Lords Sitting of 6 June 1939

Preamble
Reassembling after the Whitsun Recess, the House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

HIS MAJESTY'S SUBMARINE "THETIS."
4.20 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before asking the First Lord of the Admiralty a question about the sinking of His Majesty's Submarine "Thetis," of which I have given private notice, may I be allowed to express on behalf of the Opposition our sympathy with the relatives of the gallant officers and men on board? I beg leave to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has any statement to make about the sinking of His Majesty's Submarine "Thetis."
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I cannot add much to the long statement which was made in the House of Commons yesterday by the Prime Minister. I imagine that your Lordships have read that statement and would not wish me to repeat it to this House. I happened myself to be at Devonport at the time that the accident occurred, and therefore was in very close touch with the Commander-in-Chief, Plymouth, who was responsible for initiating the action which is always taken if a submarine does not surface soon after she is due to do so. As the House is aware, Sir Martin Dunbar-Nasmith is a very distinguished submarine officer. I know that he took immediate action, and that nothing was left undone or was deferred which, with the knowledge that we then had, was considered advisable.
I do not, of course, wish to prejudge the full public inquiry which is to be held, but I should like to make two matters clear in regard to the difficulties with which the divers were faced and which I
244
think have not been fully appreciated by the public. The first was the strength of the tides which have made it extremely difficult for the divers to keep their feet under water except during the short slack periods between tides. The second was the difficulty caused by the sharp inclination of the submarine herself which made any foothold on her smooth sides or deck well nigh impossible. It was, I feel, those two factors which caused what appeared to be no more than a serious mishap to become so great a disaster. The loss of a new ship is a catastrophe, but far greater is the loss of so many valuable lives, many of them with great expert knowledge.
From the reports of the survivors, who I am glad to say are progressing favourably and are no longer under hospital treatment, it is evident that the bearing of the officers and men in the submarine during the terrible period from the time of the accident was of the highest order and in accordance with the best traditions of the Service. The behaviour of all the civilians on board was of an equally high standard. I should also like to say how deeply the whole country has been moved by the heroic behaviour of the relatives of those who were in the "Thetis." No words of mine can convey adequately the sympathy which this House and the nation feel for them in their sorrow and deep distress, a sympathy which has been enhanced by the courage and self control which they have shown.
The latest information that I can give to the House is that the camels have now been secured to the "Thetis" by a 3½inch wire to the bullring at the stern of the submarine and by another wire to her bow cable, and three of the lifting wires have been placed under the submarine. If the fine weather continues it is considered possible that a trial lift may be made in about forty-eight hours.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, in thanking the First Lord of the Admiralty for his reply, and arising out of it, may I ask whether we may presume that the noble Earl realises the importance of the inquiry being pressed on as soon as circumstances permit in view of the rumours in circulation, some of which are obviously inaccurate?
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, His Majesty's Government fully recognise the

245
importance of proceeding as soon as possible with the public inquiry. The Admiralty inquiry is, I think, already under way, but as your Lordships will no doubt appreciate it will not be possible to get full evidence until we have salved the "Thetis." Therefore I am not quite sure how soon the public inquiry will start. Arrangements are already in hand, however, to approach the individuals who will sit on the inquiry.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, may I acid a few words on behalf of those who sit on these Benches? I think we must all feel that this is one more proof of the fact that the inventions and discoveries of science for the time continue to outstrip all the precautions that can be devised to counter the dangers which these discoveries involve. That is equally true whether any particular disaster is due to human carelessness or human fallibility or to the inexorable forces of nature. We see continued proof of that in the Air Service, on the high roads and now in this supreme disaster to the "Thetis." All the conditions of national defence in warfare are completely changed since the days of Rodney and Nelson, but it is as true now as it was then that the British Navy holds the first place among all the Services in the hearts of the British people. For that reason I think there is no home in the country that does not wish to share, so far as it can, in the sorrow that has stricken those bereaved homes which are in all our thoughts. To them our deepest sympathy goes out, and it also goes out to the whole Navy—which is the most brotherly of all the public Services—to the Board of Admiralty, and in this House particularly, to my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, because those of us who have to do with politics know that a disaster of this kind when it strikes a great Department falls with special bitterness upon its political head even when, as in this case, he has in no sense responsibility for it and could have done nothing to avert it. I am quite sure that the inquiry which is to be held—and I join with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in the hope that it may not be deferred longer than is necessary—will clear up all the relevant issues which may be in doubt at this moment. The nation has a claim to ask that because it is a national loss.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, may I in a few words thank the noble Lord
246
opposite for the kind words which he spoke on behalf of the Opposition and my noble friend the Marquess of Crewe for the more than kind words he has said on behalf of the Navy and the words he used about me personally? A disaster such as this is, of course, a great shock to everybody in the Naval Service. Several of those on board the "Thetis" were working with us in the Admiralty and were great friends of many of us. We appreciate their qualities and we know what the country has lost by their death. The shock to the whole country has been such that my Department is inundated with expressions of sympathy from all quarters and from all classes, and I feel sure that the words that have been used in your Lordships' House to-day are a true expression of the national feeling.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HAILSHAM WATER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LUTON WATER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOUTH KENT WATER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
SEA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER (TOLLESBURY AND WEST MERSEA) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS BILL.
4.32 p.m.
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 Radnor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Persons not to be prevented from walking on land to which this Act applies.
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, no owner or occupier of, or person having an interest in, land to which this Act applies shall be entitled to exclude any person from entering or being on the land, on any day between one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset, for the purpose of air and pedestrian exercise so long as he—

(a) observes any limitations and conditions specified in relation to the land in an order made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (in this Act referred to as "the Minister") under Section three of this Act;

(b) does not contravene any direction given in relation thereto by an order made by the Minister under Section five of this Act; and

(c) does not contravene in relation thereto any of the provisions specified in Section six of this Act:

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall interfere with, prejudice, or affect the operation with regard to any land of any statutory scheme, order, by-law, or regulation.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (c), to insert:
"Provided that this subsection shall not have effect in the case of land which is excepted land within the meaning of Section two of this Act."
The noble Earl said: The first Amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Addison, is one of a series of Amendments. It is really a machinery Amendment, in that it alters the Bill to the extent that excepted land is automatically excepted from the operation of the Bill instead of, as originally drafted, needing to be specifically mentioned in any order made by the Minister under Clause 3. The difficulty really arises in this way: that if you get an area of land which is made accessible to the public, under the Bill as drawn at present that land has to be mapped by the Minister, and he has to show on the map every little bit of land which may prove to be excepted land within the definition of Clause 2. That means that he has to show every little croft, cottage, garden and so on. That, of course, as your Lordships will realise, if he were dealing with any large area, would be almost impossible. That is the machinery part of the Bill which makes it almost essential
248
that an Amendment of this nature should be inserted. This Amendment carries with it, of course, a great many consequential Amendments later on. I do not think that it really makes any difference to the operation of the Bill except that excepted land, if the Amendment is agreed to, will be automatic rather than specific. I therefore beg to move that this Amendment be agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, at end insert ("Provided that this subsection shall not have effect in the case of land which is excepted land within the meaning of Section two of this Act.")—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the proviso. The noble Earl said: This proviso was put into the Bill because there was a similar proviso in the Law of Property Act, 1925, Section 193, which dealt with rights of access to commons. Commons, as your Lordships are well aware, are frequently the subject of regulations under Statute, but private property hardly ever is, and it therefore seems unnecessary that this proviso should be in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, leave out lines 3 to 6.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The next Amendment is consequential on the Amendment dealing with excepted land.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("which is not excepted land within the meaning of subsection (2) thereof").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to insert the following new subsection after subsection (3):
"(4) An order made under Section three of this Act may specify or describe places for entry on land to which this Act applies, and may provide that subsection (1) of this sons section shall not have effect as respects person entering thereon elsewhere than at those places."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is perhaps slightly more important. It is designed to make quite clear that the public are not allowed to enter on land which is made accessible under the Bill at places where such land is fenced. They are, of course, not allowed actually to do

249
damage by going through fences. The Amendment has the further point that it also prevents, by implication, the owner of accessible land from making it inaccessible by fencing all round it, if he so wishes. As your Lordships see, all order under Section 3 may specify or describe the places by which the public can get access to such land. I think that that gets over the difficulty of the public trying to get on to the land by routes which they should not use, and it also heads off the recalcitrant landowner who wishes to keep people out by fencing all round. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 23, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
LORD CRANWORTH: I am not quite clear on this Amendment. Would the effect of it be that anybody getting through the fence on to access land is not subject to the same penalty as the man who goes through the gate? If that is the case there would be quite a number of holes in the fence.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: This is possibly a rather abstruse point. I am not quite certain whether when the man is getting through the fence which fences the land he is actually on the access land or not. If he is, he is committing an offence undoubtedly and he will be penalised under Clause 7.
LORD CRANWORTH: Then may I take it that that does not mean what at first sight it seems to mean: that if he gets through the fence he is merely a trespasser and not a person who has a right to be on the land? If that were the case, as a trespasser he is not liable to the penalties mentioned in Clause 7, but merely to the penalties that the ordinary trespasser incurs, which usually amount to nothing.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I think my noble friend may take it as absolutely certain that once he gets on the land which is made accessible, he is liable to the pains and penalties under Clauses 6 and 7.
LORD CRANWORTH: Thank you.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Kinds of land to which this Act may be applied, and excepted land.
2.—(1) The kinds of land as to which an order applying this Act thereto may be made shall be land which in the opinion of the Minister is mountain, moor, heath, or down.
(2) The following land shall be excepted land, that is to say, land which in the opinion of the Minister is—
(b) agricultural land (that is to say, land used as arable, meadow or pasture ground, or for the purpose of poultry farming, market gardens, nursery grounds, orchard or allotments, including allotment gardens within the meaning of the Allotments Act, 1922) other than sheep walks or cliff;
(h) land comprised in an ancient monument as defined by Section fifteen of the Ancient Monuments Act, 1931, for the purposes of Part II (Guardianship of ancient monuments) of the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1913;
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or" in order, after "down," to insert "or cliff." The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, the point was raised on the Second Reading of the Bill that it would be desirable that the land to which the Bill would apply should include cliff land and such like places which are commonly walked on. This Amendment is proposed in order to include such land.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 27, leave out ("or").—(Lord Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ADDISON: This is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 27, at end, insert ("or cliff").—(Lord Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: This Amendment is consequential on the first Amendment relating to excepted land.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 29, leave out ("land which in the opinion of the Minister is").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The next two Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("or") and insert ("and land")
Page 2, line 38, leave out ("as to") and insert ("that access by the public thereto would").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, in subsection (2) (b), to leave out "other than sheep walks or cliff" and insert" so however that a tract of mountain, moor, heath, down or cliff, shall not be treated as pasture ground for the purposes of this paragraph by reason only of the fact that sheep or cattle graze thereon." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to take out the expression "sheep walk." If noble Lords will refer to the top of page 3, they will see the words "other than sheep walks or cliff." It was felt difficult to define what a sheep walk was. There is, for instance, much land round about cliff tops, where sheep graze quite properly, but it would be, I hope, excepted land and classified as pasture land. It is in order to make the understanding with regard to them as clear as possible that I propose this Amendment:
"so however that a tract of mountain, moor, heath, down or cliff, shall not be treated as pasture ground for the purposes of this paragraph by reason only of the fact that sheep or cattle graze thereon."
We are advised by our legal advisers that this makes it as clear as may be.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 4, leave out ("other than sheep walks or cliff") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Addison.)
LORD CRANWORTH: May I ask whether the noble Lord is as satisfied as his legal advisers that this makes it quite clear? Furthermore, is it the number of sheep and cattle which are the point in question, or other facts such as fencing?
LORD ADDISON: If it is fenced and becomes excepted land then it would be excepted from the order. The point here is that sheep do in fact graze on cliff land very commonly. It is not enclosed, and would be land dealt with in the order, but is not ordinary pasture land which would be enclosed and excepted from the order altogether. It is to provide as far as possible by words of fairly reasonable interpretation that you should not be able to classify as pasture a piece of cliff land where sheep ordinarily wander about and are allowed to graze thereon. Far be it for me to say that the Courts will be satisfied with the words, but personally
252
I was satisfied, and they seem to be as good as the lawyers can invent.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The next two Amendments are drafting—
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 32, leave out the second ("or") and insert ("and land").
Page 3, line 34, leave out ("as to") and insert ("that access by the public thereto would").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to leave out paragraph (h). The noble Earl said: On the Second Reading I think it was Lord Bledisloe who mentioned the question of ancient monuments. This Amendment to omit paragraph (h), which deals with ancient monuments, is put down not so much to deal with his point as to deal with certain objections which arise over this particular paragraph. This paragraph really is very much legislation by reference to which I think a great many of your Lordships have a rather strong objection. In actual fact, to ascertain the land comprised in an ancient monument it would be necessary to refer to the opinions of Commissioners of Works or, in some cases, of local authorities, and it might be rather difficult to find out what land was comprised in any ancient monument concerned. In any case ancient monuments are dealt with by the Acts of 1913 and 1931, and I think that ancient monuments should be left to the operation of their own Acts, rather than be brought within the scope of this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, leave out paragraph (h).—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Provisions as to making, variation and revocation of orders as to application of this Act.
3.—(1) An order applying this Act to land may be made on the application—
Provided that, to an application made by the owner of land in which any other person has an interest not capable of being bound or over-reached by a disposition made by the owner thereof, the consent of that person shall be requisite.
(5) When submitting the application to the Minister, the applicant shall transmit to him any objection made to the applicant in writing before the end of the period specified in the notice, other than an objection which has been withdrawn, and the Minister shall consider any such objections, and may thereafter, and after holding such enquiries (if any) as he thinks fit, make an order in accordance with the application with or without modification:
Provided that…
(8) In relation to a revoking order, or a varying order not providing for the application of this Act to land, subsections (1), (3), (4) and (5) of this section (except, in the case of a revoking order, subsection (3) and paragraph (a) of subsection (4)) shall have effect with the substitution, for references to the application of this Act to land, of references to the revocation or variation and, for references to the particulars required by subsection (3), of references to particulars of any variation applied for:
Provided that—
(b) if the Minister is of opinion that all or any of the land to which by virtue of an order this Act for the time being applies has ceased to be land of any of the kinds mentioned in subsection (1) of Section two of this Act or has become, or would but for the order have become, excepted land, he shall revoke the order, or shall make a varying order directing that this Act shall cease to apply to that part of the land as to which he is of that opinion, as the case may require, and the said subsections shall not have effect in relation to a revoking or varying order to be made by virtue of this paragraph.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), after "land," to insert "of which another person is the occupier or." The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with the definition of those who are the owners, occupiers or persons having an interest in the land. As the Bill is at present the wording is somewhat loose, and the various forms in which those interested in the land are dealt with are to be found throughout the Bill, and a number of Amendments are proposed. It is proposed to keep all more or less on the same lines, so that those to whom it is intended to refer will be referred to as the owner, occupier or any other person who is interested in the land. I think that if that is the wording used throughout the Bill we shall know where we are.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, after ("land") insert of which another person is the occupier or").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The next three Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 36, after ("consent") insert ("of the occupier or")
Page 4, line 36, after ("person") insert ("as the case may be").
Page 5, line 3, at end, insert ("and of any provisions proposed to be included in the order by virtue of subsection (4) of Section one of this Act").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The next three Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 9, after ("where") insert ("the application and")
Page 5, line 11, after ("where") insert ("copies of")
Page 5, line 12, leave out ("inspected and copies thereof").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (5), immediately preceding the proviso, to insert "if it appears to him to be expedient so to do having regard to all the circumstances, including the extent to which access by the public to the land to which the application relates has been allowed in the past." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is brought forward to meet a point raised in another place regarding land to which the public have had access in the past, whether they had a right of access or not—at any rate have been allowed to have access. It was felt that in making an order for access to such land regard should be had to the user of the land in the past by the public. There are, as one knows, a number of places in this country where the public have had, by permission of the owner or without his active interference, access for (in some cases) a great number of years, and fears were expressed that in making orders under this Bill such access as had already been enjoyed might be curtailed. So this Amendment has been devised.
If your Lordships will look at it you will see that it places the responsibility of decision upon the Minister who makes the order, and the Amendment begins "if it appears to him to be expedient so to do," and he is to have
"regard to all the circumstances, including the extent to which access by the public to the land to which the application relates has been allowed in the past."
I think there is, as a matter of fact, in the Bill, without this Amendment, sufficient

255
to ensure that, generally speaking, the Minister ought to have regard to what has happened in the past before making an order, but I think equally it is desirable that it should be so stated in the Bill. It is only right to draw your Lordships attention to the fact that the overriding consideration is still there in Clause 3, subsection (5) (c), where the Minister cannot make an order if, as a result, there is likely to be a material loss or damage to the owner, etc. That overrides any consideration of this sort, and I think in view of the objections made in another place, and in justice to those who wish to make use of the land, this is an Amendment which should be agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 34, at end insert ("if it appears to him to be expedient so to do having regard to all the circumstances, including the extent to which access by the public to the land to which the application relates has been allowed in the past").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
LORD CRANWORTH: I find this Amendment a little difficult to understand. Take the case of an ordinary piece of land. The Ministry investigates the circumstances and finds that this land has been roamed over freely in the past. Therefore it is made "access land" under this Bill, and penalties will be put on for various offences or derelictions which would not have fallen upon people who by custom had been used to going on this land. I quite agree that it would not be fair to them to have any different responsibility placed upon them than they had before. This land would remain as it was. But what then happens is that the custom which has allowed them to roam is done away with by the owner. Then I presume the Minister would, after further consideration, make an order.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I think the position is that in making an order the Minister has to have regard to those considerations, but of course he need not make an order if those considerations are such as to make it undesirable. But should an owner in the instance which my noble friend has suggested close the access to the land which people had in the past, then it is open to the local authority or a representative body to apply for an order, and when the Minister considers the making of that order he has
256
to take into consideration the access that there has been in the past. I cannot honestly say how much further it will go, but I do not think that such cases are likely to arise very frequently.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (8), to leave out proviso (b). The noble Earl said: This Amendment is really consequential on that which dealt with excepted land. The only respect in which it is not consequential is that if a whole area is dealt with by an order, in the event of its being excepted land it has to be dealt with by an amending order, but if a portion of it becomes excepted land through the operation of time—building or something of that sort—then it automatically becomes excepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 21, leave out from ("order") to the end of line 35.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: On the Question that the clause as amended stand part of the Bill there are two points I should like to raise for the consideration of my noble friend. By the proviso in subsection (1)
"to an application made by the owner of land in which any other person has an interest not capable of being bound or over-reached by a disposition made by the owner thereof, the consent of that person shall be requisite."
But in the case where a council of any county or any organisation deemed by the Minister to be sufficiently representative of the persons likely to be benefited by the application of the measure, there is no such proviso. It is just as important whether the owner of the land is the applicant, or the council or the organisation, that the remainder men should have due notice and their consent be obtained. Of course it may be said that they do not know who the remainder men are, but I should have thought it would have been possible to make the owner, on whom a copy of the application has to be served, pass on to the remainder men the notice which he receives. I wonder whether the noble Earl could get his advisers to draft something to cover that point. There is another small point on proviso (a) of subsection (5). In the case of an inquiry held at which the applicant and the objector and any other person deemed by

257
the person holding the inquiry to be sufficiently interested any of those persons is entitled to appear and to be heard. I think it is usual to make provision that he may be represented by an agent.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: In the case of the proviso to subsection (1), that deals with an application for an order by an owner, and of course he knows who are the people who have other interests in his land. In the case of a local authority, or an organisation which is deemed to be representative, he has no means of knowing, and therefore he himself cannot of course deal with the remainder men. I think there is a further argument, and that is that in the event of an application by an organisation, and not by the owner, presumably—indeed quite likely—the owner will object. I think the proviso dealing with the owner is intended to prevent an owner from going behind the back of the remainder men without consulting them; but when it is a public body that is concerned they have to take steps in the form of publication which is easily available to the remainder men. But I will on that point consider with my advisers whether it is possible to place an obligation upon the owner in those circumstances to communicate with those other people who are interested. I cannot say off-hand whether it is possible or not. With regard to the other point, concerning the agent, I will also look into that, and if it is possible I will move an Amendment on the point.
May I mention another matter? On the Second Reading I said to your Lordships that I proposed to put down an Amendment allowing access by deed to excepted land. The process I envisaged was that the persons who wished excepted land to be made accessible to the public should apply to the Minister for an order dealing with access. There is no such Amendment on the Paper. The reason is that it was represented to me by the Government that such an Amendment would be rather a big departure from the existing law of trespass, and that any such alteration in the law should really be made by a Government Bill, and therefore it was undesirable to have it in a Private Bill, and they would be compelled to oppose it. In those circumstances I felt it most desirable not to put down such an Amendment.
On Question, Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Maps to be attached to orders and deposited with county authorities]:
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I have five drafting Amendments to this clause to conform with the terms of Section 280 of the Local Government Act, 1933, under which the obligations imposed by this clause should formally be imposed on the clerk of the local authorities, and not on the local authorities themselves. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 8, line 4o, leave out ("them") and insert ("the clerk")
Page 8, line 41, leave out ("him") and insert ("the Minister")
Page 8, line 41, leave out ("council") and insert ("clerk")
Page 9, line 1, leave out ("them") and insert ("him")
Page 9, line 4, leave out ("them") and insert ("him").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
General conditions.
6. No person shall without lawful authority (proof of the possession whereof shall lie upon him), in or upon any land to which this Act applies—
(h) wilfully injure, remove, or destroy any plant, shrub, tree, or root or any part thereof;
(o) hinder or obstruct the owner or occupier or any sporting or other tenant of the land or any person employed or authorised by the owner, occupier or tenant in the exercise of any right or power or the performance of any function vested in him or devolving upon him under or in pursuance of this Act or otherwise.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, at the end of paragraph (h), to insert "or any notice board." The noble Viscount said: It is quite likely that notice boards will be erected under Clause 2. They will be definitely erected under Clause 6. I know of cases where the public have damaged and taken away notice boards saying that property is private, which have been legitimately erected by the owners. For that reason, this paragraph should go in to protect owners who put up notices saying that certain parts of the land are exempted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 7, at end insert ("or any notice board").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My noble friend Lord Bertie seems to want to class notice boards with plants, shrubs, roots, and so on. I cannot feel in any case that this paragraph is the right place for such an Amendment because a notice board is not what you might call a natural growth on the land. I would rather, if it is necessary to put it in the Bill, it were put somewhere else than in this clause. As a matter of fact, the point is covered fairly completely by the preceding paragraph (g) which reads, "wilfully damage the land or anything thereon or therein." That is definitely designed to cover erections put up by man on the land for the purpose of the land in various forms. I hope the noble Viscount will accept that as an answer and withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I should not have attempted to put this in anywhere were it not for paragraph (g) which says, "wilfully damage the land or anything thereon or therein;" and the next paragraph goes on to say "wilfully injure, remove, or destroy any plant, shrub, tree or root or any part thereof." If you include shrubs, you ought to include such a thing as a notice board, or take the shrubs out. I am not at all particular where my Amendment goes in.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I think the noble Viscount is wrong really, because there is a natural propensity amongst those who go on the land to pick flowers and plants which it is most desirable to stop. If we are going to mention notice boards—and I am quite prepared to consider it on Report—there are a great many other things which might have to be mentioned. You could expand this particular clause of the Bill almost without limit.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I do not know what other things my noble friend has in mind, but if he could tell me it might help to clear the matter up.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Litter boxes and so on. There are a great many things that are erected on the land by human agency which are not mentioned, and it is rather difficult to make a list of them.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Cannot people be prosecuted for damaging these notice boards?
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Oh, yes.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: If that is so, that is good enough.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in paragraph (o), to leave out all words after "hinder or obstruct the owner or occupier" and insert "of the land or any person having an interest therein, or any person acting under the authority of the owner, occupier or person interested, in the exercise of any right or power vested in him by virtue of this Act or otherwise." The noble Earl said: This is really a drafting Amendment. The wording here again is rather narrow, and one wants to include all the people interested in the land in conformity with those mentioned in a previous Amendment. It eliminates any mention of the sporting tenant, but that omission is remedied in a later Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 24, leave out from ("occupier") to the end of line 31, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Offences and enforcement.
7.—(1) Any person who in or upon any land to which this Act applies contravenes or fails to observe any of the provisions specified in the last preceding section or any limitation or condition specified in relation thereto in an order made under Section three of this Act, or any direction given in relation thereto by an order made under Section five of this Act, shall be guilty of an offence under this section:
Provided that…
(3) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall, without prejudice to any other liability, be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding, in the case of a contravention of any of the provisions specified in paragraph (b) of Section six of this Act, five pounds for the first offence and ten pounds for any subsequent offence, and, in the case of any other offence, two pounds, and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding ten shillings for each day during which the offence continues, and where the offence involves or causes any injury to, or removal or destruction of, any property (whether animate or inanimate) the offender shall in addition b liable to pay damages or make compensation

261
to the owner of the property, and such damages or compensation shall be recoverable in the court before which he is convicted, either along with the fine or as a civil debt if the owner is willing to limit the amount of his claim for damages or compensation to a sum not exceeding ten pounds, but if he is not so willing then the damages or compensation shall be recoverable in any court of competent jurisdiction.
(4) Any offence under this section may be prosecuted by the owner, or occupier, or any sporting or other tenant of the land in or upon which the offence was committed or by any person employed or authorised by him or by any person who is the owner of any property the injury, removal or destruction of which is involved in or caused by the offence.
(5) Any person guilty of an offence under this section and refusing or neglecting to desist from the offence after having been requested so to do may be removed or excluded, without use of unnecessary violence, from any land to which this Act for the time being applies, by the owner, or occupier, or any sporting or other tenant thereof or any person employed or authorised by him (proof of which employment or authority shall rest upon the person so employed or authorised).
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), after "Provided that" to insert:
"(a) in relation to a contravention of or failure to observe a limitation or condition specified in an order made under Section three of this Act, this subsection shall have effect only if it is expressly provided by an order so made that this subsection shall' have effect in relation thereto, and the Minister shall not make an order containing such provision unless he is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in order to prevent the continuance of contraventions of or failure to observe the condition or limitation or in the public interest."
The noble Earl said: This is perhaps the most important Amendment on the Paper. Clause 7 is the penal clause of the Bill. Under it an individual who is guilty of an offence under Clause 6 is liable to a fine, and if he is guilty of contravening any of the limitations or conditions which may be specified in an order made under Clause 3 he is also guilty of an offence and equally liable to a penalty. The limitations and conditions which may be imposed in an order made under Clause 3 are defined to a great extent in Clause 1, subsection (3), which virtually points out that the Minister, in making an order, can limit to a certain extent the times at which people may go on the land. The limitations which one has in mind may relate to the lambing season or the nesting season, or to some other similar season. your Lordships will see from the pro-
262
viso in subsection (1) at the top of page 11, if anybody intentionally trespasses at such times he is guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty of £2 as a maximum for such simple trespass. It seems to me perfectly reasonable, when an order is made by the Minister that people should not go on the land at certain times, that there should be some penal provision—some sanction—to ensure that they do not go on the land at such times. This particular provision has aroused a very considerable opposition amongst the organised ramblers. They claim that it is a material alteration of the law of trespass that a man who commits a simple trespass—I must emphasize the word "intentionally"—is liable to a fine of £2 or such lesser sum as may be imposed. They say that is wrong, and as the result of that they are quite definitely opposed to the Bill as a whole because of this small point.
The Amendment does not affect any sanctions under Clause 6, which is the one we have just dealt with, and it does not affect any offences under Clause 5—that is the fire clause. It only deals with the question of simple trespass without damage. After due consideration, the promoters of the Bill came to the conclusion that a concession might reasonably be made to the organised ramblers on this really very small point in the hope and belief that if this was conceded, their co-operation in the working of the Bill when it becomes law will be obtained. The effect of it will be really that when access land is closed to the public for any particular reason, then during such time simple trespass will not be an offence under the Bill, but the individual who does so trespass will be liable to be excluded under the law of trespass—that is to say, the owner will get back the right to exclude the simple trespasser in these circumstances. The owner in fact will be no worse off than he would be if this Bill never became law. The rambler will be the better off in that there will be certain times when the land on which he is going will be available to him without his trespassing.
I think the objection arises mostly in regard to land on which certain things have been happening. At the present time a great many ramblers are quite deliberately and avowedly—as I have heard, and I think the noble Lord on the Front Bench has heard—trespassing over

263
land. They feel they do no harm in so doing, and I think in very many cases they do no harm. Your Lordships will see that under the Amendment the Minister will be enabled to make an order imposing the sanction if it should prove to be necessary in the light of experience, and if by agreeing to this Amendment the good will of the organised ramblers can be obtained, I feel fairly certain that we shall get their co-operation in operating the Bill when it becomes law. Their co-operation can be, and I have no doubt will be, extremely helpful to the landowners who will be concerned with the operation of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 1, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
LORD ADDISON: I should like to intervene for a moment to say that I am quite sure a large number of people will be sincerely grateful to the noble Earl for what I may call this ingenious compromise. It is a fact that as the Bill stood the law, including the sanctions, would be applicable to excepted land where none of the offences under Clause 6 have been committed, and merely through the fact of walking there. In that respect it was claimed, and I think fairly claimed, that it was thereby indirectly a drastic extension of the law affecting trespass. If this Amendment is agreed to it will, I am glad to feel, exempt nobody from the penalties which would be incurred by committing any of the offences set out in the previous clause, and for that reason I am glad the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, does not now seek to exempt pulling up of roots and so forth. I am sure there is not one of us who would like to think that any consideration was being given to people who do dreadful things of that kind. This does not affect any of them, but it does mean that the ordinary law of trespass will continue to apply in the absence of any of the offences not being committed that are set out in the previous clause. This exempted land will be in the same position in respect of trespass as other land. I think myself that many will feel extremely grateful to the noble Earl for promoting this compromise, and I sincerely hope your Lordships will accept it. It leaves the land in no worse position in any case than it is in now, and it does remove the discrimination
264
between mere walking about on land which is excepted land and walking about on other land, in both of which cases you might be trespassing.
VISCOUNT ESHER: Speaking on behalf of the deliberate trespasser, who I am willing to support as far as I can, I am very greateful to the noble Earl for what he has done, but I would like to ask him how the deliberate trespasser is to know whether the sanction has been imposed.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: That will be in the order.
LORD CRANWORTH: I should like to say a word in respect of this Amendment. As far as this Bill is an agreed measure—and that is so, I think, to some considerable extent—it is agreed in a spirit of compromise. The ramblers and the hikers get certain privileges, not so many as they would wish, and in return they accept certain responsibilities. Hence we get a spirit of compromise. Now without this Amendment they would go upon this land for a certain period of time and would accept responsibilities and get none of the privileges. That, to my mind, would be quite unfair, and I am glad to see that my noble friend approves of the Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: I have been asked to express to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill the doubts that certain persons have as to the effect of this Amendment in the precise position in which it is to be inserted. I do not wish to pose as an expert on this matter to your Lordships,' but it has been represented to me that this Amendment affects the operation of the closing order, and that this is not a good place in which to put it because this is a provision which is dealing mainly with offences and enforcement. Those who have represented this matter to me would have preferred this Amendment either as a subsection at the end of the clause or as a separate clause altogether. I should be very grateful if the noble Earl would consider whether an Amendment on those lines could be inserted in the Report stage.
So far as the Amendment itself is concerned there is a point about which I am myself not quite clear. Perhaps I have misunderstood the Amendment. words I would refer to are:

265
"and the Minister shall not make an order containing such provision unless he is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in order to prevent the continuance of contraventions."
That seems to me to be a very elaborate procedure for locking the stable door after the steed has been stolen. It may be said that anyone who suffers damage has his Common Law remedy, but this Bill is designed to bring a great many people on to the land in ways which are not open to them at present, and I hope it will be successful. If this Bill is necessary to extend people's rights of going on to land, then I see no reason why the ordinary power to obtain damages at Common Law should not be increased. If the Minister makes an "order containing such provision" then the rambling societies will have to see to it that their members are aware of the order.
But there are so many things that may happen. I suggest to your Lordships that the lambing season is probably the most important matter to be considered. If by reason of disturbance the lambing of a flock is seriously impaired what possible compensation can be given to the man who owns that flock for the loss of his livelihood? The rambling societies, as the noble Earl knows well, are not in the least liable for the actions of their members, and experience has shown that the actual culprits can very seldom pay suitable damages for such loss. I am a little afraid, if I am right in my interpretation of this clause, that this may lead to very bad feeling on the part of occupiers if they should suffer such a loss as I have indicated. I do not wish to press the point. I am sure the noble Earl has it in mind, but if, as I understand the Amendment, the Minister can only make on order after actual damage has been done then I think that that is a rather serious position. I think it should be in the discretion of the Minister himself.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): As this is a question of the construction of the Amendment upon the Paper I think perhaps I may usefully say a word. I am not sure that I quite follow the noble Lord's objection. Whether the Amendment is worded in the best way or not is another thing, but the substance of it is that the Minister is not to make an order under which the penalty be claimed under this clause unless satisfied that it is necessary so to
266
do, in order to prevent the continuance of contraventions, or failure to observe the condition or limitation or in the public interest. I do not conceive, and I do not think it can be right to say, that the landowner has got to wait until injurious things have been done before there can be inserted in the order such a provision. As I understand it, it will be open to the landowner or somebody else claiming the order to explain that there is a risk that at any particular time a somewhat serious contravention might take place which would greatly injure him, not as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, pointed out, a contravention mentioned in Clause 6 but the other contraventions which are referred to in Clause 3. The only thing which might perhaps be considered on Report stage is whether it is wise to put in the words "in order to prevent the continuance of contraventions," or whether it might not be wise to put in "to prevent contraventions or the continuance of contraventions," or something to show that the thing has not got to begin before the order is made by the Minister. Subject to that, I venture to think the danger which has been anticipated as to the result of the Amendment as drawn is really not one which need greatly occupy the attention of the noble Lord.
LORD SALTOUN: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Perhaps I might be allowed to say, as regards the place of the Amendment in the Bill, that after all this clause is the one which deals with offences and this is a proviso dealing with the same question. I will, however, look into the matter and see whether it can be more suitably done elsewhere, although I do not think the position in the Bill would make a very great difference to the actual result. With regard to the point made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I would like to say that as I read it—I may be wrong—the Minister shall not make an order unless he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent the continuance of contraventions or failure to observe the condition or limitation; that is to say, he makes an order if he is satisfied that it is necessary to make an order to ensure observance. That may be

267
right or wrong—I am subject to correction by the noble and learned Lord—but it seems to me to cover any possible contingency, particularly in the case of the owner who says: "Well, if you don't impose a sanction, I shall suffer loss," and that is a substantial argument of which the Minister must take account. However, I will look into the matter in conjunction with those advising me and see if anything is necessary to be done on Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11 line 22, leave out from ("occupier") to ("has") in line 26, and insert ("of land to which this Act applies or any person having an interest therein, or any person acting under the authority of the owner, occupier or person interested").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 28, after ("may") insert ("(on production, if he is acting under authority and is so requested, of evidence of his authority)").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The next Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 31, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding ten shillings for each day during which the offence continues." The noble Earl said: This Amendment relates to a continuing offence. Your Lordships will see that provision is made for a fine not exceeding 10s. each day. As the Bill is drawn it is hardly possible that there can be a continuing offence. The offence will cease at the latest an hour after sunset and another offence would have to be committed an hour before sunrise. It cannot be a continuing offence. If this Amendment is agreed to the offender will be liable to a maximum fine of £2 to-day and another £2
268
to-morrow, instead of 10s. for each subsequent day.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 40, leave out from ("pounds") to ("and") in line 42.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "continues," and insert the following new subsection:
"(4) If any person, by any act or omission which constitutes an offence under This section, does or causes to be done any damage to property, he shall, on conviction of the offence, be liable upon the application of the person who sustains the damage to be ordered to pay to him as compensation therefor such sum not exceeding ten pounds as the court before which he is convicted may consider reasonable:
Provided that this subsection shall not prevent the taking of any other legal proceedings in respect of that damage, so however that a person shall, not be proceeded against twice in respect of the same claim."
The noble Earl said: This really is a drafting Amendment. The subsection which I propose reproduces the sense of the words I propose to leave out in a form for which there is a precedent. The actual precedent is taken from the Protection of Animals Act, 1911. I think it makes the point clearer than in the Bill as drafted.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 42, leave out from ("continues") to the end of the subsection and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to leave out subsection (4) The noble Earl said: This subsection is really unnecessary because the persons specified have power already under the general law to prosecute.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 13, to leave out subsection (4).—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Earl said: I hope your Lordships will note that many of these Amendments will shorten the Bill, which is an advantage. This subsection is really inconsistent with subsection (1) of Clause 1 of the Bill. Clause 1 (1) provides that the right to remove or exclude under the existing of trespass is negatived by the Bill so

269
as no offence is committed. This subsection merely reproduces that and is therefore unnecessary. Moreover, when you can remove under Clause 1 (1) you can remove forthwith, whereas in the subsection which I propose to omit you ask a person to go first, which seems a pity.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 20, leave out subsection (5).—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Saving of rights.
8.—(1) Neither the access for air and pedestrian exercise to any land to which this Act for the time being applies nor any provision of this Act affecting such land or the use thereof shall—

(a) prevent or interfere with any dealing with or use of such land by or under the authority of the owner or occupier thereof or any person having any interest therein for the purposes of cultivation or building or other development, or for hunting, shooting, fishing, coursing, falconry, mining, quarrying, laying of pipes or wires, erection of posts, ropeways, cables or transmission lines, construction of reads, footpaths, railways, tramways or other means of transport or communication, taking of peat or turf, cutting of bracken, burning of heather or gorse, or any other lawful purpose; or

(b) prevent or interfere with the withdrawal of support from such land by any such owner, occupier or person; or

(c) notwithstanding anything in any other Act, or in any statutory order, scheme or regulation, subject any owner, occupier or person, to any obligation to fence, or provide protection against any danger from quarries, mines, shafts, drains, wells, holes, reservoirs, ponds, watercourses, posts, rope-ways, transmission lines or electricity apparatus, or any places which may be or become sources of danger; or

(g) operate so as to repeal, abrogate, or prejudice any rights, powers, regulations, or provisions to which the land is, or may become, subject under any Act of Parliament or any statutory scheme, order or instrument; or
(h) except as by this Act expressly provided or authorised affect the application to or with respect to the land of the common law or any existing or future Act of Parliament concerning trespass to land or the pursuit, taking, or protection of game or any wild birds or animals or fish.
(2) Any use of any land reserved or protected under subsection (1) of this section shall have priority over any access thereto allowed by or under this Act.
(3) Any person entering or remaining on any to which this Act for the time being lies for the purposes of air and pedestrian shall do so at his own risk, and in the
270
event of his suffering any injury thereon he shall not be entitled to make any claim against any owner or occupier or sporting or other tenant of such land or any person having any interest in such land, or being lawfully thereon, for damages or otherwise, by reason only of his being upon such land with the knowledge of such owner, occupier, or person, or in consequence only of the provisions of this Act, or by reason only that anything lawfully existing, or done or omitted to be done in or upon such land or any adjoining land may be or become a source of danger.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "affecting such land or the use thereof." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to move words out of the Bill which I am advised are not necessary. As the Bill stands, it is said—and I think there is something in it—that land not affected by an order may be indirectly prejudiced by the fact that an order may be applied for and made. In some cases, as I said on Second Reading, it may, for example, affect a right of way over land which would in no case be affected by an order. I have been told that the Bill will not do anything of the kind, that in no case will it affect rights of way over land not affected by an order, but if these words, which I am advised are not in the least necessary, are omitted there will be no doubt about it.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 31, leave out ("affecting such land or the use thereof").—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I do not know whether there is any substance in the noble Lord's argument on this point, but I am quite prepared to accept an Amendment which moves out of the Bill words that are not needed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
"(a) prejudice or affect any right or power with respect to the use of the land vested in the owner or occupier thereof or in any person having an interest therein; or"
The noble Earl said: This is one of a series of Amendments to Clause 8 which are all more or less the same in their effect. Clause 8 deals with the saving of rights, and it seemed desirable that these should be defined in the Bill as broadly as possible and not as closely as they are in the present draft. As your Lordships will see, subsection (1) (a) tries to define closely the land with which people are dealing, and the Amendment

271
suggests that it could be defined in much more general terms. I think the words of the Amendment, which are much shorter than the words of the Bill, cover everything that is in the Bill and possibly anything more which may have been omitted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 33, leave out paragraph (a) and insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
"(b) prejudice or affect any right to withdraw support from the land; or."
The noble Earl said: This is more or less on the same lines, and one might add that in this particular case of the support of the land the withdrawal of the support is as a rule not in the hands either of the owner or the occupier, and therefore it is most desirable that the clause should be drawn as widely as possible so that it should not exclude people who are not owners, occupiers or such other persons as have been mentioned in paragraph (a).
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 4, leave out paragraph (b) and insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 9, leave out ("owner, occupier or").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, in subsection (1) (c), after "watercourses" to insert "pipelines, aqueducts." The noble Lord said: I think that these words will add to the efficiency of the Bill. This Amendment was put down at the instance of the municipal authorities, water engineers and others engaged in public services of that kind. All that it is necessary for me to point out is that in all cases water pipelines, aqueducts to a certain extent, and underground valve chambers and meter houses constantly need excavating and taking up for purposes of renewal, repairs and similar work. I think that it is necessary that local authorities, particularly those engaged in the public service of water
272
supply, should obtain protection from any claims which may be made upon them by ramblers and other members of the public who will be affected by this Bill. I think you can all visualise the existence of a long length of pipe for the laying, relaying or repair of which it is found necessary to open the ground. The land may belong to the authority concerned, and at the same time the public are allowed free access. Without a protective clause of this nature, if a rambler should fall into one of these open cuttings, then the undertakers would be liable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 12, after ("watercourses") insert ("pipelines, aqueducts,").—(Lord Eltisley.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 16, leave out ("any such owner, occupier or person") and insert ("the owner or occupier of the land or any person having an interest therein").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: This is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 17, leave out ("for, or in consequence") and insert ("in respect").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: This also is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 19, leave out ("by") and insert ("in consequence of").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1) (e), to leave out "or any Act amending or re-enacting the same." The noble Earl said: This is really a drafting amendment. Reference to reenacting Acts is unnecessary, having regard to the Interpretation Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 23, leave out ("or any Act amending or re-enacting the same").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed
THE EARL OF RADNOR: This Amendment is in line with the other Amendments that I have moved recently to Clause 8 in order to make this subsection as wide as possible.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 25, leave out from the beginning to ("to") in line 26 and insert ("any person").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (g). The noble Earl said: It seems to be necessary to insert in this Bill any provision that the Bill does not repeal other Acts of Parliament which it does not purport to repeal. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 36, leave out from ("easement") to the end of line 41.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (h). The noble Earl said: The same remark applies to this paragraph as well. It is unnecessary to say that the Bill does not affect the Common Law or any existing or future Act of Parliament.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 42, leave out paragraph (h).—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Earl said: This subsection seems unnecessary. Indeed, I find it very difficult indeed to give any meaning to it, and it is therefore most undesirable that it should remain in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 42, leave out subsection (2).—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to leave out subsection (3) and insert:
"(3) In respect of injury sustained on land to which this Act applies by persons being thereon in consequence of this Act, the rules of law relating to injury sustained on land by persons trespassing thereon shall have effect:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as authorising the owner or occupier of land to which this Act applies, or any person having an interest therein, to do or cause to be done thereon anything involving a contravention of subsection (1) of Section one of this Act."
The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment of some importance, and it is rather difficult to arrive at the right wording. It deals with the possible injury that may be sustained by people who go on the land in consequence of the operation of this Act. It is true to say that landowners are somewhat exercised in their minds as to their possible liability in the event of injury. The intention of the Amendment is to make quite clear that the landowner is not liable to any greater extent through the operation of this Bill than he is at present. That intention is not made clear under subsection (3) as at present drafted, and I hope it is made clear in the new draft which is now before your Lordships. It puts the person who goes on land, so far as injury is concerned, in the same position as the ordinary trespasser, and the landowner is to that extent safeguarded. I do not think one could go farther than that, even though, of course, I realise that the operation of the Bill may mean that there are more people on the land and consequently more chance of injury being sustained. The landowner has certain obligations so far as injury is concerned, as I understand the law, with regard to anybody who is on the land, whether they are there of right or through wrongdoing. There is no desire, I think, among landowners to put themselves in a better position as a result of this Bill than they have hitherto.
The proviso is also necessary to ensure that no landowner shall do such actions as might frighten people from going on the land by putting what might be called deterrent dangers on the land to keep people off. That is the reason for the proviso. Whether it is correct legally or not I do not know, and whether it has achieved its object I hesitate to say, because I am no lawyer. The brief that I have been given, however, informs me that it deals with a section of the law on which there are very many decided cases, but the decisions of the cases do not seem to have arrived at any coherent result—at least, coherent to the layman. But I think after very careful thought that this Amendment will achieve the desired object, and will protect the landowner and at the same time not impose too much upon the ordinary rambler who goes on to the land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 9, leave out subsection (3) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think perhaps it would be right that I should not leave the law in such a terrible state as that in which Lord Radnor left it, but should try to some extent to elucidate the point. There have been a great number of decisions with regard to the law applicable to the occupiers and owners of land, in reference to accidents which take place upon their property, and I think I am right in saying that the decisions are concerned not only with trespassers, who are a very common sort of person to find on one's land, but also with persons who are licensed to go on the land, and in another category are those who are invitees. A different standard has been laid down by the Courts in each of those three cases. With regard to trespassers on the land, I think the liability of the occupier cannot be put more briefly than it is in Halsbury's Laws of England, Second Edition, Volume 23, where in paragraph 864, on page 613, it is stated in these words. I am concerned only with trespassers here:
"The occupier is in such a case liable only where the injury is due to some wilful act involving something more than the absence of reasonable care."
So that, for example, if a trespasser is known to be present the occupier would be very unwise to practise his rifle shooting in the direction of the trespasser. That may be an extreme example, but it is one example of the fact that you may be liable although a man is a complete trespasser.
The subsection will no doubt be subject to a good deal of criticism in another place, and my doubt is whether in fact it is very aptly worded. The Amendment says:
"the rules of law relating to injury sustained on land by persons trespassing thereon shall have effect."
The people that we are concerned with are not going to be trespassers, and I venture to think that the draftsman concerned might consider whether it would not be very much better to say that the liability of the occupier and other persons concerned with the land to which the Act applies shall not be greater than it would be if the order of the Minister had not been made. That would leave the liability exactly as it is. I think we are all concerned to see that the occupiers and others interested in the land are not put
276
in a worse position than they would be in if an order had not been made, and I cannot see why that should not be simply stated. Everyone would understand it, and it would not lead to the difficulties which my noble friend has pointed out to your Lordships.
LORD CRANWORTH: From the point of view of the owners of land this Amendment is by far the most important of the Amendments on the Paper to-day. The liabilities of the owners of land, whether individuals or corporations, or public bodies like county councils, have increased enormously during the last few years, and really now they are almost intolerable, and we have to face here in this Bill some wholly uncharted sea of new responsibility. We shall never know where the responsibilities may end. A large number of people will go on to this land to which they will have access. Many of them will be townspeople, and unaware of the things which happen in the country, and they will be faced with grave perils of various kinds. They might fall, for instance, into a disused gravel pit, or branches of elm trees might fall upon them. They might be bitten by an adder, which is a common thing, or they might even sit upon a wasp's nest, which although not so dangerous can be remarkably unpleasant. If the landowner is to be responsible in any way for all these and many other things that might happen he will not know where his liability ends. Therefore it seems to me quite essential that some Amendment of this sort should be put into the Bill. The suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, it seems to me, is one which might meet the case, but it is a matter for the lawyers, and all I hope is that my noble friend will succeed in getting into the Bill something which will make it doubly clear that no additional liability shall be placed upon the owners of land.
LORD ADDISON: Your Lordships will have observed that my name is not associated with that of the noble Earl on the Order Paper in connection with this Amendment, because quite frankly I did not quite see what it would involve. I think everyone will agree that as the subsection stood in the Bill it might really commit the landowner to what the noble Earl described as an unknown liability of a very increased kind. That was not the intention of anyone friendly to the

277
Bill, and if on the Report stage some Amendment were made on the lines suggested by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor I am sure it would meet the justice of the case, and clearly be an improvement on the very ambiguous and apparently threatening terms of subsection (3) of Clause 8. With that reservation I would like to support the Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: This, as the noble and learned Lord has said, is a very difficult question, and it is not easy to arrive at a right way of dealing with the problem, which we wish to deal with quite fairly. The noble and learned Lord wanted to put it in a very simple form, which I must say appeals to me, because simplicity in a Parliamentary Bill is something which is much sought after but rarely achieved. One of the difficulties which presented itself to me when considering what form the Amendment should take, was that unless it was clearly defined in the Bill it was not too certain whether those who would have access would be trespassers, licensees or invitees, and as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, the liability of the owner of the land concerned is different as regards each of those classes of people. That is why it was suggested that it should be specifically mentioned that they were for this purpose, and this purpose only, to be treated as trespassers. I would suggest to your Lordships that you should agree to the Amendment on the Paper, and that I should have an opportunity, with my advisers, of carefully considering the discussion which we have had here to-day, and if necessary getting further advice from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, with a view to seeing whether the Amendment could not be improved by an Amendment on the Report stage. If your Lordships will agree to that I think it would be the most helpful course.
LORD PHILLIMORE: From what the noble and learned Lord Chancellor said and from what I gathered from the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, if we rest either on the position as it is to-day or on the law of trespass the responsibility of the landowner remains for accidents due to neglect calculated to bring about accidents. Under this Dill certain lands, perhaps only a few, will be over-run by large numbers of people. I might cite the instance of an open gravel pit or
278
chalk pit, and whereas an occasional passage by a trespasser cannot have led to any accident, it is fairly certain that if some hundreds of people pass that spot some one will be stupid enough to fall down the chalk pit. It seems to me that, if only owing to the frequency of access, the burden on the landowner is very considerably increased by this Bill. I would like to see Lord Radnor go rather further and do rather more than leave the landowner in the position in which he is now, vis-à-vis a trespasser. I submit that the enormous number of people who on certain moors, for example in the Midlands, will be passing over a given area, makes it certain that sooner or later there will be accidents at such places. You see the same thing on our roads. It is purely a question of frequency, and therefore I think some additional protection is required.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am quite prepared to consider all these things very carefully. I think the position as now left in the Bill is not satisfactory, and if your Lordships will agree to the procedure I have suggested, I will seriously consider the matter and see what can be done.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Contribution by certain local authorities to expenses.
10. The council of a county, of a borough, or of an urban district having a population according to the last published census of more than twenty thousand, may pay or contribute towards—
(a) the expenses of the provision by the owner of land to which this Act applies of any facilities for the public or works for the protection of the owner or occupier of the land;
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in paragraph (a), to leave out "by the owner of" and to insert "on." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is put down so as somewhat to widen the matters towards which local authorities can contribute if necessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 13, leave out ("by the owner of") and insert ("on").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved at the end of paragraph (a) to insert "or of the public." The noble Earl said: This is really the same point.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 16, at end insert ("or of the public").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Short title and commencement.
12.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Access to Mountains Act, 1939, and shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Access to Mountains" and insert "Rural Access." The noble Lord said: I have been asked to move this Amendment because I understand it is unpopular. We have been told that the expression "Access to Mountains" has been a sort of banner for many years, which is true, and that the Bill which originally bore that name bears very little resemblance to this Bill. That also is true. But it is undeniably a fact that the great bulk of the land to which access will be provided under this Bill could not fairly be described as "mountain." Therefore, although the opening words of the Bill do allow for other lands to be included, it would be more in accord with good sense, and with what is in the Bill, if we were to describe it somewhat differently from merely "Access to Mountains Bill." I understand that I shall get into trouble with those who have been enthusiasts in this matter for a long time, and that is why it is that I have been asked to move this Amendment. The small Party to which I belong is always in trouble. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 34, leave out ("Access to Mountains") and insert ("Rural Access").—(Lord Addison.)
LORD CRANWORTH: In spite of that impassioned appeal I hope your Lordships will not accept the Amendment. I can very well understand the temptation of my noble friends opposite when, every single word having been removed from the original Bill and entirely new words substituted, with the exception of
280
the Title, they should wish to change that also. But it is over fifty years since the Access to Mountains Bill was first brought forward. It was never meant at the beginning to be only access to mountains. It was "as many mountains as we can get hold of, and as much other land as well," and the same spirit which animated that Bill fifty-one years ago still exists to-day. I therefore see no reason whatever to change the Title. After all, if it is mere logic that moves the noble Lord, there will be a greater percentage of mountain in the access land than of rural land. In those circumstances, and in view of the situation of noble Lords opposite, I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: In the interests of accuracy I trust that the Amendment will be accepted. I gather that this is far beyond any question of access to anything that could possibly be described as a mountain. In the original form of this Bill the promoters were very largely alpine climbers. The late Lord Bryce, as he afterwards became, was a well known climber in the Alps, and what he and others had in mind was to be able to go to all the Scottish mountains and deer forests. I do not think they cared at all for downs or anything of that sort. I do not know whether noble Lords are afraid that the words "Rural Access" mean that everybody may be allowed to wander all over the countryside, but I cannot think that that danger exists.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I asked the noble Lord to undertake this Amendment because I knew that he would speak on it with rather more enthusiasm than I should. The words "Access to Mountains" have been old friends ever since I have been alive, and a good many years before that, and it does seem rather a pity to drop an old friend in this rather summary way. I agree with the noble Marquess that it is entirely right that the Title should be altered because the Bill goes a great deal further than the original Access to Mountains Bill. On the other hand, I cannot help feeling that if this Bill goes back to the other place and is called a Rural Access Bill, those who are interested in the matter outside Parliament will not recognise the Bill at all. In years to come, it may be, people will say "We have not got an Access to

281
Mountains Bill, and we ought to have one," and one may be passed in spite of there being a Rural Access Bill on the Statute Book! It is not a matter that is really material, and if your Lordships will agree, we shall withdraw the Amendment and then we shall have an Access to Mountains Bill on the Statute Book.
LORD ADDISON: I am glad logic is on my side and that the noble Marquess approves of the Amendment. But far be it from me to do anything to hurt anybody's feelings. In these circumstances, although logic is on my side, sentiment is not, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) In this Act references to a person having an interest in land include references to a person entitled to sporting rights there-over, notwithstanding that such rights may be enjoyed by way of licence only."
The noble Earl said: This is consequential on the Amendment which eliminated mention of the sporting tenant.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 38, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CHARITIES (FUEL ALLOTMENTS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
6.3 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As your Lordships are aware, we have just read for the third time the Administration of Justice
282
(Emergency Provisions) Bill which relates to the management of the Courts in England in the event of an emergency of a serious character arising. This Bill relates to Scotland and, mutatis mutandi, corresponds to the provisions of the English Bill with regard to the places and time of sittings of the High Court of Judiciary, the Court of Session, and the Sheriff Courts. There is one slight alteration in Clause 3 which contains provisions similar to Clause 7 of the English Bill with regard to the number and age limits of jurors. As your Lordships no doubt are aware, in Scotland a jury can return a verdict by a majority, and therefore this provision has suffered some alteration. Some of the matters relating to the administration of justice in Scotland are of the nature of arcana to a poor Englishman, but I am glad to know there are in the House at this moment some, born and bred in the matter, who can explain anything which in the opinion of your Lordships may require explanation.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD THANKERTON: My Lords, as one deeply interested in the administration of justice in Scotland, and with some experience of it, I would like to support my noble and learned friend on this Bill. I think it right that every care should be taken to provide fully and adequately for the emergency which we all hope will never arise, but for which it is entirely essential to make adequate preparation. If your Lordships have any difficulty about the Bill—if there is any technicality which may require explanation—I shall be glad to explain it as my noble and learned friend has suggested. The Bill applies exactly the same principles to Scotland as the Bill which your Lordships have passed for England this afternoon.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WATER UNDERTAKINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
6.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDPORT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill represents a

283
further stage in the task of consolidating and bringing up to date the Statutes for whose administration the Ministry of Health are responsible. The Bill is based upon the work of the Central Advisory Water Committee which was appointed in 1937 by Sir Kingsley Wood, who was then Minister of Health, after consultation with other Ministers. That Committee was under the Chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Milne, and it was appointed to advise the Government Departments on questions of water policy. In 1936 a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament under the Chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, and among whose members was included the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, recommended in their Report to the Minister of Health that the amendment of the existing law relating to water should be dealt with in some such way as had been adopted in the case of the revision of the Local Government Acts. In accordance with this recommendation of the Joint Committee to the Minister of Health, this Central Advisory Water Committee was set up.
The object of the Bill is to gather up into one Act the general law regulating the supply of water by local authorities and water companies in England and Wales, to add to it the most suitable of the common form provisions usually included in modern Local Acts, and thus to provide a consolidated and modernised waterworks law which will apply generally, as far as this is possible, to statutory water undertakings. There has been no general revision of the law regulating the supply of water by Local Act water undertakers since 1863 and no comprehensive revision since the Waterworks Clauses Act of 1847. Since these times, the conditions affecting water supply have changed so greatly that the scope of these Acts of 1863 and 1847 has become quite inadequate. The drawbacks have been overcome, to some extent, by Parliament conferring special powers in Local Acts to enable water undertakers to deal with conditions not covered by the General Acts, but this method is not conducive to that uniformity and continuity of practice which is desirable for such an important service as public water supply.
Turning to the Bill itself your Lordships will see that it is divided into a main part and three Schedules. The Bill itself contains twenty-three clauses which,
284
it is intended, shall be of general operation. It includes an important simplification of the procedure of the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, and of Section 303 of the Public Health Act, 1875, under which water companies and local authorities may obtain minor powers by Provisional Orders. The Bill proposes that, provided there is no opposition by interested local authorities or other water interests, powers for the carrying on of water undertakings should be obtainable in future by order of the Minister of Health, but that where there is opposition the Orders should still be provisional. The proposed procedure does not extend to the major powers of compulsory acquisition of land or water rights, and it would still be necessary, as now, for water undertakers to promote Private Bills for those purposes. As I have already stated, the existing procedure is obsolete and unnecessarily rigid and expensive, and its simplification should be of benefit both to water undertakers and to consumers. Other clauses in this main part of the Bill reproduce, with some minor alterations, the Supply of Water in Bulk Act, 1934, and the Water Companies (Regulation of Powers) Act, 1887, and provide a simplified procedure, based upon provisions frequently allowed in Local Acts, for the revision of water rates and charges, which will extend and supersede the Water Undertakings (Modification of Charges) Act, 1921. The Bill also includes powers which will facilitate the supply of water in rural areas and also the protection of public water supplies from the risk of pollution.
The First Schedule to the Bill is intended to replace the Waterworks Clauses Acts of 1847 and 1863, which are now incorporated with the great majority of Local Water Acts and Orders, and in part with the Public Health Act, 1936. Much of the Acts of 1847 and 1863 has become obsolete, but the Schedule includes all the effective sections in those Acts and, in addition, a number of new clauses representing the most suitable of the provisions amending and extending those Acts that are commonly included in modern Local Acts. Part X of the Schedule contains some important amendments of the powers of consumers to break open streets. Under the existing law, the consumer is entitled to break up the street between his premises and the water main for the purpose of laying a communication pipe, and is responsible for the

285
maintenance and renewal of the pipe. It is proposed that the undertakers shall in future be exclusively responsible for the execution of works entailing the breaking up of highways (the cost of laying the communication pipe will be recoverable from the consumer) and for the maintenance and renewal of the pipe. It is proposed that the First Schedule shall be incorporated with every future Water Act or Order, that water undertakers shall be empowered at any time to apply to the Minister for an Order applying the provisions of that Schedule to their undertakings, and that at the expiration of five years the Minister shall be enabled, on his own initiative, to apply those provisions to those water undertakers who have not previously adopted them.
Your Lordships will see that considerable simplification and shortening of the law will be effected by the Bill. The Third Schedule of the Bill repeals seven Acts of Parliament, and the 125 clauses of the Bill and the First Schedule replace some 158 sections in the existing General Acts and embody, in addition, some 6o sections which are now commonly included in Local Water Acts. The Bill, therefore, combines consolidation with a limited amount of amendment. The details of the amendments made and the Committee's reasons for recommending them are set out fully in the Report, which contains, in an Appendix, notes on the clauses of the Bill. In this respect, the procedure follows exactly the course adopted by the Local Government and Public Health Consolidation Committee in the preparation of the Bills for the Local Government Act, 1933, the Public Health Acts, 1936, and the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. His Majesty's Government are satisfied that this procedure has proved satisfactory and acceptable, and that the measures which have resulted from the previous Bills have proved of very substantial value to local government and public health administrators, and to the general public.
It is proper that a Bill of this character should receive the close attention of Parliament. His Majesty's Government therefore propose to follow the procedure of previous Bills, and to invite your Lordships and the members of another place to appoint a Joint Select Committee to undertake a detailed examination of the clauses. The Bill is a non-Party measure
286
and it is believed that its general principles will be welcomed not only by water undertakers but also by other interests concerned, including industry and the water consumers.
Before I bring my remarks to a close I consider it desirable to emphasize that it is not the Government's intention to lay down a complete and perfect code of law to cover all questions affecting public water supply. To do this might arouse controversy and so defeat the object of the Bill, which is to gather together in an intelligible form non-controversial questions and provisions regulating the supply of water by statutory water undertakers, and so to provide a general and simplified code which would be both suited to the needs of the undertakers themselves and fair to the general body of consumers. Any attempt to include extensive amendments of the law in the present Bill would be foreign to its purpose and might well jeopardize its chance of reaching the Statute Book. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Bridport.)
6.17 p.m.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, this Bill appears to seek to consolidate certain Acts, and to make amendments, and very important amendments, in a number of enactments relating to water undertakings. Those concerned with the supply of water are somewhat concerned at the bringing forward of this measure at this particular time. May I briefly refer to the history of this question before the introduction of this Bill? I venture to say a word or two on behalf of the County Councils' Association together with that of the Municipal Corporations. I would like to state what has occurred. On April 5 the County Councils' Association were asked for their observations on the draft, and were then informed that they would be expected to give a reply embodying their views by May 6. When that letter reached the County Councils' Association prints of the Bill were not even available, and they did not become available for some time afterwards. No time, therefore, has been given to those who will be mainly responsible under the Bill to investigate the effects of the Bill on the special clauses contained in Private Bills, clauses which are embodied in nearly every Private Act, and which should be very closely considered, for

287
Local Water Acts will come under the domination of this measure once it becomes an Act.
The Ministry of Health were informed that the draft of so complicated a measure could not possibly be fairly and properly considered at such short notice by the County Councils' Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations. I may add that the urban district councils and rural district councils also registered protests in the same way. Yet the Bill was introduced on May 24 and to-day, on June 6, we are being asked to give it a Second Reading. I do not wish to suggest that the associations concerned are not in sympathy with a consolidation measure of this character, because consolidation well carried out leads to simplification and improvement of the law. It would be strange indeed if bodies of this character were not in favour of a change of that kind. Nevertheless, I am charged with the duty of protesting against the unseemly and unnecessary haste which is being shown in regard to this measure.
This Bill is not adoptive. It is going to be compulsory regardless apparently of special provisions contained in many Local Acts. Therefore I do seriously suggest that consideration of this Bill should be postponed. All the bodies concerned desire more time. The Bill will amend the existing general law. That may be good—doubtless it is good—but it also creates alarm and resentment. The fear is that the Bill will become law without proper debate and that irksome conditions will be placed on undertakers generally. The Bill enables amendments of Local Acts to be ordered by a Minister without the consent or approval of the local authorities concerned. That is a far-reaching overriding power which I certainly think requires investigation and consideration, and I was very glad to hear that a Select Committee is going to be set up. Consideration of such a Bill is a very formidable and serious task for local authorities, particularly now under existing conditions when we are living in difficult and very anxious days.
In trying to force through a Bill of this kind the Government are really in one way adopting a policy which is entirely inconsistent and out of line with certain instructions which they have already given to local authorities. The Lord
288
Privy Seal issued a letter on April 19 to all local authorities, in which he said:
"His Majesty's Government have had under review the measures which can be taken to accelerate the process of organising national defence in its various branches. His Majesty's Government therefore has decided to request local authorities so to arrange their business that priority is given to civil defence matters over other business before the authority and to ensure that all responsible officers of the authority are instructed accordingly."
I think it is manifestly absurd and unfair in view of the issue of a communication of that kind, which I regard as a definite order to local authorities, to expect those local authorities to find time somehow or other, with their officers already fully engaged and their members very occupied, to consider this matter. The question, for example, of the breaking up of streets is likely to arouse controversy and discussion.
I venture to suggest that the introduction of such a measure at the present time is a waste of Parliamentary time, and I might almost say it is an abuse of Parliamentary procedure solemnly to examine the provisions of a Bill of this kind when we are expecting a report from a Committee which no doubt will contain numerous recommendations and may make the proposals in this Bill abortive and out of date. For these reasons I venture to hope that as much time will be given to the consideration of this measure as may be found possible. It is hardly a matter of urgency and I hope that the Government will realise that and not press us in the matter.
6.28 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, it is not to be wondered that the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, who acted as Chairman of the Joint Committee over a period of four months in 1936, should express some protest at the form which this Bill takes and at the hurrying through of such a measure. As I was privileged when a member of the other House to sit with my noble friend on that Committee perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make a few remarks on this Bill. I am very surprised at what the Bill contains and even more surprised at what the Bill omits. The genesis of the Joint Committee was this. In 1933 and 1934 there were periods of drought and public opinion was disturbed lest there should be a shortage of water, although in fact

289
there was no shortage, so the joint Committee was set up. Among the witnesses who gave evidence and were cross-examined there were no fewer than twenty from representative public bodies. We investigated several of the matters which are implied, although they do not actually appear, in the Bill. I have read the Bill carefully and I find it highly technical and one which refers to a matter of vital import to humanity all over the country because it deals with the question of a plentiful supply of pure drinking water.
Clause 1 of the Bill gives the Minister a power to make an Order to confer on applicants such rights and powers as he deems necessary or expedient and by subsection (8)—I am paraphrasing the words of the Bill—an Order made under the clause, whether or not confirmed by Parliament, may be amended by a subsequent Order of the Minister. This seems to me a complete usurpation of the functions of Parliament. Perhaps I had better read the subsection. It provides that:
"Any Order made under this section whether or not confirmed by Parliament, and any Provisional Order relating to waterworks made under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act 1870, or ally Act amending this Act, may on the application of the persons supplying water under the original order, be amended by a subsequent order of the Minister made under, and in accordance with, the procedure laid down in this section."
This is pure government by Whitehall. It is in accord with what the Lord Chief Justice condemned in his book The New Despotism. It is Whitehall administration taking the place of Parliamentary decision.
The Bill relates among other things to fisheries, and on page 33—it must be a mere verbal concession to empty politeness—it is provided that a fishery board "shall be deemed to be interested." One knows the flow and catchment relation of streams to fisheries. The Joint Committee gave much thought to this aspect of the water problem. My noble friend Lord Eltisley will confirm that we talked about this particular matter for days. We considered also the power of the Ministry of Health to snake Orders, and I will now, if I am allowed, read a paragraph which appears in the Report of the joint Committee on Water Resources and Supply, 1936. It is in paragraph 13 of the Report. I am bound to say that I was so surprised by this
290
Bill that I went through it almost line by hue with our 1936 Report. This is what the Committee said—I will omit non-essential words:
"The majority of the witnesses who appeared before the Committee were opposed to the Ministry of Health obtaining the sole power to make Orders.… They complained that adequate consideration had not been given to the needs of industry, agriculture or fisheries, and further, that the Ministry of Health could not be expected fully to appreciate them."
The Ministry of Health is responsible for this Bill, let it be remembered.
"The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries endorsed the first part of this criticism in so far at any rate as the Reports of the Advisory Committee on Water were concerned. … The Advisory Committee consisted of officials of the Ministry of Health and of representatives of water undertakers and their engineers. No other interest was represented on it."
This is the Joint Committee's unanimous Report:
"The Committee are of opinion that the methods of the Ministry of Health justify in no small degree the criticisms that have been levelled against them by reason of their apparent failure either to consider the point of view of, or to consult with, opposing interests before submitting their proposals to the Committee."
I do not think it is necessary for me to add any words to that. That was a paragraph of the unanimous Report of the Joint Committee.
None the less, under Clause 1 of the Bill the Minister merely snaps his fingers at the Joint Committee's Report, for he has quietly incorporated into the Bill authorisation of the very power which the Committee recommended should not be given. Let me read, to strengthen that point, paragraph 14 of the Report and the first three lines of paragraph 15:
"The Committee recommend that the Minister should not be given power to make Orders, even if unopposed, without Parliamentary control. Nor do they consider that any new form of water legislation should be brought about even by Orders which would be subject to affirmative Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament …
As the Committee do not recommend any type of legislation by Order, the proposal that Orders if opposed should automatically be converted into Provisional Order Bills does not arise."
In the face of those recommendations, after investigations and cross-examination of witnesses, by the Joint Committee of 1936—and I suppose your Lordships look upon the considered opinion of a number of noble Lords and members of the other

291
House of Parliament as the opinion of responsible people—I think your Lordships may well ask to-day why the Minister should seek to obtain powers such as those outlined in Clause 1 of the Bill.
Now may I go to another point? The Bill is designed to deal with areas not within the limits of supply of any statutory undertakers supplying water under a Local Act or Order. We must therefore assume that this Bill is designed also to deal with shortage of rural water supply. If that is so, then it must be observed—I must draw the attention of your Lordships to this—that the Joint Committee considered that a revision of waterworks code or law should be deferred—these are the Committee's own words—
…"until it can be dealt with in some such way as has been adopted in the case of the revision of the Local Government Acts."
That is in paragraph 7, on page 4 of the 1936 Report. Does the Bill follow that recommendation? I do not think it does. This is piecemeal legislation. It is indeed so, as the full problem of compensation water has not been faced in this Bill. Compensation water is a most difficult matter. Perhaps my noble friend the Chairman of the Committees of your Lordships' House has conferred with the revising authority with specific reference to this Bill. I think I bear in mind—I may be wrong, but I think I am right in saying it—that his attention was called to the position in 1936 by the Joint Committee on Water Resources. I remember some communication; I am not quite sure, but I think it was his attention that was drawn to it.
Let me pass to another point, to something which has been omitted. Under Part IV of the First Schedule of the Bill it is provided that a map of underground pipes and works must be kept by water undertakers and copies must be deposited with local authorities. As your Lordships know, there has been widespread building of houses in rural districts. Some of these houses are not attached to any local drainage system, so the owners have placed septic tanks—to use the common expression—at the bottom of the garden. The contents of these septic tanks are liable to overflow or seep through or to be affected by flood-water. As a result they may contaminate near or distant
292
areas from which domestic water supplies are collected by water undertakers. So far as I know, no obligation already exists, and there is no obligation in this Bill, on local authorities, after they have received the information which they already must receive, to keep a map to show exactly the various parts of rural areas where these septic tanks exist. I have only to remind your Lordships, although it is not an analogous case, that there was recently a typhoid disaster arising from water contamination in South London. Clauses 9, 10 and 11 of the Bill seek to avoid pollution and give protective methods for the use of the authorities. But there is no compulsion on local authorities to keep maps of the locations of septic tanks as a precautionary measure and keep them entered up to date. I ask myself, has this been intentionally left out of this Bill, or has it been overlooked?
There is another defect in the water code which should be dealt with in this Bill. Water undertakers have to come to Parliament for power to take their supplies of water, and they are usually compelled to compensate any person whose supplies they may deplete. This is what the Report says on page 6, in paragraph Ir. I will read it to your Lordships:
"A property owner, however, can sink a number of wells to any depth he chooses on his own land, thereby perhaps causing a shortage of the essential water supply, without the water undertaker having any redress."
As a private owner you can pump on your own land and as deeply as you like, and you can take water; you can pump as much water as you like for your own use, and you can prevent the water undertaker who would be needing the water for the use of the public from being able to say a word about being deprived of supplies. In a case of this kind—and it should be embodied in the Bill—the property owner should be treated as if he were a water undertaker—that is to say, if he sinks wells below a certain depth or takes water more than enough for his own need.
A case was brought before the Joint Committee by a witness in which a private owner tapped a water supply by putting a bore-hole into the red sandstone formation near Nottingham, where artesian water can be obtained. That private owner used the water for refilling his trout-stream. The opinion was expressed in Question 562 of the evidence

293
that in this particular case, although he was within his rights, the private owner's action was injurious to the public weal. Another case was pointed out to us in the evidence, in Question 566, that the supply of water in the chalk area in Hertfordshire, north of London, might be taken by private owners of land under the existing law to the detriment of the water supply of a million people in the area, without any redress.
This Bill provides an opportunity for remedying such defects in the water code as I have mentioned. They ought to have been dealt with in this Bill. I should like to put this point to my noble friend the learned Lord Chancellor: has he considered the advisability of giving the Minister power to make Orders, even if unopposed, without Parliamentary control? I should like bluntly to ask him that, and to urge my question having regard to the fact that the Committee were against any type of legislation by Ministerial Order, and stated so in their Report. The points with which I have ventured to trouble your Lordships are not, in my opinion, normal Committee points. I therefore trust that when the Minister concerned looks into the views expressed in this debate, he will consider whether he can meet the points by Amendment at the Committee stage, or in any case bring them up before the new Joint Select Committee about to be appointed. These are not true Committee points; they are matters of principle and go to the root of the Bill. For that reason I venture to commend them to your Lordships.
6.40 p.m.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I would like to say one or two words on this Bill. First of all I think it is due to Lord Milne and those who have been working with him that a tribute should be paid to their efforts to try to improve the law relating to water undertakings. Some measure is overdue, and I hope that this may be a step towards securing a really valuable measure being passed through Parliament. The two noble Lords who last addressed your Lordships have dealt with omissions, and Lord Mancroft dwelt upon the point that they are questions of principle, and are not possible to be dealt with by a Joint Committee. I should have imagined that the points which he has raised, and which Lord Eltisley raised—
294
I except the point which Lord Eltisley made of hurrying the Bill—might be considered by a Joint Committee and reported upon when that Committee meets and receives evidence.
The point I wanted to allude to is that it is important that something should be done in order to deal with a situation which now exists. A great number of water undertakings have different powers, and I feel that Parliament ought to deal with the delay which has occurred in making a satisfactory arrangement. Another point with which I really rose to deal is the question of pollution, in which all water undertakings are greatly interested. I want to point out that it is a fishery interest, as well as a question of the purity of water for consumption. I want, if I may, to get an assurance from the Government that the fishery interest will be regarded as one of the industries which were alluded to by Lord Bridport. That noble Viscount alluded to the consumers and to the industrial interests, but I think that the fishery interests must be regarded also as an industrial interest, and that the fishery boards, and even the National Association of Fishery Boards, ought to have a locus to give evidence before the Joint Committee, in the event of the Bill passing the Second Reading and being referred, with the assent of another place, to a Joint Committee. I believe it is important that some step should be taken, and I believe that the points which have been raised in this debate might be fairly considered in Joint Committee.
6.44 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I may perhaps be allowed to say just a word on this subject. In reply to Lord Mancroft, I did not have anything to do before the Committee, and did not appear as a witness. A member of my department may have done so, but I cannot recollect the fact and cannot add anything to what the noble Lord has said as regards my own experience. I should like to associate myself with what Lord Gainford has said about the admirable work done by both these Committees, that of Lord Eltisley and that of Lord Milne. I would also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Bridport upon the lucid manner in which he has explained the Bill, which, as he said, quoting from

295
the Title, "is an Act to consolidate with amendments certain enactments relating to water undertakings."
There have been three local government consolidation with amendment Acts passed by Parliament during the last few years, and the principle on which the Ministry of Health and the Government worked with regard to those Acts is, I think—Lord Bridport will correct me if I am wrong—the same as that which it is proposed to adopt in the case of this Bill. There were in the first place the constitution of local government authorities, then the new Food and Drugs Act, and then another Act the title of which, although I was a member of the Joint Committee, I have forgotten, and all proceeded on the same principle. They took all the enactments on the subject, they took the model form of clauses which appears in Private Bills and Local Acts, and brought them together in one Act. They were really Consolidation Acts, but there was sufficient amendment of the law to prevent their being sent to the Consolidation Committee, and a special Joint Committee was therefore established. The principle on which those three Joint Committees worked was that they would not accept any amendment of a far-reaching character. I will give your Lordships an instance. I was Chairman of the particular joint Committee concerned, and a proposal was put before us to add measles to the list of notifiable diseases. My colleagues, and myself in a humble way, supported this proposal, because we thought it very desirable to do so, but it was represented to us strongly that this was regarded as a very considerable amendment of the law by local authorities, and your Lordships were persuaded to resist our recommendation.
The object of Consolidation Bills was to get the law as it ought to be, and generally speaking as the law is at present. After that, for wide-reaching amendment of the law, the principles of administration, and so forth, it was proposed to rely upon more comprehensive Bills, because such Bills might be controversial and might require a considerable amount of consideration. Not that this particular Bill has not had immense consideration; but if you are going to alter the law it is, I think, desirable first to get consolidation of the existing law perfectly straight, and I would ask my
296
noble friend if that is the principle of this Bill. He replies in the affirmative. In those circumstances it seems to me that the questions raised as to principle, and amendment of the law, should not be dealt with in this Bill but should be the subject of wider Bills at a future date. I thought I might mention that to your Lordships, because I have served on these three Committees and if this Bill is exactly the same, and the Ministry of Health code is now being consolidated into a state which is easily and generally intelligible, then I think the question of amendment of the law is one for another Bill.
I must say that I welcome this Bill. I have not read it carefully, but I have looked through it, and it seems to me that it will be of enormous assistance in the interpretation of the existing law, that it will save trouble and expense to undertakings, that it will be a starting off ground for general and widespread amendment of the law with regard to water, and that it will be a most useful measure. I just wanted to explain to your Lordships what was the policy pursued with regard to former Bills, and I understand my noble friend to tell us that the same procedure is to be followed on the present occasion. I think the Bill will be of great assistance, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
6.50 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I am not quite so sanguine as my noble friend Lord Gainford that all these points can be dealt with in Committee. I am not, of course, competent to speak on the technical points, but there does seem to me to be something in what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, that this Bill appears to contain another attempt on the part of the Department to override the control of Parliament. The Minister of Health may apparently, subject to the provisions of Clause 1, make an Order conferring upon the applicants such powers as he may deem necessary or expedient, including provisions for the amendment of any Local Act or Order. That seems to me to be an extension of the powers of various Government Departments, of which we have seen evidence in a good many Bills brought before your Lordships' House in recent years, and in regard to which your Lordships' House has a very proud record

297
of having watched most carefully to see that the rights of Parliament were not encroached upon. In more than one instance this House has sent back to another place Bills with Amendments preserving the rights of Parliament over public Departments. Nevertheless here I see something which to my mind is suspiciously like another attempt to override the power of Parliament, and before we allow this Bill to proceed I should like some assurance from the Minister responsible that the point will be taken into consideration, and that nothing will be done which in any way derogates from the rights of Parliament and puts more powers into the uncontrolled hands of the Minister concerned.
VISCOUNT BRIDPORT: My Lords, there has been a great deal of controversy about this Bill, but I do not think that any noble Lord has really tried to go against the Bill. The noble Lords who have spoken believe that such a Bill is necessary, but are rather worried about certain clauses and certain parts of the Bill. The intention is to appoint a Joint Select Committee to investigate if possible all these clauses. At that Select Committee everything can be examined and criticised, and there may be some Amendments suggested by the Government at that stage, in view of what noble Lords have said to-day.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
VISCOUNT BRIDPORT: I beg to move that this Bill be referred to a joint Committee of the two Houses.
Moved, That it is desirable that the said Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.—(Viscount Bridport.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution, and to desire their concurrence.

PRESERVATION OF PLUMS.
6.54 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON asked His Majesty's Government whether in the event of there being a surplus of plums this year they will promote arrangements for extra canning or other form of preservation. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I promise not to delay your Lordships long
298
over the very modest Question which stands in my name on the Paper. None the less, although it may appear small by comparison with the vast topic we have just been discussing, it is extremely important. We all remember that two or three years ago providence blessed us with an abundant harvest of plums. The next year a good friend of mine, a very experienced fruit grower, wrote to me a letter in which he said: "Pray the Lord we may have a frost or two this year, because if we have an abundant harvest we shall be ruined." And that was true. As we know, there were so many plums two or three years ago that they were not worth picking up. If there had been half as many or a quarter as many, it would have been more profitable to the fruit growers. As it was, they lost a great deal of their money.
I am informed by people who I think are likely to know that, other things being equal, and the vicissitudes of the weather not being more hazardous than usual, there may be an exceptionally big crop this year. I hope there will be, but if there is I suggest that it is incumbent on the Minister of Agriculture to try to do something to avoid the occurrence of an abundance that would occasion a calamity, and to exercise a little foresight and make provision to guard against the position that may then arise. Notwithstanding the fact that there was an abundance of plums two or three years ago, such an abundance that people were sometimes asked to go and pick them up for nothing, there were still hundreds of thousands of houses in which people would have been glad of some plums to cook. That will be the case again unless there is provision for making some use of this golden opportunity. Therefore I put this Question on the Paper, not in order to censure the Ministry of Agriculture but to exhort them to good work.
It is quite possible, as I have indicated in my Question, to make provision beforehand to put to better use an abundant crop, if we are so fortunate as to have one, by preserving and canning and in other ways. There is, I believe, a limit to what can be done in the way of cold storage of plums. We have learned a great deal about the storage of apples, which can be kept for many months, but so far the time that soft fruit can be stored seems to be very limited.

299
Nevertheless, there is a great deal that can be done by improving marketing information, and by getting better distribution of fruit to consuming centres from the areas which produce a surplus, It will not be the slightest use the noble Earl hoping to convince me by saying that he will be satisfied when the time comes to leave it to the existing marketing and distribution channels, because they have failed us very badly time after time. Therefore I hope he will propose some new and improved methods of distribution. I hope at any rate that he will be able to promise that the Ministry will take the matter into their consideration and see that the country derives, as it ought to do, an advantage from an abundance.
6.59 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): My Lords, the noble Lord has very rightly pointed out that the size of the plum crop fluctuates very greatly from year to year, and perhaps it will be of interest if I give the figures of the plum crop for the last three years. In 1936 it was 2,380,000 cwts., and in 1937 it was 2,310,000 cwts.
LORD GAINFORD: Does the noble Earl mean the weight of plums sold in the market?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Yes, the weight of plums sold was 2,310,000 cwts. in 1937, and that, following on the heavy yield of 1936, led to the disastrous consequences to which the noble Lord, Lord Addison, has referred. In the year 1938, owing to weather conditions, the quantity put on the market was only 711,000 cwts. The result is that plum manufacturers and the canning firms are depleted of their usual reserve stocks. I am informed that it is highly probable that both stocks of jam and canned plums are very small indeed at the present time and that the reserves of pulped plums have been almost completely exhausted. Therefore, in spite of the noble Lord saying he will not be satisfied with any answer I give in respect of the ordinary marketing channels and distributing trade, I hope, with this explanation, he will be convinced that this year there is likely to be a very
300
strong demand which will react with considerable effect on the demand for the plum crop generally.
My noble friend will know that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is not able to exercise any control over the programme of the canning factories. If the crop should prove to be a very large one, it would of course be possible for the Department I represent, by propaganda, to suggest to the public that a considerable quantity of plums should be home-canned or bottled for the winter supply. Lord Addison in his Question suggested that one of the uses that could be made of any excess over and above the normal market demand for plums should be storage under the Food (Defence Plans) Department to provide for an emergency. It is true that the Essential Commodities Reserves Act gives the Food (Defence Plans) Department all the powers necessary to enable that Department to purchase and store plums for emergency purposes, should it be thought desirable to do so. But in purchasing commodities for Government reserves, it is obviously necessary to obtain the best food value possible for the money expended, as funds are not, of course, unlimited. In accordance with this policy, the Food (Defence Plans) Department has not, to any marked degree, stored either fruit or vegetables. It is considered that commodities such as wheat, whale oil, canned meat, and raw sugar are more suitable for inclusion in the Government reserves. To use a colloquial phrase which appears appropriate in this context, it is not as easy as jam to preserve in the desired quantities these commodities which I have listed should the necessity arise. Having regard to the normal commercial stocks of jam and plums held in the United Kingdom, and having regard also to the Government reserves of sugar, it is not proposed to acquire a Government reserve of jam.
I take it from the noble Lord's remarks, that he is concerned less with plums as suitable articles for food storage than with the remuneration to be received by the plum producers of the country. If the crop is as good as we hope and anticipate, the disastrous price levels ruling in 1937 will not be repeated owing to the fact that last year the crop was so small and all the reserves both for

301
canning and pulp have been utilised, so that the first consideration of those engaged in the industry will be to make good their reserves and recuperate in a good year so as to be well provided for any lean year such as was experienced in 1938.
7.7 p.m.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, may I say how grateful many of us will be, especially those engaged in agriculture, to Lord Addison for raising this matter, both from the point of view of the fruit grower and the consumer? While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I urge him to take every possible step, do whatever may appear practicable, to put a bottom into the fruit market? Whatever methods may be found desirable, the essential point is to enable the producer to find a market for his produce and to do so at a reasonably remunerative price.
7.8 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for his reply, let me say I hope he will bear in mind the great
302
possibilities which really are open to the Ministry, as I know from experience, to bring together the industries associated with fruit preservation in various forms, and get them to co-operate collectively in regard to this probable forthcoming abundance. A great deal can be done by the Ministry itself in promoting schemes for large-scale preservation as well as for a better system of distribution. I believe, too, with regard to the storage of food, that a shortage of food would certainly very soon occur in the event of an emergency, and the storage of fruit together with the sugar which would necessarily accompany it would be a very excellent way of easing the situation. I hope that the Food Department concerned will not rule this out. It seems to me a sensible thing to do if you are to be presented with a surplus of any useful crop in this country. I thank the Minister for his reply, and I hope that by raising the Question I will have promoted his good works.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.