Lords Sitting of 28 June 1939

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

TIENTSIN AND SOUTH CHINA.
3.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice. I wish to ask whether he has any further information to give regarding the Far East situation and whether he is aware of the danger of delay in relieving the position at Tientsin and of that which may arise from any further insufferable indignities upon British subjects there.
3.6 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, I may perhaps first give my noble friend and your Lordships the facts, so far as I have information of them. The general situation at Tientsin remains the same. The arrivals of perishable food stuffs continue to be spasmodic and are only between re and 20 per cent. of the normal; there are, however, ample stocks in the Concession of flour and rice. The local municipal and military authorities have the question of food supplies under constant review and have authority to take such measures as appear appropriate. The barbed wire entanglement surrounding the Concession was electrically charged at 10 p.m. on June 20. About this date women and children generally leave Tientsin for seaside resorts to escape the hot weather, and about 1oo women and the same number of children have already left. About 1,000 British subjects still remain in the British Concession. His Majesty's Ship "Sandwich" arrived at Tientsin on June 20, relieving His Majesty's Ship "Lowestoft" which left on June 23 for Weihaiwei via certain seaside resorts to which British women and children have proceeded. As has been reported, a number of British subjects have been stripped and searched at the barriers. I have spoken in the strongest terms to the Japanese Ambassador on the subject of this action which

761
His Majesty's Government hold to be entirely indefensible, and His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo has made similar representations to the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs.
While the general situation remains as I have stated, there are prospects that a settlement may be reached of the local issues outstanding between the British and Japanese authorities at Tientsin, and I am now able to announce that, as a result of an exchange of views which has taken place between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Japanese Government, it has been agreed that conversations shall take place in Tokyo in order to effect a settlement of various questions relating to present conditions in Tientsin. Representatives of local. British and Japanese authorities will be invited to Tokyo for the purpose. These conversations, which are expected to start forthwith, will, as I have stated, relate to local issues and will be designed on the one side to secure that the neutrality of the Concession should be maintained, and, on the other, British authority in the Concession preserved intact. In view of these conversations, His Majesty's Government assume that an end will be put to the vexatious procedure now being enforced in Tientsin, and they have reason to hope that this will in fact happen. Your Lordships will have seen reports that orders have been issued to stop the searching of foreigners, but I have not yet received official confirmation of this.
In regard to South China, the Japanese forces landed near Swatow on June 21 and completed their occupation of the port on the following day. The situation with regard to the use of the harbour by the shipping of Treaty Powers is still obscure, but the British naval authorities are taking steps to prevent undue interference with British ships. On June 27 information was received from the Japanese Consul-General at Shanghai to the effect that military operations would begin that day against the Treaty Ports of Wenchow and Foochow in South China. The Japanese Consul-General at the same time requested that all third Power vessels should leave these harbours by noon of June 29. His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai has replied pointing out that the right of British vessels to proceed to any port in Chinese waters
762
remains unaffected and we consider that the Japanese authorities are consequently not entitled to exercise undue interference with the movements of British ships or avoidably to endanger British lives and property.
I may add that all the considerations indicated by the noble Viscount are very present to the mind of His Majesty's Government and that they have every intention of maintaining British rights and interests in China. In view of the fact that, as I have said, conversations are about to open, I hope the noble Viscount will not press me further at this stage, but I shall, of course, be glad to give your Lordships at any time such further information as may be available and possible.
3.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: With your Lordships' permission I should like to thank my noble friend for the full and courteous reply he has made to my question. Of course I understand that, with negotiations just commencing, he is unable to give any further details to-day. But I venture to suggest to my noble friend that he cannot be too forcible in the diplomatic language that he uses in impressing upon the Japanese Government the intense resentment aroused both in Great Britain and the British Empire at the insufferable indignities that have been heaped upon our nationals, and for the unwarrantable and high-handed actions taken in connection with our trade interests in China; and, my Lords, also at the laxity of purpose shown by the Japanese Government in redressing these wrongs. It will take a long time to eradicate this resentment, and I am sure that I am voicing public opinion when I say that only an immediate cessation will satisfy this country and the British Empire.
Without infringing in any way what the noble Viscount has said, there are two or three points which will come up during these negotiations upon which there is a very strong feeling in the East and in this country among those who know what is going on. I would venture to mention to my noble friend two or three of these points which are agitating our minds very seriously. It is reported on very good authority that the Japanese Government may propose as the basis of negotiation for the settlement of the affair at Tientsin, first of all co-operation

763
in the suppression of anti-Japanese elements. Without saying anything offensive to Japan, I believe that the word "co-operation" in the Japanese dictionary means giving everything to the Japanese that they ask for without any question. I venture to ask His Majesty's Government and the British Ambassador to bear this in mind when they are negotiating. The second point is that Great Britain shall cease to support the Chinese national currency in North China. It has already been reported that His Majesty's Government have declined to accept this suggestion. I wish to urge upon His Majesty's Government to stand fast on that line, if the information is correct, and not to give way one iota to what would mean a death-blow to international trade, and British trade likewise, in China and the Far East.
Then there is a third point, upon which the British residents in Tientsin especially and in Shanghai and the rest of China feel very strongly, and that is in connection with the $50,000,000 of Chinese silver which are deposited in Chinese banks in Tientsin. There is a suggestion that this silver might be handed over to Japan in the course of these negotiations. I cannot urge too strongly on His Majesty's Government the disastrous effect that that would have upon the Chinese mind and upon our position—in fact the position of all our nationals—in the East. I venture to hope that this will not be brought into effect in any way whatsoever. I merely wish, before sitting down, to emphasize once more the very strong feeling of resentment that there is in this country and in the British Empire, and to say that Japan must not go too far in these matters, because there is a point at which we may not be able to hold out any longer.
3.17 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I do not wish to embarrass the noble Viscount by asking him any questions that he thinks inadvisable to answer, but I wonder if, in the negotiations which are likely to take place or in other ways, any inquiry will be made into the loss of the lives of the Canadian missionary and his wife by recent bombings in that area. It is a matter of very great importance to one of our great Dominions, and I hope it will not be overlooked.
3.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, perhaps by leave of your Lordships I may say one word. The point that the noble Lord has raised will certainly not be overlooked, but I cannot at this stage say what action may be possible in regard to it. With regard to what fell from my noble friend behind me, I would remind him that in the statement that I made I was careful to say that these conversations will relate to local issues; and that I think in part answers one or two of the observations that he made. He will believe that I am, and have every reason to be, as fully alive to the strength of feeling that these incidents have quite naturally and quite properly aroused among all our people as he is; and I have also very present to my mind the feeling that they must have particularly aroused among the British residents in China, more especially those on whom the direct and principal burden of them has perforce fallen, and who have in their extremely difficult circumstances the sympathy of the whole people of this country. For the rest, my Lords, I can assure my noble friend that his observations will be duly noted, and I am quite sure he will have the same confidence as I have in His Majesty's Representative at Tokyo to see that these considerations are properly borne in mind.

MINING SUBSIDENCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HAILSHAM WATER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LUTON WATER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOUTH KENT WATER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (YORK WATER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NEWHAVEN AND SEAFORD WATER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CORSHAM WATER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
ST. HELENS CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BETHESDA) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BRADFORD) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CIVIL DEFENCE BILL.
3.23 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 Munster.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before we go into Committee, will it be convenient to ask the noble Earl, Lord Munster, with reference to the great many Amendments to this important Bill that appear on the Paper on behalf of the Government, if he can say whether he claims that these do not raise questions of policy or new principle, and does he claim that they are, for the most part, Amendments of a drafting character? It would be of great convenience, not only to noble Lords on this side, but to noble Lords on the other side as well, if the noble Earl could give us that information.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I am happy to give the noble Lord that information. I think he will observe, as he proceeds through the list of Amendments on this Bill, that they are not Amendments of policy or of principle. In fact many of them give effect to alterations which were promised in another House, and others are merely drafting, to make various clauses read better.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee, accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Designation of premises]:
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(6) Where the occupier of any designated premises holds any part of the premises on lease, he shall, immediately he becomes aware of the designation of the premises, serve upon his immediate landlord or, where he holds different parts of the premises under different landlords, on each of his immediate landlords, notice that the premises have been designated under this section and each person upon whom such a notice is served in satisfaction of an obligation imposed by this subsection shall forthwith himself serve a copy of the notice upon his immediate landlord or landlords, if any."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment refers to premises which have been marked down by the authorities as required for civil defence purposes. The Bill provides that the occupier shall have fourteen days within which he can

767
make an appeal. My Amendment merely suggests that the occupier must take upon himself the onus of informing the owner of the designation of the premises, so that the owner also can have some opportunity for appeal.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 10, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Phillimore.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My noble friend has explained to your Lordships the object of the Amendment, and as far as we are concerned there is no objection whatever to the incorporation of the Amendment in the clause. I am therefore prepared to accept the Amendment which stands in the noble Lord's name.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Execution of works]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: On this clause there is something to which I would like to call the attention of the Government. On page 4, in the proviso, it says:
"the local authority shall not, except with the agreement of all persons concerned, begin any such works as aforesaid until the period has expired for appealing to the Minister against the designation of the premises in question or, if an appeal is brought within that period, until the determination of that appeal."
As a rule such words are included as "or until the appeal has been abandoned," and I think it would be just as well to put those words in here. My remarks also refer to Clause 16, subsection (3), at page 16, and to Clause 17. Perhaps on the Report stage the Government might see their way to move an Amendment to that effect.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am glad the noble Viscount has raised that point, which we are prepared to consider between now and the Report stage of the Bill.
On Question, Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Designated premises to remain unaltered]:
3.28 p.m.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to insert the following new subsection:
768
"(4) The local authority shall pay to any person having an estate or interest in the designated premises such compensation, if any, in respect of any damage caused to such person by reason of the designation of the premises, as may be just."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment proposes compensation for damage brought about by the designation of premises for civil defence. The Bill provides for the case of damage sustained by the occupier, but it neglects to include the owner of the premises concerned as being worthy of receiving compensation also. It must be perfectly obvious that buildings which are designated for civil defence, and which cannot under the Bill be structurally altered or touched in any way, might provide a case where considerable hardship to the owner takes place. For instance, a buyer comes along, or a lessee, who says: "Subject to such structural alterations as my architect proposes, I will take the house." The owner has to say: "I cannot make any structural alterations, under the Bill, and therefore I cannot sell or let you the house." I will not enlarge on the number of instances of that kind which might arise, but there does not seem to be any sufficient reason why the owner should not be entitled to compensation, as well as the occupier.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 16, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Phillimore.)
3.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD NAUGHAM): This is an Amendment which I am unable to accept on behalf of the Government. The subject that we are dealing with in this Amendment is a difficult one and, as the noble Lord has properly stated, there is compensation under Clause 6 in a case where the works are actually executed. Your Lordships appreciate that here we are dealing under Part II of the Bill, with a case where the local authority, having come to the conclusion that a part of a building—the whole of the building for that matter—can be made suitable for use as a public air-raid shelter, or for use in the event of hostile attack, by the local authority in carrying out any of their civil defence functions, may designate premises by a notice showing that that building, or part of it, may be required for use for public purposes of civil defence. That is not a thing that is done otherwise than for the benefit of a large number of

769
people, and it will be done also for the benefit, among other persons, of the owner or occupiers of the premises in question.
There is no doubt that, as the result of that notice, it may be for a few days, it may be for a period longer than that, it may be for some weeks, the position will be that those particular premises are so to speak wholly or partially sterilized, in the sense that they cannot be altered, and they cannot be modified by the owner or occupier; and persons who are contemplating taking those premises for a permanent purpose will probably be dissuaded from doing so by the fact that there is a notice up that the premises are designated premises. I doubt very much whether that will be at all a common case, because the sort of places that the local authority is likely to think will be suitable for a public air-raid shelter will be premises which in all probability can be used perfectly welt for temporary purposes, and people will not want to be there for any great length of time. And of course people who are only going to use the premises for temporary purposes will be perfectly willing to take them for those purposes, and will turn out as soon as they are wanted for a major purpose, such as the defence functions of the local authority.
Now what will the result be of attempting to give to the owner compensation in respect of the mere fact that the premises have been so designated as premises which may be required for the purposes of Part II? Your Lordships will remember that as soon as the local authority make up their minds that they do not want the premises for that purpose they will give notice. But what would be the effect of this Amendment during the period in question? One thing which personally I should very greatly fear is a large number of claims for compensation which are really not well founded at all. It is extraordinarily difficult for the local authority to resist a claim in which somebody says: "If you had not put up a notice outside those premises I should have let them." Who can tell? It is a sort of conjecture, and it leads to compensation of the most doubtful character.
This, as I have said, is a case where there is compensation where any works are executed, and the submission which I am putting before your Lordships is that if a landlord is bound in the public interest
770
to submit, for a brief space of time, to the trouble or inconvenience that he is put to by reason of works being designated for this truly public purpose, he ought to be willing to put up with that inconvenience. Under this Bill and in the circumstances in which we are now situated, everybody will have to put up with inconveniences, often very, very much more serious and severe than those which we are concerned with here. We all have to do our best, and landlords, like others, ought not to think that they are going to avoid such loss or inconvenience as some of them might have to suffer under Part II by the designation of premises for the purpose of defence works. I ask your Lordships to say that, although there will in some cases be some loss here, it is no greater than all the rest of the community will have to suffer. The Amendment would lead to very great inconvenience and, it may be, to many unjust claims. The Government therefore think it should be rejected.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The noble and learned Lord seems to think that the mere fact of a designation notice is going to depreciate property. That is possibly so, but I doubt if that would be a source of claim for damage by the owner. But this clause provides that no person shall, without the consent of the local authority, make any structural alteration, and the noble and learned Lord himself said that the premises are sterilized. That in itself is a possible source of loss.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I said wholly or partially sterilized, and partial sterilization is what is far the most likely event. Of course, the whole of the building may be designated.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: It does not make much difference whether it is wholly or partially sterilized. The point I wish to make is that as often as not when the owner of any premises such as would be affected by this clause is getting a new tenant, that new tenant requires alterations to suit the convenience of his business, and if under this clause the owner is not allowed to alter the premises to suit the convenience of an incoming tenant, he is going to be limited as to the scope from which he can obtain fresh tenants for the premises. In consequence he may be subject to loss, such as lower rent, or he may even be unable to let the place. This question of compensation throughout the Bill is extremely difficult, because we

771
are dealing in the Bill really with war time conditions imposed upon the country in peace time. The country may feel capable of standing all sorts of things if war is actually on, but a great many of these provisions right through the Bill are tending to interfere with the ordinary commercial life of certain sections of the community. It is all very well to say that owners should be sufficiently patriotic to give away this, that and the other; they are sufficiently patriotic to pay their taxes reasonably punctually, and I think it should be expected that the community who benefit should pay to those owners the loss that they incur by having their premises used for the benefit of the community as a whole.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I, with the permission of the Committee, point out one thing which I forgot to mention before? It is not wholly without weight in a matter of this kind. This Amendment is, strictly speaking, a breach of Privilege. It not only would place a larger sum on the local authority, but the local authority in its turn gets a large grant in respect of these expenses, so that indirectly it places a large charge on the Imperial funds.
3.40 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope your Lordships will allow me to say just one more word on this question of Privilege. If it be held to be a doctrine that whenever a change in the law affects either rates or taxes, that is a breach of Privilege, then your Lordships might just as well shut the doors of your Lordships' House and give up legislation altogether. There is hardly any legislation which does not, in effect, possibly throw a burden on the rates or taxes. If I may say so without undue presumption, I have had some experience of this question of Privilege in old days. There is nothing out of order in a breach of Privilege. Your Lordships may commit any breach of Privilege your Lordships please. The remedy for that is in another place.
I do not suggest your Lordships would be wise to fly in the face of Privilege. That would not be a breach of order, but it would be very inexpedient and unwise. Matters which really deal with Privilege, properly so-called, are better left alone by your Lordships. I frankly admit that; but please do not say it is
772
out of order. It is not out of order. It is contrary merely to the ordinary practice in your Lordships' House. When we come to Privilege itself, a distinction must be made between Privilege when it is a question of a direct burden on the taxpayer and when it is not. An indirect burden is in a much less privileged position. If that applies to the question of burdens on the taxes, it applies with tenfold force to questions that affect the rates. In point of fact, I do not think your Lordships' House has ever admitted fully that a burden on the rates constitutes a breach of Privilege. Therefore, let us be quite clear about that.
I have only one further word to say upon this. It does not follow that because a breach of Privilege is committed in your Lordships' House that will be a matter insisted against in another place. That is for the House of Commons. As a matter of fact, in my experience, and in the experience of a very large number of your Lordships, breaches of Privilege, even when they are of a much more definite kind than anything involved in the present Amendment, are over and over again allowed in another place. If the House of Commons wishes, it does not insist upon its Privilege. If your Lordships will forgive me for being so tedious, what happens continually in legislation is that the Government commit breaches of Privilege. That is the most ordinary thing. In amending their own Bills, which very often has to be the case—I do not say that with any sneer, because it is necessarily so—they continually commit what is, in the much more rigid sense of the term, a breach of Privilege. But the House of Commons never resents that. The House of Commons, where the Government can command a complete majority, always ignores breaches of Privilege on these occasions. Therefore, it only shows how unnecessary it is for your Lordships to pay too much attention to the question. If I may venture this last word, I hope your Lordships will not allow the Privileges of this House to be gradually eaten away under pleas of the Privilege of another place, and thus ensure that the usefulness of your Lordships' House—may I call it the growing usefulness of your Lordships' House?—in amending careless legislation is not infringed by a rigid interpretation of this vague principle of Privilege.
3.45 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: I would not dare to take part in a discussion on the question of Privilege opened by the noble Marquess, because of my youth in your Lordships' House, but I had intended to rise, and I do so now, to ask the noble and learned Lord Chancellor how this question of Privilege can apply to the Amendment we are now discussing—which I do not support for reasons given earlier by the Lord Chancellor—and yet escapes in the Amendment to Clause 6 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Munster?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I must have been singularly unhappy in the language I used to your Lordships in making my remarks five minutes ago. Of nothing that the noble Marquess has said do I in the least complain—in fact I agree with every word of it. I was under the impression that I had not suggested, and I certainly did not mean to suggest, that this Amendment was out of order or that the next was out of order. All I had intended to do—and I agree I was no doubt unhappy in doing it—was to remind your Lordships that in another place, supposing an Amendment such as this were carried here, there might be some prejudice against it by reason of the fact that it does, indirectly, affect the Exchequer and therefore would not be looked upon with any very great favour. My argument against this Amendment I placed before your Lordships when I first spoke, and I thought it was worth while reminding your Lordships that this might be a breach of Privilege, not that it was out of order. I am perfectly aware now, and I think I was aware before, of all the noble Marquess has said with reference to the Privileges of this House, with which, if I may respectfully say so, I entirely agree. I am exceedingly sorry if anybody thought I was asserting that this House was not entitled to discuss this Amendment and the next, with regard to which I was perfectly aware some observations might be made, but for which there is a reason your Lordships will hear in due course.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I did not raise all these large and wide questions, but since the noble and learned Lord has rather imported into this very minor Amendment of mine a question of principle, I would like to say this. I am only concerned with justice as between
774
man and man, whether it be a landlord or anybody else. It so happens that this Bill being very largely concerned with the use of property, landlords are called upon to suffer very many restrictions which otherwise they would not have to suffer. Having said that, I would like to agree with the noble and learned Lord that if the damage suggested by my Amendment only occurs during a period of days or even a few weeks, there would be no sufficient justification for the Amendment. But I suggest to him that he should consider whether a designation order which stood for as long as three months might not properly provide an opportunity for compensation to be paid. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will think that matter over between now and the Report stage. If so, he will agree, I think, that most of these small, unfounded cases, which he hinted might come about, would be eliminated.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I may say at once I shall be very happy to consider it, but at the moment I am not making any pledge as to the result of my deliberation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Compensation where works are executed]:
4.51 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:
"(4) Where a local authority restore any premises, building or land in accordance with the last foregoing subsection, the occupier of the premises, building or land shall be entitled to recover from the local authority compensation for any damage he has sustained by reason of any interference with his use of the premises, building or land during the execution of the works."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment removes a defect in the clause as it now stands. Your Lordships will observe that compensation is payable to the occupier for any damage sustained by interference with the use of his premises while works are being carried out by a local authority. If the premises should cease to be designated and the local authority should restore them to their former usefulness, the question of compensation would come into effect, and the clause as introduced into this House made no provision for compensation in respect of damage due to such interference. The Amendment, as your Lord-

775
ships will observe, repairs this omission, and ensures that in such a case the occupier will receive compensation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 18, at end insert the new subsection.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask whether this is an Amendment that was promised in another place? I think it is going a great deal too far. I agree with the noble and learned Lord Chancellor in these matters, for once in a way. You are compensating people for designating, you are compensating them for altering and undesignating, and now you are compensating them for restoring. I think that is going rather too far. I should not think it necessary to have the matter debated if this was promised in another place and, if that is so, I do not propose to oppose it.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think it was. I cannot give the noble Lord a guarantee that it was discussed in another place, but I should have thought it would be obvious that it is a perfectly fair thing to insert this subsection in this particular place. It seems to me it is only fair and natural, and something that Parliament would wish to see inserted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Powers of local authorities to construct underground shelters and other premises required for civil defence purposes.
(4) Any shelter or premises constructed by the local authority under this section, together with the entrances to the shelter or premises and any shafts or other works executed in connection with the shelter or premises, shall, on completion, vest in the authority.
(7) In this section the expression "protected square" has the meaning assigned to it by Section two of the London Squares Preservation Act, 1931, and the expressions "allotment," "common," and "open space," have the same meanings as in Part II of the Third Schedule to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, and the expression "the National Trust," has the same meaning as in Section forty of the Finance Act, 1931.
4.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The First Amendment to this clause is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 34, leave out ("the underground shelter or premises") and insert ("any such underground shelter or premises by virtue of this section").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, at the end of subsection (4), to insert "and the authority shall be entitled to do anything reasonably necessary for the maintenance of any such shelter, premises, entrances, shafts or works and shall have such powers of entry as are necessary for that purpose." The noble Earl said: This is practically a drafting Amendment. The purpose of it is to give the local authority power to maintain an underground shelter and the necessary entrances to that underground shelter when they have in fact constructed it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 27, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not wish to be pedantic but is this being put in at the right place? It does not seem to me that it is. At first sight it seems to be in the wrong place here.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I will look into that point. I thought it was in the right place. It seems to be reasonably clear. It reads on from subsection (4).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.55 p.m.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Your Lordships will see that the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has an Amendment on page 7, line 31, which also deals with the matter referred to in the next Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, so I will put the Question to leave out "in respect of any" down to the word "any," in order to save Lord Radnor's Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Might I say a word on the particular point mentioned by the Lord Chairman? I put my Amendment down before I had had time to study Lord Munster's Amendment, which is, I think, only drafting. It says what is in the Bill now but in other words, and I have no objection to it. If I shall be allowed to speak on the noble Earl's Amendment, I will, if necessary, postpone my Amendment until the Report stage.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The Amendment which is in my name is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 31, leave out ("in respect of any damage thereby caused to him, as may be just") and insert ("as may be just in respect of any damage caused to him by reason of the construction of the works or of anything done by the authority for the maintenance thereof").—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Amendment, as your Lordships see, really falls to the ground on Lord Munster's Amendment because it comes in the wrong place. But his Amendment alters the wording if not the sense. His Amendment still contains the words:
"as may be just in respect of any damage caused to him by reason of the construction of the works or of anything done by the authority for the maintenance thereof."
As the noble Earl said just now, the question of compensation under this Bill is extremely difficult. Local authorities are given very wide powers indeed, just as though it were war time, whereas it is peace time. I think this needs very careful consideration, so as to ensure that the owners of property are not put upon in any way by not being able to get just compensation, as my noble friend Lord Phillimore said, as between man and man, such as they deserve. I do not feel at all happy about the wording of this Amendment. If I had to interpret the words, I should have said that the damage for which he could obtain compensation would be limited to such damage as might occur while the construction was in progress or when the maintenance was being undertaken and at no other time. That is rather borne out by the wording of the Amendment lately moved by my noble friend Lord Munster to page 6, line 18. There compensation is specifically confined to the time when his business is interfered with, while the land is being built upon or being restored. I should like an answer to the particular point as to whether the wording of that part of the clause is clear enough to make it certain that a man who suffers a definite loss of business as a result of any works done under this Clause 7 or for that matter under the next succeeding clause, where they are allowed to use these places for underground parks—is entitled to claim any compensation.
778
I have in mind cases such as parks and open spaces in built-up areas in private ownership which have probably very considerable amenity value, and which are the places that the local authority looks to to find space to put up their necessary erections underground, or even on the top of the ground, for the purpose of protecting the public in the event of war. Many of those spaces have been sacrificed by landowners for the benefit of the public, and those people who have built houses round them expect to enjoy the amenities. If you imagine a peaceful square, for instance, around which a number of residential houses have been built and you build an underground parking place in the middle of the square, that peaceful square ceases any longer to be peaceful. Not only do those who live in the houses suffer, but the landowner may find it difficult subsequently on change of tenancy to let those houses, and will suffer loss; indeed, as your Lordships are well aware, any such erection in such a place as I have mentioned is bound to depreciate the value of the property. I do not say there might not be a certain appreciation of property in the minds of those who are apprehensive of the results of an air raid and may like to think they have a funk-hole handy, but generally speaking it is bound to depreciate the value of the property around.
I also have in mind the case of a square which is entirely in private hands and is used as a car park. It is proposed by the local authority, if it is possible under this Bill, to dig under the square—they will not disturb the surface—and make an underground shelter which will be used as a car park. In that case there is nothing to prevent the present owners from using the surface as a car park, except that there will be another and much better one underneath. In that case the charity to which the property belongs gets a considerable income in fees from the car park and is able as well to relieve the tenants from virtually any financial responsibility for the upkeep of the square. I hope, therefore, that whoever replies for the Government will make quite clear what is the exact scope of the word "damage" and will deal with the question whether it would not be wiser to add the words "loss or"—which would, I think, make it perfectly clear, if that is the intention of the subsection. But

779
I am not quite certain that it is the intention of the subsection to compensate landowners adequately.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would say at once that to a lawyer the meaning of the phrase "loss or damage" is precisely the same as the meaning of the word "damage." If you have a loss by reason of interference with one of your rights, you suffer damage in respect of that right. I do not think the noble Earl, to whom I listened with great attention, would find any responsible legal opinion in favour of the view that the addition of the word "loss" will affect the matter. To come to the substance of the case, I can quite understand that anybody who holds a brief for the owner is anxious to have complete compensation in respect of damage which he may suffer by reason of the construction of the works with which we are concerned. Your Lordships will appreciate that the works in question are works in land which has been acquired under the provisions of Clause 7 (1). What the Amendment is designed to deal with is damage of two kinds—damage caused by reason of the construction of the works, and damage done by the authority in the maintenance of the works.
It is clear that if you construct a deep underground shelter under some of these places you will have a number of elaborate things to do on the premises. There will be excavations, there will be noise, there will be interference with the amenities and so on. The owner may suffer damage by heaps of soil being placed upon his ground, or something of that sort, and he ought to be compensated for all that which strictly would be called damage in the course of the performance of the works. But he gets something more, because there may be something in the nature of the works themselves which causes the damage. Then, in my view, he is entitled to compensation for damage caused by reason of the construction of the works. If, for instance, there is some ventilation pipe which has to stick out in some inconvenient place, or there is by reason of the construction of the works some interference with his property—being the property on which the works are situate—he is entitled to damage for that. He is also entitled to damage for the various things that may be done by
780
the authority while the works are being maintained.
On the other hand, I am not sure that some of the things mentioned are things for which he is intended to be compensated, and I think he will not receive compensation under this clause for those things. The noble Earl gave us an example of a car park, belonging it may be to a private person, and the local authority taking the ground underneath that park for the purpose either of a car park or merely as a shelter. I do not think the people who have the car park on the surface will be able to complain of that. That is the sort of competition which anybody may be open to. You build a car park and somebody may be able to construct another one of a more convenient character in the immediate vicinity. He may be able to do that underground if he can buy the underground property. That would not be a matter of which the original owner of the car park could complain. Then there are matters of amenity. We are all troubled in that way. We all shall have to suffer. You see many squares in London, and indeed some of the public parks, where there are at present most unsightly brown patches on the surface. We have to suffer that. We cannot stop that. If it is done in a square which belongs to the inhabitants surrounding the square they must not complain.
At any rate, this proposed Amendment to Clause 7 is not, I think, really intended to deal with matters of that kind at all. All I can say is that I have done my best, such as it is, to explain what in my view is the meaning of the two phrases "the construction of the works" and "done by the authority for the maintenance thereof." I think the clause is limited to that, and as at present advised I am unable to see that the landlord or the owner has any claim for anything beyond that. If the noble Earl can persuade me before a later stage of the Bill that there is something else that should be compensated for, I shall be happy to consider it.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I do not think the noble and learned Lord has quite appreciated my point. This clause deals with compulsory entering on land. The people who enter on land in these circumstances do not pay for it. Under the ordinary law, as I understand it,

781
when a local authority with compulsory powers decide to acquire a piece of land, or the subsoil of a piece of land, they first negotiate with the owner, and if that does not succeed the matter then goes to arbitration, and the owner is paid for the land what is just. In this case the local authority are going to enter on the land without paying anything. They therefore get something for nothing straight away. The owner seems absolutely to have no remedy whatsoever so far as I can see for the loss that may be incurred. There is only paid to him, I gather—I am not quite certain, but I do not believe the question of arbitration arises—what seems just for the disturbance that is caused. Nothing in what the noble and learned Lord has said seems to indicate that there will be any payment, for instance, for loss of amenities or loss of trade. I feel that the words "as is just" have really no meaning, because there is no just compensation allowed for in the clause. In view of what he said, however, I will study it carefully and perhaps try to bring it up again on Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 8, leave out from ("proceed") to the end of line 10, and insert ("with reasonable dispatch to complete the removal, diversion or alteration").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, at the end of subsection (7), to insert "as amended by Section twenty-seven of the Finance Act, 1936." The noble Earl said: I understand that during the passage of this Bill through another place there was a certain amount of doubt whether the National Trust for Scotland desired the protection that is afforded in the Bill to the National Trust for England. I understand that they have now informed my right honourable friend that they would desire to be in the same position as the National Trust for this country, and the Amendment which I move gives effect to the wishes which they express. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 27, at end insert ("as amended by Section twenty-seven of the Finance Act, 1936").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Powers of local authorities to construct underground car parks suitable for use as air-raid shelters.
8.—(1) A local authority who have power under Section sixty-eight of the Public Health Act, 1925, or under Section twenty of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, to provide parking places may, for the purpose of providing underground parking places suitable also for use as air-raid shelters, exercise the like powers as are exercisable by local authorities under the last preceding section for the purposes therein mentioned, subject, however, to the following provisions of this section.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (1), after "mentioned," to insert "subject to the like obligation as to the payment of compensation." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to repair what I suppose is an accidental omission. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord can tell me if that is so, for if so I need not pursue the subject any further. In Clause 7 of the Bill compensation is given in respect of air-raid shelters on any land. Clause 8 confers the same power on a local authority to make an underground shelter, but for some reason or other leaves out words as to the payment of compensation. I think that is the whole point, and I do not see any reason why those words should not be included in the second case as well as in the first. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 25, after ("mentioned") insert ("subject to the like obligation as to the payment of compensation").—(Lord Phillimore.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am glad to hear the noble Lord's explanation of this Amendment, and I think some additional words may be required, not only to include compensation but also the vesting of the shelter in the local authority. Perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to communicate with me at some later stage, and we will see whether we can find words which can be put down on the Report stage of the Bill.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Thank you; in view of that answer I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Power of local authorities to construct air-raid shelters in streets]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 4, leave out from ("proceed") to ("and") in line 5, and insert ("with reasonable dispatch to complete the removal, diversion or alteration").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Power of factory inspector, mines inspector or local authority to require provision of air-raid shelter.
16.—(1) A factory inspector may serve on the occupier of factory premises, a mines inspector may serve on the owner of a mine, and the local authority may serve on the owner of a commercial building (whether or not any report has been made under the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act) a notice in writing requiring him to provide air-raid shelter of the approved standard for all or any of the persons working or living in the factory premises, working in or about the mine, or working or living in the commercial building, as the case may be.
(2) Any such notice shall specify with such particularity as the inspector or authority thinks reasonably necessary the nature and situation of the shelter, and shall specify the number of persons that the shelter is to be constructed to accommodate.
4.13 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Amendment which I have put on the Paper to Clause 16 is to omit subsection (2). The position is that there is an obligation on owners of buildings to comply with this code which is laid down, and the subsection which I am moving to omit puts the onus on the local authority to prescribe the particulars of the work which this owner of premises has to do. The local authorities feel that this is putting an undue burden upon them. It is felt that the owner is quite capable of employing his own architects and his own experts to examine the code and find out what work is necessary to be done. The local authorities are perfectly prepared to do that in respect of their own premises and it is felt that this is an obligation which should rest on the owner of the premises.
I think there is an analogy in the Building by-laws under the Public Health Act, 1936. Before you put up a building
784
you have to submit plans to the local authority. The local authority then satisfy themselves that the plans do, or do not, comply with the by-laws, and it is, I believe, a defence to any subsequent action by the local authority for the person erecting the building to say "I submitted plans and they were passed by the local authority." I cannot see why the same process cannot be followed in this matter. I should like to mention to your Lordships that this subsection was not in the Bill when it was first introduced. At that time the Government took, I think, the view that I am putting before your Lordships. At one stage or another in another place the subsection was introduced. I should like your Lordships to look at it very carefully, because I think it is open to very grave objection and puts an enormous burden upon the shoulders of the local authorities at a moment when, it is of course unnecessary to emphasize to your Lordships, they are very fully occupied with other things. That is briefly the point. I do not wish to labour it but I very much hope that the Government will feel able to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 21, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord said, that as the Bill was originally introduced this subsection (2) did not appear in it at all, but it was found necessary to substitute for the conception of approved types of shelter the idea of approved standards, that is to say, of minimum standards which could be required and also of the amount of space per person to be sheltered in such shelters. This subsection requires the notice to specify, with such particularity as the authority thinks is reasonably necessary, the nature and situation of the shelter and the number of persons to be accommodated. I submit to your Lordships that there is a real advantage in giving a possibly unwilling man more than a vague general direction to do something in the way of shelter, and the more specific one can be the less excuse there is for any delay.
I understand that my noble friend is moving this Amendment on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and naturally they are entitled to have their views very seriously considered. I

785
understand that they are apprehensive that the effect of this subsection may be that the employer will hope to avoid the need of getting professional advice for himself by putting the onus on the local authority, who, the noble Lord quite rightly says, are already heavily burdened. This certainly was never the intention of the Government and I think that the noble Lord's views are somewhat misconceived. We have always agreed that employers must rely upon their own experts in carrying out their obligations and it has never been, as far as I am aware, contemplated that the local authority's notice should particularise to the extent of giving detailed specifications. However, I understand that my right honourable friend has suggested to the representatives of the Association of Municipal Corporations that they should discuss with him the way in which duties in regard to these notices can be discharged without having to go too deeply into the technical details. I hope that, with that assurance, my noble friend will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for the assurance that he has given me that this matter will be further discussed. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Special provisions as to commercial buildings when owner does not occupy the whole building.
(5) The said increase shall be at the annual rate of the total of the two following amounts, that is to say:—

(a) one-tenth of the expenses of the owner under the notice;

(b) any diminution of the annual value of any part of the building ascribable to an impairment of the usefulness thereof by reason of the execution of the works ascertained as at the date of the completion of the works:

Provided that in the case of a lease of part of a commercial building, the increase shall be calculated by reference not to the whole of the said total but to an amount bearing thereto the same proportion as the annual value of the part of the building at the date
786
of the completion of the works bears to the annual value of the whole building at that date.
4.19 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (5), at the end of paragraph (a), to insert "or, in respect of rent payable under a lease the unexpired portion of which is less than ten years, such fraction as will enable the owner to recover the expenses from the occupier during the said unexpired period, provided always that the said fraction shall not in any case be greater than one-seventh." The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will have realised, and in fact it has been stated to-day on several occasions, that the property owners are very much affected by all the provisions of this Bill. I want to say on their behalf that they are more than willing to undertake to carry out their obligations, in view of the urgent necessity of this matter. The Amendment which stands in my name is merely an effort to try to clarify the position, and enable the Bill to work more smoothly as a result. The object of the Amendment is to enable the owner of a commercial building to get back from his tenants the cost of providing air-raid shelter in the building in a shorter period than ten years, where there are less than ten years unexpired of the lease.
The point was raised in the House of Commons and it was suggested that the provision for the maximum which could be got back—namely, one-tenth—should be altered to one-seventh. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster undertook that the Lord Privy Seal would give the whole matter his consideration. This Amendment modifies the original proposal to some extent. It proposes that where the unexpired portion of a lease is ten years or more the repayment of one-tenth shall apply, that where it is not more than nine years the maximum shall be one-ninth, and that where it is eight years one-eighth shall apply, but that where the unexpired portion of the lease is less than seven years the landlord shall only be able to get back one-seventh each year. It is felt that this would be a more reasonable Amendment, since it would enable the landlord to get his money back in a shorter time where the tenants were under contract for less than ten years, and it would not enable him to claim more than one-seventh in

787
each year. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 25, at end, insert the said words.—(Lord Chesham.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think my noble friend has clearly explained to your Lordships that the object of the Amendment is to enable the owner of property, so far as possible, to recover the whole of his expenses from the tenants existing at the time the work is done, with the one limitation that if a lease is less than seven years unexpired, the amount to be charged shall not be more than one-seventh. It is quite true that an Amendment was moved in another place on similar lines. I fear I can add very little to what was said on that occasion. It was explained in the other House that the period of ten years which we have included in the Bill was admittedly arbitrary, and had no relation to the assumed prevalence of a period of ten years for leases, or to leases of any other period. The Government have considered the question again in the light of the Amendment, and we have taken the view that ten years is a reasonable period, balancing the interest of the landlord against the interest of the tenant, over which to spread repayment. I think it would be quite clear to the Committee that the position of an owner, after existing leases have expired, is that he is free to obtain, by the play of the market, whatever rent he can get from incoming tenants, and may possibly get a better rent. I have heard nothing from my noble friend behind me which makes me suggest to the Committee that we should accept an Amendment to which my right honourable friend was unable to agree in another place. I might mention, before I sit down, that under Clause 29 of the Bill local authorities are given power to advance money to small householders who
do not come within the provision of free shelters, and such loan is based on a ten-year repayment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: If I understood Lord Munster aright, he seemed to assume, in the case of a tenancy of less than ten years, that the mere fact that there was an air-raid shelter would enable the owner to relet at possibly a better rent, plus the cost of shelter. I think he may be making a very wrong presumption there. At the present time, the owner has premises let at short term to people bound by lease, and the noble Earl must know that the value of property, and the possibility of letting property, in London have gone down tremendously because of all these international troubles and the fear of war, and so I think there is a great deal of substance in the Amendment, which is designed to try and get from tenants, who are going to be there anyhow, a repayment of the expense of air-raid precautions, from which they will benefit and which may possibly not benefit any future tenant at all.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Lord Munster mentioned the possibility of getting increased rents, but if there is going to be war rents will go down, because there will be a general exodus, and if the scare of war is over people will not want to pay for a thing which is unlikely to be used. I think I am right in saying also that in the majority of cases leases are for less than ten years, and you generally see in a lease that it is at the option of the tenant to take for seven, fourteen or twenty-one years. Therefore the tenant would see which way to jump, and act accordingly. I think that the answer of the noble Earl generally is quite unsatisfactory, and I trust my noble friend will press his Amendment to a Division.
On Question, Whether the words proposed shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 10; Not-Contents, 60.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Gorell, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Sandhurst, L.

Radnor, E.

Doverdale, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Salisbury, M.

Cavan, E.

Zetland, M.

Feversham, E.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Fortescue, E.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Abingdon, E.

Howe, E.

Iveagh, E.

Chatfield, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Mancroft, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Merthyr, L.

Minto, E.

Cromwell, L.

Portsea, L.

Munster, E.

Digby, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Onslow, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Remnant, L.

Rothes, E.

Eltisley, L.

Rennell, L.

Stanhope, E.

Elton, L.

Rushcliffe, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Selsdon, L.

Bridport, V.

Gainford, L.

Stanmore, L.

Halifax, V.

Gifford, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mersey, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Swinton, V.

Harlech, L.

Harmsworth, L

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

Ailwyn, L.

Harris, L.

Teynham, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Heneage, L.

Waleran, L.

Blythswood, L.

Holden, L.

Wolverton, L.

Cautley, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Wyfold, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.37 p.m.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL had given Notice of an Amendment, to insert at the end of paragraph (a) in subsection (5) "together with interest (at such rate as shall be determined by the Minister) on the amount of such expenses or such part thereof as shall not have been repaid by means of the said increase." The noble Lord said: I hope that the adamantine attitude of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill towards the last Amendment, supported as he has been by a large number of your Lordships, will not lead him to look with an unfavourable eye upon this Amendment. It deals with the same point, but in a modified manner. I think it is generally recognised that the length of time during which premises are occupied varies very considerably in accordance with the class of property. Whereas ten years may quite reasonably be regarded as a fit and proper period for commercial buildings, the same set of circumstances hardly applies to certain classes of leasehold properties, residential flats and so forth, where, as is generally known, it is not very usual that the same people are in continuous occupation over a period of ten years.
It would seem that the principle of the Bill is that the owner who has an obligation imposed upon him should be entitled to recover a considerable portion of the expense over a period of ten years, but if those who have placed this obligation upon him are not there, then the principle on which this part of the Bill is founded seems to go by default. This Amendment is designed to enable the landlord to recover a little more than he
790
would be entitled to as the Bill stands as present, in order to meet the point of view and the interest of those who are responsible for properties where people are in occupation for a short length of time—less than ten years. The principle seems to be perfectly clear, and I hope that this Amendment at any rate will be one which the Government will be able to accept, in order to carry out the basis upon which the principle of compensation rests.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 25, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Gorell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is with great regret that I have to announce that I cannot accede to the honeyed words of the noble Lord, and that I must oppose this Amendment. First, may I say a word on general grounds? Your Lordships will know what we are dealing with. We are dealing with a commercial building where there are special provisions in a case where the owner does not occupy the whole building. Compensation has to be charged as mentioned, there are certain provisions for compensation, and in a particular case there is an increase of rent. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that the increase of rent does not give the owner full compensation in cases where the tenants do not remain the whole ten years. As regards that, there is no doubt at all; but the general grounds on which this Amendment is being opposed by me is that already very substantial concessions have been made in another place to the owners of commercial buildings. The objection to the payment of compensation to the occupier of the part of the premises the usefulness of which has been impaired, has been met by the provision reducing his rent. Then your

791
Lordships must remember that an Exchequer grant, which amounts to 27½ per cent., is to be paid to every owner even though he does not occupy any part of the building. On the general ground I must admit that when employers are required to shoulder the very large obligations they have to shoulder under this Bill, the owner of buildings must not complain if he is called upon to make his contribution to the national effort.
Just a word about the form of the Amendment itself. Under this Amendment, interest would be payable at such rates as the Minister shall determine on the amount of such expenses. That means clearly that in every single case of this kind where a commercial building of the nature we are dealing with is affected, the Minister has somehow to determine what is the appropriate rate, and then that rate of interest has to be charged upon the various expenses which have been incurred from time to time in making the alterations which are necessary in the structure. My submission is that, in fact, the landlords are not being very badly treated under this clause at all. For instance, if there is £1,000 expense in the first place, the landlord gets £275 straight away—that is 27½ per cent. grant by the Government. Then he gets, under Clause 19, an apportionment of the increase in the rent by £100 per annum, because £100 is one-tenth of £1,000, and he further will receive practically the whole of his money again if the tenants do not go out before the end of the ten years. If they do go out before the end of that time, he will then have an opportunity of claiming the whole of the commercial rent which can be secured in the circumstances then prevailing. I submit to your Lordships that the landlords here have been treated with considerable kindness, and certainly with more leniency than has been shown to some of the other people concerned under this Bill. I must ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: The Lord Chancellor said just now that if the landlord spends £1,000 he gets £275 from the Government, and then can levy one-tenth of £1,000 on his tenants. Surely he can only levy one-tenth of the residue? It would not do if it went out from the noble and learned Lord that a landlord can levy one-tenth of the whole
792
amount. He would in that way make a profit. The landlord would jump at the chance, and quote the Lord Chancellor in his defence.
LORD GORELL: In view of what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord, there is not much use in pressing this Amendment further. I would only like to make one observation. The Lord Chancellor rather suggested that the conditions relating to commercial buildings were all the same, whereas the owner of residential property such as flats will in fact—though that is not the intention of the Government—make a much greater contribution than the owner of a commercial building with a long lease. As that is an obvious injustice, I would ask those in charge of the Bill to give this particular point their sympathetic and careful consideration between now and Report.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In answer to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, the Bill does provide for one-tenth of the whole expenses of the owner being the amount on which the increase is to be calculated under subsection (5). On the other hand, it is quite clear that the landlord in many cases will not get the whole of the expenses which he has already incurred. But it would not be right to suppose, if he spends £1,000, that you are going to calculate subsection (5) (a) as referring only to the expenses of the owner less £275. That is not so. That rather reinforces the argument I placed before the Committee to the effect that the landlords are not being very badly treated in this Bill.
LORD STRABOLGI: That is rather serious. The Lord Chancellor knows the Bill better than I do. If what he says is what the Bill lays down, then the landlords are going to make a profit. They are going to get 27½ per cent. from the Government. They are going then to draw from their tenants one-tenth of the total expenditure. In this particular case of £1,000 mentioned by the Lord Chancellor, the landlord will thus get back at the end of his ten years, £1,375 for an expenditure of£1,000. If that is what the Bill provides, it should be further amended. We do not want the landlords to make a profit out of their country's difficulties unless the Govern-

793
ment are so sorry for them, as the result of their own policy, that they want to compensate the property owners. I am sure it was never understood that there was this possibility of a profit being made on the work.
LORD CROMWELL: Surely this is compensation for the fact that no interest will be drawn on the money all this time?
LORD STRABOLGI: They can borrow money from the local authorities.
LORD CROMWELL: They will have to pay interest on that. The Amendment is only another way of introducing what is already in the Bill.
LORD CHESHAM: I hope it will not be thought that property owners are likely to make a profit out of this Bill, As far as we can see, we stand to make a pretty good loss. Any lease of less than ten years is going to be a loss, and if we can get anything like three quarters of the expenditure back under the Bill as it stands at present we shall be only too delighted. If it was possible to imagine what is very unlikely, that every tenant of every part of the building has a ten years lease, it might be possible that the property owner would get full compensation, but it is so unlikely that I must repudiate any suggestion in this House that the property owner can possibly make a profit.
LORD STRABOLGI: My heart always bleeds for landlords. I am, unfortunately, one myself in London, and I have suffered by the general feeling of uncertainty also, but the landlords we are dealing with now are the owners of those great commercial blocks of buildings. They are not poor people. Most of their tenants are able to remain there. I am thinking of the great blocks of offices in London. The owners are not going to lose on this, because, as the Bill is drafted, it is possible for them to make a profit. They are going to be paid twice over for the same work, and that, from their point of view, is excellent business, but is it the intention of the Government?
LORD GORELL: I should like to say one word following upon what the noble Lord has said. It is by no means always the case that those who happen to be the owners of these large blocks of buildings are rich people. They may be, and very often are, quite poor people who
794
have invested their small sums in these buildings.
LORD STRABOLGI: Is it the intention of the Government that this work should be paid for possibly twice over?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, I do not think so. I think your Lordships now appreciate what the position is. I myself think the noble Lord opposite is right in this sense, that in a very unlikely event the landlord might possibly make a profit if we are assuming that his interest is at a low rate. If the rate of interest is, we will say, five per cent., I think it is inconceivable that he could make a profit, because he loses all the interest as the Bill stands. In the normal case, the landlord will lose something no doubt, because he will hardly ever have all his tenants stopping there for ten years after the date when the work is done. The result is that, although I can understand the noble Lord's horror at the notion that a landlord—the class of whom he happens to be one—will ever make a profit under this Bill, I do not think he need disturb himself very seriously, because I should doubt if there will be any such case in England. I think the clause as it stands is a fair and reasonable one, and I am unable to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gorell.
LORD GORELL: I do not press the Amendment after what has fallen from the learned Lord Chancellor.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: If I might interrupt the proceedings for one moment, I beg to move that leave be given to the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, to vote in the House.
Moved, That leave be given to the Earl of Denbigh to vote in the House.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
4.55 p.m.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(8) The Rating and Valuation (Air-Raid Works) Act, 1938, shall be read and have effect as if in addition to the matters referred to in Section one of that Act (which relates to relief of air-raid protection works from rates) that section provided that in ascertaining under the principal Act (as defined in subsection (4) of that section) the value for rating purposes of a hereditament no regard shall be had to the said increase."

795
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment I think is quite clear. I do not think it can be the intention of the Government that increases of rent as provided for by this clause should be taken as increasing the value of the property for rating purposes. I put down this Amendment in order to clarify the position and to make sure, as I am told is a fact, that the 1938 Act does in fact apply. If I can be assured by the noble and learned Lord that that is so, and that there is no need for this clarification, I should be content, but if it is not quite clear, then I think, obviously, some such words as I have ventured to put down are necessary and should be inserted in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 10, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Gorell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The question is, as the noble Lord has fairly pointed out, whether the Act of 1938 is sufficient for the purpose which the noble Lord has in view. The question was raised in another place, and an Amendment in similar terms was there discussed. After debate the question was further considered by the Parliamentary draftsman, who advised that no Amendment to the clause was necessary, and that the clause did carry out the desired effect. I am afraid that I was unable to see this Amendment this morning owing to being engaged elsewhere, and it was not until shortly before this debate that I was able to see it, but I will promise the noble Lord that before the matter comes on again I will further consider it and see if my opinion coincides with that which has already been given elsewhere. If it does not I shall tell the noble Lord. If I have any doubt about it he can restore the Amendment.
LORD GORELL: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his courteous answer, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 22 agreed to.
Clause 23:
Training of employees.
23.—(1) This section applies to every person who employs more than thirty persons in any factory premises, in or about any mine or in any commercial building.
4.53 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAMhad given Notice of two Amendments to subsection (1)—namely, to leave out "more than thirty" and, at the end of the subsection, to insert "in which thirty or more persons are employed." The noble Lord said: I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to discuss the two Amendments standing in my name together as one of them is consequential upon the other. These two Amendments are designed to strengthen the provisions of the Bill under this clause. I would suggest that the obligation upon employers set out in this clause should become effective not only when they employ more than thirty people but when more than thirty people are employed in the same factory premises, in a mine, or in a commercial building. I should like to remind your Lordships that the majority of commercial buildings in our great cities are occupied by a large number of tenants each of whom employs fewer than thirty persons. I would suggest that the proper unit should be the building and not the employer. As the clause stands at present, many of those buildings, containing some thousands of workpeople employed by a large number of tenants, would be outside the scheme visualised under the Bill, as it would apply only to a building in which more than thirty persons were employed by one tenant. The same argument can be applied to a large number of factories which are occupied by more than one tenant. If a factory is occupied by thirty-one men employed by one tenant, the scheme under this clause would be effective, but in the case of a factory occupied by ninety men employed by three tenants it would be quite ineffective. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 15, leave out ("more than thirty").—(Lord Teynham.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment is one which seeks to alter the definition in subsection (1) of the clause. When the Bill was originally introduced into another place the minimum number was fifty, but during the Committee stage the figure was reduced to that at which it stands in the Bill now before your Lordships. We have given very close consideration to this proposal. We feel that such a case as has been outlined by my noble friend might con-

797
ceivably occur, and we feel that it could best be dealt with by a mutual arrangement between the employers and my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal in a memorandum which he proposes to circulate on the organisation of air-raid precaution services in industrial and commercial undertakings. It will apply also for the training and equipping of personnel, and it will be issued generally for guidance to the employers in these buildings. I hope with that guarantee which I have given to the noble Lord he will see that this matter is one which we have not overlooked, but which in fact my right honourable friend is now taking up, and that he will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: I fully appreciate what has been said by my noble friend the Earl of Munster, and if, as I understand, the whole matter is to be reconsidered and dealt with on Report stage, I would certainly withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I did not ask my noble friend to withdraw the Amendment so that the matter could be reconsidered, but I drew his attention to the fact that my right honourable friend proposed to issue a memorandum to employers with more than thirty people employed, giving them instructions on air-raid protection in detail.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his further explanation. The difficulty has been to get employers to come together at all and formulate any scheme for air-raid protection. I do not wish to be obstructive, and in view of what has been said by my noble friend I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 26 agreed to.
Clause 27:
Affixing of appliances provided by the Crown for strengthening basements.
27.—(1) Where the occupier of any basement has been provided free of charge on behalf of His Majesty with appliances for strengthening it with a view to its use as an air-raid shelter, then, unless the occupier of the basement refuses his consent, it shall be the duty of the local authority—

(a) to affix these appliances, and

(b) to take such steps as appear desirable in order to provide additional exits
798
from the basement or in order to enable additional exits therefrom to be readily provided;

5.2 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "then, unless the occupier of the basement refuses his consent." The noble Lord said: This clause deals with the strengthening of basements, and as I read it no basement can be strengthened without the consent of the occupier. That is, I think, a weakness in the Bill which ought not to be allowed to remain. In London and other big cities basements are being strengthened, as your Lordships know, not only for the safety of the people living in the house who can go down to them if there is an air raid, but for the benefit of other people who may be caught in the streets. The large buildings in the main thoroughfares of London are very well provided with basements which can be strengthened, and, as has been shown by experiments, made absolutely safe. At night big business premises may be empty except for a night watchman, but the basements will be invaluable for people caught in the streets.
In one of the most famous streets in the world a survey was made and every owner was canvassed by the local authority and asked whether the basements could be used for that purpose. With the exception of two banks and one jeweller, whose basements were really strong rooms, every owner at once gave consent. They included some of the most famous shops and establishments in the world. They were willing to have their basements turned to use as refuges for people caught in the streets. I have quoted that case because I do not think the Government have found any obstruction or reluctance on the part of the great majority of people who have suitable premises; but here and there you will meet the obstinate man who refuses and obstructs. In that case I think there should be power in the Bill to take over the basements and strengthen them. Otherwise, although the Government are prepared to supply strengthening materials for basements found suitable by the local authorities after survey, there will be no power to fix that material and prepare the place unless the occupier gives consent. There is so much compulsion in this Bill that it is rather hard to understand why this particular little piece of

799
anarchy remains. I therefore put down this Amendment, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 4, leave out ("then, unless the occupier of the basement refuses his consent").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment raises a question of some little difficulty. Fortunately I had notice of it some time ago and have had the opportunity of going into it with people who know a great deal more on the subject than I do. I would invite the noble Lord to get a copy of a little book which I expect he has not got. It is one of those little blue pamphlets issued by the Government and relates solely to the subject of the strengthening of basements. Its price is fourpence. Reference to that pamphlet will show that the strengthening of basements will be of a very varied character, just as the buildings in which basements are situate are of a very varied character. It is not the case that there is one formula which can be applied to all. Sometimes very considerable work will require to be done in a basement. This clause is not intended at all to deal with the poorer class of house, either Scottish tenements or tenements in this country. Those cases are going to be dealt with in a very different way by something in the nature of communal shelters. This particular clause is designed to deal mainly with cases where a substantially built residential house has been altered in process of time into a house which is being occupied by several different occupants—lessees or other kinds of occupants—some in the basement, some on the first floor, some on the second floor, and in some cases there may be occupants on the third and fourth floors.
In those cases there is no doubt that the provision of safety for the occupants is a difficult problem. It would not be right, I think, to throw upon the unlucky occupier of the basement the whole of the loss occasioned by the necessity of strengthening the basement with a view to its use as an air-raid shelter. That might mean ruin. In some cases the damage caused would not be great, but in other cases it would be very substantial. I visualise, and I think your Lordships can also, the case of a per-
800
son living there, maybe, with his family and the local authority coming along desiring to construct various works, involving probably, in accordance with the nature of the particular building, steel beams being put across the roof, props being provided which go through the floor up to the roof, and quite substantial works in some cases to enable the steel props to rest on proper foundations, so that damage is not occasioned when the unfortunate accident—if you call it an accident—occurs.
Your Lordships will appreciate something which perhaps I ought to have mentioned before. The whole point about works of this kind to provide such an air-raid shelter as we are here dealing with is to meet the problem of debris. They are debris protection basements and almost nothing else. The danger is something which will bring down the house, and great care has been taken and many experiments have been made to enable the Government to have the greatest possible information as to what ought to be done in a particular sort of basement to prevent debris coming down and killing the unfortunate people inside. The nature of the cases differs so much that there really is not one particular method of protection. Accordingly, the Government came to the conclusion, after careful thought, that it would not be right to force upon the occupier the injury resulting from the sometimes elaborate work needed to provide a proper anti-debris basement.
Having said that, may I point out something else which is also material? The Government are relying in this Bill to a great extent, and relying particularly in this clause, on the full and firm belief that the vast majority of people in this country are decent, honest, kindly people who will help each other. There is no provision in this clause that if the basement is made an anti-debris construction, people in the basement will be bound to allow the people in the upper floors to come and occupy it during a raid. There is none, and that is because the Government are quite satisfied that there is no need for such a thing. By parity of reasoning, the Government have the strongest belief that never except in a very rare case—the sort of building that I am considering—will there be any difficulty in permitting the basement to be occupied for the purposes mentioned in Clause 27. But if there is such a case,

801
then the people who live there must make arrangements under which they will be instructed where to go, in the event of a raid, into some communal shelter. In other words, there is a last resort, which I admit is a last resort, of going outside their homes to sonic deep shelter or other place of that kind which will be provided for them. In this particular case the Government are unable to see the propriety of throwing upon the occupiers the whole of the injury which may be occasioned by the works which Clause 27 is considering. In those circumstances I hope the noble Lord will see that this matter has really been the subject of careful consideration and that he may think fit, at any rate for the present, to withdraw his Amendment.
EARL HOWE: There is one question that I should like to ask on this clause. It deals with the provision for the strengthening of basements, and also for exits. I should like to ask, merely for information, whose job it is to see that those exits are kept in a usable condition. The clause, of course, applies to peace time, and in peace time exits, where provided, are likely to be used for all sorts of purposes. I have looked through the clause and through the clauses that follow, and I cannot find anything that says whose duty it is to see that these exits are kept in proper usable condition.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must admit that words of that character are not actually in the clause, but the noble Earl will observe that it will be the duty of the local authority to make the exits, and further "to execute such works as may be necessary in or under any part of the highway adjacent to the building." If there were any obstruction put in the exit, it would be their duty to remove it. I do not think there is any risk of permanent obstruction of the exit. Somebody might put a box in, or something of that sort, but it would come out very quickly if occasion required. Any substantial alteration to the works or the exit would certainly be the subject of proceedings by the local authority.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor for the lecture he gave us on the strengthening of basements.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope it was not too long a lecture!
LORD STRABOLGI: Perhaps he would allow me to congratulate him respectfully on his versatility. He has knowledge of so many subjects, including this one; and I am much obliged for his hint that I should read the fourpenny handbook. When he hears what I am about to say, he may not be surprised to learn that I know all about the fourpenny handbook, and that I even had a little to do with its compilation. With regard to the strengthening of basements, I might mention this, to show your Lordships that the noble and learned Lord Chancellor has not quite appreciated the problem here. This whole business of strengthening basements was started by myself. I started the hare, so to speak; I and my experts initiated the work of investigation undertaken by the Air Raid Precautions Department of the Home Office at the begining of last year, and we have been at it ever since. Not only that, but I think I have mentioned this in your Lordships' House before: in a way I have a large vested interest in the matter! We designed the removable prop which the Government have adopted, with many thanks, as standard.
Therefore I do know a little about this subject as well as the Lord Chancellor, and, with great respect, he has missed the point. I am not thinking of the old-fashioned houses which have been turned into semi-slums, with one family living in the basement half underground and another on the first floor. I am thinking of the great, substantial buildings which are used for commercial or other purposes, which have vast basements which are most suitable for strengthening, especially when the building has a steel frame. That is where we may need compulsion, and that is the point I made; and the noble and learned Lord Chancellor was, I am sorry to say, not able to deal with it. This is not so much for people who may have to occupy these premises by day and go away at night, but for people from the streets who may have to take shelter from a raid. That is the point I wanted to make and that is the point the Lord Chancellor has not been able to deal with.
Now let me deal with his particular argument. We will take the case of a large old-fashioned house if you like, very substantial, in which a person—that is a

803
caretaker—lives on the basement floor but may object to this work being done. The actual work consists of the following: A steel ceiling is made fast underneath the ordinary ceiling. That has across it not what the Lord Chancellor calls beams, but what the engineers call rolled steel joists. These go across and then under the joists are put those steel props, which are adjustable and removable. They are placed in position, fitted, tried out and then put away until they are required. The only difference to the building—the room or whatever it may be—is that there is above a steel ceiling with these steel joists. That is all, and this is being done in dozens of cases, hundreds of cases, especially in the north of England by great commercial firms without waiting for the Government at all. The great basements used for warehouses have been treated in this way and the props are then put away in a store room until the next crisis or until war comes. That is a very good way of providing quick, ready shelters not only against debris but against very high blast.
You may need compulsory powers. At present you have not got them and, as the Bill is drawn, any obstinate person may object to a great basement in a great crowded city being strengthened for the use of the general public. I think it is a weakness in the Bill. I think the Government will have to take these powers later on. I quite agree that they would only have to be used in a minority of cases. I do not wish to press the Amendment now, but I hope the Government will watch the way in which this matter proceeds. As your Lordships know, they are engaged in a huge programme of strengthening basements and if it is found that there is obstruction from certain people I hope the Government will not hesitate to ask for the necessary powers.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I have heard many speeches on many proposals from the noble Lord opposite during the last twenty years both in another place and in this, and he has never convinced me on anything before. But I am bound to say that I think he has made a very strong prima facie case on this occasion. It seems most extraordinary if the temper or sluggishness or selfishness of one curmudgeon should place in jeopardy all the people living in the house and those
804
who might be caught by an air raid close to it. I suggest that the Government, between now and Report stage, should look into this again.
LORD GAINFORD: I beg to support that view. Certainly on the argument as presented to your Lordships there does not seem to be any justification for this exception, and I hope that the Government will consider it between now and Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT MERSEY VISCOUNT MERSEY moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
"(2) The local authority shall not, in the exercise of their powers under this section, interfere with any mains, pipes, apparatus or works belonging to public utility undertakers unless they have given to those undertakers not less than fourteen days' notice of their intention so to do nor in any case in which those undertakers intimate in writing to the local authority within fourteen days after the receipt of such notice their intention themselves to carry out any reasonably necessary removal, diversion or alteration of their mains, pipes, apparatus or works and proceed forthwith to complete such works with reasonable dispatch and the local authority shall repay to the undertakers the amount of any expenses reasonably incurred by them in or in connection with any such removal, diversion or alteration; and if the local authority cause any damage to any such mains, pipes, apparatus or works they shall repay to the undertakers the amount of the expenses reasonably incurred by them in making good the damage."
The noble Viscount said: This is a very short Amendment, which explains itself. It is moved on behalf of the public utility associations. When basements have to be strengthened, the local authority may be obliged to interfere with the mains, pipes and cables in the adjacent street. This Amendment is designed to allow a public utility undertaker to undertake the work himself, and to allow him certain notice, and reasonable compensation for any damage that may be caused.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 24, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Mersey.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The Amendment moved is on the same clause, which concerns a private shelter for a person to whom materials may have been provided by the Government. I am not quite clear, in view of what the noble Viscount has said, that the provision of this shelter would itself involve interference with

805
any main, pipes or cables. Further, according to the Amendment put down, as I understand it, the local authority will give not less than fourteen days' notice to the undertaker that it is their intention to interfere with the mains, and the undertaker will have not less than fourteen days in which to give notice to the local authority of his intention to carry out the work. I think it is clear that in a matter of this character a delay of twenty-eight days is too long for us to consider, but I am prepared, in consultation with the noble Viscount, to see if we can draw up together some provision which will deal with the question of compensation, as outlined roughly in this subsection, before the Report stage. If the noble Viscount will accept that assurance I hope he will withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: After what has been said by the noble Earl, I am inclined to think that fourteen days is rather long, and I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment on the noble Earl's assurance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.
Clause 30:
Provision of air-raid shelter in certain buildings.
30.—(1) The owner of any building or block of buildings to which this section applies shall if so required by more than one-half in number of the occupiers of the separate parts of the building or block and in any other case may prepare a scheme for providing air-raid shelter in or near the building or block for the persons living and working in the building or block.
(2) In this section the expression "building or block of buildings to which this section applies," means a building or block of buildings which is situated in an area specified in an order made by the Minister under Part III of this Act, and is let out in separate parts.
Provided that so much of any building or block as consists of, or is comprised in, any factory premises or commercial building shall be disregarded.
(3) Any such scheme shall—

(a) state the situation and the general nature of the shelter to be provided under the scheme and the number of persons which the shelter is to be constructed to accommodate;

(b) state the estimated cost of the provision of the shelter;

(c) contain a statement of the effect of the subsequent provisions of this section as to increases of rent;
806
and may contain such other information as appears to the owner to be relevant in connection with the scheme.

(5) Unless the occupiers of more than one-half in number of the separate parts of the building or block (other than parts thereof which are in the occupation of the owner of the building or block) dissent from the scheme then the owner shall complete the same and on completion by the owner of the shelter specified by the scheme in accordance with the provisions thereof, the rent payable under every lease derived from the estate or interest of the owner (being a lease in existence at the date of the completion of the shelter) shall, unless it is otherwise agreed in connection with, or after the provision of the shelter, be increased to the extentand for the period specified in the subsequent provisions of this section:
Provided that where a part of a building or block is occupied under a lease of which the unexpired term is less than six months that person shall be deemed for the purposes of this subsection to be the occupier of that part who would be the occupier thereof if every such lease thereof had been surrendered.
(6) The said increase shall be calculated as follows:
(a) there shall first be taken the expenses of the owner in providing the shelter or the amounts specified in the scheme as the estimate of those expenses, whichever is the less;
(d) the increase in rent shall be at the annual rate of one-tenth of the sum arrived at under paargraph (c).
(10) In this section
(c) the expression "rent period" means, in relation to a lease, the quarter or other period in respect of which an instalment of rent becomes payable thereunder.
5.23 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "more than one-half in number of the occupiers of the separate "and insert" occupiers of separate parts of the building or block amounting in value to more than one-half of the total value of the occupied." The noble Lord said: It seems very unlikely that the owner of a building will be able to get back from his tenants the whole cost of an air-raid shelter. That being so, it does not seem right that a bare majority, as expressed in the number of occupiers, should be sufficient to compel the owner to incur the expense and impose the subsequent cost on the minority tenants. In any case it seems that to decide the matter on numbers alone might give very unfair results in certain cases. In one building you might have five tenants with leases of only one year each, paying a total

807
rental of £500, and they might insist upon an air-raid shelter being provided, while the other four tenants, with long-term leases, paying a total rental of £5,000 or £6,000, might dissent. The owner having provided the shelter, the five tenants who wanted it might then move out and leave it to the long-term tenants to pay for the shelter. This Amendment therefore proposes that the criterion for deciding the majority shall be the value of the leases held by the occupiers. The important result of this Amendment would be that the tenants occupying a part of the building for the longest time would have the biggest say as to whether a shelter was to be provided and paid for or not. This seems only fair, and it would certainly protect the owner against being compelled to provide an air-raid shelter by a bare majority of short-term tenants who had no intention of staying on in the building and paying for it over a period of years.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 14, leave out ("more than one-half in number of the occupiers of the separate") and insert ("occupiers of separate parts of the building or block amounting in value to more than one-half of the total value of the occupied").—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD STRABOLGI: I hope the Government are going to accept this Amendment, for many reasons. It would be a most admirable Amendment for them to accept. They would then stand exposed as favouring the wealthy owners and the occupiers of the best part of the premises, as against the poorer people, and of putting money value against mere numbers. That would be magnificent from our point of view. We have always said that they supported the landlords and the capitalists.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: It will be very disappointing to the noble Lord opposite, for the Government will not accept the Amendment, for reasons which I am going to state. I am quite prepared to admit that this question could be argued quite indefinitely. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment placed before your Lordships a mathematical calculation, and I have another to put before you, and one of which I ask you to approve. Supposing there were four occupiers whose total rents amounted to £690 a year, and one of those individuals
808
paid a rent of £350 a year. That one tenant would dominate the voting and have the whole control in his hands, as to whether an air-raid shelter should be provided. That illustration will give the noble Lord some indication of the feelings and view of the Government on the matter, and I cannot help thinking that it would be far fairer to everyone concerned if we should hold to that old quotation: "One man, one vote."
LORD GORELL: Is there not possibly some means by which people may be prevented from calling for the provision of shelters if they in fact have no intention of using them? It is not a question of value in money, but there does seem to be some substance in the length of the lease.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment is nothing but money.
LORD GORELL: I was dealing with the suggestion of the noble Lord. Would it not be possible to look into the matter afresh, not putting a wrong emphasis upon wealth but securing that those who call for the provision of air-raid shelters shall be in fact those who use them.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not want to insist upon this Amendment unduly, but it does not refer solely to money. We want to ensure that a few people who have no intention of living for any length of time in a building should not be able to impose the necessity of putting up a shelter and its being paid for by others who do not want it. If the Amendment is too financial for the Government, I would like them to endeavour to think of some other way of getting over the difficulty. I do not insist upon the wording of my Amendment, but I ask them to hold out some hope that that position will be avoided, not only in the interests of the wicked landlord, but also in the interest of the minority of tenants, who might be there and have to pay the whole cost of the shelter. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.29 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (2), after "Act," to insert "is wholly or mainly used for residential purposes." The noble Earl said: This is really a drafting Amendment, though perhaps not quite. It endeavours to make

809
it quite clear that the clause, as was stated during the proceedings in another place, was designed mainly for middle-class and better-class flats.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 23, after ("Act") insert ("is wholly or mainly used for residential purposes").—(The earl of Munster.)
LORD STRABOLGI: I hope that we shall look into this rather carefully because it seems to me and my noble friends that it is lather a dangerous proposal. It would cut out from the obligations under this clause blocks of offices in which hundreds of people may be working. It is surely policy to keep them at work as long as possible, and they are as much entitled, I should have thought, to air-raid protection as anyone else. Why confine this only to residential flats? I do not know whether the previous clause which was questioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, would meet the case of suites of offices, or whether they would count as factories. But I think it is rather dangerous to say that the owner of a building which houses a great many clerks and other business people working in the daytime should not have the obligation to provide an air-raid shelter.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I will certainly look into the point, but, as I said, the clause is designed mainly to deal with middle-class and better-class flats. It was never meant to apply to anything else, and, as it stanch at present, it would apply to a small block of offices any part of which was used for residential purposes.
LORD STRABOLGI: In that case why should not they have air-raid protection like anybody else?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Because the clause deals with middle-class or better-class flats.
LORD STRABOLGI: Is the case of offices dealt with elsewhere? The Bill has been so amended and altered that I am sure the noble Earl will forgive me for asking.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Yes, I was endeavouring to find the particular clause. I think it comes on later.
5.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (2), to omit the proviso and insert:
"Provided that—

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

(b) the said expression does not include any building or block of buildings owned by any local authority;

(c) if and so long as arrangements are in existence under which particular classes of persons are provided free of charge on behalf of His Majesty with materials for air-raid shelter, the said expression does not include a building or block of buildings in the case of which the majority of the occupiers of the residential parts fall within those classes,

and any question whether any building or block of buildings is or is not excluded from the operation of this section by virtue of paragraph (c) of this proviso shall be referred to the Minister whose decision shall be final."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is necessary because whereas the clause as introduced was permissive only, and overlapping powers therefore did not matter, it was amended in the House of Commons to provide that the owner shall prepare a scheme and carry it into effect if so required by more than half the occupiers. The need for paragraph (a) is obvious on the face of it. With regard to (b) and (c), this clause, with its scheme of passing on the cost to the tenants, is obviously inappropriate to blocks of flats provided by local authorities for the working classes under the Housing Acts, with subsidies from the Exchequer and the rates, designed to secure a limitation on the rents to be charged to the working-class tenants. It is equally inappropriate to any blocks of flats, whoever the owners may be, that are occupied in the main by the classes of persons who come within the range of free provision of one of the standard types of Government shelters.
My right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal announced in another place that in the case of working-class flats, whether owned by local authorities, charitable trusts, or ordinary owners, and occupied predominantly by persons who would be entitled to the free provision of one of the standard types of Government shelters, it would be proper for the local authority to provide shelter for the occupants, whether on or outside the premises, under

811
the provisions of the Air Raid Precautions Act, 1937, and with the aid of the Exchequer grants payable under that Act. I am given to understand that this proviso meets the point in the next Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, leave out lines 24 to 26, and insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: I take it that private owners as well as local authorities who own blocks where shelter is provided at the public expense will be relieved of the necessity of preparing a scheme. Is that correct?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I understand that is so.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Then do I understand that persons described in the noble Earl's Amendment are persons who, under the Act of 1937, are provided with shelters at the public cost?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Yes.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask for enlightenment with regard to paragraph (c)? This deals with a matter which I raised on the Second Reading, when I mentioned the case of blocks of tenements. I did not quite follow the noble Earl. What happens in the case of a big block of flats like the Peabody Buildings, occupied by people of the class who would normally receive tin shelters? If I read this Amendment correctly, they would then be outside the scope of the Bill. The noble Earl says this clause deals with middle-class people living in flats, but if they are below a certain income level then they get material free, and this clause does not apply. What happens in that case? What provision is made in the case of the great blocks of working men's flats in Westminster, within a short distance of your Lordships' House? I think the Lord Chancellor said something about communal shelters. What does that mean? This was a matter of lengthy debate in another place, and it has naturally exercised the public outside very widely. I do not want your Lordships to pass this Amendment without being quite clear what is intended. The wording is still a little obscure.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The answer to the noble Lord, so far as I
812
know, is that this particular clause is not intended to provide for the buildings which he has referred to—working-class dwellings and things of that sort, which are, I understand, provided for elsewhere. I assume that he is considering the case of workmen's dwellings which are not local authority buildings but are put up by private enterprise.
LORD STRABOLGI: By charitable trusts, like the Peabody Trust.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I suppose also they are residential premises? In that case I think this clause does not provide for them. I think they would be provided for by one of the clauses which refer to buildings let out in flats. I shall be very glad to consider the point. Although I have a belief now, it is perhaps not very well founded.
LORD STRABOLGI: My fear is that we are cutting out this considerable class of people in privately-provided or charitably-provided blocks of working men's tenements. Some of these are very good modern buildings, and I want to be sure that we are not cutting them out by this Amendment of the noble Earl. If that can be looked into before the Report stage we shall not run the risk of being made to look foolish by revising the Bill and actually damaging it.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I should like to have an opportunity of looking into the question. Unless I am mistaken, the position is met by the regulations made under the Air-Raid Precautions Act of 1937.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I agree that that must be so. We are dealing with three classes of flats. There are working-class flats which are dealt with under the Act of 1937, and high-class residential flats with which this particular clause deals; but we have still left out commercial flats. They are not expressly included in this particular clause, and we have not yet been referred to any other part of the Bill where commercial flats—that is, office flats—are provided for. Therefore the Committee are still in difficulty as to where we should turn, and the noble Earl in charge of the Bill should extricate us from that difficulty.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: It is in the definition clause. I have not my finger

813
on the point at this moment, but it does come in the definition clause.
LORD PHILLIMORE: The question is one of providing shelter.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I should like to look into the noble Lord's point. It is dealt with somewhere in the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Bill requires a lot of study, and I am afraid when one has read a certain number of clauses one sometimes forgets what he has read. This question of commercial buildings is really settled, I think, in Clause 16 on pages 16 and 17, where you will see that local authorities may serve on the owner of a commercial building a notice in writing in respect of the provision of air-raid shelters. Subsection (7) of that clause reads:
"Where a notice is served under this section on the owner of a commercial building who is not the occupier of the whole of the building—"
that is the case where there are a number of offices—
"he shall, within fourteen days from the date of the service of the notice on hire, serve a copy thereof on"
every lessee and so on. There are elaborate provisions as regards air-raid shelters. That is where commercial buildings are dealt with, and Lord Phillimore was right in accepting the view that the Peabody Buildings, for example, are provided for in the regulations made under the Act of 1937.
LORD PHILLIMORE: The point raised by Lord Strabolgi is important. I do not think it is any too clear that Clause 16 covers the particular case of office flats. It refers particularly, as I read it, to factory premises and, I should have thought, to commercial offices in relation to factory premises and warehouses. I hope we shall have a full explanation from the Front Bench on the Report stage.
5.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (3), at the end of paragraph (b), to insert:
"exclusive of compensation;
(c) state whether any and if so what compensation is proposed to be paid by the owner to persons having an estate or interest in any part of the premises in which the shelter is to
814
be provided and whether, and if so what, compensation is proposed to be allowed to the owner in respect of his interest in that part of the premises."
The noble Earl said: Subsection (9) makes it clear that the owner cannot of right enter on to any part of the premises against the will of the occupier of that part for the purpose of providing shelter. It has, however, been represented that the owner might think it desirable to provide shelter in a basement flat which happened to be unoccupied at the time. Or he might do so with the agreement of the tenant, if in occupation. But in either case the subsequent letting value of the flat might be substantially impaired. In such circumstancecs it would be no more than reasonable that compensation should be payable either to the occupier or to the owner himself and this Amendment provides that information on this head should be included in the scheme to be submitted to the tenants.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 33, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD GORELL: I do not wish to press the noble Earl at this stage, but if he will look at the last line of his Amendment he might, on consideration, be able to agree that his meaning would be clearer if, in place of the words "in respect of his interest in that part of the premises," the Amendment read, "in respect of his interest in the part of the premises utilised for the shelter." I would ask the noble Earl whether he would not consider that Amendment to his Amendment, and bring it forward on Report.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am perfectly prepared to consider that between now and the Report stage.
5.48 p.m.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (3), to leave out "increases of rent" and insert "repayment to the owner of the expenses referred to in subsection (6) of this section in connection with the provision of the shelter hereinafter in this section referred to as repayment of expenses.'" The noble Lord said: I hope, in view of the very courteous last reply we have received, we may also receive some satisfaction in respect of the Amendment I

815
now move. As the Bill is at present drawn, something will take effect which I am quite sure is not the intention of the Government—namely, that the larger the amount imposed upon an owner by way of expenditure on a shelter, the larger in fact will be the tax under Schedule A. Under Clause 22 which we passed, there is an enactment by which commercial houses will get the benefit of the expenditure they have to incur. The Amendment which I have the honour to move is designed to give a proximate benefit of the same kind to the owners of residential property.
I feel certain it is the object of the Government to provide for the recoupment of capital expenditure or loss, and that the word "rent" here is wrongly used. I hope the noble Earl will be able, if not to accept this Amendment, to accept the principle which it embodies. It could be met in another way by an Amendment of line 35 on page 33—that is subsection (6) (d). If the noble Earl, for example, were able to accept an Amendment altering "one-tenth," in paragraph (d) of subsection (6), to "one-eighth," the principle which my Amendment is designed to secure would be adequately met. If he could give me any assurance on that point, I should be quite satisfied. I might say that the great majority of the rest of the Amendments which I have to move on this clause are, with one exception, consequential on the one which I am now moving.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 35, leave out ("increases of rent") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Gorell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment also has the distinction of a star, which means that I have not had the advantage of fully considering it before addressing your Lordships, and it seems to me that it is a matter which certainly does require on the part of the Government more consideration. I hope it will be possible before another stage in the Bill is reached to satisfy the noble Lord by agreeing with him some Amendment which will carry out substantially the object he has in view.
LORD GORELL: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord, and I must apologise for not having given him more time, but he will recognise how
816
complicated and complex these matters are.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not complaining.
LORD GORELL: In view of the reply, perhaps I might be allowed to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "other than parts thereof which are in the occupation of the owner of the building or block." The noble Earl said: The effect of the words proposed to be left out is to deprive the owner of a vote in respect of any parts of the building in his own occupation. So long as the scheme was purely permissive this was right. But now that a majority of the tenants can require the owner to prepare and carry out a scheme it is only fair that the owner should have a vote as much as anyone else. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 3, leave out from the beginning to ("dissent") in line 4.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sorry I feel bound to offer some resistance to this. After all, what are we discussing? We are discussing the rights we are giving the tenants to compel their landlord to provide shelter, and it is proposed to give the landlord a vote in that matter against the majority of the tenants. I am sure that is weakening the Bill, and the intentions of Parliament in the matter, and I think it is rather dangerous.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Even though the noble Lord opposite is himself one of the landlords, I am afraid he has got rather a jaundiced view about landowners. I can quite clearly envisage a situation in which the landowner's vote might be the casting vote in favour of the provision of shelter and not against it.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment in my name is drafting, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 5, leave out ("complete the same") and insert ("carry the scheme into effect").—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out the proviso in subsection (5). The noble Earl said: The effect of the words which I propose to ask your Lordships now to leave out of the Bill is to secure that an occupier who has a lease with less than six months to run shall not have a vote about the preparation of a scheme. I think that is reasonable. In the clause as introduced there was a reference to the occupiers only in subsection (5) but as the result of an Amendment in another place, there is now a reference to the occupiers in subsection (1). It is necessary to make the proviso apply to the clause as a whole and this is done by an Amendment which I shall move on page 34, line 24, which is really consequential on this Amendment which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, leave out lines 14 to 19.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD GORELL: My Amendment, in subsection (6), to leave out "said increase" and insert "payment of expenses," is not consequential in the same way as the others which I have not moved. It was put down before an opportunity was given for full consideration of the Amendment which the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has moved. I therefore do not move my Amendment, but reserve the right to bring it forward again, if necessary.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 22, after ("shelter") insert ("exclusive of compensation").—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (6), after paragraph (a), to insert:
"(b) there shall then be added to the sum ascertained under paragraph (a) of this subsection the amount, if any, proposed by the scheme as compensation to persons (including the owner) interested in the part of the premises in which the shelter is situated, or the amount (if any) properly paid by, or, as the case may be, reasonably allowed to, the owner in respect of such compensation, whichever is the less."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment provides that the compensation shall be
818
included in the cost of the scheme, but as in the case of the cost of works the figure to be included is either the amount given in the circulated scheme or the amount properly paid, whichever is the less. If occupiers have agreed to the scheme and accepted liability on the basis of a certain figure it would not be right for this figure to be increased at a later time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 24, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 32, leave out ("paragraph (a)") and insert ("paragraphs (a) and (b)").—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment in my name is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 36, leave out ("(c)") and insert ("(d)").—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (10), at the end of paragraph (c), to insert:
"and where a part of a building or block of buildings is occupied under a lease of which the unexpired term is less than six months, that person shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to be the occupier of that part who would be the occupier thereof if every such lease thereof had been surrendered.
"(11) The provisions of the last preceding section shall apply in relation to the owner of a building or block of buildings who is providing an air-raid shelter of a permanent character under a scheme under this section, as it applies in relation to the owner of any such premises as are mentioned in subsection (1) of that section."
The noble Earl said: With regard to the subsection which I am now moving to insert, the object is to extend the powers of Clause 29, which, I may remind the Committee, deal with giving the local authority power to lend money to the owner of a dwelling-house for the provision of air-raid shelters, so as to require them to lend for the same purpose to the owner of a residential building under this clause. I think it is a procedure which your Lordship will approve and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 24, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Munster.)
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 [Execution of works by owner of dwelling-house]:
5.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: There is a point on this clause that I should like to raise for the consideration of the Lord Chancellor. If he will look at subsection (2), he will see that the expression "owner"
"includes also the lessee of the dwelling-house under a lease, the unexpired term of which exceeds three years."
Subsection (3) says:
"This section shall be deemed to have had effect as from the commencement of the Act of 1937."
It is not quite clear to me—no doubt as a result of my crass stupidity—whether the term of three years starts to run as from the passing of the Act of 1937, or the passing of the present Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The clause is retrospective to the commencement of the Act of 1937—that is, December 22, of that year.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Do the three years start to run in 1937, or when this Bill becomes an Act?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Subsection (3) answers that. It says:
"This section shall be deemed to have had effect as from the commencement of the Act of 1937."
That Act goes back to December 22, 1937, so that from that date, as I understand the noble Viscount's point—perhaps I have not appreciated it—the owner of a dwelling-house, it may be an owner who has, not a fee simple, but a lease, the unexpired portion of which exceeds three years—
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: From 1937?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord, but I put the point to learned counsel and he took exactly the opposite view.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 54 agreed to.
Clause 55:
Evacuation of civil population.
(3) The Minister, if it appears to him that, in view of the imminence or existence of an emergency involving the possibility of hostile attack, it is expedient so to do, may make regulations for the purpose of securing accommodation for any persons transferred under any such plan as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, and without prejudice to the generality of the preceding words, any such regulations may—
(c) authorise the imposition, on summary conviction, of Penalties for failure to comply with any requirements imposed by or under the regulations.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Amendment in paragraph (c) of subsection (3), is self explanatory. It takes out the word "penalties" in order to insert "fines, not in any case exceeding fifty pounds," so that it provides in effect the maximum penalty.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 12, leave out ("penalties") and insert ("fines, not in any case exceeding fifty pounds.")—(The Earl of Munster.)
6.4 p.m.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to insert after subsection (3):
"(4) The local authority shall pay to any persons having an estate or interest in any premises in which under the regulations accommodation is provided to members of the civil population such compensation if any as may be just in respect of any damage to such premises caused by such accommodation being so provided."
The noble Lord said: We now pass from the region of air-raid shelters and protection to the even more difficult problem of evacuation. The point I am going to deal with arises out of the reception of refugees in what is called a reception area. As noble Lords are well aware, large numbers of persons, particularly women and children, are expected to be evacuated from vulnerable areas into reception areas where they will be scattered in comparatively small numbers for the most part amongst all the dwellings roughly speaking of the reception area—not only the large houses but also the cottages. These refugees, as I may call them, will be going into premises un-

821
known to them, and will to some extent have to conform to a state of affairs which is quite unfamiliar to them. For instance, the ordinary London refugees will have never been used to oil lamp lighting, but they are very likely to be placed in a cottage where the whole of the lighting is derived from oil limps. As is well known to your Lordships, no doubt, oil lamps have been a frequent occasion of fire, and persons who do not understand how to use them have very often set fire to premises quite inadvertently through clumsiness and unfamiliarity. I am giving that merely as an illustration, but it is quite certain that the risk of fire—as to a minor extent the risk also of larceny and burglary—will have to be considered in reception areas.
As I read the Bill there is no provision made whatever for loss consequent upon hospitality given to refugees where such loss occurs. Furthermore, on reading a typical insurance policy, I find that one of the large insurance companies stipulates in insuring the contents of a house that it must be a private dwelling-house used as such in its entirety. I am not at all sure that a private dwelling-house which houses refugees can be considered any longer as being a private house so used in its entirety. Furthermore, the ordinary policy says that it does not cover destruction or damage occasioned by foreign enemy or military or usurped power. Other stipulations are that loss or damage should not be directly or indirectly occasioned by, or traceable to, invasion, foreign enemy, rebellion, riot, etc. I take it that an air raid carried out by any foreign Power would be equivalent to invasion. Therefore this policy would expressly exclude any damage suffered as a result of that invasion.
This really is a serious question and it would be a. pity—worse than a pity—if this compulsory billeting were to lead, as compulsory billeting has led in the past, to feelings of hostility between one section of people and another. In order to avoid such feelings arising and such injustice occurring it is essential that proper provision should be made for payment of loss falling on the ordinary inhabitants of the reception areas. It seems to me that it should be the task of the Government to provide for such loss. I venture to think that there will be no comfortable solution of this evacuation
822
problem unless such compensation, where it is found necessary, is provided. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 14, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Phillimore.)
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The point raised by the noble Lord is one of real importance. There is unfortunately in London, for example, a very considerable criminal population. Those of us who have had to deal with the Home Office and the police force are very well aware of that fact. Suppose an emergency breaks out, and there is compulsory billeting of anyone and everyone who chooses to claim it, would there be any compensation paid if as a consequence of that persons of criminal character are compulsorily billeted on ordinary households? Unless I have wrongly interpreted the billeting arrangements, not merely may there be fires caused and damage done to premises but also larceny. On whom would the loss fall in such a case?
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I would like to support this Amendment, although I do not want the impression to out that people in the reception areas are unwilling to do what they can. As the noble Earl in charge of the Bill knows, there has been a very considerable response. But I do not know whether many of these people fully realise the extent of the possible liability that may be upon them as a result of their willingness to help. I hope that the noble Earl will receive this Amendment favourably.
EARL HOWE: I want to support this Amendment as strongly as I can, because a number of very humble people will be concerned. We often think in terms of landlords of great property and that sort of thing, but many of these refugees will get into quite humble homes, where the people concerned, if damage or loss takes place, are quite unable to bear the expense. There is one further point I should like to ask the noble Earl in connection with billeting generally. Suppose you are told that you have to receive a number of inhabitants from one of these dangerous areas, and suppose thereby you are put to extra expense. I have studied this clause, and in connection with it I cannot see any words under which one can reclaim anything on account of that loss. Yet take a middle-class home in the country who suddenly have a number of

823
refugees sent to them: the existing staff in the house will probably be quite unable to provide the necessary attendance to the refugees, or to cook for them, and so on. The servants might easily throw up their jobs, say they had had enough, that there was too much to do and that they would not do it. Extra expense might thereby be incurred. I should like to ask the noble Earl what happens in such cases.
LORD BAYFORD: May I point out one difficulty that arises out of this Amendment, without expressing any opinion on the merits of it? It lays down that in certain circumstances the local authority shall pay a sum to the occupier of the house. In the next subsection it is laid down that anything that the local authority pays shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. By this Amendment the Committee would directly lay a charge on the taxpayer. It seems to me a point for the consideration of the Committee before we pass this Amendment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Subject to the remarks made by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, this afternoon, my first observation was going to be the very one which was made by the noble Lord behind me: that this certainly does transfer a financial liability to the local authority, and by Clause 55 (4), to which he drew attention, the expenditure of local authorities must be repaid by moneys provided by Parliament. As I understand it, the question which my noble friend Lord Phillimore raises is what will happen to the mothers and school-children who are transferred from the vulnerable areas to the reception areas in the event of the evacuation of the civil population? I cannot tell what his fire policy, or burglary policy, or larceny policy, or any policy which carries all risks, may say in regard to people who may be billeted on him. I should imagine that it would probably differ from one insurance company to another, But I much regret that I cannot give him any assistance about his own policies at all.
Is it right to put in this Bill that compensation should be paid to the individuals in the reception areas who take these refugees, in respect of any damage to the premises caused by such accommodation being provided? I cannot help thinking that this is not a matter that
824
should go into this Bill, which deals entirely with the preparation of organisation to be set in operation when war breaks out. As I understand it, compensation might differ in many respects, and I think it would be very unfortunate if we inserted into this Bill a provision that compensation should be payable. I know that noble Lords have taken a great and active interest in the question of the evacuation of the civil population. I am not in a position to say whether His Majesty's Government accept the principle that householders who undertake this work in the reception areas should be able to make claims for any substantial damage to their premises, but I feel quite certain that it should not be put into this Bill. I think that the most satisfactory way of dealing with a question such as this would be for some noble Lord to put a Question down to be discussed at some future date, but as the Amendment stands it is opening up an enormous burden for the local authority, and it is, further, a Privilege Amendment.
LORD PHILLIMORE: In view of the noble Earl's reply, I am left no choice but to go to a Division, but I should like to point out to him that this is a far more serious matter than he seems to consider. The whole of the building societies' finance depends on the application of insurance, the efficacy of insurance, in the event of fire. To exclude arbitrarily like this the possibility of a working man who has gradually bought his own home recovering the damage resulting from the burning down of that home—perfectly innocently, of course—by strangers whom he has been compelled to take in is equivalent, as I say, to breaking down the whole of the building societies' finance. As to the suggestion made by the noble Earl that there is a great difference between the policies of the various insurance companies in this matter, I venture to think that your Lordships are already better informed on that point.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: No, the noble Lord must not say that. I told him that I knew nothing whatever about insurance companies, and as far as I can see from all he has said just now, the question whether an insurance policy provides that if a working man's house gets burnt down the company will pay or will not pay, differs between insurance companies. He has the advantage of me on that.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I have referred the noble Earl to various policies taken out with various tariff companies.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Lord referred to his own policies.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Yes, but they happen to be very typical; they are the standard policies used by the tariff companies. As to the noble Earl's first and perhaps most difficult point, whether this is a Privilege Amendment or not, I thought the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, had already cleared up that point. If not, I should like to say that this Committee will be perfectly in order in passing this Amendment, and it is for the other place to decide whether or not they will adopt it. If, in the hurry to which this Bill has been subjected, this point has not received proper appreciation in the other place, they will no doubt be grateful to us for drawing their attention to it. I regret that I have no option but to divide on this point.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before the noble Lord goes to a Division, I should like to say on behalf of my noble friends on this side that we intend to support the Government, according to the strength we have here, although we claim to be as much in sympathy with the possible sufferings of working-class people and other owners of houses as is the noble Lord opposite. But this Amendment opens far too wide a vista of endless claims for damages and so forth; and furthermore, in case of war it is obvious to everyone that, in spite of the Government's present statement of policy, there is hound to be a national insurance scheme for damage caused by enemy action. Obviously in case of war that must come, and the picture painted by the noble Lord on the other Benches of the potential criminals who would burn down the houses in which they were billeted would surely be covered by a scheme which covered all war risks.
EARL HOWE: Could we not make an appeal to the Government to be a little more helpful on this matter? I intend to support the Amendment if the Committee is divided, but I do not want to register a vote against His Majesty's Government on this question. Will the Government do anything they can to meet us on this matter? Could the noble Earl not say that the Government will
826
give the matter a little further consideration between now and Report stage and see if they cannot do anything to help us?
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I should like to support that appeal to the Government. As regards the question of Privilege, I have no doubt that the House of Commons could waive Privilege if they so desired. It is not unknown that an Amendment of this sort, dealing with a minor point and not a large question of taxation or national expenditure, should be put into a Bill of this character, and it might be accepted by the Commons. It would be avowedly a Privilege Amendment. The general question is a wide one, and this Amendment may not be a very convenient occasion on which to decide the whole point; perhaps it could be held over till the Report stage, and the noble Earl would then give us a considered answer on the question in general. I trust the noble Lord will not press his Amendment to a Division.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Certainly I am prepared to ask my right honourable friend to consider the question of compensation again, but I must call your Lordships' attention to the fact that I do not think this is a Bill in which to put a small subsection such as the noble Lord proposes, dealing with the whole question of compensation in the event of evacuation in war time. The whole position is surely immense, and indeed gigantic, and to put in an Amendment in this Bill, consisting of four or five lines, dealing with the whole question of compensation in war time in case of evacuation to reception areas, seems to me to be wrong, for this is not a Bill in which such matters should be included. Certainly I will give a guarantee that I am prepared to consult my right honourable friend again, but I very much doubt whether he will consider it.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: May I point out that this Amendment does not raise the whole question of compensation in time of war, but only deals with damages to premises caused by such accommodation? The clause as a whole deals with accommodation, and surely it is the appropriate time and place to put in a compensation provision.
EARL HOWE: When the noble Earl does give further consideration to the matter, would he undertake to give attention

827
to the matter raised by Lord Strabolgi—namely, whether this will be considered as part of a general scheme of compensation for war injuries or not? If we were told that, it would help us at a later stage.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Would the noble Earl give us an assurance that the whole question of war insurance is under consideration by the Government, and
On Question, Whether Clause 55, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
6.29 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: On this Motion, I would like to point out that under subsection (3) (b) the Minister may make regulations declaring
"the circumstances in which, and the extent to which, responsibility shall be assumed by occupiers of premises for the feeding and care of any children accommodated therein under the regulations."
I wonder whether the Government can give any indication of the extent of the liability of the occupier under those circumstances. For instance, with a whole pack of children, over and above what a house really is suitable to accommodate, and with children not used to the country, they may get all over the place and possibly drown themselves in rivers, and so on. Will there be any liability under these regulations for compensation in such an event? There are many other circumstances of a like nature which your Lordships can imagine. This is a matter
that a Bill will be brought in to deal with it? If so, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I fear I cannot give that guarantee to the noble Lord, because I do not know.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS.

Grey, E.

Belstead, L.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Howe, E.

Bethell, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Radnor, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Phillimore, L. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Remnant, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Minto, E.

Gorell, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Munster, E.

Harlech, L.

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

Powis, E.

Mancroft, L.

Portsea, L.

Bridport, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Bath, M.

Davidson, V.

Rennell, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Snell, L.

Abingdon, E.

Bayford, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Feversham, E.

Bingley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal L.

Fortescue, E.

Cadman, L.

Iveagh, E.

Cautley, L.

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Ebbisham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

of some moment, and the Government may be able to say what that liability is, as presumably the Minister has at least considered the regulations which he is going to impose.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should be very glad to help the noble Earl with an accurate reply, but it is impossible, because, after all, we are here dealing with matters in regard to which regulations may be made, and the Minister may have a very distinct view in a general way as to the sort of regulations which he intends to propose, but then I do not know that those will go forward. It may very well be that something will be suggested to him which will show that he has to alter his mind and put forward different regulations. All I can say is that this is a clause under which regulations may be made in the form of paragraph (b), that I am sure it is the object of the Government to be absolutely just and fair to the people on whom children will be billeted, and that at the same time every care will be taken to see that the interests of the children are safeguarded.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am not bothering about the children in the least.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, but I am. I am bothering about the children just as much as about the "billetees."
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I presume those who house them will do the very best for them, but if children separated from their parents suffer injury or death the parents might quite easily say this was a case for compensation and go to the Courts. I want to know where the unfortunate owner's liability begins and ends. It is no use waiting for regulations, which may be imposed after the children have gone to the country and got themselves into trouble. We want to know what the regulations are before that, and it would be a considerable help to house owners in reception areas. If they knew the extent of their liability they might be even more willing to help than they have shown themselves already. But I have no doubt that this matter is not settled yet. I do express the hope, however, that there may be some pronouncement on that point as soon as possible.
LORD STRABOLGI: Surely the position is that the whole of this evacuation will create something like a revolution in the countryside, and how could we possibly legislate for a revolution?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think I can promise that no delay will take place in promulgating the regulations as soon as possible after this Act comes into force.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Special provisions as to supply of water for extinguishing fires]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: There is a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 11, at end insert ("and the provisions of that Part relating to the construction and vesting of such shelters and works and to matters connected therewith shall apply accordingly").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 58 and 59 agreed to.
6.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 59, to insert the following new clause:
Power of Minister to make by-laws with respect to land used for experiments with explosives.
". The Minister shall—

(a) as respects any land held on behalf of the Crown and appropriated for the use of the Minister for the purpose of carrying out experiments with explosives; or

(b) as respects any other land which the Minister has the right to use for the said purpose,

have the same power of making by-laws as is conferred on a Secretary of State as respects land appropriated for a military purpose or, as the case may be, as respects land which he has the right to use for such a purpose, and the provisions of the Military Lands Act, 1892, and the Military Lands Act, 1900, relating to by-laws shall with the necessary modifications apply accordingly."
The noble Earl said: This is quite a simple matter. It may be thought desirable that a new ground should be made available at an early opportuunity for air-raid precaution trials, such as bomb effects and fire fighting, and the object of this clause is to give the Minister power to make by-laws to regulate the use of that site, and to secure the public against any danger arising from the use of it as a bomb trial ground.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 59 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 [Power of local authorities to appropriate lands and buildings for purposes of their civil defence functions]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The first Amendment, to leave out "belonging to" and to insert "owned by, leased to," is consequential. Its purpose is to enable local authorities to use for civil defence purposes without any formal appropriation, not only lands or buildings owned by them, but also lands and buildings that may have been leased to them.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 13, leave out ("belong to") and insert ("owned by, leased to").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next two Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 59, line 22, leave out ("belonging to") and insert ("owned by, leased to")
Page 59, line 37, after ("cease") insert ("and any such directions may require the lands or buildings to be restored, to such extent as may be specified, to their former condition").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"(4) In this section the expression 'use,' in relation to lands owned by or leased to a local authority includes the erection of buildings and other structures thereon, the making of excavations therein, and the alteration and maintenance of any such buildings, structures or excavations, and, in relation to buildings owned by or leased to an authority, includes the alteration and maintenance of those buildings."
The noble Earl said: Doubts have been expressed whether the power given by this clause to local authorities to use for the discharge of their civil defence functions lands or buildings owned by or leased to them, would enable them, for example, to erect buildings on lands and maintain them, or would authorise them to make alterations to existing buildings. The purpose of this Amendment is to remove such doubts by expressly providing that they can in the exercise of their powers under the clause make excavations, erect and maintain new buildings, and alter and maintain existing buildings.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 40, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 61 to 64 agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 64, to insert the following new clause:
Penalty for unauthorised use of medals and badges.
". Any unauthorised person who uses or wears any medal, badge or emblem issued by or with the authority of the Minister for the use of persons engaged in any civil defence service, or any medal, badge or emblem which, by reason of its resemblance to any such medal, badge or emblem as aforesaid or otherwise, is designed to indicate that the user or wearer is engaged in a civil defence service, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds."
The noble Earl said: The object of this clause is to make a statutory penalty for the unauthorised use of medals and
832
badges. I understand that such medals and badges have been put on sale to the general public by private enterprise, and under the present law there is no restriction whatever on such sale. At present anybody who likes can go and buy an A.R.P. badge, even though he may not be an A.R.P. volunteer and therefore would not be properly entitled to the badge.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 64 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD STRABOLGI: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Amendment, before "medal" in line 2, to insert "uniform." I have two other Amendments to the Amendment on the Paper, and I think they go together. They are intended only to give the Minister power to prevent unauthorised persons from wearing the uniform of air-raid warden, which uniform, I am quite sure, the Government will presently have to introduce. I did not get any satisfaction from the Lord Chancellor on the Second Reading, but I assure him that since that date I have had a shoal of letters from all over the country supporting my point of view with regard to uniform. I am quite certain the Government will have to introduce a uniform, and the sooner the better. With that in view, in order to avoid amending the Act, I hope the Government will accept this Amendment. If they think they can get out of providing uniforms, then the insertion of the word does no harm.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Line 2, after ("any") insert ("uniform").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: His Majesty's Government will be pleased to accept this Amendment as well as the other two Amendments in the name of the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment to the proposed new clause agreed to.
Amendments to the Amendment moved—
Line 4, after the second ("any") insert ("uniform").
Line 5, after ("such") insert ("uniform").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
EARL HOWE: May I ask what is "uniform"?
LORD STRABOLGI: The word has appeared in other Acts of Parliament.
EARL HOWE: Is it all right?
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, it has appeared in other Acts.
On Question, Amendments to the proposed new clause agreed to.
On Question, proposed new clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 65 to 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Determination of claims to compensation and increases of rent]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The Amendment to this clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 24, after ("Part III") insert ("or Part IV").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 70 to 75 agreed to.
Clause 76 [Exemption of certain works from building by-laws, &c.]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, to insert at the end of the clause:
"(3) For the purposes of any enactment regulating the erection of new buildings or the extension of buildings by reference to the position of other buildings, no account shall be taken of any building, erection or excavation exempted by this section from the operation of that enactment."
The noble Earl said: This is practically drafting. It merely makes the matter somewhat clearer, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 36, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 77 to 81 agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 81, to insert the following new clause:
Saving for telegraphic lines.
".Section six of the Telegraph Act, 1878 (which empowers the Postmaster-General to establish telegraphic lines on certain undertakings) shall apply to underground air-raid shelters, premises and parking places, and works connected therewith, constructed by a local authority under Part II of this Act, as it applies to the undertakings mentioned in the said Section six, and Section seven of the said Act (which makes provision as to work done in the execution of certain undertakings which involves alteration in telegraphic lines) shall apply to any work authorised or required to be done under this Act as it applies to work done in the execution of such an undertaking as is mentioned in the said Section seven."
The noble Earl said: I do not know whether your Lordships would desire me to go into a long explanation of this clause. It is moved on behalf of the Post Office, and is really a saving for telegraph lines. Unless any noble Lord desires a full explanation, I would ask your Lordships to allow me to move it formally.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 81 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clause 83:
Definitions of "factory," "factory premises," "mine" and "commercial building" and interpretation of references to persons working and persons employed.
(2) Where there is a factory in which more than fifty persons work—

(a) the factory; and

(b) the remainder of any building … and

(c) any land …

shall together be deemed to constitute factory premises for the purposes of this Act:
Provided that—
(a) no building wholly or mainly occupied as a hotel or restaurant shall be deemed to form part of any factory premises;
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (2), proviso (a), after "restaurant," to insert "other than a restaurant carried on for the use of persons working in the factory." The noble Earl said: I understand that during the course of the Bill through another place my right honourable friend undertook to look into the drafting of this particular clause. The purpose of this first Amendment is to secure that while a restaurant is not to be deemed to constitute "factory premises," a restaurant which is carried on for the use of the persons working in a factory shall be included as part of the "factory premises." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 33, after ("restaurant") insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—

835
Page 74, line 16, leave out ("or").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 17, leave out ("in or about a mine or in a").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I beg to move the next Amendment, which is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, leave out line 19, and insert ("present in the factory, factory premises").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 20, leave out ("in the").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 21, leave out from the first ("who") to the end of line 22, and insert ("carry on business in the factory, factory premises or building or are employed by persons carrying on business therein").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment I have to move is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 26, leave out ("mine").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next is really a drafting Amendment, consequential on the new subsection (8) which I shall be moving next.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, leave out line 33, and insert ("factory premises or").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after subsection (7), to insert:
"(8) For the purposes of this Act the number of persons who work in or about a mine shall be deemed to be a number ascertained as follows, that is to say—
836

(a) by having regard to all the people employed in or about the mine and ascertaining how many of them are from time to time simultaneously present in or about the mine otherwise than below the surface, and

(b) if the numbers so ascertained fluctuate, by ascertaining the highest number which, throughout any consecutive period of fifteen minutes, is equalled or exceeded."

The noble Earl said: This Amendment probably deserves a short explanation. It deals with the special case of the coal mine. I understand that the risk problem of the coal mine is that there is a pool of persons on the surface being fed and reduced from two sources. Men from the outgoing shift are coming up in the cages and, in most but not in all cases, men from the incoming shift are going down in the empty cages. The men who arrive at the surface from below are dispersing to the pit-head baths or to their homes. Against that, additional men on the in-going shift are arriving on the surface. Tests have shown that in most mines there is a very short-lived high water mark under this process lasting for anything up to ten minutes. What we desire is power to require employers to provide shelter for the largest number of persons, who, on examination, are found to be in the pool for a period of fifteen consecutive minutes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 35, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 83, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD PHILLIMORE: This is the definition clause which contains the words "commercial building," the subject of our argument a little time back. I rise to point out that the expression "commercial building" means a building in which more than fifty persons work, and therefore it would not cover a good number of office buildings such as those Victoria Street premises where engineering firms are to be found. Further, I should like the noble Earl or his advisers to go into the definition of "commercial building" and the effect on Clause 16 which deals with the necessity of providing air-raid shelters for commercial buildings. The definition of what is a commercial building is extraordinarily unsatisfactory. It is a definition by exclusion. The first words are that it is "a building in which more than fifty persons work." What is

837
the definition of "work"? I think the whole question wants careful looking into because the commercial building in London is the keystone of our whole structure, and it is important it should be properly secured.
Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 84:
Other provisions as to interpretation.
84.—(1) In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:
"Public utility undertakers" means any persons authorised by any enactment or order to construct, work or carry on any railway, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, gas, electricity or water undertaking, and also includes persons who, though not authorised by any enactment or order (other than the Public Health Act, 1875, or the Public Health Act, 1936) to supply gas, are engaged in supplying gas to the public, and for that purpose make use of pipes or mains laid in any highway; and "public utility undertaking" shall be construed accordingly.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to add to the definition of "annual value":
"Provided that, in the case of a building (including a commercial building) or block of buildings let out in parts each of which is separately valued for rating purposes or consists of two or more parts so valued, the annual value of every part so valued (except any part which has depreciated in value by reason of the execution Therein under this Act of works for the provision of air-raid shelter) shall be taken for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to increases of rent, to be—

(a) where the rateable value and the net annual value of that part are the same, the rateable value appearing at the material date in the valuation list;

(b) where they are different, the net annual value of that part appearing at the material date in the valuation list,

and the annual value of the whole building or of any part thereof comprising a number of parts which are separately valued for rating purposes, shall be taken for the purposes of the said provisions to be the sum of all the annual values of all the parts or, as the case May be, the parts so comprised."
The noble Earl said: I do not think your Lordships would desire any long explanation of a question which concerns rateable values. If any noble Lord should desire such an explanation I am prepared to give one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 26, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in the definition of "public utility undertakers," after "supplying," to insert "water or." The noble Lord said: This is a small point, but under the Bill a non-statutory gas company is inserted while a non-statutory water company is not inserted. It would seem that there must be some sort of slip. In both cases they are dealt with on the same lines elsewhere, but for some odd reason the non-statutory water company is left out in this case. I am told there are certain non-statutory water companies which might suffer damage in consequence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 16, after ("supplying") insert ("water or").—(Lord Phillimore.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think I shall be in a position to accept an Amendment somewhat similar to this, and perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to put himself in communication with me before the Report stage. I am advised that the words the noble Lord desires to insert are not in the right place here, but I think I can meet him on the next stage of the Bill by inserting similar words in the proper place.
LORD PHILLIMORE: In view of the noble Earl's reception of this Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 85 [Application to Scotland]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The first is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 1, after ("lease") insert ("references to every lease derived from the estate or interest of an owner shall be construed as references to every lease granted by an owner and every sublease of the whole or any part of the premises subject to such lease").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I beg to move the next Amendment, which is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 15, leave out from ("premises") to ("in") in line 17, and insert ("granted by the proprietor and every sublease of the whole or any part of the premises subject to such lease, being a lease or sublease").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 24, after ("lease") insert ("or sublease").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment also is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 7, leave out ("order") and insert ("owner").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 28, after ("purposes") insert ("of Section ten and").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment is consequential on the first Amendment to the Scottish clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, leave out line 32, and insert ("granted by the owner and every sublease of the whole or any part of the premises subject to such lease, (being a lease or sublease)").(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after subsection (4) of the proposed Section 24A in subsection (11), to insert:
"(5) Where a notice has been served in pursuance of Section sixteen of this Act on the owners of such a building as aforesaid, any one of such owners may, in default of agreement among them as to the execution of the works on pursuance of the notice, himself execute the works, and for the purpose of so doing shall have the like powers and immunities as are conferred by this Part of this Act on the owners jointly and severally, and the expenditure incurred by him in so doing shall for the purpose of this section be deemed to be expenses of the owners."
The noble Earl said: Clause 24A of this Clause 85 makes the owners of a building in divided ownership liable jointly and severally for the provision of shelter for the employees in the building. With a view to expediting the provision of any shelter, it is proposed that where a notice has been served by the local authority requiring a shelter to be provided, one of the owners may proceed
840
forthwith with the work, even if the whole of the owners are not in agreement as to the precise mode of executing the works. I understand this is an important Scottish point. I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 37, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Does the latter part of this Amendment give the owner who is sufficiently public spirited to undertake the work, sufficient powers to extract a due proportion of the expense out of the other owners?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I should like to look into that point before giving the noble Earl a definite reply. I am afraid my knowledge of Scottish law is not very good.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 27, leave out ("10") and insert ("ten").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment also is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 9, at end insert ("in Section sixty-six").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I beg to move the next Amendment in my name, which is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 36, leave out from ("eighty-four") to ("in") in line 40, and insert—

("(a) in the definition of 'Annual Value' any reference to a building or block of buildings let out in parts shall include a reference to a building or block of buildings in which separate parts belong to different owners, and 'valuation list' means valuation roll;

(b) for the definition of 'Fire Authority' there shall be substituted the following definition—

'Fire Authority' means county or town council; and
(c)").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 85, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
LORD GORELL: Before we adjourn, could the noble Earl who is acting as Leader of the House tell us when it is
842
expected to take the Report stage of the Civil Defence Bill?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I understand that it is to be taken next Tuesday, July 4.
House adjourned at six minutes before seven o'clock.