Lords Sitting of 4 July 1939

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
PATENTS AND DESIGNS (LIMITS OF TIME) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
JARROW CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
STALYBRIDGE HYDE MOSSLEY AND DUKINFIELD TRANSPORT AND ELECTRICITY BOARD BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (YORK WATER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NEWHAVEN AND SEAFORD WATER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CORSHAM WATER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
DUNDEE HARBOUR AND TAY FERRIES (SUPERANNUATION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

CHARITABLE COLLECTIONS (REGULATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Licences.
(3) A police authority may refuse to grant a licence, or, where a licence has been granted, may revoke it, if it appears to the authority—
(a) that the amount of the proceeds of the collection applied for charitable purposes or to be so applied or both is inadequate in proportion to the total amount of the said proceeds;
3.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved, in subsection (3), to leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
"(a) that the total amount likely to be applied for charitable purposes as the result of the collection (including any amount already so applied) is inadequate in proportion to the value of the proceeds likely to be received (including any proceeds already received);"
The noble Earl said: This is purely a drafting Amendment. It is not quite clear in subsection (3) (a) as it stands in the Bill whether there will be adequate

915
application of the proceeds of the collection for charitable purposes, including the amount already applied on application for the licence, and it is very important that this should be made clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 6, leave out paragraph (a) and insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Courtown.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I think the noble Earl is a little modest in describing this as a drafting Amendment. I am not opposing it, but I want to call attention to it. It very much widens the duty of the police authority. The authority will be entitled to consider the value of the proceeds likely to be received. I cannot help thinking that if hospital governors in Edinburgh applied to the police authority for leave to make a house-to-house collection in Glasgow the police authority in Glasgow might put the value of the proceeds likely to be received at a smaller amount than the hospital authorities hoped to get. The same difficulty might arise, say, between Liverpool and Manchester or between Leeds and Bradford. I like the Amendment, but I think the acceptance of it makes the consideration of other Amendments which will be moved later very much more important.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: The next is also a drafting Amendment, consequential on the first one.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 12, leave out from the first ("the") to ("is") in line 14, and insert ("total amount aforesaid").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: There is another drafting Amendment, to make the wording clearer.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 16, leave out ("thereof") and insert ("of the collection").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: This also is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 44, at end insert ("or").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.12 p.m.
LORD MACMILLAN LORD MACMILLAN moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:
"(4) When a police authority refuse to grant a licence or revoke a licence which has been granted they shall forthwith give written notice to the applicant or holder of the licence stating upon which one or more of the grounds set out in subsection (3) of this section the licence has been refused or revoked and informing him of the right of appeal given by this section, and the applicant or holder of the licence may thereupon appeal to the Secretary of State against the refusal or revocation of the licence as the case may be and the decision of the Secretary of State shall be final.
(5) The time within which any such appeal may be brought shall be fourteen days from the date on which notice is given under subsection (4) of this section.
(6) If the Secretary of State decides that the appeal shall be allowed the police authority shall forthwith issue a licence or cancel the revocation as the case may be in accordance with the decision of the Secretary of State."
The noble and learned Lord said: I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and I need scarcely say that I do so in no spirit of hostility to this Bill. The King Edward Hospital Fund for London and the British Hospitals Association, who have asked me to move this Amendment on their behalf, welcome the Bill as an admirable measure. None of us who are associated with hospital administration can fail to realise how important it is that bogus charities should be suppressed and that collections should be fostered and protected. Therefore the Amendment which I am about to ask your Lordships to accept is offered in no spirit of hostility to the Bill. The scheme of this measure is that persons who propose to carry on house-to-house collections should obtain the authority of the police of the area and be properly identified. That seems a most workmanlike way of going about it. What the hospitals are concerned with is that, operating as many of them do in large areas which overlap the territory of many police authorities, they may find themselves in very considerable difficulties owing to the different views which these different police authorities may take; and they view with some apprehension the fact that in the Bill as it stands there is no appeal whatever from the decision of a police authority to whom application is made for a licence.
The history of the matter may be brought before the Committee in a few words. In the original Bill which first

917
came before this House, the police authority, when they were asked to grant a licence and refused to do so, were bound to specify the grounds of their refusal, and a right of appeal was given to a court of summary jurisdiction. Your Lordships will recall that the Bill was referred to a Joint Committee, and before that Committee a considerable amount of evidence was led. I think it is fair to say that the general tenor of the evidence, at any rate of the official evidence, was against there being the right of appeal from the decision of the police authority; but that on the other hand, if there were to be a right of appeal, it should not be to a court of summary jurisdiction, which was thought to be an unsuitable tribunal, but that the appropriate authority would be the Home Secretary. For example, Commander Kemble, who appeared before the Joint Committee and spoke for the chief constables, said that an appeal to the Home Secretary would very probably be the best procedure, because then all the appeals would come to one central authority, who would know the history of the case from other angles. Notwithstanding that statement, the Joint Committee recommended the omission of a right of appeal altogether, and consequently in the Bill now before the Committee there is no right of appeal whatever against the decision of the police authority either in refusing a licence or in revoking an existing licence.
The reasons which actuate those who are interested in hospitals to ask for the insertion of a right of appeal are really very practical reasons indeed. There may be considerable divergence of view among different police authorities as to whether a licence should or should not be given in particular circumstances. It will be observed that the reasons which must actuate a police authority in refusing to grant a licence, or in revoking one that has been granted, are discretionary. They are enumerated in six paragraphs, and all these paragraphs raise matters upon which divergent views might very well be taken. One police authority might quite genuinely consider that a certain percentage of the proceeds was too high; another might think that it was a reasonable percentage, and so on. Consequently you can well have the most divergent views, and the "drainage area," if I may so call it, of most of the
918
large hospitals—their collecting area—is not confined to one police authority.
Take so famous a hospital as the Hospital for Sick Children in Great Ormond Street, of which I was myself for a time Chairman. That hospital serves practically the whole country and, I am happy to say, has in fact obtained the good will and support of people in every part of England and also to some extent in Scotland, because of the splendid treatment which is there accorded to children. Consequently contributions come in from all parts of the United Kingdom, and indeed also from abroad. It does seem rather ridiculous to say that if the Hospital for Sick Children—because it is always better to be concrete than abstract—desire to have a collection in some area they should have in each particular area where the collection is to take place to obtain the authority of the police. For a charity which is to all intents and purposes a national charity, like the Children's Hospital or many other of our great hospitals, to have to apply to all these different authorities for the requisite licence from them all would be hampering in the extreme; and also it might well happen, as was foretold a moment ago by my noble friend Lord Donoughmore, that very different views indeed might be held by police authorities as to the reasons for which such licences should be granted or revoked.
It would be most unhappy if there were no appeal from such a discretionary power. I entirely agree with the view which was taken by the Joint Committee that an appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction would be unsuitable. This is one of the few cases where, although a member of the judiciary, I am inclined to think that the decision is better in administrative than in judicial hands. I should not regard the insertion of this subsection as an instance of the "New Despotism." It is plainly a matter where the discretion of the Minister would be an appropriate quarter in which to appeal, and it would have this further advantage: the hospitals would not only be able to appeal from possibly arbitrary and possibly unjust decisions, but unity of policy would be obtained. In that way I venture to think this Bill would work much better than it would work if it were left to the discretion of the innumerable police authorities throughout

919
the country. This really is a very practical question indeed from the point of view of the hospitals, and I venture to ask the Committee to give this Amendment, which is in no way inimical to the Bill and will in no way hurt the Bill, their most favourable and sympathetic consideration.
I recognise that if a subsequent Amendment, which will shortly be moved by my noble friends Lord Luke and Lord Donoughmore and which proposes that the hospitals should be treated as exempted charities, were accepted, I should not have the same motive for moving this Amendment as I have now, because then the hospitals would receive the treatment to which I think as national charities they are entitled, of being placed on the same footing as the other privileged charities. If that Amendment were given effect to, I quite recognise that my locus standi to speak for the hospitals on this Amendment would really disappear; but I am anxious at this point to make it quite plain that we attach the greatest possible importance to the right of appeal, in order that there should be no hampering of our legitimate efforts to promote the welfare of hospitals. At the present moment the hospitals have many anxieties, and they were never more entitled to rely on the good will of those who are interested in their work, and especially on the good will of this House, where I know there are so many noble Lords who are themselves interested in the conduct of hospital affairs. Therefore, with confidence in your Lordships' fairness to hospitals, and to all those who have to apply for police licences, I ask that my Amendment should be adopted.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 6, at end, insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Macmillan.)
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: As a member of the Joint Committee, I would like to say a few words on the noble and learned Lord's Amendment. If the Amendment were directed entirely to hospitals, I think no one could say anything against it, but I cannot see the word "hospital" in the Amendment. In other words, an appeal may be made by all people, whether connected with hospitals or bogus charities,
920
and I think it is most unfortunate that this Amendment should be moved before that of Lord Luke, which follows. I ask your Lordships to pause before giving a right of appeal to every possible charity which may be refused a permit by the police authorities. I cannot exactly envy the Secretary of State, or the Under-Secretary of State, if everybody who meets with a refusal to his application for a permit has a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. In fact I think the position would be untenable, and it would require an enormous amount of machinery to find out what everybody was in the most remote district of the country.
I think the police authorities are the best to determine what is a reputable charity. We did discuss this matter very thoroughly in the Joint Committee, as has been said, and it was because of the difficulties of confining the appeal to what I might call warrantable cases that we decided, if I remember rightly, unanimously, that there should be no appeal, on the principle that the local police are supposed to be, and I think rightly supposed to be, in full knowledge of what are reputable local charities, or reputable people who wish to assist charities. The only reason there are so many bogus charities to-day is that the police have not got the power with which to prevent these collections. Hence this Bill, as a result of the Joint Committee's Report, and I most earnestly ask your Lordships to hesitate to pass this Amendment—at any rate, until a later stage in the Bill, when we shall know what the House decides to do with regard to the hospitals.
VISCOUNT BRIDPORT: I think it advisable at this stage to give the Government's views on this Amendment moved by Lord Macmillan. If the Government had felt that an appeal was necessary, they would themselves have proposed that provision for appeal should be included in the Bill, but they agreed with the view that the matter could safely be left in the hands of the police authorities, or the sub-committee to which the police authorities may delegate their powers. A licence is only to be refused or revoked on the grounds set out in Clause 2, subsection (3) of the Bill, which are, roughly, that too much of the proceeds is likely to be absorbed in expenses, or that the promoter is not a suitable person. It is true that in Clause 2, subsection (3) (a),

921
power is given to the police authorities to use their discretion to decide what proportion of the proceeds is an adequate proportion to be applied to charity, but it is quite impracticable to lay down a proportion in this Bill, as circumstances may vary considerably in every case.
Surely there is no reason to think that the police will take any unreasonable view in these matters. The whole tenor of the Bill makes it clear that the purpose is the one to which the Joint Committee limited their recommendations—namely, not to interfere with legitimate charitable efforts, but to put a stop to those virtually fraudulent collections which have caused so much indignation. Surely, no police authorities would wish to incur the odium of refusing a licence for legitimate charitable efforts. The Government feel that the proposed right of appeal is not really necessary, but might mean that a number of fruitless applications, which could quite well have been finally settled locally, would have to be dealt with at the Home Office, with consequent waste of time and labour to all concerned.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I rise to oppose this Amendment. I should have hesitated to draw swords with so distinguished an authority on this subject, but I think his arguments have been very well answered by the noble Marquess, who was a member of the Committee, and I think that this right of appeal is entirely unnecessary. It would load up the Bill and considerably increase the work and trouble of the Home Office, because I can see that a great many bogus charities would appeal. Lord Macmillan referred to the Great Ormond Street Hospital, for which I have very great respect and admiration, but I think a great deal of what he said would have been much better directed to the later Amendment on the Paper, for I cannot see any voluntary hospital, such as the Great Ormond Street Hospital, instituting a house-to-house collection over a very wide area. It is the great charities which hold almost simultaneously street collections throughout the country. In the Act dealing with street collections there is no right of appeal, and I understand that that Act has worked very well indeed, and there has been no complaint. On these grounds, and especially on the ground that the Joint Committee consid-
922
ered the matter very carefully indeed, I submit that this House should not accept the Amendment.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: I hope that noble Lords will accept the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord has thought fit to move. I support it on a ground which I believe has not yet been raised—namely, that it is very desirable that any appeal which is made with regard to the refusal of the police to allow collections should go to the Home Secretary and not to a court of summary jurisdiction. I think it is very desirable that not only the collection, and the right kind of collection, should be made, but that the administration of the funds, when they are collected, should be inquired into. I do not think that the police are an authority that could really inquire into the administration of these large collections. A man like the Home Secretary has means whereby the generosity of the public can be safeguarded.
LORD MACMILLAN: I am much tempted by certain words which fell from the noble Marquess and also from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, but it is unfortunate that this Amendment should be moved at this stage when a more fundamental Amendment affecting the hospitals is coming on later. But I am a little apprehensive that, if I do not hold my ground now, then when the next matter comes along that unhappy precedent will be followed, and I shall be defeated and the hospitals will be left in an unfortunate position. But in the circumstances I am more interested in the substantive Amendment, relating to hospitals particularly, which will follow. It might perhaps be wise for me to withdraw the Amendment at this stage, but if we are unfortunate enough not to persuade the Committee to accept that Amendment I should like to be permitted to move this Amendment on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Exemptions in the case of collections over wide areas.
3.—(1) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a person pursues a charitable purpose throughout the whole of England or a substantial part thereof and is desirous of promoting collections for that purpose, the Secretary of State may by order direct that

923
he shall be exempt from the obligation to apply for a licence imposed by Section one of this Act as respects all collections for that purpose in such localities as may be described in the order, and whilst an order so made in the case of any person is in force as respects collections in any locality, the provisions of this Act shall have effect in relation to that person, to a promoter of a collection in that locality for that purpose who acts under the authority of that person, and to a person who so acts as a collector for the purposes of any such collection, as if a licence authorising that person to promote a collection in that locality for that purpose had been in force.
3.32 p.m.
LORD LUKE LORD LUKE had given Notice of two Amendments to subsection (1)—namely, after "person," where that word first occurs, to insert "(a)," and after "purpose," where that word occurs for the second time, to insert "or (b) carries on a voluntary hospital approved by the British Hospitals Association or by King Edward's Hospital Fund for London and is desirous of promoting collections for the purpose of that hospital." The noble Lord said: This is really one Amendment, and it has the approval of King Edward's Hospital Fund and the British Hospitals Association representing 900 hospitals. It is said that the reason why the hospitals are not included in the favoured list of charities associated with this Bill is that they do not beg nationally. It is admitted that they serve the community very well locally, and in some instances do so throughout the country, but on the whole their service departments are usually better than their appeal sections, and these latter do not often reach from Land's End to John o'Groats. In the past they have obtained support from an area, say of fifty or even 100 miles around their hospitals, from which area they receive the bulk of their patients, though in these days of motor accidents they may have patients from any part of the country. Their area may include half a dozen, or even a dozen, police divisions, and in each of those the favoured outside charities would start with an advantage over the local hospital by having exemption. This Amendment will not put the local hospitals at the head of the favoured list of charities, it will only put them on a level, and that after they have been thoroughly approved by one of the two central hospital bodies which I have mentioned.
There has been a good deal of mystery about this list of favoured charities. The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading said that exemption was to be given to a list of charities which had had a conference before deciding to support the Bill, and he only gave the names of some of them, no doubt the best of the names. But there may be a dozen or more in this list, and we have not seen it. Probably some of them are very efficient beggars, and have the right to be termed national beggars, but I should like to dispute any suggestion that they do more national service than many of the hospitals. The money available in the hands of those kindly people who give to charity is certainly not inexhaustible, and there is competition for it. The most worthy causes are not always the ones most efficiently begged for. The hospital which only appeals to, say, a dozen police areas, and gives full service to those areas, may have a very active secretary for its hospital work, but he may be a man too busy to compete successfully with national beggars who invade his territory, and he simply cannot afford to be further handicapped against the efficient appeals that I have referred to. I trust your Lordships will support this Amendment and place the hospitals in a position equal to that of the favoured charities under this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 8, after ("person") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Luke.)
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I am afraid I must oppose this Amendment, because I cannot conceive any conditions under which a local authority will suffer by having to apply to the police rather than being put on a list at the Home Office as an exempted authority. The noble Lord said that there might be a dozen or half a dozen authorities from which a hospital got its patients, but I cannot help thinking that that is a slight exaggeration. I admit that the number may amount to three or four. I could mention one hospital which covers four police authorities, but that is rather an exception. The majority of these hospitals, whether in London or outside it, operate in a very restricted area, and if they do operate over more than one police area presumably the police in the neighbouring areas would say that the authority had agreed to issue the licence and they had made full inquiry.

925
The grounds on which they can refuse a licence are very limited indeed, and they are laid down in the Bill. I think this Amendment would give an undue advantage to a voluntary and non-elected association, the British Hospitals Association, because there might very easily be a local hospital which did not belong to that particular association for some reason or another, just as some motorists, for some particular grievance perhaps, do not belong to the A.A. or the R.A.C. Supposing that were the case, and they applied for a licence, the police might very well say, "This is not a recognised hospital," or "There is something against it," and might be inclined to withhold the licence. This matter was very fully gone into, I understand, by the Joint Committee, and they decided that it was not necessary to include voluntary hospitals. After the very weighty and considered opinion which they gave I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I am sorry my noble friend is not able to accept this Amendment, but I think I can reassure him that the position which has been referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Macmillan, and Lord Luke, is nothing like as exceptional as he thinks. My mind goes at once to two hospitals, with the work of which I am familiar as a visitor—I am not concerned in their management—one in the North of England, the other in Scotland. Both these hospitals have done a very remarkable thing. They have managed to persuade a number of the small hospitals round them to act as clinics under their guidance, for purposes of diagnosis, and for purposes of after-treatment, that being a very sound thing from the point of view of medical treatment as well as from the point of view of relieving work in the hospital itself. It is perfectly reasonable surely that where medical treatment is given the collection of money should be permitted.
I have not been into the matter with great exactness, but the hospitals in Scotland certainly have this system in operation in eight or nine counties—it comes right down to the border; and in the case of the hospitals in Lancashire there must be many more than eight or nine police districts, because after all in Lancashire the police authorities are independent round about the hospitals where these
926
clinics are working, and of course there are all the small boroughs. I think therefore that this Amendment is desirable in the interests of administrative efficiency. It is surely ridiculous that these hospitals should go to the police, not once for all, but annually, in order to ask that they shall have permission for these house-to-house collections—which, I agree, it is extremely desirable to have confined to genuine and proper cases. The point raised by my noble friend regarding the difficulty which might arise if one of the authorities who have been selected under the Amendment to advise in this matter did not include them in their membership, could be easily got over. It is quite easy to get recognised if they are not already so recognised. Your Lordships will remember the figure given by my noble friend that this Amendment, if passed, would at once cover 900 hospitals, which is a very considerable number, spread all over the country.
There is one other point—a rather indirect point but not unimportant—which it is only fair to remember on this occasion. After all, outside London, who are the police? They are the servants of the local authorities. I believe the Secretary of State for the Home Department has certain powers over them, but at the same time they are responsible to the local authorities and must obey their orders. The hospital world is in a state of anxiety and flux at this moment because you have the great voluntary hospital system and you have the rapidly improving and increasing municipal hospital system. There ought to be close co-operation between the two—I wish there were more. Many of the voluntary hospitals are anxious to co-operate with the municipal authorities. I wish that quite as many of the municipal authorities—there are of course splendid exceptions—were anxious to co-operate with the voluntary hospitals. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that unless this Amendment is passed, if this Bill goes through in its present form, in this respect you are putting the voluntary hospital system under the municipal authorities. It is a small matter. You may call it the thin end of the wedge, but it is not such a very thin end, and it is a dangerous precedent as regards future legislation. I hope the day may not be far distant when the two systems will be amalgamated. I believe there is good in both systems, and they ought to

927
work alongside each other in co-operation; but I am certain it is undesirable to put the voluntary hospitals under the municipal authorities by a side wind. I am quite certain that my noble friend, if he drafted this Bill, had no such thought in his mind, but there are very astute people who have been advising him who, I am sure, did not shut their eyes to the fact when they brought forward the Bill in its present form.
VISCOUNT BRIDPORT: A suggestion of the same kind as the noble Lord, Lord Luke, has made was put before the Joint Committee, and the Home Office was consulted informally upon it. The view was expressed that it would be practicable to adopt a scheme of this kind, but the scheme should apply to other charities vouched for by a reputable central body, and also the proposals of the central body for exemption of local charities should be related to specified areas, so that the appropriate police authorities could be notified. The scheme was, however, strongly opposed by some members of the Committee, chiefly on the ground that it would give powers to unofficial bodies, which might seriously prejudice the position of, say, a hospital which had declined to join the British Hospitals Association. The Committee therefore abandoned the idea and no reference was made to it in their Report.
Two grounds have been advanced for this proposal. One is the trouble involved in applying to several police authorities in cases where a hospital serves several police areas, but this would not be confined to hospitals and the trouble involved would not in practice be at all great. As the noble Earl in charge of the Bill pointed out, a charity would no doubt apply to the authority in the area in which its activities are chiefly centred and give full particulars to that authority. This could be stated in applications to other authorities, and the police forces concerned would co-operate so as to avoid unnecessary duplication of inquiries. The noble Lord, Lord Luke, and other speakers based their case for the Amendment on some mistrust of the police authorities. I would point out to your Lordships that as Lord Macmillan's Amendment has not been made at this stage, your Lordships have given expression to confidence in the police authorities.
LORD MACMILLAN: That is exactly what I said was going to happen.
VISCOUNT BRIDPORT: Supposing the Amendment were made at a later stage, perhaps the whole matter could then be gone into again on this point of the mistrust of the police. Surely there could be no ground for thinking that hospitals want special protection from the police. The present proposal was discarded by the Select Committee after full consideration. Any attempt to deal centrally with charities other than "national" charities would lead to administrative complications, and the balance of advantage clearly lies with the proposal of the Bill under which the applications of local charities would be dealt with locally and the power of exemption conferred on the Secretary of State would be applicable only to charities operating over a really wide field. His Majesty's Government therefore are not in agreement with the Amendment.
LORD MACMILLAN: I hope that the Committee will take this matter into their own hands. It appears to me that on this occasion your Lordships have an opportunity of safeguarding the interests of the voluntary hospitals of this country. Pray observe what Clause 3 of the Bill proposes. It proposes that in certain instances charities shall not require to have a police licence in order to conduct a house-to-house collection. Therefore the Bill does recognise that in some instances it is appropriate that there should be exemption from the necessity of obtaining police authority. Could there be any institutions more worthy of such exemption than the voluntary hospitals of this country? If any institutions are worthy of exemption, I venture to say that the voluntary hospitals are these bodies. It does not mean that if they are exempted they will be clear of all the restrictions, the very proper restrictions, imposed by this Bill upon house-to-house collections. All the provisions about having proper badges and proper precautions to see that none but duly authorised persons make a collection, and so on, will still apply. All that is proposed is that these exempted authorities shall not have to go the police authority to get a licence. That is all.
The point was made with regard to many of the hospitals that their

929
territory extends over many police authorities. That objection is not in the least founded upon mistrust of the police authorities. The police authorities of this country are most admirable bodies, but police authorities, and even His Majesty's Judges in whom your Lordships have every confidence, have been known to differ. Even in this House I have heard noble Lords differing upon a point of law, and certainly I have heard this House in its legislative capacity differing very much on questions of policy. You may have various police authorities differing, and differing widely indeed, in their views as to which charities should, or should not, get a licence. Often in small localities there are prejudices which are unfounded but which might operate most unfairly with regard to one particular charity, for some reason or another. This Amendment does nothing more than put the hospitals of this country in the position of not requiring to get a police licence. It will not exempt them in any way from all the other proper provisions of the Bill.
In recent Bills the position of the hospitals has been recognised. For example, in connection with the services they render to the unfortunate victims of the internal combustion engine. Under the Statutes, provision has been made for payment to be made to the hospitals, and the hospitals are defined in this Bill and are known and recognised in this House as reputable institutions. They receive that recognition for the services that they render. Why should they not also be free from what will be a distinct embarrassment and handicap? If, in carrying out their splendid work throughout the country, any charities are entitled to be exempted, I venture to suggest that our hospitals are entitled to be.
LORD STANMORE: I very much hope your Lordships will not agree to this Amendment. The Joint Committee went into this matter very carefully, and they came to the conclusion that all local charities should be dealt with locally. The last thing the police authorities would wish to do would be to stand in the way of deserving charities, and I think they should be trusted.
LORD GIFFORD: I wish to support this Amendment as I feel strongly that our great voluntary hospitals should be treated as national institutions rather than
930
as local ones. These hospitals draw their patients to-day from far and wide. I have had a certain experience of the King Edward's Fund and also experience in one of our Dominions, where I was appeal secretary to a hospital in New South Wales. New South Wales some three years ago brought in a Bill very similar to this, and the New South Wales Hospitals Association were instrumental in getting their voluntary hospitals exemption from obtaining a permit. I suggest to your Lordships that precedent is one which should have weight, and that this Amendment is worthy of consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I hesitate to say anything against an Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Luke, to whom the hospitals as a whole are so much indebted, but I should like to say one thing in reference to a statement by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Macmillan. He seemed to think that to have to get a licence to collect for a hospital is a drawback. As a matter of fact the whole machinery that is proposed by the Joint Committee is that it should be a recommendation that those who collect for a charity shall have a badge to wear which will guarantee the respectability of the charity for which they are collecting, and it seems to me that the hospitals—
LORD MACMILLAN: May I point out to the noble Marquess that if exemption is given to a charity, the collectors still will have to wear a badge?
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I have not quite finished. It was put to the Committee that it would be a very great advantage to be placed on the same footing as everybody else who was regarded as reputable. I cannot myself imagine a police authority that would not desire to help local hospitals, and, still more, national hospitals, such as the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children which is known throughout the country. You would have only to mention the name of that hospital and any authority would say "Yes" without a moment's hesitation. One other point which I wish to allude to is this. I would rather like to have an undertaking from someone who can give it, if possible, that the British Hospitals Association never refuses an

931
application for affiliation made by any hospital which has any reputation. If we can have that undertaking, I think those who are rather chary of accepting this Amendment would feel much more comfortable, because they would then know that the British Hospitals Association, which extends over the whole country, never refuses an application for affiliation by any hospital, however small, and however insignificant it may be, provided of course that it does the work of a hospital for the benefit of those who attend it.
LORD LUKE: With reference to the noble Marquess's remarks, it is difficult to speak of the British Hospitals Association, but I am quite sure that between the British Hospitals Association and King Edward's Hospital Fund for London, it would be found that approval would be obtained for any hospital getting into the awkward position which the noble Marquess suggests. With regard to the main question, I really do not quite understand why there has been a belittling of the advantage of getting this exemption. I am quite sure that a large number of bodies who have obtained this exemption must value it very much. If there was no list at all I do not think the hospitals would be so much worried about it, but they do not really know the size of this list; they do not know what the tail of this list looks like. We presume that we have heard the best names. It seems to me that the police are going to be bothered by more people who want to beg from house to house than in the past. Therefore the police, who may be excellent in detecting crime, and would probably have a list of these bogus charities to work on, will no doubt effect a great change in that matter; but I am not inclined to believe that the police are quite as good at deciding which charity shall have an exemption and which shall not. There are only certain conditions on which you are not supposed to obtain a licence. At the same time, if there are a great many asking for a licence, there will be gradually a desire to limit the number. There will be reticence in giving the licences. These favoured charities, who already have had one, will not require to obtain one, and therefore hospitals
932
will be in an unfavourable position. I am afraid that unless the Amendment is accepted, we shall have to go to a Division.
LORD GORELL: I think a great number of noble Lords who are interested in hospitals must be very seriously concerned, listening to the debate, as to which way to vote on the Amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Macmillan, mentioned Great Ormond Street Hospital, and there have been frequent references in the debate to the great national hospitals. As I understand the Bill with the Amendment, its purpose is to differentiate the treatment between what may be called national charities and local charities, and it would seem to me, unless I am wrong in the impression I have gained from the debate and in studying the Amendment, that if the Amendment is inserted a very great number of hospitals, which, however meritorious, are still strictly local in their history and their appeal, will be put on the footing of national institutions. In that case it is obvious that the Amendment really defeats one of the main objects of the Bill, and if that is really so, I personally should feel that the advice given by the noble Lord, Lord Stanmore, was the right advice for your Lordships to follow.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: Even though very weighty arguments have been put forward in support of this Amendment, I feel that I cannot accept it. For the life of me I cannot see how the voluntary hospitals are going to suffer at all by being excluded from what can be called national charities. There is no desire on the part of the local authorities, I am sure, nor on the part of the Home Office, I am equally sure, to hamper the local hospitals. No one has a greater admiration for the voluntary hospitals than I have. At the present moment I happen to be the Chairman of the Special Appeal Committee of a local hospital, so I do know a little about this matter. I am quite certain that no local hospital would suffer and the police have not got the power to refuse a licence to a hospital simply on the ground that it is not local. If, for instance, the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children wanted to make a house-to-house collection in Newcastle, the police in Newcastle could not turn it down

933
simply because it was not a local hospital. They would have to put forward a better argument than that. I have been advised by the Association of Municipal Corporations, and I think I can assure your Lordships, that there is no desire on their part to use this as the thin end of the wedge for bringing all hospitals under local control. I would like to draw the attention of your Lordships to the opening words of the clause:
"Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a person pursues a charitable purpose
4.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the obligation to apply for a licence imposed by" and insert "the provisions of subsection (2) of". The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment—I think I can call it drafting in spite of what the noble Lord said just recently. The present wording is not accurate. The subsection refers to an obligation to apply for a licence. It is inconsistent with the form of Clause 1, which does not in terms impose an obligation but provides that it shall be an offence to promote a collection without a licence. I beg to move.
throughout the whole of England or a substantial part thereof …."
No hospital can claim that it operates throughout the whole of England nor even a substantial part of it as do the great national charities. I think the only thing to do is to leave the matter to the sense of the Committee.
On Question, Whether "(a)" shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 49.

CONTENTS.

Exeter, M.

Rothes, E.

Gifford, L.

Salisbury, M.

Wicklow, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Bradford, E.

Hailsham, V.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Hutchinson V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Jessel, L.

Lichfield, E.

Luke, L. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Ullswater, V.

Macmillan, L. [Teller.]

Minto, E.

Phillimore, L.

Onslow, E.

Cautley, L.

Saltoun, L.

Radnor, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Bridport, V.

Faringdon, L.

Mersey, V.

Gainford, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V. (L. President.)

Samuel, V.

Gorell, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Hindlip, L.

Swinton, V.

Mancroft, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Marley, L.

Crewe, M.

Addington, L.

Pentland, L.

Zetland, M.

Bayford, L. [Teller.]

Portsea, L.

Birdwood, L.

Raglan, L.

Albemarle, E.

Blythswood, L.

Rennell, L.

Ancaster, E.

Boston, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.) [Teller.]

Carlisle, E.

Butler of Mount Juliet, L. (E. Carrick.)

Feversham, E.

Snell, L.

Fortescue, E.

Cornock, L.

Stafford, L.

Howe, E.

Chesham, L.

Stanmore, L.

Lucan, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Strabolgi, L.

Midleton, E.

Templemore, L.

Munster, E.

Clwyd, L.

Teynham, L.

Elton, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 12, leave out ("the obligation to apply for a licence imposed by") and insert ("the provisions of subsection (2) of").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: The next is a drafting Amendment to cure words which are somewhat vague.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 18, leave out ("that person") and insert ("the person exempted").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: This is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 19, leave out ("that person") and insert ("the person exempted").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: These are the same words.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 22, leave out ("that person") and insert ("the person exempted").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Regulations.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by the foregoing subsection, regulations made thereunder may make provision for all or any of the following matters, that is to say:—

(a) for requiring and regulating the use by persons acting as collectors under the authority of the holder of the licence, or of the person in whose case the order has been made, as the case may be, of prescribed badges and prescribed certificates of authority, and the issue, custody, production and return thereof, and, in particular, for requiring such persons as aforesaid on demand by a police constable or by any occupant of a house visited to produce their certificates of authority;

(b) for requiring, in the case of persons acting as collectors under the authority of the holder of a licence, that their prescribed certificates of authority shall be authenticated in a manner approved by the chief officer of police for the area in which the collection is made, and that their prescribed badges shall have inserted therein or annexed thereto in a manner and form so approved a general indication of the purpose of the collection;

(4) Any regulations made under this Act shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if either House of Parliament, within the next thirty days on which that House has sat after the regulations have been laid before it, resolves that the regulations be annulled, the regulations shall thereupon become void, without prejudice, however, to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new regulations.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), to substitute "collectors" for "persons acting as collectors under the authority of the holder of the licence, or of the person in whose case the order has been made, as the case may be." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to simplify
936
the wording, which is a somewhat elaborate way of describing the collectors.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 38, leave out from ("by") to ("of") in line 1 on page 5, and insert ("collectors").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: The next Amendment has the same intention.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, leave out ("such persons as aforesaid") and insert ("collectors").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved, at the beginning of paragraph (b) in subsection (2), to insert "in the case of collections in respect of which licences have been granted." The noble Earl said: This Amendment might also, I think, be described as a drafting Amendment, as it is desirable to make quite clear, as paragraph (e) does, that paragragh (b) only requires the prescribed information in the case of collections in respect of which licences have been granted, and not in cases in which the person is exempted by order of the Secretary of State under Clause 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, at the beginning insert ("in the case of collections in respect of which licences have been granted").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: This Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, leave out from ("requiring") to ("shall") in line 11, and insert ("that the prescribed certificates of authority of the collectors").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: This is a drafting Amendment, to make it quite clear that the chief officer of police is the one for the area in respect of which the licence has been granted.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 13, leave out ("in which the collection is made") and insert ("in respect of which the licence was granted").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "next thirty

937
days on which that House has sat after the regulations have been" and insert "period of forty days beginning with the date on which the regulations are." The noble Earl said: This is a more important Amendment. With the next Amendment, it is designed to bring the provisions into line with similar provisions in other Bills. It has been pointed out by those concerned with managing the business of this House that there is a great diversity in existing provisions of this nature. This diversity leads to great difficulties. After careful consideration this form of words has been adopted. The form of words as printed has been copied from recently introduced Bills. It is, of course, not possible to amend all those which have been passed into law, but it is proposed to adopt this form of wording in the case of Bills now in progress.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 38, leave out ("next thirty days on which that House has sat after the regulations have been") and insert ("period of forty days beginning with the date on which the regulations are").—(The Earl of Courtown).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: The next is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 43, at end insert ("In reckoning any such period of forty days as aforesaid, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Unauthorised use of badges, etc.
5. If any person, in connection with any appeal made by him to the public in association with a representation that the appeal is for a charitable purpose, displays or uses—
(a) a prescribed badge or a prescribed certificate of authority, not being a badge or certificate for the time being held by him pursuant to regulations made under this Act, or
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved in paragraph (a), after "him," to insert "for the purposes of the appeal." The noble Earl said: This Amendment relates to the prevention of the misuse of prescribed badges and certificates. It is designed to ensure that the badge and cer-
938
tificate refer to the particular collection being held and have not been used for any collection before.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 7, after ("him") insert ("for the purposes of the appeal").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Delegation of functions]:
LORD JESSEL: On Clause 7, might I ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill a question? The first sentence provides that any functions conferred by the Bill on a police authority may be delegated by the authority. The interpretation clause, Clause 10, reads:
"In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say … 'police area,' 'police authority' and 'chief officer of police,' have the same meanings respectively as in the Police Pensions Act, 1921;"
If you read Clause 7 further, you see:
"(a) in the case of the authority for the metropolitan police district, to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis;"
My question is, who is the authority? I do not see how the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis is going to delegate to himself.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I have been caught there, because I am afraid I have not had notice of that question; but I will have it looked into and see whether it can be made clearer at a later stage. I am very sorry that I cannot answer now. Perhaps the Home Office can explain.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Is not the police authority for the Metropolitan area the Home Secretary?
LORD JESSEL: Then this is another flagrant example of legislation by reference. Why it could not have been put in, I do not see.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Interpretation]:
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: The first Amendment to this clause is purely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 3, leave out from ("collection") to the end of line 7 and insert ("all money and all other property given, whether for consideration or not, in response to the appeal made").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: The next also is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 11, leave out ("has a corresponding meaning") and insert ("and 'promotion' have corresponding meanings").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.19 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to enable the Post Office to borrow the capital it requires to continue the essential work of developing its postal, telegraph and telephone systems. From the point of view of the Bill the last-named is the most important; it accounts for £36,200,000 out of the total of £40,000,000. The postal service, though vast, does not call for high capital expenditure; it requires about £3,400,000 of the total. The remaining £400,000 is for telegraphs. Borrowing powers were last sought in 1937, and the £35,000,000 which was authorised by that Bill is likely to meet requirements until next August, which is very close to our estimate at the time. The present Bill seeks authority for a rather larger amount, and the present indications are that even the larger amount will not meet requirements beyond March, 1941. The estimated capital expenditure for the current year is about £24,000,000. The need for additional capital is explained partly by the natural expansion of the telephone service, which is now growing at a rate nearly three times that of five years ago, and partly by the very extensive requirements of the Defence and A.R.P. Departments. The process of converting to automatic is proceeding apace, and the trunk network is being improved and extended. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Fortesque.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MARRIAGE BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

WHEAT (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 8 [Provisions as to substances treated as destined for livestock]:
4.22 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): My Lords, the Amendments which stand in my name in respect of Clause 8 are all drafting Amendments, designed to simplify the wording of the clause as far as possible, and therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I will move them en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 31, after ("used") insert ("only")
Page 10, line 32, leave out from ("material") to the end of line 34, and insert ("in the production of goods to be so used and of such goods only")
Page 10, line 41, leave out from ("goods") to ("has") in line 1 on page 11, and insert ("in the production of which that substance or a part thereof has been used as material")
Page 11, line 2, leave out ("such")
Page 11, line 28, after ("thereof") insert ("only")
Page 11, line 29, leave out from ("material") to the end of line 30, and insert ("in the production of goods so used and of such goods only").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 30:
Interpretation.
30.—(1) In the Wheat Acts, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, that is to say:—
"Milling" has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (5) of Section four of this Act, and "miller" means a person who produces flour in the United Kingdom by way of trade;
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, my Amendment in the definition of "miller," is designed to make it clear that the term "miller" includes a man who uses all the flour which he mills in the production of some other article, as, for example, in the baking of bread. It is a machinery Amendment, and it is unnecessary for me to take up your Lordships' time by explaining it further.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 21, leave out ("by way of trade") and insert ("for the purposes of a trade in flour or in goods in the manufacture of which flour is used").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

CIVIL DEFENCE BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2 [Designation of premises]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I do not propose to move the Amendments standing in my name to Clause 2.
Clause 4 [Execution of works]:
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the Amendment in my name is really a drafting Amendment to deal with a point raised during the Committee stage by Lord Bertie of Thame, that provision should be made in this and other clauses for the abandonment of an appeal. I think it meets my noble friend, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 20, after ("determination") insert ("or abandonment").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Designated premises to remain unaltered]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I do not move my first Amendment to this clause, but the second Amendment, which is to leave out "they" in line 17 and insert "it," I do move. The object of all my Amendments is to try and make the Bill as consistent as possible. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 17, leave out ("they") and insert ("it").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Compensation where works are executed.
(2) Where by reason of the execution aforesaid of any works, the usefulness of any premises, building or land is impaired, the local authority shall by way of compensation pay to the person who from time to time is the occupier of the premises, building or land, periodical sums, payable quarterly in arrear, calculated by reference to the diminution of the annual value of the premises, building or land, as the case may be, ascribable to the said impairment of the usefulness thereof.
4.27 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "or at the option of the occupier by reference to the trading losses incurred by him by reason of such impairment." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of my Amendment is to draw attention to the very serious dislocation of trade which will inevitably happen if the provisions of the Bill are carried out as they stand at present. I do not believe your Lordships are aware of the very serious state of affairs which will occur. The position will be that the local authority will be in a position to designate any premises, within certain areas, that they think fit, subject to appeal to the Minister. After a short interval for possible appeal, the local authority can cause to be carried out in these premises various works, and it is in these works that the very great trouble occurs. There is a pamphlet called "The Code," which is being followed out with respect to the provision of air-raid shelters, and in this code, if a shelter is required for more than 200 people, the premises have to be divided up into small areas, not temporarily with sandbags or some other

943
such means, but by brick or concrete walls, 13½ or 12 inches thick, of a permanent nature. It must be obvious to your Lordships that this is bound to interfere very seriously with the normal use of these premises. In many cases it will have the effect of stopping trade altogether.
The premises will have to be closed to their normal use. Trade will be lost, and good will, and more important than that, it will entail the dismissal of large numbers of employees. The large establishments are particularly affected. The small establishments, where one man has built up the trade on which he is dependent for his livelihood, will go altogether, and the entire livelihood of the occupier and of the staff which he employs will go. These are not exaggerations. I shall no doubt be accused of painting a very gloomy picture, but what I have described will actually happen in many places if the provisions of the code are carried out. I fully realise that every person in the country is called upon to make sacrifices, and obligations are put on everyone under this Bill. I venture to say that if war broke out even the very drastic obligation which is imposed on occupiers and traders would be faced, because it would be a case of necessity. But these obligations and this compulsory sacrifice on the part of all occupiers may come into effect almost at once. Within three or four weeks of the passing of this Bill it will be possible for local authorities, with the approval of the Minister, to take premises and to divide them up in a permanent manner, in such a way as completely to ruin the normal use of those premises.
Then there is the question of compensation. The compensation under the Bill is calculated by reference to the diminution of the annual value of the premises. I take it that that means in many cases that the occupier will get a portion of his rent back; but the amount of rent paid for his premises has very little relation to the actual loss which an occupier would be called upon to bear. The Amendment suggests that in computing any compensation the actual loss which has been compulsorily imposed on a man should be taken into consideration. My only desire in moving this Amendment is to try to modify an extremely disturbing
944
and anxious position. It may not be the best way of dealing with the situation. I should not have thought it was beyond the capacity of the experts at the Home Office to give some kind of instruction to the effect that in time of peace the normal use of premises should be interfered with as little as possible. I should have thought that an authority could, during peace time, only require the execution of such works as would not interfere with the normal use of the building, and that it would be possible to arrange for further work to be completed—necessarily in a hurry—to carry out the full scheme when war broke out, if there was sufficient warning. I am perfectly certain I can speak for the occupiers who are so deeply concerned about this matter, when I say that they would co-operate willingly. If they were allowed the normal use of their buildings in peace time, they would help in every way possible to get the final alterations done in time of war. I do not know whether the Government are prepared to give a definite declaration on that point. If they were prepared to consider it, and there was any hope of their giving a promise that these alterations of premises would not be insisted on in peace time, to the injury of the trade done in them, I should be content.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 41, at end insert ("or at the option of the occupier by reference to the trading losses incurred by him by reason of such impairment").—(Lord Chesham.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, the whole position of compensation under this Bill is, I think, extremely obscure. I endeavoured on the Committee stage to get it clarified, I think with some success in certain directions, but it remains very obscure. The point that has been raised by my noble friend Lord Chesham is one of considerable importance, and for this reason. The impositions under this Bill—if I may use the word—are not of the same nature as taxation which is spread evenly over the whole community, because it is only those premises which are considered suitable as air-raid shelters on which this imposition of interference with their ordinary trade will be placed. Indeed, it may well be that it will be those premises which are the more substantially built which will be so used, whereas the indifferent buildings will escape scot-free, and the occupiers

945
will benefit by the fact that their neighbours, and possibly their rivals, are having their business interfered with, to their own benefit—as well as their own safety—in the event of war. I hope therefore that the Government may consider this Amendment favourably, with a view to endeavouring so far as possible to spread the burden evenly over all persons, instead of putting it on a few individual firms.
THE EARL OF CARRICK: My Lords, in supporting this Amendment, may I say that I, too, cannot believe that your Lordships have fully realised the dislocation that may be caused? I have had cases brought to my notice in which, as a result of this provision, traders might have to go out of business entirely, the reason being that their business is conducted almost entirely in the basements. If these permanent alterations had to be made to their premises, it would mean that they might have to move their business to another part of the town or to another part of the country. That, however, is a minor point. There are some big stores which must have large spaces for the purpose of trading floors, or selling space. What would happen to a store of this nature if partitions of a permanent character were put all through the basements? It would mean the dismissal of a great many of the staff, and a very large loss of trade. Cannot this be avoided? Could not the local authorities be given instructions to designate buildings for the purpose of public shelters the normal trade of which would not be interfered with? I submit that that could be done.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I regret that this is an Amendment which it is really impossible for the Government to accept. I will endeavour to prove to your Lordships quite clearly what in fact the Amendment proposes to do. It is perfectly true that under subsection (2) of Clause 6 it is provided that where these works are executed, compensation is payable to the occupier on the basis of the diminution of the annual value of the premises. The terms of that subsection were settled after very close and careful consideration, and we believe we have now, in this clause, provided a method of compensation which is both reasonable and equitable and on a workable basis. What would happen if we
946
were to accept this Amendment? At once it must give rise to all sorts of doubts and uncertainties as to whether an individual would like to be compensated on the diminution of the annual value of the premises or whether he should be compensated by reference to his trading losses incurred by reason of such impairment.
It strikes me at once that if these works were undertaken by the local authority, during the first year no difference at all might be made in the profit of that small firm, but the second year might be totally different. It might be a time of stress and difficulty, and the turnover of that small man's business might drop very considerably. He would then be able to turn round to the local authority and say: "Now I want to be compensated the other way because I have lost a certain amount of money this year, and it is by reason of such impairment." I can picture considerable legal difficulties arising which might involve very considerable cost, and would not be fair either to the local authority or the small trader. My noble friend Lord Chesham, in moving the Amendment, suggested that a certain number of walls might be erected as partition walls. As the clause stands at the moment, if that were done, the local authority would obviously have to pay more compensation for putting up a permanent structure than they would if such a permanent structure were not in existence. As to whether instructions could be given to the local authorities to do as little as possible in times of peace—that is something which cannot be entertained for a moment. I hope for the reasons I have given that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, which is one that I believe to be absolutely unworkable both by the local authority and the small trader to whom reference has been made.
LORD JESSEL: Might I ask if there is any elasticity in the regulations? The noble Lord who introduced the Amendment said there was a rigid code. As far as I can understand from the noble Earl's reply, the local authority has a certain amount of discretion in the matter of the thickness of walls and partitions.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I cannot tell the noble Lord whether there is a definite standard or how thick or thin the walls should be. I believe the noble

947
Lord was not present at the Second Reading, and I can only say I explained the full purpose of the clause on that occasion.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not want to press the Amendment because I do not think it would be any good doing so. As regards the code question, it is laid down—I have it in front of me now—that where these partitions are made the dividing wall shall be not less than 12 inches thick in reinforced concrete nor less than 13½ inches thick in brickwork or masonry. That is not a matter of temporary sandbags or other work. I wish seriously that the Government were able to scratch their heads and see if they cannot do something about this matter. It is one which might become a matter of grave concern, because it is going to affect the trade of this country very much indeed. I am very sorry the Government cannot offer any hope on this point, and I see no object in pressing the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7:
Powers of local authorities to construct underground shelters and other premises required for civil defence purposes.
(6) The powers conferred on local authorities by this section shall be exercisable notwithstanding anything in any Act (including a Local or Private Act) but shall not be exercisable with respect to any land occupied by public utility undertakers for the purposes of their undertaking and, as respects any other land, shall be exercisable subject to the following conditions:—
4.45 p.m.
LORD CARNOCK LORD CARNOCK had on the Paper several Amendments to subsection (6), the first being, after "undertakers," to insert "or persons carrying on any hydraulic power undertaking." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very simple Amendment, and I understand that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill is going to accept it. Hydraulic power companies, of which there are two operating in this country—one in Liverpool and the other in London—are statutory undertakings which are really in the same position as electricity, gas, or other public undertakings. They produce water power which is used for working dock gates, cranes, and so on, and also for pumping up water at high pressure in case of fire. They are asking that they
948
may be put on exactly the same footing as the other statutory undertakings. For the convenience of the House I would ask leave to move this and the other Amendments in the same sense en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 8, line 18, after ("undertakers") insert ("or persons carrying on any hydraulic power undertaking")
Page 8, line 23, after ("undertakers") insert ("or persons")
Page 8, line 24, after ("undertakers") insert ("or persons")
Page 8, line 26, after ("undertakers") insert ("or persons")
Page 8, line 35, after ("undertakers") insert ("or persons")
Page 8, line 40, after ("undertakers") insert ("or persons").—(Lord Carnock.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the Government are perfectly prepared to accept these Amendments.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 8:
Powers of local authorities to construct underground car parks suitable for use as air-raid shelters.
8.—(1) A local authority who have power under Section sixty-eight of the Public Health Act, 1925, or under Section twenty of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, to provide parking places may, for the purpose of providing underground parking places suitable also for use as air-raid shelters, exercise the like powers as are exercisable by local authorities under the last preceding section for the purposes therein mentioned, subject, however, to the following provisions of this section.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection 2 (1), after "mentioned," to insert "and the last preceding section shall have effect accordingly." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is to implement a promise I gave to Lord Phillimore on the Committee stage of the Bill. I explained then what I should be prepared to do for my noble friend and I have endeavoured to carry that into effect.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 19, after ("mentioned"), insert the said words.—(The Earl of Munster).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert
"Provided that in exercising the powers under this section the local authorities shall so far as is reasonably practicable in the interests of civil defence have regard to the amenities of any protected square or land held inalienably by the National Trust."

949
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on the Committee stage of the Bill I put forward an Amendment designed to extract from His Majesty's Government some explanation of the way in which compensation would be paid and whether it was adequate. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in many respects succeeded in convincing me that as far as compensation was concerned it was reasonably adequate. There are certain questions which will arise on an Amendment to be moved later by Lord Gorell; but in the course of the debate on my Amendment I mentioned something in connection with amenity, and the noble and learned Lord said:
"There are matters of amenity. We are all troubled in that way. We all shall have to suffer."
In the course of my remarks I referred to a certain square in London, with the fate of which I was rather closely concerned. That square is Charterhouse Square, which lies in the area somewhere between Smithfield Market and the Clerkenwell Road. That is an area not noted for its intrinsic beauty, nor is it noted for the number or extent of its open spaces. Indeed, Charterhouse Square is an oasis in a desert of bricks and mortar. Since the Committee stage I have learned more of the proposals of the local authority with regard to that square. They propose to make use of the subsoil of the square for the purpose of a shelter which can be used as a car park under Clauses 7 and 8 of this Bill, and it is, I think, more than probable that almost the fist thing they will do in that case will be to destroy the trees that are in that square. The trees are very old and really beautiful trees, and it would destroy the whole character of the square and of that district if they were destroyed. It must be realised that when it comes to the question of shelters against air raids it is probable in the more congested districts where open spaces and squares are far between, that it is on those open spaces covetous eyes will be cast by the local authority with a view to finding somewhere where they can make shelters for their people.
One has also to bear in mind—and this is well known to many of your Lordships—that a Bill of this nature seems to produce in local authorities a certain sort of exaltation of mind which makes
950
them quite blind not only to financial questions but also to all questions of the convenience of the public other than the particular job that they have in mind. Although I have quoted to your Lordships Charterhouse Square as a case in point, I think there must be many other similar cases, more particularly in the congested districts, where the amenity value is of great importance, and it would be a great pity to destroy such amenity if it is unnecessary. If you look at the Amendment you will see that the necessity is quite carefully safeguarded in it, because it says, "so far as is reasonably practicable in the interests of civil defence." That is to say, if it is necessary in the interests of civil defence then the amenity must go by the board. But I do want to get somewhere into this Bill something which will give pause to the local authority, and indeed to the Government themselves, before they think of destroying amenities which have been in existence in many cases for hundreds of years, and which, once destroyed, will be very difficult to replace.
It is true that such things happened during the Great War, and we agreed to them, but we are not now at war, and perhaps by taking a little thought in many of these cases local authorities may be able to find somewhere other than in the open spaces, which are so valuable, the facilities for providing places of security for their people in their area. I do not think I need say much more. I am not entirely in love with the wording of the Amendment, and I am not certain that it has been set down to be put into the Bill in the right place; but if His Majesty's Government would be willing to agree at the next stage to put in something which will draw the attention of the authorities to the necessity at least of considering the amenity before they take any final step, it would satisfy me.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 20, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not know if my noble friend in charge of the Bill will allow me to say one word before he replies. I am very glad my noble friend Lord Radnor has moved this Amendment, because I think it is one of great importance and one which, if I may venture to say so, deserves the attention

951
of your Lordships and of the Government. My noble friend has instanced the case of Charterhouse Square. I also have the very great honour of being a Governor of the Charterhouse, and I am equally interested in this particular case. My noble friend was careful to say, and it ought to be said, that this Amendment is of general application, and applies not only to Charterhouse Square but to other squares and to the various areas that are under the National Trust. If I make a mistake my noble friend in charge of the Bill, who has shown himself such a master of it, will correct me. It is rather a remarkable thing, the difference between Clause 7 and Clause 8. I am quite aware that this is an emergency Bill, and that emergency Bills are drafted in a tremendous hurry, and that they very often contain rather strange provisions, which, if the Government had more time, would probably not appear in them. Clause 7 of this Bill is a clause which makes it possible for the local authority to erect shelters as a protection against air raids. That is the primary purpose of Clause 7. Clause 8 certainly also deals with that subject, but its primary purpose is to make car parks. Air-raid shelters are, of course, for the emergency, but car parks really have to do with the permanent law of this country. The object in constructing them is one that is to have effect not merely during a war, if there is to be a war, which God forbid! but always.
No doubt car parks are very much required, but this provision of car parks has really nothing to do with the emergency. Yet, strangely enough, the precautions to prevent mistakes are much more elaborate in Clause 7, which is for the emergency, than they are in Clause 8, which is to have permanent effect. That is very strange and I cannot help calling the attention of my noble friend in charge of the Bill to it. Surely the provision which has to deal with car parks primarily, not being so urgent, ought to be much more carefully guarded than the other clause which has had to be put down no doubt in a desperate hurry in order to meet the great national emergency in which we stand. Parenthetically, I may say that I know quite well that it is provided that the car parks would be useful for air-raid purposes. That is true, but their primary purpose is that of a car park. What precautions
952
are there? Surely precautions are necessary. Safeguards are necessary. These squares are the great pride of London, and of other parts of England also, but they are essentially the great pride of London. They make one of the great charms of London, and I may say that the case of Charterhouse Square is a notable example. I do not know if your Lordships ever had to go to the meat market, but if you do you know that there are many elements about that meat market which are not altogether pleasant to the senses—either the sense of sight or other senses—but there is just in the middle of it this beautiful oasis of Charterhouse Square, and it is in order to protect it, amongst other squares, and in order to protect also the places occupied by the National Trust, that we hope this Amendment may be inserted.
I venture to call my noble friend's attention to this fact also. All this is put into the hands directly of the local authority. The local authority have great difficulty in coming to a conclusion. They are called upon to act in a great emergency, and they are not extremely well equipped from the amenity point of view. Surely it is right that Parliament should give them some indication of what they are to bear in mind—not a mandatory provision, not a provision which they must obey and from which there is no escape, but some indication as to how they should treat these amenities, these squares for example. Are they to think of what the square will look like afterwards? Are they to think what will happen to the square if all the trees are cut down? I am not putting an imaginary case. I know quite well that that is suggested in certain quarters in the case of this very Charterhouse Square. All these beautiful trees which have grown for years are to be cut down. These places are for use primarily as car parks, and not primarily in the interests of air-raid protection. It seems to me important that there should be some indication of what Parliament desires.
If, after everything has been taken into consideration, it is found imperative in the national interest that the amenities of these squares and the places belonging to the National Trust should be fatally damaged, why it must be done, and there is no more to be said, but my noble friend has provided for that. I must say I think that in the interests of London and of other parts

953
of this country, and in the interests of the local authorities themselves, there should be some indication of how they are to interpret this measure. My noble friend has said most liberally that he does not adhere to the particular form of words which he has put down. I know that they were drafted, like many other things at this moment, in a great hurry, and it may well be that my noble friend in charge of the Bill may be able to improve them, but I do think the Government ought to consider the matter. Otherwise local authorities will not know what they are to do, and if there is an appeal—probably there will be an enormous number of appeals—the matter will have to be settled in a very hasty and precipitous manner. There should be some indication of what things are to be borne in mind in approving or not approving. If the Amendment, or some other Amendment to the same effect, is passed, it will not only help local authorities and the Government, but will save, I hope for many years, the amenities of this country.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I quite expected the Amendment of my noble friend the Earl of Radnor to receive a certain amount of support, but I hope I may be allowed with great respect to draw the attention of the noble Marquess to the fact that some of the remarks he made were quite inaccurate. Let me see if I can give your Lordships some idea of what is proposed under Clauses 7 and 8. Your Lordships should keep in mind that we assume—and I think we can quite rightly assume—that local authorities in carrying out their responsibilities under this clause will act reasonably and will not deliberately spoil the amenities of their own localities except where the public interest really demands it. Under Clause 8 if there is any proposal to construct an underground car park—which underground car park must be suitable for use as an air-raid shelter—the intention of the local authority, as your Lordships will observe in subsection (3) (a), must be published by advertisement in a newspaper circulating in the authority's area. The local authority must also give notice to the Minister and to the Minister of Transport. Then the Minister of Transport may hold an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining whether the proposed underground car park is or is not suitable for use as an air-raid shelter. I submit that when that inquiry is held,
954
those persons who have objected to the underground car park will be the first people who will appear before the inquiry and say that the local authority are proposing to destroy or damage the amenities of the neighbourhood.
But that is not the end. There is a further protection contained in subsection (5) on page 10 of the Bill. The local authority, even after obtaining the approval of the Ministry of Transport, may not proceed to make the underground car park unless the Lord Privy Seal—who is the Minister in this case—has actually satisfied himself that the underground car park will be suitable for use as an air-raid shelter. When I saw this Amendment on the Paper in the name of my noble friend my heart instantly went out in sympathy for it and him, but I must urge that it would be illogical at this stage to put in Clause 8 a provision of this nature and to leave it out of Clause 7. In Clause 7 the noble Marquess will see that powers of objection are given in respect of protected squares, allotments and land held by the National Trust. That is on page 7 of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is what I said.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: But the noble Marquess will observe that under Clause 7 they are protected. National Trust land is protected quite clearly. Clause 8 does not deal with National Trust lands. Presumably no underground car park would be provided under lands belonging to the National Trust.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Under Clause 7 public squares are protected, but those words do not reappear in Clause 8.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I said that public squares and land belonging to the National Trust are protected under Clause 7, which deals with the powers of local authorities to construct underground shelters and other premises required for civil defence purposes. Clause 8 deals with the question of the powers of local authorities to construct underground car parks suitable for use as air-raid shelters.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I cannot understand why the same provisions that are in Clause 7 are not in Clause 8.

955
If they were that would simplify the matter. There can be no harm in adding to Clause 8 the provisions which are in Clause 7. To say that you must not destroy an old square with trees in London in order to make an air-raid shelter, but that you may do it to make an underground car park, is ridiculous. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill refers us to the protection of local authorities—
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: May I interrupt the noble Lord? What he is talking about has nothing to do with the Amendment. It is something quite different, that powers should be enacted in Clause 8 protecting squares and National Trust property.
LORD HARLECH: The words of the Amendment may not be right, but I do ask the Government to bring forward an Amendment to make it clear that the same provisions apply to National Trust land. There should be no distinction. The noble Earl said you can always rely on the local authorities. I can assure him, from my five years' experience as First Commissioner of Works, that in attempting to protect ancient monuments the worst vandals I came across in the whole country were not private landlords but local authorities.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I think my noble friend who replied so eloquently to the noble Marquess has made out an extremely good case for including the Amendment in Clause 8. After all, what has he said? He has said that if a local authority is going to make a car park we may be quite sure that the local authority will be extraordinarily reasonable and careful to observe the amenities of any important public square; though incidentally, in parentheses, he observed that it was quite inconceivable that a local authority would ever construct a car park underneath a national monument.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: No; I did not say that.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I certainly understood him to say so, and I think in fact he did. I am glad he withdraws that, because I understand that it is a definite—I will not say risk, but it may be a quite proper thing to do, if it is done with due regard to the ameni-
956
ties, to construct a car park underneath Charterhouse Square. But what he has said is that we may be quite sure that, in deciding how to construct a car park, the local authority will be most careful of the natural amenities, and if it is not, the Minister of Transport will be very careful about them.
I have the greatest respect for successive Ministers of Transport and for the efforts which they have made, not altogether with complete success, to protect the public against motor cars, but their best friends could not accuse them of having improved the beauties and the amenities either of the countryside or of the town sites. I should be extremely sorry to see the fine arts of this country entrusted to the undivided trusteeship of a Minister of Transport, whose interests quite naturally—it is a perfectly natural thing—lie in other directions. No doubt my noble friend will say that my interest at one time was to build aerodromes and that I was not very careful about the countryside; although the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, has been good enough to pay a tribute to the aerodromes and say we built them rather nicely when we did build them. But quite naturally a Government Department, whether that of the Minister of Transport or of the Lord Privy Seal, whose job is to get shelters built as quickly as possible, will first carry out its duty of fulfilling the primary purpose which falls upon it of building shelters. But it does not rest there. My noble friend says that all the authorities concerned will have particular regard to the amenities of national monuments and public spaces. Why should they have regard to them unless it is put in the Bill that that is one of the things they have to consider? It is put into Clause 7 but it is not put into Clause 8; in fact it is, by implication and in terms, excluded in subsection (6).
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In terms, yes.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The protection which is laid down by Clause 7 is taken away by Clause 8, and the very fact that we have debated this matter here, that this proposal is being made and, if the Government reject it, is rejected, is an indication to all the authorities concerned that what they have to be particular about is only getting the shelter erected and not the other matter. I

957
should not be supporting this Amendment if I thought that it was going to militate at all against passive defence, but I do not think it will do so in the least. We are all satisfied with Clause 7, and Clause 7 is the clause under which rapid action is taken—the quick construction of air-raid shelters. Clause 8, this power to go and erect these enormous car parks—of which I think hardly any have been erected at all up to the present, although I dare say money was available—is a power which cannot be exercised quickly as an emergency measure. This is an enormous piece of underground construction, for which the local authority have to consider a great many difficult engineering problems before they can set to work at all. It is quite sensible—I have advocated it myself—that when you are constructing an underground car park you should make it rather deeper, fortified and so on—I mean fortified in the sense that it provides adequate protection—because then you are, I will not say killing two birds with one stone, but protecting two birds with one shelter. That is all very sensible, but this being a long-term policy of building car parks is all the more reason why you should give instructions to the local authorities and the Ministers that they should take the national monuments into due regard, and I very much hope the Government will do so.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, if I might have been privileged to interrupt my noble friend while he was speaking, I could have saved him a long discussion by telling him that naturally, if your Lordships think that the Government should accept this suggestion, we are perfectly prepared to accept an Amendment of this character. Perhaps my noble friend behind me would be good enough to withdraw his words on an undertaking from me that either myself or my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will bring up words to meet his point on the next stage of the Bill.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am most grateful to the Government for that assurance, and I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Power of local authorities to construct air-raid shelters in streets]:
5.15 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My Lords, the Amendment on page 11, line 21, and the four following Amendments are, I understand, consequential.
LORD CARNOCK: My Lords, these Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 21, after first ("undertakers") insert ("or persons carrying on any hydraulic power undertaking")
Page 11, line 21, after second ("undertakers") insert ("or persons")
Page 11, line 23, after ("undertakers") insert ("or persons")
Page 11, line 30, after ("undertakers") insert ("or persons")
Page 11, line 35, after ("undertakers") insert ("or persons")—(Lord Carnock).
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 15 [Power of occupier or owner to execute works]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 23, leave out ("adjacent to the mine or building to which the estate or interest of the owner extends") and insert ("appurtenant to the mine or building").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Power of factory inspector, mines inspector or local authority to require provision of air-raid shelter]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I understand that my noble friend is prepared to accept the Amendment in my name, and I am grateful to him. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 2, after ("thinks") insert ("or think").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, my Amendment is consequential upon an earlier Amendment which I moved to meet the wishes of my noble friend Lord Bertie.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 13, after ("determination") insert ("or abandonment").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Appeals]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 25, after ("determination") insert ("or abandonment").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Special provisions as to commercial buildings when owner does not occupy the whole building]:
LORD GORELL: My Lords, since the Amendment in my name was placed on the Paper there has appeared a new clause in the name of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to be inserted after Clause 66. On the understanding that that clause is to be inserted there will be no need for me to move this new subsection; but if that new clause be not inserted, then I would reserve the right to move this Amendment on Third Reading.
Clause 22:
Exchequer grants in respect of provision of air-raid shelter in factory premises, mines, commercial buildings, etc.
22.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to every occupier of factory premises and to every owner of a mine or commercial building who provides or secures the provision of air-raid shelter of the approved standard for all or any of the persons working or living in the factory premises, working in or about the mine, or working of living in the commercial building, as the case may be, a grant equal to the appropriate proportion of so much of the expenses of a capital nature incurred by him in providing or securing the provision of the shelter as the Minister considers reasonable.
5.18 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "building," where that word first occurs, to insert "or building to which Section thirty of this Act applies." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to get the owners of blocks of flats or houses which have been converted into flats into line with commercial buildings or office buildings. I am not at all sure that it is not an oversight which ought to be rectified. The absence of such provision from this Bill may be due to the fact that in the first draft it was provided that air-raid shelters would only have to be built for blocks of flats on agreement between the owners and the tenants. In another place, however, it
960
was made compulsory on an owner of a block of flats, if 51 per cent. in number of his tenants insisted on it, to provide this shelter. I do not see why such an invidious distinction should be drawn between the owner of residential flats and the owner of a block of offices. The owner of a block of offices, commercial buildings or factories is entitled to a grant of 27½ per cent. on the cost of the air-raid shelter, as was mentioned at considerable length by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack the other day on the Second Reading. The owner of a block of flats, however, although he is now equally compelled, at the request of 51 per cent. of the tenants, to build an air-raid shelter, is not entitled to that grant. I do not know if there is any reason why this distinction should be drawn. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 32, after ("building") insert ("or buildings to which Section thirty of this Act applies").—(Lord Chesham.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I regret that this also is an Amendment which the Government are unable to accept. I am not sure if the intentions of my noble friend are quite clear to the House. He is perfectly correct in saying that under Clause 30, as it stands now, the owner of a block of flats is obliged to build air-raid shelters for the occupiers of these flats if the majority of those occupiers so demand. It has always been our policy that certain classes of persons who do not get free Government shelters should, in fact, provide their own shelter. If we were to accept this Amendment, the first objection to it would be that a grant of 27½ per cent. would be paid by the local authorities, through the Exchequer, to the owners of the flats, who under Clause 30 are enabled to increase the rents of the occupiers. Therefore it appears quite clearly that not only would the owner of a block of flats be eligible to charge additional rents to the occupiers, but he would also be eligible to receive at the same time a grant of 27½ per cent. from the local authority or the Exchequer. I might add that if the Amendment were accepted it would be outside the Money Resolution of the House of Commons. I understand that in those circumstances a further Money Resolution would have to be moved, before the Bill receives the Royal Assent, and I very much doubt whether sufficient

961
time could be found in the other House to move an additional Money Resolution on a matter which I understand had been accepted by your Lordships' House during the Committee stage of the Bill.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: May I ask whether, supposing a block of buildings is occupied half commercially and half privately, the whole block receives the 27½ per cent. or only the privately used part?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The answer to that is at the top of page 77 of the Bill.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am not quite satisfied with the answer of the noble Earl. A difference still exists between the owner of a block of offices and the owner of a block of flats in respect of the grant, and I do not see why there is this distinction. In my opinion it should be the same in each case. I am not happy about it. I am not happy at being told that we cannot bring forward this Amendment because it would not be accepted in another place, and would not go through. I do not think it is just, and if there is anything unjust in this Bill I rather resent being told that we may not bring it forward because an Amendment will not be passed; but having been told that this will not be accepted, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Affixing of appliances provided by the Crown for strengthening basements]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
"Provided that if the local authority in executing works in or under any part of the highway cause any damage to any mains, pipes, apparatus or works belonging to public utility undertakers they shall repay to the undertakers the amount of the expenses reasonably incurred by them in making good the damage."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is moved in fulfilment of a promise that I gave to Lord Mersey, that we would bring words up on the Report stage to meet an Amendment which he moved in Committee I understand that the words meet with his approval, and that he is prepared to accept the Amendment. I am prepared to accept the Amendments to my Amendment standing in the name of Lord Carnock with one slight verbal alteration.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: I would like to thank the noble Earl on behalf of the Public Utilities Association for whom I speak for his Amendment, which meets their point.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 6, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD CARNOCK: I beg to move the Amendments to the Amendment in my name with the verbal alteration suggested by the noble Earl.
Amendments to the proposed Amendment moved—
Line 4, after ("undertakers") insert ("or persons carrying on any hydraulic power undertaking")
Line 5, after ("undertakers") insert ("or persons").—(Lord Carnock.)
On Question, Amendments to the proposed Amendment agreed to, and, on Question, original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30:
Provision of air-raid shelter in certain buildings.
(6) The said increase shall be calculated as follows:—
(e) the increase in rent shall be at the annual rate of one-tenth of the sum arrived at under paragraph (d).
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The first is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 36, leave out ("any part of").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next is consequential on the previous Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 40, leave out ("that part of the premises") and insert ("the premises in which the shelter is to be provided").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This also is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 31, leave out ("part of the").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved, in subsection (6), paragraph (e), to leave out "one-tenth" and insert "one-eighth." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships no doubt will remember that in Committee on the Bill there was quite a lengthy discussion on this clause, and I had the honour to move a number of Amendments designed to give effect to what I think was the intention of the Government, which did not seem to be in fact carried out. One felt sure it was not intended by the Government that the larger the amount imposed for expenditure on the shelter, the larger would be the tax levied under Schedule A—which still seems to be the effect of the Bill as it stands. On the Committee stage I sought to remedy that by altering in various places the word "rent," but it was pointed out that difficulties arose in that method, and a much simpler method of arriving at a just result would be by altering "one-tenth" to "one-eighth." I am given to understand that that is not disagreeable to the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 5, leave out ("one-tenth") and insert ("one-eighth").—(Lord Gorell.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Gorell has explained the intention of his Amendment, and the Government are prepared to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 30, to insert the following clause:
Special provisions as to land used in common by tenants of certain buildings.
".—(1) If, in the case of any building or block of buildings to which this section applies, there is adjacent thereto any land used in common by the occupiers of the building or block, a request in writing signed by more than one-half in number of the occupiers of the separate parts of the building or block that the local authority should utilise that land for the construction or erection of an air-raid shelter shall confer upon the local authority the like rights as respects entry upon the land and the execution of works thereon as they would possess if the request had been and continued to be concurred in by all persons in any way interested in the land.
(2) In this section the expression 'building or block of buildings to which this section applies' means a building or block of buildings which is situated in an area specified in an order made by the Minister under Part III of this Act, is wholly or mainly used for residential purposes and is let out in separate parts:
Provided that—

(a) so much of any building or block of buildings as consists of, or is comprised in, any factory premises or commercial building shall be disregarded;

(b) the said expression does not include any building or block of buildings the owner of which may be required to provide air-raid shelter in accordance with a scheme prepared under the last preceding section."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this clause, although it may look very formidable, is in fact purely a machinery clause. Unless any noble Lord desires an explanation of it I would ask leave formally to move it.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 30 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Execution of works by owner of dwelling-house]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the Amendment to this clause is one which was suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, and he will recollect that we promised to leave this point to be dealt with on the Report stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 19, leave out ("had effect as from") and insert ("come into operation on").—(The Earl of Munster.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble friend for having made the matter clear.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42:
General duty as to factories, mines and public utility undertakings.
42.—(1) It shall be the duty of the occupier of any factory premises, of the owner of any mine and of the persons carrying on any public utility undertaking to take forthwith any necessary measures to secure that in the event of war, throughout any period of darkness—

(a) no light is allowed to appear from within any building on the premises, or used for the purposes of the mine or undertaking; and

(b) no lights not within a building remain alight, unless they are essential for the conduct of work of national importance, are adequately shaded, are reduced in power and, save where the Minister otherwise directs, are capable of instant extinction at any time.

5.34 p.m.
LORD MARLEY LORD MARLEY moved, in subsection (1), at the end of paragraph (b), to insert "and materials used for window blinds, curtains, screens or otherwise shall be of a non-inflammable character." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is down on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi and I desire to move it. I am not sure that it is in the right place, but I feel certain it is a useful Amendment. Under the Police Regulations for screening of lights, the advice is that in selecting the material to be used the governing factor should be, among others, non-inflammability, and the intention behind the modification which my noble friend proposes is that compensation should only be paid to those who use non-inflammable materials for the purpose of screening lights, and not, as recommended by the Police, Holland cloth, Italian cloth, rubberised cloth or black or thick dark brown paper, which would appear to be undesirable. I hope the noble Earl will accept the principle of this Amendment and put in something along these lines in the appropriate part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 40, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Marley.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I am afraid that the Government cannot accept this Amendment, if for no other reason than that it is requiring the people who are mentioned in Clause 42 to provide materials for shading windows, skylights and doors in the event of war, when there is no grant from public or local funds to any person who provides such screening. At the same time, I am advised that to obtain these materials of a non-inflammable character would double, and in some cases treble, the cost to those persons who had to provide materials for covering big windows or big skylights. The Lord Privy Seal has issued a small booklet dealing with this question, and in it he has made quite clear what are the suitable materials that can at the moment be bought by the public for shading windows and skylights. Perhaps I might read the appropriate extract. After enumerating the materials the noble Lord has read, he adds:
"These are produced in many different qualities, and, in selecting the materials to
966
be used, the governing factors should be durability, permanence of dye and opacity, resistance to heat and damp, mechanical strength, non-inflammability…"
I understand that there is, in fact, material which is of a non-inflammable nature, and which of course anyone is at liberty to buy, but the Government feel that we cannot state in the Bill that this particular non-inflammable material must be provided, and no other.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (b), to insert:
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any light exhibited solely in the interests of navigation."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think this Amendment explains itself.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 40, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Duties of local authorities]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 3, leave out ("its") and insert ("their").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, we accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Financial Provisions]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 19, leave out ("which executes") and insert ("who execute").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, we accept this Amendment also.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Powers conferred by this Part to be in substitution for powers under the Act of 1937]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, we accept an Amendment down on the Paper in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 18, leave out ("makes") and insert ("make").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Evacuation of civil population]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, we accept the two Amendments down in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 54, line 33, leave out ("its") and insert ("their").
Page 55, line 2, leave out ("it") and insert ("them").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, before Clause 55 is taken—
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: We have taken it.
LORD PHILLIMORE: May I have the leave of the House?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: There is no Motion before the House that the clause stand part.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Considerable debate on this point took place, and the attention of the House should be drawn to a statement by the Minister of Health in another place, in which he said, in answer to an inquiry as to what arrangements had been made to compensate owners in reception areas for damage done—
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: May I ask what is the Motion before your Lordships' House?
LORD PHILLIMORE: May I ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill if he has any statement to make on this?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I have not any statement to make. It is the first I have heard of it, and at the same time the noble Lord is absolutely out of order.
Clause 64 [Powers of bodies corporate as to measures against hostile attack]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: There is a drafting Amendment here. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 24, after ("be") insert ("authorised or").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 64, to insert the following new clause:
Extension of borrowing powers of trustees, etc.
"(1) The provision of air-raid shelter shall be deemed to be an improvement authorised by the Settled Land Act, 1925, and mentioned in Part II of the Third Schedule to that Act.
(2) Any liquidator, trustee in bankruptcy or receiver shall, in addition to any other powers in that behalf, have the like powers in relation to the provision of air-raid shelter as are conferred on trustees by subsection (1) of this section."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this clause is to eliminate any doubt as to the powers of trustees of land, and other persons having fiduciary powers of management affecting land, in relation to the provision of air-raid shelter. Subsection (1) deals with the ordinary case of trustees under wills and settlements. The effect of the provision is twofold. In the first place, by the inclusion of "the provision of air-raid shelter" among the improvements authorised by the Settled Land Act, 1925, trustees are authorised to apply for the purpose capital moneys arising under the settlement and to borrow money for the purpose on the security of the settled land. In the second place, by attracting Part II of the Third Schedule to the Settled Land Act, the subsection enables the trustees of the settlement or the Court to require in proper cases that the cost of the provision of air-raid shelter is to be recouped by instalments out of income. Subsection (2) confers, by reference to subsection (1), similar powers of applying money in hand and of raising money by mortgage, upon certain persons whose position is analogous to that of the trustees dealt with under subsection (1). I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that on the Third Reading of the Bill I propose, with the permission of your Lordships, to move an Amendment to subsection (2) which will enlarge it considerably but will, in fact, make no alteration in substance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 64 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Property in equipment appliances and material provided by the Crown or local authorities]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 36, after ("Part II") insert ("or Part IV").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 66, to insert the following new clause:
Provision of air-raid shelter not to increase valuation for rating.
".Section one of the Rating and Valuation (Air-Raid Works) Act, 1938 (which provides for the relief of air-raid protection works from rates) shall, in relation to a hereditament forming part of a building, have effect as if any structural alterations or improvements made in the building or on land appurtenant to the building for the purpose of providing air-raid shelter were structural alterations or improvements to the hereditament, and in ascertaining the value for rating purposes of a hereditament under the principal Act (as defined in the said Section one) no regard shall be had to any increase in the rent thereof (whether made by virtue of this Act or not) which is attributable to the provision of air-raid shelter for persons living or working in the hereditament."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not know if the House will require any long explanation of this clause. Your Lordships will recollect that we discussed something similar to this on the Committee stage of the Bill, and my noble friend the Lord Chancellor informed Lord Gorell that he would be prepared to examine the points he had raised and bring up a new Amendment at a later stage. Unless your Lordships desire an explanation of this Amendment again, I formally beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 66 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 71:
Determination of claims to compensation and increases of rent.
(6) This section shall not apply to any compensation payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition or compulsory hiring of any land or in respect of personal injuries.
5.44 p.m.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved to leave out subsection (6). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not wish to appear ungrateful after the courteous treatment accorded to my former Amendment, and I must apologise for not having put down this Amendment on the Committee stage. But as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack himself said on the Committee stage, this Bill requires a lot of studying, and it is very easy to pass over some of the points. I have put down this Amendment to omit subsection (6) because it does not seem at all clear why that subsection is in the Bill. Is it the intention of His Majesty's Government that there should be no arbitration in such cases or even that there should be no compensation? I have been informed that it was intended that Clause 49, subsection (4), should apply to compensation in these cases, but if noble Lords will look at that subsection they will see it is strictly limited to a reference to Part VII of the Bill. Therefore, subject to any explanation which may be given, it would not appear that that clause applies to this Part of the Bill. I do not know whether any other clause or section of this rather difficult Bill does apply, but if it does not, it is desirable that it should be made to apply. I beg to move, and perhaps we may have some explanation why this subsection is included.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Gorell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should explain that the noble Earl who has been in charge of the Bill has now turned to me for the purpose of replying. It is from no lack of courtesy that the noble Earl is no longer in the House. With great respect to the noble Lord, Clause 71 provides for the settling of disputed claims for compensation in cases where compensation is payable under the Bill and not in other cases. No special provision is made for determining the amount. On the other hand, the compulsory acquisition of land, with which I shall deal separately, is governed by Section 5 of the Air-Raids Precautions Act, 1937, as amended by this Bill. The procedure there is based on the Local Government Act, 1933, and the Lands Clauses Acts, with which the noble Lord is well acquainted. The compensation is determined under these Acts by an official

971
arbitrator under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. It is not my fault that the scheme under which compensation is determined in connection with matters of this sort is somewhat complex, and proceeds from a number of Acts of Parliament. A similar procedure is intended to be applied under this Bill, if it becomes an Act, in the case of compulsory hiring of land under Clause 63 of the Bill. The answer therefore to the noble Lord is that there is no need to apply Clause 71 for these purposes, and in fact—I need not trouble your Lordships with details of it—this clause would in some respects be inappropriate.
So much for the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of land. There remains the question of compensation for personal injuries, but this subject is intended to be dealt with under Clause 68 of the Bill, the rubric of which is "Compensation in the event of injury to persons engaged in air-raid precautions activities." There is going to be a scheme which is to be made by the Treasury for the payment of moneys provided by Parliament. The scheme can be revoked or altered, and no doubt there will be special arrangements for the manner in which the compensation will be ascertained. In these circumstances I am unable, on behalf of the Government, to accept the proposed leaving out of subsection (6). In fact the matters which are excluded by that subsection are rightly excluded, and I hope in the circumstances the noble Lord will be content not to proceed with his Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, it is not easy to follow the noble and learned Lord when he mentions so many different Acts of Parliament affecting this matter, but if I understood him aright the effect of this really is that Clause 71 as a whole is only meant to deal with the questions of compensation which arise under this Bill. Therefore this subsection reads:
"This section shall not apply to any compensation payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition or compulsory hiring of any land or in respect of personal injuries"
because these matters are dealt with under different Acts of Parliament. I think I have got it clear. Now if we go back to Clauses 7 and 8 we find that there is a question in Clause 7, subsection (5), for instance, which also applies to Clause 8:
972
"The local authority shall pay to any person having an estate or interest in any land in which works are constructed under this section such compensation, if any, as may be just"
and so on. Surely that is a question of compensation arising under this Bill and not under any other Act of Parliament. I cannot see where the provision exists for arbitration in a case arising under Clauses 7 and 8.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid my explanation could not have been as clear as I had wished. I did not say that Clauses 7 and 8 would not deal with compulsory hiring of land. This subsection which Lord Gorell wishes to leave out excludes from the provisions of Clause 71, compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition or hiring of land. The compensation will be provided for under the sections which I have already wearied the noble Lord by enumerating.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I tried to explain my difficulty to the noble and learned Lord. It is this, that under Clauses 7 and 8 it is compensation which arises under this Bill. The various enactments which the noble and learned Lord has recited to us deal with questions of compensation which do not arise under this Bill as I understand it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with great respect, they are perfectly general. When I said "under this Bill," I meant literally under the Bill, and where compensation has to be assessed for the acquisition of land. Clause 71 deals with other cases than those.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I do not know whether I am still continuing my original remarks or whether I should ask your Lordships leave to continue, but at the beginning Clause 71 states: "Any question whether any, and if so what, compensation is payable under any of the provisions of this Act." Then at the end, it precludes any possibility of arbitration for compulsory acquisition. I think it needs a little clarifying, but if the noble and learned Lord can give me an assurance that there are or will be provisions in case of dispute for arbitration it would at least satisfy my argument. I do not know whether he would satisfy my noble friend Lord Gorell.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will give an undertaking to look into the matter and see if it can be made more clear. If you read Clause 71 you must also read subsection (6). That is what I think the noble Earl has not done, but I will certainly consider it.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, it does seem that the matter is one of great difficulty, and I, personally, find it hard to follow the rather elaborate explanation, but I think one obviously must be satisfied with the assurance of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that the omission of this subsection is not necessary and indeed would be detrimental to the purposes of the Bill. Therefore, with your Lordships' leave, I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 87:
Other provisions as to interpretation.
87.—(1) In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:—
"Lease" includes an agreement for a lease, if the term to be covered by the lease has begun, and any tenancy, and the expression "lessee" shall be construed accordingly;
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), in the definition of "lease," to insert "but does not include a mortgage." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment and the next Amendment is to leave out, so to speak, from an ordinary lease the case where a mortgage takes the form of a grant for a certain number of years. In some cases the mortgagee is not the lessee, and he may not be in the same position as the owner under the Bill. This matter has been carefully considered and these Amendments are intended to carry out the intention which I have stated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 11, after ("tenancy") insert ("but does not include a mortgage").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), at the end of the definition of "owner," to insert:
974
"Provided that where any estate or interest in any factory premises or commercial building is the subject of a mortgage and the mortgagee is in possession, that estate or interest shall be deemed for the purposes of this definition to be vested in the mortgagee."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this carries out the object which I have already stated. Where a mortgagee is in possession the estate shall be deemed to be vested in him so that he will be the person to carry out the various duties falling to be carried out by an owner under the provisions of this Bill. I do not think any further explanation is needed.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 34, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is connected with the one following on the Paper—after "gas" to insert "or water." They are drafting Amendments intended to give effect to the acceptance of the principle of the Amendment moved by Lord Phillimore in Committee to bring within the definition of "public utility undertakings" non-statutory water companies in addition to the non-statutory gas companies which are already included. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 8, leave out ("supply gas") and insert ("do so").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I put down these Amendments in Committee and I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for accepting this Amendment. If I may, I will also take this opportunity, as I was not in the House at the time, of thanking him for accepting the Amendment on Clause 8.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 9, after ("gas") insert ("or water").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 88 [Application to Scotland]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is really a

975
drafting Amendment, consequential on Amendments made earlier in the Bill. It is necessary for the application of those Amendments to Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 1, after ("lease,") insert ("'mortgage' means a heritable security and mortgagee' means the creditor in a heritable security").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved after subsection (12), to insert:
"(13) In Section thirty-one any reference to a building or block of buildings let out in separate parts shall include a reference to a building or block of buildings in which separate parts belong to different owners."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which is designed to make it quite clear that any reference to a building or block of buildings let out in separate parts shall include a reference to a building or block of buildings in which separate parts belong to different owners. It is purely drafting, but it clarifies the intention of the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 3, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (22), to insert the following new subsection:
("(23) For Section sixty-seven there shall be substituted the following section:—
'67. Section one of the Rating and Valuation (Air-Raid Works) (Scotland) Act, 1938, (which provides for relief from rates in respect of air-raid protection works in Scotland) shall, in relation to any lands and heritages forming part of a building, have effect as if any structural alterations or improvements made in the building or on land occupied or used with the building for the purpose of providing air-raid shelter were structural alterations or improvements to the lands and heritages, and in estimating any yearly rent or value of the lands and heritages for the purpose of valuation and rating no regard shall be had to any increase in the rent thereof (whether made by virtue of this Act or not) which is attributable to the provision of air-raid shelter for persons living or working in the lands and heritages'.")
The noble and learned Lord said: This again is a question of Scottish law. I am given to understand that the substitution of the proposed new section for Section 67 is one which takes full cognisance
976
of the differences between Scottish law and English law. There is, however, one word which requires correction in the Amendment as printed on the Paper. Eight lines from the bottom of the proposed Amendment your Lordships will see "and in estimating the yearly rental value." It is suggested to me that the proper form of the Amendment in the view of Scottish lawyers is that the word "any" should be substituted for "the." I therefore move the Amendment with that alteration.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 9, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
6.2 p.m.
THE MINISTER FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF DEFENCE (LORD CHATFIELD): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. In doing so I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to refer to two things with reference to what occurred on the Second Reading of the Bill. In the first place the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, asked me during the debate whether the Director-General of Munitions Production would be a member of the Army Council. I replied that so far as I was aware he would not be, but that if I was wrong I would inform the noble Viscount at a later stage. I now find that the statement I made is at the moment correct, but Sir Harold Brown will be closely associated with the work of the Army Council and I can assure the noble Viscount that what he has in mind—namely, that there should be the closest co-operation between the two Departments—will be assured. The exact arrangement is under consideration at the present time, and has yet to be settled as the new Ministry is established and organised. There is one other point. I am reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, in Column 908, as having stated that the Minister of Supply would be a member of the Army Council.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I was rather surprised when I read it.
LORD CHATFIELD: It will probably be within the recollection of your Lordships that that does not correctly represent what I said. I never in my wildest dreams had any idea that the Minister of Supply would be a member of the Army Council. Actually the Prime Minister made a statement on that very point in another place, when he said that the Minister of Supply would not be a Member of the Army Council. I thought it well that I should allay any fears that might have been caused by the misreporting of what I said. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Chatfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
General powers of Minister.
2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this subsection, the Minister shall have power—

(a) to buy or otherwise acquire, manufacture or otherwise produce, store and transport any articles required for the public service, and to exchange, sell or otherwise dispose of any articles bought or otherwise acquired or manufactured or otherwise produced by him.

(b) to buy or otherwise acquire any articles for the purpose of exchanging them for articles required for the public service;

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "or otherwise acquire." The noble Viscount said: Since I put down this Amendment it has been suggested to me that these words have been deliberately inserted to cover cases which fall within the Anglo-American barter agreement. If, however, your Lordships look at paragraph (b) you will see the words "to buy or otherwise acquire any articles for the purpose of exchanging them." If that is the intention of the Government it is already covered by paragraph (b). The words "or otherwise acquire" go much further than cases of barter, and can easily include expropriation without any compensation whatsoever. If the words are intended to cover barter, I think that we ought also to insert some such words as "acquire for valuable consideration" to make the matter quite clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("or otherwise acquire").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD CHATFIELD: The words "or otherwise acquire" which the noble Viscount proposes to omit were really introduced for a specific purpose—namely, to cover exchange transactions such as those mentioned by the President of the Board of Trade in another place on June 23. As there is no statutory authority for these operations it is essential that they should obtain cover now. The words proposed to be omitted are, I am advised, needed in addition to the phrase giving authority for exchange. I therefore hope the noble Viscount will not think it necessary to press the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I do not wish to press the Amendment, but I certainly do think that it could cover expropriation without compensation.
LORD CHATFIELD: I am informed to the contrary.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am quite sure I am right in telling your Lordships that no Judge in his senses would construe the word "acquire" here as justifying the expropriation without compensation of any article.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Having heard that very high legal opinion I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.7 p.m.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) Provided further that any power given to the Minister by subsection (1) of this section to manufacture or produce any articles required for the public service shall only continue for such period as Part II of this Act shall remain in force, except so far as the Minister may be exercising the powers existing prior to the passing of this Act of any other Government Departments."
The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading of this Bill I called the attention of the noble and gallant Lord to a power which seemed to me to have been inadvertently placed in the Bill—a power to which strong objection is taken—that is, a power in perpetuity for a Minister to manufacture or produce any article which he may deem desirable in the interests of the public service. Such a power I am sure neither this Government nor any Liberal or Conservative Government

979
would ever introduce in a measure of this kind. In another place, owing to the procedure there, this Amendment was not called upon and therefore the point was not raised.
I can put the point most clearly to your Lordships by reading a paragraph from a letter which the President of the Federation of British Industries addressed to the Prime Minister on June 14. A paragraph in that letter reads as follows:
"Clause 2, together with the definitions to be found in Clause 18, would give the Minister power to 'manufacture or otherwise produce' and to 'sell or otherwise dispose of' articles required by any Government Department, the supply functions of which are transferred to the Minister, articles in the opinion of the Minister essential for the needs of the community in the event of war, and anything in the opinion of the Minister likely to be necessary for the production of such articles."
These articles would, in fact, include every product of industry in this country. The letter goes on:
"It is felt that this extends far beyond the present powers of manufacture possessed by Government Departments and indeed covers a vast industrial production, perhaps only limited by the elasticity of the opinion of some future Minister. The inclusion of powers to sell would make State trading as well as State manufacture in this wide field possible. The Federation has already made it clear to the Minister-Elect that it supports the institution of a Ministry of Supply. Furthermore, it agrees that wide powers are necessary during a period of emergency and it readily believes that the present Government would not make any unwise use of them."
The noble and gallant Lord, in his speech on the Second Reading, made it perfectly clear that the Government intended to exercise their powers reasonably in this emergency. In this emergency nobody takes exception to these powers being conferred on the Government. What the Federation of British Industries and all industrialists fear is that at some future time this power may be abused and, instead of the nationalisation of an industry being brought in by a Bill and dealt with in a proper way, if this power were extended to a Minister for all time a Government might arise which might nationalise this industry or the other just as they please. It is that power which we desire to have limited by some words. I did ask the noble and learned Lord if he would put down an Amendment himself to meet this point.
980
In our view it probably ought to be dealt with by Part II, which is giving limited powers. I understand, however, that the new Minister desires to have powers to buy and sell in connection with his ordinary duties as Minister of Supply. Nobody takes any exception to that, but what we do take exception to is that it should be in the power of a future Government to destroy private enterprise by a Minister taking advantage of this clause.
Therefore in order to raise the point I have put down this Amendment at this stage, and I do hope the Government will meet it, because I can assure the noble and gallant Lord that the procedure which he thought was a safeguard is no safeguard at all. He suggested that the Minister could be called upon and his conduct reviewed in another place; but if a Socialist Government of an extreme character wanted to nationalise industry and wanted to destroy this private enterprise and the other at a future date, it would be to no purpose to bring under review the Minister's administration, because he would have a majority in the other House. There is no safeguard to these powers being conferred in this emergency or in any other which is likely to be connected with a possible war, and certainly not in time of war. It is the perpetuity for this power which I think is objectionable. I hope the Government will meet the case of traders and of all industrialists who have looked into this point and feel very strongly on it.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 4, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Gainford.)
LORD CHATFIELD: I thank the noble Lord for the way he has moved his Amendment, and I wish I could meet his point more satisfactorily. Actually there are four reasons why it is not possible for me to do so. He has already covered a great many of the difficulties which he has himself foreseen in the way of our accepting his Amendment. The power to acquire articles required for the public service, as taken in the Bill, covers the acquisition of a very wide range of articles, much wider than has ever been needed before, for the direct service of the main supply Departments. It is therefore quite fitting that the power to "manufacture or otherwise produce" should be taken in regard to the new class of materials as well as the old.

981
It is also fitting that this clause should, as it actually does, form the main basis of the Minister's powers and provide a complete and permanent authority. There is no obvious reason why one part of the power to manufacture should be temporary and another permanent. Secondly, it is difficult to define with accuracy the powers which are at present exercised by different Government Departments whose duties may be transferred from time to time to the Minister. Only those duties can be transferred which they already perform, and I am advised that there would be the greatest administrative difficulty if this Amendment were pressed. Thirdly, there is, as your Lordships know, to be an opportunity for consideration in Parliament from time to time of the policy of the Ministry of Supply, and the policy of the Government regarding supply, and the Minister of Supply designate has in another place given his assurance that he will keep Parliament informed from time to time of the progress and of his intentions as he obtains experience in his duties. That should give adequate protection against any excessive use of the powers to manufacture. Fourthly, if it is desired substantially to extend the range of Government manufacture, some such scheme as a nationalisation proposal such as the noble Lord has suggested, the powers that are given to the Minister of Supply in this Bill are not wide enough.
Moreover, it is quite unlikely that a power in a Bill of this kind would ever be used for this purpose. It would be more likely, as it surely would be more proper, that in the event of a decision by any Government having a great majority, as the noble Lord has suggested, to adopt a policy of manufacture, that Government would take complete powers to effect what was wanted. It would not be necessary for them merely to look to see if there was any existing Act out of which the powers could be squeezed. The powers would be taken under a special Bill which would cover any operations which they needed. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord, although I am afraid that my reply will not be at all satisfactory to him, will realise that I cannot accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this Amendment raises a very important question, and it is not one, I think, on which
982
there is really any disagreement of principle, or indeed of practice, in the minds of your Lordships. I believe that everybody in this House wants to vest in the Minister of Supply the fullest possible powers which he can require in the most extreme emergency. Personally, indeed, I have always pressed for going further than the Government are going at the present moment; though I was glad to find, in the speech that my noble friend made in reply to me, that before very long I understand he will extend to what are really common services the powers which are so curtailed at the moment. Therefore there is nothing between any of us in a desire to vest in this Minister the most complete, if you will the most autocratic, and the most universal powers to cover the whole field of supply. But the reason why we want to do that is that we may have the most perfect organisation, equal to any totalitarian organisation which can be devised, which will function and function effectively as an insurance of peace and as a preparation for war. We are quite prepared to give those powers in the most extended form.
But what my noble friend is anxious about is that if in the fulness of time we come to a saner, happier world, there shall not be on the Statute Book an Act which could be used for purposes entirely other than that which the Parliament which passed the Act designed it to fulfil. I am not quite sure that my noble friend the Minister of Defence is really right in his construction of this Bill, and I would asked the learned Lord Chancellor to give us some further assurance on the point. I leave aside the rather naïve expression of opinion which fell from the noble Lord that a Socialist Government which wanted to nationalise all the means of production, distribution and exchange and found on the Statute Book a convenient Statute under which it could operate would not dream of doing anything so underhand as that, but would introduce a nice Act of Parliament which would start the whole business afresh and give them their new powers. I am not sure that I am quite as trusting as that, and I am not sure that any Government, whatever its complexion, if it found an Act of Parliament on the Statute Book which gave it full facilities for all executive actions, would be so enamoured

983
of Parliamentary process as to come back to Parliament and say: "Let us have a fresh Act of Parliament, and debate this afresh." I am afraid that any Government would use all the Acts of Parliament which it possessed. All Governments have done that kind of thing. I am not at all sure that my noble friend (Lord Snell) has not been engaged with one who sometimes is and sometimes is not a member of his Party, a very distinguished lawyer, who sits in another place, in devising very ingenious methods by which behind the back of Parliament the Socialist Party, should they ever come into power, could carry out the whole of their programme.
This is a serious matter. Naturally all of us who engage in Parliamentary and political activities, and do that for the purpose of accomplishing what we are pleased to consider large constructive reforms, wish to get these reforms carried by hook or by crook, by one means or another, and if there are on the Statute Book measures which enable the effective nationalisation of industry to be carried out without bringing it before either the House of Commons or this House, I am not sure that a formidable Minister who wished to get the job done, and wished, in the well-known words of the late Lord Passfield, for "Socialism in our time," might not think this a useful and convenient wav of getting it. I would like to ask Lord Chatfield whether, under these words in Clause 18, which are extraordinarily wide, the Minister has power to do all the things which Lord Gainford read out. He can manufacture any article which any Government Department requires. I do not think that would limit his scope of manufacture. At any rate the Government appetite might grow.
I am quite sure my construction is right. I believe that once having gone into the process of manufacture, what would govern would be the kind of article that the Government uses, and the modern Government uses practically every article. I believe the Minister can go into the whole field of manufacture, and manufacture every article which in his opinion would be essential to the needs of the community in time of war. That does not mean that he can manufacture in view of a war which he knew
984
was coming, because we do not know that to-day, and we hope war will not come. It really means that the Minister can undertake the manufacture of anything which the community needs, and say that is the kind of thing which the community needs in time of war. There is not a thing which under this he could not manufacture, and not only is he able to manufacture the finished article, but also the semi-manufactured, half-raw materials. If your Lordships look at Clause 18 (c), you will see that it says:
"anything which in the opinion of the Minister is or is likely to be necessary for or in connection with the production of any such article as aforesaid."
That is everything, from pig iron to a finished steel product. I am not sure whether he would be able to take over existing steel works. I rather think he would not. That would be temporary power under Part II. But he would be able to set up a new steel works, and new blast furnaces, if he so desired, and therefore the whole process of manufacture, from the raw material to the finished article, the Minister could engage upon, because that is an article required in the public service, or an article which is required by the community in war.
Those are exactly the powers which the Minister should have for an emergency, and we want him to have those powers. They are such powers as no Minister ought to have in normal times. I cannot imagine a more dangerous thing than giving the Minister power in ordinary times, and for ordinary purposes, to do that. Supposing we were to have nationalisation legislation. I do not believe you would ever get an omnibus Act like that through Parliament. I am perfectly certain that no Parliament in its senses would pass a General Bill of Nationalisation which said that the Minister of Supply should have the power to nationalise any industry in this country that he wishes. It is not a fantastic thing that we are talking about. The very fact that we are giving him these powers for an emergency ought to make us sure that they are not used improperly at any future time, when an emergency has entirely past.
The Minister has said on this occasion, and before, in answer to Lord Gainford: "You are safeguarded, because if the Minister acted unreasonably his administration could be brought before the House

985
of Commons, and it could be challenged on a vote." My noble friend is not as familiar with Parliamentary procedure as others of us are, but the Lord Chancellor will, I am sure, confirm me in this, and any old House of Commons man would agree. It is a recognised rule in the House of Commons that you cannot take, merely by a vote, a new power to a Minister. Lord Gainford, as an old Whip, will recognise that very well. The House has always been jealous to exercise control over a Minister in that sense, and it is an immemorial rule of the House of Commons that a new service or power must not be taken by a Minister merely by putting a Resolution down on a Vote. If you are to give a Minister new power Which he does not possess before, that power has to be founded upon an Act of Parliament, duly passed by both Houses, and you only bring his administration into force and under review when an Act of Parliament has given him that power. I am sure every authority will agree that it is no answer at all to say: "We give this power now (give it indeed by a side wind), but it will be all right, because we can, if necessary, challenge it and take it away on Supply." Your Lordships certainly could not. It will never come to your Lordships, because the only way administration can be challenged is by a Vote of Supply in the House of Commons.
I ventured to intervene at this length for this reason. Everybody in the House knows I am as keen a supporter of a Ministry of Supply as there is in this House; I do feel that we ought to give these tremendous powers in their full force to the Minister; yet we really ought in some way to provide a safeguard against a future risk. When, hereafter, happier times have come, when, please God, the need for these powers is past, and they have never been exercised on any extreme scale, and we have gone back to our ordinary avocations and the ordinary channels of trade, it would indeed be a risky thing if we left on the Statute Book perpetual powers to some Government, without any appeal or any obligation to come to either House of Parliament, to exercise such enormous and drastic powers in normal times.
This Amendment may not be the right way of doing what we desire. I quite see you must have temporary and semi
986
permanent powers. But what objection is there to doing this: The temporary powers under Part II are made renewable by a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and I do not really myself see why these powers of manufacture should not be renewable by a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Believe me, each House of Parliament will be only too ready to renew these powers without debating, as long as the need for the renewal is there. Nor will the Minister be hampered in his activities. He can go and make contracts for the longest period of time, because he has full and complete power as long as the Act is in being. The complete carrying out of these contracts will not be prejudiced long after the three years are finished. I should have thought that, where these exceptional powers are taken, the reasonable thing to do was to say: "All right, give the Minister these powers for three years, and let us extend them year by year by a positive Resolution of the House, if they are wanted." In that way I do not believe you would hamper the Minister in the very least, and you would carry this Bill without any anxiety in the minds of the people, who, after all, have to be your partners in carrying it out, and we could all go forward supporting it completely; whereas, if this case is not met, there will be a perfectly genuine anxiety in the minds of many people—and people who do not hold strong political views one way or the other—and a feeling that we are doing a very wise thing in making this Ministry of Supply but a very foolish thing in passing it in the unlimited form in which it stands.
LORD SNELL: In the state of alarm into which your Lordships have unhappily fallen lately in this sitting I wonder if I could do anything to comfort your minds? So far as I learn, two of the three political Parties in this country are entirely impeccable: they would never do anything by way of a political trick, or use any Orders that there might be—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No. I said they all had done it, and they all would do it.
LORD SNELL: The noble Viscount will forgive me: it was not to him that I was referring. But there is another Party which some day might take a low advantage by the mere fact that it would have a majority. Well, I resent in some small

987
way that attack upon an entirely reputable and altogether guileless political Party. I assure your Lordships that we are not afraid of a political fight, and it ever the need came to nationalise we should not be afraid to advertise it. But, in actual fact, nobody on my side of politics has ever proposed or thought of wholesale nationalisation. The noble Viscount referred to the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, who, as your Lordships know, invented the phrase "the inevitability of gradualness," and our view is that a time may come when particular things will be ripe for nationalisation before all things are ripe for nationalisation. We should be perfectly willing to take things as they come. And therefore, I hope your Lordships will be able to go away to-night without feeling that there is this terrible danger of using Orders that may have been passed against your interests. We shall have pleasure in looking up the record of both these two honest Parties in these matters in the future.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I have been more than once referred to on the question of the construction that should be put on this clause, I think I ought not to shirk an answer, and I wish to say quite clearly that in my opinion—this will perhaps comfort some of your Lordships—it will be impossible under Clause 2 to nationalise the industries of this country, or any of them. As I read the clause, it is confined to giving powers, subject to the provisions of the subsection, to the Minister, for instance to manufacture or otherwise acquire articles required for the public service. If you read the proviso, you will see that a Minister who was a Minister of Supply for the purposes of the Army would not even be entitled to manufacture or supply articles for the Navy or the Air Force. In other words, as I think, the clause is limited, and the dangers which are anticipated will not arise. Of course, it does not mean that the Minister who is engaged in manufacturing, we will say guns, must wait to see if an exact number of guns is required. He has to act like a reasonable man, and he will manufacture those which he thinks will be needed. But the notion that he can acquire the steelworks and the land, and have a monopoly in regard to them, is one which as a matter of law is ill-founded.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If the Minister is entitled to manufacture articles for the public service he may enter upon a manufacturing trade. The power may not be universal in this Bill but he is authorised to manufacture cloth for the Army, boots for the Navy, food for the Air Force, and I do not know what else, shall I say for the postmen or for the Civil Service? He can pick out industry by industry, and under this Bill he can do what he pleases.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What I ventured to say to your Lordships shows that he cannot do what he pleases. He has only got a very limited right.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The whole point is this. He cannot do what he pleases because he is limited to the public service, but one of the biggest employers of labour in this country is the Post Office, and under this Act he can manufacture anything which is necessary for the Post Office and its work. He can manufacture paper, metal sheets, vans; he can manufacture paint—I do not know what he cannot manufacture for one service or the other of the State.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: Wheat?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I quite agree—wheat, if it is thought necessary to feed the Post Office. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, assumed that this was going to be done by Order. On the contrary, power is conferred by Statute of the Realm, and the Order is a very subordinate thing. This is a very dangerous Bill—very dangerous indeed. I am not afraid of Lord Snell and his friends so much as I am afraid of some of my own friends and the pressure which outsiders can bring to bear upon them. It is not that the whole industry is going to fall into the hands and control of the State, it is that one section of it is going to be set up in competition with the rest of the industry—the paper industry if you like. It is legitimate to make paper for the use of the War Office and the public service generally. In doing so you establish a new section within that industry, and you have got the taxpayer behind it. The Government does not pay rates except ex gratia, and there you have a form of competition dangerous to ordinary private commercial enterprise being supported by Government subvention to meet losses.

989
That is the power that is being conferred upon this Government and its successors by this Bill. It is no good saying it is not likely it will be done, as Lord Chatfield said. The noble Lord below the Gangway said that was a rather naive remark. I could put it more strongly than that. The matter cannot really be dismissed by saying it is not likely to be done. We are going to have an emergency, and for all time we must labour under the commercial and industrial disadvantages of that emergency. This power should be confined to what the Government by Order in Council pronounce to be an emergency, and for so many months or so many years thereafter, or else the Bill should be limited to two, three, or five years, or else be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. One thing or another should be done, and I would ask the Government not to dismiss this matter as a mere departmental affair, but to give some guarantee that it will be considered before the Report stage.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I agree with the noble Lords who have spoken and who have pointed out that this is a far more important matter than would appear from the terms of the Bill. Nor does it seem to me that the reply given on behalf of the Government really covers the point. I am not arguing whether the State production of goods is a good thing or a bad thing. I am one of those who think that in many directions it might be extended, but if it is to be extended it ought to be done overtly and consciously with the full authority of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, acquiesces in that. He said that if the time came for such an extension to be accomplished in that way it might or might not be done. But there are many instances in the history of this and other countries of Statutes passed for one purpose being used for another. Take France, for example, where the compulsory Military Service Acts have been used to enlist people to break a railway strike or a dock strike by conscripting them and calling them up for service and then using them for some industrial purpose.
This clause which we are discussing says that the Minister may manufacture or otherwise produce any articles required for the public service, and the definition clause, Clause 18 on page 16, says that
990
articles required for the public service mean articles required by any Government Department for the purpose of the discharge of its functions. That does not mean for the discharge of its functions at the present time—1939—at a time of crisis. It must obviously mean the discharge of its functions as they may be at any future time during which this Act may be in force. There are a great number of Government Departments which have already very wide functions and might possibly in the future have these functions extended very considerably. There is the Ministry of Health, for example—the supply of milk and so on. There is unemployment insurance, and measures for dealing with the unemployed. Then there are the military Departments themselves. The War Office, the Admiralty, and the Air Ministry have enormous powers for the supply of food for, perhaps, hundreds of thousands of men. The Lord Chancellor says that this Bill applies at present only to the Army, but it has been pointed out—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not say that the powers conferred referred only to the Army.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The noble Lord said that the example given by Lord Gainford regarding supplies for the Air Force and the Admiralty did not apply.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount has totally misunderstood.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble and learned Lord, but for the purposes of my present argument there is advantage in the fact that the Lord Chancellor did not say that. The three great Services could exercise their powers under this Bill to manufacture and produce, supposing some Government that way inclined thought it desirable, all that they required for their own purposes including the feeding of the troops. They would be immediately authorised under this Act to engage in State farms and State production so long as all the products were used in the public service. Consequently this becomes a very large and important matter. The noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, said that the Minister of Supply had given an assurance that such things would not be done. But we are not contemplating present circumstances or the present Ministry. He further said that any Government that

991
wished to do these things would take powers under a special Act; but to pass an Act through Parliament is a long process, and if an Act exists already which could be misused according to the intentions of its originators but nevertheless could be used according to the desires of those in power at the time, no doubt the instrument ready to hand would be employed.
If the proposed Amendment is in the wrong form and would impose obstacles to the due carrying out of the purposes we really have in view in establishing the Ministry of Supply, then the matter would have to be dealt with in another way. I feel convinced that in some way or other it should be dealt with in this Bill, but your Lordships would not be well advised to pass the Bill in the form in which it is now presented.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: By leave of the Committee, I would ask the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, if before the next stage of this measure he would put himself in a position to make an announcement to your Lordships about this matter on which, I can assure him, many members of this House feel very strongly indeed.
LORD GAINFORD: I have no desire to oppose the Government at the present time, but we do feel that something ought to be done. I would rather the Government agreed to put down an Amendment than press the matter now. The point, however, is such an important one that I do ask the Government if they will kindly undertake to consider it between now and the Report stage with a view to meeting it in some way, otherwise I feel I am bound to go to a Division on a principle of such far-reaching consequence.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): The noble Earl behind me has asked me whether I will put myself in the position to make a statement with regard to this matter at a later stage of the Bill. I fully realise the fears which are entertained in many quarters of the House as to what the ultimate effect of this clause in its present form might be. I am advised that those fears are certainly exaggerated, and probably groundless, but in view of the arguments which have been submitted this afternoon I am certainly quite willing to have this matter
992
further considered in the light of those arguments with a view to a statement on the point being made at the next stage of the Bill.
LORD GAINFORD: In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, but in order that the matter shall be raised I suggest that my Amendment should be put down at a later stage so that the point may be gone into in that form if we are not satisfied with the Government's way of meeting the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Payments by Minister for creation of reserves.
(2) If any person for the purpose of obtaining a payment under this section, either for himself or for any other person, knowingly or recklessly makes any untrue statement or untrue representation, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
6.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), after "representation," to insert "or wilfully fails to disclose any material fact." The noble Viscount said: I think I am right in saying that these words have been put into clauses in other Bills dealing with the same subject. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, after ("representation") insert ("or wilfully fails to disclose any material fact").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD CHATFIELD: I am advised that the wording in the Bill "any untrue statement or untrue representation" does cover a partial statement or failure to disclose material facts, and that the Amendment therefore does not appear to be necessary having regard to the tenor of the clause. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will not consider it necessary to press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I do not propose to press the Amendment, but I am certain that these words do appear in other Acts, and if that is so doubts will be thrown upon the question whether a concealment of material facts is indeed an untrue statement. I hope the noble Lord will look into it between now and Report and perhaps change his mind.
LORD CHATFIELD: I assure the noble Viscount that I have taken the

993
advice of the Law Officers on this particular point. They have carefully considered the whole matter and have come to the conclusion which I have stated to the noble Viscount.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Power to require delivery of supplies and carrying out of works.
(6) Where directions are given to any person under this section with respect to any articles or works, then—

(a) if the directions are given under subsection (1) or subsection (2), the price or remuneration, if any, to be paid for the articles or works in addition to the price or remuneration which would have been payable therefor if the directions had not been given; and

(b) if the directions are given under subsection (3), the price or remuneration to be paid for the articles or works;

shall be such as may be agreed between that person and the Minister or, in default of agreement, such as may be determined to be fair and reasonable, having regard to all relevant considerations, by an arbitrator or arbitrators selected by the Minister from a panel of arbitrators appointed by him.
6.54 p.m.
LORD CHATFIELD LORD CHATFIELD moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "selected by the Minister from a panel of arbitrators appointed by him" and insert "appointed as hereinafter provided." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to carry out an undertaking given on the Report stage of the Bill in another place by the Minister who was in charge of it. In that place an Amendment was moved to give effect to the suggestion which the Minister himself had made on the Committee stage of the Bill, that, though the panel would continue to be appointed by the Minister, the arbitrator for each particular case should be appointed from the panel by the Chairman, who would be elected by the members of the panel themselves. In the course of the debate on this Amendment the Minister suggested that, though it might be desirable that the arbitrator or the arbitrators in any particular case should be appointed by the Chairman, it would be better if the Chairman were appointed by the Minister himself instead of being elected by the panel. He also
994
suggested that it would be necessary to have a Deputy Chairman in case the Chairman was ill or otherwise unable to act. But he undertook that if the appointment of the Chairman or Deputy Chairman were left to him he would appoint persons who had had wide legal experience. He further undertook that the House of Lords would be invited to give effect to his suggestions when the Bill came before it.
The Amendment that I am now moving carries out this undertaking. Under subsection (1) of the proposed new clause to be moved later, the Minister will appoint the panel and a Chairman and Deputy Chairman. Under subsection (2) the Chairman or Deputy Chairman must be a barrister, advocate or solicitor of not less than ten years standing. Under subsection (3) the arbitrator or arbitrators for any particular case will be selected by the Chairman or Deputy Chairman. In addition to carrying out the Minister's undertaking the new clause deals with two small technical matters. It provides, first, that the number of arbitrators to hear any particular case shall be either one or three—that is in subsection (3)—and, secondly, that where there are three, the award of any two of them shall be binding. That is in subsection (4). The reason why it is so provided is that where there are two arbitrators difficulties may arise if they are unable to agree. Delay occurs by having an umpire to rehear the case, and it is essential that the arbitrations under this Bill shall be determined as quickly as possible. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 38, leave out from ("arbitrators") to the end of line 40 and insert ("appointed as hereafter provided").—(Lord Chatfield.)
LORD MANCROFT: It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that while this Bill was passing through its earlier Parliamentary stage in the other House, great apprehension was expressed by those connected with industry about the wording of Clause 7. It was felt that it was not altogether fair that the Minister, who would be a party to the dispute, should appoint the arbitrators' panel and select the arbitrator from that panel to deal with a dispute. I wish now to thank my noble friend for having introduced this Amendment. I welcome

995
it because I think it goes far to meet the apprehensions of the trades concerned. I offer no hostile criticism, but I wish to refer to one little point in the Amendment. It says that the Minister shall appoint a panel of arbitrators. I do not object to a Minister appointing a panel of arbitrators; but from what body or bodies are these arbitrators to be chosen? I cannot think they will be chosen from the legal profession, and I cannot think that they will be chosen from civil servants. I do not suppose my noble friend can give the answer now, but perhaps between now and the Report stage he will look into the matter and give me an answer on this point—from whom these arbitrators would be chosen. My own view is that it would be very helpful, and I think would give great satisfaction both to the great and the small manufacturing firms who would be supplying the goods about which there would be a dispute, if the Minister were to announce that he would select for the panel men who are actively employed in the great industries supplying the Government. Those men know the difficulties; they are fair-minded, just and patriotic men; and they would give better assistance in coming to a decision than anyone else. I hope that my noble friend will give some consideration to this point between now and the Report stage.
LORD STRABOLGI: I desire to refer to a matter which I rose to speak about when my noble friend opposite got up. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has raised this matter, because it rather bears out what I was going to suggest to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. I want, if I may, very respectfully to make an emphatic protest once more against the building up of a further vested interest in legal appointments in Acts of Parliament. There have been a number of cases recently in which it is laid down that so-and-so shall be appointed by the Minister but he must be a member of the legal profession. There are many important arbitrations carried out under the existing Arbitration Acts by gentlemen appointed, in some cases, by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers or the Institution of Mechanical Engineers or by the Association of Chemical Manufacturers—men who carry the confidence of the particular trade or business con-
996
cerned. I have the greatest and highest regard for the legal profession, but I would point out that the noble and gallant Lord himself belongs to a profession which has to adjudicate on matters of life and death when sitting as officers on Courts-Martial. If he were told that he had to have as president of one of those courts a barrister, or a member of the Faculty of Advocates, or a solicitor of ten years standing, I can imagine what he would have to say about it. It would not be in the usual terms in which we express disapprobation in your Lordships' House; it would be much firmer, and I am sure that every member of his profession would say the same.
Why are both the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman who will have to deal with intricate trade and commercial matters to be lawyers? I must repeat that we are building up a still further vested interest in legal appointments of this kind, and I do not think it is quite fair to your Lordships' House. This was promised in another place. I do not know to whom it was promised, but I imagine to Government supporters. I can understand that the Chairman might possibly be required to be a lawyer, but that both should be lawyers I think is rather extraordinary. I think it right to make a protest, and I shall continue to make it on other occasions.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I should have thought the obvious reason for both being lawyers is that the Deputy Chairman will only act in the absence of the Chairman.
LORD ASKWITH: I must say I consider the proposed new clause a very great improvement, but I should like to make one practical suggestion and that is that the members of these panels should not be appointed for more than a certain number of years. This system of panels is well known, but it has been found that panels have a tendency to grow in number and that some people remain in these panels long after they have passed their period of useful work. This is a practical point, which I think should be considered. There is an advantage in the Chairman having the selection of arbitrators, because he gets to know who are the people best suited for particular cases. I do not quite follow the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in his remarks about lawyers.

997
I think that the Minister ought to have considerable latitude as to those selected for the panel. I do not say you know an arbitrator when you see him, but I do say that in the case of a lot of people you know directly you see them that they cannot be arbitrators. Therefore there should be latitude to choose good men, who are patient and have some judgment, from any kind of profession.
LORD CHATFIELD: There are three points which have been raised. The first was by my noble friend Lord Mancroft as to the composition of the panel. I will certainly inquire into that matter, but I think I am right in saying that it has been already stated in another place that it is fully the intention that the panel of arbitrators should be drawn from a very wide field and would certainly include representatives of industry and other persons who would be appropriate. I believe that statement to be correct, but I should like to check it and satisfy the noble Lord at a later stage of the Bill. As regards Lord Strabolgi's remark about members of the legal profession being so popular with the Government, I think I may say that this Amendment arose from a debate in another place where the whole question was very extensively discussed. I am under the impression that very great store was set by the fact that the Chairman should be a man who had judicial experience, and that that was considered a very necessary factor. As the noble Viscount said, if you are going to have a Chairman of a certain type and a Deputy Chairman who only acts in his absence, it is common sense to have a Deputy Chairman of the same type as the Chairman. The question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, about the period of service of individual members of the panel, is one which I will take up and I will give him an answer later.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Power to require storage]:
LORD CHATFIELD: The next Amendment is consequental. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 15, leave out from ("arbitrators") to end of line 16 and insert ("appointed as hereafter provided").—(Lord Chatfield.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
LORD CHATFIELD LORD CHATFIELD moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following new clause:
Provisions as to arbitration.
".—(1) For the purpose of the last two foregoing sections, the Minister shall appoint a panel of arbitrators, and shall appoint one member of the panel to be chairman thereof and another to be deputy chairman thereof.
(2) No person shall be qualified to be chairman or deputy chairman of the said panel unless he is or has been a barrister, member of the Faculty of Advocates or solicitor, of not less than ten years standing.
(3) Where under this Part of this Act any matter is to be determined by an arbitrator or arbitrators, it shall be referred to and determined by such member or such three members of the said panel as may be appointed for the purpose by the chairman or deputy chairman thereof.
(4) In any case where three members of the panel are appointed, the award of any two of them shall be binding."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chatfield.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Power to require protection of essential undertakings in event of war]:
7.9 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: I should like to draw attention particularly on this clause to the expenditure which may be incurred by any manufacturer in connection with the directions given him by the Minister of Supply. Under this clause it is quite clear that he may recover by way of grants 27½ per cent., which is equal to the standard rate of Income Tax for the year 1939–40. That leaves 72½ per cent. It is understood from the Explanatory Memorandum attached to the Bill that of the remaining 72½ per cent, he may recover up to a percentage believed to be 50 by adding as a supplementary charge to current contracts amounts which will come to that total. It is from that provision not clear what would be the position of a manufacturer who should not be doing a proportion of work large enough to permit, by supplementary charges to those contracts, the recovery of what equalled the 50 per cent. of the 72½ per cent. Again, it may well be that if he should succeed and recover an amount equal to what it is intended he should recover, by addition of a supplementary charge to the contract price of the goods

999
which he is under contract to supply to the Ministry, it may be assumed that that would be in the nature of profits, and it is not understood that it would be a charge to trading. It would therefore fall under the Armaments Profits Tax.
This matter was dealt with in another place, but it appears that ambiguity remained after discussions in that House, and certain other means sought to obtain interpretation of this provision suggest that it is still a matter of ambiguity. In raising this question on the Second Reading I must admit to encountering some difficulty, which may also have appeared to some other members of your Lordships' House. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum supplied with the Bill is drafted in a peculiarly difficult fashion. An unsuspecting person who looks at the first page, at Clauses 1, 2 and 3, and then turns to Clause 12, might fail to realise that it is divided into two sections. That may be some reason to account for the ambiguity which has arisen under this clause. When I raised the matter on Second Reading, the noble and gallant Lord, in dealing with the points raised in this House, did not deal with that particular point. It is because, on the best authority I can get, some ambiguity does remain that I respectfully ask him to elucidate the matter at this stage.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give a complete answer to the question raised by the noble Lord. In so far as I am unable to do so, I hope he will let me do so later. As regards the question about the grant for the protection of plant and whether it will be subject to the extra Armaments Profits Tax, the answer is that it will have nothing to do with that tax, as the grants are to meet capital expenditure and there will not be any question of their being part of the revenue.
LORD BARNBY: I did not mean to raise that point. That would be a capital repayment.
LORD CHATFIELD: Yes. The other point that he has raised I should like, if I may, to answer at another time. I did not expect him to raise it to-day.
LORD BARNBY: I have drawn attention to it, and I shall be quite satisfied with the assurance given by the noble and gallant Lord that some clear explana-
1000
tion of it will be made. I hope that he will realise that it does appear at present that the contractor, in recovering it, would be recovering amounts which would appear to be subject to Armaments Profits Tax and therefore would be in conflict with the intentions of the Bill.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House that I should notify your Lordships that it is proposed that the Report stage and Third Reading of the Ministry of Supply Bill shall both be taken on Thursday.

COAST PROTECTION BILL.
Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
7.15 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty to signify to the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Coast Protection Bill, gives his consent, as far as His Majesty's interest is concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, that the House may do therein as they shall think fit.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 1:
Power of Board of Trade to restrict excavation, etc., of materials on or under the seashore.
(5) An order made under this section shall be binding on all persons, including the owners of and persons interested in any part of the seashore comprised in the order, and any drainage authority or harbour, local or other authority having jurisdiction over the area comprised in the order or any part thereof, and all highway authorities, and shall have effect notwithstanding the provisions of any public, general or Local or Private Act, or any alleged custom or prescriptive right to the contrary:
Provided that, if it appears to the Board of Trade that such an order will operate to prevent or impede the performance by any person of any duty imposed upon him, the order may for the purpose of relieving the

1001
person from the duty or from any penalty, liability or disability attaching to the nonperformance thereof, repeal or modify the provisions of any Local Act to such extent and in such manner as the Board think proper.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in the proviso in subsection (5), to substitute "shall" for "may." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have two apologies to make. The first is for intervening in so many debates this afternoon; the second is for bringing these Amendments before your Lordships' House at so late a stage in the Bill. I did mention the point to my noble friend before the Second Reading; then came a spate of heavy Government legislation which required careful examination; I forgot it at the Committee stage and I was unable to be present on Report.
If your Lordships will look at page 2 of the Bill, line 32, you will see:
"Provided that, if it appears to the Board of Trade that such an order will operate to prevent or impede the performance by any person of any duty imposed upon him, the order may for the purpose of relieving the person from the duty or from any penalty, liability or disability attaching to the nonperformance thereof, repeal or modify the provisions of any Local Act to such extent and in such manner as the Board think proper."
There is therefore a presumption that the facts are known to the Board. I should like to point out that the order has not come into force at that time. If, owing possibly to inadvertence by the Board of Trade, the Local Act in question is not amended by them, then the unfortunate person who is under a liability of some sort may be proceeded against and will have no defence. Damages may be awarded against him, and in any case he will have the worry, trouble and expense of defending the action. No option should be given to the Board of Trade in those circumstances. The words ought to read:
"Provided that, if it appears to the Board of Trade that such an order will operate to prevent or impede the performance by any person of any duty imposed upon him, the order shall"—
I think that the word "may" should be omitted and the word "shall" inserted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I am afraid I am unable to accept this Amendment, and I hope to satisfy your Lordships as to the reason. In the first place I do not think it can be accepted, as the noble Viscount suggested or presumed, that the whole of the facts are known to the Board of Trade. It is true that the words read "if it appears to the Board of Trade that such an order will operate," and so forth; but the knowledge that that may happen may not come to the Board of Trade until a later stage in the proceedings.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: But the order has not been made.
LORD MERTHYR: The procedure which is contemplated is that when that knowledge does come to the Board the Board may then review the situation, and possibly not proceed with the order at all. Therefore in my opinion it is not necessary that this Amendment should be passed. Not only is it not necessary, but it may be detrimental to the interests which we have in mind. I would also draw attention to the last words of the proviso "to such extent and in such manner as the Board think proper." If this Amendment is passed you have this situation, that you are compelling the Board of Trade to do an act and adding that they must do it to such an extent and in such manner as they think proper. That sets up a very curious situation, because if the Board do not want to do a thing which they are compelled by this Bill to do they could obviously escape from their obligation by putting in operation those words, and defend themselves, and hide behind those words to any extent they wanted to. Therefore so long as these words are in the Bill this Amendment, it seems to me, does not do that which it is expected to do by the noble Viscount.
There is another objection to this Amendment, and it is a legal one. If the Amendment is passed then the power conferred on the Board of Trade by the Bill as it stands is not anywhere stated in the Bill, and it would only therefore be inferred, if this Amendment were passed, that the Board had that power. That is a very undesirable state of affairs from a drafting point of view, and it is, I suggest, a reason why this Amendment should not be passed. I do not think

1003
there is any reasonable apprehension that the Board of Trade will in any way abuse the powers conferred upon them in this Bill, and I would also direct the attention of the noble Lords to Clause 1, subsection (6), which immediately follows the one that we are discussing. That subsection enables the Board, in a case where an individual or local authority is affected by a Private Act which clashes with an order made under this Bill, to grant to any such person or local authority a licence to do any act or thing which otherwise would be unlawful by virtue of the order. If a person comes to the Board and says that by such and such an Act he is compelled to do a certain thing, and by the Coast Protection Act he is prevented from doing that very thing, subsection (6) is a means of escape, and the Board may grant a licence to such a person which would get him out of any such difficulty as the noble Lord contemplates. It is true that the Board need not grant such a licence, but the Board is expected to act in a reasonable manner.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: After what the noble Lord has said I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule:

COAST PROTECTION BILL.
  FIRST SCHEDULE.

    PART I.
    Procedure with respect to the making and approval of Orders under Section One.
    1. Before making an order under Section one of this Act, the Board of Trade shall cause notice of their intention to make the order and of the place where copies of the draft order may be inspected and obtained, and of the time within and manner in which objections to the draft order may be made, to be published in the London Gazette and in such other manner as they think best adapted for informing persons affected.
    VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph 1, after "within," to insert "which, not being less than thirty days." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think that the time should be stated within which objections to a draft order should be made. I have chosen a period of thirty days, a period used in paragraph 4 in the case of memorials presented to the Board of Trade.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 7, line 9, after ("within") insert ("which, not being less than thirty days,").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
    LORD MERTHYR: I am afraid that this Amendment likewise cannot be accepted, although I am prepared to go so far as to say that in no case in practice would the Board use a period of less than fourteen days. There may be cases where thirty days would be too long. Therefore it is not possible to agree to the Amendment. I would also remind the House that there is a further period of delay which the Board have got to suffer in any case in paragraph 4 of this Schedule. That is that the order has got to be laid before the Houses of Parliament for a period of thirty days after the draft has been settled, and if this Amendment were passed it would mean that under those two provisions alone there would be a delay of sixty days. It might be much too long to prevent the very abuses which this Bill seeks to stop. There might be a person, or a corporation, taking away shingle from a shore, doing much damage, creating some danger, and this delay might be very detrimental, if not fatal. There are several precedents for the wording of the Bill as it stands, but I need not read out other Acts of Parliament in which these words are used. This Amendment cannot be accepted.
    VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: As the noble Lord has produced precedents I beg leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

NATIONAL MEMORIAL TO KING GEORGE V.
7.28 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, That this House approves the proposal of His Majesty's Government to devote to the purposes of the National Memorial to His late Majesty King George the Fifth certain property in the City of Westminster now vested in the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings, namely, part of the site now occupied by Number 5, Old Palace Yard, and the sites formerly occupied by Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4, Old Palace Yard,

1005
and by Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 3A, Poets' Corner, to the intent that the land comprised therein should form an open space surrounding a statue of His late Majesty King George the Fifth.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I know well that my noble friend the Leader of the House, in whose name this Motion stands, will have the sympathy of your Lordships in the sudden illness of Lady Stanhope, which has prevented him from being present with your Lordships this afternoon. We shall all hope that he may be speedily relieved of the anxiety from which he is at the present time suffering. It therefore devolves upon me to explain to your Lordships the circumstances in which this Motion has been placed upon the Paper. The scheme for commemorating the reign and life of his late Majesty King George V arose at a meeting which was held by the Lord Mayor of London in March, 1936, at which it was resolved that the national memorial to His Majesty should take the form of a statue in some notable setting, and a philanthropic scheme to benefit the whole country, which could be in the late King's name. A national fund was opened, and the Committee decided upon a playing fields scheme, together with a statue to be erected close to the Houses of Parliament. These decisions were, of course, reached under the sole responsibility of the Lord Mayor's Committee. When it came to the actual choice of a site for the statue the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission was sought, and the site now decided upon has been chosen in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission. That Commission pronounced that
"when backed by the Chapter House, curtained by fine plane trees and symmetrically enclosed on either side, the position and setting of the King's Memorial would be unexcelled."
The total cost of the scheme as finally settled is estimated at a sum of £125,000. The contribution from the Memorial Fund will be £65,000, and the Government have been asked to contribute a sum of £60,000. The Government have accepted the principle of State participation in the scheme, but they have decided that, subject to the approval of Parliament, their contribution should take the form of a free gift in kind of the State property which is comprised in the site. Particulars of this property have
1006
been given in a Treasury Minute which has been presented to Parliament, from which it will be seen that the estimated value of the site proposed to be given by the Government is, in fact, £60,000.
That being so, the object of the present Resolution is to obtain the specific authority of Parliament to the gift. Since that gift is not in cash, the procedure of a Supplementary Estimate would not be appropriate for the purpose. Where gifts in kind are made the rule has been laid down by the Treasury, with the approval of the Public Accounts Committee, that where it is proposed to make a gift of public stores or property not requiring replacement, either of unusual nature or exceeding £10,000 in value, their Lordships will present to the House of Commons a Minute giving particulars of the gift and explaining the circumstances; and that Treasury assent to the gift will not be given until fourteen days after the issue of the Minute, except in cases of special urgency. But, while this procedure, as your Lordships will see, would cover the financial aspects of the present matter, it was not considered to be wholly appropriate, since it is desired to associate Parliament as a whole with the attitude of the Government towards a proposal of such great national interest and it is for this reason that a specific Resolution has been moved, which both Houses of Parliament are asked to approve. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House approves the proposal of His Majesty's Government to devote to the purposes of the National Memorial to His late Majesty King George the Fifth certain property in the City of Westminster now vested in the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings, namely, part of the site now occupied by Number 5, Old Palace Yard, and the sites formerly occupied by Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4, Old Palace Yard, and by Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 3A, Poets' Corner, to the intent that the land comprised therein should form an open space surrounding a statue of His late Majesty King George the Fifth.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
7.33 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, my noble friends desire to be associated with the Motion which the noble Marquess has made, and which we feel will receive

1007
general support. It is, I am sure, your Lordships' wish, and it is in accord with a commendable tradition, that the memory of His late Majesty King George V should be perpetuated by a national memorial as near to the precincts of Parliament as possible, and this Motion will facilitate the exchange of property which will make the project possible. The scheme, as it is now presented, is a modification of the original plan, to which many who had other ideas as to an appropriate site gave a reluctant support. I will not renew the controversy concerning it on this occasion. The site has been chosen, and the statue which is to be erected on it will have a noble and a historical background, and we desire to be associated with the Motion, which we commend to your Lordships' approval.
7.35 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I desire to associate myself with the regret expressed by the noble Marquess opposite for the cause which has kept the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, from making this Motion. It certainly is, I think, with satisfaction, and almost with a feeling of relief, that we all find that His Majesty's Government have been able to come to a definite decision upon this matter. Like the noble Lord, Lord Snell, I have no intention of discussing the differences of opinion that arose as to where the Memorial should be placed; but when it was decided that the westernmost of the two possible sites should be selected two questions arose. In the first place, it was necessary that, in order to preserve the dignity belonging to the object of the memorial, it should be in spacious surroundings; on the other hand, it was not desirable to demolish a large number of the houses immediately ad-
1008
joining it, for, although not of the highest historical or artistic interest, they do represent a standard of modest good taste which has not always been observed in this vast urban congeries which is now London. I hope that the compromise which has been reached by the proposal which the noble Marquess has presented to the House will be found to hold a fair balance between those two considerations which I have mentioned.
I hope also, though with not quite the same confidence, that the site may have satisfied what may be called the moral side of such memorial. Of all the noteworthy personalities which any of the oldest of us can recall, whether belonging to the Royal House or on the roll of statesmen or the roll of warriors, there is not one to whom the call of duty and the obligations of service appealed more strongly than they did to King George V. I should like to think, therefore, that those who, as the noble Lord said, find their way to the precincts of Parliament, when observing this statue in the shadow of Westminster Abbey, will derive from it inspiration and encouragement in recalling the memory of the Sovereign who devoted himself to the welfare of his subjects in a degree that no Sovereign has surpassed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I understand that it will be convenient for the House to meet at three o'clock on Thursday, owing to the amount of business on the Order Paper.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.