studded with small shacks, empty tramcars and things of that sort. The race track is going to have turf sides and will not be a bit like Brooklands. It is not going to destroy the amenities of that particular place at all; in fact I think most of us came to the conclusion that it would improve the place. I will not elaborate what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has said, but if any of your Lordships would go and see the place you would see there is nothing at all in the agitation against, the motor track.
An extraordinary amount of misrepresentation has gone on in the Press, and I am astounded at the crime I am supposed to have committed in playing a small part in supporting that the Bill should not go forward. I only want to repeat that it is quite evident that no scheme of any sort or description for the preservation of the South Downs can possibly hope to work smoothly and properly unless Brighton is included. Of that I am quite convinced, and on those grounds I sincerely hope your Lordships will support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I should be inclined to treat the first part of the noble Lord's speech as leading to a rather different conclusion from the one he put forward. If he had concluded his speech halfway through I could have expressed the hope to Lord Redesdale that on reconsideration, after this announcement to you of the views and impressions of the Committee, the noble Lord would waive his Amendment in favour of the Motion of my noble friend beside me, because the statement of the noble Lord who has just sat clown as to the effect upon the minds of the Committee greatly strengthened my opinion-that Lord Zetland's Motion should be accepted by your Lordships. Throughout I have had the impression that adjacent areas have not been adequately considered. Their good will in the matter in Sussex has throughout been manifest, while the local landlords have really behaved splendidly in allotting their land to permanent open spaces for the good of the public. In many cases they are not asking for a pennyworth of compensation.
I should like to say, rather in criticism of Lord Redesdale's attitude, that it is
142
good for the general public as a whole, and most of all for the urban population, that these great open areas should be maintained. There is ample scope for every kind of amusement and enjoyment within these towns themselves, and when the noble Lord, a member of the Committee, said just now that they have got to cater for visitors from the North of England and so on, by all means let Brighton do so. Brighton owns three-thousand acres of downland within its own borough area. Why go outside and invade the area of these local authorities which do not want them when Brighton itself is perfectly able to do this entertaining of these visitors? The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, made a remark which, I think, is worth repeating. This is not a question of Brighton alone. There are many of these great urban authorities along the coast, and if all of them follow the precedent of Brighton from the east of Kent to the west of Sussex, before very long there will be one continuous line of urban development. And does anybody suppose that is going to be good for the visitors from the North of England?
On the contrary, the thing to do is to keep the balance of town and country in these two beautiful counties for the benefit not only of the counties themselves but also of everybody who goes there. The real trouble is that during the last few years there has grown up a spirit of competition between one town and another for amusement centres, as they call them, what everybody else would call road houses. One town competes with another. They visit one, another to see what novelties their neighbours and competing towns have, and it becomes a positive obsession amongst them to attract what Lord Gage very euphemistically calls the tourist traffic. It is nothing of the kind. This is done not merely to attract the working men from the North of England, as the noble Lord below the gangway seems to think. The effort of these places is to attract the most expensive type of visitor, and these amusement places are being prepared almost entirely from that point of view. I recently heard of a resort in which one of its amusement centres almost on the sea was a bathing pool that was thirty-five feet in diameter. I merely have to give the measurement to show how absurd it is to talk of its being a

143
bathing pool for the hard-worked people from the North of England who want to come to the South of England to bathe.
I must say I think Lord Redesdale very abundantly deprecated that kind of argument. It really is a very serious problem—I mean the influence upon the towns themselves which are engaged in this kind of work. Some of them are properly trying to withstand this invasion, but they are, and cannot fail to be, influenced by the pursuit of novelty next door, and they then fall into this vulgarity and ostentation. I say very seriously that there is a real danger of these towns becoming purely parasitic communities and that fifty years hence at this rate a real condition of demoralisation will exist. It is incumbent upon local authorities who have to look after these large communities to take heed in time.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I should like to be allowed to intervene for a few moments in regard to this question. I was not lucky enough to hear the speech of the noble Marquess in introducing the Motion, but I have listened with attention to what has fallen from various noble Lords since I came into the House and I am connected—not financially in any way—with the motor race track. Of course I pay great attention to what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, but I think it is quite clear that the opposition to Brighton and the whole difficulty surrounding this Bill is connected entirely with the motor race track. That and nothing else was the real reason why this Bill ever saw the light. The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, made the remark that the matter was settled so far as the race track was concerned, but I have some reason to think that those who are behind this Motion to-day are interested in digging a new ditch—perhaps the last one—on the Downs in which to die over this matter of the racecourse.
The question of the preservation of the Downs, to all those who know them, is a question of vital importance, but I think there is a danger in trying to carry objections on æsthetic grounds too far. The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has told us that the ratepayers have already spent £20,000 of their money on this matter. It is very much the same story as in the case of Waterloo Bridge, as the rate
144
payers of London know well to-day and will know better in the future. We are going to have a beautiful bridge which will not interfere with river traffic as the old one did, and London will have to pay for it. If people had not pressed their objections on æsthetic grounds probably a large contribution would have been forthcoming from the Road Fund. Therefore we see how much æsthetic objections can cost the ratepayers.
As I have said, I was not fortunate enough to hear the arguments used by the noble Marquess in moving his Motion, but it seems to me that to exclude Brighton in the way proposed would be most invidious. The
noble Viscount, Lord Gage, referred to the existence of other great local authorities in the area. I suppose he referred to Eastbourne and, perhaps, to Seaford. It seems to me that to exclude Brighton in this manner and not similarly to exclude other local bodies would be to increase friction and prevent agreement. Here I agree with what was said by the noble Lord behind me. I am one of those associated with the motor race-track proposal, and I repeat what I have said before that the objections to that race track have been greatly exaggerated and are really without serious foundation. I can assure your Lordships that those who are behind the race-track proposal—and I am in close touch with them—have every intention of preserving the Downs. They are just as interested as any noble Lord in this question. They are not going to spoil the Downs. Every safeguard is being provided and everything they can do will be done to remove reasonable objections to the track.
I am perfectly certain that we can dismiss the race track as a factor likely to impair the beauty of the South Downs. Any buildings in connection with the track are going to be put at the bottom of the valley, where nobody can see them until they get close to them. I hope that the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will be carried, because, as has been said by other noble Lords, Brighton is one of the most important, if not the most important local authority in the area. To treat Brighton in the way proposed by the noble Marquess would be most invidious and would be very much resented, I imagine, by those who are able to speak for the town.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, my noble friend who has just sat down has had my friendship and admiration for so long that I am sorry to give him the negative direct. The noble Earl said that those who support this proposal are really concerned with the motor track. As a life long resident in Sussex I can assure him that that is not the case. Ever since the War there has been a very uneasy feeling that a great part of our beautiful county was undergoing serious deterioration unchecked. It was first manifest in the growth of Peace haven and in various other developments, and it is quite true that a stimulus was given to this feeling by proposals for the construction of a motor track. Undoubtedly that was the case, but it was by no means only on account of that proposal that we were alarmed. It was by the feeling that there might be no end to this kind of development of the Downs. However that may be, that is past history and the only thing connected with it that remains is the quite subsidiary question of the northern approach. That may or may not be a good thing, but it is quite a, subsidiary issue. I am bound to say with regard to that, that when the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that the County Council had agreed to it, that was only true in the sense that they offered to throw it in as part of an arrangement if Brighton would meet them on other points.
LORD REDESDALE: They never said so.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I think that what is felt in Sussex is that these Downs are not merely a county asset but a national asset. It is not only for the delectation of those living in Sussex but as a national asset that they must be preserved. What does preservation mean? It does not mean entire sterilisation, but neither, in the view I think of all those outside the Brighton Corporation and their supporters, does it mean the kind of preservation which consists, as the noble Marquess said, in providing aerodromes, swimming pools, hotels, tea gardens, and—a thing which the noble Marquess did not mention—with one restriction as to value and the surrounding acreage, an apparently indefinite number of private houses, eligible residences which would presumably
146
attract the kind of people Brighton would want to have in her neighbourhood. To admit Brighton to a joint body would bring people face to face who on the question of preservation have not been able to meet all these years and there is not the smallest likelihood that they will ever meet.
There is another point I would like to mention. It has been said that Brighton is entitled to sit on this joint authority because Brighton is a large landowner outside the borough. I should have thought that an argument against, because obviously the Brighton representatives would have a divided interest. They would have to think on the one hand of the two or three thousand acres which they own outside the borough and of the effect of the development of that land on their rates, and to think of the public interest on the other hand; and it surely is most objectionable to have on a public body some representatives who have divided interests of that, kind. Lord Redesdale said that this would be a gross injustice to Brighton. Where is the injustice? Brighton was enormously enlarged. I happen to know about that, because I was Chairman of the Unopposed Bill Committee in another place, and in that sense was responsible for the enlargement. They made an excellent case for it on the ground of general public policy, but if I had known what policy they were going to adopt, I should have been loth to be responsible for the passing of that Bill. Brighton now, I am informed, has over twelve thousand acres within her boundaries, not to mention land outside, and not one-fourth of that is built up. How can it be said, then, that Brighton is cribbed, cabined and confined, when she has this enormous area still undeveloped?
What does this Motion ask? It asks that people who are agreed on a general line of policy should be constituted the authority for their own area, and no other. There is a provision that if any body outside wishes to come in, they shall have a right to be heard. You are not asked to take any final decision. You are merely asked to say that it is desirable that the Minister of Health should make an Order. Everyone is agreed that something ought to be done. Six years have passed and nothing has been done. A

147
Bill was brought in, and I am not criticising the Committee for a moment—it may have had excellent reasons why it could not recommend the Bill to the House—but the decision they made was not, "If you fail to agree we will make a scheme for you," but it was, "If you fail to agree, the Bill will not pass." That meant giving a decision in favour of Brighton, which they were not slow to use. I think we should take a step which believe everyone agrees is public policy. An inquiry will be held, all parties will be heard, and the facts will be before an impartial Minister of Health. He may, or he may not, decide to appoint a committee, but do not let us drift on without making an attempt at this, which is part of a wide public policy.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I have been asked to reply to the Motion put on the Paper, to-day, for the reason that my noble friend Lord Gage, as he himself has stated, is connected in some form or other with this subject, by being a resident in the County of Sussex. I hope the noble Marquess will not expect me, in replying to his Motion, to go in detail into the history of the whole of this very complicated case, nor, indeed, do I desire to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes with the very short statement which I have to make. Section 4 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, can only come into operation upon a request made by a local authority or county council for the constitution of a joint committee. No request has in fact been made, and in the absence of such a request the Minister has no power to take the action which the noble Marquess suggests in his Motion. But, supposing that such a request were made, and that it was submitted to the Minister, it would still remain a question whether he could, in the terms of the section, think it "expedient" to set up a joint committee, in the absence of evidence that there is a sufficient common ground and good will among the authorities concerned to ensure that a plan which would secure the general support of the authorities concerned could be prepared with reasonable rapidity. Apart from this, the suggestion of the noble Marquess that in approaching the question of the establishment of a joint committee, the Minister should exclude any possibility
148
of the committee including representation of Brighton, is one which, both on the ground of my right honourable friend's semi-judicial position in the matter, and on the ground that it is by no means clear that the exclusion of Brighton would really be in the best interests of the situation, he could not in any way, at present, endorse.
My right honourable friend has been watching, with great care, the planning position of the South Downs, and, so far as is practicable, he has been keeping in touch with the interests concerned. I think it is quite clear that a considerable degree of co-operation between the County Councils and the other local authorities concerned is essential, if the planning issues involved are to be successfully dealt with, especially when consideration is given to the fact that restrictions on buildings on the Downs will necessarily involve a liability to pay compensation, which may be of an amount beyond the means of the separate local authorities. I understand that informal discussions, directed to the securing of unified action by authorities covering sufficient area and of sufficient financial strength, are now in progress, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Health is anxious to give every possible help in furtherance of those discussions; but at the moment there is no further direct action open to him. In the meantime, the only part that the Minister can play, and he will continue to take it, is to be a friend to all parties concerned in this case, and to encourage in any way possible the co-ordination of the down-lands.
My remarks have been very brief, and I hope the noble Marquess who has moved this Motion will not think me in any way discourteous in not replying at greater length; but I am concerned that nothing should pass my lips which would add fuel to the furnace, and further complicate a task which already appears some times to be quite unsurmountable. I hope that my noble friend Lord Redesdale will withdraw his Amendment, and give an opportunity to the noble Marquess to withdraw the Motion which stands in his name.
LORD REDESDALE: My Lords, in answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, let me say at once that I hold no brief for Brighton, and do not represent

149
Brighton in any way whatever. What I have said, and the action I have taken, are entirely prompted by a desire to see justice done, and nothing else. May I just say, with great respect, about Lord Rankeillour's remarks, that I think he is not right. The Committee did not refuse to make a scheme; it was not competent for them, within the four walls of the Bill before them, to make a satisfactory scheme, and in no circumstances could they go outside the four walls of the Bill.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Perhaps I did not express myself properly. What I intended to convey was this, that by saying to the parties, "Unless you agree, the Bill cannot go forward," they were really giving Brighton art advantage in the negotiations which were then entered upon.
LORD REDESDALE: I am sorry; I understood the noble Lord to say that we had refused to make a scheme. I can only repeat that the action I am taking in this matter is taken in the firm belief that that action is in the interests of justice. I shall have to ask your Lordships to support me or to do the other thing.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the debate, but at this late hour I have no desire to reply to the various points which have been raised. I was, however, very much impressed with certain sentences that fell from the noble Viscount, Lord Gage. The noble Viscount is, of course, in a very special position to know precisely what the situation is with regard to the planning and preservation of the Downs. I rather think that he is the Chairman of the East Sussex County Council and the Town Planning Committee. If I understood the noble Viscount rightly, what he said was that negotiations are in progress at the present time between the County Council and various other authorities under the Act. He said that, though it might be possible that in the long run the solution which I proposed by means of my Motion this afternoon might be the most desirable solution, yet he would like further time before he gave a final opinion on that matter. The impression left upon
150
my mind by that statement of the noble Viscount's was that he is at least hopeful that the negotiations which are proceeding between 'various parties may bear fruit. In those circumstances, my Lords, if I am in order in doing so, I should like to move that the debate on this matter be adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly, sine die.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, are the Government able to snake any statement about the business for next week?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for asking that question. I can tell him that there is a, Bill called the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Bill which is expected up from another place to-morrow, and there will be a formal sitting of the House to-morrow at four o'clock to give that Bill a First Reading. I understand that the Second Reading of the Bill will be taken on Tuesday. In addition, on Tuesday, there are Lord Kinnoull's Bill, the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill, and the Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Bill, both of which are to have a Second Reading. I understand that a Bill introduced today, called the Criminal Lunatics (Scotland) Bill, will also have a Second Reading on that day. On Wednesday, for which day the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, is on the Paper, it is proposed that we shall meet at three o'clock. There are a great number of speakers and it is anticipated that the debate will take two days. There is nothing else on the Paper for Thursday, so it is proposed that Lord Sanderson's Motion shall take up all Wednesday and Thursday.
LORD SNELL: Will the House sit on Thursday at three o'clock as well?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: No, I think that the sitting of Thursday will be at 4.15, because there is a legal sitting as well; but on Wednesday the House will meet at three o'clock.