HL Deb 20 July 1938 vol 110 cc992-1028

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.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Provision of fire services.

1.—(1) The council of every county borough and of every county district (hereinafter referred to as a "fire authority") shall make provision for the extinction of fires and the protection of life and property in case of fire, either by themselves providing and maintaining efficient fire services for their borough or district (hereinafter referred to as "local fire services") or by entering into arrangements with other fire authorities or with other persons for securing the provision and maintenance of efficient local fire services for their borough or district.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any order made under the next following subsection a borough or district shall not be deemed to be provided with efficient local fire services unless—

  1. (a) there are available for that borough or district the services of such a fire brigade and of such fire engines, appliances and equipment as may be necessary to meet efficiently all normal requirements;
  2. (b) the members of the fire brigade are efficiently trained to carry out their duties;

(3) The Secretary of State may by order prescribe standards of efficiency with respect to any of the matters mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, and the standards may vary according to the requirements of different kinds of locality.

(7) Where a fire authority, who are the council of a borough having a separate police force, delegate to the watch committee their functions under this Act, the watch committee may employ the chief officer of police, an assistant chief constable or the deputy chief constable on administrative duties in connection with a fire brigade maintained by that authority and may employ other constables as members of the brigade:

Provided that no such other constables shall be employed as part-time members of a fire brigade unless they were so employed at the passing of this Act.

THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF MUNSTER) had an Amendment on the Paper to make subsection (1) and subsection (2) down to the end of paragraph (a) read as follows: (1) The council of every county borough and of every county district (hereinafter referred to as a 'fire authority') shall make provision for the extinction of fires and the protection of life and property in case of fire by securing— (a) the services for their borough or district of such a fire brigade and of such fire engines, appliances and equipment as may be necessary to meet efficiently all normal requirements.

The noble Earl said: The Amendments to Clause 1 on the first page of the Marshalled List of Amendments which stand in my name I may perhaps be permitted to deal with together. The first Amendment is merely a drafting one. The second and other Amendments deal with an important question, which has been raised by local authorities, regarding the effect of the Bill upon the liability of local authorities to actions for damages by ratepayers who might claim to have suffered loss resulting from a failure by the local authority to provide a fire service up to the standard set by the Bill. The position of the local authorities in this respect is complicated by the circumstance that the extent to which, and the circumstances in which, a local authority might be held liable to pay damages for a breach of any duty imposed by this Bill raises a somewhat difficult question of law. What the local authorities fear is that without any real fault on their part they might be held to be liable for some perhaps trivial omission to do a particular thing or, to use a legal term, that they might be exposed to claims based on what is called "non-feasance," as distinct from "misfeasance."

The local authorities would be content if it were clear in the Bill that they would be liable only in the event of it being proved that the damage resulted because the performance of the duty was either negligent or improper, but their suggestion was that the Bill, by placing on them a new duty and setting a particular standard of attainment, might open an unnecessarily and unreasonably wide field for actions or for claims backed by threat of legal proceedings for which probably in many cases there would be no clear legal justification but which it might quite conceivably be difficult to meet with the clause in its original shape. The circumstances in which a local authority could be held liable for a breach of duty put upon it by this Bill will naturally be a matter for the Courts to decide. In so far as the local authorities' position can properly be safeguarded from the risk of proceedings and claims which it might be unfair that they should have to meet, it is hoped that these Amendments will lead to that result. I may add that subject to one or two quite minor drafting points which can be dealt with on the Report stage, the clause in its new form has been agreed by the Government with the local authorities' representatives at a meeting this morning. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 1, line 11, leave out from ("fire") to the first ("of") in line 22 and insert ("by securing— (a) the services for their borough or district").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

With your Lordships' permission, in order to save time, I will put en bloc the other Amendments on this page of the Marshalled List standing in the name of the noble Earl, which are consequential.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 2, line 1, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— ("(b) the efficient training of the members of the fire brigade")

Page 2, line 3, leave out ("exist")

Page 2, line 7, leave out ("exist")

Page 2, line 14, at end insert ("and the services secured for a borough or district under this subsection are in this Act referred to as 'local fire services'.")

Page 2, line i8, at end insert ("and facilities available in").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD SALTOUN moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert: Provided that before any order is made under this subsection a draft thereof shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and if either House within the next subsequent thirty days on which that House has sat after the draft is laid before it passes a Resolution against the draft or any part thereof no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of any new draft.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is rather different from the Amendment to Clause 23 standing in my name in that it directs that the draft of any order shall be laid before your Lordships' House. I have been strongly urged to ask at this point of the Bill that your Lordships should insist upon a local inquiry in every case. I did not think that was a proper thing to ask your Lordships to do, and I did not think it was one which Parliament would be willing to grant. After some consideration therefore I have put down the Amendment in its present form. The form is familiar to your Lordships, it is one which you often consent to insert in a Bill, and it is one which I think the Public Departments generally receive with reproachful surprise. My case rests, I think, on very strong grounds. Perhaps the strongest argument against the Bill was urged by the noble Earl in charge of it. The Report upon which the Bill is founded devotes paragraphs 83 to 88—a very considerable part of the Report—to a recommendation that the country should contribute a sum of £1, 000,000 annually (not £1,000,000 in all, as some noble Lords in conversation with me have seemed to think) towards the expenses which will be incurred under this Bill. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill said on Second Reading that the Government did not propose to give this sum because they could not afford it. When I cannot afford anything I go without it, but the Government of the country are in a different position. They cannot afford this Bill so they say, "Well, the local authorities will pay."

I would like to draw the attention of your Lordships to some of the expenses that will have to be met under this Bill. Under the Bill your Lordships are asked to set up a whole new branch of the Civil Service. Clause 8 provides for the establishment of a Fire Service Commission with salaries and travelling expenses. Clause 11 requires the establishment of fire service boards, Clause 17 the establishment of a Central Advisory Council, Clause 18 the appointment of inspectors, Clause 19 the establishment of a training centre. All that means considerable expense. Then again, either this Bill is going to be effective or it is not going to be effective. I assume that the Government have introduced it because they think it is going to be effective. In that case the fire risks of all insurance companies in the country will be diminished. I doubt whether they will in fact be much diminished, because I doubt whether the Bill is going to be very effective, but it is not open to the Government to doubt that. But if the Bill does diminish the risks of fire insurance companies, there is, as far as I know, no quid pro quo coming to the Government from these insurance companies.

Again, the standard set by the Bill is extremely high. I do not want to trouble your Lordships with an account of the standard established by the Bill, but, as far as I can understand the minimum requirements, they will entail the provision of a fire engine and a properly trained crew for every three hundred square miles of country. That will mean a very serious expense. As far as I can make out it will amount to about one-third of the average fire losses in that area of country per annum. I think, indeed, that my figures are so much on the low side that it would be safe for me to say that the average expenditure of local authorities in country districts under the Bill will be practically equivalent to the average annual fire loss. If they have to expend that money then, in my judgment, they should have something like the premiums out of which to meet that expenditure.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am loath to interrupt the noble Lord, but I thought we discussed this matter at some length on Second Reading. The Amendment which he has put on the Paper is one that deals entirely with the draft order to be laid before Parliament. As far as I can see it has nothing whatever to do with insurance companies or expenditure or the other things that he has mentioned. I think it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if we were to discuss the Amendment as it stands.

LORD SALTOUN

The point I am trying to put is that it all these expenses are going to be laid upon local authorities in the country they should have an opportunity of being represented. As the Bill stands I do not see that any local authority has any means of expressing dissent from any proposals of the Government at all. Unless something like this Amendment is passed by your Lordships I do not think they will have any means. That is the whole object of my Amendment. It seems to me that when local authorities are asked to spend so much money, which the Government have been recommended to spend and which they will not spend, the least I can ask your Lordships to do is to put in something to give them a chance of representing their case. I know that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill could say that he is not bound, and that there are no standards laid down in the Bill, but he cannot answer for his successors. He may say that while he is in office the standards of the Departmental Committee's Report will never be applied, but he cannot answer for his successors and I certainly think we ought to have in the Bill something which will give local authorities the chance to represent their case against the establishment of standards which will entail upon them an expense which I submit they are not able to bear. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 19, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Saltoun.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Perhaps I might confine my remarks to the Amendment which my noble friend has moved, but I will make one other observation before speaking on that point. If the noble Lord will read through my remarks in reply to his questions on the Second Reading of this Bill, he will observe that I made no such statement as that the Government could not afford to pay £1,000,000 a year. I thought that my argument was quite clear: that the Government were already providing this year a sum of no less than £1,500,000 for the necessary fire appliances and in addition percentage grants towards expenses of recruiting and training of auxiliary firemen. I make that observation in case my noble friend has forgotten the remarks I made on a previous occasion. I turn now to this Amendment, and I think I can probably meet my noble friend in this way. I propose to insert upon the Report stage an Amendment based on Section 109 (5) of the Housing Act, 1936, which will require consultation with any local authority with whom consultation appears to be desirable before these orders are made. In those circumstances I would suggest to my noble friend that he should withdraw this Amendment and wait for the Amendment which I propose to put down for discussion on the Report stage next Monday.

LORD SALTOUN

I am very sorry if I misrepresented my noble friend's remarks on the Second Reading. I listened to them with great attention. I am very much obliged to him for meeting me as he is doing on this point, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert: and any fire authority which complies with a standard so prescribed shall, as respects the matter for which the standard is prescribed, he deemed to have discharged their duty under the foregoing subsection. (3) A fire authority may themselves provide and maintain, either wholly or in part, the local fire services for their borough or district or may enter into arrangements for the provision and maintenance, either wholly or in part, of such fire services by other fire authorities or persons. The noble Earl said: This Amendment forms part of the re-drafting of clause 1. I do not think there is any necessity for me to explain the Amendment to your Lordships unless there is a request that I should do so. It is practically a matter of drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page a, line 19, at end insert the said Nvords.—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (7), after "Provided that," to insert "as from the expiration of a period of five years from the passing of this Act." The noble Earl said: The other two Amendments are of some importance and I have put them down as my right honourable friend undertook to reconsider the procedure for bringing to an end the employment of police as part-time members of a fire brigade. The effect of the first Amendment is to allow fire authorities to employ as many constables as they wish as part-time members of the fire brigade for a period of five years after the passing of the Act, provided that the whole system comes to an end at the expiration of the five years period. The Committee will recollect that under the original clause fire authorities could not appoint any more constables to act as part-time firemen, so that the personnel would gradually fall off. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 34, after ("that") insert ("as from the expiration of a period of five years from the passing of this Act").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The next is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 35, leave out from ("brigade") to the end of line 36.—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

LORD STRABOLGI moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:

Chief officer, fire brigade.

".The principal executive fire officer appointed by the local authority in pursuance of this Act shall be designated the chief officer of the fire brigade, and shall be directly and solely responsible to the council of that authority."

The noble Lord said: This new clause has been put down at the request of the Institute of Fire Engineers, and they attach great importance to the principle contained therein. As things are at present, in many towns for the purpose of local administration the principal executive fire officer is a subordinate under the head of another department—the borough surveyor, the sanitary inspector or the chief constable, as the case may be. That being the case, he is not in direct contact with the responsible committee of the council. What sometimes happens is that his reports and his suggestions are censored by an inexperienced official who is in a position to negative reports before they reach the administration. This results in a loss of efficiency and, indeed, brings about all the ills of dual control. In order to regularise the position and define the exact authority of these officers, I hope the Government will see their way to agree with this Amendment.

Amendment moved— After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strabolgi.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My right honorable friend the Secretary of State has given some consideration to this new clause. It would be true to say that in many districts the chief constable is appointed chief officer or director of the fire brigade and is in administrative control of the brigade. We have come to the conclusion that it would be far better to leave this question of the principal executive fire officer being directly and solely responsible to the council of an authority to the local authority themselves. It is perfectly true to say that the Riverdale Committee recommended that fire authorities should consider that very question, and I have not the slightest doubt that after the Bill has passed the local authorities concerned will in fact consider it. I hope that after that explanation the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.

LORD STRABOLGI

I am much obliged for the explanation. In the circumstances I do not propose to press the Amendment and beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2:

Fire-hydrants and water supply in case of fire.

(4) Any person who uses a fire-hydrant, without the authority of the water company or person to whom the hydrant belongs, otherwise than for the extinction of fire or fire brigade purposes, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER had given notice of an Amendment in subsection (4), to leave out "without the authority of the water company or person to whom the hydrant belongs, otherwise than for the extinction of fire or fire brigade purposes" and insert "otherwise than for the purpose of extinguishing fires or for any fire brigade purpose or any purpose authorised by the water company or person to whom the fire-hydrant belongs, or damages or obstructs any fire-hydrant, otherwise than in consequence of its use for such a purpose as aforesaid."

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is proposed in order to meet representations which have been received to the effect that operations of fire brigades are not infrequently hampered, owing to persons having interfered with hydrants or hydrant covers by allowing them to become covered up, for example, with road materials. I have no doubt that this generally happens as a result of carelessness on the part of builders. The Amendment accordingly extends the existing subsection so as to bring in cases of damaging or obstructing hydrants in such circumstances, as well as the using of hydrants without proper authority, which is all the clause covers in its present form.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

In order to save the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in page 5, line 5, I will put the Question in this way: "Leave out from 'fire-hydrant' to 'or' in line 5."

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 4, leave out from ("fire-hydrant") to ("or") in line 5.—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has an Amendment on page 5, line 5, which comes in the middle of the Amendment of the noble Earl. I put the Question in that way to save his Amendment. Does the noble Lord move it?

LORD STRABOLGI

Yes, I wish to move it, my Lord Chairman.

Tim LORD CHAIRMAN

Does the noble Earl accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi?

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

No.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Then will the noble Lord move the Amendment now, and I will put the rest of the Amendment of the noble Earl afterwards.

LORD STRABOLGI moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "or" [company or person] and insert "and." The noble Lord said: This Amendment also is moved at the request of the Institute of Fire Engineers—and I admit that it is rather an unusual method of altering a Bill—to bring about what they desire. I am not sure that the new Amendment of the noble Earl, which we have now under discussion, does not go some way to meet the point. But perhaps if I explain the point very briefly, the noble Earl can give your Lordships his views upon it. What the fire people, if I may so call them, desire is to have some redress themselves when hydrants are used without their permission; in other words, they want the Bill strengthened so that these hydrants which they have to provide are not used without their knowledge and consent.

As the Bill is drawn, your Lordships are aware that every fire authority is bound to provide and maintain the necessary hydrants, and they cost a good deal of money to instal and maintain. When permission is granted by the water companies to contractors and others to take water from the hydrants for road building and that sort of work, damage is sometimes done, and it is difficult, I am told, for the fire authority to fix responsibility and obtain redress. Therefore they suggest that the Bill should be altered in such a way that they as well as the water authority have to give permission. They think that the position would then he improved from their point of view, and that they would be safeguarded against the loss and damage which sometimes occurs. That is the object of my Amendment. I am not sure that its wording is the best, nor am I sure that the object is not partly met by the Amendment of the noble Earl, but I beg to move this Amendment in order to hear what the noble Earl has to say on the matter.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 5, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").—(Lord Strabolgi.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This is an Amendment which I regret that it is impossible for me to accept. In the first place a fire authority is not the "person to whom the hydrant belongs," even at places where they actually do maintain the hydrant. The fire authority, I think, would not wish to be a party to a suggestion such as this whereby all the licences granted by the water undertakers would have, first of all, to be licensed by them. I am advised that there are literally thousands of these licences already in existence between undertakers and contractors, and if it was necessary to obtain their authority each time I think the fire authority's work would be of a most burdensome character. I hope the noble Lord will not insist upon his Amendment.

LORD STRABOLGI

I am in some difficulty because in any case, in view of the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, my Amendment would not make sense anyhow. The noble Earl's Amendment has obliterated my Amendment, in spite of the Lord Chairman's attempt to save it. Therefore, I do not wish to press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I now put the remainder of the noble Earl's Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 5, leave out from ("company") to ("shall") in line 7 and insert ("otherwise than for the purpose of extinguishing fires or for any fire brigade purpose or any purpose authorised by the water company or person to whom the fire-hydrant belongs, or damages or obstructs any fire-hydrant, otherwise than in consequence of its use for such a purpose as aforesaid").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

Repeal of certain enactments requiring owners and occupiers to defray expenses of fire brigades.

5. Section thirty-three of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847 (which requires owners of property to defray expenses of fire brigades in attending fires outside the borough or district for which the fire brigade is maintained) as incorporated with or applied by any enactment or statutory order, whether with or without modifications, and Section thirty of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade Act, 1865, so far as it requires owners and occupiers of property to defray the expenses of the fire brigade in attending fires outside London, shall cease to have effect.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out Clause 5 and insert the following new clause:

No payments to be made by owners and occupiers in respect of fire services.

".A fire authority shall not be entitled to require the owners or occupiers of property on which fires occur to make any payment in respect of the expenses of a fire brigade in attending the fires, and all enactments under which fire authorities may require such payments to be made by the owners or occupiers of property on which fires occur shall cease to have effect:

Provided that this section so far as it relates to the powers of fire authorities under any enactment mentioned in Part II of the Third Schedule to this Act or under any enactment incorporating or applying with or without modifications Section thirty-three of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, to require payments in respect of the expenses of fire brigades in attending fires outside the borough or district of the authority by whom the brigade was maintained, shall not come into operation until the expiration of a period of two years from the passing of this Act."

The noble Earl said: The Amendment which I now propose and ask your Lordships to agree to is one of great importance. It is proposed in fulfilment of a promise which I gave on the Second Reading stage of the Bill, that if, as I then anticipated, the negotiations with the insurance companies, and eight certain towns with powers to charge for "in-district" services, should reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion, I would move an Amendment to restore the provision originally in the Bill as it was presented to another place, abrogating all charges for fire brigade services on owners or occupiers of property, whether charges in respect of services rendered within a fire authority's own district, or charges made when the brigade is sent outside. This new clause is not in precisely the same form as the original Clause 5 when the Bill was introduced, but nevertheless it meets exactly the same point, and restores the Bill to the position in which it was when introduced into the House of Commons. The new clause, as your Lordships will observe, contains a proviso which I think needs some explanation. This proviso should be read with the new Part II of the Third Schedule, the effect of which is that charges on owners or occupiers for services of a brigade sent outside its district may continue for a further period of two years after the Act passes. I suggest that this proposal meets the suggestions which were made on the Second Reading stage of the Bill, and your Lordships, I have no doubt, will agree to the Amendment, which I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 5 and insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)

LORD MANCROFT

I would first of all like to say that I am greatly obliged to my noble friend for having met the views which I ventured to lay before your Lordships' House on an earlier occasion. In substance this is, per se, an Amendment such as I can support. There are, however, one or two matters to which I would like to draw attention for a moment. It appears to me that this new clause contains something which might be varied at a future time, and my observations on that point refer to the two last lines of the new clause:" shall not come into operation until the expiration of a period of two years from the passing of this Act." Does my noble friend give an assurance that "two years" means two years beyond a peradventure? It is essential that two years should be two years and no longer. Otherwise the integrity of this clause may be infringed.

I go a little further now. Having said that the clause does give me comfort and meets the views which I pressed last week, I turn to an Amendment to Clause 27 put down on page 7 of the Amendment Paper by my noble friend Lord Strathcona. I dc, not know whether a mistake has been made, whether an oversight has taken place, or whether I am very foolish. Perhaps I am very foolish, but here I see, on page 7 of the Amendment Paper, and beginning "(6) Not-withstanding anything contained," that Lord Strathcona proposes an Amendment to nullify the new clause which Lord Munster has just moved. Is this Amendment put down by Lord Strathcona an oversight? It says "shall be entitled to recover from the owner, or, if they think fit, from the occupier." That is the very thing which we are not going to allow to take place under the new Clause 5 proposed by Lord Munster. I can only think there must be a printer's error, or that the two Departments concerned are not working in unison. So before going any further I would like to have an explanation of what the Government propose to do about Lord Strathcona's Amendment.

There is a petty point to which I would draw attention. I do not know whether it is proposed to keep in the Bill subsection (15) of Clause 27. If, as I hope, Lord Strathcona will say that he will withdraw his Amendment, then I suppose he will still move his Amendment to take out subsection (15) on page 23. It is difficult to handle across the floor of the House, this involved muddle into which we have got; therefore before saying any more I think it is only fair to give the noble Earl, Lord Munster, an opportunity of saying what is the position of the Government with regard to all these points on the new clause.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Perhaps I might be permitted to make this reply to my noble friend. In the first place this second portion of the Amendment, the proviso of the new clause, will not come into operation until the expiration of a period of two years from the passing of the Act. That I understand, means two years. That is an assurance which I can willingly give to the noble Lord. With regard to the other question he raised in connection with an Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Strathcona on page 7 of the Marshalled List, the second portion of that Amendment—namely, the new subsection (6), which has special relation to the Highland counties—will not be moved by my noble friend, but it will be necessary to make small Amendments to Clause 5 to meet two points on the next stage of the Bill. They will be, firstly, to safeguard the right of individual owners or occupiers of property to make private arrangements for the attendance of fire brigades to deal with fires on their premises; and, secondly, to make it clear that the Bill does not debar a fire authority from enforcing any such private contract. I hope that these remarks will satisfy the noble Lord.

LORD MANCROFT

I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I hope he will let us have the fresh Amendments at an early moment so that we can study them over the week-end. There was one thing I was not quite clear about. It refers to the words of the proviso: shall not come into operation until the expiration of a period of two years from the passing of this Act. Does the noble Earl mean that after expiry of the two years he is going to repeal the old 1847 provisions dealt with in those two lines? That is what we should like him to do.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This deals with the outside charges. The delay of two years is necessary because account has to be taken of the many existing agreements under which a town brigade protects outside districts under the existing law on payment of charges by owners or occupiers of the property affected. If the power to make these charges were to cease forthwith many owners or occupiers of property in those districts, pending the time when their own local authority made arrangements to comply with the provisions of Clause 1, would be left without proper protection if they had a fire on their premises. Consequently we propose to delay the abolition of those charges for a period of two years, giving the fire authorities concerned time to make proper arrangements under Clause 1.

LORD CORNWALLIS

May I ask whether that explanation means that at the expiration of this two-year period those provisions relating to the outside district payments will be automatically and wholly repealed?

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

That is so.

LORD JESSEL

As one of those who wish to see the exclusion from the Bill of payments by owners in those towns, I wish to join the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in thanking the Government for this concession. At the same time we seem to have got into an awful muddle over this Bill. The noble Earl has done his best, and very ably, to pilot this Bill through the House, but this is another example of the necessity for more thorough discussion of these Bills. In this case at the end of the Session the Bill will have to be very fully discussed on the Report stage. I suggest to the Government—and I am sorry that there is no one present in higher authority than the noble Earl—that this is a Bill which might have been discussed in this House first. It came here in a battered condition from another place, it has been changed and chopped about, and it has been a case of shuttlecock and battledore with this clause for some time. I think it is an occasion when we ought to make a protest.

LORD GAINFORD

The appearance of Lord Strathcona's Amendment has created a good deal of anxiety in many quarters, and it does seem very extraordinary that when an arrangement has been made, as I understand it has been made, behind the scenes with one Minister, another Minister puts down an Amendment which counteracts the very arrangement that has been come to and counteracts the words of the Amendment put down in the name of the Minister. At the same time, I want to thank the noble Earl, Lord Munster, for indicating that Lord Strathcona's Amendment is not going to be pressed and that the object that we all have at heart is going to be secured in the Bill.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

A certain anxiety has been expressed in some quarters about the possible future interpretation of this new clause. The intention of the noble Earl is perfectly clear. He wishes to safeguard insurance companies against claims that might be brought against them by local authorities for services rendered in the event of a fire. But it has been suggested that this clause might deprive the London County Council of the right to recover money to which it is entitled as a penalty for fires that break out in chimneys or ducts. It is certainly not the intention of the Government to deprive the London County Council of those rights, and in another place they have been exceedingly carefully safeguarded. May I ask the noble Earl if he will give an undertaking that if, on consultation with his advisers, he finds that the clause in its present form does override this right, he will be willing to introduce an Amendment at a later stage to make his intention clear? Of course it is not intentions that count in an Act of Parliament.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I anticipate that there will be no difficulty in meeting the noble Earl, and his representations will be considered between now and the next stage. With regard to the complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, about the Bills coming in a battered condition from another place, I would say this, that on the Second Reading I did tell your Lordships that in the event of these negotiations reaching a successful conclusion I should move the Amendment which stands in my name.

LORD CORNWALLIS

As one of those who equally requested the noble Earl to insert some Amendment in Clause 5, I wish to thank him for having met us in this way. But I should like to clear up one or two misconceptions. Everybody uses the term "the insurance companies" in regard to the people with whom the Government have been negotiating. All the insurers are parties to any agreement—Lloyd's, private underwriters, and all kinds of others—and it is quite wrong to talk about insurance companies. I should also like to dispel the misconception that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, may have created that the insurance companies, Lloyd's and other underwriters, are going to get some vast benefit without giving any quid pro quo. I assure the noble Lord that that is very far from the fact, and that they have made a very handsome and gratuitous contribution.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 [Schemes for co-ordination of fire services]:

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Munster, proposes to move the next Amendment with a modification, omitting the word "to" from the words as printed on the Paper.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 36, leave out ("they shall be in accordance therewith") and insert ("the scheme shall apply those scales with or without modifications").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 [Powers of fire brigades and police in extinguishing fires]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to insert after subsection (1): (2) Any person who wilfully obstructs or interferes with any member of a fire brigade engaged in operations for the extinction of a fire or the protection or rescue of any person or property from fire shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds. The noble Earl said: This Amendment has been put down at the request of the National Fire Brigades' Association. Cases, we are informed, may and do sometimes arise, especially in country districts, where the police are not present to deal with cases of obstruction, and the purport of the new subsection is to make it an offence wilfully to obstruct or interfere with members of fire brigades engaged at fires. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 38, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following clause:

Power to exempt trailers used for fire services from traffic restrictions.

".The Minister of Transport may by regulations provide that, in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be specified by the regulations, vehicles used for fire brigade purposes shall be exempt from the provisions of Section eighteen of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (which restricts the number of trailers to be drawn by motor vehicles); and the provisions of the said Act as to regulations made thereunder shall apply in like manner to regulations made under this section."

The noble Earl said: This Amendment raises a rather important point. It really is put down to meet a matter that might arise in connection with air-raid fire precautions schemes. I can conceive that it might at times be necessary for a lorry or car to tow two trailers, and this may have to be done not only in war time but in the course of peace-time training and practices. At the present time it is inadmissible under the existing law. Accordingly I move this Amendment by which the Minister of Transport will be able to make regulations to bring into effect the matter I have described.

Amendment moved— After Clause 14 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15 [Extension of Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925, to temporary firemen]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 9, after ("payable") insert ("under any local Act").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The next Amendment is also drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 11, leave out ("under any local Act").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 [Definition of "fire brigade duties" for purposes of Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925, and this Act]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 6, at end insert ("and would, if he did not exercise his option under this subsection, be subject to the Fire Brigade Pensions Act, 1925").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 [Central Advisory Council for Fire Services]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This is also a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 13, leave out ("charges") and insert ("payments").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 [Establishment of training centre]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to insert at the end of the clause: (2) The Secretary of State may approve training centres established by fire authorities for providing courses of instruction for members of their own or other fire brigades and for training persons for service in fire brigades. The noble Earl said: This Amendment is put down to meet the promise which was made by my right honourable friend in another place as to the Government's intention to act on the recommendations contained in paragraph 103 of the Report of the Riverdale Committee. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 32, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 20 to 26 agreed to.

Clause 27:

Application to Scotland.

(3) For any reference to a county borough or a borough there shall be substituted a reference to a burgh, for any reference to a county district there shall be substituted a reference to a county; and for any reference to audit by a district auditor there shall he substituted a reference to audit by a person appointed by the Secretary of State.

(5) The council of any county or burgh to which an order under the last foregoing subsection applies may make such provision for the extinction of fires and the protection of life and property in case of fire as they may deem necessary and practicable, and for that purpose may either themselves provide and maintain fire services or enter into arrangements with other county and town councils or other persons to secure the provision and maintenance of such services.

(15) Any provision of any enactment whereby an owner or occupier of premises is required to defray expenses or charges in respect of the attendance of a fire brigade at a fire outside the county, burgh, or district for which the fire brigade is maintained, shall cease to have effect.

(17) Any expenditure incurred by a county council for the purpose of this Act shall be defrayed out of such rate payable by owners and occupiers in equal proportions as the council may determine, and any expenditure incurred by a town council for the purpose of this Act shall be defrayed out of the rate or assessment to which the expenses of a fire brigade would have been chargeable if this Act had not passed.

LORD SALTOUN moved, at the beginning of the clause, to insert the following new subsection: (1) This Act shall apply to the Cities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen and to burghs in Scotland but shall not apply to the council of any county in Scotland unless the council by resolution decide to adopt the Act.

The noble Lord said: My noble friends Lord Leven and Lord Elgin both put their names to this Amendment, although they knew they would be unavoidably prevented from being present, because they felt so very strongly that the counties of Scotland had not been fairly dealt with by the Government in this matter. The trouble really is that the shadow of the standards contained in the Report of the Departmental Committee lies over the whole Bill. If these standards are carried out, this Bill will either break the county councils or else the Bill will not really be effective, but will be one of those numerous Bills which are passed and allowed to become a dead letter. The county councils of Scotland are in somewhat of a difficulty because the Government have given a fair concession in this matter to the Highland districts, but they have not met in the same way those districts which are south and east of the Highland line.

After all, this Bill was never properly designed for Scotland. It is founded on the Report of a Committee which took no cognisance of Scottish conditions. The Association of County Councils in Scotland is utterly opposed to the Bill, and I am going to suggest in a moment that they have not been fairly dealt with. I know it is suggested that the burghs, with which Scotland is so richly provided, might allow their fire services to be used for the benefit of the counties for the extinguishment of fires which occur in their neighbourhood. That is not a fair solution, and it is not one that can be worked. Where you have a water supply of any kind, it is always available for the extinguishment of fires, but there are great districts of Scotland where there is no water supply. There are practically waterless districts, and no fire services can be available to extinguish fires in those districts. Therefore if the counties have got to make arrangements with the burghs for suitable provision for extinguishing fires, they will have to pay to the burghs just as much as they would have to pay to establish proper fire services themselves.

There is a further point I wish to make in connection with this Amendment, and that is to establish what I have said that the county councils of Scotland have not been fairly dealt with. It is perfectly true that last November the Association of County Councils in Scotland was asked to send people to the Scottish Office to discuss the provisions which the Government proposed to embody in the Bill dealing with fire services in Scotland. Those members who were sent were under the impression that the discussion was very strictly confidential, and they had this, at any rate, to go upon, that the documents laid before them were marked "confidential." The impression that these documents were confidential was never removed from their minds. The result is that here we have a Bill founded upon a Report made by a Committee which examined only English conditions, brought in with respect to county districts in Scotland which differs very widely from any districts that can be named in England, and this Bill is applied to Scotland without the county councils of Scotland being effectively consulted. It is being applied in a form to which I may say even the delegates who went up to Edinburgh explained they were utterly opposed because they considered it quite unworkable. In these circumstances it does seem to me right that these counties in Scotland should have it in their power to wait and see what arrangements they can make before coming under the operation of this Bill. If the Bill is all that the Government expect it to be, then there is not the smallest doubt that the counties will avail themselves of it, but if, as I very much fear, it imposes a very heavy burden on the country districts, and one for which they get no proper compensating advantage, it is very much better that they should be left outside its operation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 1, at the beginning insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Saltoun.)

THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE

As a humble member of the County Councils' Association of Scotland I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Saltoun has said with reference to this matter having been unduly rushed so far as Scotland is concerned. It is a glaring instance of a Bill wholly unsuited to Scotland being passed with a tacking Amendment applying it to Scotland, where the conditions are quite different. What the County Councils' Association resent is the practice of Government Departments asking for a consultation with a few county clerks and members under seal of confidence, and then openly stating that not merely the association but the local authorities themselves have been consulted. The Association cannot speak for the whole of the county councils unless they submit these matters to them. That takes time and in this instance the matter has obviously been rushed. I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has said in regard to that matter.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

While not closely consulting with others actually engaged in local government in other parts of Scotland than the southern counties, I was hoping on behalf of the County Councils of Scotland that the Government themselves might be able to exclude the landward areas from this Bill. As an ideal the object of this Bill is certainly attractive, but it is surely a luxury under existing circumstances. If carried out to any full extent the cost must be out of proportion to any benefits that would be gained. You generally find in the southern counties of Scotland that the area is divided into natural geographical divisions with a small burgh in the centre and a scattered landward area outside. If the landward area has to equip itself with an up-to-date fire engine and has to keep standing by a team of men employed full-time for the purpose, the cost must necessarily be very high. On the other hand, if the small burgh is asked to provide this service for the landward area outside, this will entail a heavy cost upon the burgh for services outside what it requires for its own purposes. If they are asked in the landward areas for a contribution that is adequate, again that means a large sum of money falling upon the rural or landward area.

I understand that the Government are able to give us considerable assurances and that we may have overlooked some of the safeguards that are in the Bill itself. I am glad to hear, for example, that the Secretary of State is able to prescribe standards of efficiency for different districts and that he can also pay considerable regard to the local needs and difficulties of the remoter county areas. I understand that special provision is being made for the Highland counties, and I hope the southern counties in Scotland, which have these very scattered districts round the small burghs, may also be included in assurances of this kind. If the Government are not able to withdraw the application of the measure to Scotland, I do hope they will give us a complete assurance that the small scattered districts will receive the consideration I have indicated. These districts are already trying to find money for a large number of purposes, such, for instance, quite rightly, as housing, more schools and road improvements; and in addition they have to meet expenditure in regard to air-raid precautions and compulsory superannuation schemes. I hope the Scottish Office will look after the county councils themselves and not leave it to individual Peers and others to urge them to do so.

LORD JESSEL

I have considerable sympathy with what has been strongly urged by several noble Lords from Scotland, but it does seem to me that the same remarks apply to certain counties in England which are not overburdened with wealth. I presume, therefore, that those considerations which it has been said will be applied to certain districts in Scotland will also be made to apply to those districts in England, whose populations are scattered, whose rateable value is small, which already have very heavy burdens of rates to carry. We have now the Leader of the House present and I reiterate once more what I have already said. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill rather objected because I said the Bill was in a battered condition. Well, look at the number of Amendments on the Paper, and think also of the number of Amendments that will have to be moved on the Report stage. This is not the fault of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. He has most ably conducted our proceedings here, but I would like to make an appeal to the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, that in future Bills of this kind should be introduced into this House at an earlier stage and then sent to another place. This is a very important Bill. It involves large charges upon the rates in many parts of the country, and I think more consideration ought to have been given to it. It really has not been considered in the way a Bill of this importance ought to be considered and I hope that the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, will bear these considerations in mind in the case of future Bills of this kind.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE)

I do not want to intervene in this debate because I do not pretend to be an expert on this particular Bill, but I understand that so far from this Bill not having had adequate consideration, one of the main reasons why so many Amendments appear on the Paper is that so many local authorities have been consulted on the matter. Both the Home Office and the Scottish Office, in order to try to meet the points which have been raised in various quarters, have had innumerable discussions and conferences, and the result now appears on the Paper of your Lordships' House. I hope no Government, at any rate no Government of which I am a member, will disregard local opinion to such an extent that it will not be prepared to meet that opinion by putting down Amendments even at a late stage of a Bill in order to try and make the Bill work better.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL)

Perhaps I might now endeavour to give some reply to the points raised by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment and other noble Lords who have supported him. I take it that their objection to the Bill is voiced in this Amendment and the other Amendments on the same page, and is really based on two grounds. First of all they object to the Bill applying to Scotland in the fear, which they apparently have, that too high a standard will be demanded of local areas and local bodies; and, secondly, on the ground that insufficient consultation took place between the Department and local bodies in Scotland. May I point out first of all that these orders cannot be put into force until the Secretary of State has consulted with the Scottish Central Advisory Council for Fire Service which is appointed under Clause 27. This Advisory Council will include representatives of all classes of Scottish local fire authorities. They include county councils and representatives of county councils, and will, therefore, have a full opportunity of considering and making representations upon any standards of efficiency which the Secretary of State may propose.

These standards will be drawn on a basis which recognises the wide difference in the requirements of, and the facilities available in, the different kinds of local authorities, and there is, of course, no intention or suggestion of subjecting rural areas to the kind of standard which would be appropriate and feasible only in urban areas. I fully appreciate the difficulty which the noble Duke mentioned in regard to the rural district in which he himself lives, and the difficulty there would be of providing new fire appliances. I wish to assure him and other noble Lords that the Secretary of State has no idea of acting without giving full consideration to local opinion and local conditions in every case. Moreover, when the Secretary of State has made orders prescribing standards of efficiency the orders are required by Clause 23 (2) to be laid before Parliament, which can of course annul them if it so desires.

Now, if I may come to the other question raised suggesting, not so much that this measure has been rushed, but that local opinion has been inadequately consulted, I hope I can convince your Lordships that that arises from a misconception of what did occur. As long ago as February 23 last year the Department issued a circular on fire brigade matters to every county council and town council in Scotland warning them that legislation was in contemplation. In November of that year, 1937, the main bodies representing local authorities in Scotland—the Association of Scottish Local Authorities, the Convention of Royal Burghs, the County Councils' Association and the Association of Counties and Cities—were invited to send representatives to Edinburgh to discuss with representatives of the Scottish Office the draft of fire brigade legislation, and the meeting took place, as already mentioned, on November 9. Then various negotiations took place and eventually the Bill was produced.

I think that the reason for the anxiety which has been expressed in regard to these consultations arose from the fact that all the letters and documents dealing with these prior consultations were, as is the custom in such matters, marked "confidential," I understand that when a consultation of this kind takes place before the production of a Government measure it is the custom to mark documents "confidential," but it was not intended to preclude those who attended the meetings from discussing the substance of the documents with other members of their associations or with the representatives of their local authorities. Indeed it would be useless to have any such consultation unless those who attended such a meeting were able to say that they truly represented their local authorities or county councils. I think the idea that there was inadequate consultation arose simply from that fact, to which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, referred. I could go further, but I do not want to waste your Lordships' time. I can assure your Lordships, anyhow, that in the case of the burghs their representatives certainly went back after the meeting and had a full discussion of the points which had been raised and went into the whole question. After this assurance I hope that the noble Lords who put down this Amendment will not press it as obviously the Government cannot accept it.

LORD SALTOUN

I do not want to enter into a discussion with my noble friend Lord Strathcona as to where the blame lay for the fact that the Association of County Councils or their representatives felt that they were under the seal of confidence. As a matter of fact I do not know, if documents are marked "confidential," when that is really meant and when it is not in dealing with Government Departments. We believe that the county councils could put up a very good case, but all I want to say now is that in this Bill, as in the case of so many Scottish Bills brought before your Lordships, there is distinct evidence of lack of co-operation between the local authorities and other responsible bodies in Scotland and the Scottish Office. I very sincerely hope that that position will be improved and that the authorities concerned will have their eyes open to that situation. With regard to the Amendment itself I would like to avail myself of the suggestion that fell from the noble Duke who spoke in support of the Amendment that the concession to the Highland counties might be extended. I would ask my noble friend Lord Strathcona if he will consider with the Secretary of State whether subsection (4) of this clause could not be made general. That leaves the power entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State, and I know quite well that he is aware of the difficulties that this Bill will produce in counties in Scotland which are not Highland counties and which will fall under the operations of this measure. With this request I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

I will, of course, consult with the Secretary of State and report to him what my noble friend has said, but I cannot give any undertaking that the Secretary of State will be able to meet noble Lords for the reasons I have already given, because in our view there are enough safeguards.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, at the beginning of subsection (3), to insert: For any reference to the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, there shall be substituted a reference to the Local Government Superannuation (Scotland) Act, 1937; for any reference to the Local Government Officers' Superannuation (Transfer Value) Rules, 1930, there shall be substituted a reference to the Local Government Officers' Superannuation (Transfer Value) (Scotland) Rules, 1924. The noble Earl said: This Amendment, together with the next following Amendment, by applying the appropriate Scottish enactment and rules, enables Clause 16 dealing with the superannuation of professional firemen to be applied to Scotland.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 7, at the beginning insert the said words.—(The Earl, of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 10, after ("county") insert ("for any reference to the general rate fund of a borough or district there shall be substituted a reference to the burgh or the county fund").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL had given Notice to move at the end of subsection (5), to insert: The council of any such county as aforesaid may by resolution determine that the powers conferred by this subsection shall be exercised in respect of such part or parts only of the county as may be specified in the resolution. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section five of this Act, if a fire brigade attends at a fire in any county or burgh to which an order under subsection (4) of this section applies, and if no provision for the extinction of fires and the protection of life and property in case of fire is made by the council of such county or burgh, or if, in the case of a county, no such provision is made in respect of the part of the county in which the fire occurs, the fire authority by whom such fire brigade is maintained shall be entitled to recover from the owner, or, if they think fit, from the occupier, of the property in which the fire occurred, such reasonable sum in respect of the expenses of the attendance of the fire brigade as may, failing agreement, be determined by the Sheriff. This, subsection shall not come into operation until the expiration of a period of two years from the passing of this Act.

The noble Lord said: This is the Amendment about the latter part of which I came under censure. I very much regret that your Lordships were troubled by having the latter part of the Amendment printed on the Paper. I move only the first paragraph which has been put down after consultation with the local authorities concerned. It enables a county council to which an order under subsection (4) applies—that is, any of the crofter counties—by resolution to provide fire services in any part or parts of such county instead of in the county as a whole.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 37, at end insert ("The council of any such county as aforesaid may by resolution determine that the powers conferred by this subsection shall be exercised in respect of such part or parts only of the county as may be specified in the resolution").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathcona for moving this Amendment, because it affects the Amendment which I have put down later on the Paper. That Amendment was put down at the instance of the County Councils' Association of Scotland to enable the crofter or Highland counties, as they are called, to form district councils as can be done for scavenging, lighting, water and such matters. My only quarrel with the Amendment is that I understand it only applies to Highland counties, whereas there are other rural counties which are in practically the same condition as the Highland counties. I might name Angus, Banff, Berwick and Perthshire where there are rural districts which cannot be served with efficient fire brigades. It would be obviously unfair to rate the whole county for fire brigade facilities which cannot be provided owing to lack of water and, very often, to lack of suitable roads. Therefore I hope that when the Report stage comes the noble Earl will be able to extend the list of seven Highland counties to other rural counties, or take out altogether the enumeration of those counties and let all the counties of Scotland form special districts for the purpose of the fire brigades.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

I should perhaps have told your Lordships that the Government put down this Amendment because they thought it was clearer and possibly less cumbrous than the next Amendment on the Paper, which is the noble Earl's Amendment and of which, of course, the substance is accepted by the Government.

LORD MANCROFT

Before we leave this point, I should like to be quite clear whether my noble friend Lord Strathcona, in withdrawing the portion of his Clause 27 Amendment beginning (6) down to the word "Act" at the end of the subsection has no intention of moving any further Amendment instead of it. Can I now feel assured that the Clause 5 put down by my noble friend the Earl of Munster which appears on page 3 of the Amendments, is not to be impaired in the slightest degree and has full effect as it now stands?

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

I understand that that is the case.

LORD MANCROFT

I am much obliged.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

The next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 17, leave out subsection (15).—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

LORD MANCROFT

Is the Amendment on page 23, line 17, being moved?

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

It is moved now.

LORD MANCROFT

I should like to say a word on subsection (15). I am not clear why that subsection ought to be left out. The attention of my noble friend Lord Strathcona should be drawn to that. Why should it be left out? I suppose it is owing to the two years' grace under the new Clause 5. I am not certain, but I draw the noble Lord's attention to it for fear we have made a mistake.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

I understand this Amendment is consequential on the Amendment to Clause 5, in consequence of which the subsection is not now necessary.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 30, leave out ("purpose") and insert ("purposes").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, at the end of subsection (17), to insert: Provided that, where the county council of any county have resolved, in pursuance of subsection (5) of this section, that the powers thereby conferred shall be exercised in respect of one or more parts only of the county, the expenditure incurred by the county council for the purposes of this Act in respect of any such part shall be defrayed out of a rate levied only in that part. The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which is consequential on the Amendment to subsection (5), has been put down after consultation with the local authorities concerned. It provides that where fire services are provided by a county to which that subsection applies—that is, any of the crofter counties—in part or parts of a county only, and not in the whole county, the expenditure incurred shall be defrayed out of a rate levied on the part or parts.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 36, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 28 agreed to.

Clause 29:

Short title, extent and repeals.

(3) The enactments mentioned in the Third Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule:

Provided that such of those enactments as relate to the functions of parish authorities shall continue to apply to any such authority so long as those functions are exercisable by that authority.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The first Amendment to this clause is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 6, at end insert ("and there shall also be repealed so much of any enactment as incorporates or applies, with or without modifications, Section one hundred and twenty-four of the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, or Section thirty-two or Section thirty-three of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847".—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "Provided that" and insert:

  1. "(a) the repeal of the enactments mentioned in Part II of the said Schedule and of any enactment incorporating or applying, with or without modifications, Section thirty-three of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, shall not take effect until the expiration of a period of two years from the passing of this Act; and
  2. (b) the repeals of such of the enactments mentioned in the said Schedule as relate to the functions of parish authorities shall not take effect, as respects any such authority, until those functions cease to be exercisable by that authority."

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is necessary to regulate the time at which certain repeals take effect, to tally with the operative clauses of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 7, leave out from ("that") to the end of the clause and insert the said new paragraphs (a) and (b).—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.

First and Second Schedules agreed to.

Third Schedule:

THIRD SCHEDULE.
ENACTMENTS REPEATED.
Session and Chapter. Short Title. Extent of Repeal.
25 & 26 Vict. c. cciii. Aberdeen Police and Waterworks Act, 1862. Sections one hundred and forty-nine to one hundred and fifty-one, Sections one hundred and fifty-three and one hundred and fifty-four, and Section one hundred and fifty-seven.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 10, leave out ("Sections thirty-two and thirty-three") and insert ("Section thirty-two").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved—

Page 28, line 11, at end insert—

"10 & 11 Vict. c. cclxxxiv. An Act to purchase and define the manorial and market rights of Stockport, to establish public parks, to purchase or lease waterworks, to build bridges and to make other communications within the borough of Stockport. Section twenty-three"
The Earl of Munster.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, in the reference to the Aberdeen Police and Waterworks Act, 1862, to leave out "and one hundred and fifty-four, and Section one hundred and fifty-seven" and insert "to one hundred and fifty-six and Section one hundred and fifty-eight so far as relating to fires within the limits of the Act." The noble Lord said: Perhaps I might save time by explaining that this Amendment and all the other Amendments in my name to the Third Schedule should be taken together and are consequential on the new clause moved in substitution of the present Clause 5. They are (a) to repeal those provisions in local enactments which confer the power to charge the owners or occupiers of property for the services of the fire brigade in attending "in-district" fires, and (b) to exclude from repeal these provisions in general or local enactments which confer power to charge owners or occupiers of property for the attendance of the brigade at "out-district" fires. The latter provisions are row included in Part II of the Schedule and their repeal is not effective for two years from the passing of the Act. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 15, in the third column, leave out from ("fifty-three") to end of line 18, and insert ("to one hundred and fifty-six and Section one hundred and fifty-eight so far as relating to fires within the limits of the Act").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The next is a consequential Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 28, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert—

("28 & 29 Viet. c. ccl. The Newcastle-upon-Tyne Improvement Act, 1865. Section one hundred and one.
29 & 30 Vict. c. xxix. The Manchester Town Hall and Improvement Act, 1866. Section twenty.
29 & 30 Vict. c. li. The Tynemouth Improvement Act, 1866. Section forty-five.
33 & 34 Vict. c. cxx. The Newcastle-upon-Tyne Improvement Act, 1870. Section one hundred and four.")

—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

This Amendment and all the rest are consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 25, in the third column, leave out from ("sixty-three") to end of line 28, and insert ("to one hundred and sixty-six and Section one hundred and sixty-eight so far as relating to fires within the city").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 38, leave out ("Sections thirty-two and thirty-three") and insert ("Section thirty-two").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, indicated that all the remaining Amendments in his name are consequential Amendments. As there are a number of them, perhaps with your Lordships' permission I might put them en bloc.

Amendments moved—

Page 28, line 43, in the third column, leave out from ("incorporates") to end of line 47, and insert ("the provisions of Section three hundred and forty-five of the General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862, relating to the expenses of extinguishing fires or of Section three hundred and forty-six of that Act, and")

Page 28, line 50, in the third column, at end insert ("and Section two hundred and forty-two")

Page 29, line 3, in the third column, at beginning, insert ("Section two hundred and ninety in so far as relating to the expenses of extinguishing fires")

Page 29, line 5, in the third column, leave out from the second ("and") to ("two") in line 7, and insert ("section")

Page 29, line 23, in the third column, at, end insert ("of the Order contained in the Schedule")

Page 29, line 26, in the third column, after ("eight") insert ("except subsections (4) and (5)")

Page 29, line 29, in the third column, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections")

Page 29, line 30, in the third column, leave out from ("seventy-seven") to ("three") in line 34, and insert ("to")

Page 29, line 36, in the third column, at end, insert ("and")

Page 29, line 38, in the third column, after ("and") insert ("section")

Page 29, line 39, in the third column, at end insert ("except in so far as relating to Section two hundred and ninety-eight of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892")

Page 29, line 44, in the third column, leave out ("sixty-seven") and insert ("sixty-six")

Page 29, line 46, in the third column, after ("forty-nine") insert ("of the Order contained in the Schedule")

Page 29, line 48, in the third column, leave out ("forty-seven") and insert ("forty-six")

Page 29, line 51, in the third column, at end insert ("or to Section two hundred and forty-two of the Dundee Police and Improvement Consolidation Act, 1882")

Page 30, line 5, in the third column, after ("and") insert ("subsection (2) of")

Page 30, line 6, in the third column, at end insert ("of the Order contained in the Schedule")

Page 30, line 8, in the third column, after ("twenty-four") insert ("of the Order contained in the Schedule")

Page 30, line 10, in the third column, leave out ("fifty-seven") and insert ("fifty-six").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to insert:

"Part II.
ENACTMENTS REPEALED AS FROM TWO YEARS AFTER THE PASSING OF THIS ACT.
Session and Chapter. Short Title. Extent of Repeal.
1O & 11 Vict. c. 89. The Town Police Clauses Act, 1847. Section thirty-three.
25 & 26 Vict. c. cciii. Aberdeen Police and Waterworks Act, 1862. Section one-hundred and fifty-seven and Section one-hundred and fifty-eight so far as relating to fires beyond the limits of the Act.
25 & 26 Vict. c. ccv. The Salford Improvement Act, 1862. Section two-hundred and seventy-three.
28 & 29 Vict, c. 90. The Metro-politan Fire Brigade Act, 1865. In Section thirty the words from 'In such case' to 'summary manner.'
29 & 30 Vict, c. li. The Tyne-mouth Improvement Act, 1866. Section forty-six.
29 & 30 Vict. c. cclxxiii. The Glasgow Police Act, 1866. Section one hundred and sixty-seven, and Section one hundred and sixty-eight so far as relating to fires beyond the City.
38 & 39 Vict. c. 55. The Public Health Act, 1875. Paragraph (2) of Section one hundred and seventy-one so far as it incorporates Section thirty-three of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847.
45 & 46 Vict. c. clxxxv. The Dundee Police and Improvement Consolidation Act, 1882. Section two hundred and thirty-five in so far as it incorporates Section three hundred and forty-seven of the General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862.
55 & 56 Vict. c. 55. The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892. Section two hundred and ninety-eight.

Session and Chapter. Short Title. Extent of Repeal.
8 Edw. 7. c. 62. The local Government (Scotland) Act, 1908. Subsections (4) and (5) of Section eight
9 Edw. 7. c. cxxix. The Greenock Corporation Act, 1909. Section three hundred and eighty-four in so far as relating to Section two hundred and ninety-eight of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892.
20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. clxxvii. The Glasgow Corporation Act, 1930. Section thirty-nine in so far as it relates to Sections one hundred and sixty-seven and one hundred and sixty-eight of the Glasgow Police Act, 1866.
22 & 23 Geo. 5. c. xivi. The Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1932. Section forty-nine of the Order contained in the Schedule in so far as it relates to Section three hundred and forty-seven of the General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862.
24 & 25 Geo. 5. c. v. The Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1833. Subsections (1) and (3) of Section one hundred and forty of the Order contained in the Schedule.
25 & 26 Geo. 5. c. ii. The Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1934. Section one hundred and twenty-four of the Order contained in the Schedule in so far as it relates to Sections one hundred and fifty-seven and one hundred and fifty-eight of the Aberdeen Police and Waterworks Act, 1862."

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential on the new Amendment which I moved to Clause 5. The Acts which are specified are those which entitle fire authorities to charge owners or occupiers of property where fires occur for the expenses of a brigade sent outside its district. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 12, at end insert the said Part II.—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.