Lords Sitting of 31 May 1938

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
SHROPSHIRE WORCESTERSHIRE AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CREWE CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
RADCLIFFE FARNWORTH AND DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ROMFORD GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
AIR NAVIGATION (LICENSING OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT) ORDER, 1938.

  MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
  THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I have to convey to the House the following Message from the King:
  "I have received your Address praying that the Air Navigation (Licensing of Public Transport) Order, 1938, be made in the terms of the draft laid before Parliament. I will comply with your request."

SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
ALDRIDGE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
BRIXHAM GAS AND ELECTRICITYM BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TUNNEL AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
ROYAL SHEFFIELD INFIRMARY AND HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

WAR DEPARTMENT PROPERTY BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to enable the Secretary of State for War to delegate the function of executing instruments relating to the acquisition, management and disposal of property. I beg to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

EAST LOTHIAN WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).

INHERITANCE (FAMILY PROVISION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: My Lords, in moving that this Bill be read a second time I present it to your Lordships as a measure which deals in a modest, but I hope useful, way with cases which occur from time to time when a person dies disposing of his or her property in such a way as to make no provision or very insufficient provision for the maintenance of those who in that person's lifetime depended on him or her for maintenance. This country, England, stands, I do not say alone but in a very small minority of countries which claim to be civilised, in that her law enables a man to dispose of his property without making any provision at all for those who during his life were dependent upon him. Other countries—and, in the case of the Dominions, many of the States and Provinces of those Dominions—have as part of their legislation provided that in such cases protection should be given to those dependants of a testator who have been left unprovided for. Scotland has always had as part of her legal system the provision that the widow and the children of a testator—or rather I should say the spouse and children of a testator—are entitled respectively to a fixed part of the estate, varying from one-half to one-third, over which the testator has no disposing power at all. The form of protection given in various countries varies with the provision made. In some it is very drastic, Compared with that I would venture to describe this present Bill as a very mild brew and a very small measure.
If your Lordships will allow me, I will give a very brief outline of its contents, which will occupy only a few minutes. But, first of all, I would say this. Some ten years ago the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, introduced a measure to a similar effect in your Lordships' House and since then from time to time Bills have been introduced in another place, but owing to the vicissitudes, which, as your Lordships know, usually attend, or very frequently attend, Private Bill legislation,
800
none of them has succeeded in reaching the Statute Book. But in 1931 a Bill then under consideration was referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses to report upon it. The Report, while condemning that particular measure because it adopted an arbitrary and fixed standard of relief, concluded in these words:
"The Committee, however, are of opinion that it is wrong that a surviving spouse or child, who is otherwise without adequate means of support, should be left without such means of support, owing to the terms of the deceased spouse's will, and that such spouse or child should be able to obtain such means of support by application to the Court, the amount to be measured by the amount of the estate and the circumstances in which the family had been living."
The present Bill has been framed upon those lines, and its provisions may be shortly stated.
It enables the Court to make a limited provision out of a testator's estate for the maintenance of the testator's dependants. The dependants in question are a spouse, unmarried daughters, infant sons, and sons incapable either through mental or through physical capacity of maintaining themselves. They also include sons or daughters of those categories who have been adopted by the testator. The estate out of which provision is to be made is defined in such a way that the creditors and all other liabilities of the testator are paid before any provision is made. The nature of the provision is of this kind. It is a maintenance out of income with power in certain small cases to make a payment out of capital, but only in small cases. The maintenance provision ends in the case of a spouse with her marriage, in the case of an unmarried daughter with her marriage, in the case of an infant son with his attaining majority, and in the case of an incapacitated son with cesser of the incapacity. There is a limit to the provision which can be made: that limit is the maximum amount of income applicable at any one time, and it varies from two-thirds, which is the limit in cases where there are in existence both spouse and dependent children, to a half if there is no spouse but dependent children or if there is a spouse and no dependent child.
The Court which has to deal with the matter, which is largely one for the discretion of the Court, is the High Court, presumably the Chancery Division, and the two Palatine Courts of Lancaster and

801
Durham. There is a time limit within which the application must be made—namely, six months from the date when representation in regard to the estate for general purposes is first taken out. Finally—and the House will perhaps think this most important—the Court has in every case a discretion, and must in exercising that discretion take into account the applicant's other means, past, present and future; the conduct of the applicant in regard to the testator; and the reasons, such as they may be, prompting the testator to disinherit that particular claimant. Those are the provisions of this Bill, and I venture to submit them to your Lordships as reasonable and proper provisions to make.
Your Lordships have before you copies of the Bill. It is a short Bill. Clause 1, subsection (1), defines the dependants in the way which I have stated, and provides that the Bill is to apply where there is a will
"which does not make reasonable provision for the maintenance of such a person as aforesaid."
Subsection (2) provides for the nature of the provision out of income and its determination in the events which I have indicated. Subsection (3) imposes the limits. Subsection (4) enables an advance out of capital to be made in cases of small estates which do not exceed £2,000. Subsection (5) is in these words:
"No application shall be entertained by the Court by or on behalf of any person where the testator has bequeathed not less than two-thirds of I he 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 such surviving spouse."
That subsection is put in to meet the case, which not infrequently occurs, of a testator who, having full confidence in his wife or her husband, as the case may be, leaves the estate to him or her in full reliance that he or she will make proper provision for the children who are dependent. Subsection (6) is put in to guard against any improvident realisation of the estate for the purpose of making the maintenance allowance, and subsection (7) defines the expression "net estate" so as to ensure the payment of creditors and other liabilities of the testator. Subsections (8) and (9) impose upon the Court the obligation to take into consideration
802
the matters which I have indicated.
Clause 2 is the time limit section. Subsection (2) of that clause is a technical matter and is put in simply to enable a dependant to apply for administration of the estate in case the executors delay in making such application. Clause 3 is a technical matter, again; it is put in to ensure that the State shall receive legacy duty in cases where provision is made. Clause 4 deals with variation of orders and says:
"On an application made at a date after the expiration of the period specified in Section two of this Act the Court may make—"
an order, in certain circumstances when the case for that arises, as, for instance, when there has been a change in the circumstances of the applicant. Finally, Clause 5 limits the application of the measure, necessarily, to the case of a testator who has died domiciled in England. Clause 6 defines the Court in the manner which I have mentioned, and Clause 7 includes in the expression "son and daughter" an adopted child. With that brief explanation I leave the matter to your Lordships' consideration, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Russell of Killowen.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It is, if I may say so, a model and useful amendment of the law. If I may make a personal confession it is that some ten years ago I delivered a lecture on the topic embraced in the Bill, but your Lordships will be much relieved to hear that I have no intention of repeating it on this occasion. I think the Bill is one which will prevent a certain number of hardships, which do take place from time to time where a testator or a testatrix, very often at a time when old age to some extent deprives him or her of a just appreciation of circumstances, makes some wholly unfair will, with no proper provision for persons, spouse or children, to make provision for whom there is a duty. Accordingly I welcome the chance of this Bill becoming an Act. It is of the nature of those Bills which I think create a real effect without any litigation whatever, because, in the great number of cases, as

803
soon as testators are aware and solicitors are aware of the provisions of this measure, when it becomes an Act, it will not be necessary to go to the Courts because the conditions required by the Act will be properly complied with.
I have read the Bill with much care, and I want to say that there are a certain number of things in it which to my mind require careful consideration on the Committee stage. I have not yet been able to mention them to my noble and learned friend, but before the matter comes on at the next stage I shall have an opportunity of putting them before him, and it may be that some of them will be the subjects of Amendments. This Bill, like many others which come up to this House, is one which very likely will receive certain improvements before it is returned to another place. Meanwhile, I welcome the measure and ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

STREET PLAYGROUNDS 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 Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to prohibit traffic on roads to be used as playgrounds.
1.—(1) The council of any county (other than the administrative county of London) or county borough, or borough or urban district, shall have power, for the purpose of enabling any roads within their area in respect of which the council are the highway authority, to be used as playgrounds for children, to make an order prohibiting or restricting, subject to such exceptions and conditions as to occasional user or otherwise as may be specified in the order, the use of any specified road by vehicles, or by vehicles of any specified class or description, either generally or on particular days or during particular hours:
Provided that an order made under this section with respect to any road shall make provision for permitting reasonable access to premises situated on or adjacent to the road.
(2) No order made under this section shall be of any effect unless and until it is confirmed by the Minister of Transport, and the Minister, if he confirms the order, may confirm it either without modification or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit, but be shall not confirm an order until twenty-eight days at least have elapsed since the making of the order and, before confirming it, shall consider any objections which may have been made to him against the order and, if he thinks fit, may cause a public inquiry to be held.
(7) In the case of the administrative county of London an order under this section may be made by a highway authority as respects any road vested in them.
LORD ELTON LORD ELTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or," where that word first occurs, and insert "metropolitan borough." The noble Lord said: On behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, whose absence through illness all of your Lordships will regret, I beg to move this and one or two other Amendments which stand in his name on the Paper. This first Amendment should be read in conjunction with another Amendment in the name of the noble Lord on the second page of the Marshalled List. The effect of this Amendment is merely to transfer metropolitan boroughs from subsection (7) to subsection (1). It does in effect have the result of saying in, I think, two words what is at present said in twenty-eight, and I think it may be called a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("or") and insert ("metropolitan borough").—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELTON: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out the first ("or").—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, in subsection (1), after "power," to insert "subject as hereinafter provided." The noble Lord said: In the absence of Lord Bay-ford, who is unable to get here till later in the proceedings, I desire to move this Amendment. I am sure the Committee will regret that illness has suddenly overtaken Lord Denham, who recently moved the Second Reading of this Bill in a maiden speech. I am glad to hear that

805
the noble Lord is going on so well. The object of this and the next Amendment on the Paper is such that the two Amendments should be taken together. Their purpose is to ensure that classified roads shall not be used as street playgrounds. It would quite obviously be uneconomic, and indeed disturbing, for any classified road, which by the very fact of being classified must be part of the highway system of any area, to be closed to traffic or restricted to certain types of vehicles. But I am aware in moving this Amendment that it may be argued that the Amendment is unnecessary, because it is improbable that councils will wish to make orders for the use of classified roads as street playgrounds. It may also be argued that any orders made will have to be subject to an act of consent by the Minister of Transport, and that he would naturally withhold consent in any such case. I venture to say that those arguments are not very impressive when one considers them, as they suggest that merely because something is unlikely to happen no steps should be taken to meet even the possibility. If it is accepted that a classified road is undesirable to schedule as a street playground, then it is right, and indeed advisable, to prevent disputes or difficulties arising in the future by making quite clear in the Bill the view of the promotors that such classified roads are unsuitable for the purpose of street playgrounds.
I know it is often said that Government Departments do not like to exercise semi-judicial functions, and if that is really their view of the matter I venture to suggest that it might be well for the Government to make a gesture in order that the truth of that statement may be more strongly upheld. I personally deplore the tendency of this House to shelve its responsibility. Departmental orders and regulations are very often confusing and even conflicting, and I suggest that here is an opportunity for this House to give a plain, straightforward lead by indicating that it does not desire, and indeed does not intend, that such roads, where classified, should be diverted from the good and proper purpose for which they were built to other purposes. Moreover, we do not want to see local authorities endeavouring to divest themselves of their proper obligation to provide suitable playgrounds for the inhabitants of their areas, and making use of this Bill
806
to that end, thus obviating or postponing their responsibility by saying to the public: "You have your playgrounds, you have your scheduled streets, and why should we incur further expense in equipping other grounds for that purpose?" For the reasons I have given I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of Lord Bayford and myself.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("power") insert ("subject as hereinafter provided").—(Lord Eltisley.)
LORD ELTON: I take it that the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment was speaking to both this and the second Amendment in the name of himself and Lord Bayford. With regard to the first, the insertion of the words "subject as hereinafter provided," the promoters of the Bill are advised that even if the second Amendment, which is in line 9, after "roads," to insert "not being classified roads," should commend itself to your Lordships, the first is unnecessary. It is not common form, and it is not necessary to cumber the Bill with these not very euphoneous words. With regard to the second Amendment, to which the noble Lord has been speaking mainly, I am sure all your Lordships will understand and sympathise with the motives of my noble friend. He wants to be quite sure, naturally, that classified roads are not used as street playgrounds. Also hovering at the back of his mind is the spectre, which has hovered at the back of the minds of most of us at some time or another, of the wicked Minister who is constantly encroaching on the prerogatives of Parliament, but I suggest to the noble Lord that this is not particularly favourable ground on which to give battle on that particular and admittedly important issue.
Your Lordships will not have failed to notice that in Clause 1 (2) the Bill provides that no order shall come into effect unless and until it has been confirmed by the Minister of Transport. I am sure, however poorly some of your Lordships may think of some Ministers of Transport, you can hardly suppose that the Minister of Transport, who after all makes a grant of sixty per cent. out of public funds for the maintenance of classified roads as roads appropriate to bear through traffic, would in the circumstances stultify himself

807
by closing to all traffic the roads for which he is making that grant. However meanly some of your Lordships may think of the capacities of some future Minister of Transport, you can hardly suppose he would do that. I would ask your Lordships also to remember that the Minister, who has the power and the duty of confirming or refusing to confirm these orders, is not the Minister of Health, who might conceivably be prejudiced and weight the balance in favour of these street playgrounds; it is the Minister of Transport, whose whole statutory duty is to see after the rapid and effective movement of traffic. I really do not think that we can suppose that the Minister of Transport, who has to bear Parliamentary criticism on his discharge of that function, would so stultify himself as to close to traffic a classified road for which he was making a grant out of the public funds in order to maintain it in a state fit to bear traffic. I very much hope, and the supporters of the Bill hope, that the noble Lord, who, we all know, has every sympathy with the object of this Bill, will not press this Amendment.
LORD ELTISLEY: With the permission of the Committee I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, though I must say I do not share the confidence in future Ministers of Transport expressed by my noble friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, in subsection (1), after "Provided that," to insert:

"(a) an order under this section shall not be made with respect to any claimed road within the meaning of Section thirty-two of the Local Government Act, 1929, without the consent of the council of the county in which such road is situated; and

(b)"

The noble Lord said: The reason for this Amendment is much the same as the reason for my previous Amendment. The council of an urban district council with a population exceeding 20,000 persons is entitled to claim the repair and maintenance of county roads in its district, but the county council still remains the highway authority for the administrative county as a whole and is very vitally concerned to secure the proper flow of traffic through the area under its jurisdiction. It is not inconceivable, although probably
808
not very likely, that a district council might make a street playground order in the light only of the traffic requirements of the immediate area under its jurisdiction, and without visualising the effect of such an order on the surrounding county areas. Therefore it is essential that the consent of the county council should be madea statutory requirement before the smaller local authorities could be empowered to close the road for the purpose of a playground.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, after ("that") insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Eltisley.)
LORD ELTON: Again the supporters of the Bill are in entire sympathy with the motives of the noble Lord, only we feel that the Amendment is not really necessary. The anxiety of the noble Lord is entirely intelligible. He remembers that an urban district council under the Local Government Act, 1929, may claim to exercise various functions of maintenance and repair on a county road within their district. The noble Lord is quite naturally afraid that they might therefore claim to exercise the powers to be granted under this Bill within their area, and he wishes that they should receive authority beforehand from the county council. I hope I may be able to convince the noble Lord that this is not really a necessary Amendment, because your Lordships will notice that in line 10 of Clause 1 these powers are specifically conferred upon "the highway authority." It is the opinion of the Minister that the urban district council which may claim to exercise these functions in respect of county roads within their own urban district area do not by that claim make themselves the highway authority, and therefore they are not qualified to exercise the powers conferred by this Bill.
I think that will be quite clear to your Lordships if you remember that under the Local Government Act, 1929, Section 32 (the section to which the noble Lord has referred), where powers are granted to the urban district council to exercise certain functions of maintenance and repair of roads within their area, it is specifically stated that they should exercise these functions as if they were, as respects that road, the highway authority. That makes it, I think, quite clear that they are not the highway authority, and that therefore they would not qualify to exercise any of

809
the powers to be granted by this Bill. The Minister is quite clear that the urban district council claiming are not the highway authority, and therefore would not come under this Bill. I hope your Lordships will be prepared to accept his assurance.
LORD ELTISLEY: If the legal interpretation of these particular words is so patently clear as my noble friend suggests, I do not wish to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, in subsection (2), after "until" ["until twenty-eight days"] to insert "the council by whom the order was made have given in a newspaper circulating in the area in which the road is situated notice of the making of the order, with an intimation that any person objecting to the order may send particulars of his objection to the Minister, and until." The noble Lord said: It is clearly desirable that all persons likely to be affected by a street playground should be given every reasonable opportunity of being heard and of their objections being thoroughly gone into. For this reason it appears desirable that public notice of any proposal to make an order as contemplated under this Bill should be given, and it is thought that an official announcement in the local Press is the best way of giving such notice. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, after ("until") insert the said words.—(Lord Eltisley.)
LORD ELTON: I should be willing to make some concession to the noble Lord, but this Amendment falls under the same criticism as I had to make regarding the noble Lord's last Amendment—namely, that it is really superfluous. Your Lordships will notice that under subsection (6) of Clause 1, the Minister of Transport is empowered to make regulations. There are in existence regulations made by the Minister under the analogous Road Traffic Act, 1930, amended by the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and there is one regulation—Regulation No. 4—which exactly meets what the noble Lord desires. That regulation provides that when an order has been made, the order in the form and containing the particulars specified in the First Schedule shall be published
810
by the council once at least in each of two consecutive weeks in some local newspaper circulating in the district in which the road is situated. The Minister in another place gave the assurance that the regulations to be made under this Bill would exactly follow the analogy of the regulations made under these two former Acts. I hope, therefore, that will meet the noble Lord's natural anxiety.
LORD ELTISLEY: In withdrawing this Amendment, I would explain that all these Amendments have been moved on behalf of a very responsible body—namely, the County Councils' Association.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, in subsection (2), after "order" ["against the order"] to insert "and also the traffic value of the road." The noble Lord said: If the Minister could give an assurance that the traffic value of any given road will always be one of the principal points he will take into consideration before confirming any order, I do not wish to press this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, after ("order") insert ("and also the traffic value of the road").—(Lord Eltisley.)
LORD ELTON: I am sure the Minister would be prepared to give that assurance, but even without the assurance your Lordships will recognise that it is, after all, the Minister of Transport and not the Minister of Health who has to confirm these orders; and he is bound—he would stultify himself if he did not—to take into consideration the traffic value of the road. If the noble Lord read the debate in another place he probably recognised that the Minister there expressed himself ready to give that assurance if it were thought necessary.
LORD ELTISLEY: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) As a condition of confirming an order made under this section, the Minister may require the council by whom the order was made to undertake to make good any damage caused to persons or property in consequence of the use of the road as a playground "

811
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. It is thought that when a road is used as a street playground it may very well result in injury to individuals or damage to the fabric or amenities of adjoining property. The suggestion in this Amendment is that there should be power to place on the council mainly concerned definite responsibility for making good, as far as may be practicable, any such injury or damage. It may be that those in charge of the Bill will object to this proposal on the ground that a person whose property is damaged by such use of the road has got a definite remedy under the ordinary law. I do not wish to minimise in any way the chance of being able to deal with this particular matter in that particular way. At the same time I would point out that the children by whom the damage may be done will be children attending public elementary schools or small secondary schools, and that proceedings against their parents—I take it that would be the remedy at law—are not likely to result in financial satisfaction. Therefore it seems only fair that there should be somebody at whom the persons whose property has been damaged would be able to shoot.
It may be that householders will not welcome the transformation of a quiet street into a noisy playground, and if, in addition, they are to run the risk of having personal damage or damage done to their property for which they can get no real redress, then they have a very definite grievance. The proposal is that the responsibility should lie with the authority. I do not for a moment suggest that the authority would be saddled with a heavy obligation, but at any rate they would have a small risk, and it would be easy for them to insure against that risk or meet it out of their ordinary current resources.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, at end, insert the said subsection.—(Lord Eltisley.)
LORD ELTON: Here my noble friend is really for the first time moving an Amendment which strikes at the roots of the Bill. I am not able to say that this is merely superflous; I think it is rather a dangerous Amendment. In the first place it clearly introduces an important
812
alteration of general law. I do not think there is any precedent for requiring a third party to make good damage done by somebody else in this way. As the noble Lord has said, the aggrieved householder, if there should be an aggrieved householder, has his rights already existing under the Common Law. It is clear that if you threaten the local authorities with the possibility that they may have to make good unspecified damage caused in these streets, the effect would probably be, in a number of localities, to make the measure a dead letter. That has been the view expressed by the Urban District Councils' Association—that a number of authorities would not use the permissive powers under this Bill if there was a vague possibility that such a claim would lie over them. I do not suggest that there is likely to be damage done. We are informed by the Ministry that in the two towns where, under Private Acts, these powers have already been granted, as far as they are aware, there have been no cases of damage—certainly none brought to their notice.
I do not think it is in the least likely, but it is one of those cases where the vague threat that, a local authority might be required to make good damage done, thereby introducing an entirely novel principle into the Common Law, would very likely have the effect of making the Act a dead letter in quite a number of localities. Whether or not it would have the effect of reducing the temptation to the child to do damage, I am not entirely clear; whether saying to the child, "Any damage you do will be made good by somebody else," is necessarily the best way of restraining the child from doing damage, is at least uncertain. But I am clear that the effect would probably be to reduce the Bill to something like a dead letter. Moreover, the Minister is clearly of opinion that it would be very embarrassing for him to have the powers which the noble Lord seeks to confer on him, as he is not in the least clear on what principles he would decide whether or not he should exercise those powers. As, therefore, the Minister seeks not to be charged with these powers, and as a number of local authorities have expressed the view that if this Amendment were carried it might reduce the working of the Bill to a dead letter, I do hope that the noble Lord, who, I know, is anxious to see the Bill carried and working successfully, may

813
possibly see his way to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: It is not often that I have found myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, at least not in recent years, but I do wholeheartedly support him on this occasion What is the damage these children will do playing in the road? They might put a cricket ball through a window. They might do that in any case whether or not this Bill were passed. In view of what has been said that this Amendment might cause the Bill to become a dead letter, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw it.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: Might I ask the noble Lord who moved the Amendment whether his object is that if, as a result of children playing ball, half a dozen panes of glass should be broken, then the householder would have redress from the local authority for the damage done?
LORD ELTISLEY: I did not visualise that particular thing arising; but generally speaking, if a child did damage and injured the legitimate and proper interests of the householders the local authority would be responsible. I cannot see why the local authority should not be responsible. It has taken over the road as a playground, and the householder has bought his house or become tenant of it in good faith, and if his window is broken he should be entitled to compensation, I think.
LORD ARNOLD: The noble Lord says he cannot see why the local council should not be responsible. The reply to that is the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that if you put this into the Bill it will undoubtedly in a considerable number of cases—I think in the great majority of cases—make the Bill a dead letter. That is the reply. The local council will not incur this liability, it is quite true, though the liability is probably trivial; in fact we are told that in the two cases where powers have been taken by Private Acts similar to those in the Bill and are in operation there have been no cases of damage. But, as my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has pointed out, what would the damage be? I have a case in mind of which I have some knowledge. It was a broken piece of glass, and the window actually belonged in that case to the local authority. Can
814
you conceive of a more heinous crime than for a small boy to break a piece of glass belonging to a local authority! What happened? Nothing. The local authority made representations, they were met with the retort that boys would be boys, and they replaced the glass.
It might be urged that the possibility—I will not put it higher than that—of personal damage exists. I think it is extremely remote, because, as I understand it, the vast number of the street playgrounds will be in the nature of courts and alleys; they will not be through roads at all; and the probability of some person getting hurt by a cricket ball or otherwise when children are playing in one of these courts and alleys is really extremely remote. In my younger days I had a good deal of experience in these courts and alleys trying to do a little good amongst the poor, and I think that what has been suggested may very largely be ruled out. In any case the injured person, if he desires to take action, has his remedy at Common Law. True, the noble Lord may reply: "Yes, but those who cause the injury are probably people of small means." I think that is really something which must be risked. It seems to me that keeping a proper perspective, having regard to the national fitness campaign and so forth, this is a Bill of some considerable importance, which I am sure the noble Lord does not wish to kill, and I feel that this would be a most destructive Amendment. On balance the arguments are strongly against it, and I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD ELTISLEY: In view of what has been said in the House, and in view of my own ignorance of the fact that this apparently humble Amendment runs counter to the Common Law of the land, I venture to ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved to insert after subsection (4):
"(5) When an order is in force under this section authorising the closing of a street for use as a playground for children, the highway authority shall place and maintain a warning notice at each road entrance to the playground intimating to the drivers of vehicles that it is a street playground and specifying the hours when it may be used for that purpose and the restrictions on the use of the road by vehicular traffic."
The noble Lord said: In the absence of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I promised that with your Lordships' consent I would move this Amendment. Although it is a simple thing, it is very obvious that something of the kind provided for in this Amendment is necessary. I cannot imagine any local authority scheduling a street and not marking it, except possibly through inadvertence or carelessness of their employees. On the other hand, if you did have a street scheduled and nothing to show that a car must not go down it, it might make a hunting ground for the police chivying cars about and chasing them off, and the purpose of having the street as a playground would be largely destroyed. I think the case might be met if we were given an assurance that regulations would be drawn up for these streets by the Minister of Transport, who would include in the regulations a requirement that such notices should be put up at the entrance of each street. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Sandhurst.)
THE EARL OF ERNE: This Amendment was moved in another place and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport gave this assurance which I should like to repeat to your Lordships:
"I have here the regulations which were made under Section 46 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, and paragraph 7 (b) says: 'The Council shall cause to be erected on or near to the roads such notice in such positions as may be approved by the Minister.'"
He went on to say:
"I can give the Committee the assurance that regulations on those lines will be made and that the wording of the Bill is such that the Amendment is unnecessary."
LORD SANDHURST: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ELTON: The next two Amendments standing in Lord Denham's name are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 18, leave out ("made") and insert ("in force")
Page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (7).—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Application to Scotland.
4. This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications:—
(a) the powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section one of this Act on the councils therein mentioned shall be exercisable, in a county by the county council, and in a burgh by the town council;
LORD ELTON: The first two Amendments to this clause down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 8, after ("exercisable") insert ("as regards roads")
Page 4, line 9, after ("and") insert ("as regards roads").—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD ELTON LORD ELTON moved to insert after paragraph (a):
"(b) in subsection (5) of Section one of this Act for the words 'on summary conviction' there shall be substituted the words 'on conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction'."
The noble Lord said: This is merely necessary to provide for the slightly different local circumstances in Scotland. I think it may be called drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 9, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the chief operative words of this Bill are these:
"Subject to the provisions of this Act a person shall not practise or carry on business under any name, style or title containing the word 'architect' unless he is a person registered under the principal Act."
There follow certain exceptions and an extension to which I will draw your Lordships' attention in a moment. The main part of this Bill was passed unanimously

817
by your Lordships last year, but it failed to pass in another place. This Session the Bill was introduced elsewhere, and has now reached your Lordships after having been amended and extended.
In substance, tae term "registered architect" laid down in the parent Act of 1931, applying to persons qualified to be architects under that Act, is replaced by the simple word "architect" under this Bill. There are certain exceptions. In the first place, there are three architects with what I might call a good-will interest in the word "architect"—namely, naval architect, landscape architect and golf course architect. Each of these categories of varying interest is excluded front this Bill and will continue to be called naval or golf or landscape architect, as the case may be. Secondly, there is a wider exception, and that applies to four categories mentioned at the top of page 2, members of the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Structural Engineers, the Chartered Surveyors' Institution and the Institution of Municipal and County Engineers. In each case where a member of one of these bodies now holds in the service of a local authority an office making him responsible for the management and control of the architectural work of that local authority, he will be entitled to be called architect, provided, as laid down in line to onwards, that one of the local authority's servants engaged under him for the purpose of architectural work is a person registered under the principal Act. Those are the seven groups of exceptions.
The second portion of the Bill, beginning with Clause 2, your Lordships will see deals with the date of the application for registration. It allows a period of two years during which any person practising as an architect can make up his mind what he wishes to do under the Act, and it establishes a tribunal which will be a court of appeal to which any aggrieved person who thinks he has not been properly treated under the Act is entitled to appeal. It consists of seven persons, one nominated by the Lord Chancellor, a second by the Minister of Health, a third by the Department of Health for Scotland, a fourth by the President of the Law Society, a fifth by the Chairman of the General Council of Solicitors in Scotland, and two others by the authorities of Northern Ireland to which this Bill will or can be applied
818
under a special provision in the parent Act. That tribunal is an impartial body. No member of the Architects' Registration Council is entitled as such as serve upon it and it is provided that its decision shall be final and conclusive. The rest of the proposals are nominal and deal with the question of application. I think that the Bill has removed any source of grievance or danger to persons who may think their interests are aggrieved by the establishment of this well defined and strong tribunal. The Bill has passed through the House of Commons by immense majorities and I hope your Lordships will give it a favourable reception. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a(The Earl of Crawford.)
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I rise to support the Second Reading of this Bill. The Bill which was formerly in controversy is now agreed in principle. At the present time any person, however uneducated or illiterate, may designate himself as architect and there have been cases where persons wholly unqualified to act as architects have misled the public. I remember one case in particular which came under my own notice. A small tradesman had retired from business and thought he would like to build a cottage in the country. He consulted a person whom he saw described on the door-plate as an architect in a small country town. So-called plans were prepared and submitted to the local authority and were rejected on the ground that they failed to comply almost entirely with the local by-laws. The result was that the unfortunate man had to pay a bill of some £25 in respect of fees for those plans. That sort of thing is not uncommon. I venture to think that when we have a measure of this kind on the Statute Book the public will be properly safeguarded.
The great movement in respect of the training of young men and women for the profession of architect has made very noticeable advance in recent years. Candidates for examination by the various examining bodies set up under the parent Act come from all classes of the community. At one time the idea was that to receive a diploma as architect a young man must be the son of a person of some means. That is not the case now, owing to the enlightened policy of the education authorities and technical schools. We find

819
now that the fees charged for instruction are moderate and that year by year scholarships for deserving and competent candidates are being extended. The result is that any lad with brains can become a properly qualified architect with a diploma without any financial burden upon his parents. The classes for the training of young men of that kind are so arranged that the student can do practical work during the day and during the evening can attend classes for theoretical instruction. Students who happen to be some distance away from technical schools can prepare themselves by a correspondence course.
The fees charged at these schools are low. To take Birmingham, for example, the fee is 7s. 6d. or £1 a year according to age. At Aberdeen it is £1 a year; at Sheffield it is £1 1s.; at Cardiff £1 1s.; and at the Northern Polytechnic in London 18s. up to the age of twenty-one and 30s. over that age. The highest fee is at London University School, where it is six guineas. In addition scholarships are provided. The Registration Council award a certain number, which is limited because their funds are restricted, but in course of time these scholarships will become more abundant. Scholarships are also granted by, for example, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Leeds, Cardiff, London and many other places, so that it is possible for any young man or woman, however humble, to acquire the proper training and submit themselves for examination in the theory and practice of architecture. Of course, I admit that other schools are open to people who choose to attend them, such as schools of art, and if anyone wishes to have a more expensive education, he can obtain it. We have now a body of many young men who have worked hard and received their diploma in architecture. They are an asset to the State, and I venture to submit, as the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, said, that the public should not be confused in their mind between qualified architects and persons who have no qualification whatever. The Bill is straightforward and in the right direction, and will not only add to the dignity of the profession of an architect, but will also afford protection to the public.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SCOTTISH LAND COURT BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this is a Bill to continue, with certain modifications, the operation of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, which, as your Lordships may remember, was prolonged until this year by the Labour Party but which, unless it were continued, would expire on June 24 next. I may add that the extension of the modifications that we are proposing follow the recommendations of the Sub-Committee on Rural Housing of the Central Housing Advisory Committee. The Chairman of that Committee, as your Lordships will also remember, is my right reverend friend the Bishop of Winchester, and I am sure the House will wish me to thank him for his services and the services of that Committee on this occasion, as we did a short time ago on another Housing Bill.
The 1926 Act was designed to encourage the reconditioning and improvement of such agricultural cottages as were suitable and capable of being improved. It was not intended, on the one hand, to be used for repairing cottages which the landowner should have kept in a state of repair; nor, on the other hand, was it intended to be used for patching up old houses which were only fit to be demolished. It was generally agreed, I think, that there were a number of houses of perfectly sound structure that could be improved and modernised, and that, if this were done, not only would housing conditions be made more attractive in the country but also the amenities and appearance of the countryside would be preserved. It had a further object which was of particular value to the Government's housing policy. I mentioned the other day, in discussing the Rent Restrictions Act, that the housing policy of successive Governments was to maintain and to enlarge a pool of good working-class houses, to keep the rents of these houses low, and to keep the houses themselves occupied by

821
the working classes and not by other people who could well afford to house themselves. I would point out that this Act has the effect, not only of improving houses, but of maintaining them within the pool for the exclusive benefit of the agricultural classes and other people of the same economic status, because it is only on those terms that the grant is payable.
In return for agreeing to these conditions, the owner is entitled to a contribution towards the capital cost of the improvements not exceeding £100 in all, part of which comes from the Exchequer and part from the local authority. At least one-third of the total cost is to be borne by the owner himself. We are now proposing to continue this grant until 1942, because we believe that, though it has been used to some effect, it still has a great deal of scope in front of it. I shall have something to say about the progress which has been achieved under the Act, but I want for the moment to deal with the provisions of the new Bill. I may just explain that the reason why we have chosen 1942 is that it coincides with a date when all the housing subsidies are being generally reviewed.
Turning to the Bill, your Lordships will see in Clause 2 that there is a small alleviation which follows the recommendation of the Sub-Committee's Report: it permits local authorities to pay grants by instalments during the progress of the work. The object of that is to help more impoverished owners. Clause 3 provides for another change of a little more importance. One of the present conditions under which an owner can get this grant is by agreeing to retain the cottage within the agricultural pool for a period of twenty years, and any breach of those conditions would render him liable to pay back the whole of the grant which he has received, plus compound interest. The length of the time to which the owner would thereby commit himself has, I think, in certain cases deterred owners from using this Act as freely as they otherwise might have done. Therefore under this clause, if they wish no longer to comply with these conditions, they need only pay back that part of the grant which could be apportioned to the period subsequent to the date when the alteration of conditions took place. We hope that this will lead to a freer use of the Act. Clause 4 has particular reference to Scotland, where some
822
difficulties have arisen in adhering to certain conditions. In certain places the authorities are not able to fix the average rent paid by agricultural workers, for the reason that there are no agricultural workers in their district. This new clause merely enables them to fix the rent by taking into account the average rent paid by people of the same economic position.
Clause 5 adds another condition to those to which the owners will have to conform after they get the grant in the future. It is that, having obtained the grant, they must maintain the house in all respects fit for human habitation. The point is that, while hitherto the owners have had to satisfy the authorities that they have reconditioned the house and that it is fit for human habitation, they are often under no obligation to maintain it fit except to the extent to which they are liable under the public health law. By making this requirement a definite condition of enjoying the grant we are tightening procedure generally, and we hope it will have good effect. Clause 6 makes it clear that an owner receiving any grant after January 1, 1935, shall be allowed to charge 4 per cent. on his expenditure. It also makes it clear that this concession granted by the Housing Act of 1935 will only apply retrospectively to expenditure carried out on works of a similar character after 1935. There was apparently some doubt about this. Clause 7, I think, is self-explanatory. It prevents the evasion of the Act when owners charge more for land let with the house than they are prevented from charging in extra rent on the house itself. Clause 8 is a machinery clause. Clause 9 is designed to encourage the abatement of overcrowding. As I have already pointed out, the maximum grant under the 1926 Act was £100, and after that an owner could not obtain any further assistance, but now if he desires to abate overcrowding we give him an opportunity of obtaining another grant on the same terms, but limited in this case to £50. Clause 10 deals in particular with Scotland and authorises an increased rate of Exchequer contribution to owners who are in what are known as the Highlands and Islands districts.
I think that is all I have to say about the bare description of the Bill, but I would like to say a word or two about the progress we have made, and what we

823
hope to do in the future. In the past, I quite admit, progress has been very uneven. In some parts, particularly Scotland and Devonshire, the Act has been used very freely, but in some other parts hardly at all. I understand that up to 1937 about 30,000 houses in Scotland had been improved and only 16,000 in the whole of England and Wales. In Devonshire 1,800 grants have been made, whereas in Bedfordshire no grants have been made. In the eastern end of Suffolk I understand that 800 houses have been reconditioned, and in the western part only 39. It is inconceivable that housing requirements should vary in this peculiar geographical way, and I think it is clear that other factors have been at work, no doubt in part due to the energy, or lack of energy, of the various councils. I have no doubt that the increased publicity which we hope to give to this Act, and the publication of the booklet which is just about to be produced by the Committee presided over by Lord Crawford, which shows the architectural possibilities of reconditioning, will do something to promote progress.
But I think there is another reason. There is a theory, advanced by noble Lords opposite, and indeed I think shared to some extent by some members of the Liberal and even of the Conservative Parties, that there is something immoral or anti-social in giving grants of public money to private owners, particularly if they are well-to-do. We believe that this Act, if properly worked, will offer great benefits to agricultural labourers, and, as we all, I think, desire to improve conditions in the countryside and help to attract more labour back to the land, I suggest that we ought to try to elucidate this controversy and if possible dissipate any inhibitions there may be against the more extensive use of the Act.
We all, as I have said, desire to improve housing conditions in the countryside, but we all recognise that the agricultural labourer, by reason of his low wages, cannot afford to pay any, even a hardly appreciable, increase of rent. Therefore if these improvements have got to be made, and the tenant cannot pay for them, they will have to be paid for by somebody else. The question is: Who will pay for them? Under the recent Housing Bill—the Financial Provisions
824
Bill—the Government, as your Lordships know, are furnishing a large subsidy to enable housing authorities to construct houses to be occupied by agricultural workers at low rents, and nobody has contended, so far as I know, that it is wrong that public money should be used for that purpose, although the object of the Act is designed to help to house workers who, as your Lordships know, are in private employment. In other words, we have agreed to pay this subsidy because we think it is right to improve housing conditions, and not because we hope to get any return from it. This Bill deals with the improvement of existing buildings, and if it is generally agreed, as I think it is, that existing buildings ought to be improved in order to bring about a standard comparable with the new houses we are constructing, then it seems to me that the same principle ought to apply.
I do not argue that the State ought to do ordinary repairs for the landlord, but there are all sorts of safeguards in the Bill and in other Acts against that happening. I agree that if the safeguards are not working properly the procedure ought to be tightened up. I am talking about genuine improvements in accommodation, enlargement of rooms, improved sanitation, and so forth, and I say that if the tenant cannot pay for these improvements, and if Parliament thinks them desirable, it seems to me that public money can just as rightly be used for those purposes as for the other. It seems to me quite irrelevant to take into account the personal wealth of the agent through whom these housing reforms are brought about—whether that agent is the landowner on whose estate existing houses are enlarged, or the contractor who builds the new houses for the local authority. In both cases I say it performs a social service, and it is right that public funds should be used for it.
I know that noble Lords will say that the parallel is not a true one, because after twenty years the residual value in the case of council houses will revert to the public, and in the case of private houses will revert to the owner. If I were here to defend the owner on the charge of exploiting the public, I think I should have something to say about the amount of this residual value—that is to say, what the residual value will be after making allowances for the conditions which the

825
owner has to observe. If I were here defending the Government against a charge of being exploited, I say at once that I do not care whether the owner does make a profit out of us or whether we make a profit out of the owner, provided always that we can show that there is no more effective or cheaper method of bringing about these improvements that we desire.
I should like to invite any noble Lord to suggest how he would propose to improve these existing houses and still let them at low rents in a cheaper and more effective way than we propose. It might be said that we could effect these improvements by laying heavy penalties on owners for not carrying them out. I believe a celebrated headmaster of Eton, Dr. Keate, once exhorted his boys to be charitable to one another, but he added that if they were not charitable he would beat them until they were. I believe that noble Lords opposite have a great belief in the big-stick policy in regard to owners, and of course we might say that no owners should allow any house to be occupied unless it had rooms of a certain height and unless it had proper sanitation, and perhaps electric light. Certainly that would be cheaper, but is it likely to be effective? For surely it is clear that if we endeavoured to force on owners uneconomic conditions, either they would let the houses stand unoccupied, or else they would let them to people of a different class. In either case the agricultural community suffers.
In other circumstances the local authority might purchase these houses by agreement and do the repairs themselves, in which case the public would enjoy the residual value. But I would ask how much would the local authority have to pay for these houses? I think it ought to be remembered that in a number of parts of England these agricultural cottages have two totally different values: they have a low value as agricultural cottages, and a considerably higher value as weekend cottages, particularly if they have any æsthetic pretensions, as many of them have. I am sure the only value which the local authority could hope to get away with, if I may so put it, would be the full market value, and it seems quite clear that if the authority had to pay that value, and also had to pay ordinary landlord's repairs 826
and the whole of the cost of the reconditioning improvements, the agricultural rent they would get for that, even with the small increase contemplated in this Bill, would in no wise compensate them, particularly if one takes into acount the expenses of looking after a large number of houses dotted all over the countryside. Indeed, I think there is no doubt that the loss which would accrue to the local authority in this way would be much greater than that which we hope will be the limit under this Bill. Of course, I am not saying that the local authority never ought to purchase these houses and repair them themselves. In certain circumstances it might be an admirable thing, but as a general rule I think it would work out much more expensively. For these reasons I hope there will be no further hesitation, either on the part of the authorities or on the part of the owners, in making use of the Act, and I hope that noble Lords opposite will not try to damn with faint praise or with many qualifications an Act which after all they themselves did prolong.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill, and indeed to give it a hearty welcome because of the good that it will do for the domestic well-being of one of the most deserving sections of the population. When all Parties talk about the decline of the rural population I think they are all agreed, unless political considerations intervene, that it is a deplorable thing that no fewer than 200,000 people should have left agriculture, and I think it is generally agreed, too, that one of the main causes is the unfortunate state of housing conditions in the agricultural districts. I myself think it is probably the second cause, and I have heard it put even higher than that by those who should be well qualified to judge. His Majesty's Government have recognised that, and have brought forward two Bills in the course of the last two months which have met with such general approbation that I think that even the ranks of Tuscany have found it extremely difficult to refrain from cheering. This Bill of course is really almost entirely concerned with the extension of the period. There are certainly amendments to the last Act, but none of them is of really vital importance.

827
There are those who say that surely during all this time such houses as were worth reconditioning should have been reconditioned. I venture to put one reason, which, curiously enough, has not been given either in your Lordships' House or in another place, why this Act must take a very long period, and that is the very simple one that, except in the rarest of cases, you cannot recondition a house unless the occupant goes out of it. Therefore you have either to find him other accommodation, or he has to vacate his house by death or for some other reason. I venture to think that we shall see this Act extended for a very great many years; indeed I believe we shall find ourselves reconditioning the houses that have already been reconditioned, and even some of those houses that have been built in the course of the last two years.
The Party of noble Lords opposite are somewhat divided on this Act, and this Bill too. Some of them dislike it very greatly on the ground that it is putting something into the hands of the bloated capitalist. Others, on the other hand, welcome it on the ground that it is taking something out of the pocket of the bloated capitalist, and I suggest that the second class of people on the whole have far more grounds for their opinion than the other section. Because, after all, the landowner who reconditions a cottage puts his hand into his pocket often for a very considerable sum and, except in the rarest cases, he gets nothing whatever out of it. It is quite true that he is allowed to charge an additional 4 per cent. on his expenditure, but in how few cases is this done! I have had hardly one brought to my notice. It cannot happen in a tied cottage, and if cottages were not tied it would be the rarest exception for it to happen. Indeed I should not have minded in the least or raised any objection if the right to charge 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. had been taken away under this Bill.
There is, or has been, a singular lack of uniformity in the use of this Act. I come from a County, or part of a County, East Suffolk, which has a singularly enlightened county council, of whom I form one; and not only is it enlightened but it is enlightened on all sections of municipal thought, and by a unanimous vote we work this Act to a large extent. As the noble Viscount has said, we have reconditioned
828
800 cottages, which is more than any whole county has reconditioned, with the sole exception of Devon. I find myself at a great loss to understand why more use has not been made of it. I did at one time form the opinion that it was partially due to the option under the Act to delegate powers to a rural district council, and I had thought of moving an Amendment to this Bill to get that right to delegate taken away, but when I made inquiries I found that there were undoubtedly certain cases where, when powers have been delegated, more houses have been built than before. So that motive was taken away from me. All the same I think the county council rather than the rural district council is the right body to exercise these powers. It has a more general knowledge of the subject, and it has usually—I will not say always—the services of a better architect.
I have one criticism to make. I think the grant might have been raised to a rather higher figure and, still more, that the £400 under the old Act might have been put forward to £500. That is merely on the ground that the cost of building has gone up by different figures in different places. In my own county it has gone up by a figure of from 25 to 28 per cent., and I feel that the restriction will have the effect of reducing in some cases the reconditioning that might well have been done and, I would remind noble Lords opposite, reducing the amount that can be taken from the pocket of the landowner.
There is a further point which I wish to bring to the notice of the noble Viscount for his careful consideration, and that is the grave anomaly that exists at the present moment with regard to the rating of agricultural cottages, not only all agricultural cottages, but especially such cottages as have been reconditioned. I believe there is a Committee now sitting to consider this question, but it is now possible for a rating authority to do this—in fact I believe it is their duty to do it. If a pair of cottages, one a tied cottage and the other a non-tied cottage, are reconditioned into a pair of cottages of exactly the same type, one is rated on the basis of 3s. to 4s. a week and the other is rated up to 15s. a week. That is an anomaly which is not only ludicrous but imposes on the landowner, who spends money in reconditioning, a burden which he was never intended to bear. I would

829
ask the noble Viscount to use his influence with the Ministry of Health, where he is such a power, so that that injustice and anomaly may be reduced. I will not say any more, except this. I believe this Bill might have been a rather better Bill but, on reflection, I have come to the conclusion that I have never yet met a Bill in your Lordships' House which I did not think could be better, and it is possible that this Bill is as near perfect as may be. At all events I am certain it will do something substantial for the better housing of the rural population in many cases and, as such, I most heartily welcome it.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I do not rise on this occasion, as I not infrequently do, to challenge the Second Reading of a Bill which the Government have recommended to your Lordships' House, or even to criticise it in principle. I am perfectly certain that all Parties in the State welcome any measure that will do something to improve the housing conditions of those who work on the land by enabling existing cottages to be modernised and reconditioned. It was symptomatic of this state of mind that this Bill, when it reached its Third Reading in another place, was passed without a Division. We were glad to hear, as the noble Viscount told us, that since the original Act was passed there has been a number of houses built both in this country and in Scotland, although the progress that has been made in England clearly compares very unfavourably with the use that has been made of the Act in the northern Kingdom.
We hope, as the Government hope, that in the years to come the 1926 Act, prolonged by the present measure, will be more effective in accomplishing the purpose which it was framed to bring about. But we are not satisfied that the fundamental problem of preventing the drift from the land, which has been increasingly serious in recent years, can be coped with by the provisions of the present Bill. If it is a question of providing decent housing standards for the agricultural labourer, I do not believe that the improvements which a Bill of this kind can bring about will meet the case. There can be little doubt that mere modernising and bringing up to date cottages which have been built many decades ago cannot provide anything like the same standard of
830
comfort and hygiene as is provided by houses which have been built by local authorities in recent years, under plans drawn up by modem architects and with amenities which are regarded as being normal and desirable at the present time. It is a question, I believe, not primarily of improving houses, but of providing new houses with modern amenities and built according to modern standards.
Perhaps that is criticising the Bill for not being another Bill, and I do not wish to go beyond the limits of the subject with which it deals. We have, however, one objection to which the noble Viscount has already referred, and I am not satisfied by the answer he has given in anticipation of the arguments which I would raise. We maintain that it is exceedingly undesirable that public money should be provided for improving and modernising cottages in those cases where the landlords are in a financial position to do the work themselves. We are not satisfied that it is desirable to subsidise the wealthier landlord as well as the impecunious farmer.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: Who is he?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The noble Duke asks what wealthy landlords there are. In answer to that, according to fairly modest standards, a certain number of members of your Lordships' House would qualify as prosperous landowners. I do not say necessarily owing to the fact that their income comes from the land. I want specially to refer to the late Sir John Ellerman, because this was an instance brought up in another place which illustrates the point I desire to make. In this case the late Sir John Ellerman, who, I think everyone will agree, was a man with a very considerable income, had an estate in the County of Aberdeen and he applied to the Aberdeen County Council for a grant towards the reconditioning of some fifteen cottages. I merely give that as an instance of what I mean. I do not think that these landlords who are in a position to be able to do the work themselves should take advantage of funds that are provided out of public money, and if it is said that the administrative difficulties in the way of assessing the income of landlords are insuperable, I think it ought to be pointed out that these difficulties have been overcome in other cases. For instance, when

831
a local authority gives a grant towards a scholarship from an elementary to a secondary or central school, it takes into account the income of the father of the child and it regulates the amount of the grant in proportion to the amount of that income. Similarly, in cases where unemployed men have enjoyed the money accruing from their insured period they are expected to declare any private income or any earned income from other sources before they can receive public money.
I think a more formidable objection is the one mentioned by the noble Viscount in the course of his speech, that in the event of any sort of means test the work would not be done. We want this Bill to be made use of, and we want the Act of 1926 to be used much more frequently than it has been used in the past, and the principal object cannot be achieved if the landlord finds that the disadvantages of doing the work are so considerable that he prefers to leave it undone. But the local authorities have power to purchase compulsorily any cottages that need reconditioning and modernising and to do the work themselves. And, quite frankly, in such cases—and I imagine indeed they will not be frequent because landlords have a very real sense of responsibility towards their tenants in this respect—I myself would wish that the Government would urge the local authorities to make use of these powers. I should prefer to see the local authorities benefiting from any subsidy that was provided by the Government to landlords in cases of this kind, because, as the noble Viscount himself pointed out, the benefit accruing from the expenditure of the money would go in perpetuity to the public in the one case whereas in the other case it would go to the landlord and to his heirs. That is the main criticism of a general kind that we want to level at the Bill. At the same time, as I said earlier, we welcome the prolongation of the 1926 Act, and we hope just as ardently as the Government that the provisions of this Bill when it passes into law will be implemented by landlords and local authorities in a way that has not occurred in the last twelve years.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I want to say a word or two in welcoming this Bill. The main lines of
832
the Bill were partly suggested by a Committee which was a non-Party Committee, and the Bill has now been welcomed by members of all Parties in both Houses. The objects of the Bill are twofold. In the first place, to keep in existence the number of houses which can be let at a low rent to the agricultural labourer. All of us who know anything about rural conditions are deeply concerned about the shortage of houses within the means of agricultural labourers. Without this Bill, and without the continuation of the present Act, a number of houses which might be used for the rural labourer and let at a very low rent would gradually fall into a state of utter disrepair and would be quite impossible to be used. This Bill, by itself, would not meet the needs of housing in the rural districts. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord opposite has just said on that point. But it is intended to supplement it by other measures, and in this way it will keep in use a number of houses which otherwise might have been demolished.
In the second place, it is a Bill which w ill help to keep in existence a number of picturesque cottages. I quite deliberately put this in the second place, because in the first place we must consider the building of houses which are healthy and sanitary and comfortable; but there are a large number of picturesque houses which can be reconditioned. A great feature of our English countryside is, I am afraid, in some places rapidly disappearing with the destruction of cottages which have stood in some cases almost for centuries, and all their beauty has been ruthlessly swept away. I believe that the policy embodied in the old Acts and in this Bill will do much to preserve some of these cottages which might otherwise vanish. I have, no doubt like many of your Lordships, visited some of these houses which have been reconditioned. I have seen them in various parts of the country and have been greatly struck by the way in which in so many instances their beauty has been preserved, and at the same time they have been made comfortable and healthy for those who occupy them. Your Lordships may have seen some illustrations of this in a little handbook which has been issued by the Ministry of Health.
But our Committee, when it went into this matter, was very struck by the point

833
which has been mentioned by the noble Viscount who introduced this Bill—namely, the different way in which these Acts were used in various parts of the country. The difference is most striking. You find places like Devonshire where a very large use has been made of these Acts, and you find other counties where they have been practically untouched. We tried to find out the reasons for this, and we came unanimously to the conclusion that it was very largely due to the way in which publicity was employed in some cases and neglected in others. The noble Lord who spoke of East Suffolk has told us about the success of his own County in this matter—very remarkable success. We had a witness from that County, and he told us of the very careful arrangements which were made for publicity so that people throughout the County were thoroughly familiar with these Acts, knew how they might apply for them and use them, and as a result they did make a very large use of them. In other counties we found practically no propaganda of any sort or kind. We felt so strongly on this that we asked that an interim Report might be published on this one matter, and this was issued by the Ministry of Health.
The noble Lord who has spoken touched on a very thorny and difficult matter—namely, whether these Acts could be administered more wisely and more efficiently by the county councils or by the rural district councils. Until I was a member of the Sub-Committee I had no idea of the amount of heat which might be engendered by this question. We eventually discovered a formula, which we put into the Report, which I think partially satisfied all the members of the Committee, but the one thing on which we were all clear was that there must be the closest co-operation between the county councils and the rural district councils if these Acts are to be worked efficiently. In our Report there was another suggestion which I hope will be acted upon administratively, although of course it could not find a place in the Bill. We suggested that the rural district councils should take active steps to ascertain for themselves which cottages require reconditioning. We felt that too often this has been left rather to chance and rather to the last minute. It would be of the utmost value if the rural district councils made a kind of census of the
834
houses which might be saved by reconditioning. This would also give various people opportunities of saving houses which otherwise might be condemned. Agitation to save a cottage from destruction sometimes comes too late because those concerned have not understood the opportunities given by these Acts.
There was another recommendation which was pressed on us by some of the witnesses, and although I do not think we embodied it in our Report I should like to support it personally. That was that it was not sufficient to ask only the medical officer of health to inspect a cottage and to depend upon his judgment as to whether it could be reconditioned or not. Many of the witnesses we had before us felt most strongly that an architect ought to be called in, because an architect is better qualified to know whether a house is capable of preservation.
The noble Earl who spoke from the Opposition Benches raised a point which was before the Committee—namely, the possibility of help going to some landlords who could afford to do without it. I would like to say that we also heard a good deal of evidence in the other direction—namely, that certain district councils were so prejudiced against a class of landlords that they refused to give the help which might preserve these houses. We make some reference to this in our Report:
"Some of our witnesses have suggested that certain local authorities discriminate in their administration of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts against owners with means. Discrimination of this kind is in our view contrary to the intention of the Acts and likely to result in depriving tenants of agricultural properties of the benefits the Acts were intended to afford them. A local authority has of course complete discretion to decide whether they will grant any particular application but a general discrimination against a whole class of persons is in our view strongly to be deprecated."
I think it will be very difficult to apply anything like a means test, although I believe the local authorities in most cases would avoid making the grant to some landlords who could obviously easily afford to put the house in good condition. It is of such vital importance that these cottages should be preserved for the rural worker that I for one should be quite ready to take the risk of an occasional mistake in that matter. I hope that the Bill will pass into law.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should like to support this Bill which I think really has the support of all three Parties. No legislation in recent years has done more for at any rate one section of the agricultural working classes, and that is the women, than this Act. In my experience the introduction of a water closet, running water and a copper, at any rate on the hill farms, makes the whole difference in their lives. From that point of view I think this one of the most beneficent Acts passed for a great many years. My only regret is that it has not been more widely used. I happen to be a landowner in two different parts of the country. In one case the powers under the Acts are used with great vigour and immense benefit and in the other they are not being used at all. I think it largely turns on the attitude of the local authorities whether they are going to use their powers. I think they ought to use their powers drastically everywhere. You do get improved housing conditions extraordinarily cheaply from the point of view of the local authority. In my experience at least two-thirds of the cost of these improvements is borne in practice by the landlord. The contribution made, at any rate by the local authority who presides over my affairs, as a rule is not more than one-third of the cost of improving cottages. When you compare the cost to a local authority of improvements made under this Act with the cost of the local authority building a new cottage or providing a housing estate, they are making a very good bargain.
Finally, although as a good Liberal I have a great deal of sympathy with the principle that you should not subsidise landlords, there is one aspect which is often forgotten and that is that Death Duties on agricultural property are directly charged on the capital in the industry. Their effect is quite different from Death Duties on industrial property, because industrial shares can be sold to pay the Death Duties and the money is not taken out of the reserves of the industry. In the case of agricultural property unless the owner has other forms of negotiable securities it has to be taken out of the capital of agriculture. Therefore to that extent this Bill does put back a small amount of capital into an industry which badly needs it. I am sure this Bill will receive a Second Reading, and I hope the Government will use their influence
836
to secure that it is used as widely as possible.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I should like to add a word to what has been said by my noble friend and by the right reverend Prelate. I rather regret the reference made by the noble Earl on the Opposition Front Bench to prosperous landlords. There are not many prosperous landlords who live upon the rents of land in this country. Those who are prosperous do put their cottages in order. This Bill, as I understand it, is designed to help those who are not prosperous, and they form the very large majority. I am not entirely inclined to agree with him in thinking that it is impossible to recondition an old cottage. Very often an old cottage has better walls and better foundations than some of the new cottages put up by the county council. I am not at all sure that we are not more benefiting amenity and hygiene by properly reconditioning what already exists. I think it a pity that it should go out to the world that prosperous landlords are battening on the rents of these cottages, which are usually let for 3s. a week, when a great deal has to be found by the landlord and he is really receiving an uneconomic rent.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friend the Earl of Listowel has been doubly attacked for what he said about wealthy landlords, and I hasten to his support. Of course there are wealthy landlords. We are thinking of the city nabob who lives in the Home Counties for amenity purposes and makes money by manipulating the Stock Exchange and the markets. The landlords are not only the impoverished landowners ruined by Death Duties over whom we are invited to weep by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian. It is only rich men who can afford to keep country estates nowadays, people who have incomes outside their landed property. That is one of the mysteries of this present time. The business of land-owning in this country is in utter decay. I have always deplored it and shall go on deploring it. The whole character of the countryside is changing. But there are a great many wealthy men living on country estates who have income from businesses outside and can afford to put their cottages in order and ought to do so, and my Party objects very strongly to subsidising these people.

837
I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Marquess, not for the first time, over this matter of Death Duties. I have always opposed the raising of the Death Duties, and have done so in another place ever since the end of the War, when they were put up so high. They are in effect eating up the country's capital, and are economically unsound. The Party which the Leader of the House and the noble Viscount adorn are the greatest sinners in this respect. It was under their Governments that these Death Duties were put up to such astronomical heights, and they will have to pay for it. Although I have sympathy for many landlords, I must again support my noble friend Lord Listowel in his objection to subsidising the wealthy man on the land, who has his duty which he ought to do without Acts of Parliament or anything to help him.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I have very little to say. I thank noble Lords for the reception they have given to this Bill, and in spite of the note of controversy which the noble Lord opposite introduced, I thank Lord Listowel for taking up a more sympathetic, and what I describe as a more reasonable, attitude than that of his colleagues in another place. He said that there were objections to the Bill but that he could not see how they could be got over. I hope that that means that he and his Party will help to give this Bill encouragement in the country. I think he said that he did not anticipate that the Bill would stop the drift away from the land. That is no doubt true, but it must be considered together with the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill, which, as the noble Earl knows, gives a very big subsidy for rural housing.
I think Lord Cranworth raised one point which I agree is a very complicated one. I have a great deal of sympathy for the point of view which he expressed on the question of what he described as a rating anomaly. But I must admit that I was filled with apprehension
838
about a possible revision of the rating law, because the whole matter is so exceedingly complicated. I will certainly do what I can to meet this point. I think the answer is that it is one of the things in which the Committee which is investigating the whole question of assessments in connection with the Postponement of Valuations Bill is interesting itself.
LORD CRANWORTH: I thank the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I really think that that is all I have to say. I regret that the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, has had difficulty with one of his rural authorities. While the discretion remains, I suppose we cannot put pressure on them, because in that case it does not remain a discretion. We should be very glad to help the noble Marquess to get rid of any unnecessary obstruction, but as he is so extremely persuasive himself I have no doubt that he will meet with success. I think that I have answered the few points that have been raised in the debate, and I hope I have done so to the satisfaction of the House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, there are, as your Lordships are aware, no Orders on the Paper for tomorrow, but on Thursday we have a good many Bills to consider. I give notice that I shall have to ask your Lordships' leave to suspend the Standing Order so that the Scottish Land Court Bill may take precedence over other matters and be able to come before the Royal Commission which it is proposed should sit at six o'clock.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past six o'clock.