CIVIL DEFENCE BILL.

HL Deb 04 July 1939 vol 113 cc941-76

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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, 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. 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (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;
2. (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—

1. (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
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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: 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 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 moved, in subsection (1), at the end of the definition of "owner," to insert: 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 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 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 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 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.