Lords Sitting of 16 May 1939

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MEDWAY CONSERVANCY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BOGNOR GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.

CALLING UP OF MILITIAMEN; RESERVISTS AND AUXILIARY FORCES.
4.16 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can make any statement as to the calling up of militiamen, reservists and auxiliary forces.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, on the assumption that the Military Training Bill receives the Royal Assent before Whitsun, registration of all men between the ages of 20 and 21 years who are liable under the Bill will take place on Saturday, June 3. Full details as to the method of registration will be given in good time and will be widely published. Medical examination of men registered will commence on Thursday, June 8, with at least two days' clear notice in each case. The first group of men to be called up, consisting of between 40,000 and 50,000, will receive their calling-up notices on or about Saturday, July 1, requiring them to report to their units a fortnight later. Subsequent groups will be called up for training at intervals of two months. Subject to any variations that may be necessary on in-
1050
dustrial or other grounds, men will be called up in age order, the oldest first and the youngest last.
Provided the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill has become law, the Admiralty propose to call up into service, to increase the preparedness of the Fleet, the following reservists as from June 15:—First, half the Royal Fleet Reserve, Class D—that is the immediate class—for a period of three months from June 15, and the second half of this class of the Reserve similarly in the middle of September for a like period. Secondly, about 750 pensioners for three months from June 15, followed by a similar number for the three months from the middle of September. Pensioners who have most recently completed their time will be called up for this service. Thirdly, about 50 wireless and signal ratings of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and the Royal Naval Volunteer (Wireless) Reserve, for three months from June 15, and a similar number for the subsequent three months. Fourthly, about 300 men of the Royal Naval Reserve Patrol Service for three months from June 15, and a like number for the subsequent three months. Fifthly, the necessary number of retired and reserve officers will be called up for a period of six months from June 15.
In the case of the Army, the first group of Territorial anti-aircraft units will be called up to report on June 11 and the first group of reservists on June 15. A provisional warning is being issued to those affected. As regards the Royal Air Force, it is intended to call up by groups the Auxiliary Air Force personnel of the London Squadrons of the Balloon Barrage, and the first group will be called up to report on June 11.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
4.19 p.m.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, it might perhaps be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were also to tell your Lordships what is proposed in regard to the proceedings in this House next week on the Military Training Bill and the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill. We propose that there should be a formal sitting next Friday morning to receive the Bills and to give them a First Reading; then that the House should meet on Monday for the Second Reading of both

1051
Bills; and I suggest to your Lordships that we should meet that day at three o'clock and that, if necessary, we should sit after dinner. On Wednesday, which I gather is not a very convenient day for some of your Lordships who have pressing engagements in the south-west of London—particularly the Front Opposition Bench, I am afraid!—we propose to have the Committee stage of these two Bills. I do not know what your Lordships will feel about that: whether you would rather meet at three o'clock, in which case some noble Lords would hardly be back, or at our usual hour and then go on and sit after dinner, if necessary. It would, of course, depend on the number of Amendments moved and the length of time taken about each of them, but your Lordships might make your views known to my noble friend the Earl of Lucan in regard to the hour of meeting.
Then on Thursday I propose that we should take the Report and Third Reading of both those Bills. If your Lordships make Amendments to them, of course it will be necessary that both Bills, or whichever you make Amendments to, should go back to another place to be considered there again, in which case the Royal Assent and the Royal Commission will take place on the Friday morning of next week. Of course, if no Amendments were made we could have the Royal Commission on Thursday as soon as we have finished the Report and Third Reading stages. I hope I have made these proposals clear to your Lordships.
LORD SNELL: What about Tuesday?
EARL STANHOPE: Tuesday will be a clear day so far as these Bills are concerned. I thought your Lordships would prefer to have one day after the Second Reading in order to consider what Amendments to put down, and then to take them on the Wednesday.
LORD STRABOLGI: No other business on Tuesday?
EARL STANHOPE: There are two Committee stages of Bills, and the Second Reading of the Charitable Collections (Regulation) Bill. There may possibly be a debate on another subject which a noble Lord opposite may wish to raise—I do not know yet—in which case Tuesday would be the only day on which it could take place. I think it will be neces-
1052
sary to move that Government business take precedence on Wednesday and Thursday. At present there is nothing on the Order Paper, but I ought to warn the House that we do propose to put down a Motion to that effect.

MARRIAGE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
Message from the Commons to acquaint their Lordships that they concur in the Resolution, That it is desirable that the Solicitors Bill [H.L.] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, as desired by this House.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: the said Amendment considered and agreed to.
WILLENHALL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

PUBLIC HEALTH (COAL MINE REFUSE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
4.23 p.m.
Amendment reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Coal mine refuse liable to spontaneous combustion to be deemed a nuisance.
1. For the purpose of paragraph (5) of Section sixteen of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, an accumulation or deposit of refuse from a coal mine in respect of which there is reasonable cause to believe that spontaneous combustion is likely to occur shall be deemed to be an accumulation or deposit which is a nuisance:
Provided that—

(i) any application under Section twenty-two of the said Act in respect of any such accumulation or deposit of refuse as aforesaid shall be made to the Sheriff; and

(ii) in any such application it shall be a defence for the respondent to prove that the best practicable means have been taken for preventing the accumulation or deposit from becoming liable to spontaneous combustion.

LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved to leave out proviso (i) and insert:
"no application under Section twenty-two of the said Act in respect of any such accumulation or deposit of refuse as aforesaid shall be made except to the Sheriff and with the consent of the Department of Health for Scotland; and"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment on the Paper in my name is the result of negotiations which have taken place in the interval between Committee and this stage, and in respect of which I desire to acknowledge the assistance which has been received from the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Zetland) and the Lord Chancellor. I hope that the proposals which are now made will meet with the acquiescence of my noble friend Lord Gainford, because the Amendment has been constructed to meet what I think is really material in the contentions which he advanced at an earlier stage. Frankly, as the one responsible, I do not like it, but then I think that is characteristic of every compromise. It means a sort of double-barrelled procedure. It means that a case will have to go before the Scottish Department and be considered by them; but everyone, I am sure, is desirous that no proceedings shall be instituted which will inflict hardship upon a mining company which has genuinely tried, and is genuinely trying, to abate the dangers or other ill-effects from these deposits.
It is therefore proposed in the Amendment that, before an action is taken—and action can only be taken before a Sheriff's Court—there shall be the approval by the Minister of the Department. I inquired myself from the Department what that would really mean, and I was assured it would mean that when application was made to this Department they would, in fact, get into touch with the mining company and endeavour to ascertain what was practicable, and what was being done, so as to make sure that the thing was operated fairly. It does, in fact, mean a certain duplication of procedure. As the House is aware, the Bill was specially drafted in order to secure that only a higher Court should hear the case, and in order to ensure that nothing was done which was unfair to the company. Having accepted this procedure, which in substance, although not in form, is what the noble Lord proposed, and as the form in which he proposed it is open to a number of very serious administra-
1054
tive and other objections, I hope he will be willing to accept my alternative, which I am assured is practicable and I am certain is fair.
Amendment moved—
Leave out paragraph (i) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Addison.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, although this Amendment does not go to the full extent desired by the Mining Association—and of course the Mining Association feel that they have a right to be heard by a Minister before an assent is given. If my words had been accepted by the Scottish Health Department, and by Lord Addison, we should all have been more or less satisfied—yet, having regard to the fact that the Scottish Health Department have agreed with Lord Addison that the Minister of Health shall have to approve of applications, and on the understanding that the Minister of Health is going to satisfy himself not merely on the ground of health but on the ground of the practicability of removing the nuisance, I am not prepared to oppose Lord Addison's Amendment and to press my own. I would like, however, to ask the noble Marquess, representing the Government, whether he can support the view which Lord Addison has just expressed, and give an assurance that the Minister of Health will take advantage of the opportunity of ascertaining—whether from a colliery owner or the owner of land after a colliery has been worked out, or from the Government's inspectors—whether it is reasonable and practicable to abate the nuisance. If that assurance is given I shall be satisfied, but I would like to have such an assurance from the noble Marquess representing the Scottish Office, that that is the course which the Minister would naturally take. If so, the Mining Association, I think, will be satisfied, and there is no reason to oppose this Amendment.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, this Amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Addison, has explained, is the outcome of various consultations which have taken place, and it is designed to meet the main point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, on the Committee stage of the Bill—namely, that before an application could be made by the local authority to the Courts there should be some machinery by means of

1055
which the Minister would be brought in to consider the case and to give his consent to the application. The noble Lord has asked me whether I can give him an assurance—or so I understood him—that the Minister, in performing his part through the agency of the Department of Health in Scotland, will take into account all relevant considerations. I think I may safely give the noble Lord that assurance. The mere fact that the consent of the Department of Health is required before an application can be made to the Courts implies, surely, that that Department must consider the reasonableness of the application from all points of view, and I should certainly assume that the question whether it was practicable to take any particular action with a view to minimising or removing the nuisance would be a very relevant consideration. I hope, in view of that assurance, and in view of the fact that the Amendment also confines applications to the Sheriff's Court, that the noble Lord will be entirely satisfied that we have gone as far as we can reasonably be expected to do to meet his case.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, the next Amendment and the remaining Amendments in my name have the same effect and purpose as the Amendment moved by Lord Addison, which has been accepted by the House, and therefore I do not propose to move them.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I desire, if I may, to move another Amendment of which notice has not been circulated, but which was received by the officers of the House this morning. It is more or less a verbal one—namely, in proviso (ii), after "means" to insert "are being or"; so that the paragraph would read as follows:
"in any such application it shall be a defence for the respondent to prove that the best practicable means are being or have been taken for preventing the accumulation or deposit from becoming liable to spontaneous combustion."
It is thought to be quite reasonable that if all practicable steps are being taken, that should be a good defence, just as if they have already been taken; and, as long as the Court is satisfied that they are being taken, it is reasonable that that should be a defence.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, we are aware that in another place an Amendment moved in this form would not be accepted as in order, but your Lordships have your own Rules of Procedure, and I understand that if objection is not taken Amendments may be moved in this way. So far as I am concerned, I am quite willing to accept the Amendment. I was not quite clear as to whether the noble Lord read it correctly. Perhaps I may be allowed to re-read it:
"in any such application it shall be a defence for the respondent to prove that the best practicable means have been or are being taken—"
and so on.
LORD GAINFORD: I am quite prepared to move it in that form, if that is a preferable form. I beg therefore to move it in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, after ("been") insert ("or are being").—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.38 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My Lords, this is a Bill designed to enable the Courts to function in case of the outbreak of war. It will come into force only on the making of an Order in Council on the ground of the outbreak or probability of war. Your Lordships will remember that in the last War everything in the Courts went on as far as possible in the same way as in time of peace, but the conditions have altered, and nobody can be quite sure, least of all the experts concerned in this matter, as to the state of things that will arise in the Metropolis if a great deal of bombing should take place. The reason for the Bill is a matter that will probably interest your Lordships more than the terms of the Bill, and if you will allow me, I would like to say something about it.
The building in the Strand, with the outside of which at least your Lordships are acquainted, contains a number of

1057
people who are constantly employed there for various purposes, not only in connection with the administration of justice in the various Courts. There are some thousand people there, of whom quite a considerable number are girls and women, most of whom live in the suburbs and have to come daily to and from the Courts. There are, for example, 140 people in the office of the Master in Lunacy, there are eighty odd people in the Official Solicitor's Department, there are a number of people in the Supreme Court Pay Office, there are 102 people in the Scrivenery Department, of whom over eighty are women, and there are a number of other persons who are constantly employed there. There are also thirty-eight people or thereabouts employed in doing the judicial work, judges, clerks in Judges' chambers, registrars' offices, the central office, and so on. These people are there on their daily business, but there are also a very large number of people who have to travel to and from the Courts in connection with the business there. There are the parties to actions, witnesses, jurymen, solicitors and their clerks, and last, but not least, the public who are interested in these matters.
There is, therefore, a concourse of people travelling to and from different parts of London to the Courts more or less daily. In the event of heavy bombing, it seems to those who are concerned with these matters, including myself, that it might be impossible properly to carry on the administration of justice in London in these possible, some may think probable, conditions. It is not only a question of the possibility of bombs falling upon a crowded Court. It certainly is not because of any question of the safety of those who are directly engaged in the administration of justice, because I am sure they would be quite willing to follow the maxim, "Fiat justitia, ruat coelum"; but it is the question of getting these very numerous people to and from the places where they live when means of locomotion may be exceedingly difficult. Your Lordships will agree that the wisest course is to prepare for all eventualities and to make provision, by Act of Parliament, for the administration of justice notwithstanding the extremest conditions of difficulty which may arise in the event of hostile action. That is what this Bill is designed to do.
1058
Under the provisions of the Bill, power is given to the Lord Chancellor to suspend the sittings in London for a period upon the outbreak of war. Perhaps I might tell your Lordships that the person who it at present Lord Chancellor proposes to do the only thing that occurs to anybody, and that is to give a fortnight's holiday, so to speak, to the people engaged in the administration of justice in order that it may be possible to perceive what the actual conditions in London are going to be in time of war, and also, I should add, in order that the very difficult problem of getting to and from the Courts may to some extent settle down and become normal, or as normal as can be in the case of war. Some of your Lordships will perhaps remember that in the early days of war in 1914 it was very difficult to get about, and it did not get very much better for some time. As soon as one can see what is going to happen, the Lord Chancellor will desire to take certain steps which the Bill makes lawful, and in particular to take various measures which may be necessary to distribute the Courts of Law all over the country, as far as possible in places which may reasonably be supposed to be outside the worst danger zones, and adapt the procedure of the Courts to the altered conditions.
Your Lordships will appreciate that a Court cannot be shifted without a good deal of forethought. It is necessary that there should be means of access to books for, at any rate, some of the Courts because in some cases as many as fifty reports may have to be referred to—not very many, but there are some Courts which have to refer to books in practically every case. Then it is necessary to have a building which is fitted to some extent like a Court because in certain cases there are juries and the public. There must be rooms for the barristers and their clerks and for the Judges and so forth. Further than that, if a particular Court is moved to a particular town, it is necessary to have accommodation in the town for the Bar, solicitors, and their clerks and other persons. Therefore it may be necessary to make arrangements for dividing up, so to speak, the various Courts we now have in London and distributing them in different parts of the country. They cannot all go to one place because they cannot possibly be accommodated, and the necessity of

1059
finding a suitable building to serve as a Court necessarily involves that places where there are Assize Courts and other buildings of that kind should be places selected for the purpose.
I should make it plain, because it is a matter of great interest to the profession, that these Courts will not be Circuit Courts. They will be Courts in which the High Court is sitting as the result of division into local divisions. The Chancery Division and the Court of Appeal and some other Courts will probably all go to a particular town, as to which arrangements have been made. It will be necessary to provide a special place for criminal cases from the Central Criminal Court. There will have to be a Prize Court, which generally becomes busy when Britain with its naval forces is involved in a war, and I should hope that Court would be very busy. There will have to be a distribution of the King's Bench Division Courts, chiefly, as I have said, to Assize towns and places of that kind.
In addition to that, it will be necessary, I think, to move out of London as soon as may be the whole of the administrative departments of the Royal Courts of Justice, some of which I have already briefly mentioned—for example, the whole of the Department of the Master in Lunacy, almost the whole of the Official Solicitors' Department, part of the Taxing Office and almost the whole of the Principal Probate Registry. There may be other Departments now in the buildings of the Royal Courts of Justice which can be conveniently removed from London. It has been considered by a number of people very desirable when war becomes imminent that officials of various kinds, whose presence in London is by no means necessary, should be removed to safer places, and that for a number of reasons. Not only is it desirable to prevent any great congestion during removals from London, but also there is the point, which I have already mentioned, of the great difficulty of the humbler people getting to and from places in the conditions which may arise. Accordingly, under this Bill, there are means provided not only for conducting the administration of justice in a number of different parts of the country, but also for removing from London the administrative bodies and persons to whom I have just referred.
1060
I do not think I need delay your Lordships long by going through the Bill, as your Lordships already have it before you. Clauses I to 5 and Clause 6 give power to the Lord Chancellor, with such concurrence as is mentioned in Clause 6, subsection (5), to make orders and rules of court with regard to the Supreme Court of Judicature, the inferior Courts, the Assizes, the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the Central Criminal Court. Here I may mention that for my part I was not anxious to undertake more responsibility in making these important orders than was necessary, and I have made provision in the Bill for the concurrence of two Judges, who will assist me in the matter; but there may be circumstances in which it would not be easy to get two Judges at a precise moment, and, accordingly, the Lord Chancellor is empowered to act on his own responsibility and afterwards to call the attention of those who are to assist him in the matter to what he has done and ask them for their approval. Clause 5 (2) gives an analogous power to the Home Secretary in respect of Quarter Sessions and courts of summary jurisdiction. Those Courts are under the Lord Chancellor only in a very remote way, and under Clause 6 the Lord Chancellor may delegate certain of his powers that may be urgently needed so that they can be exercised by other Judges if that should become necessary owing, for example, to an interruption of communications between one part of the country and another. Clause 6, subsection (8), gives to the Home Secretary an analogous power of delegation.
Clause 7, following the precedent of what was found desirable in the last War, reduces the number of jurors required to form a jury from twelve to seven. It will be understood that it is not at all easy to work our jury system in time of war, but it may be found possible to go on with it with that reduction which I have mentioned in the number of jurymen. That reduction of jurymen is not to take place in cases of murder and treason. Another point that I may mention is that the age limit of jurors will be raised from sixty years to sixty-five years. Then, following the example of what was done in the last War, Clause 8 restricts the right to trial by jury in civil proceedings. That was found satisfactory during the last War. Clause 9 modifies the law with regard to the remanding

1061
of accused persons by extending the period of remand to twenty-one days. Clause 10 modifies the statutory obligation to fill judicial vacancies, and that for the reason that experience showed during the last War that some of the business of the Courts is very greatly reduced while other business is greater, as, for instance, in applications to Prize Court, applications under the Defence of the Realm Act, and criminal cases connected with sabotage. In certain of those respects the Courts are busier during war than they are in times of peace.
Clause 11 provides for the making of the Order in Council necessary for bringing the Act into operation, on the ground, as I have stated, of the outbreak or probability of war. The Bill has been the subject of careful consideration, and I have had the assistance in framing it of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and other distinguished judges and lawyers. I think it is well that people should realise that when the Bill becomes an Act, as I hope it will, and the powers which are given to the Lord Chancellor are exercised in the way I have suggested, it is probable that it will involve a great deal of inconvenience, and that it will not be too easy, even with good will, to carry on the administration of justice with the ease with which it is carried on at the present time. I have no doubt it will be found in practice that the Bill is not perfect—no Bill in the world of this kind can be perfect—and also that things have been omitted or have not been foreseen; yet I present the Bill to your Lordships as one that will enable the important matter of the administration of justice to be carried on with reasonable efficiency, and it is with that conviction that I move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
5 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, this is so much a matter for specialists and for those learned in the law that a layman cannot possibly know what is required. I just desire on behalf of my noble friends to say that we shall offer no opposition to the Second Reading.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, it is lamentable that we live in a world in which measures of this kind have to be passed. Still, that is the case, and I
1062
think no one will dispute that the Government are showing a wise forethought in providing beforehand for the possibilities which this Bill envisages. I have little doubt that your Lordships will be prepared to give it a favourable reception. No doubt, if war should occur, the volume of litigation would be largely reduced in the presence of still greater evils, and persons who otherwise would be inclined to go to law would not do so. Therefore the work of the Courts would be much less than at ordinary times. Nevertheless, the course of justice must go on and provision must be made for the procedure to be adapted to the circumstances.
I would draw attention only to Clauses 7 and 8, which relate to juries, which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has described to us. They provide that juries may consist of only seven jurors instead of twelve and that the age of service may be raised. As to the age being raised from 60 to 65, I dare say that many members of your Lordships' House will share with me the view that that is the age at which one's judgment is at its ripest. With regard to the other proposal, it is a considerable change, and one to be treated seriously, that the number of members of juries should be reduced to seven instead of twelve, except in connection with trials for treason, murder and other cases in which it is thought that the gravity of the matters at issue is sufficient to require the larger jury. That was done in the last War and it may have to be done again, but the point I want to make is that these clauses apparently are to come into operation automatically as soon as the Act is brought into force.
With regard to all the other matters—the places at which the Courts shall sit and various other questions to which the noble and learned Lord has referred—an order is required from the Lord Chancellor which will be made in accordance with the facts of the situation. But with regard to this matter of juries, it is taken as a matter of course that if war is imminent, or is thought to be imminent, and it is necessary to bring this Act into force at all, the provisions with regard to juries should operate at once and automatically. At least, that is how I understand the matter, because if your Lordships look at Clause 7 you will see it provides that:

1063
"Notwithstanding anything in any enactment … it shall not be necessary for the jury to consist of more than seven persons."
I presume that that implies that there shall be seven persons and no more. It may be a small verbal point, but I think it might be considered. If it is thought necessary that this measure should be put into operation at all, instantly the number of jurors is reduced, and not only that, but the whole principle of trial by jury is to be eliminated from civil proceedings except where the Judge holds that it is necessary for a trial to be held with a jury.
I would invite the attention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to this particular point, and I would ask whether it might not be possible to adopt the same procedure in regard to these clauses as in regard to the rest of the Bill—namely, that the Lord Chancellor, in view of all the circumstances of the case, may bring these clauses into operation. I can well understand that contingencies might arise in which, war not having broken out, but being regarded as imminent, the Act might have to be brought into operation by the Government of the day, and yet the circumstances might not be such as to make it essential that all the provisions of the Act should be brought into operation. If the Lord Chancellor thought it wise to move out the Courts or some of them, still the circumstances might not be so grave that the jury system in civil cases must be abolished straight away. I hope that this point may be considered by the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues. With regard to the Bill as a whole I feel sure that noble Lords on these Benches will give it a cordial welcome.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I say that the point to which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has called attention will be carefully considered? It may be possible to insert something to meet his objection.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COAST PROTECTION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
5.6 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. Many of your Lordships will be aware that during the last year or two there have been several serious inundations on the coasts of these islands. I need mention, perhaps, only one or two. There was at Horsey, in Norfolk, a very large inundation of the sea over low-lying land which caused a great deal of inconvenience, expense and anxiety. On the west coast, at Aberystwyth, there was inundation of a very much smaller area, but by reason of the fact that it was in a town, it was comparatively dangerous and extremely expensive to repair. I am not suggesting that either of those two instances can be definitely proved to have been due to the artificial removal of material from the shore, but I think it is beyond dispute that instances can be adduced in which it could be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the excavation or removal of material from the shore does cause these incidents which are so unfortunate and expensive.
As I understand it, at any rate in the rural districts, there is no power at present in any national or local authority to protect private property from the ravages of the sea. That brings about a state of affairs which frequently proves to be very unfortunate. Most of the shore is in the hands of private landowners, many of them owning quite a small area of land. Many of these owners are not themselves wealthy enough to spend large sums on the protection of their own property and indirectly upon the protection of the property of their neighbours. On the other hand, other owners, whether rich enough to do so or not, unfortunately yield to the temptation of selling material such as gravel and sand and shingle off their shore, which does material damage, not only to their own property, about which they seem to care little, but to the property of others. In doing that they not only, as I say, endanger their own coast, but may also endanger the land behind away from the sea, and the coast and the property on either side. This land which abuts on the sea can be described, I suppose, as the front line trenches of the whole defensive system against a common and age-long enemy which necessitates constant effort in order to keep it within bounds. I submit that it is not right that a conscientious defender in this long-

1065
continued battle should be left unsupported physically and otherwise, and also outflanked, by other people who think only of their own private purses and pockets.
I say this because it is well known that the action of the sea, the action of the tidal stream, and possibly the wind also, cause a great movement of material laterally along the coast, and it therefore frequently passes from one owner's property to another, and unless proper steps are taken to protect the coast, much damage may be done by that movement. There must therefore, I submit, be concerted action, which is more difficult now than it used to be, because there are more landowners than there used to be along the coast. If that action is to be concerted and properly carried out, it must nowadays be public action. From that it follows—whether fortunately or unfortunately may be a matter of opinion—that private rights must be to a certain extent interfered with. It is recognised in law, I believe, that the Crown has a certain Prerogative in this matter—that is, in defending the realm against action from the sea—but that Prerogative has been very rarely, if ever, exercised. Whatever rights the Crown may have in that regard, it is plainly true that the Crown at present has no machinery—at any rate, no machinery ready to hand—to put into use in order to defend the coast against the sea. Only the local authorities and private individuals can at the present time take any reasonable steps to stop it, and local authorities and private individuals perhaps have narrow purses and are unwilling, through fear of the cost or otherwise, to take action in this matter.
In connection with the duties or Prerogatives of the Crown, I may perhaps be allowed to quote a few words from the judgment of Lord justice Brett in the case of The Attorney-General versus Tomline in 1880. That was a case where, at the instance of the Secretary of State for War, the Attorney-General used his powers to secure, and did so successfully, an injunction against a private landowner preventing him from selling a shingle bank for use as ballast in sailing vessels. It was there recognised that there was some sort of Prerogative in the Crown, and that is an isolated case in which it was successfully used. It was said in the judgment:
1066
"Therefore it comes to a nice point.… The question comes to this, whether one can find any principle upon which, although he"—
that is, the landowner—
"is not bound to keep the sea out, yet he must not do an act which will let the sea in. I think there is such a principle."
Those are the words which I have taken from the judgment in that case, and I submit now that if your Lordships agree that that principle exists, no hardship is imposed upon any private individual by this Bill. I might here mention that this Bill is partly a result of the Report of the Royal Commission on Coast Erosion in 1907, and I am suggesting respectfully that the necessity for action arising out of that Report is now of about the right vintage and may be safely acted upon.
It is interesting also to notice that in the year 1929 a Bill was actually drafted by the Conservative Government of that day. It made no progress, owing to the General Election which followed, but if it had made progress then, it would, I understand, have been introduced by the then President of the Board of Trade—and may I say that I am very glad to see the noble Viscount here this afternoon? After the General Election, however, the late Mr. William Graham, whom the noble Viscount succeeded as President, actually introduced the Bill. It was a more voluminous and much more drastic Bill than this one; it aroused a great deal of opposition and was eventually withdrawn; but Clause 3 of that Bill is reproduced in Very much its original form, though I think in an improved form, in the Bill which I am introducing this afternoon. One must reflect that since the year 1929 a great deal of damage has been done to the coast of this country. This Bill introduces for the first time a system of Government action in this matter. The Department charged with the duty is the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade—I refer now to Clause 1 (1)—may make an order, and the purposes for which it may make an order and the circumstances in which it may make an order are so important that I will ask your Lordships to bear them in mind during the consideration of this measure. They are, first, for the protection of the coast from erosion, and secondly, for the prevention of damage to any lands by the action of the sea. I should like to emphasize that it is only for those purposes and in those circumstances that action may be taken

1067
by the Board of Trade. I say that in order to endeavour to allay the fears of certain interests which, I understand, are apprehensive that they might be injuriously affected by the Bill.
Such an order may either prohibit or restrict or allow conditionally the excavation or the removal or the disturbance of the seashore. That is another word to which I am inviting attention. The definition of the "seashore" for the purposes of this Bill appears in Clause 1 (13). It is somewhat important, and I therefore venture to read it. It is:
"The expression 'seashore' means the bed and shore of the sea and of every channel, creek, bay or estuary, and of every river so far up that river as the tide flows, and any cliff, bank, barrier, dune, beach, flat or other land adjacent to the shore."
In subsection (10) your Lordships will find that that definition is qualified by the statement that it is not to go above any lock or sluice. That definition, as will be at once apparent, is very much wider than the definition of the word "foreshore." At present, if I am right, the Board of Trade have jurisdiction only over the foreshore, and the landward limit of the foreshore is the mark of mean tides, the average between springs and neaps at high tide. That, of course, is a comparatively small area compared with the area of the seashore as defined in this Bill. So your Lordships will observe that this Bill applies to tidal rivers, and so far as the Thames is concerned it will apply up as far as Teddington, where I believe the first lock is situated.
Your Lordships may ask why tidal rivers have been included in this Bill, and the answer, I will say quite frankly, is that it was found to be so difficult as to be almost impossible to arrive at a satisfactory definition of the exact spot where the sea ended and a river began. That problem was found so difficult that we now resort to the much simpler procedure of saying that this Bill shall apply wherever the tide flows, which is or should be easy of interpretation. It is there that there may be some apprehension that the powers conferred under this Bill may be improperly used, and I would, therefore, like to say that I believe it is a fact that in practice these powers would not be used in respect of tidal rivers. I am not of course in a position to give any sort of undertaking in this matter, but it is the sort of point on
1068
which I would very much like to hear an opinion expressed by the noble Lord who, I understand, will speak for the Government this afternoon. In any event I invite the House to believe that the Board of Trade is, and will be, a reasonable institution when it comes to administering this Bill. If so, I do not think the fears of certain interests need really have very much ground. There are always the opening words of this Bill to be borne in mind, which I have emphasized before.
In addition to that there are, in this matter, where private interests are undeniably going to be affected, a large number of safeguards, and I may perhaps be allowed briefly to mention them. They are set out in the First Schedule of the Bill, and that Schedule is, I think, one of the most important parts of this Bill. All these safeguards must be observed by the Board of Trade before any order is made under this Bill and acted upon. The Board must give notice of their intention to make an order. The draft order must be open for inspection. There must be time for objections, and publication in the London Gazette or Edinburgh Gazette, as the case may be. There must be further local publication. Objections made against the order must be considered by the Board, and the Board may hold a public inquiry arising out of those objections. The draft order must be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and both Houses must not only have the order laid before them but must resolve that the order should be approved. Then, if an order amends or repeals any Private or Local Act of Parliament, or any Public Act, there are further safeguards. There must be further publication, and notice of presentation to Parliament must be given. Opportunities must be given for memorials or objections to be handed in, and if there is an objection the order cannot be confirmed until it has been approved by Parliament. The procedure for confirming it by Parliament includes the availability of the services of a Select Committee of either House.
Finally, there is protection in Clause 2, subsection (2), for harbour authorities, conservancy authorities, and navigation authorities, who are engaged in conserving, maintaining or improving certain tidal rivers and harbours. We all know that there are several very important rivers in this country which by reason of the action of such authorities have been

1069
improved out of all knowledge and made navigable and useful, and of great service to the community. I refer, of course to such rivers as the Tyne, the Mersey, the Clyde, the Humber and the Thames, and no doubt there are several others where very great work, at vast expense, has been done. That work has involved dredging, and dredging may possibly be construed as such a removal of material as to be coast erosion. That is why I am mentioning this point. I am mentioning it because under this Bill, and any practice to be followed under it, there will be ample protection for those authorities engaged in that work, for nobody, quite obviously, wants to stop dredging. Therefore I submit that there are in this Bill ample safeguards for this taking away, as to some extent it undoubtedly is, of the interest of private property.
There are just one or two other matters which I would like to mention. First of all, in some cases the making of an order may be a very urgent matter. In that case it is provided by Clause 1, subsection (1), that an interim order may be made by the Board. The interim order can only remain in force until either it is made permanent by a permanent order being applied, or is withdrawn, and in either case it cannot last longer than six months. Then, in subsections (3) and (4) the Bill binds the Crown and the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, and brings them within the general principle of this Bill. I think it is clear that that step is necessary for the sake of completeness, because quite long stretches of shore, I understand, belong to either one or other of those institutions.
The Bill binds also harbour authorities, local authorities and highway authorities, by subsection (5), and does that notwithstanding any Private or Public Acts of Parliament which those authorities may enjoy; but there is a proviso that if any fulfilment of a statutory duty is prevented then the Local Act is by this Bill, or rather by order made under this Bill, repealed or amended. Other machinery provides that a licence may be granted by the Board of Trade to do something which otherwise would be unlawful, by order made by the Board. There is a penalty clause in subsection (8), and in subsection (9) it will be found that there is nothing in this Bill to stop a private person from prohibiting excavation, removal or disturbance on or from his own land. Then
1070
it is provided that the costs of inquiry, if and when such is held, may be imposed on the applicant for an order or upon the objector to an order, in whole or in part, at the discretion of the Board of Trade.
I think that this Bill is a necessary measure. I submit that it will be a useful measure. It is suggested and prompted by actual experience, very much of it unfortunate, and while it undoubtedly does impose a limited restriction on private rights it does so, in my submission, accompanied by ample safeguards. The fact that it is in the public interest that this Bill should be passed, and that the machinery which it sets up should be erected in a reasonable and efficient manner, I think will justify it, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading this afternoon.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
5.30 p.m.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the excellent speech which you have just heard gives many reasons for supporting this Bill, and there really is not a great deal for me to add. It is only right that we should try, whether by Act of Parliament or by any other means, to prevent the sea encroaching on the land. The sea is undoubtedly gaining on the land at this moment on the coast of Norfolk and no doubt in many other places. I believe that every inch of land is of importance to us nowadays, especially because in the last twenty years a great deal of it has gone out of cultivation, or else it is being used for housing estates, aerodromes and other purposes. It is quite true that twenty-eight years ago a Royal Commission reported that on the whole, the land in this country was gaining on the sea. That may be true to-day, but it is not necessarily so, and even if it is the case, I still think that we ought to try to prevent the sea encroaching where it is actually doing so.
Other reasons for supporting this Bill can best be illustrated by an account of what has happened at a place on the coast of Norfolk called Walcot during the last seven years. This place is in the constituency which I had the honour to represent in another place. First, about sixty-three feet of cliff have disappeared into the sea, six houses have disappeared, and many more are threatened, including a large convalescent home which

1071
belongs to the Kettering Urban District Council; and besides that, the main Yarmouth-Cromer road has been destroyed for about a hundred yards and has had to be replaced. In spite of all this the lord of the manor at this place exercises his right to remove shingle and sand in large quantities from the beach here every day, and I would ask your Lordships to note that there was no coast erosion at this place at all until seven years ago, when this large daily removal of sand and shingle started. This has been going on in spite of the fact that the local catchment board, who are responsible for sea defence, have a bylaw designed to prevent the removal of shingle, but they have been advised by eminent counsel that, although they could prosecute me, or any one of your Lordships, or anybody else for doing this, their by-law is not strong enough to prevail against the right of the lord of the manor in this matter.
As my noble friend Lord Merthyr mentioned in his speech, the property owners in these places are mostly people of small means, and therefore cannot be blamed for hesitating to start an action in the Chancery Court in defence of their property. The late Lord Justice Mathew, who, I believe, was a member of your Lordships' House, once said that "justice, like the Ritz Hotel, is open to all." I believe that unless people in the position which I have mentioned in Norfolk and no doubt elsewhere, are fortified by the procedure which is laid down in this Bill, this very cynical saying becomes quite true. I also think it illogical and absurd that the local catchment board should have to stand idly by, as they have to at present, and do nothing while damage is being done which ultimately will have to be made good at their expense, and therefore at the expense of the people who live in that part of England, where already the rates for those purposes are extremely high. I would submit to your Lordships that it is much better from every point of view to stop this damage occurring now, as can be done when this Bill becomes law, if a Board of Trade inquiry shows action to be necessary.
It was these considerations which caused Members of Parliament belonging to all Parties to band together about a year ago and try to improve the state of affairs which I have described. This Bill
1072
is the result of their labours. It had a very easy passage through another place, as your Lordships will agree who read the OFFICIAL REPORT, and such little opposition as there was was due not to hostility, but rather to misunderstanding of the Bill's real purposes. But at any rate it is true to say that there was no serious opposition at any stage. I therefore have no hesitation whatever in asking your Lordships to give this Bill your unqualified support this afternoon.
5.36 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends who sit on these Benches, I would like to associate them with support of this Bill. It was supported by them in another place. I happen to know of one case where a catchment board were involved in very serious difficulties owing to their inability to take the kind of proceedings which could be instituted if this Bill became law. The Bill is hedged about with all manner of safeguards, and I cannot imagine that anybody can entertain any misgivings that unfairness will arise.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I approve, as I think most of your Lordships do, the principles of the Bill, and I disapprove equally of the private owners or any other owners of the foreshore who take such action as causes coast erosion. I would like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to explain Clause 2, which contains savings of various sorts, and in particular subsection (3), which reads:
"Nothing in this Act or any order made thereunder shall take away, diminish, or prejudice any powers to construct and maintain sea defence works (including river embankments), conferred upon any person by any public, general, or local or private Act."
Although it may not seem credible to some noble Lords, there are private owners of foreshores who are good owners and spend a good deal of money upon sea defence works, and it seems to me that if the rights of those who have statutory power are to be saved, the rights of those who have no such statutory power but who are doing their best should also be saved. I should very much like to know from the noble Lord in his reply whether it is possible to insert anything at a later stage to save those rights.
5.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two in sup-

1073
port of this Bill, because I have a certain parental interest in it, having, I think, drafted the original Bill. It was such a good Bill that it was adopted by the Labour Government after we went out, but unfortunately they failed to carry it, and they failed to carry it, if my memory serves me, because they were a little too ambitious as to the amount of money which might have come out of the public purse. In this Bill there is not only no danger of any excessive charge being put on the Treasury, but of any charge at all being put on the Treasury, as I understand it. It is merely a Bill which, with very adequate safeguards, enables the Board of Trade in proper cases to prevent private property or public property being used in a way which will be of general damage to the country and to the coast. Merely to state that, I should have thought, was sufficient to command support. But I remember being very much impressed when, years ago, I was dealing with this at the Board of Trade, by the importance of giving the Board of Trade complete jurisdiction over the whole coast.
It very often happens that the incidence of tide is such that the excavation or removal of sand or shingle at one point may have very serious effects, not at that place but quite a long distance away, and it obviously would be a most improper thing that somebody should be able to take advantage of the law and to damnify many other people at a distance from him, and also to act against the public interest. There is only one way in which that can be prevented and that is to vest in the Board of Trade a general jurisdiction over the whole of the coast to prevent erosion. The Board of Trade is obviously the body in which this power ought to be vested. It is in a sense charged with the duty already, but it has never been vested with proper powers to discharge this duty. We ought to be grateful to my noble friend Lord Merthyr and those in another place who have devised this very practical means of vesting in the Board of Trade the powers to discharge this duty, and I hope the Bill will pass.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I just want to rise in support of this Bill and ask one question, and one only, and that is whether in the definition of "shore," in which I noticed my noble friend included the seashore, he includes
1074
such things as sandbanks which lie off the shore with a channel running between them and the mainland. They are often extremely important from the point of view of protection, and I urge that they should be included in the Bill if it can be done. I was not quite clear that they are included.
5.42 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I desire just to say a few words regarding the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards this Bill. I have to say that the Government are generally very much in favour of the principle underlying the Bill. The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading made a point which was made in a good deal more detail in another place. He asked about the intention of the Board of Trade in regard to rivers. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in another place gave a certain assurance, which I will repeat. It is not the intention of the Board of Trade to make orders applicable to rivers, and it is not thought to be likely that any order would in practice affect rivers. If there were serious removals of materials from a river, and those removals were not required to maintain the navigation of the river or for the maintenance of piers, embankments, etc., and were in fact causing coast erosion or the weakening of the embankment of the river, the Board would, of course, make a prohibitory order in that case. My noble friend who moved the Second Reading went on to say that he hoped the Board of Trade would be reasonable in administering this Bill when it becomes an Act. Of course the Board of Trade are always most reasonable, and I am sure they will not depart from their practice in this case. There may, on the Committee stage, be certain Amendments necessary in order to make this a more workable measure, but with that proviso I have to say again that the Government fully approve the principle of the Bill. They are grateful to my noble friend for bringing it in, and they hope it will pass speedily into law.
5.45 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords who have supported this Bill this afternoon. Two questions have been asked of me, and I shall do my best briefly to reply to

1075
them. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, asked, pointing to subsection (3) of Clause 2, if there was any similar protection for private individuals who might be spending money on sea defence work without having done so under Act of Parliament. I should like to draw the noble Earl's attention to subsection (9) of Clause 1, which says:
"Nothing in this section, or in any licence granted thereunder, shall affect the right of any person to prohibit, restrict or impose conditions as to the excavation, removal or other disturbance of any materials if he might have exercised that right if no order had been made under this section."
That is partly an answer to my noble friend. As I see it, there will be nothing whatever to prevent his continuing individually to spend money on coast defence. I might add this. I believe it is the case that a local authority can do nothing unless it is specifically empowered to do so by some Act of Parliament, whereas on the other hand an individual can legally do anything unless he is specifically forbidden to do it by some Act of Parliament. If that distinction is correct and is borne in mind, my noble friend will agree that a private individual, in the hypothetical case he has suggested, will be amply protected. If that answer is not satisfactory I shall be very glad to go further into the matter at a later stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, raised a point as to whether what may be called an off-lying sandbank is included in the definition "seashore." I would not like to be too definite about this, but I certainly think it is. The definition says that "seashore" means the bed and shore of the sea and so on, and "every channel, creek, bay, or estuary," and also any "bank, barrier, dune, beach," etc. If that definition includes these things on the mainland, it seems clear to me it will also include those same things on an island off the shore; even if the island consists only of one of these things, I should say pretty certainly that thing is included. Again, in case I should be wrong, I shall be glad to make certain of the point before the next stage of the Bill is completed. These were the two questions asked, and I hope I have answered them in a satisfactory manner.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CAMPS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
5.49 p.m.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I am told this is the right time to ask a question. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that in this Bill there is not one word to say who are going to occupy these camps. Though the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill explained at the beginning of his speech on Second Reading about the children and various other communities who would occupy them, there is nothing in the Bill specifying this. Under this Bill land will be compulsorily bought for these camps. It may be the camps will be very suitable for the children and not so suitable for a Regular regiment or a Territorial regiment to go into. There is nothing to stop these camps being let to anyone. There are a large number of communities in this country, many more than were mentioned in the debate on the Second Reading—communities of all sorts who may be allotted these camps. Is it the intention of the Government not to be more specific? There are the children and the people on holiday with pay, but you might have even circuses, nudists, and others in these camps. I would ask the noble Earl if it is the intention not to give any guidance or instruction to these companies as to who should occupy the camps.
5.50 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised quite an interesting point. It is clear that these camps are to be handed over to non-profit-making companies to use them for public purposes, and those for whom the camps are primarily designed in peace time are school children. They will be built on that basis, the sites will be chosen on that basis, and the buildings will be constructed on that basis. In the event of war it may be that it will be necessary to use them for other purposes. We know that they are specifically to be built for

1077
evacuation during war, but there are various types of person who may be evacuated. They may be school children generally, they may be adults, they may be sick children; and it may be that after a period of war the actual need for evacuation would decrease so that these camp buildings could be used for hospital purposes. It is really not known at present. I think the point the noble Lord raised is covered by the fact that there is to be an annual report to Parliament, and I think we can trust Parliament to raise the matter in the event of the camps being let to nudist clubs or for other purposes.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I think this is an appropriate moment to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether he can now give the name of the eminent town planner to whom he referred in the Second Reading debate, but whose name he was not at that time at liberty to mention.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think we received a reply yesterday from Professor Abercrombie, who is professor of town planning at London University.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to snake payments for promoting camps.
1.—(1) With a view to promoting the construction, maintenance and management of camps of a permanent character, payments may, with the consent of the Treasury, be made out of moneys provided by Parliament to each of two companies recognised for the purposes of this section, one for England and Wales and one for Scotland, being companies not trading for profit the objects of which include the construction, maintenance and management of such camps; and the companies so recognised are hereinafter referred to as recognised companies.
(2) The said companies shall be recognised, and such payments as aforesaid shall be made to them, by the appropriate Minister.
5.53 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) The directors of the said companies, and the directors who will act as chairmen, shall be appointed with the approval of the appropriate Minister."
The noble Lord said: I hope the Government
1078
will accept this Amendment or give some assurances on this point. In connection with the question with which my Amendment deals, I want to refer to the appointment of the Chairman of the English Camps Corporation as announced by the noble Earl on Second Reading; and, indeed, the name of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Portal, as Chairman, was also referred to in another place. I had intended to raise this matter on Second Reading, but the noble Lord, Lord Portal, was not able to be here, so I postponed it and I let him know I would raise it to-day and he has been good enough to come.
I want to say at the outset that the remarks I am going to make about the Chairmanship of the English Corporation contain no sort of reflection on the noble Lord; indeed I can do nothing but compliment him on his many and successful public offices. Any criticism that might be implied in my remarks is directed against His Majesty's Government for taking advantage of the public spirit and patriotism of the noble Lord, Lord Portal, and overwhelming him with positions of the utmost administrative importance. I do not think it is fair to the noble Lord, and indeed it is not fair to the Camps Corporation unless the noble Lord is prepared to throw up all his other very important offices. Your Lordships will be aware that the English Corporation will have the responsibility of establishing, managing and looking after forty-three camps to accommodate more than 200,000 children or other persons. We had some weighty remarks from the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Winchester on Second Reading, when he pointed out—and I think all your Lordships agreed with the fact—that the management of these forty-three camps scattered all over the country was of the utmost importance, and that it was necessary to get the right people who understood the work they had to do, and that they should have certain qualities. It seems to me that whoever takes over the responsibility of Chairman of this Camps Corporation will have a very onerous and responsible task.
It is of course also true that there will be a managing director and his name has been furnished to the House. A retired official of the Board of Education, a very distinguished civil servant, Sir Edward Howarth, will be managing director, but the Chairman will obviously—and I am

1079
sure the noble Lord opposite, Lord Portal, will agree—have very great responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Portal, has been chosen for this important and responsible position and already he has many other great responsibilities. I am sure he will not at all mind if I mention them in the House. They are available in books of reference, and indeed quite apart from books of reference the noble Lord's activities have been well known and have commended themselves, I am sure, to a very large section of the public and to your Lordships. Lord Portal occupies a very high position in the industrial life of the country. He is Chairman of Wiggins Teape, as we all know, which has an issued capital of over £3,000,000, and I see made trading profits of about £500,000 over a series of years. In addition to that the noble Lord has twelve other directorships, including three chairmanships, and amongst these directorships are the Great Western Railway, the Commercial Union Assurance, Internal Combustion and many other concerns.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: Will the noble Lord pardon me? Has this got anything to do with the case? With all respect I do not think it has.
LORD STRABOLGI: I will tell the noble Earl at once what it has to do with the case, but first of all let me deal with the laughter that occurred when I spoke about Internal Combustion. It is a very great engineering concern and a very large company.
LORD PORTAL: It is International Combustion, not Internal Combustion.
LORD STRABOLGI: I was thinking of the internal combustion engine, which was perhaps natural. But with regard to what has fallen from the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, what I have said has a great deal of relevance to this Amendment, because if the Chairman of the Camps Corporation has all these other interests it is either unfair to him or it is unfair to the Corporation. He either has to neglect all these other responsibilities or neglect the Camps Corporation, for from what I know of Lord Portal and what your Lordships know of Lord Portal, he will allow me to say, I am sure, that he will not neglect the Camps Corporation. I think it is unfair to him to put this
1080
additional burden upon him. The noble Lord also has or had very large interests in the film industry, and I am sure he has done a great deal to help the production of British films. He has many other very solid commercial interests. He is or was Chairman of the Bacon Development Board since 1935, and he is, I believe, still Chairman of the Special Areas Reconstruction Association, Limited. He has been, or is still for all I know, a trustee of Lord Nuffield's scheme for assistance to the Special Areas.
Now these are very large responsibilities, but I go further and say that the noble Lord, Lord Portal, is also one of the Regional Commissioners Designate in case of war, and in the event of war, when these camps will presumably be needed according to the Government scheme for evacuation purposes, the noble Lord will have a most onerous and important duty to perform as a Regional Commissioner. Yet the Government have imposed upon his sense of public duty and asked him to undertake the Chairmanship of this important Corporation, to see it through its growing pains, to administer £1,000,000 or so of public money, to see to the smooth running of the camps, the importance of which was stressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester on Second Reading. I must say I think that is putting too much on the noble Lord. These remarks could hardly have been made in another place. They had to be made here in fairness to the noble Lord, and after a good deal of thought I considered it my duty to ventilate this matter. I have had a very courteous letter from the noble Lord informing me that he is satisfied that he can give the necessary time to these duties. I am sure he can, and I am sure he will. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Portal, would not have accepted the post otherwise But he must make sacrifices in other directions and I do not think the Government are treating him quite fairly. That is the real reason why I have placed this Amendment on the paper.
The Amendment, your Lordships will see, reads:
"The directors of the said companies, and the directors who will act as chairmen, shall be appointed with the approval of the appropriate Minister."
I imagine that in practice that would be the case, but I think it ought to be laid down clearly in the Bill. In this par

1081
ticular instance of the Chairman of the English Company, who will have a very complicated and difficult task, I think the Government have not been quite fair. With the renewed assurance that I am making no sort of reflection on the noble Lord, Lord Portal—what I have said was complimentary, or was certainly meant to be—I think that some reply is called for from the Government. This matter also raises the rather wider issue of the appointments the Government must make to various corporations which under the kind of hybrid socialism which actuates the Government's present policy are continually being set up. Again and again, semipublic corporations are being established by Government Bills, in connection with the various reorganisations of agriculture and so on. I do not want to go into that wider question now, but these appointments are of direct concern to Parliament and I think it is necessary to show the Government that Parliament means to keep an eye on such appointments—I am not referring to any particular appointment, but to the broad principle—and that we will hold the Government responsible for making the best appointments and for appointing gentlemen able, without undue sacrifice, to give the time to their important duties.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
EARL DE LA WARR: We have listened to a speech which could only have been justified, if the noble Lord had in fact been launching an attack on the noble Lord, Lord Portal, for taking on work he was unable to do. I happen to know that the noble Lord, Lord Portal, has already himself inspected no fewer than 28 camps. Knowing that the Government were anxious to get on with this work he actually did some of it during days which everyone else regarded as part of the Easter holiday. If the noble Lord's remarks were not in any sense meant as an attack, I can only feel that they were a piece of rather irrelevant bad taste delivered to one who is prepared to give a great deal of his time to the public service. With regard to the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved, I am afraid the Government cannot accept it, but there will be an agreement drawn up between the Government and the Corporation and in that agreement will be
1082
inserted a provision that all new directors shall be appointed with the approval of the Minister.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Assuming we were to carry the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, would not the only effect be that the appropriate Minister would appoint the appropriate person? The appropriate Minister has already appointed the person whom most of your Lordships certainly would consider as the most appropriate person for the job.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Earl has already acceded to part of my request—namely, that these appointments will be made with the approval of the Minister, although that is not actually stated in the Bill. I accept that at once. The noble Earl spoke of appointments in the future, but I take it that it also applies to present appointments.
EARL DE LA WARR: All the existing appointments have been made by the Minister, and in future directors will be appointed in agreement with the Minister.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before I withdraw the Amendment, which I do not think it is necessary to press, I must make one comment on what has fallen from the noble Earl. I do not mind in the least what he said about good and bad taste—he can have his own opinion about that—but this has been an occasion when owing to the eminence and public spirit of the noble Lord, Lord Portal, it has been possible to question a Government appointment of this sort in your Lordships' House. I hope I have created a precedent that will be followed in the future. I have only just touched on the broad question. It has been easy, and indeed pleasant in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Portal, because I have been able to say what I know your Lordships would wish said about him and his public spirit. It is important because in future it may be necessary to criticise Government appointments. It will be a very bad day if there is a sort of conspiracy of silence in Parliament—if it is to be thought that this sort of thing is taboo, that it is bad taste, that it is not done, that it is not playing the game, that it is not cricket and all that sort of nonsense, and that we are not to speak out on what we think is necessary to be said in the public interest. Whatever may be the noble Earl's view on good or bad taste really does not affect the prin-

1083
ciple which I have endeavoured to uphold. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Exemption from building restrictions.
(2) No provision contained in a scheme made under the Town Planning Act, 1925, or the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, or any enactment repealed by either of those Acts, shall apply to any land acquired, or appropriated, with the approval of the Minister by a recognised company for the purposes of their functions in connection with the construction, maintenance and management of camps, except in so far as the Minister may at any time direct:
Provided that this subsection shall cease to have effect when such land ceases to be used for such purposes.
6.8 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: I should like to begin by telling your Lordships that my noble friend the Marquess of Aberdeen, whose name appears with my own and that of my noble friend Lord Phillimore on the Amendment paper, very much regrets that public duty in another part of the country prevents his being here to-day. I am sure your Lordships will also regret the absence of the noble Marquess, because he is a recognised authority on town planning. The support he would have given to the Amendment would, I am sure, have carried very great weight in your Lordships' House. This clause which I am seeking to amend has three subsections. The first subsection exempts the Camps Corporation from building restrictions, and the second from town planning provisions, while the third substitutes other arrangements which I think are intended to take the place of those regulations from which the Corporation is exempted under subsections (1) and (2). The noble Earl in charge of the Bill did offer what might be called an apology to your Lordships for the provisions in the Bill, but I venture to say there is need for a good deal more explanation than the noble Earl gave.
With regard to subsection (1), which overrides the restrictions and building bylaws of the local authority, I think that
1084
something may be said for that in this particular case. The machinery is lengthy and would undoubtedly involve delay, and also I think there is a wider question because the construction of these camps may very probably mean that we shall have to break new ground. It may well be that local building by-laws are not wholly appropriate. Sometimes, I know, they do work in rather irksome ways, and therefore I have not sought to amend that subsection. But when we come to subsection (2), by which this Corporation will be put above the town-planning laws, then I think it is time for your Lordships to take a stand. We did discuss this matter to a certain extent on the Second Reading, and the impression left on my mind by that discussion made it seem more necessary than ever that this Amendment should be passed by your Lordships.
Town planning has been going on for a number of years. A great many devoted people have been spending a large amount of time on that subject and have done extremely valuable work. It seems to me quite inadmissible to have a Government Department coming along and saying that all that work is to be scrapped, and that this Corporation is to be above the law, however eminent and admirable the people are who are going to conduct it. I should like in passing to congratulate the Government on having secured Professor Abercrombie as the town planning expert of the Corporation. You could not have a better man, but neither he nor the noble Lord, Lord Portal, in praise of whom I am delighted to associate myself with what has already been said, will be there for ever, and it is really a startling proposition that this Corporation should be put above the law, and particularly above this town-planning law, with which its operations are so intimately concerned. They are going to go all over the country choosing sites, and not only are they to be above the law, but this provision will insulate them from all the existing knowledge which has been gained, stored and tabulated.
The noble Earl in charge of the Bill sought to justify subsection (2) by pointing to subsection (3), and he gave a pledge that the recognised company will consult the planning authorities not only about the camps to be chosen in the future, but also about the twenty-five

1085
camps which have already been established. Now, if the noble Earl is going to say that my Amendment is too sweeping, I should like him to consider between now and tare next stage of the Bill whether he would agree to an Amendment of subsection (3) which would only give effect to the pledge which he has already given. Subsection (3) refers to plans and specifications. If subsection (3) also refers to the siting, then I think the noble Earl's defence will be good. I hope, of course, that he is going to accept my Amendment, but if he is not, then I would ask him to consider whether he would agree at a future stage of the Bill to put in some such words in subsection (3) as would carryout the pledge which he has already given. The words which I suggest—and they are only suggested on the spur of the moment and would require considering—would be, in line 20, after "representations," to insert "as to the suitability of the site or otherwise." That will mean that the Camps Corporation will submit its proposals to the Minister, and the Minister will consult with the planning authority not only about the specification but also about the site. That is precisely what the noble Earl promised would in fact take place, and I do not think, therefore, that there is any valid reason for refusing it. I have said that in rather sad anticipation of the noble Earl's refusal to accept the Amendment; nevertheless for the moment I think the right course is to omit this subsection altogether, and I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: I think that not all your Lordships are familiar with the way in which these town-planning schemes are erected and pieced together. In this ancient House I expect many noble Lords are more familiar with the last preceding survey of the countryside of England, which was taken in 1066 or thereabouts. I expect many noble Lords are more familiar with the provisions of Doomsday Book than they are with the scheme set up in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932. That Act has covered all the ground that Doomsday Book covered in the reign of William the Conquerer, acre by acre, holding by holding, and, where the scheme is complete, a com-
1086
plete scheme of zoning for specific uses has been carried out. Let me explain this scheme for the moment, as it is of the first importance, if you are going to destroy this scheme, that you should understand how it works. Assume that this Chamber is an area of land and that it is in the possession of various owners. Then the seat on my right might be developable by the owner at ten or eight to the acre; these other seats at five to the acre; the Liberal Bench at possibly one to the acre, and the Labour Benches as a private open space.
LORD STRABOLGI: Common land, you mean, do you not?
LORD PHILLIMORE: That agreement would have been reached by a lot of difficult and complicated negotiations entered into with various private owners, and the Labour Party might well have said—assuming that it is for the moment an owner—"I undertake that this land shall be a private open space on condition that the land next me is only developed at one to the acre. If that is agreed, I will not ask for compensation for being estopped from using my land for that purpose for which I had intended to use it. If, on the other hand, you are going to build all round me, I am going to demand compensation for keeping this land as a private open space." Now into that intricate structure you insert these fifty camps, which as a matter of fact will nearly all be placed in planned areas, and you exempt those camps from any of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act. In other words, you stand the risk of destroying the whole of that structure which has been so carefully erected.
From the local administration point of view, that is not only a slap in the face for the people who have worked ten years at this survey and the accompanying scheme; it not only destroys what has been worked out with a view to the proper use of land for the whole neighbourhood, but it also deprives the camp people themselves of the best thing they have. Indeed, it is remarkable that in the other place the Minister of Health, when heckled as to what he would do for the amenities surrounding the camps on land which the camp people did not buy themselves, said that for that purpose he would rely on the Town Planning Acts. In other words, he relied on this very

1087
structure which you are going to destroy by inserting this provision in the Bill; and you are thereby not only neglecting the local authorities' knowledge and their consideration of the problem for many years, but you are actually making it more difficult to fit in the camps themselves on the lands that the camp people most wish to have.
There can be no really valid reason why this subsection should be allowed to stand. I believe the noble Earl who speaks for the Government will put forward the question of urgency. In other words, he will say to your Lordships that it is quicker to let Whitehall do their damnedest and pick any site they require without consulting those who know, than to consult those who know and so to fit into the existing scheme. To try to make out that we are living under a system of Martial Law when these extra legal measures are required, is to exaggerate the present situation, and I do not believe that in reality this cutting out of the local authorities will conduce either to a happy or quick solution of these matters. Unless the noble Earl can see his way to meet us we shall throw the subsection out of the Bill.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: I am entirely in favour of the principle of this Bill. Noble Lords who have spoken have covered all the points, but I could not sit in my seat, as a county councillor, and tacitly agree to the overriding of the county council planning committees by these companies or the Ministry. It is perfectly evident that counties which pride themselves on the layout of their planning committees over a series of years are to find themselves overridden in this matter. Lord Balfour has suggested that certain words should be inserted, and of course that would meet the case very largely. I do hope that the noble Earl will see his way to do something of that kind, otherwise I hope that the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment will go to a Division. If he does I shall support him.
LORD MERTHYR: May I say a few words in support of the Amendment? I speak as a member of a planning authority which has suffered severely from this very thing in the past. In the area to which I refer we have suffered from the activities of no fewer than four Government Departments—namely, the
1088
Air Force, the War Office, the Admiralty and the Board of Education, all of whom have put up buildings and developed land with a magnificent indifference to the existence of any planning authority at all. It is quite true, and only fair, to say that in response to several requests we have had some consultations of a friendly nature with representatives of these authorities, but we have always been aware of the fact that we have no powers over them at all, and that whatever we say their action will probably be the same. It is perhaps just as well to think of what would happen if the principle of Government control in all these matters were in the future so extended that everything was under one Government Department or another.
Would it then be the fact that all the Government Departments would go round the country acting entirely without taking any account of the existence of the Ministry of Health, which is the chief planning department? I know that the Planning Department is banished from Whitehall, and situated in the Strand, and it appears indeed that those who work in Whitehall do not admit of the existence of such a street. Really it is so expensive, the continuance of these separated and distinct departments, working apparently in entire ignorance of the existence of one another, that I do, speaking from some experience in this matter, strongly support this Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: Not only is this a very important question, but I think it is quite obvious that many of your Lordships feel extremely strongly about it, and it is notable, too, that the points which have been put before your Lordships have been put forward by noble Lords who are anxious that the scheme should go through, and who are supporters, and strong supporters, of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, has suggested an alternative to his Amendment, and I must confess that that is a suggestion that at one time attracted me. I think the noble Lord said that I suggested such a thing in my Second Reading speech. He will forgive me if I correct him. I did not give a pledge, because I see that the words with which we ended that discussion were these. I said: "Well, that is a point in regard to which I would like to give an answer to the noble Lord on a future occasion."
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I clear up the matter? We were talking about the planning authorities, and I said:
"Does that mean in future, when this body is a corporate body, that they will consult the local authorities in advance?"
The noble Earl said, categorically:
"Definitely, and it means also, with regard to the sites that have been surveyed as a preliminary, that there will naturally be a proper form of consultation."
That is a definite pledge that consultation will take place. And I hope the noble Earl is not going to back down on it now.
EARL DE LA WARR: That was based on what I truly confess was not an accurate reading of the Bill, and Lord Phillimore put me right, and I said I would like to discuss that point on a future occasion, to clear the matter up.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I do not want to interrupt the noble Earl, but that point also should be cleared up. The question I asked was:
"Will that formal consultation, which will naturally come, refer to the sites themselves?—because that is a point at issue."
To that the noble Earl replied:
"Oh yes, I think that is made clear, surely."
EARL DE LA WARR: To which the noble Lord replied: "No." And it turned out, on more careful reading of the clause, that Lord Phillimore was right. I accepted his correction and said I would like to discuss the matter on a future occasion. But the point is this, that there have been and will continue to be discussions of an informal character with the local officers, and with the authorities themselves. The Ministry of Health Planning Officers, who naturally advise my right honourable friend, in fact know the planning schemes which are in existence, because they have all been before them, and Professor Abercrombie, who is a member of the Corporation, is perhaps responsible for drawing up more schemes than any single individual. Therefore we have felt that it was not only desirable, but possible, to proceed on this informal basis, and if so, we should do it more quickly.
Now Lord Phillimore suggests that it is possible to exaggerate the urgency of the need for camps. It is quite possible to exaggerate the urgency of any of our war preparations. It might be possible
1090
on that basis to say that the international situation is not very serious, and we do not actually need the National Service Bill. Certainly the position must be extremely serious if it is necessary to take the steps that we are doing in regard to defence. I do suggest to your Lordships that this question of evacuation is one of the most urgent matters that we have before us, and I base this plea of mine to your Lordships, not to press this Amendment, on the point of urgency.
Your Lordships might say: "Well, you have a programme of fifty camps in front of you, but all along this has been talked of as an experiment, and therefore presumably as a scheme which in some form or another is going to be continued beyond that programme." I am quite prepared to ask my right honourable friend—I have already had a preliminary discussion on this point—to allow me at a later stage of the Bill to insert an Amendment that the provisions of subsection (2) of Clause 3 shall in fact only operate for land that is purchased within the next twelve months, and if any further camps are to be erected under this Bill, then they shall all proceed on the normal procedure. Your Lordships might say: "Well, is not that illogical? Cannot you do that with regard to the first fifty?" But it is not illogical, because it means that if that is inserted now we have plenty of warning ahead of us. We have ample time for surveying the sites well ahead of the time when they are needed, and then there will be time to get into touch with all the planning authorities and put the scheme through on what is admittedly a much slower basis. I suggest to the noble Lord, who, I know, is anxious to help the passage of this Bill, as a precaution and as a guarantee, that we will simply be dealing with this first batch of camps on the basis of emergency.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I should like to refer once more to the question of land for which money has been paid. In Sussex we have spent upwards of £80,000 on preservation, and in addition landowners have sacrificed a great deal of building land to put it into these areas for preservation. All this has been done with the enthusiastic approval of the Ministry of Health. This clause makes it perfectly legal for the Minister to authorise camps to be put anywhere on that area, and indeed, as far as I can see, anywhere on

1091
the Green Belt, or on land belonging to the National Trust. My noble friend in charge of the Bill said on Second Reading that we were going to have all the ordinary safeguards of town planning, but without the red tape. I submit that under the ordinary law of town planning the Minister has no power to override schemes which have been completed and confirmed, or agreements which have been sanctioned by himself and become operative. The clause does in fact go a great deal further. As against that, the noble Earl has put the plea of urgency, and I quite agree that it is a very urgent matter.
The Minister in another place has virtually said that if we put our trust in him he will safeguard our town planning interests himself. It may be that I have so recently severed my connection with the Ministry of Health that I am still under the glamour of that institution. But I do regard that promise as a somewhat valuable promise. Quite frankly, I believe we stand in much greater danger from other Departments than from the Ministry of Health. After all, the Minister is the Minister for town planning as well as the Minister of Health, and if he himself throws overboard all the efforts that have been made, well, town planning will inevitably come to an end, because other Departments are not so much interested in that side of the question. It seems to me that if the Minister of Health is himself prepared to accept a certain degree of personal responsibility for those areas on which so much time and money have been spent, if I may use the language of the day I feel that the collective front against the totalitarian methods of those other Departments might be stronger than if we relied on other measures which I feel may very easily be upset in time of emergency. If my noble friend is able to give assurances on two points I shall be able to support the Bill as it stands. The first is in regard to whether the local authorities can make representations about location, as well as in regard to the plans and elevations of the camp. I shall be a little surprised if some assurance on that point cannot be given. The second is whether he can give us any particular reassurance about those districts where completed schemes are already in operation, and in regard to which large sums of money have
1092
already been spent, in contrast to those areas where town planning is in a much more nebulous condition.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I make an appeal to my noble friend who is in charge of this Bill? I should have thought that both this point of urgency and the point which has been put with great cogency by my noble friends, that the whole of the town planning should not be set aside, could perfectly well be met and reconciled. It is not only Government Departments which can act, if necessary, with expedition. Town planning authorities can act with equal expedition, and it surely would be quite possible to follow the precedent which he himself has set in subsection (3). Plans have to be submitted to all the local authorities. They have only got fourteen days, and they have to give notice of any objections within fourteen days. Let him take a shorter period. I quite accept the argument of urgency. Certainly local authorities are not less dilatory than Government Departments on many occasions, but there have been occasions when local authorities have complained of dilatoriness by Government Departments, and sometimes with good reason. But let the Minister set any time limit he pleases, say seven days, within which the town-planning authority has to state its objections. Then the town-planning authorities within seven days, or even less if he so desires, could be perfectly well seised of the point of urgency. If there is no objection to the site they will notify that fact, not within seven days but within twenty-four hours.
I believe that in this case, the noble Earl will make more speed as well as get more good will out of the local authorities if he carries them with him. He certainly gave a very definite pledge before. I am not going to say whether he had read the Bill wrong, and Lord Phillimore read it aright, but what he did say on the last occasion was that there would be consultation with the local authorities. Now he says he made a mistake and he was not authorised to say that there would be consultation with the local authorities. I very much hope that he was right on the last occasion, and that there will be urgent consultation with the local authorities, with a time limit of anything he likes to ask for—seven days, or three days if he will. In that way it would be perfectly possible to reconcile

1093
the very strong case which the town-planning authorities have put forward through their spokesmen here and the very reasonable claim of the Government for urgent and rapid action. I am perfectly certain it is quite easy to reconcile those two considerations, and I very much hope that my noble friend will do so.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: There is one point on which we shall be glad to have a reply from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. It has just been put, but I should like to put it again. What is the position of land belonging to the National Trust? The National Trust, as noble Lords are aware, owns some thousands of acres of land in this country which have been given to it or been bought by the National Trust out of money subscribed by those who are anxious to see England preserved in much the same state as that in which it is now. Will this Company, backed by the Ministry of Health, be able to acquire sites and build camps on land given to the National Trust or purchased by the National Trust for the use of the public? Some provision or other ought to be inserted in the Bill to safeguard against that. After all, the National Trust hold the land on behalf of the public, to whom it is open for ever, and it would be a thousand pities if camps were to be established on this land which is supposed to be open to the public for ever. The effect might be to exclude them for ever, because we may fairly reckon that, once these camps have been established, there is every probability they will remain, at any rate, for a considerable number of years.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I should like in a word to support the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. Listening to this debate with an open mind, it has seemed to me, and perhaps to other noble Lords, that there are valid arguments on both sides. On the one hand, there is grave objection to allowing these companies to ignore altogether the town-planning authorities, and to schemes being put through that might be inconsistent with schemes already formulated. On the other hand, it is true to say that this is a matter of urgency, that the town-planning procedure is often very slow, and that these companies cannot be expected to wait for weeks or months until various authorities have been consulted, notices
1094
given, and inquiries held. If it were possible to insert a special subsection in the Bill to expedite town-planning procedure for this particular purpose, and perhaps overrule periods of notices which would otherwise be required and inquiries which would otherwise be held, that would very probably reconcile the two contending parties and meet the desires of many noble Lords.
EARL DE LA WARR: Perhaps I might just deal with one or two points. First of all there was the proposal of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. It has always been said that a poacher makes a very good gamekeeper. I am not sure what reply the noble Viscount would have made to this particular proposal when he was at the Air Ministry. I do not think the countryside has suffered from any Government Department quite so much as it has suffered from the Air Ministry.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I brought in Professor Abercrombie.
EARL DE LA WARR: So has the Minister of Health. I was going to make the point. What was the procedure of the Air Ministry? It was to bring in Professor Abercrombie, and, acting on the very excellent precedent laid down by the noble Viscount, we have gone further than consulting with Professor Abercrombie—we have asked him to come on the managerial Corporation. However, I admit that is nothing more than a debating point affecting the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. Another point I might make is that it is unfair to suggest that no consultation is to take place. I have made it clear that consultation on an informal basis has in fact taken place, and we intend it to take place. There is nothing whatever to prevent local authorities—to turn to a point raised by Lord Gage—making representations to the Minister on any subject, and certainly not on this one. On the point also raised by Lord Gage that a specific undertaking should be given with regard to lands such as that to which he referred in Sussex and the South Downs, and also with regard to other areas such as the Green Belt mentioned in another place, I can give to the noble Viscount a definite undertaking. My right honourable friend the Minister of Health has already dealt with that point in another place, and I repeat his undertaking.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Will that include other public open spaces besides the Downs, or other private open spaces?
EARL DE LA WARR: I would not like to go into the exact interpretation of that point, but the undertaking of my right honourable friend in another place was very specific on the point. With regard to property owned by the National Trust, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, referred, there is in Clause 7 (c) on page 7 a provision relating to Scotland affecting "any land which is the site of an ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest," and it goes on to deal with the specific point the noble Viscount raised. With regard to England the same point is dealt with in another, rather more obscure part of the Bill, but I understand it is definitely included in Clause 2, subsection (2). I do not believe for a moment that the points I have made are going to satisfy the very strong feelings your Lordships have expressed on this matter, and therefore it would perhaps be for the convenience of the Committee if I at once said I am prepared to discuss this point further with my right honourable friend the Minister of Health, the matter being of course open on the Report stage if I am not able to satisfy your Lordships.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I should like to point out that if we do not make any Amendment of the Bill on this stage there will be no Report stage.
EARL DE LA WARR: There will be the Third Reading.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I feel that very strong opinions have been expressed from all quarters of your Lordships' House, and the right course in the circumstances would be to put the Amendment into the Bill as an earnest of good intentions on the part of the noble Earl. It is quite clear that he has got to give us this consultation with the planning authorities. None of the arguments he used against it really bear examination. We know now that it will not involve delay, and we are prepared to accept any minimum number of days. The period of fourteen days has already been put in for the specifications. I would remind your Lordships of the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Swinton. The alternative which he put forward is the alternative
1096
I mentioned when I moved my Amendment. The noble Earl now says that discussions of an informal character are going on. Last lime he told us that the matter had never been mentioned to the local authorities. He said it could not be mentioned because the Corporation was not in existence. He said:
"The reason why local authorities have not yet been consulted … is that they could not be consulted by a body that at present is not in existence."
The noble Earl says one thing one week and another thing the next, and gives us pledges which he says were mistakes and refers to undertakings given in another place.
How do we know that the Minister in another place had read the Bill any more than the noble Earl? We may be told that that undertaking is not valid. Undertakings by a Minister in the Houses of Parliament are no use at all. It is the text of the Bill that counts. That is what will have to go to the Courts, and I am quite satisfied that the Minister of Health and the noble Earl will, on reconsideration, see that the request we have made—to put in the Bill that there shall be consultation about sites—is reasonable and right. The noble Earl has said he will consult the Minister. I am sure he will do so, and I am hopeful that the result of that consultation will be satisfactory. Meantime let us put the Amendment in now, and make sure. The noble Earl can quite well put the subsection back again in a modified form at the next stage. That has this great advantage. By carrying an Amendment to-day we then get a Report stage. That gives us an additional stage. I do not like to let the matter go to the Third Reading. Therefore I hope, in all the circumstances and on reconsideration the noble Earl will accept the Amendment. We shall then have a Report stage and we can have the whole matter thrashed out then.
EARL DE LA WARR: I certainly could not accept the Amendment, and if the noble Lord likes to insist upon it being inserted at the present moment he can do so, but it must be on the basis of complete freedom on the part of His Majesty's Government to move its rejection on another stage.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My noble friend does not insist on striking out this sub-
1097
section(2). He would be quite satisfied with the proposal, which indeed he himself made as an alternative and which seems to me to meet both the Government case and the town-planning case, that appropriate words should be drafted as an Amendment to ensure that there should be consultation with the town-planning authorities about sites, but that there should be the minimum of time—a time limit and the strictest time limit you like. I would suggest that we do not really want to strike out subsection (2). Let it stand as it is in the Bill. It is always difficult to deal with an Amendment which we have not seen, one indeed which has not been drafted, and I would suggest to my noble friend that if possible there should be an agreed Amendment settled between the Minister and himself, which the Minister would then put down upon Third Reading. But if there is no agreement, then I would suggest to my noble friend Lord Balfour that he should draft an Amendment in the sense which he has put to the Committee, and which I think has commanded the support of practically the whole of your Lordships, that there should be consultation but that there should be a strict time limit. Then I think your Lordships would really have the opportunity on Third Reading of considering, and I hope deciding, what I believe the vast majority of the House would wish to decide.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: If the noble Earl will tell me he accepts the principle of consultation with the local authorities on this question of the suitability of the sites, then I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am really not in a position to accept anything at the present moment. What is a perfectly reasonable proposal is, I should say, the one made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton—namely, that the noble Lord should insert his suggestion in Clause 3, subsection (3). I quite recognise that the majority of the Committee thought that should be done, and I did not in any way oppose it, but I cannot be taken at a moment to accept something that is concerned with the head of another Department.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Will my noble friend give this undertaking? I appreciate that he is not the Minister responsible for administering this Bill, but, on the other hand, he has said, and said quite truly, that the whole sense of the Committee is in favour of an Amendment on the lines which I have suggested. Now it is not very easy for my noble friend to draft an Amendment which will be satisfactory. Will the noble Earl give this undertaking, that whatever Government Department is in fact responsible for the drafting and the administration of this Bill will agree with my noble friend on what are the appropriate terms of such an Amendment, and then, if the Government are prepared to support that amendment, let it be put down in the name of my noble friend? But if the Government wish to resist what is clearly the very strong feeling of the Committee and will not support the Amendment, then at any rate let us have an Amendment which, with the assistance of appropriate draftsmen, carries out what certainly is the desire of the vast majority of your Lordships and let that be put down in my noble friend's name. But after this debate I really hope my noble friend will be in a position to put it down as a Government Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the noble Viscount has made a very reasonable suggestion, which I quite willingly accept. We want to be quite clear. I take it that there is to be an effort to draft an agreed Amendment. If it is possible to agree on the terms of that Amendment it is to be put down in the name of His Majesty's Government; if there is not agreement then it is to be put down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: On that understanding I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock.