Lords Sitting of 23 June 1938

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.

HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) AMENDMENT BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Lords Amendment agreed to, subject to the insertion of the words "or the Lands Improvement Company's Acts, 1853 to 1920," after the words "Improvement of Land Act, 1864," in paragraph (a) of subsection 4 of the new clause.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment. Perhaps I ought to explain to your Lordships that this is more or less of a drafting character. It was agreed at the Conference on May 26, at which the lines of the new clause were settled, that the priority of rentcharges in favour of the Lands Improvement Company should be conserved. The new clause as inserted in the Bill by the House of Lords conserves the priority of rentcharges made under the Improvement of Land Act, 1864. But there are also rentcharges in favour of the company made under the Company's Private Acts. The effect of the words inserted in the Commons is to conserve the priority of rentcharges under these Private Acts also.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHIMNEY SWEEPERS ACTS (REPEAL) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
PLYMOUTH EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
IRWELL VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

HASLINGDEN UNION GAS ORDER, 1938.
TORQUAY GAS ORDER, 1938.
READING GAS ORDER, 1938.
TOTTENHAM AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1938.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I beg to move that these Special Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DUMBARTON BURGH (WATER) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

HOUSING (AGRICULTURAL POPULATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 4:
Schemes for replacing unsatisfactory houses.
(3) No assistance under this section shall be given in respect of any house unless—
(c) the house contains a watercloset, a scullery with a sink and drainage therefor, a fixed bath in a bathroom and such other conveniences as may be specified in the scheme of assistance:
Provided that where it is not reasonably practicable to provide a watercloset, the local authority may, with the approval of the Department, and subject to such conditions as the Department may impose, dispense with the provision thereof.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (3), after "bathroom," to insert "or where, owing to the shortage of an adequate water supply, the use of a fixed bath is impracticable, suitable facilities for bathing in a separate room." The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the Amendment which stands in my name, I would like to remind your Lordships that in the Committee stage of this Bill a similar Amendment was left undecided in order to afford opportunities of consultation with the Secretary of State. The fact that there were no Amendments carried to this Bill in Committee has necessitated my moving this Amendment on the Third Reading, which I regret. Before saying what I have to say on this subject, I would like to express my thanks to the Secretary of State for giving me a very interesting and very long interview and discussing the subject. The result of that discussion was that he consented to send a Committee from the Scottish Office to a particular part of Scotland to examine whether or not the statements I made to him were borne out in fact. The statement was to the effect that water in certain parts of Scotland was so scarce that it was a mere mockery to put a big bath into every cottage.
It was particularly good of the Secretary of State to take this course because the Department of Health, whose business it is to know about the water conditions in Scotland, had assured him that there was no ground for this statement and that there was no part of Scotland where
230
the water shortage was so great as to prevent the installation of a big bath. I do not know what kind of a report by the committee of investigation has been received by the Secretary of State as I have not been privy to it, but I would like to say that I quite realise that the particular district to which reference has been made is not by any means the only district in Scotland where there is a water shortage. The district I have referred to comprises, if one takes in view well watered places, very nearly a thousand square miles. It has a very low rainfall, it has neither high hills nor big rivers and the water supply is chiefly dependent upon wells and a very large proportion of the water available is unfit for human use. I do not want your Lordships to take that from me; I do not want even to rely upon whatever this special committee of investigation may have said. I will merely quote a short extract from a speech made by the Convener of the Public Health Sub-Committee of the Aberdeen County Council on this very subject.
Dealing with it not from the point of view of this Bill but from another point of view, he is reported to have said that
"he could speak of one district where the shortage was very acute—the Buchan area. If they began at the boundary with Banffshire and went along the coast, almost every village was short of water. Aberdour would not be sufficient if more houses were built as was intended. Rosehearty, Sandhaven and Pitullie were short of water. Fraserburgh generally had a shortage in the fishing season."
To my own knowledge this shortage is not confined to the fishing season, so that is a moderate statement. He went on to say:
"Cairnbulg was short, Lonmay and Crimond were waterless deserts. Longside, Old Deer and Boddam all required more water. Peterhead was forming a new reservoir, but he did not know if they would have water to keep it and the old one when most required."
There is a great deal more on the same subject, but I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time unnecessarily. That statement is by no means exaggerated, and I do not think your Lordships need have any doubt that in that portion of Scotland at any rate there is a very severe water shortage.
Statements were made during part of the Committee's investigations and I will give your Lordships some idea of a typical

231
examination. A man was being examined as to whether he would like a new or an improved cottage. He said certainly he would. He was then asked if he would like a bath in it and would he use it. Of course he said, "Oh, yes." This seemed to give great satisfaction until he added "if I can get the water." He said he thought of sinking a well as his neighbours had done, but the supply was not of good quality. After two or three pailsfull had been taken from some of the wells it sometimes took a day for them to fill again. "Can you not use rain water from the roof?" he was asked. "Sometimes, perhaps," he replied, "but there have been three months this year without rain." This is typical of the conditions of that countryside. The water shortage in that district is so great that I understand that the Committee even considered tentatively the possibility of supplying the baths which they wish to install with water from a condemned source.
I think this shows better than anything else the strength of the obsession in the minds of the Department and those interested. For they must know as well as any of us that such contaminated supplies are more than likely to be used in time of dearth, with disastrous results to public health. They must know that if you supply in the country districts water for a bath from a contaminated source, when a water shortage occurs as it does from time to time in those districts, the impure source will be used equally with the pure source. In fact, it is probably likely to be a more lavish source and therefore likely to be used in preference to the pure source, with results to health about which I tremble to think. These districts have water with surface contamination which is nearly always organic impurity, the worst possible kind of contamination. I know perfectly well that the Department of Public Health would be the last body to countenance the installation of water supplies from such sources, and I only mention the fact that this idea is being played with to show that we are dealing with an official obsession which should not be treated too seriously.
There is another point I should like to mention. The deliberate policy of this Housing Bill is to substitute the village
232
for what is called the tied house. In these districts, which are all very prosperous agriculturally—they have very fine soil—it is quite impossible to put down a village because nowhere in these districts, except in very rare spots far apart, can you get water supplies even for drinking. Therefore to make it more difficult to build tied houses in a proper way in these districts that are short of water is absolute folly. The ultimate result will be that the Government will be faced with the necessity of putting down villages where it is not possible to put them. If you are going to do away with tied houses, then you should be sure that you can replace them, but I do urge that you should not stop the proper building of tied houses where you can have them. I do not see why the planning of a good house, which is what we all desire, should be disturbed by the necessity of providing a special place for a fixed bath which can seldom or never be used.
A bath, although it may a pearl to the Department, if it can never be used is, from the house-holder's point of view, a pearl wasted, a mere nuisance. It is much better to accept the fact that there is a shortage of water and make arrangements accordingly which will be for the convenience of the householder. I would ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to tell me, if by any chance he succeeds in defeating this Amendment, whether he will give an undertaking on behalf of the Government, that, having forced the provision of fixed baths in these houses w here there is no water supply, the Government will make it their business to see that within a reasonable time an adequate supply of water is brought from the nearest place, which I think is eighty miles away?
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 18, after ("bathroom") insert ("or where, owing to the shortage of an adequate water supply, the use of a fixed bath is impracticable, suitable facilities for bathing in a separate room").—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, after the very carefully reasoned and sensible speech of my noble friend who introduced this Amendment, I trust that he will proceed to take the opinion of your Lordships on the question and divide the House. I should like to see the prin-

233
ciple he advocates applied generally. A fixed bath is not essential. I recently went to an up-to-date guildhall in Scotland, at Wishaw, where I saw a small compartment with shower baths for the use of Territorials, which seemed to be very successful. Why should not shower baths be more generally adopted? They are quite as good as fixed baths and to my mind have certain advantages. Old people and infirm people often cannot use a big fixed bath. The arguments for the Amendment seem to me unanswerable, and I trust that the Government will be considerate in this matter and amenable to reason. To talk about a man's house being his castle is ridiculous when you have legislation like this. The power of dictators should be limited and I trust your Lordships will support my noble friend in this Amendment.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I rise to oppose this Amendment strongly. I have had long experience of housing conditions, both in Northamptonshire, where I am Chairman of the Public Health Committee of the County Council, and have visited a considerable number of houses of this character, and also in North Cumberland, where conditions are similar to those in many parts of Scotland. I have learned from that experience that a fixed bath in a cottage is most important. I regard it in modern cottages as absolutely indispensable. If there is a fixed bath that fact of itself is a very strong inducement to use it. Even if there is no piped water supply laid on to the cottage it is much easier to empty a fixed 'Oath with a proper outlet. Baling out a bath by hand is extremely awkward and troublesome and takes a great deal of time. Then, again, a fixed bath is useful for washing large things such as blankets. It is very difficult for a housewife to wash blankets properly. They have to be soaked in water and the water has to be changed if the work is to be done properly. A fixed bath with a drain is a very great help for a job of that kind.
Again, a fixed bath is not so likely to cause a nuisance to the neighbourhood. If there is no proper drainage from a bath a cottager is inclined to throw out the slops just anywhere and there is a horrible mess and smell all round the cottage. The traps will not unseal very easily in Scotland. A cupful
234
of water once a month would be sufficient to prevent unsealing of traps. It is not a very costly matter to put in a fixed bath. About £8 to £10, I imagine from my experience, would be sufficient; and the provision of a fixed bath confers an inestimable benefit upon the occupier of the cottage. The provision of a fixed bath is important, not only on the material side, but from the educative point of view. Health education is backward throughout the British Isles, and especially, so I understand, in Scotland. It is very important to give country people an opportunity of learning personal hygiene and personal cleanliness, so important from the point of view of public health. If there is a fixed bath there is a greater inducement to personal cleanliness and it helps parents in teaching children habits of cleanliness. From my own experience I have found that farm workers on moorland farms are extremely grateful for a fixed bath even if there is no piped water supply. When they come back from lambing or some other arduous duties, cold and stiff, if they can have a bath it comforts them and makes them much more ready to continue their work. I very strongly hope that the Amendment will not be agreed to.
THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord who speaks for the Scottish Office will be able to accept the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Saltoun. My noble friend has spoken of the County of Aberdeen, where the water supply is very insufficient. I can speak for a centre of Scotland where the rainfall is from 35 to 40 inches a year, and even there the shortage of water is often acute. Therefore I think it would be in these districts an absurdity to put in a fixed bath. In fact, I go further and say that where there is no gravitation supply a fixed bath is unnecessary. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept the Amendment.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, Lord Saltoun has already pointed out to your Lordships that this Amendment was moved on the Committee stage of the Bill, and as it seemed that there was a deal of sympathy in the House with the plan underlying this Amendment, the noble Lord himself was good enough to withdraw it so that we

235
might have time to conduct an investigation into certain assertions which he and others of your Lordships who spoke on that occasion had made. As he has pointed out also, the fact of there being no Amendment robbed us of a Report stage, but it enabled us to have this discussion now on the Third Reading.
The Secretary of State for Scotland himself has given very careful consideration to the suggestion that there are areas in Scotland where the water supply is so inadequate as to make the use of a fixed bath impracticable. When Clause 4 of the Bill was amended in the House of Commons to require fixed baths in all new houses, it was clearly recognised and realised by everyone, I think, that (1) there are areas in Scotland where a gravitation water supply is not available, and (2) there are also areas where for several weeks in the summer-time the water supply may be very short. But the Secretary of State and the Department are satisfied, and I think it was clearly shown before the Bill arrived here, that even if water has to be pumped or carried to the fixed bath, and even if it is not possible to use the bath for several weeks in the summer-time, it is nevertheless useful to have a fixed bath, on the broad principle that it is more easy to bathe in a fixed bath than in a tub, because it is much more convenient to empty a fixed bath.
The question then is: Are there any areas in Scotland where the water supply is so poor that there is not enough to allow each of the occupants of a new house to have a weekly bath for at least nine or ten months in the year? As a result of private conversation which took place after the Committee stage the Secretary of State arranged for that special investigation, to which Lord Saltoun has referred, to be carried out in the most difficult areas in Aberdeenshire where the water supply was definitely suspect. The investigation was carried out by officers of the Department of Health, guided by officials of the County Council, and, in one district, by Lord Saltoun's own agent. It was made clear to the officials of the County Council that the Department's Officers desired to see the most difficult areas. The conclusion reached by the officers of the Department was that it is reasonable to insist on the provision of a bath in every new house erected with
236
grant under Part II of the Bill. I again call your Lordships' attention to the fact that we are dealing with new houses, and houses to be built in the future, which we hope will last for fifty or sixty years.
In reaching this conclusion the Department's officers had in mind that in certain cases it would be possible to obtain an improved water supply by building on a slightly different site, and that in other cases it would be possible, at a very small expense, to improve the existing water supply (for example, by deepening the well or by providing storage for rain water, or by cleaning the water pipes). The impression gained by the Department's officers was strengthened by these facts: They saw no new houses provided in recent years which did not contain fixed baths; they saw some reconstructed houses, even in the most difficult areas, which had been already provided with fixed baths. I was interested to have the support in this matter of Lord Henley, and also, for sentimental reasons, glad to hear reference made to the conditions in the constituency in which he and I used to meet. He raised the question of ventilation and evaporation, and there, again, the investigations we have made go to show there is no risk whatever, if a reasonable plan is adopted in constructing these bathrooms, of a nuisance being created by these bathrooms.
I will not now deal with the question of cost, but as it was raised in the previous debate I think I should say a word to your Lordships about the question of the supply of water coming into a house. Even if a new house were provided with a circulating hot water supply there is no reason to suppose that the extra consumption of fuel would cost anything like £10 per annum. Everyone knows that a modern kitchen range is more economical with fuel than an old range and the Department's engineers are satisfied that the fuel consumption in a modern range with a constant hot water supply would be no greater than that in an old-fashioned range without a hot water supply. In the investigation in Aberdeenshire, the Department's officers made special inquiries as to the cost of providing hot water in houses which had been supplied with fixed baths. In no case did a tenant make any complaint on this ground.
Now I come to the last point which I wish to make in persuading your Lord-

237
ships that this proposal, even if it sounds somewhat in the nature of an ideal, is an ideal that we should endeavour to attain, and one which is worth your Lordships' while to support this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, on the previous occasion explained with great care and—I say it without any disrespect—with great ingenuity that there was no virtual necessity for bathrooms, that some form of ablution room, with or without a shower bath, might meet the case. But I am informed that that, anyhow in certain areas and for certain purposes, would not result in any appreciable economy of water.
But the real point is that we have to look to the future. We are only dealing with Part II of the Bill, which suggests that new houses should have this arrangement for a bath made in them before they receive a grant, and those houses, it is hoped, will last for at least sixty years. It is reasonable, I think, to assume that in the near future an improvement of rural water supplies must take place in Scotland. I am not in a position this afternoon to tell your Lordships when or how soon that can be done. Quite obviously it will require a great deal of care and investigation, and eventually money will have to be available for that purpose, but obviously it has to be done in the future. And there seems to be no reason therefore why fixed baths should not be provided in the new houses, even if they cannot be used for, it may be, a few weeks in each year. When a general improvement of rural water supplies takes place, which it is to be hoped will eventually deal with these difficult areas to which so many of your Lordships have referred, it will no doubt be possible to use water for these purposes throughout the year. For all these reasons I hope your Lordships will agree with me in not accepting this Amendment, but in standing fast for the ideal which has been laid down by the past and present Secretaries of State for Scotland, and see that in building our future houses in Scotland we make as great an effort as we can to maintain that ideal.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, before we divide on this subject I would like to say a few words in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill. In the first place, with the greatest respect for the
238
very able case which Lord Strathcona has made for the Government, I would like to say that when people begin to talk about ideals immediately you get confusion of thought. I never talk about ideals when I am dealing with practical questions. I am in a very fortunate position myself, because I have got practically no land; it has been swallowed up by that organisation which is represented by the noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, and I can afford to give the people I have to look after the houses that they want. I have taken a great deal of trouble to find out what they do want, and they do not want the formal installation of a big bath. And I can assure my noble friend Lord Henley that in the bath places that I have designed, in cottages that I have built, it is far easier to empty the baths that are used than it is to empty a big bath. You just tip the thing on the floor and the water runs away. There is no nuisance and no smell. It is an action with which any child is familiar—that of upsetting something.
My noble friend Lord Strathcona did give me some sort of modified assistance. He said that undoubtedly it was quite necessary to bring water to certain parts of Scotland, and that the Government would have to see to it and money would have to be provided. In the case of the district of which I am talking I should think that several millions will have to be provided to bring water to that district. That very statement of his, guarded though it was, is absolutely contrary to the finding of the Department's Committee. With regard to what the Committee found, Lord Strathcona says that wherever it was possible to install big baths in the district they were installed. That is perfectly true, and nobody wants not to install them where they can conveniently be installed; but there are places—and I am sorry to disagree with the Department's Committee—where it is quite impossible to get water, even for a short time in the year, for a big bath.
With regard to what Lord Henley said, I respect his English experience, but he says that he knows parts of England that are very similar to some parts of Scotland. I have no doubt he does, but I doubt whether he knows any part of England which is similar to the parts of Scotland that we are discussing this evening. He is quite wrong if he thinks that

239
the people of Scotland require any education in the arts of cleanliness. And although, with great ability, Lord Strathcona has not said it, I know that it is the moving idea at the back of the Department's mind—this idea of educating the people. I want to say a word about this idea, which always occurs with regard to people with whom we are not familiar. In fact, I have read a treatise by a learned German Professor in the Koelnische Zeitung on this very human idea. Those of us who are familiar with the Scottish farm servants and have been familiar with them for many generations, and have been privileged from time to time to share a meal in their houses, know that these people have a very high standard of cleanliness. They are the only people left in the United Kingdom, I think, who, to preserve the cleanliness of their houses, regularly take off their boots before coming in, and move about their houses in their socks. The country people of Scotland have nothing to learn in that respect, and they do not want education of that kind.
I know perfectly well that every farm servant's work is naturally dirty, and his clothes and he himself are sometimes, when working, dirtier than he would like, but you should see farm servants on their high days and holidays, when their faces are burnished, sometimes like their own carts, and you would realise that those are a clean people. I have rather resented the noble Lord's language about our people. It shows he does not understand them. Another thing I should like to say is that I do not think it is wise to be always trying to educate, educate, educate people to your own ideas. That is one of the things that has led to the most trouble in the world. It is that idea of clothing the Japanese in frock-coats and top hats which has led to half the trouble in the East to-day. It is a pity that people are not content to realise that other people also have their own ideas. I am sorry I have rather over-run my subject.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, may I appeal to the noble Lord to reconsider his action on this matter, and to agree, if possible, to withdraw this Amendment. I do think it would create a most unfortunate impression if your Lordships were seriously at this time of day to divide on this subject,
240
on which we are really all agreed, merely on a question of method and time. If I may use this one plea to persuade him, I can give him this assurance from the Secretary of State for Scotland. He is at this moment engaged in looking into this question of improving rural water supplies in Scotland, but of course he is not yet in a position to say when or how long it will be before he can take definite action in the matter. With the assurance that the Secretary of State and his Department are putting their minds to this matter now, I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment to a Division.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, the noble Lord puts me in a very difficult position. I told His Majesty's Government two days ago that I was going to divide, and I promised my own supporters I would divide.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I will take no exception if the noble Lord withdraws his Division.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, after Clause 19, to insert the following new clause:
Additional provisions with respect to loans by local authorities.
.—(1) Where in pursuance of Section seventy-five of the Act of 1925 a local authority advance money to any person constructing a house in respect of which they have undertaken to give assistance under Part II of this Act, being a person entitled to grant a heritable security over the house, then, subject to the provisions of this section and to such conditions as may be approved by the Department, the advance may, in lieu of being secured by bond and disposition in security or other deed of security, be secured by an order (in this section referred to as a "charging order") made by the local authority providing and declaring the house, or the house and such other subjects belonging to the person receiving the advance as the local authority and such person may agree, to be charged and burdened with an annuity to repay the amount of the advance.
(2) The annuity charged shall commence from the date of the order, and shall be a sum of such amount and shall be payable to the local authority or their assignees for such period of years, not exceeding thirty, as the local authority and the person receiving the advance may agree.
(3) A local authority shall not make a charging order, and a charging order shall not be effectual, unless—

(a) the local authority have served on every person appearing in the Register of

241
Sasines as the proprietor of, or as holding a heritable security over, the subjects or any part thereof to be charged and burdened with the said annuity, notice that if no objection is intimated to them in writing by such person within twenty-one days from the date of service of the notice, they intend to make such charging order; and

(b) no objection has been so intimated by any person on whom notice has been so served.

(4) The provisions of Section twenty-two of the Act of 1925, shall apply to a charging order made under this section in like manner as they apply to a charging order made tinder Section twenty-one of the said Act, subject to the following and any other necessary modifications—
(a) subsection (2) shall apply as if after the words "advances of public money" there were inserted the words
"(d) any rentcharge secured on the premises by absolute order made under and in terms of the Improvement of Land Act, 1864 or the Lands Improvement Company's Acts, 1853 to 1920;
"(e) any loan made for agricultural purposes in pursuance of the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1929, by any company incorporated for the purposes of that Act, where such loan has been secured on the premises by a bond and disposition in security or other deed of security duly registered in the appropriate Register of Sasines; and
"(f) any charge on the premises created under any provision in any Act authorising a charge for recovery of expenses incurred by a local authority under Section one hundred and twenty-five of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, or Section twenty of the Act of 1925, or Section fifteen of the Act of 1930, or by an owner under Part I of the Act Of 1925";
(b) subsection (3) shall not apply.
(5) For the purpose of this section a notice may be served by delivering it to the person on whom it is required to be served or by sending it by registered letter to such person at his usual or last known address, or if such person cannot be found, to the Extractor of the Court of Session. An acknowledgment endorsed on such notice or a copy thereof, by such person, or, where the notice is sent by registered letter, a certificate subscribed by the clerk to the local authority that such notice was duly posted and having the Post Office receipt for the registered letter attached, shall be conclusive evidence that such notice was duly served on the date stated in the acknowledgment or Post Office receipt.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment implements another pledge given on the Committee stage of the Bill when the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, moved a clause providing that where a loan over a house was granted by a local authority under the Housing (Scotland) Acts or this Bill, the loan should be secured by a charging order burdening the
242
house with an annuity to repay the loan, and that the annuity should be a preferential charge on the house. It was explained on behalf of His Majesty's Government that there were serious difficulties in the way of giving effect to the proposal embodied in that clause and that a further difficulty was that the parties interested in the proposal were not then in agreement. A promise was, however, given that a conference of parties interested in the proposal would be arranged, and if the difficulties could be resolved before the Report stage or the final stage of this Bill the matter would he dealt with. I am glad to inform your Lordships that a conference was held on May 26 and attended by representatives of the Scottish Land and Property Federation, the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, the Association of County Councils in Scotland, the Convention of Burghs, the Lands Improvement Company, and the Scottish Agricultural Securities Corporation. An agreement was reached, and the new clause embodies the proposal agreed upon at that conference, and follows the lines of the clause already inserted in the Housing (Rural Workers) Amendment Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 19 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I desire to repeat my thanks which I gave to the Government in respect of the Housing (Rural Workers) Amendment Bill. This clause is a similar one to that which was proposed on that occasion to meet the same point, this being in respect of new houses and the Housing (Rural Workers) Amendment Bill being in respect of doing up old houses. I was present at the conference referred to by the noble Lord, and I can say with absolute truthfulness that every point agreed upon at that conference, which was most harmonious and where we had the great assistance of the Solicitor-General for Scotland in the chair, has been met in this Amendment. I would also like to say on behalf of those who supported me on this particular question on the Committee stage that all our points have been met. I thank the Government most heartily for bringing forward this new clause, which will be an enormous help to those who wish to look after their property, keep it up to date, and do their duty by the land for which they are

243
responsible. May I also add an acknowledgment of the part that has been taken in connection with this Amendment by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill?
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to say a word upon this Amendment. It is the Government's concession in this matter which partly moved me not to press my previous Amendment. I do not want to take up your Lordships' time unnecessarily, but I feel I can say something on the subject of land in Scotland which ought to be remembered, and this is the proper time to do it. It was said in another place by one speaker that he did not like spending public money on the property of a man who had £40,000,000 of capital. We all know to whom he was referring, and I simply point out that that £40,000,000 did not come out of Scottish land. It is alarming the extent to which proprietors' capital in Scotland has depreciated in recent years, and the grants and loan facilities being given in this Bill are a very small instalment of what must be paid back some time or other if land is to survive at all.
Not very long ago I had negotiations for the purchase of a farm on behalf of somebody for whom I act as a trustee. I went to the agent who was to bid for the farm, and gave him a limit based on the value of the land. I said: "This farm is required to improve the amenity of the property as a whole, and I give you discretion to exceed my limit if you see proper cause for doing so." Eventually the agent came to me and said he had bought this farm for a sum in excess of my limit. The net rental of the farm was £30, and the price he paid was £535 —about a five and a half or five and three-quarters basis. When he came to explain, he pointed out that the buildings on the farm, which were not greater than were necessary for the farm, were insured for £2,000 and were well worth that sum because they could not be replaced for less than £2,000. There you have a property bringing in £30 a year to the partner in the industry whose capital is represented by buildings worth £2,000 and the land. Supposing these buildings were destroyed to-morrow, what a fool the man would be to replace them. He could put the £2,000 in Government securities and enjoy a far larger income and let the land go derelict, perhaps, for sporting purposes.
244
That, as your Lordships know, is a typical case of the position of the landed proprietor in Scotland. I wanted to put that case on record because there can be no suggestion that the farm was purchased for less than its value, and it was purchased at the top of the market in excess of the limit put on it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

WAR DEPARTMENT PROPERTY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this is a short and simple Bill designed to relieve the Secretary of State for War of the duty of having personally to sign documents in connection with the acquisition, management, or disposal of any land or other property to which he is expressed to be a party. I should like to explain to your Lordships that the Bill is concerned mainly with the formal business of authenticating documents. It does not in any way affect the powers of the Secretary of State with respect to the acquisition, management and disposal of War Department land. A disproportionately large amount of the Secretary of State's time is taken up in signing documents which in other Government Departments are executed on behalf of the Minister or Board. For instance, neither the First Lord of the Admiralty nor the Secretary of State for Air is under the necessity of signing such documents. Relief for the Secretary of State for Air was secured by Section 26, subsection (4), of the Air Navigation Act, 1936, and this Bill is based on the provisions of that subsection. In view of the fact that no objection of any sort was made to the provision in the Air Navigation Act during its passage through this House to the Statute Book, I think it may fairly be claimed that the Bill now before your Lordships is non-controversial. The relief sought by the Bill is especially required at the present time when the number of conveyances and similar documents to be signed is unusually large owing to the extensive purchases of land by the War Office for various defence purposes. I therefore beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INHERITANCE (FAMILY PROVISION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Russell of Killowen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power for Court to order payment out of net estate of testator for benefit of surviving spouse or child.
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, where a person dies after the commencement of this Act leaving—

(a) a wife or husband;

(b) a daughter who has not been married;

(c) an infant son; or

(d) a son who is by reason of some mental or physical disability, incapable of maintaining himself;

and leaving a will which does not make reasonable provision for the maintenance of such a person as aforesaid (in this Act referred to as a "dependant" of the testator), the Court may at its discretion, on application by or on behalf of that dependant, order that such reasonable provision as the Court thinks fit shall, subject to such conditions or restrictions, if any, as the Court may impose, be made out of the testator's net estate for the maintenance of that dependant.
(3) The amount of the annual income which may be made applicable for the maintenance of a testator's dependants by an order or orders to be in force at any one time shall in no case be such as to render them entitled under the testator's will as varied by the order or orders to more than the following fraction of the annual income of his net estate, that is to say:—

(a) if the testator leaves both a wife or husband and one or more other dependants, two-thirds; or

(b) if the testator does not leave a wife or husband, or leaves a wife or husband and no other dependant, one-half;

Provided that if a claim is made by or on behalf of a dependant who, under a settlement or other disposition made by the testator, is entitled to an income for life or any shorter period, the amount of such income
246
shall be taken into account and deducted from the amount of the annual income of the net estate which during such period the Court would otherwise have directed to be made applicable for the maintenance of such dependant.
(8) The Court shall, on any application made under this Act, have regard to any past, present or future income of the applicant from any source, to the conduct of the applicant in relation to the testator or otherwise, and to any other matter or thing which in the circumstances of the case the Court may consider relevant or material in relation to the applicant, to the beneficiaries under the will, or otherwise.
(9) The Court shall also, on any such application, have regard to the testator's reasons, so far as ascertainable, for making the dispositions made by his will, or for not making any provision or any further provision, as the case may be, for a dependant, and the Court may accept such evidence of those reasons as it considers sufficient.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Subject to the provisions of this Act, where a person dies after the commencement of this Act," and insert "Where after the commencement of this Act a person dies domiciled in England." The noble and learned Lord said: Before speaking to this Amendment, may I be permitted to say that this very formidable list of Amendments consists in the main of drafting Amendments only, with the exception of about four or five points, which I have introduced at the suggestion of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. The first Amendment on the Paper which I now move is really drafting. It is merely a case of taking a few words out of Clause 5 and putting them into Clause 1.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out from the beginning to end of line 7 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Russell of Killowen.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN moved, in subsection (1), at the end of paragraph (b), to insert "or who is, by reason of some mental or physical disability, incapable of maintaining herself." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I move at the suggestion of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who unfortunately is at the present moment presiding over the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and cannot be here. The object of the Amendment is to include amongst the

247
class of "dependants" a daughter who, though not a spinster, is nevertheless under some disability, physical or mental, which prevents her from earning her maintenance and therefore makes her in every true sense a dependant of the father or mother as the case may be.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Russell of Killowen.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: The next Amendment is purely one of drafting. It is merely a recasting of the words which appear in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, leave out from ("will") to ("order") in line 18 and insert ("then, if the Court on application by or on behalf of any such wife, husband, daughter or son as aforesaid (in this Act referred to as a 'dependant' of the testator) is of opinion that the will does not make reasonable provision for the maintenance of that dependant, the Court may").—(Lord Russell of Killowen.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: This Amendment is only drafting. It recasts what is subsection (5) in the present Bill and shifts it to its proper place as a proviso to subsection (1).
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 22 at end insert ("Provided that no application shall be made to the Court by or on behalf of any person in any case where the testator has bequeathed not less than two-thirds of the income of the net estate to a surviving spouse and the only other dependant or dependants, if any, is or are a child or children of the surviving spouse").—(Lord Russell of Killowen.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: The next Amendment is also merely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("terminating") and insert ("and the order shall provide for their termination").—(Lord Russell of Killowen.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: The next Amendment is consequential on the Amendment which has been made already in Clause 1 at the suggestion of the learned Lord Chancellor. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
248
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("her marriage") and insert ("or who is under disability, her marriage or the cesser of her disability, whichever is the later").—(Lord Russell of Killowen.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN moved to leave out the proviso in subsection (3). The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is partly drafting and partly not. It proposes to omit the proviso in subsection (3). The reason for the proposed Amendment is that that proviso is not required in view of the provisions of subsection (8), which confers upon the Court a very wide discretion indeed, and it is considered that if the proviso which we now propose to omit is retained in the Bill it might operate to throw some doubt on the width of the discretion which is reposed in the Court.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 27, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 34.—(Lord Russell of Killowen.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: The next two Amendments in my name are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (5)
Page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (7).—(Lord Russell of Killowen.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN moved, in subsection (8), after "future," to insert "capital or." The noble and learned Lord said: This is an Amendment moved at the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in order to cover a case where what is in the possession of the dependant is not merely an income sum but a sum of capital capable of producing income.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, at end insert ("capital or").—(Lord Russell of Killowen.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: The next five Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 27, leave out ("of the applicant")
Page 3, line 27, after ("source") insert ("of the dependant of the testator to whom the application relates")
Page 3, line 28, leave out ("the applicant") and insert ("that dependant")
Page 3, line 28, leave out ("or") and insert ("and")
Page 3, line 31, leave out ("the applicant") and insert ("that dependant").—(Lord Russell of Killowen.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN moved, at the end of subsection (9), to insert:
"including any statement in writing signed by the testator and dated, so, however, that in estimating the weight, if any, to be attached to any such statement the Court shall have regard to all the circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the accuracy or otherwise of the statement."
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a more substantial Amendment. It is introduced at the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor. If your Lordships look at subsection (9) of Clause 1 of the Bill, you will find that it runs as follows:
"(9) The Court shall also, on any such application, have regard to the testator's reasons, so far as ascertainable, for making the dispositions made by his will, or for not making any provision or any further provision, as the case may be, for a dependant, and the Court may accept such evidence of those reasons as it considers sufficient."
It is proposed to add to that the words of the Amendment which are now proposed. The object of the addition is, in the first place, to make it quite clear that such a statement is legally admissible in evidence, and in the second place to make it equally clear that the statement itself, though admissible in evidence, is not conclusive as to the truth of the statement which it contains.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Russell of Killowen.)
LORD STRABOLGI: I hesitate to question anything which has been agreed between the noble and learned Lord and the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, but this is a very important Bill and there are a great many Amendments on the Paper, and it is our duty, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord will agree, to examine them with care. On reading his Amendment it seems to me—I put the point forward with great diffidence—that such statements should not only be signed but witnessed. I do not know if that has been considered. I see that later there are qualifying words as to the weight
250
which the Court must give to the statement, and I should have thought that it might have been well to insist upon the statement being witnessed.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: That matter was considered and we came to the conclusion that it really was not necessary. All we wanted was to admit in evidence some statement which was the testator's own statement as to what his reasons were. There was some question as to whether it would be admissible in evidence, and it was to meet that possibility that the Amendment was framed. Unless it is to be suggested that something in the nature of a forgery is going to be produced no witness is necessary.
LORD STRABOLGI: That is what I have in mind. I only know from reading in the newspapers, but cases are reported in which there are accusations of forgeries in connection with properties that are bequeathed. I do not want to press the matter now, but I thought that when a statement is signed it would be perhaps safer to have it witnessed.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: I do not think myself, if I may give my own opinion, that it would be necessary, or that it would have any really useful result. We are not dealing with a document disposing of property but merely with a statement of why the testator says he made his will in a particular form. I would venture to suggest to the Committee and to my noble friend that it is really not worth while including a provision that it should be witnessed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Time within which application must be made]:
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: The Amendment on the Paper is drafting only and the effect of the words to be omitted is restored later.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, leave out from ("1925") to the end of 6. —(Lord Russell of Killowen.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Effect and form of order.
(2) The Court may give such consequential directions as it thinks fit for the purpose

251
of giving effect to an order made under this Act.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN moved to add to subsection (2):
"but no larger part of the net estate shall be set aside or appropriated to answer by the income thereof the provision for maintenance thereby made than such a part as, at the date of the order, is sufficient to produce by the income thereof the amount of the said provision."
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is of some substance. It is again one which I move at the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor. The object is to make it quite clear that the income which the Court allows for the maintenance of a dependant is not to be treated upon the same footing as if it were a regular annuity. When the Court sets aside funds to meet a regular annuity, not only has the fund to be sufficient to produce by its income that annuity, but a larger fund is set aside to provide a margin of safety. It has been thought that the estate of a testator should not be held up longer than is necessary, and so we want to provide that what should be set aside should be only so much as at the date of such setting aside would be sufficient to meet the income for maintenance, and any subsequent diminution of income should be borne by the dependant. That seems to be fair and accordingly it is suggested that these words should be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 22, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Russell of Killowen.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Variation of orders]:
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: There is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, at end insert ("by or on behalf of a dependant of the testator or"). —(Lord Russell of Killowen.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Application of Act.
5. This Act shall not have effect in the case of a testator dying domiciled outside England.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN moved to leave out Clause 5. The noble
252
and learned Lord said: It is proposed to leave out Clause 5 because it is unnecessary owing to the present form of Clause 1.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 5.—(Lord Russell of Killowen.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Jurisdiction of High Court, etc.
6. In this Act the Court means the High Court and also the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster or the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Durham where those Courts respectively have jurisdiction:
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN moved to leave out Clause 6. The noble and learned Lord said: We propose to leave out Clause 6 because its provisions are shifted to the definition clause which comes later.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 6.—(Lord Russell of Killowen.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7:
Interpretation.
7. In this Act—
The expression "will" includes codicil:
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN moved, after "In this Act," to insert:
"unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions shall have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:—
'annual income' means in relation to a testator's net estate, the income that the net estate might be expected at the date of the order, when realised, to yield in a year:
'the Court' means the High Court and also the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster or the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Durham where those Courts respectively have jurisdiction;
'Death Duties' means Estate Duty, Succession Duty, Legacy Duty and every other duty leviable or payable on death;
'net estate' means all the property of which a testator had power to dispose by his will (otherwise than by virtue of a special power of appointment) less the amount of his funeral, testamentary and administration expenses, debts and liabilities and Estate Duty payable out of his estate on his death;"
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 7 is now the definition clause. The definition of "annual income" originally ran:

253
"'annual income' means, in relation to a testator's net estate, the income that the net estate, when realised, might be expected to yield in a year."
It occurred to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor and myself that some direction should be given as to the time of expectation. Accordingly it is proposed to insert words providing that the income is the income that the net estate might be expected "at the date of the order" to yield. Then there is a definition of "Death Duties" which is new. That is included because Death Duties are referred to in another clause and it is thought that they should be defined.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 12, after ("Act") insert the said words.—(Lord Russell of Killowen.)
LORD STRABOLGI: I hesitate to hold up the proceedings, but this Bill came from another place and we have only heard that the noble and learned Lord has consulted the Lord Chancellor. I presume that the promoters of the Bill in another place are agreeable to these Amendments?
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: Oh, yes, I need hardly say I consulted them.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble and learned Lord did not say so. I have had some slight experience of the working of the Public Trustee Act, which works extremely well. I am glad to say that it was introduced by a relative of mine in the first place in the other House. I thought that all these matters were very clearly laid down there for the guidance of the Public Trustee. I do not know whether this has been considered by the noble and learned Lord and his collaborators in this matter. None of these questions relating to the work of trustees is new. I myself happen to be a trustee of certain estates and it seems to me rather curious that we should have to put these definitions in for dealing with routine matters which have been going on for a long time in connection with many estates. I bring this matter forward only because I want to be sure that anything that goes through your Lordships' House is in fact exactly as it should be.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: I am not sure whether I apprehend what the noble Lord has in mind. These are simply definitions of words which occur in this Bill. If a maintenance allowance has to
254
be made the allowance is made out of the annual income and "annual income" requires definition for that purpose and that purpose alone. So again "Death Duties" are defined because they are referred to in Clause 3 of the Bill. I do not follow what the noble Lord means when he says that these matters are of every day occurrence to trustees. This Bill is introducing an entirely new feature into the legislation of this country, enabling the Courts, notwithstanding the provisions of a will, to make some provision in the way of maintenance for the testator's dependants. This clause really defines the meaning of words used in previous clauses of the Bill.
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, that is what I have in mind.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: Then I am at a loss. I do not understand.
LORD STRABOLGI: The Bill is new but the matters here defined such as "income" and "net estate" and so on are old. Perhaps I ought to look the matter up—I would have done so if I had had the time—but I would like to ask whether these are the same definitions as are dealt with by trustees every day.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: No, they are definitions for the purposes of this Bill and the purposes of this Bill only. They will not in any way affect trustees of an existing will. They only affect the meaning of the words used in this Bill, which is a Bill to enable the Courts, notwithstanding the provisions of a testator's will, to make provision for those of his dependants for whom he has not provided.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: These next two Amendments are purely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 13, leave out ("the expression")
Page 5, line 14, leave out ("the expressions").—(Lord Russell of Killowen.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN moved to add to the clause:
"(2) References in this Act to any enactment or any provision of any enactment shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as references to that enactment or provision as amended by any subsequent enactment including this Act."

255
The noble and learned Lord said: This again is a drafting Amendment. It is in common form, and explains really the reason why certain words were omitted from previous clauses.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 20, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Russell of Killowen.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
LORD STRABOLGI: I hope the noble Lord will understand that this measure came before us from another place as an agreed measure. A large number of Amendments are now brought before us. It is true they are mostly drafting, but we have to make sure that we are not going against the will of those who carried the Bill in another place.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: I can assure the noble Lord that we have restricted these Amendments to the smallest possible limit. I devoted some time yesterday to going through the whole list of Amendments with those responsible for the Bill in another place, and they were all agreed.

STREET PLAYGROUNDS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Power to prohibit traffic on roads to be used as playgrounds]:
LORD ELTON: My Lords, there is a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("the council") and insert ("they").—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Power to make by-laws with respect to roads used as playgrounds]:
THE EARL OF ERNE: My Lords, the Amendments in my name are both drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 39, leave out ("with respect to") and insert ("authorising")
Clause 2, page 2, line 4o after ("purpose") insert ("and making provision").—(The Earl of Erne.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order).

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 6:
Power to deal with children and young persons who become in need of medical treatment while under detention.
6.—(1) Section thirty-three of the principal Act shall have effect as if in that section, after subsection (1) thereof, there were inserted the following subsection:—
"(1A) Where the period for which a child or young person has been remanded is extended by order of a court of summary jurisdiction under Section twenty of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914 (which enables such a court to extend, in his absence, the period for which there has been remanded an accused person who, by reason of illness or accident, is unable to appear personally), then, if the child or young person is for the time being detained under an order having effect by virtue of this section, the court may, in the absence of the child or young person, correspondingly extend the period for which he is to be so detained."
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Earl said: My Lords, I owe to Lord Amulree an apology for bringing up these Amendments at this late stage of the Bill. The first Amendment which stands in my name concerns subsection (1), which was originally inserted because some doubt was felt whether subsection (1) of Section 33 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, applied in cases where the period of an original remand was extended by a further remand under Section 20 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914. I am now advised that this doubt was unfounded, and that under Section 33 of the Act of 1933 the court must commit a child to a remand home instead of to prison either when originally remanding the child or when further remanding him under Section 20 of the 1914 Act. The first subsection of Clause 6 of the Bill is therefore unnecessary, and I move that it be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 1, leave out subsection (1)—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SCHEDULE.

  CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT AND OF THE EDUCATION ACT, 1921.
  Amendments of principal Act.
  Amendments of the Education Act, 1921.
  In Section forty-five, in subsection (1), in paragraphs (a) and (b), after the words "the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933" there shall be inserted the words "or (without making an order committing the child to the care of a fit person or in addition to making such an order) make an order placing the child, for a specified period not exceeding three years, under the supervision of a probation officer or of some other person appointed for the purpose by the court"; and, in subsection (2), after the words "fit person" there shall be inserted the words "or placing him under the supervision of a probation officer or of some other person appointed for the purpose by the court."
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to insert among the Amendments of the principal Act:
  "In the Third Schedule, the provisions substituting a section for Section forty-five of the Education Act, 1921, shall cease to have effect."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment relates to Section 45 of the Education Act, 1921, and it will be unnecessary for me to say more than that the purpose of leaving these words out is to secure that the revised Section 45 of the Education Act, 1921, shall appear in full in the Schedule of the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 25, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out all words following "Amendments of the Education Act, 1921," and insert:
  "For Section forty-five there shall be substituted the following section:
  Proceedings on disobedience of order of court for attendance at school.
  45.—(1) Where a school attendance order is not complied with, without any reasonable excuse, a court of summary jurisdiction, on complaint made by the local education authority, may, if they think fit, order as follows:—

  (a) in the first case of non-compliance if the parent of the child does not appear, or appears and fails to satisfy the court that he has used all reasonable efforts to enforce compliance with the order, the court may impose a fine not exceeding with the costs twenty shillings; but if the parent satisfies the court that he has used all reasonable efforts as aforesaid, the court may, without
  258
  inflicting a fine, order the child to be sent to an approved school or to be committed to the care of a fit person in accordance with the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, or (without making an order committing the child to the care of a fit person or in addition to making such an order) make an order placing the child, for a specified period not exceeding three years, under the supervision of a probation officer or of some other person appointed for the purpose by the court; and

  (b) in the second or any subsequent case of non-compliance with the order, the court may order the child to he sent to an approved school or to be committed to the care of a fit person in accordance with the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, or (without making an order committing the child to the care of a fit person or in addition to making such an order) make an order placing the child, for a specified period not exceeding three years, under the supervision of a probation officer or of some other person appointed for the purpose by the court, and may further in their discretion inflict any such fine as aforesaid, or they may for each such noncompliance inflict any such fine as aforesaid without dealing with the child as aforesaid:

  Provided that a complaint under this section with respect to a continuing non-compliance with a school attendance order shall not be repeated by the local education authority at any less interval than two weeks.
  (2) Where an order is made under this section either sending a child to an approved school, or committing him to the care of a fit person, or placing him under the supervision of a probation officer or of some other person appointed for the purpose by the court, the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, shall apply in relation to the order as if it were an order made under that Act."
  The noble Earl said: This is consequential.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 27, leave out from the beginning of the line to the end of the Schedule, and insert the said new' section.—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

FOOD AND DRUGS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 68 [Powers of sampling]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gage, I beg to move the first Amendment to this Bill. It is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 3o, after ("to") insert ("and determined by") and leave out ("whose decision shall he final").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 103 [Short title, date of commencement and extent]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to insert:
"(4) Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people, or vary the amount or incidence of, or otherwise alter, any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money raised by any such charge."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to preserve the Privilege of the House of Commons. An Amendment in similar terms was inserted on the Third Reading of the Bill which ultimately became the Public Health Act, 1936. It is required for the reason that in the case of Bills of this character, making a large number of minor amendments in local government law, it would be scarcely practicable to dissect each clause with a view to seeing whether any particular alteration of language might by any possibility alter the amount or incidence of a public charge. The new subsection safeguards the position in this respect, and will no doubt, as in the case of the Public Health Bill, be moved out in the House of Commons.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 40, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BAKING INDUSTRY (HOURS OF WORK) BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order).
LEASEHOLD PROPERTY (REPAIRS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LONDON TRAFFIC PROBLEMS.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY rose to call attention on behalf of the Roads Group to the Highway Development Survey, 1937 (Greater London), made by Sir Charles Bressey, and the Report thereon presented to the Minister of Transport and,
260
in view of the urgency of providing relief to congestion of road traffic in London, to inquire what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to implement the recommendations made therein; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which stands on the Order Paper in my name has been tabled on behalf of the Roads Group of your Lordships' House, and gives expression to the views of a considerable body of opinion. I venture respectfully to draw your attention to the fact that, although I understand the Standing Orders do not themselves forbid more than one name being attached to a Motion, it happens that so far as this particular Motion is concerned only one name appears on it. In point of fact this Motion, as handed in, actually carried the signatures of several of your Lordships, but they were not printed on the Order Paper. These arbitrary omissions are, I venture to think, regrettable, as the presence of the names attached to the Motion would have tended to commend and fortify the presentation of this Motion to your Lordships, and would have indicated to the House generally the measure of support which it really has behind it.
May I take this opportunity of respectfully congratulating His Majesty's Government upon the pleasing departure from their usual practice in calling for a long-term, long-sighted Report of this nature. I believe I am right in saying that this is the first, or nearly the first, time that anything of this kind has been done by a Government. A Report has been prepared by an individual, and a distinguished individual, who has rendered able services to the State, a person of tried and tested experience and capacity, and who in the preparation of that Report has been given a perfectly free hand, has remained untrammeled by what I might call departmental supervision and direction, and whose instructions have been quite clear and explicit—namely, just to concentrate and to think, for whatever period of time he might consider to be necessary, about the problem, and endeavour thereby to find a solution for the amelioration of a particularly difficult matter. The Report speaks for itself. It is a splendid attempt to take a long and practical view and, if I may, I should like to congratulate Sir Charles Bressey, the

261
author of this Report, upon his distinguished work. This method of investigation and inquiry which the Government have adopted in this case might well, I think, offer a happy new precedent for dealing with difficult problems as they arise in other fields. It would obviate, for example, to some extent the need of setting up special Commissions, whose members have to work very hard, who get flooded out with innumerable memoranda, which they hardly have time to read, and have to interview large numbers of persons, among whom will always be found a by no means inconsiderable number of cranks.
I should like to make it clear to the House that we of the Roads Group who are raising this matter are not doing so from the safety point of view, tragic as that aspect of the road traffic problem undoubtedly is. And there is certainly no group of members of your Lordships' House who deplore more acutely the melancholy of fatal and non-fatal accidents which goes on day after day and month after month. We are not raising this question so much from that point of view because we recognise and appreciate that this particular aspect of the road problem is being ably and thoroughly investigated by the officially appointed Select Committee whose task it is to do this work, and whose proceedings are restricted by their terms of reference more or less to this matter. We, however, are approaching the question and ventilating it to-day primarily from the point of view of fluidity of traffic, and trying to get something done to obviate the difficult traffic conditions which now exist, and to facilitate to a greater extent the easy flow of traffic which we all so much desire. We are also submitting this problem to the attention of the House from the point of view of the saving of transport charges and costs, which press very heavily upon our traders and the business community.
Our object is to get something done. There is always a real danger, particularly where an elaborate Report of this character is made, covering as it does a very wide field and putting forward a whole variety of schemes, that little or nothing will eventually be done. The mere fact that a Report carries with it many recommendations, which of course cannot be carried out immediately, is sometimes used as an argument for sitting still and doing nothing. We were glad
262
to observe from the report of a debate which took place recently in another place, that definite decisions have been taken to proceed without delay with certain schemes which have been, we understand, approved and accepted, and we were glad to know that this work will be carried out. But we should like to have a little more information. We should like to know what are those schemes, when will the work be commenced and, above all, when is it expected that it will be possible to complete that work.
I would also like to stress the importance of scheduling a list of schemes on a sort of priority basis, and to urge the need of something of that kind being done. For example, the routes which are eventually going to be developed should be decided upon as soon as possible, so that definite steps can be taken to prevent the erection of obstructive buildings—buildings for which heavy compensation would be demanded, and would have to be paid presumably if the scheme were eventually carried out. I believe that, as a matter of fact, ample powers are in the hands of the authorities to undertake work of this kind, but if there be any question about it, I trust that legislative powers will be at once taken, so that that point can be effectively dealt with. Action of this kind is necessary, and I venture to think will not adversely affect or reflect upon the work of any Government Department or central or local authority. It is just plain, ordinary, common sense to look ahead and as far as possible forestall and avoid difficulties of that kind which are bound to arise.
Then I suggest that safeguarding measures should be taken—and they can be taken—to defeat the profiteer and the speculator. Already since this Report was published, arousing a good deal of interest, the speculator and the profiteer have appeared. It is not sufficient for the Central Government to rub their hands, to close their eyes, and say, "It is not our business, it is the business of the highway authorities of the country." Surely it is a national responsibility when you are dealing with a national system of road development and improvement. I know it may sound difficult, and no doubt it is, to forestall profiteers, but I venture to suggest that nothing would allay public dissatisfaction more than the knowledge that obstruction and profiteering will not

263
be tolerated or permitted, but will be ruthlessly dealt with and suppressed.
If it be permitted—and I hope I may be forgiven if it is not—to refer to so august a body as the London County Council, it appears somewhat regrettable that the policy which they have adopted and pursued in respect to town planning differs very materially from that which has been adopted by other local authorities, in this respect, that the London County Council's schemes for town planning do not take road planning into account. They confine their town-planning activities more to zoning, that is to say, the allocation of particular areas for various purposes, such as commercial purposes and residential purposes. With all respect, I would suggest that this august body should take a different action, that they should direct their attention to the need of long-term schemes of road planning and road development, for, after all, road transport must eventually play a very important part in any future development on town-planning lines.
It may be found, and very likely will be found, that the present complex system of administration designed and used almost exclusively for the maintenance of roads on a sectional and other restricted plan is really not suitable or adaptable to the construction of new highways on the unexampled scale which now seems to be demanded. The road authorities and the roads themselves are located in different areas without regard to the advantages of bringing these areas together—county borough areas, county council areas, and so on, and these territories are interwoven and intermixed in a very inefficient manner in many cases. I suggest that this question of boundaries as between one highway authority and another is a matter that demands our attention. It may indeed prove necessary to set up much simpler, more direct, perhaps more energetic ad hoc administration with special powers to cut through even red tape, and free itself from those vexatious delays with which we are so familiar in the case of councils, committees, sub-committees, and Government Departments, where reference to and from these various bodies is required. I hope the question of the provision of some such special machinery will be considered.
I do not wish to weary the House because I know there are many other
264
speakers to this Motion, but I should like to be allowed in passing to make mention of the question of motorways. The Report put forward various suggestions for the construction of motorways—that is to say, roads exclusively reserved for motor traffic with a view to the relief of congestion, for the speeding up of traffic and, above all, for the reduction in the number of accidents which now take place on the ordinary roads of this country. The House will, I think, appreciate that it may well prove cheaper and more advantageous to construct some entirely new roads adapted to the entirely new conditions of modern traffic rather than try in all cases to alter and modernise some of our ancient highways, which never were built under any plan but more or less just happened. To alter these old highways to fit modern requirements can only be done in many cases by destroying, perhaps, some of our most picturesque rural amenities, cutting up our village greens, rooting up our ancient trees, and perhaps pulling down the village church or the village hall. If new motorways specially adapted to modern conditions are required, then I hope we shall not hesitate to face the problem. I would put forward the plea that, at any rate, one or possibly more motorways should be constructed. Let us regard these quite frankly as an experiment, and this new method of transportation by motorway should be carefully, immediately, and fully considered.
Great concern has been expressed at the immense cost which might be involved in carrying out such a programme as has been envisaged in this Report. It must be noted, however, that the programme relates to a long period of time. It is proposed to cover something like thirty years. Moreover it is fair to observe that no one contemplates that a programme of this magnitude would be carried out exactly and precisely as it has been presented. Even when some of the big schemes go forward, such as the proposal for the Eastern Avenue linked with the Western Avenue across London, the financial burden could not be felt for at least two years. Countless negotiations would have to be entered into in respect of land, buildings, and all sorts of other matters. I do think, if some of these schemes were adopted in principle and negotiations carried out, it might prove that when the time for spending the

265
money and doing the work arrived it would be a very helpful way of dealing with some unemployment problem or a difficulty of that kind in our national economy.
I hope I have said enough to indicate to your Lordships the great importance and great urgency of the problem with which we are confronted, and enough to justify the questions which I have ventured to ask. I sincerely hope that action will be taken, action which is so obviously necessary, and that we shall not put this Report on the shelves which are already well stocked with Reports not so useful or ambitious and will recommendations which have not been carried out. I thank your Lordships for your consideration, and I beg to move for Papers.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, this great Report which is the subject of this Motion to-day was published on May 17, and many of your Lordships have felt great anxiety as to what might happen with reference to it. It happened to be published almost on the same day as the Government announced the need for the accelerated programme of rearmament. This Report envisages schemes which are going to cost a great deal of money, and therefore it is perhaps not unfair, to use a colloquialism, to say that the Report was published on rather a bad wicket. There were many other problems of a very urgent character in the public eye, at that moment, and there seemed to be great danger that the importance of this Report might be overlooked.
The noble Lord who has moved this Motion pointed out with truth that this was the first occasion on which a really long view has been taken of the road problem of this country. The Government's record with regard to the roads of this country does not inspire those of us who are vitally interested in this matter with great confidence. As it seems to us, the Government so far have simply toyed with the road question in this country. All the time it has been catching them up. For instance, since the year 1910, traffic on our roads, according to the statistics that have been published, has increased by something like two thousand per cent. In the same period new roads have increased by 1.9 per cent. At the present time new vehicles are coming on to the roads at a net rate of increase of, roughly, 500
266
a day. That process cannot go on. The result will simply be chaos, and one must not forget that in the background are the fortunes of an industry serving the country which employs 1,300,000 workers. Already there are signs that the extreme congestion on the roads is having its repercussions on industry. It has become increasingly difficult, if not absolutely impossible, to sell the higher-priced cars. That is exactly where the effect would first be found—the impossibility of selling the higher-priced car. Eventually that tendency may spread, and if it does it will have a very grave effect upon the fortunes of the industry and upon our export trade. Therefore I do hope the Government will take every advantage of the long view taken by Sir Charles Bressey's wonderful Report.
I share entirely with the noble Lord who preceded me his admiration for Sir Charles Bressey and the way he has approached this problem. As it seems to me, he has not approached it exclusively from the point of view of London, but, as your Lordships who have read the Report will have noticed, he goes much further afield and points to the extraordinary importance of the arterial road system of the country as a whole. Indeed, he indicates where very great improvements well outside the London area but connected with it, and having their effect upon it indirectly, may be made. Sir Charles Bressey's Report deals, of course, principally with the London area.
I said just now that so far the Government had toyed with the problem. I am prepared to say they have not only toyed with it, but that they have tinkered with it and have just muddled along. Take certain well known arteries of traffic. Take Western Avenue, one of the most important arteries made in recent years. The work on that started in 1920 to 1921. It was planned to start at Wood Lane by the White City and to come out on the Oxford Road somewhere on the other side of Uxbridge close to Denham. It still is 2·55 miles short of its eventual destination, and statements have been made in the Press to the effect that it will take another two-and-a-half years before it can be completed. A road that is about twelve-and-a-half miles long or something of that sort—I forget the exact measurement—under construction for seventeen

267
years already, and still 2.55 miles short of its destination, and to take another two-and-a-half years before it gets there: that is what I call tinkering and toying with the thing. If modern machinery is used, the Germans have shown us that you can make a new road according to the very latest specifications and the latest ideals of the road engineer, at the rate of 220 yards a day working a single shift, and 440 yards a day working a double shift. If that is possible in Germany, I decline to believe the same sort of thing is not possible here.
Take the Western Avenue again. It includes amongst other things, according to the Report, three and a half miles over its most congested portions, a road that is thirty feet wide or less. Those of your Lordships who use that road will, I know, agree that it is to-day one of the most dangerous arteries leading out of London. It urgently requires reconstruction according to the latest ideas and the specifications of the Ministry of Transport; yet the Ministry of Transport come and tell us that only 2 per cent. or less of the accidents that take place on that road are due to road conditions. It is perfectly absurd. Any of your Lordships who are in the habit of using that road will agree that there are few more dangerous roads to be found in the London area. The Western Avenue is one of the most vital aspects of Sir Charles Bressey's Report. His principal recommendation, or his first recommendation if you like to put it that way, is the importance of constructing a great eastern-western way from London to Western Avenue, to be connected up somewhere across Paddington and then across Marylebone and Euston Roads to the Eastern Avenue. There is no doubt that this is a work of first-class importance.
It will be urged that the cost of this will be simply enormous. The motor world is getting rather impatient when too much stress is laid on this question of cost. The motor world to-day is paying £88,000,000 a year in taxation—over 8 per cent. of the national revenue is being raised as tribute from the motor world. They may well ask what they are getting for it. To-day the Government's proposals are to spend £3,000,000 upon new road construction this year. Of that
268
£3,000,000, £2,200,000 is already earmarked for certain improvements, such as the Crawley by-pass and the Winchester by-pass, leaving only £800,000 as a balance. I suggest that that is simply tinkering with the road question of this country. Look at the accident statistics. We did not raise this Motion specially because of the accident statistics, but it has a very great bearing upon them. All the statistics that have been published have shown us that extreme traffic congestion is one of the chief factors in accident causation. If that is true—and I think every authority who has examined the question with an impartial mind has decided that there is a great deal of truth in it—then this question of road construction becomes more than ever vital.
I would like to know from the noble Earl who is to reply for the Government what really are their plans. I submit to His Majesty's Government that they have not only to show what their plans are in connection with Sir Charles Bressey's Report, but they must give the country a better idea of what their attitude is with regard to the road question as a whole. The noble Lord who preceded me pointed out that it is often possible to make a new road far better than it is to improve an old road. It is not only possible but it costs a great deal less. The greatest experts in this country have shown us that you can construct a perfectly new road where none exists for about £40,000 a mile. In Germany it has been done for less than that, presumably because they have advantages in the labour market and also because they are in the habit of using very much more modern machinery. But if you improve an existing road the experts have told us it costs, roughly, £60,000 a mile. Therefore the question of cost comes in as well as everything else.
I want to know what the Government plans really are. Let them make a full and frank statement. Those who are anxious with regard to this problem appreciate perfectly that the Government cannot say, "We are going to drive a road here or a road there," for the obvious reason that the Government cannot say too much about it because if they do the price goes up against them all the time. I do not wish them to do that, but let them say in general terms what they are really going to do. Let

269
them give us some idea of the order of priority in which they propose to tackle the recommendations of Sir Charles Bressey in his Report. I submit to His Majesty's Government that the motor world particularly is most anxious that the Eastern and Western Avenues should receive prior consideration and also the South Circular Road. That road has been talked about for many years but absolutely nothing has been done. Now you are going to have an improvement in the cross-traffic conditions in the lower portion of London towards Woolwich, and you are going to have an improvement of Wandsworth Bridge; yet you have no way by which traffic can get safely and easily from one point to the other without going through the central area where you really do not want it.
Another question, as the noble Lord who preceded me pointed out, is dealt with by Sir Charles Bressey in his Report. One of his objects is quite clearly to maintain the traffic low. Many people imagine, when one talks about the necessity for better roads, that one wants better roads in order to enable vehicles to charge along at impossible and dangerous speeds. That is not so. The object is to try to keep up the traffic flow as is done in other countries. In America they concentrate on traffic flow. They stop you if you go too fast, but on the other hand if you go too slowly you are taken to task by the traffic authorities. Look at our arterial roads out of London. Take any one of them you like. The Kingston by-pass is an example. It was constructed as a single track road. Then at various points housing development took place. Then traffic lights arrived, and then pedestrian crossings. That is the position, not only on the Kingston by-pass, but on other arterial roads. Then, as on the Western Avenue, speed limit restrictions are imposed. The result is very largely to nullify the usefulness of the road.
One thing to which Sir Charles Bressey gives attention is the system of road intersections. That is of great importance. In other countries, in Germany and in America, and to a lesser extent perhaps in Italy, they have gone in largely for what are known as flyover junctions. Sir Charles Bressey deals with them. We are experimenting with one single fly-over junction on the Kingston by-pass. I believe there is a second one to be introduced,
270
but there is urgent need for a third where the by-pass debouches on the Portsmouth road. There is urgent need for it, and there is ample land available; but nothing is done. There are many other points where fly-over junctions could be provided.
It may be said that in Germany they have made autobahnen and other road improvements with a strategic idea. Is there no strategic necessity here? Suppose there was an air raid on this great City, what would happen? You would not like to have the whole population here as a sitting target for enemy bombs. You would want some of them, at any rate, to have a chance of getting away. Yet at the present time outlets do not exist and the population could not get out by any conceivable means. Better roads are a part of national defence. The bombing of a railway junction might put a large railway area out of action, but it would be difficult for enemy bombers to put a well constructed road system out of action. I submit to your Lordships that there is a strategic need here for these road improvements and I hope that that will not be overlooked. I want the Government to tell us what they are going to do about arterial roads and motor ways and other matters. I do not want details, but I do want the Government to say generally what their attitude is going to be. I do not press for an answer this afternoon, but I do ask my noble friend who will reply for the Government to submit to the Minister that as soon as he possibly can he should take an opportunity of telling the country what is the Government attitude to these matters.
There is only one other minor point. There are many by-passes out of London and in other parts of the country. In most cases they are designed to facilitate traffic, but in almost all cases they decant traffic on to an ordinary road which has not been improved. It simply reproduces what has been going on before to the increasing exasperation of the motor world. It is no good having a Kingston by-pass when you come on to the Portsmouth Road which is only a single track road and not able to deal with the traffic. I would urge the Government to get away from the idea that we can solve the traffic problem by making the traffic fit the roads. The Government policy so far as road transport is concerned has been

271
not to permit the normal development of road transport. They have gone in for a policy of restriction. It has been very severely restricted, and restricted, in the opinion of most of those connected with the road transport industry, in the interest of the railway companies. The effect of that is very largely to increase the cost of goods that would otherwise travel by road. It is for that reason that the motor world is becoming increasingly suspicious of the whole attitude of His Majesty's Government to the road problem. It becomes therefore more urgently necessary for the Government to declare their policy as soon as possible with regard to this great and important Report of Sir Charles Bressey.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, this subject has been so admirably dealt with that there is not a great deal left to be said. I would like, if I may, to add my meed of praise to Sir Charles Bressey and Sir Edwin Lutyens for this admirable Report. I think the mere fact that it has been produced in conjunction with a well known architect does mean that, although the Report looks as if it might be a little devastating as far as buildings are concerned, the City and London as a whole w ill benefit in appearance as well as in traffic facilities. As the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, said, this question is brought forward not from the point of view of road safety, although naturally it will have a big effect on that. It is a matter which is concerned much more with national prosperity. A great deal has been said about the cost of carrying out these schemes, and I was sorry to hear the noble Earl say that the motor world were going to benefit by it, because it seems to me that the motoring world are not going to benefit nearly as much as the nation as a whole.
Saturation point so far as traffic is concerned has already been reached at a great many points in London. All the things we use, the food we eat, almost every single thing that is used in commerce, is continually passing those points where saturation has already been reached, and the result is that we are paying millions of pounds—actually millions of pounds—a year in transport simply because our roads are not up to the traffic that it is necessary to put upon them. That cost falls upon the whole
272
nation. The circumstance that the motoring world is contributing £88,000,000 a year and not getting it back has nothing to do with the case at all. To my mind it is a national matter and if you look to the motoring world to pay you might use all the money the motoring world is now paying for the purpose.
I would like to support the noble Earl in asking for a definite statement as to which part of the scheme the Government propose to take first. I do not mean which identical scheme, but which part. The scheme can be divided to my mind into three sections, the inner, the middle and the outer, and I cannot help feeling that the most important one to start on is the inner: the East and West link, the Embankment and the City loopway, and then the South Circular Road. Those three are the ones that are going to do the most to relieve traffic congestion in Inner London, but I think we do want a definite statement as to where the Government propose to start, whether from the outside in, or from the inside out, and I hope we shall have an assurance that they are going to work on some definite plan, and not by a series of blotches here and there. I should also very much hope that we shall get some assurance that they will take active steps to safeguard the proposed routes, to prevent not only profiteering but also the erection of new and costly buildings which are going to block the lines which are wanted for the new better roads. If the Government can also give us an assurance that they are going really to get together with the London County Council, so that the London County Council's proposals and the Sir Charles Bressey scheme may be linked together, then I think we can say that we have had a satisfactory afternoon.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I do not rise to continue the discussion on the lines that have been pursued by noble Lords who have spoken. They have presented to the House, very ably and very adequately, the practical considerations which they had in mind, and I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Roads Group for having brought forward this subject to-day. For my own part I would wish to say only a few words, in a plea to the Government, and indeed to the whole nation, to promote the early adoption of the great proposal

273
made by Sir Charles Bressey, in order to enhance the dignity and the greatness of London as the Capital City of the United Kingdom and of the Empire. We have clearly a duty to preserve what remains of old London, but, consistently with that, and without any artistic vandalism, there is the opportunity and indeed the need, the urgent necessity, for carrying out great improvements. During the lifetime of the present generation the improvements on a large scale in the centre of London have been exceedingly few. Indeed there has only been one, the construction of Kingsway and Aldwych, for the earlier improvements, the Victoria Embankment and Holborn Viaduct, belong to a previous generation.
When we see the amazing developments of other capitals of the world we have little reason to be satisfied with our own apathy. Those who have visited Washington in recent years know that it has become a most noble and splendid City. Paris, of course, has inherited the admirable planning of a previous generation. It is only necessary merely to mention Vienna and Budapest, and we know that very great improvements are planned for Rome and Berlin. Meanwhile, here in London, there has been for a long period of years an apathy and indifference which is most reprehensible to those of us now charged with the duty of maintaining and developing the Capital City of the Empire. We are all aware of great defects in its planning and amenities. We have here in. London great causes for satisfaction in certain respects. Parts of it are unsurpassed anywhere, and the Parks are the envy of every other capital. The river front has great potentialities which have hardly yet been used. Nevertheless, whenever we return from abroad, and view London with a fresh eye, we cannot but feel impressed by the meanness of great parts of it, the squalor of others, and the disgraceful congestion of the surface traffic, which amounts to a scandal.
The great new roads planned by Sir Charles Bressey, with the advice, the most skilled advice, of Sir Edwin Lutyens, will give architectural opportunities of the utmost importance. They will allow for fine vistas, for the building of noble edifices, and go very far to enable London to become a City which shall be a worthy centre of a great modern civilisation. London already attracts many
274
visitors from all over the world, and might attract very many more. What is called "tourism" might be developed here to an extent which at present is hardly imagined, adding much to the prestige of our City and to the profit of many of its citizens. Above all, let us remember that this City is the capital of the greatest Empire, the greatest in area, in population and in wealth, not only of the present time but of all time, and its citizens and subjects visit it from every quarter of the great area which its flag covers. When they come here—coming home, as they say—when they come home, not without emotion, let us be able to show them a capital which is worthy of their affection and of their loyalty.
These schemes are exceedingly costly, and the question arises how can they be financed. Obviously they ought to be financed out of the addition to the value of the sites which will be given by these new improvements. Why should this increased value go into the pockets of private individuals? If they are made from public funds, if the capital cost is provided from public funds in some form, then clearly the financial advantage ought to go into the public purse, in order to recoup that cost. Therefore the sums should be provided by a financial scheme, based upon the betterment value which will be conferred upon the neighbourhoods which will be affected. I sincerely trust that the Government will take steps in dealing with this matter to create a bold scheme of finance that will match the boldness of the conception itself.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I should like to support the Motion, because I consider this is a matter of the very greatest importance. The Minister of Transport recently stated publicly that if the present rate of increase of population on the roads continues, in fifteen years time there will be twice as much traffic on the roads as there is to-day—a truly startling state of affairs, and I suggest that it behoves us to take immediate and resolute action. The Minister also submitted that the proper policy of the Ministry of Transport would be, first, to press on with the modernisation of our existing road system, and secondly, to be ready to consider on their merits any schemes for new roads which seemed capable of economic justification, and I would suggest that

275
the Bressey Report confirms this point of view. Obviously such a vast scheme cannot be put into operation at the stroke of the pen, but the general principles on which it is based, I suggest, should constitute the foundation on which not only London traffic requirements should be built, but also those of every provincial town of importance.
I think in the past we have followed in vain the futile policy of trying to make traffic fit the roads, and we cannot hope to see things better until we make up our minds to fit the roads for the traffic. Increase in road traffic is an enemy which grows more formidable every day. I would suggest that it is dangerous to delay matters further, and I do hope the Minister of Transport will consider acting on the Bressey Report as soon as is reasonably possible. I would, however, venture to give one word of warning. I know the rules of this House are somewhat elastic, and perhaps the Motion does not quite cover my point, but the question of railways has been raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The crucial transport problem remains to be solved, and that is the rivalry between road and rail transport. Distribution is too vital a national necessity to go unco-ordinated, and some measure of regulation is both essential and desirable. At one time it was thought that there was an analogy between the present competition of road and railway with that which took place a century ago with regard to the railways and canals. I would suggest that this is not really true. In the case of road and rail transport the real difficulty is that one block of work is being done by two agencies, one of which is fettered and controlled at every point, while the other is still licensed to be more or less a freelance. I am well aware that there are certain regulations concerning road traffic. The danger to the railways is not that they might be displaced by a more efficient form of transport, but that in the somewhat chaotic condition of work resulting from lack of regulation and coordination with road transport, the railways might be set an almost impossible task to accomplish.
I would suggest that the relationship of road and rail ought not to be a competitive one. Road and railway should represent complementary, and not competitive,
276
services. Each has a sphere within which it is better than the other, and there is loss if the road does what the railway could do better. In the same way if the railway took from the road what it might do more efficiently, there is also a loss. Where exactly the line of demarcation falls and how to secure an adjustment along this line of demarcation are no doubt matters of practical experiment and of trial and error. I do hope that the Government will very carefully consider the question of co-ordination when the new lay-out of roads is under consideration and traffic regulations are being devised, because unless this coordination is very carefully borne in mind I cannot help feeling that in the future we shall undoubtedly be faced with very severe labour troubles and wage troubles which might have very far-reaching effects. I commend the Bressey Report to His Majesty's Government, and I trust that its recommendations will be considered without delay.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, I would wish to associate myself with the Motion on the Paper and with the speakers who have already addressed your Lordships' House. There are just two points about which I would like to speak, neither of which has, I believe, yet been covered. The first is that of the strategic value of exits from our cities, and particularly from the City of London. I believe that the Minister of Transport has already been asked whether something could not be done connecting up the defence problem with the roads and the improvement of the roads in normal use. I understand that the attitude of the Ministry is that where improvements to the exits of large cities are justified by considerations of national defence they are also justified by the normal user, and highway authorities are carrying out such improvements as and when they are able to put them in hand. Apparently it comes down to the question of the authority and the place.
I also understand that the attitude of the Ministry towards the taking of the authority out of the hands of the local authorities is that such a thing would be very difficult and would be very much disliked. With that I am in agreement. But I would suggest to His Majesty's Government that for the trunk road sys-

277
tem it is an extraordinary stupid thing to treat it like the rivers in some parts of the world, which disappear under the sand and come up in another place. The trunk roads come into our cities and then go out of the hands of the Ministry of Transport and into the hands of the local authorities, and then come out again on the other side. I suggest that no harm would be done if the Ministry had power in regard to our trunk road system right through, so that there was no break in their authority over those roads. That is a point that I think the Government might consider. It only means two roads in most cities, one north and south, and one east and west, and perhaps a few more in London as the greatest City in the world; but there should be no break in the Ministry's continuity of control over our trunk system of roads. In conclusion I would like to congratulate Sir Charles Bressey and Sir Edwin Lutyens on their magnificent Report.
THE EARL OF ERNE: My Lords, before dealing specifically with the subject of the Motion may I be permitted to add my tribute to those which have already been paid to the authors of this Report? In December, 1934, the Minister of Transport appointed Sir Charles Bressey to make a comprehensive and systematic survey of the highway developments required in the London traffic area—which is roughly an area comprised in a circle with a radius of twenty-five miles from Charing Cross—during the next thirty years. At the same time the Minister appointed Sir Edwin Lutyens to act as consultant. Some indication of the magnitude of the task with which Sir Charles Bressey was faced may be gathered from the fact that the area dealt with covers about 2,000 square miles, in which there are some 150 local authorities and regional committees and which contains nearly one-fifth of the total population of Great Britain. During the three years which have elapsed Sir Charles and his colleague have devoted themselves to an exhaustive survey of the area and the Report which they have produced has deservedly been hailed on all sides as a masterly document embodying not only knowledge but vision.
I should also like to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, for initiating this debate, for it gives me this opportunity of making a statement on
278
behalf of His Majesty's Government on this most important subject. As regards the Report, many of the sixty-six schemes recommended in the Report relate to radial roads of one kind or another, but on the future map of London illustrating the proposals the road pattern is dominated not so much by the radial roads as by a triple ring of roads intended to deflect the traffic from inner London, where the scanty street space should be occupied rather by citizens whose business lies there than by travellers on their way to other destinations. The innermost of these three concentric rings is the loopway round the City intended to relieve the intense pressure on the Mansion House intersection. The next ring is formed by the North Circular Road coupled with a South Circular Road, the circumference of the complete circuit extending from Finchley in the north to Catford in the south and from Ealing in the west to Ilford in the east. The outermost ring consists of the North Orbital and South Orbital Roads—a circuit of not less than 125 miles—skirting Hatfield in the north, Reigate in the south, Purfleet in the east and Egham in the west.
Now as regards estimates. Any estimates that can be given of mileage and cost in relation to the numerous recommendations are liable to be misleading. In the first place it might be argued that some of the projects should be regarded as alternatives and that the execution of one might enable the second to be dispensed with. Again some sections of route are common to two or more of the recommendations. Moreover mileage is a standard almost impossible of application to such recommendations as the enlargement of Piccadilly Circus or the replanning of Hyde Park Corner. As to cost, one must remember that the Report is based on a thirty years forecast and that consequently any estimates that could be prepared to-day would have little relevance to the conditions prevailing twenty or thirty years hence. Other dubious factors are introduced into any calculations of cost, firstly by the uncertainty of the methods to he adopted in promoting the schemes, and secondly by the problems raised by re-housing and redevelopment areas. Subject therefore to these qualifications and reservations, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has stated in another place that

279
the approximate cost of the schemes is estimated to lie somewhere between £60,000,000 and £230,000,000, of which the proposals made within the administrative county of London will amount to something between £8o,000,000 and £120,000,000. But like my right honourable friend I must emphasize the peculiar difficulty of making any estimate and the fact that the estimates I have just given cannot be regarded as other than approximate.
As befitting a survey—or perhaps one should say a projection of insight—into the next thirty years the programme includes many schemes which cannot be carried out in the immediate future. At the same time, as my right honourable friend stated in another place, it is assumed that the London County Council, the City Corporation and the other highway authorities concerned will, as the responsible improvement authorities, not only welcome the Report as an authoritative guide to their future activities but be anxious to implement its recommendations. An assurance has already been given that in so doing those authorities may count on the whole-hearted support of the Ministry of Transport.
I turn now to the specific question which the noble Lord has put in his Motion—namely, what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to implement the recommendations. As I have said, the main object of the survey was to obtain a comprehensive, coordinated and progressive plan for the development of traffic routes in the areas. Now that the survey is completed, clearly the first thing to be done is to secure the co-operation of the many authorities concerned with the various recommendations so that works in their respective areas may be carried out on lines which conform as nearly as possible to those laid down in the Report. I would remind noble Lords that the initiative rests with the authorities responsible for highway development in the various areas and that the magnitude of the proposals—coupled as they are with the need for the continued improvement of other existing roads and congested focal points—must inevitably involve careful consideration and detailed discussion with the responsible authorities, particularly as to the order in which schemes should be undertaken. With this in mind my right
280
honourable friend on May 16 sent copies of the Report to all the local authorities concerned. He pointed out to them that in the preparation of the proposals Sir Charles Bressey has had the advantage of frequent consultations with the officers of local authorities and other public bodies throughout the area, and he expressed the hope that this fact would facilitate early decision as to the schemes which could be put in hand in the near future and as to the safeguarding of the lines of those other projects on which actual constructional work may have to be postponed for the time being. Indeed my right honourable friend has gone further, because in consultation with the London County Council certain of the schemes have already been agreed upon as those which should be adopted as a first and substantial instalment, and discussions are now proceeding as to ways and means.
My noble friend Lord Sandhurst has asked me to specify the particular schemes as to which agreement has been reached between my right honourable friend and the London County Council. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst—or it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley—has also given some prominence to the risk of the cost of the schemes in the Report being enhanced through the activities of land speculation. In the circumstances I am confident that he will agree that these risks should not be unnecessarily increased by any premature disclosure of precisely what is in contemplation. I earnestly hope that he will not at this stage press for more detailed information. His Majesty's Government and, I understand, the local authorities are anxious to proceed as rapidly as circumstances permit. But your Lordships will recognise that having regard to the vast expenditure involved, and the need for relating that expenditure to other demands on the taxpayer and ratepayer, the rate of progress must be conditioned by the financial resources available. Subject to this, the policy is to make a selection—with a view to their early execution—of the more pressing schemes advocated in the Report. As the Report was published little more than a month ago, the noble Lord will realise that no time has been lost by my right honourable friend in preparing the way for the important and essential preliminary negotiations before effect can be given to any of

281
the proposals. In view of the statement I have made I trust that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his Motion.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, I hope that the House as a whole will feel, in view of the interesting debate that has taken place upon this Motion, that the Roads Group of your Lordships' House were justified in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. In view of the assurances which have been given I would ask leave to withdraw the Motion, but in doing so may I express the hope that although, as has been pointed out by the noble Earl, the initiative rests with the highway authority, should the highway authorities concerned—and they are very numerous—fail to exercise that initiative, he and his Departments will take the necessary steps to see that action is in fact taken. Our whole object in raising the matter has been to get a move on. I beg leave to withdraw.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CLEARING OFFICE (TURKEY) AMENDMENT ORDER, 1938.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.— (The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE WINTER ADJUSTMENTS) REGULATIONS, 1938.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, in moving that this Special Order be approved, I should like to point out that normal movements of the cost of living figure were among the factors which were taken into account when the present Unemployment Assistance Regulations were drawn up. By regulation IV (2) on page 4 of the Unemployment Assistance Regulations, 1936, discretion is granted to the Board's officers to meet any special cases that may arise. Last autumn it was considered that abnormal increase in the price of certain commodities, added to the advent of winter, was likely to cause
282
hardship to a good many individuals. The Unemployment Assistance Board therefore instructed its officers to use discretionary powers to prevent as far as possible these hardships from arising. Your Lordships may like to know that as the result of their efforts a great many people were relieved, and a large number of additions made to unemployment allowances. The figures I have show that out of 603,909 applicants 263,388 were in receipt of winter allowances, varying from one shilling to four shillings per week. During last month these winter allowances were withdrawn, and in cases where the addition exceeded two shillings the withdrawal was made by stages.
The Unemployment Assistance Board were advised last autumn that existing powers allowed them to grant increased allowances, but as nobody can know what next winter may be like, whether prices will be high or low, owing to this uncertainty the Board desire to obtain specific authority by Regulation to enable them to meet any additional needs to which winter conditions, as such, irrespective of any rise or fall in the cost of living, may give rise. It is proposed that the Board shall be specifically empowered to deal with winter needs without special regard to changes in the cost of commodities, and the necessary authority is provided in the Regulations now before Parliament. These Regulations have been submitted, as they have to be, by the Unemployment Assistance Board to my right honourable friend the Minister, who has approved of them. They require the approval of both Houses of Parliament, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE PROPOSED CLUBS BILL.
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to make a further statement as to the date of the new Bill relating to clubs. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in bringing this Question forward for the fourth time this Session, I will not go over ground which I have traversed on more than one occasion. But I would

283
like again, if I may, to remind the Government of the very great urgency in connection with the provision of this legislation which arises from the present state of the law with regard to clubs. I feel I ought to add this. I cannot quite understand the delay which has taken place in regard to the introduction of this Bill. Here is a measure which has behind it an exceptional weight of public opinion in the country. It is a measure which, by common consent, is required in the public interest. Further than that, in the present Parliamentary position we have a Government which commands an overwhelming majority, and in regard to this particular Bill that majority would in all probability be even greater than under ordinary conditions. As a somewhat old Parliamentarian I recognise the difficulties of introducing a Bill of this sort at this stage of the Session, but I would very strongly press on the Government the necessity for some assurance that in the event of their not being able to introduce the Bill this Session they will introduce a Bill next Session at a time which will enable it to pass. I beg to ask the Question.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, as the House is probably aware, it was the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill on this subject during the present Session, but at this date and after reviewing all the claims on the time of Parliament during the remainder of the Session the Government can see no hope of finding the necessary time, and they have regretfully come to the conclusion that it will not be possible to include such a Bill in this Session's programme. I will convey to the Secretary of State the further remarks which my noble friend Lord Clwyd has made, but I feel certain that at this stage it would be impossible for me to anticipate the programme which is likely to be placed before your Lordships next Session. Nevertheless, as I say, I will communicate to the Secretary of State the remarks which fell from the noble Lord.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate
284
from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—

Cowes Urban District Council,

Workington Corporation.

The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

SHERBORNE GAS ORDER, 1938.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Sherborne Gas and Coke Company, Limited:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills and Measures received the Royal Assent:

Prevention and Treatment of Blindness (Scotland),

Air Navigation (Financial Provisions),

Leasehold Property (Repairs),

Housing (Rural Workers) Amendment,

Infanticide,

Crewe Corporation,

Radcliffe, Farnworth and District Gas,

Romford Gas,

Lee Conservancy,

Irwell Valley Water Board,

London County Council (Money),

Ossett Corporation,

Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water,

London County Council (General Powers),

Manchester Corporation,

Wakefield Corporation,

Plymouth Extension,

Gateshead Corporation.

Parsonages Measure, 1938.

Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Powers) Measure, 1938.

House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.