HL Deb 20 February 1940 vol 115 cc560-4

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Power of appropriate Minister to extend time.

1.—(1) Where, by or by virtue of provisions regulating the discharge or exercise of a duty or power to which this Act applies, a time is limited or a date is fixed within or at which the duty is to be discharged, or the power may be exercised, or an exercise of the power is to take effect, those provisions may be modified as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section…

(2) An order made under this Act may provide for the extension of any time limited as aforesaid by any period not longer than three years, for the postponement of a date fixed as aforesaid in relation to the discharge of a duty by not more than three years, or for enabling a power to be exercised, or the exercise of a power to take effect, at any date not more than three years later than a date fixed as aforesaid in relation thereto: Provided that no such order shall contain any provision that would have the effect of reducing the length of any period of notice required to be given in relation to the discharge of a duty or the exercise of a power.

3.39 p.m.

LORD SNELL moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "three years" and insert "one year." The noble Lord said: When this Bill was before the House for a Second Reading, I ventured to suggest that in regard to Clause 1 there were some difficulties which we should like the Government to explain; and I have put down this Amendment, and the two that follow it, rather for an exploratory purpose than as a direct criticism. The clause provides that there may be postponed for three years certain undertakings that it is found inconvenient to deal with at the present time. My noble friends and myself are very concerned indeed as to what the state of the unemployed will be immediately after the war. Judging by past experience we may anticipate an enormous influx of people on the unemployed market, and it is of the very greatest importance that every step should be taken to absorb them into employment as quickly as possible.

In regard to this clause, we fear that, either from lack of preparation for that emergency or perhaps because of the increase in the cost of raw materials, local authorities and other people will be tempted to wait for the maximum period of three years rather than face slightly increased costs of raw material and so on, to the great disadvantage of the unemployed people; and we feel that it is highly important that contractors and local authorities should be encouraged, or even pressed by the Government, to get their work into operation as quickly as possible. We also fear that if this is not made clear in the Statute itself, a general promise made in Parliament about the matter may be overlooked. I repeat, I am not moving this Amendment with my mind made up upon the matter, but rather putting before your Lordships our anxiety respecting a state of things that may occur, and I and my noble friend will wait to hear what explanation or consolation we may get from His Majesty's Government on this point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 20, leave out ("three years") and insert ("one year").—(Lord Snell.)

3.43 p.m.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

I am very glad that the noble Lord has put down this Amendment because, after what he said on the Second Reading, I could see there was uneasiness in his mind and in the minds of others of your Lordships about the effect of the Bill, and also because it enables me to assure the House that His Majesty's Government are no less concerned than the noble Lord with the possibilities of the unemployment position after the war. I am to say that this point will be very carefully considered in any instructions which may be issued to the Departments in connection with this measure when, as we hope, it shortly becomes law. At the same time I am bound to point out that the fact that a public authority have another three years, instead of one year, within which they may carry out works, will not of itself give the authority any incentive to postpone the works till the last moment, with all the risk that they may then have to seek a further extension of time, not by means of an order under this Bill (which may then be no longer in operation) but by the far more expensive pro- cedure of Private Bill legislation. On the other hand, one cannot wholly exclude the possibility that an authority may abandon entirely some authorised scheme of works, if they can count upon an extension of time of one year only.

In drafting this Bill we were considering not merely the present phase of the war, but the position which might arise after heavy aerial attacks, which fortunately have not occurred; and there may be many cases in which it will be abundantly clear at the outset that an extension of time by one year will not suffice. The effect of the Amendments on the Paper, if they are carried, will be that the authority can look forward with assurance for but one year ahead, and will in a second, and perhaps in a third, year be put to the risks of further applications and to the expense of publishing and giving notices under Clause 2 (3) of the Bill, while the appropriate Minister may have to issue successive Gazette notices under Clause 2 (5) and possibly to hold a succession of local inquiries under Clause 2 (3). We are anxious that this Bill should be an agreed Bill, and we do not care about the Amendment of the noble Lord. I hope after the explanation I have given that my noble friend may see fit to withdraw the Amendment.

3.46 p.m.

LORD MANCROFT

I am very glad the noble Lord opposite, Lord Snell, has raised this question. I do not propose to offer any objection to the Bill itself, but the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, only a week or two ago, raised the same question and expressed fears that the Government had not set up a Committee or Conference to think forward and for the next two years at least, so that when men come back from the war they may find work awaiting them. A large number of men will be thrown out of employment in the shipyards, probably in the coal industry, probably in the munition works, at the end of hostilities, and if this Bill does anything to make it more difficult for work to be found for those men it will be very much to be regretted. This gives an opportunity for some of us who are directly connected with industry to ask the Government—although perhaps it may not be in order that I should raise this point now—whether they are setting themselves to prepare schemes with which to find work for demobilised men. I was on a Committee of the Reconstruction Ministry under the noble Lord, Lord Addison, twenty or so years ago and we made a hopeless hash of it. Men came back from the war and there was no work for them. I came to the conclusion that after setting up a Committee on that occasion, it took at least two years to get any new scheme working. I am glad, therefore, that the noble Lord opposite has raised this question, so that we may stimulate the Government into thinking that the time has now arrived and the opportunity should not be put off till the last moment to meet in a hurry the objections to which the noble Lord, Lord Snell, has given voice.

3.48 p.m.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I did not quite realise the purport of this Bill, otherwise I should have given notice to my noble friend below me of a point which is relevant and which interests me very much. When war broke out, there were many schemes pending of civic development and town and country planning all over the country. They were stopped, and the schemes are now in suspense. The Royal Fine Art Commission, of which I am a member, had to deal with some of these problems in their pending and normally current responsibilities, and a short time after the war began we wrote to relevant Departments asking if the schemes could be brought to maturity and then put into suspense until a fitting time came to put them into effect. But we cannot get an answer from the Ministry of Health and I think I am justified, therefore, in placing this matter before my noble friend below me.

I will give a little example. A great town is preparing a central scheme of development for its own civic and municipal extension, for its judicial work and for welfare. That scheme had gone very far but it was not finished. The whole thing was suspended, and the architects were told that they could not be paid until it went on. What happens? They lose touch with the scheme, and their staff who were engaged on it look for work elsewhere. The scheme itself is some day to be taken up again, but taken up at the wrong moment, after a long interval, when interest in it has been lost, when continuity in the development of a great civic work like that has been lost. This equally applies to planning, to a great deal of work such as bridges, which the Ministry of Transport do, and to town and country planning as such. It is a great opportunity now, considering that, on the whole, architects and town planners form the profession which has been almost more hardly hit by the war than any other in the country. They have ample opportunity, these elderly men, of finishing their work and doing so at their leisure, with the greatest care and circumspection, and, of course, when the time comes—happily, let us hope before long—when these cases can be resumed, then the authorities have got work which they can place at the disposal of contractors forthwith. I hope that point of view will be taken into account.

3.52 p.m.

LORD SNELL

First I should like to thank the noble Lord for the reply he made and the explanation he gave. I hope your Lordships will agree that the point I raised was not a frivolous one, but one of which we must take increasing account. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and also to the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, for the points of view they put before your Lordships. We see the very greatest danger of enterprises being postponed as long as possible, whereas our desire is to get them advanced as far as possible. Take a case that comes immediately to my mind—that of the Abingdon Street improvement. That is now held up, and may be held up goodness knows how long after the war is ended. That would seem to be an illustration of the case where the matter could be expedited with advantage both to the profession which the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, mentioned and to workmen and everybody concerned. As I understand the noble Lord who replied for the Government, this matter will receive the attention of the Minister concerned, and he will at his discretion communicate with local authorities and other people regarding it. I am not quite certain as to what a general undertaking of that kind involves, but sufficient unto the day is the promise thereof. Therefore, with your Lordships' leave, I do not propose to put the Committee to a Division on the matter, and should be glad to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.