Lords Sitting of 29 June 1943

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

WATER UNDERTAKINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power of Minister of Health to make orders authorizing establishment of, and facilitating co-operation between, water undertakings.
(3) Applicants for an order under this section shall submit to the Minister a draft of the order which they desire him to make and shall publish once at least in each of two successive weeks in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area within which they carry on, or propose to carry on, their water undertaking a notice—

(a) stating the general effect of their application;

(b) specifying a place in the said area where a copy of the draft order and of any relevant map or plan may be inspected by any person free of charge at all reasonable hours during a period of forty-two days, exclusive of any day in the month of August, from the date of the first publication of the notice; and

(c) stating that, within the said period, any person may by notice to the Minister, object to the application;

106
and, not later than the date on which the notice is first published, shall serve a copy thereof—
(ii) on the catchment board of any catchment area within which they carry on, or propose to carry on, their water undertaking; and
LORD HEMINGFORD LORD HEMINGFORD had given Notice of an Amendment in subsection (3), at the beginning of paragraph (ii), to insert "except when the powers sought by the proposed order are confined to those mentioned in paragraph (f) of subsection (I) of this section." The noble Lord said: There are a large number of Amendments down in my name, and I may perhaps take this opportunity of saying that they have all been discussed with the Ministry by various bodies of undertakers. Therefore I hope they do not represent such a formidable task for your Lordships as might appear from the Paper. They will not take very long, but in the case of the first one the Ministry has suggested a different wording, and the new wording has been put down by the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth. This I am prepared to accept as it has precisely the same effect. Therefore I do not move my first Amendment.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved, at the beginning of paragraph (ii) in subsection (3), to insert "except where the application is for an order under subsection (I) (f) of this section only." The noble Viscount said: I beg to submit the Amendment standing in my name. I should like to move it in a slightly different form from that in which it appears on the Paper —namely, by substituting "where" for "when". Under the Bill the Minister of Health has powers to make orders when undertakers desire to carry out certain work. Subsection (I) (f) states that where powers are required
"to raise capital or borrow money for any purposes of a water undertaking"
these have to be the subject of an order, and this order has to be submitted under subsection 3 (ii) to any catchment board of any catchment area within which they carry on their undertaking. Catchment boards are not in the least interested in whether an undertaking within their area has to raise money or not, and to save time and facilitate working I wish to make it unnecessary for this notice to be submitted to catchment boards. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 5, at the beginning insert the said words.—(Viscount Falmouth.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY' UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): I am prepared to accept the Amendment which my noble friend has moved, and which is worded, perhaps, better than the one put down by my noble friend Lord Hemingford.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Power of local authorities to give guarantees to statutory water undertakers.
(4) If the undertakers, after tender to them of an undertaking which satisfies the foregoing provisions of this section, do not before the expiration of three months lay the necessary mains and bring water to the area in question, they shall be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds and to a further fine not exceeding five pounds for each day on which1 their default continues after conviction therefor.
LORD HEMINGFORD LORD HEMINGFORD moved, in subsection (4), after "shall," to insert "unless they show that the failure was due to unavoidable accident or other unavoidable cause." The noble Lord said: The wording of the Amendment explains itself sufficiently, and as I understand that the Government will probably be prepared to accept it, I do not propose to say any more.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 14, after ("shall") insert the said new words.—(Lord Hemingford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Notice to be given to local authority of water supply to inhabited-house being cut off]:
LORD HEMINGFORD: The same remarks apply to my next Amendment. It is a question of time within which notice has to be given. Twenty-four hours are considered rather short, and forty-eight hours would be preferable. I believe that this Amendment will also be accepted, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 45, leave out ("twenty-four") and insert ("forty-eight").—(Lord Hemingford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Power of Ministry to revise water rates and water charges]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: These two Amendments are to make the clause less restrictive, and they are practically drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 8, leave out ("reduction or increase") and insert ("alteration")
Page 10, line 12, leave out ("reduction") and insert ("alteration").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
General provisions for protection of water from pollution.
8.—(I) No person shall—
(e) wilfully do any other Act whereby water belonging to any statutory undertakers is fouled:
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved, in subsection (I) (e), after "is," to insert "or is likely to be." The noble Viscount said: This is a relatively small Amendment, but it is considered to be one of importance by those responsible for water undertakings. The object is to prevent anything likely to cause the fouling of water. I understand the Government are in favour, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 42, after ("is") insert ("or is likely to be").—(Viscount Falmouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Power of statutory water undertakers to acquire and hold lands and execute works for protection of water]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The Amend-ments which stand in my name on Clause 10 are all drafting, and perhaps I might move them together with your Lordships' permission.
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 37, after ("lands") insert ("and any")
Page 12, line 38, after ("rights") insert ("over or in lands")
Page 12, line 38, leave out ("those lands") and insert ("any lands acquired by them under this subsection")
Page 13, line 8, after ("may") insert ("on any lands belonging to them, or over or in which they have acquired the necessary easements or rights")
Page 13, line 10, leave out (" any such lands as are referred to in the preceding subsection") and insert ("those lands").— (The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD HEMINGFORD LORD HEMINGFORD moved to add to the clause:
"(7) The powers conferred by this section on statutory water undertakers shall notwithstanding anything in the section of this Act relating to repeals to be effected thereby, be deemed to be in addition to and not in substitution for, any powers exercisable by them under any other enactment."
The noble Lord said: I do not feel quite so confident that my noble friend will accept this Amendment, but I hope that he will at least consider it sympathetically. I can put the point very shortly. This short clause contains a provision for undertakers to acquire lands and execute works for the purposes of the purity of their water supply, and most water undertakers already have similar powers in local Acts. The object of the words which I desire to have inserted is to preserve their existing powers. It is worth noting perhaps that the words of my Amendment are identical with the words of subsection (7) of Clause 11 which appear in the Bill. That being so I can scarcely see, though no doubt my noble friend will be able to tell me, how it is logical that the same provision should not apply in regard to this particular clause. I hope, therefore, that on consideration he will see that at least there is no great objection to my Amendment. Some of my friends who are concerned in various water undertakings do attach a considerable amount of importance to it. As I have already mentioned these provisions occur in a number of existing Acts and there would seem to be no reason why they should be taken away unless there is some special cause which can be shown for doing so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 46, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Hemingford.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is an Amendment which I regret I am unable to accept. I think I am correct in believing that it is designed to allow certain water undertakings to execute works for the protection of their water without prior consultation with the catchment board
110
concerned. I can only believe from information I have been given that the catchment boards would very strongly object to these words being inserted. Furthermore, the words "after consultation with the catchment board concerned" which come in subsection (2) on page 13, were inserted by the Joint Select Committee in 1939 at the instance of the Catchment Boards' Association. I think therefore your Lordships would be well advised not to accept my noble friend's Amendment. Furthermore, if I did accept this Amendment the water undertakings would be in the fortunate position of being able to proceed either under a clause in their own special Act, which incidentally would not provide for consultation, or, alternatively, under Clause 10 which does provide for consultation. I think it would be far better if my noble friend would withdraw this Amendment and leave the clause as it is in the Bill.
LORD HEMINGFORD: May I ask my noble friend whether, in these circumstances, he would be prepared at a later stage perhaps to preserve the powers of existing undertakings under their special Acts?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I will certainly consider that but I cannot give the noble Lord any guarantee that I would accept it.
LORD ADDISON: I hope the noble Earl will not give any promise that would rule out consideration of the matter by the catchment boards.
LORD HEMINGFORD: I should be sorry to ask the noble Earl to give a guarantee which might put him into trouble and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Temporary discharge of water into water courses.
(5) The undertakers shall take all necessary steps to secure that any water discharged by them under the provisions of this section shall be as free as may be reasonably practicable from mud and silt, from solid, polluting, offensive or injurious matters, and from any matter prejudicial to fish or spawn, or to spawning beds or food of fish, and, if they fail to do so, shall be liable—

111

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds.

LORD HEMINGFORD LORD HEMINGFORD moved to leave out subsections (2), (3) and (4). The noble Lord said: I am not by any means sure how much sympathy I shall get from my noble friend in regard to this Amendment, but I fail to see that he can give such an excellent answer to it as the one he gave to the last Amendment that I moved. The Amendment is to leave out subsections (2), (3) and (4). I may perhaps admit at once that these subsections are in accordance with the Committee's recommendations but there was considerable difficulty, I believe, found by the Committee in getting the various interests concerned to agree, and the agreement which was brought about was, I think, in the nature of trying to help on the proceedings of the Committee rather than a genuine agreement. At any rate there are a large number of undertakers who feel very strongly that these subsections are undesirable and should be omitted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 21, leave out subsections (2), (3) and (4).—(Lord Hemingford.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am afraid I can promise no better success for this Amendment than for the previous one of the noble Lord. These three subsections require that notice should be given to catchment board and others before there is a discharge of water, and they require undertakers to give due regard to representations that have been made to them. It is quite true this clause was the subject of considerable discussion before the Joint Select Committee in 1939. In the form in which it now stands in the Bill it represents an agreement which was reached after discussion by all the interests concerned and was endorsed by the Joint Committee. I should therefore be reluctant to ask your Lordships to omit these three subsections. I hope my noble friend will not forget that these catchment boards must at all times know what is coming, or is likely to come, into the river, because they are responsible for anything which will affect the flow or the purity of the river, and it seems to me that these three subsections do give ample scope for meeting any fear that might be caused to the catchment boards. I hope therefore
112
that my noble friend will refrain from pressing this Amendment.
LORD FARINGDON: I should like to support what the noble Earl has said. This matter was very fully discussed in the Committee, of which I happened to be a member. We felt very strongly on the Committee that it was essential the catchment boards should have these powers. The catchment boards have, in the past, been unable in many cases effectively to perform their functions because the waters were not fully under their control. I hope the Government will not give way on this point.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD HEMINGFORD LORD HEMINGFORD moved, in subsection (5), to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: The first obvious argument in favour of this Amendment is that the fine is a very heavy one, but there is a point beyond that and it is that the matter in question is in the opinion of some of us scarcely one to be dealt with on indictment before a jury. Therefore we suggest that this paragraph should be left out. Then the matter would fall entirely under paragraph (a) and would be dealt with by a smaller penalty by a court of summary jurisdiction. I hope that in the circumstances it may be considered that the smaller penalty will be quite sufficient and that this paragraph can reasonably be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 11, leave out (" or (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds ").—(Lord Hemingford.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: There is no need, I hope, for me to go into detail as to what this clause and this particular subsection endeavour to do, and I think in fact do, but I might remind my noble friend that this question of maximum penalty on indictment was very fully considered by the Joint Select Committee in 1939. After they had had the opportunity of hearing and appreciating all the arguments which were put before them, they decided to retain these words in the Bill. The matter also came before my noble and gallant friend as Chairman of what came to be known as the Milne Committee and they supported this heavy fine on those who might contravene the provisions of Clause 5. In those circumstances I think my noble friend might be advised not to

113
press this Amendment and to leave the subsection as it appears in the Bill.
LORD HEMINGFORD: I feel that there is probably sufficient weight against' my Amendment for it to be of very little use to press it. At the same time I would point out that there has been really no answer to what is the real argument in favour of this clause and that is the question of the tribunal which has to deal with it. With all respect for the Committee and their findings, I do not think we should be called upon necessarily to follow their advice upon a matter of this kind in every case, without review.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Accounts to be made up annually and copies sent to certain officers.
15.—(1) Where statutory water undertakers are a company, they shall in each year after that in which they commence to supply water from their waterworks, or, if they are supplying water at the passing of this Act, in each year after the passing thereof, prepare an abstract of the accounts of their undertaking for the preceding year showing under the appropriate heads their income and expenditure and the balances brought forward and carried forward respectively, and the abstract so prepared shall be signed by the chairman of the undertakers and by the auditors of the undertaking.
LORD HEMINGFORD LORD HEMINGFORD moved, in subsection (1), after "company," to insert "or joint board." The noble Lord said: In this case again I think the Amendment explains itself. It is to bring within the operation of this clause not only undertakings which are owned by companies but those which are controlled by a joint board.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 41, after ("company") insert ("or joint board").—(Lord Hemingford.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: A joint board refers entirely and absolutely to a combination of local authorities, and not to one single local authority. Therefore I would ask my noble friend whether it is his intention to make this subsection apply to all local authorities throughout the length and breadth of the land. There is a further question. Is the Amendment realty necessary? The accounts of all local authorities and of all joint boards are subject to Government audit and any
114
ratepayer has access to the accounts merely by asking to see them. Therefore I think there is really no need to insert these words, because the power of the private individual to sec the accounts of these joint boards already exists.
LORD HEMINGFORD: I realize that there is a great deal of support for the view which is taken by my noble friend and I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 20 agreed to.
Clause 21:
Incorporation, and application by order, of provisions of First Schedule.
(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the Minister may at any time by order apply the said provisions or any of them to the undertaking of any statutory water undertakers supplying water under a local Act or order, subject to such modifications and adaptations as may be specified in his order, and may by his order repeal or amend any provisions previously applicable to the undertaking which appear to him to be inconsistent with, or rendered redundant by, any provisions so applied:
Provided that during a period of five years from the commencement of this Act he shall not make such an order except on the application of the undertakers concerned.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in the proviso in subsection (2), to leave out "a period of five years from the commencement of this Act" and insert "the period beginning with the date of the passing of this Act and ending on the expiration of five years from the day declared by Order in Council under subsection (2) of Section six of the Special Enactments (Extension of Time) Act, 1940, to be the day on which the emergency that was the occasion of the passing of that Act came to an end." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to make the five years run from the end of the war instead of from the passing of this Act when it has received the approval of both Houses of Parliament. My noble friend Lord Hemingford will see that his Amendment covers practically the same ground. I would suggest to him that my words are more comprehensive than those in the Amendment he has put down and in those circumstances perhaps he would accept my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 4, leave out from ("during") to ("he") in line 5 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD ADDISON: Do I understand that if this Amendment is accepted these powers will be postponed until five years after the termination of the war as may be hereafter defined? That may be a very long time.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think I can probably resolve any doubts of my noble friend. The effect of this Amendment is, as I have said, to make the five years run from the end of the war. Within that time the Minister of Health will be debarred from applying the provisions of the First Schedule on his own Motion without any application from any particular undertakings. I think that covers the point my noble friend has in mind.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HEMINGFORD LORD HEMINGFORD moved, after subsection (4), to insert:
"(5) Where any undertakers at the date when an order is made by the Minister under this section applying to them the provisons of paragraph 50 of the First Schedule to this Act are levying under the authority of any enactment additional charges in respect of water closets and baths they shall be entitled to increase any water rate, which they are authorized by the enactments relating to their undertaking to charge for water supplied for domestic purposes, by such percentage as will produce an additional revenue as nearly as practicable equal to the revenue which they were obtaining from such additional charges. Any question as to the amount of the percentage by which the said water rate may be so increased shall be determined by the Minister or by an arbitrator appointed by him."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to insert a new subsection to the effect that where any undertakers, at the date when an order is made by the Minister under this subsection applying the First Schedule of the Act, are levying under enactment additional charges in respect of water closets and baths they should be entitled to increase any water rate which they are authorized by their Acts to charge for water supplied for domestic purposes so as to replace the loss. I have put it shortly, but I think that is the effect of the Amendment. If the provisions of the First Schedule of this Bill are applied, the question might arise of the undertakers not being able to make extra charges, as they were originally entitled to do, and as
116
many of them did in former days, for water closets and baths. But if they are debarred from those charges while those charges are existing, it seems only reasonable that they should have a method of recouping themselves the expense of the extra supply of water required. I think that the proposal contained in this Amendment is a reasonable one for recompensing them to that extent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 28, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Hemingford.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is an Amendment which it is really impossible for me to accept for it might enable a water undertaking, without any reference to Parliament or to the Minister, to increase its water rates beyond the maximum rates laid down by any special Act. My noble friend Lord Hemingford will know that it is contrary to all precedent and wrong in principle that maximum rates should be free of Parliamentary and Ministerial control. Let us take the argument a little further. If a water undertaking is not levying the maximum rates it is obviously free to carry out any adjustment within these limits to recoup itself for loss of revenue from abolishing extra charges for baths and water closets. Where an undertaking can fully recoup itself without going outside the maximum authorized rates there is no need for an Amendment. On the other hand, where an undertaking cannot fully recoup itself within the maximum rates, the proper course is to apply to the Minister under Clause 7 of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will not press this Amendment. It is an Amendment which it would be utterly impossible for me to accept.
LORD HEMINGFORD: With your Lordships' permission I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 35, leave out ("water").— (The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, whether Clause 21, as amended, shall be agreed to?
LORD ADDISON: On this question I would like to revert to the Amendment

117
which was accepted by the noble Earl on behalf of the Government. I confess that I do not follow from his explanation what may be the result of the Amendment. So far as I do understand it I feel profoundly disquieted, and I think that either now or at the next stage of this Bill, the House is entitled to a fuller explanation. So far as I understand it, the Amendment means that this clause will not be operative until five years after the end of the war. That is to say that there will be an Act, as of course there was after the last war, defining the end of the war, which will not be the same, of course, for all purposes. The Act defining the end of the war will be applicable to this and to almost all other relevant legislation; but it may be a very long time before we get to the end of the war. We do not know when the end will be. That means that during the whole of this period, instead of only five years from the passing of this Act the clause will not be operative. We do not know when the war is going to end—it may be ten years hence.
As my noble friend realizes, it is quite likely that the official end of the war may have to be after the termination of hostilities with Japan. Then you will have to make your War Act very elastic. It appears that during the whole of this time, instead of merely five years from the passing of the Act, the Minister of Health may not exercise the powers set out in Clause 21. The noble Lord moved this and the Government have accepted it, but I had hoped that we should have had, if I may say so with respect, a more reasoned justification for the action of the Government. If the noble Earl is not disposed to say any more about this to-day I should be quite content to wait until the next stage, but I should like to have a more reasoned statement on the subject.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think I can set my noble friend Lord Addison's mind at rest on this matter now. What I am dealing with here is a reference to the First Schedule of the Bill which we have not reached yet but to which we shall shortly come. What this Amendment provides is that the Minister shall be debarred from applying the provisions of the First Schedule himself, but that will not stop any application being made to the Minister by any particular under-
118
taking for the First Schedule of the Bill to be incorporated in any special Act.
LORD HEMINGFORD: I would like to say a word in support of what has been said by my noble friend on the Government Bench. It has to be borne in mind that this provision which it is proposed should be put off for only five years from the final expiration of the emergency period is a somewhat drastic one. It does not interfere with the ordinary machinery of the Bill, but it provides that the Minister may, of his own Motion, impose all the conditions of this Schedule upon existing undertakings. That is a matter to which undertakers have got to give very considerable attention. It may be a very long time before the official termination of the emergency period, and until that time comes people concerned in matters of this kind will not have time and opportunity to go into these matters and consider them. I believe that this is supported by all water undertakers without any exception, and I sincerely hope that your Lordships will agree to it.
LORD FARINGDON: As the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, has said, the reason for this period of five years which was put into the Act as passed by the Committee was to give the undertakings time to put their houses in order. I am, however, I confess, a little disturbed, as is my noble friend Lord Addison, by this provision which His Majesty's Government have accepted to put off the day until five years after the end of the war. I should have been more inclined to let the original provisions stand, and if necessary to postpone the application until later on if the war went on for such a long time as to make it impracticable. May I say I feel somewhat unhappy about this acceptance? It seems to me to put off the day for a very long time. It is clearly desirable that a Minister should have these powers, and this postponement is only intended to enable the undertakings to put their houses in order. If that is desirable, it should be done at the earliest possible moment. I confess to a feeling of some disquiet about this Amendment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: It will probably be the wish of the Committee that I should examine the point which my noble friend has raised, but in my own mind I do not feel any serious concern about it.

119
I shall certainty look into the matter, however, between now and the next stage of the Bill.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Repeals]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to add to the clause:
"Provided that the repeal, by virtue of this section, of the Water Undertakings (Modification of Charges) Act, 1921, shall not operate as a repeal of any order under that Act in force immediately before the passing of this Act."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment puts it beyond doubt that the repeal of the Act of 1921 does not affect any orders which were made under that Act and which are, in fact, still in force.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 12, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Short title and extent]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to add to the clause:
"(3) Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people, or vary the amount or incidence of, or otherwise alter, any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money raised by any such charge."
The noble Earl said: This is, I understand, a technical Amendment which has to be inserted here, and is designed to preserve the privileges of another place.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 27, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule [Provisions to be incorporated in Acts and Orders relating to water undertakings]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My first Amendment to paragraph 1 is really drafting; it means taking out words which are in the wrong place, and which by a later Amendment are to be inserted in their correct place in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 37, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 5 on page 27.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 19, leave out ("carrying") and insert ("conveying").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment is consequential on the first Amendment to the Schedule.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 33, at end insert:
(2) Any reference in this Schedule to the persons having the control or management of a street or bridge shall be construed as a reference, in the case of a highway or bridge maintainable at the public expense, to the authority who are the highway authority, or, as the case may be, the bridge authority in respect thereof and, in the case of any other street or bridge, to the authority or person responsible for the maintenance thereof, or, if no authority or person is responsible therefor, to the owners of the soil of the street or, as the case may be, of the structure of the bridge."—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph 14:
Provisions as to compensation water.
14.—(1) During the construction of any authorized impounding reservoir the undertakers may, subject as hereinafter provided, take from any stream to be impounded thereby such water as they may require:
Provided that, before taking any water from the stream they shall, on an approved site, construct an approved gauge to gauge the flow of the stream and, while the flow of water through or over the gauge is less than the prescribed flow, they shall not take any water.
(2) After the completion of the reservoir the undertakers shall, at an approved point within such limits as may be prescribed, discharge into the stream from, or from streams feeding, the reservoir during every day of twenty-four hours reckoned from midnight in a uniform and continuous flow a quantity of water not less than the prescribed quantity, and, for the purpose of gauging such discharge, they shall construct and maintain in good order approved gauges on approved sites.
(3) If the undertakers—

(a) fail to construct or maintain in good order any such gauge as aforesaid, or refuse to allow any person interested to inspect and examine any such gauge or any records

121
made thereby or kept by them in connexion therewith or to take copies of any such records; or

(b) take any water from the stream contrary to the provision;, of subsection (1) of this section, or fail to comply with the requirements of subsection (2) of this section with respect to the discharge of water into the stream,

they shall, without prejudice to their civil liability, if any, to a person aggrieved, be liable, in the case of an offence under paragraph (a) of this subsection, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, in respect of each day on which the offence has been committed or has continued, and in the case of an offence under paragraph (6) of this subsection—

(i) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds in respect of each such day; and

(ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds in respect of each such day.

(4) In this section, the expression "gauge" includes a gauge weir or other apparatus for measuring the flow of water, and the expression "approved" means approved by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries; and, for the purposes of this section, a catchment board, a fishery board, a rivers board and a navigation authority shall be deemed to be interested in the flow of water in, and the discharge of water into, any stream within their area or district, or, as the case may be any part of, their system of navigation, and shall be deemed to be aggrieved by the commission of an offence under this section in relation to any such stream.
(5) The foregoing provisions of this section shall be deemed to have been accepted by all persons interested as full compensation for all water impounded by the authorized works, except in respect of any land between the foot of the embankment of the reservoir and the point of discharge approved for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section.
(6) Subject to the provisions of Section five of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914 any fine recovered under this section on the complaint of a fishery board or of an officer of, or person authorized by, a fishery board shall, as to the whole or such part thereof as the court may determine, be paid to the board in respect of the costs of the prosecution.
LORD HEMINGFORD LORD HEMINGFORD moved to leave out paragraph 14. The noble Lord said: This deals with the matter of compensation water, which, if my memory serves me aright, I referred to on the Second Reading of this Bill. The whole question of compensation water is one over which Committees of both Houses have had immense difficulties in a number of Private Bills, over and over again. These difficulties with regard to compensation water have usually been settled in a special form applicable to the particular case, and those particular cases vary very much.
122
It is not always desirable that the compensation water should be supplied regularly by a steady flow; it is sometimes wanted at special times and in special quantities in special cases. I venture to think that it would be very much better to leave out these compulsory provisions which it is suggested should be imposed on water undertakings generally, and leave this question of compensation water to be dealt with on its own merits in each case as it arises.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 31, leave out paragraph 14.— (Lord Hemingford.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is an important Amendment, dealing, as my noble friend said, with compensation water, which I regret that it is not possible for me to accept. It is perfectly true, as my noble friend said, that the question of compensation water is always fought out in Parliament on each special Bill which is introduced into either House, but the question of the amount of water is not dealt with in any way whatever, as my noble friend will see, by paragraph 14. What in effect paragraph 14 says is that whatever the amount which Parliament awards as compensation water, that water shall be sent down in accordance with the general rules which are set out in this paragraph, and the penalties for failure to observe these rules are also set out at the end of the paragraph. I think I should make it clear to my noble friend that this paragraph does not in any way prejudice the raising of further questions as to the determination of the amount of water to be sent down when the additional legislation to which I referred on the Second Reading of the Bill is brought into operation. That will deal with major matters of policy, and it can in fact be inserted then. I should further make it clear that this paragraph is a standard paragraph, which has no effect on any particular undertaker until it is inserted in the special Bill of that undertaker. When the question of incorporation arises, the undertaker's case for necessary modification can be decided by Parliament at the appropriate time.
LORD HEMINGFORD: Does that apply in cases where the provisions of this Schedule are to be applied compulsorily to existing undertakings?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I was talking of future Bills, but I think that my

123
noble friend will see that it is necessary to leave this paragraph in the Schedule. I should regret to see paragraph 14 left out of the Bill, and I hope that my noble friend will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD HEMINGFORD: I do not feel inclined to withdraw this Amendment without any further observation about it, because I apprehend that, if this paragraph is inserted, it might become applicable not only to future Acts but, under the imposition of the conditions of this Schedule, to undertakings already in existence, under Clause 21. If so, that is likely to give rise to serious conflict and to a good deal of dispute. I hope that the noble Earl will agree to give further consideration to this matter before the next stage of the Bill, so that we may try to get some Amendment here which will meet particular points which have been raised. If he will do that, I shall not press the Amendment at this stage.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Having heard my noble friend's view, I will consider the matter between now and the next stage of the Bill, but he will forgive me if I say that I do not think I shall be in a position to bring in an Amendment which will satisfy him. I will, however, consider it.
LORD FARINGDON: I am very glad to hear the noble Earl's rather pessimistic reply—pessimistic, that is, from the point of view of Lord Hemingford. This is a complicated matter, and I think that this paragraph is of the essence of the Schedule, and I hope that the Government will be firm and retain it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paragraph 16:
Map of underground works to be prepared and kept up to date, and placed on deposit.
(2) The undertakers shall, from time to time, within three months after the said map was prepared and after each occasion on which it was in any way corrected, cause a copy of so much of the plan or, as the case may be, of any corrected part thereof, as relates to any such area as is hereinafter mentioned to be deposited—

(a) in the case of a county, with the clerk to the county council;

(b) in the case of a borough with the town clerk; and

124

(c) in the case of an urban district, not being a borough, and in the case of a rural district, with the clerk to the district council.

(3) The said map, and the copies thereof go deposited, shall at all reasonable hours be open to inspection by any person interested free of charge.
LORD HEMINGFORD LORD HEMINGFORD moved to leave out sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 16. The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next one standing in my name realty go together, and are consequential on one another. So far as I can make out, my noble friend, speaking on behalf of the Government, is not likely to accept these Amendments absolutely as they stand, but I hope that it will be a case of his postponing his acceptance only. I understand that the Ministry desire to be quite clear that these Amendments have been agreed to by all the local authorities concerned. I cannot assure him now that they have been so agreed to, because I believe that no answer has yet been received from the County Councils' Association; but I understand that the bodies representing the other local authorities have agreed, and therefore, if the noble Earl does not see his way to accept this Amendment at this stage, I will withdraw it, on the understanding that the matter shall be gone into further as soon as a reply is received from the representatives of the county councils. If that reply is favourable, I hope that this Amendment will be accepted by the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (2).—(Lord Hemingford.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment and the next one.
LORD ADDISON: May I ask why? Why in the world should they deposit these copies? I can see no reason why the next Amendment should be accepted.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I have heard of no objections raised by the County Councils' Association, referred to by my noble friend.
LORD ADDISON: I understand it was put in the Schedule because it was thought desirable that these authorities should have these copies.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Waste of paper.
LORD ADDISON: Not at all.
LORD HEMINGFORD: If the original map is available it is the one thing which ought to be referred to by those who are concerned, because they would scarcely be able to settle satisfactorily the points which may arise from seeing the copies or, in effect, extracts from the big map. The proper way is undoubtedly for them to apply to see the original map. There will never be any difficulty about it, and the circumlocution and trouble caused by having the copies and extracts made and deposited at various offices would add immensely to the trouble, not only of the undertakers but of the local authorities concerned. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will agree that in these days one thing at any rate is very advisable, and that is that we should' not throw unnecessary labour on public offices.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HEMINGFORD: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 26, leave out ("and the copies thereof so deposited").—(Lord Hemingford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph 33:
Duty of undertakers to lay additional mains on certain conditions.
33.—(1) The undertakers shall lay any necessary mains and bring water to any area within the limits of supply if they are required to do so by such number of owners and occupiers of premises in that area who require a supply of water for domestic purposes that the aggregate amount of water rates payable annually by those owners and occupiers in respect of those premises at the prescribed rates will not be less than one-tenth of the expense of providing and laying the necessary mains, and if those owners and occupiers agree severally with the undertakers to take a supply of water for three years a least.
LORD HEMINGFORD LORD HEMINGFORD moved, in sub-paragraph (1), to leave out "one-tenth" and insert "one-eighth." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a very small one, and I hope it will be generally agreed that it is a reasonable one. It deals with the prescribed rates, and I hope I shall not arouse the hostility of my noble friend opposite if I say that the Amendment will be of some use and of some advantage to the undertakers. They have to lay certain necessary mains, and the point at issue here is as to the prescribed rates being a certain proportion of
126
the expense of providing and laying the necessary mains if the owners agree severally with the undertakers to take a supply for a period of three years. This, I believe, was agreed by the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 49, leave out ("one-tenth") and insert ("one-eighth").—(Lord Hemingford.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am prepared to accept this.
LORD ADDISON: Really I must enter a protest. As this discussion proceeds I become more and more suspicious. This Bill has been subject to the most meticulous examination by the Joint Committee, and it is the result of their joint and prolonged deliberations. I suggest with great respect that the House is entitled to have some notice as to what line the Government are going to take. If they were going to accept this Amendment it should have been on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl representing the Government. This means that owners and occupiers will have to pay more than they otherwise would: instead of having to pay one-tenth, they will have to pay one-eighth. And if the Joint Committee arrived at the conclusion that one-tenth was a fair charge I do not see why we should, without any reason whatever given, suddenly increase it to one-eighth. This Amendment is wrong.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think I can possibly calm my noble friend when I tell him that, as he may have forgotten, the Joint Select Committee reported in 1939. Since that date the ratio of overhead charges has considerably increased. In fact, there has been an enormous increase since 1939, and it seemed only fair to us to substitute one-eighth for one-tenth. Moreover, I am told that modern special Acts of Parliament have invariably allowed an increase to one-eighth, or even more. The proposed Amendment therefore seems to me to be in line with the practice that Parliament has quite often adopted. I much hope that the noble Lord opposite will see his way to agree to this Amendment. It would be unfortunate if we were to divide. As I say, the cost of overhead charges and of general expenses has increased out of all proportion since the Committee reported and the war broke out.
LORD ADDISON: I am unconvinced by the noble Earl. It is true that costs have risen since the beginning of the war. Of course they have; but that applies to the tenth as well as the eighth. One-tenth would be a greater amount now for the occupier or the owner to pay than it would have been in 1939—of course it would, and one-eighth would be more still. What the Government are doing by accepting this Amendment is to increase the burden and difficulty of the owner and occupier proportionately without any reason given. Because the reason which the noble Lord advanced is not a reason. It applies to the tenth just as much as it does to the eighth: they have both gone up. I cannot see any reason whatever why the Joint Committee's recommendations should be departed from. Certainly we ought to have had some notice. I do not know how many other surprises the noble Earl has in store for us, I hope he has not any more. I view this with the greatest suspicion, and I should like to know what we are going to be let in for. Anyhow, I think this is completely wrong.
LORD FARINGDON: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Addison. I confess I am dismayed by this concession on the part of the Government. The Committee felt very strongly that something must be done which would facilitate the bringing of piped water as extensively throughout the countryside as might be possible. What this provision really does is to lay down the condition under which suppliers must give a supply of water. If the annual rate does not amount to one-tenth then the people who want their water supply will not be entitled to demand it. If you increase the amount from one-tenth to one-eighth it makes it so much less likely that the people requiring water supply will be able to insist on it. I see the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, in his place. He is interested in agricultural conditions, and I suspect that, like me, he is interested in getting piped water to agricultural cottages and villages. That is already a difficult problem in the country districts, and this provision will make it still more difficult. I deplore the Government's acceptance of this Amendment.
LORD ADDISON: I gather that the noble Earl is prepared to give me some assurance.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am perfectly prepared to give the noble Lord the assurance that, if my noble friend Lord Hemingford withdraws this Amendment now, I shall consider the matter further between now and the next stage of the Bill.
LORD HEMINGFORD: I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment on those terms.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paragraph 34:
Right to demand supply for domestic purposes.
Provided that the undertakers shall be under no such liability if the failure to furnish or maintain a supply is due to—

(a) frost, drought, unavoidable accident or other unavoidable cause, or the execution of necessary works; or

(b) failure of the person aggrieved to comply with any by-law of the undertakers.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in paragraph 34 (I) (b), after "any," to insert "enactment relating to, or." The noble Earl said: It is clear that the conditions with which consumers are required to comply may be set out in any special Act itself and not in its by-laws. Your Lordships will agree that the Amendment is obviously necessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 31, after ("any") insert ("enactment relating to, or").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 7, at end insert ("or displaying").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph 40:
Water to be taken to extinguish fires without charge.
40. The undertakers shall allow all persons to take water for extinguishing fires, without payment.
LORD HEMINGFORD LORD HEMINGFORD moved, in paragraph 40, after "fires," to insert "from any pipe on which a hydrant is fixed." The noble Lord said: Paragraph 40 provides that undertakers shall allow all persons to take water for extinguishing fires, without payment. The existing law permits persons to take water from the

129
mains of undertakers to which hydrants are fixed. If the provision is not confined to any particular set of persons, and if provision is not made for proper apparatus, this might result in an imminent risk of pollution. In these circumstances I hope even my noble friend Lord Addison will agree with the Amendment, which I feel sure the Government will accept.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 20, after ("fires") insert ("from any pipe on which a hydrant is fixed").—(Lord Hemingford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next two Amendments are drafting, and correspond with the wording used elsewhere in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 43, line 33, leave out ("repairs or alterations") and insert ("works").
Page 44, line 4, leave out ("repairs or alterations") and insert ("works").—(The Earl of Munster).
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Paragraph 45:
Laying of communication pipes, etc.
(2) If the undertakers fail to carry out the said work within fourteen days after the person by whom the notice was given has laid a supply pipe in accordance with the provisions of the last preceding section, they shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds and to a further fine not exceeding forty shillings for each day on which the default continues after the expiration of the said fourteen days.
(4) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section, undertakers to whom such a notice as aforesaid is given may, within three days after the receipt thereof, require the person giving the notice either to pay to them in advance the cost of the work, as estimated by their engineer, or to give security for payment thereof to their satisfaction, and, where they make such a requirement, the period of fourteen days referred to in subsection (2) of this section shall not commence to run until the requirement has been complied with.
LORD HEMINGFORD LORD HEMINGFORD moved, in paragraph 45 (2), after "shall," to insert "unless they show that the failure was due to unavoidable accident or other unavoidable cause." The noble Lord said: This Amendment, I think, commends itself to everybody, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 1, after ("shall") insert the said words.—(Lord Hemingford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HEMINGFORD LORD HEMINGFORD moved, in paragraph 45 (4), to leave out "three" and insert "seven." The noble Lord said: In this case I do not think any controversy is likely to arise. It is a question of time within which notice has to be given. The paragraph at present reads:
"Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section, undertakers to whom such a notice as aforesaid is given may, within three days after the receipt thereof, require the person giving the notice either to pay to them in advance the cost of the work"
and so on. The Amendment will increase the time to seven days which, in view of the large area covered by some of these undertakings, is not unreasonable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 16, leave out ("three") and insert ("seven").—(Lord Hemingford.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am prepared to accept.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 36, at end insert ("the").— (The Earl of Munster).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph 48:
Vesting of communication pipes and repair of such pipes and of supply pipes in highways.
48.—(I) All communication pipes, whether laid before or after the coming into force of this section shall vest in the undertakers and undertakers shall at their own expense carry out any necessary works of maintenance, repair or renewal of such pipes and any work on their mains incidental thereto.
LORD HEMINGFORD LORD HEMINGFORD had on the Paper two Amendments to sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 48—namely, to leave out the words "at their own expense" and to add the following proviso to the sub-paragraph:
"Provided that the expenses reasonably incurred by them in carrying out any such work as aforesaid in relation to—

(i) any communication pipe laid for the supply of water to premises used solely or mainly for business, trade or manufacturing purposes, and

(ii) so much (if any) of any other communication pipe as is further from the main with which it is connected than the width of the street in which the main is laid

may be recovered by the undertakers summarily from the owner of the premises sup-

131
plied by the pipe, but without prejudice to the rights and obligations, as between themselves, of the owner and the occupier of the premises."
The noble Lord said: Under this provision all communication pipes, whether laid before or after the Act comes into force, shall vest in the undertakers, and the undertakers are to carry out at their own expense any necessary works of maintenance, repair, or renewal of such pipes, and any works on their mains incidental thereto. The Amendment proposes to leave out the words "at their own expense" and then to insert as consequential the Amendment following on the Order Paper in my name. I think that is not unreasonable and unless there is any objection raised I will content myself with formally moving the Amendment and will afterwards move the second Amendment containing a proviso.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 37, leave out (" at their own expense ").—(Lord Hemingford.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Perhaps I might deal with this Amendment and the next one which stands in the name of my noble friend as they are in fact linked together. The effect of these two Amendments taken together would be that owners and occupiers of premises other than the dwelling-house would be required to bear the expense of maintaining, repairing, and renewing their communication pipes. Clause 48, sub-paragraph (1), amends the general law by making water undertakers responsible when this clause comes into operation in any area for the maintenance, repair and renewal of communication pipes. The question of whether industry should bear the cost of maintenance and repair and renewal of the communication pipes was very fully considered by the Joint Select Committee, and they decided not to allow an Amendment providing that industry should bear this cost. I hope therefore that my noble friend will not press this or the next Amendment for in fact, if carried, they would be a heavy charge on industry.
LORD HEMINGFORD: As the noble Earl said, these two Amendments can be taken together. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment which I have moved, and I shall not move the consequential one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paragraph 53:
Power to require supply to certain premises and for certain purposes to be taken by meter,
53.—(I) The following provisions of this section shall have effect where a maximum charge for a supply of water by meter is prescribed.
(2) The undertakers shall not be bound to supply with water otherwise than by meter—
(a) any premises used as a house whereof a part is used by the same occupier for any business, trade or manufacturing purpose for which water is required;
(3) Where water supplied to a farmhouse is used for farming purposes as well as for domestic purposes, the undertakers may require that the water used for farming purposes shall be taken by meter.
LORD ADDISON: I formally move the Amendment in the name of Lord Horder, to insert words in sub-paragraph (2) (a), in order that the noble Earl opposite may make a statement.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 38, after ("purpose") insert ("(other than a purpose which is met by a supply of water for domestic purposes) "). (Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I only wish to say a few words on this Amendment and the other one in Lord Horder's name. I understand that Lord Horder agreed to withdraw them in view of the fact that an agreement has been reached between all the parties, and at the next stage of the Bill I shall be putting down an Amendment which will meet the point that my noble friend has in mind.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HEMINGFORD LORD HEMINGFORD moved, in sub-paragraph (3), to leave out "the water used for farming purposes" and insert "all water so supplied." The noble Lord said: I venture to think that this really is not much more than a drafting Amendment, and I hope the Government will be prepared to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 3, leave out (" the water used for farming purposes ") and insert (" all water so supplied.")—(Lord Hemingford.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is an Amendment which I regret I cannot accept. The object of it is to enable water undertakers, where water is supplied to a farmhouse both for domestic and farming purposes, to charge for the whole supply by meter. Under this paragraph of the

133
Schedule as it stands, the undertakers can charge by meter for the supply of water for farming purposes but cannot charge by meter for domestic supplies. I am not aware that my noble friend has produced any specific case which might show that the water supplied to farmhouses for domestic purposes and charged for by water rate might be and in fact has been taken for farming purposes. The Committee considered this point with great care and came to the conclusion that it was better to put the farmhouse on a different basis from the domestic house. In those circumstances I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
LORD HEMINGFORD: I will not do so as that is the attitude taken by the Government. I know the matter is one on which there has been some difference of opinion. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment in my name, to paragraph 55, is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 40, leave out (" other ").— (The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HEMINGFORD LORD HEMINGFORD had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the proviso in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 64. The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to leave out a proviso that by-laws made for the purpose of paragraph (a) shall not apply in relation to fittings used in connexion with a supply of water by meter. This is a matter which is still under discussion among the various parties concerned and interested in the Bill and under those circumstances, without prejudice to what may be done on a future occasion after there has been further discussion, I will, if my noble friend on the Government Benches agrees, not move it now but leave the matter to be raised at a subsequent period either in this House or in another place.
I am afraid that my Amendments to paragraphs 68 and 74 will probably all be resisted for the same reason by my noble friend on the Front Bench as he gave for resisting the one which he has already dealt with in relation to measuring the supply of water by meter. There-
134
fore I think I will refrain from moving these Amendments now.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment in my name, in paragraph 78, is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 32, leave out (" supplied by ") and insert ("belonging to").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph 81:
Reserve and contingency funds.
(4) Whenever, and so long as, the aggregate amount standing to the credit of the reserve fund and contingency fund together amounts to (or, by reason of such a transfer as aforesaid, exceeds) a sum equal to ten per cent. of the capital expenditure theretofore incurred by the undertakers for the purposes of their undertaking, no contribution from the profits of the undertaking shall be made to either of the funds, and the interest and dividends on the funds shall not be invested but shall be treated as income of the undertaking.
(5) The aggregate amount which, subject to the provisions of the last preceding sub section, may be carried by the undertakers in any year to the formation or maintenance of the reserve fund and contingency fund shall not exceed a sum equal to one' per cent. Of the capital expenditure theretofore incurred by the undertakers for the purposes of their undertaking.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved, in sub-paragraph (4), to substitute "fifteen" for "ten." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment deals with the question of the compensation fund to be established by the undertaking. When this Bill was originally before the House in 1939 the figure instead of 10 per cent. was made 15 per cent. Subsequently, discussion took place and it was decided that 15 per cent. was too high and therefore 10 per cent. was substituted in its place. Now very much has happened since 1939. As the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said in another instance, costs have gone up enormously as compared with the period before the war. Certainly to-day the cost of the things I have in mind in this connexion has gone up 20 per cent. and I do not think it is unfair to ask the Government to allow the undertakings to have a compensation fund of 15 per cent. to meet the greatly increased charges instead of 10 per cent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 12, leave out (" ten ") and insert (" fifteen ").—(Viscount Falmouth.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: After the noble Viscount's explanation of this Amendment the Government are prepared to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: The next Amendment, in sub-paragraph (5), deals with an exactly similar case and I understand the Government are prepared to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 20, after ("one") insert (" and a half ").—(Viscount Falmouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph 87:
Power to prohibit temporarily use of hosepipes in case of drought.
87.—(I) If the undertakers are of opinion that by reason of an exceptional shortage of rain a serious deficiency of water available for distribution by them exists, or is threatened, they may prohibit as from such date as they deem necessary and until the prohibition is withdrawn by them the use, except for the purpose of extinguishing fires, of any water supplied by them and drawn through a hosepipe or similar apparatus.
LORD HEMINGFORD LORD HEMINGFORD moved, in paragraph 87 (1), to leave out "an exceptional shortage of rain" and to insert "drought or other cause." The noble Lord said: The words I propose are perhaps a little wider than those in the Bill, but really the Amendment is nothing more than drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, lines 31 and 32, leave out (" an exceptional shortage of rain ") and insert (" drought or other cause ").—(Lord Hemingford.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I accept this Amendment.
LORD ADDISON: I should like to ask, what does "other cause" mean? It is an Act of Parliament we are drafting. I can understand "drought" meaning something and I can understand "absence of rain" meaning something, but what does "other cause" mean? It might mean anything. Really the noble Earl is exceptionally rash in accepting this Amendment. I do not want to make trouble by opposing it, but I cannot think the Parliamentary draftsman advised him to accept.
LORD HEMINGFORD: I would suggest to the noble Lord that "drought" is something that cannot be
136
caused by him or by me or by any of us whatever may be the technical or scientific cause. The Amendment means drought or something similar to it.
LORD ADDISON: I am not cavilling about the word "drought." I do not think there is much difference between that and absence of rain. What I am wondering is what "other cause" means. That phrase might mean anything. It might be a leakage in the reservoir or a burst pipe or any one of a dozen things.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think the Amendment has a common-sense meaning and my noble friend has in fact indicated the very reason in his speech. It does provide for a burst pipe or a leaking reservoir. Similar words are to be found in other special Acts dealing with waterworks and I see no reason why I should not accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: There are two drafting Amendments in later paragraphs. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 62, line 43, leave out (" penalty ") and insert (" fine")
Page 63, line 3, leave out (" the ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second and Third Schedules agreed to.

LAW REFORM (FRUSTRATED CONTRACTS) BILL, [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this measure. If your Lordships have looked at the Bill some of you at first sight may have thought it to be of a rather technical character, but I hope to be able to show very briefly that it is in fact a measure of real importance to the ordinary man and that what we are here proposing to do will be a great improvement in the present law. The situation with which the Bill deals is what is called the "frustration" of contracts. Of course in the ordinary way when parties enter into a lawful contract the law merely requires that each party shall perform what he has agreed to do

137
until the contract is carried out, and the only other duty of the law may be to enforce the contract, to award damages if one: side breaks it, or to give some other remedy. But it sometimes happens— and it is specially likely to happen in connexion with war—that the contract is "frustrated"—that is to say, that some supervening event occurs which discharges both parties from any further performance so that the performance of the contract ends at the moment of frustration.
I will give one or two simple instances which lawyers have had to consider. You may have, for example, a contract entered into before the war by a British engineer to build to specification machinery and then to deliver it to the other party to the contract who may be resident in Germany or in one of the countries now overrun by Germany. That was a perfectly lawful contract to enter into before the war, and in the ordinary way all that would remain would be to see that it was properly carried out. But when war breaks out it becomes unlawful for any British firm to continue to execute a contract made with an enemy, and the consequence is that the contract is discharged by frustration. I will take another example which greatly exercised the lawyers some forty years ago. It had nothing to do with war. When King Edward VII fell suddenly ill just before the day appointed for his Coronation, there were already a very large number of contracts that had been entered into for letting rooms and windows and seats on the line of the intended Coronation procession. In many cases people had paid in advance for the accommodation. In some cases special action had been taken by the other party with a view to everything being ready for the day of the Coronation. Then came the announcement that his late Majesty had fallen ill and the Coronation would have to be postponed. The question was what was to happen, because manifestly when people entered into contracts of this sort they did not agree to pay £100 or £150 merely for a few hours' occupation of a room looking into Pall Mall. The contract was made because both parties assumed that there was going to be a Coronation procession. Those are illustrations of the sort of difficulty that arises in connexion with frustration of contracts.
How does the present law stand about the matter? It was for many years a matter of doubt, although it has now been
138
finally settled as far as England is concerned. If the case is one in which there has been a prepayment—and it constantly happens in commercial contracts that you pay so much down before the other party begins to build your machinery or before he begins to build your house, and it may be so much more at a certain intermediate stage—if there has been prepayment made before the date of frustration, there is no doubt now that the English law is that the man who has received that prepayment has got to hand it back. The party that made the payment has not got what he contracted for, and the man who received the money must hand it back. That is a very simple rule; but as your Lordships will see it is sometimes a very harsh rule, because of course the person who has received the prepayment may very well have done a good deal towards carrying out his contract. He may have acquired materials or he may have already started manufacture and, though the goods may still be on his own premises, he has none the less done work or expended money. Yet if there is frustration for which neither party is in the least to blame, which is due to some external cause, he has got under the present law to hand the money all back.
The first object of this Bill is to alter that, and this is done in Clause 1 (2). To put it in simple terms, without being too meticulously exact, the provision is this: that though in principle a man who has received a prepayment has to pay it back in the event of frustration, he is entitled to set off against that amount the expenditure which he has already incurred in, and in connexion with, the execution of the contract. He cannot ask for more, but it may, in many cases, mean that he can keep the whole of the prepayment. If, for example, there has been £1,000 paid in advance, or if the contract that has been made confers the right to prepayment, and if he can show that he has already spent £800 in part performance, he is not required to return the £1,000, but only the balance of £200. I think that will commend itself to everybody as good sense, and it is undoubtedly a great improvement in the law.
The other provision which this Bill contains is in subsection (3) of Clause 1 and has to do with the other party to a transaction. There are many cases in which a contract is frustrated, is brought to an end in the middle, where the other

139
party has already received some benefit. The contract may be a contract to deliver and instal machinery, and it may be that already there has been a delivery of a portion of the machinery, or some action taken which is beneficial to the other party before the time came for the contract to be declared frustrated. In those cases where the other party has received a valuable benefit we propose to provide that—contrary to the present existing law —he must pay for it. At present, if a contract is frustrated, even although he has received valuable benefit he has not to pay anything for what he has received until the time comes to pay for the completion of the contract and under frustration that time will never arrive. Of course in some cases the work which is done up to the time of the frustration of the contract will not be worth very much to this party. But in a case where a benefit has been conferred on him we think that he ought to be made to pay fair value for the benefit which he has enjoyed. It will be obvious—to take a humble illustration —that if a decorator has undertaken to paint the whole of your house inside and out, has done half the work, and then there comes a Defence of the Realm Regulation which says that no more paint is to be used except for ships, so that of course the contract is frustrated, none the less you have got your house half painted and therefore you ought, we submit, to pay a fair amount for the benefit which you have received.
I hope that I have put in simple and intelligible language the two main provisions of this Bill. When your Lordships turn to the text you may, perhaps, be surprised that lawyers should put it in such very unstimulating language. I may say that steps have been taken to consult a number of authorities which are interested in this subject, including the Association of Chambers of Commerce, and I think I may safely say that the objects of the Bill are generally approved. Further, it is widely recognized both by lawyers and laymen—indeed there was a leading article in The Times upon the subject only the other day—that as the law works out at present it really is not in all cases fair. I would only say this for the law and still more for the Judges. I beg your Lordships to remember that in these matters the Judges have to decide
140
what the law is. It is not for them, in cases in which they find that the law works hardly, to declare it something different to what it really is. There are historical reasons which I need not go into, why the law is what it is. The duty of Parliament when there is a situation which is not really fair under the law, is to make an Amendment, and the Amendment is in this Bill. If this Bill becomes law it will be part and parcel of the law of the land.
I need not delay your Lordships by going into details of the Bill, because these are the two provisions which sum up its main purpose. I would like, however, to mention shortly two other matters. If this Bill is passed, how soon will it apply? There are a great many cases where the best thing is to ensure that your new Statute will not apply to anything at all which has even begun to exist until after the Statute is passed. In view of the fact that this injustice, as I consider it to be, may and does arise from time to time now, it seemed to me better in this Bill to make provision of a slightly different kind. Clause 2 (1) of the Bill provides:
"This Act shall apply to contracts, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, as respects which the time of discharge is on or after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-three, but not to contracts as respects which the time of discharge is before the said date."
This Bill is already well known in the commercial community and it will be known more fully after the debate to-day. It seems to me to be a right provision to make that the relief which it affords shall apply in cases of existing contracts providing it only applies where such a contract becomes frustrated after a future date which we have not yet reached.
The other provision which I had better mention is of particular interest to the shipping community. It is Clause 2 (5) which reads:
"This Act shall not apply to any charter-party, except a time charterparty or a charter-party by way of demise, or to any contract (other than a charterparty) for the carriage of goods by sea."
This provision may seem to have a rather special and technical air. It is a provision that the Act shall not apply to certain shipping contracts. I will offer this brief explanation, if only for the purpose of getting it on record. It will be

141
observed that Clause 2 (5) exempts from the operation of the Bill charterparties (other than time charters or charters by demise) and other contracts for the carriage of goods by sea. The reason for this is that there have long been established as part of the general maritime law the two principles th;:.t advance freight is not repayable even though ship and cargo be lost before delivery can be effected, and secondly that unless otherwise agreed freight (other than advance freight) is only payable if the contract is completely performed.
These principles have for many years been acted upon by the business community (very often not only by British subjects, but also in connexion with arrangements made by British shipowners with foreign customers) and any alteration would involve substantial modification of the present insurance practice. This seems to be both unnecessary and undesirable. On the other hand, there is no similar generally accepied rule as to hire payable under a time charterparty or a charterparty by way of demise and, though many such contracts, in terms provide that any hire payable in advance and not earned shall be returned (which provision would be saved by subsection (3) of this clause), it has been thought right that these contracts should, in general, be brought within the ambit of this Bill. That may sound a little technical, and to some it may sound a little archaic, but it may be of interest to one or two members of your Lordships' House to know that charters by way of demise —what are sometimes called "bareboat charters"—although they were rare in commercial practice before the war, have again come into common use both by the British and by the American Governments in cases where, for operational or other reasons, it has not been practicable or convenient for the ships to be manned by the owners' own crews.
I apologize for that lapse into technicality, and I return to the more popular view of this Bill, which is none the less also the accurate view. I submit that the two changes which we seek to make in the law are changes of very considerable general importance, which will work out for the benefit of ordinary citizens, and I hope that your Lordships will sec your way to give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord Chancellor has put very shortly before your Lordships, in an illuminating fashion and, to any who realize the complexity of the problem, in amazingly simple terms, the object of this Bill. He did not tell your Lordships, as he was entitled to do, that the law as finally settled on this subject over twelve months ago—settled so as to do what would commonly be accepted as justice, as against incomplete justice—depends for its leading judgment upon the Lord Chancellor himself. I see also in your Lordship's House to-day the noble and learned Lords, Lord Wright and Lord Macmillan, who both participated in the judgments given by a tribunal consisting of no fewer than seven members of your Lordships.' House on that occasion.
It is with no false modesty that I say that I speak to-day with more than my usual trepidation, because the noble and learned Lord Chancellor is the head of the judiciary and, while I work in the same general field, it is on an infinitely lower plane, and in only a limited area of that field; but in my professional avocation, as a solicitor practising in commercial affairs, I have time and again met with the very problem with which this Bill is designed to deal. I have often felt uncomfortable when the advice which I have had to give has seemed not only to me but also to my clients to be harsh advice, and undoubtedly it has left in the minds of many of them a feeling that less than justice was being done to the situation in which they found themselves. Until the law was finally settled in the Fibrosa case, in 1942, to which I have referred, the principle for forty years had been, as the noble and learned Lord Chancellor has pointed out, that the loss should lie where it fell; and, lying where it fell, it often worked the gravest injustice, as the noble and learned Viscount has made clear.
This Bill radically alters the law as it existed for forty years. The argument has been advanced—and, indeed, it is in general a recognized principle of the administration of justice in this country— that, except for good reasons, a generally-established custom, or the law as generally understood by the community, and upon which the members of the community have for a long time acted, should not be altered

143
"by judicial decision. Here, however, was a case which had become the subject of controversy and ill-feeling—controversy amongst lawyers, and ill-feeling amongst the commercial community—for a period of upwards of forty years. I think that this House, sitting in its appellate quality, did well when it decided, in the judgment of the Lord Chancellor, notwithstanding the fact that one view of the law had so long prevailed, to establish definitely that that view of English law was wrong. It it perhaps worth noting that that judgment settles the law so as to bring it in line with the existing law of Scotland and with a number of Continental systems.
Your Lordships may say that if that judgment of your Lordships' House settled the law, why is it necessary for this Bill to be introduced into your Lordships' House? The answer—I think that the noble and learned Lord Chancellor made this clear, though he did not put it quite in the way in which I am presuming to put it—is that something more is required than merely to accept the position as it was left by the judgment which I have mentioned. The opportunity has been taken by this Bill to give effect to the principles which underlay the decision of this House in its appellate quality. It is no part of the function of this House in its appellate quality—nor, indeed, was the matter before the House on the occasion in question—to go further than to decide the immediate question put before it by the parties to the litigation. The decision in that case was, in general and non-technical terms, that a prepayment should, notwithstanding the previous law, be recoverable. That however, did less than justice to the position, for reasons which the noble and learned Lord Chancellor has indicated, and this Bill is directed to remedying that injustice.
Moreover, the judgment in question dealt only with the case viewed in one of its aspects—namely, where the prepayment was made by the party to whom for the sake of simplicity and clarity I will refer as the buyer, the purchaser. He was, under the rule established by that judgment, entitled in the event of frustration to recover from the seller. It still left the injustice that, in the case of frustration, the seller might find himself, by reason of having to make the repayment, in a position of qreat loss; so that although the loss did not lie where it fell
144
it was made to fall, if the matter had been left there, in such a way as to work perhaps only a little less injustice than did the rule which had previously existed. It is to remedy that that this Bill is brought forward.
It must not be thought, however, that the frustration of a contract always imposes a loss upon the seller. The noble and learned Viscount took the case of a contract for the manufacture and delivery of agricultural machinery which had been frustrated—that was in general the Fibrosa case—but in the event it may very well be that the seller, having manufactured wholly or in large part an article in such great demand as agricultural machinery, finds himself in a very much better position than he would have been in had the contract not been frustrated. I mention that not in any way to derogate from the value and importance of this Bill but merely to indicate that frustration may in certain circumstances bring of itself advantage to one of the parties to the frustrated contract.
There was one point to which the noble and learned Viscount did not refer—he obviously thought it unnecessary—which has occasioned me just a little doubt, but I am very ready to be told that I am entirely wrong. That is in Clause 1 (5), where it is provided that in assessing the sum to be recovered or retained under the general principles to which I have referred, no account is to be taken of money recoverable under a contract of insurance. I am a little troubled by that provision because, insurance being a contract of indemnity, the person insured is not entitled to recover more than his loss, though he is entitled to recover up to the limit under the conditions of the insurance. If money received on insurance is not to be taken into account, may it not be that to that extent this provision will enure to the advantage of the insurance company and not to the advantage, as was intended, of the party to the frustrated contract?
The noble and learned Viscount has directed your Lordships' attention to the provisions of Clause 2 of the Bill under which—I will not say it is made retroactive, but under which it applies to contracts made before the Bill is passed, though only to frustrations arising after the first of July of this present year. Perhaps the noble Viscount, if he has an

145
opportunity of speaking later in this debate, would give some consideration to this relatively small but perhaps not unimportant point, unless I completely misapprehend the position, which indeed I may well have dons. It is this. Since the Fibrosa judgment: and by reason of it certain rights have accrued in this sense, that persons who before that judgment would have felt and been advised that they were entitled to no right of action for recovery of prepayments, upon that judgment becoming law became entitled to institute proceedings for recovery, subject to the Statute of Limitations. At least, that is how I apprehend the position to stand. I believe it is usual in Bills of this kind to insert a saving clause for litigation—at least litigation which may have already been instituted—if the right to that litigation looked as if it would be debarred by subsequent legislation.
The noble and learned Viscount may say there is nothing in this provision which debars litigation on the footing of the Fibrosa judgment for frustrations prior to the 1st July, 1943, but I am just a little apprehensive that the explicit statement contained here that this Act applies to frustrations after the 1st July, 1943, but not to contracts as respects which the time of discharge is before the said date, might possibly be held to operate either to prevent proceedings being instituted which but for this Bill might have been instituted by virtue of the Fibrosa judgment, or to stay proceedings which have actually been instituted by virtue of and following that judgment. Far from wishing to be in any way dogmatic, I indicate the point which I have in mind, because it would be well, I think, if it were possible, to alleviate doubts upon the subject.
I have no doubt that this Bill will be welcomed by the whole commercial community. If I may make a general observation it is this. The subject matter of this Bill was in large part considered by the Law Revision Committee appointed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, when he was Lord Chancellor, of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wright, was Chairman, whose Report was published I think in the middle of 1939 in Cmd. Paper 6009. The Bill in many respects follows closely the Report made by that Committee; or shall I put it the other way
146
and say that most of the recommendations contained in the Report of that Committee are incorporated in the Bill, though others have been added? And I think perhaps it is due to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wright, and his colleagues to indicate the value of such a Report as that.
Finally, I will address a general observation, if I may, to the Lord Chancellor, unrelated to this particular Bill. The Law Revision Committee—the exact terms under which it operates I do not know, but it is irrelevant—has based a number of Reports on matters that have been submitted to it of some complexity, which raise no political questions, indeed I might almost say no controversial questions in the sense in which we understand "controversial" in your Lordships' House. I do not know whether time and opportunity will permit during the war, but I would venture to suggest to the Lord Chancellor, if it be at all practicable, that it would be a most valuable public service if there could be a tidying up of various difficult points that are outstanding of the nature of that which was considered by Lord Wright's Committee in this particular case, so that when the war is over we may be a little more prepared, with the legislation tidied up and certain necessary, though not vital, work already done. I do not know how far it is possible for this Committee to consider such other problems as the Lord Chancellor may think fit to submit, but it would be an additional public service on his part if something could be done to get some of these difficult points out of the way so that we may be readier than otherwise we might be when the war comes to an end. I commend this Bill to your Lordships for all the reasons given by the Lord Chancellor, for some additional reasons which I may have been able to adduce, but perhaps most of all because it does remedy an injustice and will certainly ease the situation and clarify the position of the commercial community as a whole.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, after the clear and lucid explanation given by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack both as to the mischief which the Bill is designed to remedy and the means proposed to deal with it, I should not feel justified in taking up your Lord-

147
ships' time in expressing my welcome to the Bill were it not for the fact that during my years at the Bar I had occasion to deal with these frustration cases both in argument in Court and in advice in Chambers. I saw a great deal of the hardship inflicted by the law. In those days we accepted the law laid down in what were known as the Coronation cases —Krell versus Henry, Chandler versus Webster—and we thought that where money had become payable under a frustrated contract before its restriction the loss fell on the payer; the loss lay where it fell. In the Fibrosa case your Lordships have decided that that is wrong, and that the payments are recoverable so that the loss falls on the payee. No doubt that does remedy the absurdity that where the money is payable under a frustrated contract the question of who loses the money depends on whether the payment was stipulated to be made in advance or not. But that does not, and cannot, alter the fact that the loss is exclusively borne by one of the parties and not by the other, although it is possible that the other party may make a profit out of what ought to be a common misfortune.
The Common Law cannot empower the Court to make any equitable adjustment of the loss. That is a matter for the Legislature. The aim of the Common Law in contract is to give effect to the intention of the parties as expressed by the language they have used in their contract, but, unless in exceptional circumstances, that has no application to a case where the contract has been frustrated. People when they make a bargain look forward to its performance, and do not expect or make provision for the event of its frustration. As I understand this Bill, it does not propose to compensate either party for the loss of his bargain. What it does is to provide that where one party has benefited and the other party has suffered an expense, the Court may adjust the benefit to the expense and the expense to the benefit. I congratulate my noble and learned friend on the introduction of this Bill, and wish it a smooth and speedy progress to the Statute Book. I have been asked by my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham to say that he, too, regards the Bill as one calculated to remedy injustices, and he gives it his blessing.
LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, I intervene for a very brief moment simply in order to congratulate the Lord Chancellor on introducing this Bill. I have for a long time thought that such a Bill would be an improvement in the law. It was overdue, in my opinion, and indeed the substance of the measure was recommended in the Report of the Law Revision Committee in May, 1939. I happened to be Chairman of that Committee, and in substance, for reasons which are there set out, the present measure was recommended as a desirable reform. Since then the Lord Chancellor, as he has told your Lordships, has taken the opinion of all the Chambers of Commerce in Great Britain, and they have given their unqualified approval to this measure. I venture to think it will be a great improvement and will meet with the applause of the commercial and legal community.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, it is with great respect and some humility that I, the only layman to take part in this debate, say a few words. When I explain that I happen to be treasurer of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, your Lordships will realize how important this Bill is to that organization. We are extremely glad that this Bill has been introduced, and we congratulate the Government, particularly my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, who has taken so much trouble in this matter. This Bill is welcomed most whole-heartedly by at least 100 or more Chambers of Commerce and 50,000 industrial and commercial firms. There is news that the Chambers of Commerce in London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Edinburgh, and so on have sent a message to say how glad they are that this Bill is being brought forward. It will undoubtedly remove a great anxiety from the minds of a great many business men who find themselves, through circumstances over which they have no control, in a very difficult position.
There is a point I should like to mention. The whole thing depends on whether the contracting parties have not got in their contracts something in regard to a possible frustration. This is unusual in contracts, but I would say that this Bill does not interfere in any way with the habit of some firms who, in every contract, may have a clause to provide for almost every eventuality. Another point is that the

149
laws of England and Scotland on this subject should be assimilated, but any new legislation—this is the point—should not interfere with the liberty of parties, as I have instanced, to put in a frustration clause. It should not in any way limit that liberty. As far as we can see, this Bill meets those views. There has been a good deal of discussion on a much wider proposition for amending the present law, which is not covered I think by this Bill. I do not complain about it, but I would like my noble and learned friend later on to say, if he will, why it is not covered in this Bill, that is, if I am right in thinking it is not. It is suggested that whether there has been prepayment to one party or pre-benefit to the other or not, the Court should effect adjustment by awarding an allowance for expenditure incurred and setting it off against allowances for benefits accruing under the partly performed contract. If I am wrong perhaps my noble friend may be able to explain why it was thought that this was inadvisable. If something of that kind could be put into the Bill it is thought that it would help towards amicable settlements without recourse to litigation. It may be necessary later on to bring forward other points in regard to the Bill on the Committee stage, but I can say that this Bill is welcomed by every business institution in the country and I heartily congratulate my noble friend and the Government in having brought the Bill in. I beg to support the Motion for Second Reading.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will not detain the House on this matter for more than a moment or two for we have other business, and interesting business, to do this afternoon; but I must just be allowed, in a few words, to thank noble Lords who have spoken for the welcome which they have given to the Bill. If I may take those who have spoken in the reverse order. I would first say how glad I am to learn from Lord Teviot that I may expect to find the Bill supported by the bulk of the commercial community represented in the associated Chambers of Commerce. That is very important indeed. The noble Lord is quite right in saying the Bill does not provide the very much wider treatment of those difficulties which he very clearly indicated and which possibly we may have to discuss at a later stage. I will only say now that when you are enacting, as you are enacting here, that the Court, the Judge,
150
is to intervene and is to decide what is the right thing, you must never forget that you are putting upon the Judge a very difficult task. It is not like deciding who is right or wrong in law; it is a question of the distribution of responsibility. My own strong view is that it is much better that this Bill should deal with the specific points that it does deal with. I think it would be a mistake to appoint even persons as fair-minded and eminent as British or Scottish Judges to undertake a very much wider obligation and in effect to remake contracts for people in all sorts of circumstances. It is a practical matter. I think what I have suggested would be the wiser course. However, we may consider that later.
The noble Lord is right when he says the Bill does not in any way seek to force people to make contracts in any particular form. I would call attention to subsection (3) of Clause 2, which provides that if there is a contract which contains a provision to meet the cases of frustration should they arise, that it is the bargain made which is to be enforced and not some different bargain which the Courts make. A quite usual instance is a contract which provides that if war breaks out such and such a thing shall happen. Of course if that is the case, though the war may have frustrated the contract, there would be some instances, at any rate, where that special provision would apply.
I am greatly indebted to my noble and learned friend Lord Wright, and indeed very grateful to Lord Nathan for filling in a deficiency of my own. I should have acknowledged in the first instance that the inception of this Bill and a great deal of the effort that has gone to building it up, is all to be found in the report of the Law Revision Committee of which my noble friend Lord Wright was Chairman and which has worked very hard at this and other subjects. I know that great benefit has been conferred on the community thereby. Nothing would be more grateful to me or your Lordships generally than the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. It was like old times to hear him: when I think how many times he and I, either in consultation or in opposition, have endeavoured to make sense of the present law on this subject of frustration and how constantly we have confided to one another that we thought the present law is all wrong, it is a very great satisfaction to me to have

151
heard him in what I hope is the death of the old bad law.
Last, but by no means least, I would wish to thank Lord Nathan for his very kind and very helpful speech. I think the answer to his question about insurance is really this. The provision he refers to is in the first part of subsection (5) of Clause 1. It is intended to preserve the rights of insurance companies either by limiting the losses or giving subrogation rights; but I will look into it again in the light of what he has said. As regards the first subsection of Clause 2 on which he also made a comment, frankly I do not feel exactly as he does, and he advanced his own point about it very tentatively. It is quite clear that the provision in Clause 2 (1) applies only in the case where frustration occurs in the future. I do not see how anybody could have started an action in order to recover his rights upon frustration under the law as it now is, because a contract has been frustrated, if the contract has not yet been frustrated at all. I think, therefore, if he will look at that again, he will be satisfied that the clause is reasonable. I feel I have occupied quite enough of the time of the House this afternoon and I hope your Lordships will now allow me to have the Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COAL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order); Amendments (Privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
PENSIONS AND DETERMINATION OF NEEDS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (INTERIM DEVELOPMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received. May I make the observation that I have put down Amendments to the Bill to be moved on Report? They
152
will make changes in the Bill that are really designed to meet points which were strongly urged in Committee. I do not think they will be opposed, but I wish to call attention to the fact that they are made to meet some difficulties which have been felt in certain quarters.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Motion agreed to; Amendments reported accordingly.
Clause 2 [Refusal and postponement of interim development applications]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:
"(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the duty of an interim development authority—

(a) to take into consideration with reasonable dispatch all interim development applications made to them, other than applications the consideration of which is postponed under the provisions of this section or which are referred to the Minister for decision in accordance with the subsequent provisions of this Act; and

(b) to give notice to the applicant of their decision upon the consideration of any such application, including, where the application is refused or granted subject to conditions, a statement of the reasons for their decision."

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to meet, as far as practicable, the views expressed by Lord Bledisloe in Committee. It does not give effect to the suggestion that the applicant should be entitled, where any opposition has been made and his application is therefore deemed to be refused, to learn from the local authority whether they have any objection to the development being carried out. It would be difficult to make provision for this purpose for the reason I gave on Committee stage—namely, that ex hypothesi the planning authority have at the material time not considered whether they have any objection or not. If further provision were made for this purpose it would appear necessary to give them a substantial period, of the order perhaps of two months, in which to make up their minds on the subject. That would cause considerable delay and inconvenience and would not dispense with the necessity for a formal appeal to the Minister. It seems best, therefore, to rely on the procedure of appeal to the Minister. When an appeal is lodged the Minister will at once require the interim development authority to state in writing

153
what objections they have to the appeal, and as soon as the objections are received they will be transmitted to the applicant.
At the same time, as your Lordships will see by the proposed Amendment, I suggest that we should insert in the Bill provisions which will make it plain that it is the duty of the interim development authority to take into consideration with reasonable dispatch all interim development applications made to them, and to give notice to the applicants of their decision on the consideration of any such application and to state reasons for their decision. That, I think, was the spirit of the comment made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and though I know it does not meet the full extent of his request I believe the Amendment will to a considerable degree give him and others satisfaction. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 30, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
Interim protection of trees and woodlands.
8.— (1) If it appears to any interim development authority that it is expedient, having regard to any provision proposed to be inserted in the scheme in accordance with Section forty-six of the principal Act, to make provision for the preservation of trees or woodlands during the period pending the coming into operation of that provision, they may for that purpose make an order (in this Section referred to as an "interim preservation older") with respect to such trees, groups of trees or woodland areas as may be specified in the order or as may for the time being be designated by the interim development authority in accordance with 1he order; and, in particular provision may be made by any such order—
(c) for the imposition of pecuniary penalties, recoverable in a court of summary jurisdiction, in respect of contraventions of the order.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My first Amendment to Clause 8 is a drafting Amendment and I hardly think your Lordships will wish me to explain it at length. I beg to move that the Amendment be made.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 18, after ("prohibiting") insert ("(subject to any exemptions for which provision may be made by the order)").— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to paragraph (c) of subsection (1), "not exceeding the sum of fifty pounds and, in the case of a continuing offence, forty shillings for each day during which the offence continues after conviction." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to meet a criticism which I think the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, in particular, put forward in Committee. It was said that if you allowed by reference an authority to impose a penalty it was not usual to give them an unlimited power and that there ought to be some limitation in the Statute. I said at the time that I had a good deal of sympathy with that view. The limit must be a substantial one, of course, and that is why £50 is mentioned. I think in the circumstances that is reasonable. By inserting this Amendment Parliament itself to that extent will control the maximum penalty which can be imposed.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 28, at end insert ("not exceeding the sum of fifty pounds and, in the case of a continuing offence, forty shillings for each day during which the offence continues after conviction ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD HEMINGFORD: My Lords, may I ask whether the Government have considered the point which was raised on Clause 5? I think the noble and learned Viscount followed my suggestion with regard to the use of the word "salvage" that we should add the word when altering the others. If the words were to read "waste materials or refuse or salvage" I do not think it would be open to the objection which was raised to substituting "salvage" for "waste paper."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that is going back a little—we are now on Clause 8—but in courtesy I will answer the noble Lord. I did consider the suggestion, with those who advise me, and we think that on the whole it is better to keep the same form of words as is used in the principal Act.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

TELEGRAPH BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

BUILDING ÆSTHETICS.
VISCOUNT WIMBORNE VISCOUNT WIMBORNE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the great rebuilding that will take place after the War, they will ensure that due regard will be paid to æsthetic considerations, either by increasing the powers of the Fine Art Commission or by appointing some analogous body; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it may seem strange in the middle of a great war that one should put on the Order Paper a Motion which deals almost entirely with a peace-time subject, but I do not think I need make any apology because I believe it is agreed on all sides that, although our first task is to win the war, our second task, which is almost as Important, is to prepare for the peace. Therefore I should like to call your Lordships' attention this afternoon to an aspect of post-war development which I do not think is receiving the attention which it deserves—namely, the question of the application of aesthetic principles to building.
It is very difficult to discern at this time how post-war Britain will work out, but one thing I think is certain and that is that there will be an absolute spate of building, and my object this afternoon is to urge His Majesty's Government to take steps to avoid the haphazard and uncontrolled building of the past few years. The problem is the same, to my mind, whether rebuilding remains in private hands or whether the proposals of the Uthwatt Report are adopted. In this case the only benefit, so far as I see, that will accrue from the Uthwatt proposals is that you will get larger units which are easier to deal with. It does not in the least follow, because the State has acquired the development rights, that ipso facto good development will be the result; in fact, as far as local authorities are concerned—who will probably be the developing authorities—I think they are in most cases much too busy to pay attention to beauty and that they will need as much as anyone else the control and advice of an authority such as I suggest should be set up to control postwar building. When the war is over, large areas, in fact whole streets and in some cases whole districts, will have to be rebuilt. In the magnitude of the problem lies the opportunity to make a lasting contribution to the beauty of our cities. I will therefore ask your Lordships to turn your attention for a few minutes to the
156
rebuilding of London, which is the most important unit and in some ways the most difficult.
I am not one of those who wish to reorientate London in order to make a sham Paris of boulevards and open spaces. I would with certain exceptions—perhaps the area round St. Paul's—rebuild the streets on the old lines, but I do plead that the buildings should be of good design, of suitable materials and should present a harmonious whole. There is also the normal rebuilding which is always taking place in this country consequent upon the falling in of leases and other reasons. That also, to my mind, should be subject after the war to a measure of control and planning. Some of the buildings that have been erected in the past fifty years or so have gone a long way to change London from the beautiful city it must have been in the middle of last century into an ugly one. Fine old houses have been pulled down and replaced by others where the only idea seems to be to cram as many low, airless apartments as possible into the space available. The result in many cases has been buildings hideous to look at and uncomfortable to live in.
Nowhere has that been more evident than in the fine squares which form one of London's most distinguishing features. To my way of thinking Berkeley Square is already ruined and St. James's Square is well on the way to suffer the same fate. Leicester Square, which was never noted for beauty, has been almost entirely rebuilt in the past twenty years and is now even uglier than before, dominated as it is by that black monster, the Odeon Theatre. I do not think in any other capital or even provincial city in Europe would that building have been allowed to be erected. As a contrast there is one good example of planning in London, and that is Grosvenor Square, which has the advantage of being under a single ownership. There I think you have a fine example of modern town architecture. That, in my view, could have been achieved elsewhere also had there been an authority charged with the duty of protecting the amenities of London.
In passing, I think that a case can be made for not destroying all that is old. Progress, of course, must take place, much as one may regret the passing of Georgian London. But in the past streets like Adelphi Terrace and houses

157
like Lansdowne House and Chesterfield House have been destroyed when, in my view, they should have been treated as national monuments. Take the two houses which I have mentioned. They occupied fine sites and they are now replaced by enormous blocks of flats which, in my opinion, are, to say the least of it, of unpleasing design and quite unsuited to their surroundings. Would it not have been better for the State to have acquired these houses and to have used them, for instance, to display some of our national art treasures which now lie in the cellars of our museums? That, to my mind, would have been real planning, and would have given enjoyment to countless people as well as preserving some of the best examples of eighteenth century domestic architecture. It is these vandalisms which have taken place in the past which make me apprehensive as to the future. What has been done cannot be undone—at least not without great difficulty. But I suggest that the least we can do is to see that it shall not occur again. There is an interesting observation in the Uthwatt Report to the effect that planning exists for the planned, and not for the planners. I think we must bear in mind that it is the unfortunate planned who will have to live in, and look at, the buildings which are going to be erected after the war.
The type of planning which I have in mind, and hope to suggest to your Lordships, should begin straight away, because as soon as the war is over the rush for new houses will be such that in the hurry to produce the goods considerations of the sort which I am advancing may well be forgotten. I would suggest that there should be set up an authority which will at once proceed to make a survey of the bombed areas and those areas due for redevelopment in the near future; that they should prepare elevations, and lay down—and this is most important to my mind—the materials which are to be used in new construction, and that all owners of property, whether public or private, should have to submit their plans to this authority before they would be allowed to rebuild. It is not, after all, such a revolutionary idea. All plans to-day have to be submitted to the London County Council to see whether they conform to the provisions of the London Building Act. Unfortunately, this Act, it seems to me, does
158
not go far enough, and, with great respect to the County Council, I am not certain that they are the right authority to see to this particular side of our planning. The point is who is to be the authority? You must first of all find a body with the necessary qualifications, and then invest it with the requisite powers.
In submitting this Motion to-day I have suggested the Fine Art Commission. I have done that because it appears to me to be the only body which has the necessary knowledge to undertake this admittedly arduous task. But, as at present constituted, the Fine Art Commission has no powers. It can only advise, and its advice need not be taken. One solution, therefore, would be to invest the Fine Art Commission with statutory powers under a new or amended Building Act. Alternatively, these powers which I am suggesting could equally well be wielded by the Minister of Town and Country Planning or by the Minister of Works. I think that my noble friend the Minister who is sitting below me would agree that whether he or his colleague had these powers they would welcome some body on the lines of a Fine Art Commission to advise him and his Department on these very difficult problems.
I think, personally, that the best solution of all would be the setting up of a Ministry of Fine Arts. That has often been suggested in the past but it has always, for some reason, been turned down. But as in these days it appears to be the fashion to set up new Ministries to deal with old problems perhaps the idea would find more favour to-day. I think that never has the necessity for a Ministry responsible to Parliament for the cultural side of the nation's life been more urgent. I think that whatever solution we adopt, whether we set up a new Ministry, or adapt and enlarge the Fine Art Commission, is really a question of machinery. What is really important is the will to plan on sound architectural lines. For example, if the inhabitants of Paris in the last century had not wished to have a fine capital Haussmann could not have taken advantage as he did of the opportunities for exercising his genius. Had George IV not taken the interest in the Crown Lands which he did, Nash would never have flourished and London would have been the poorer. I cannot help reflecting that the squares to which I have referred would not have been of such fine

159
and spacious design if the eighteenth century landlords and builders had not possessed an innate sense of proportion which I fear we have lost to-day. It is possible, I am certain, to build a fine modern city. No one who has walked down, for instance, Park Avenue, New York, would deny that. We have, in this country, so far failed lamentably, I consider, in that direction.
I have not touched on other cities in this country. I have confined my remarks to London; but everything I have said about London applies equally to other big towns. Nor have I touched on the country districts; but the rural problem is just as urgent. When the 30,000 —or is it 300,000?—agricultural cottages about which the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, is so keen, come to be built, there must be some authority to see that our country villages, so far unspoiled, are still preserved. I feel very strongly that anyone who owns land or builds houses in one of our great cities or in one of our villages is, in a certain sense, a trustee for his fellow citizens, a trustee for those people who may never go inside the building which is erected but have to pass it every day on their way to work. If that is accepted, and you plan on the right lines, there must be a compromise between the various interests involved when you put up buildings or execute a large housing scheme. No man, to my mind, be he owner, builder or architect, should be entitled to take his pound of flesh at the expense of good workmanship and good design. It is because I feel that only by setting up some sort of authority such as I have suggested you can enforce that compromise, that I have put down this Motion and made the suggestions which I have made. I shall not detain your Lordships longer, because the hour is late, but I am certain that we all agree that we have to create after the war a better Britain, and I only hope that we shall take some steps to make it a more beautiful one. I beg to move.
THE MINISTER OF WORKS (LORD PORTAL): My Lords, I must first of all ask the indulgence of your Lordships for having to rise to answer the noble Viscount now, but I have an important engagement which I must attend. I am sure we have all listened with great interest to the very wise remarks of the
160
noble Viscount, with which I think your Lordships will be in almost complete agreement, and I will try to answer some of his questions. His Motion asks the Government whether
they will ensure that due regard will be paid to aesthetic considerations, either by increasing the powers of the Fine Art Commission or by appointing some analogous body."
The Government realize their responsibility for ensuring that in the post-war building period all authorities responsible for planning or building, whether Government Departments or local authorities, should have regard to aesthetic considerations, with a view to avoiding inartistic building and haphazard planning. Government Departments have endeavoured in the past to ensure that works and buildings and schemes where design or planning was involved, should pay proper regard to amenity and taste.
The remarks of the noble Viscount will apply, so far as the future is concerned, mainly to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, which has taken over the planning functions, shorn from my Ministry. It was always the practice of the old Office of Works, now the Ministry of Works, to submit plans of important building schemes to the Royal Fine Art Commission, such as plans for new Government offices in Whitehall, museum buildings at South Kensington, and various post office and telephone buildings throughout the country. As regards the preservation and repair of historic buildings, the schemes for the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich and for the repair of the Houses of Parliament were submitted to the Commission, who also gave advice about the decoration of public buildings, such as the Painted Hall at Greenwich and the Foreign Office reception rooms. The Ministry of Transport (as it then was) exercised care to ensure that local authorities consulted the Commission on important schemes for new bridges, and on such new road schemes as involved questions of architectural treatment.
The point that the noble Viscount is making is that if we are going to plan in the future in this country it is particularly with regard to the work controlled by local authorities in our towns, cities and rural areas that advice should be obtained. There are one or two members of the Royal Fine Art Commission in your Lordships' House who can speak from their own ex-

161
perience on this subject. Local authorities were advised by the Ministry of Health to consult the Commission on any question of importance involving considerations of public amenity. The Service Departments consulted the Commission, and in particular very good work was done before the war to improve the layout of Royal Air Force stations in consequence. The Royal Fine Art Commission had established a very considerable reputation before the war, and this was built up on a record of solid achievement. There would obviously be no point in setting up an alternative body to cover the same field. The multiplication of authorities would lead only to confusion and, in the absence of definite guidance, the way would be open to haphazard and inartistic work. In the opinion of the Government, the best way of bringing about æsthetic control is to make sure that the eminent advice available in the Royal Fine Art Commission is properly understood and fully used.
The noble Viscount said that many new Ministries had been created, and it may be that he would like to see a new Ministry established to deal with this subject; but the very fact that one or two new Ministries have been established may be a reason why no more should be created at the present time. The Royal Fine Art Commission were appointed by warrant under His Majesty's Royal sign manual in May, 1924—
"to inquire into such questions of public amenity or of artistic importance as may be referred to them from time to time by any of our Departments of State, and to report thereon to such Department; and, furthermore, to give advice on similar questions when so requested by public or quasi-public bodies, where it appears to the said Commission that their assistance would be advantageous."
In many cases local authorities came direct to the Commission to consult them, just as the Ministries consult them. In August, 1933, a Royal Warrant extended the terms of reference of the Commission for England and Wales,
"so that it shall also be open to the said Commission, if they so desire, to call the attention of any of our Departments of State, or of the appropriate public or quasi-public bodies, to any project or development which in the opinion of the said Commission may appear to affect amenities of a national or public character."
Most of your Lordships will know the personnel of the Commission, but I should like to refer to them. The Chairman is the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, and the
162
Deputy-Chairman is Lord Lee of Fareham. The other members are Professor Abercrombie, who is well-known to anyone who takes any interest in planning, Mr. Ralph Freeman, Dr. Charles Holden, Professor Holford, Sir Edwin Lutyens, Mr. R. C. Norman, Professor Richardson, Mr. Geoffrey Webb, and Mr. Hubert Worthington, and the Secretary is Mr. H. C. Bradshaw. Those are names which are well-known throughout the country to-day, and they really give great power and force to the efforts of the Commission. The Commission consists, as your Lordships will see, of men eminent in their profession, assisted by some well-known laymen with experience of artistic matters. I wish to point out that it is not a Committee of any Government Department; it is quite independent of Government or official control. In the opinion of the Government, it is important that this position of independence should be safeguarded, and that public opinion should continue to be satisfied that when schemes are referred to the Commission the advice given is detached and independent.
When all the rebuilding and replanning which will have to be done after the war is borne in mind, there is no risk, of course, of the Fine Art Commission not being adequately used; the difficulty is rather that there will be too much work to do. The gentlemen who constitute the Commission work part-time and are unpaid, and there is obviously a limit to the demands which can be made upon their time. Clearly they should not be required to deal with questions of small importance, or with those which could be settled at a lower level. The question of how such plans should be settled comes directly under the Minister of Town and Country Planning. He proposes, under the Interim Development Bill now before Parliament, that he shall have power to direct the authority concerned, before they decide upon any interim development, to consult with such other authorities or persons as he thinks fit, and reference to the Royal Fine Art Commission will clearly come within that provision. It should be remembered, too, that under the Bill now before Parliament the Minister will have effective control over decisions to be given upon such applications. Control over the design and external appearance of buildings in

163
the interim period supplements the control which, under Section 12 (1) of the Act of 1932, may be exercised after a scheme has come into force.
It will certainly be the policy of the Minister, in exercising his powers of control, not only to consult other Departments who may be concerned, but also in all appropriate cases to consult the Royal Fine Art Commission, or such other bodies as may appear suitable. The Royal Fine Art Commission should therefore, in the Government's opinion, be looked upon as the ultimate authority for consultation on matters of taste and æsthetics. Important national and regional projects promoted by Government Departments and local authorities should be referred to it, and it should be available for consultation by any Government Department in any case of sufficient importance to merit its attention. In addition, it is the intention of the Minister of Town and Country Planning that competent architectural advice shall be made available to local authorities throughout the country.
The question of adding to the functions of the Royal Fine Art Commission will be considered from time to time but it would not be practicable to vest in the Commission powers to veto. The problems with which the Royal Fine Art Commission are from time to time called upon to deal, often present important aspects additional to the aesthetic aspect to which the Commission have primary regard, and in view of the other public considerations which may be involved in the questions referred to them it would not be possible to subordinate to the control of the Commission the final responsibility which constitutionally belongs to Ministers. Moreover, to invest any extra governmental body with executive control over a programme of building work, whether State or local, would present great problems in the sphere of administration. Whatever may be the arguments in favour of setting up a Ministry of Fine Arts, which, of course, would cover a very much wider field, there is no case for such an additional Ministry considered from the point of view of control of building amenities alone. It is hoped that the measures now contemplated will obviate such mistakes as have been made in the past.
164
What I have tried to impress upon your Lordships' House is that from past experience of the Fine Art Commission the Government think that you could not have a better body to consider these aesthetic questions, and their strength lies in their being entirely independent and acting in an advisory capacity. The question of future developments to which the noble Viscount has alluded is already receiving the attention of the Commission and of the Ministries concerned. Therefore I can say to the noble Viscount that the points that he has made are not only very important but are being considered by the Government to-day, because most of us who are interested in our architecture are very much alive to what we ought to make it in the England of the future. We are also remembering mistakes of the past, to which the noble Viscount referred. I have tried to show your Lordships that the intention is to use the Commission even more fully than in the past. I should like in conclusion to thank the noble Viscount for bringing up this subject in the able way he has done, and to assure him that not only is it one in which we are taking the deepest interest, but that we are also looking very closely into the future on the lines he suggests.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I rise with considerable diffidence to address your Lordships. Not only is it the first time that I do so but, having recently been appointed Chairman of the Royal Commission which is under discussion this afternoon, I feel I cannot speak on the subject with any great experience or authority, comparable for instance with that of the noble Viscount, Lord Lee of Fareham, who has served on this Commission for seventeen years, as he has served on so many other public bodies, with skill and loyalty. Moreover, anything that I might have said this afternoon has very largely been taken out of my mouth by the noble Lord, Lord Portal, who has just addressed your Lordships. However, I think that, while asking the indulgence of your Lordships, it is right perhaps that I should address you shortly on this very important matter.
I feel that we should welcome the debate not only for the admirable speech made by the noble Viscount, but also for the important statement on Government policy we have heard, and with which I

165
may say I personally am in very full accord. I think we should welcome this debate because it is in a sense yet another indication of the importance which is attached in the public mind to these matters, and the growing public consciousness that the mistakes of the past must be recognized and must be stopped. We have seen in the years between the wars a brutal destruction of town and country such as I think one can say has no parallel in any other country in the world. What is ever; more disturbing is that this destruction has been increasing in tempo, and in the immediate pre-war years if was proceeding with a rapidity far greater than during any other previous period. It has been a tragic and humiliating spectacle—tragic because it has all been unnecessary and could have been avoided, tragic also because it is irreparable, and humiliating because we have done it ourselves. Public attention has, however, I think been focused on this problem, not so much because of what we have done ourselves in destroying our own cities, but because of the destruction that has been caused by the enemy, which has made it quite clear that in the immediate post-war world great areas of our great cities will inevitably have to be rebuilt and replanned.
It is that, I think, that has put this matter into sharper focus in the public conscience. We all wonder whether we are going to seize this opportunity, or whether we are going to repeat on a far vaster scale than ever before the tragic mistakes of the past. In that atmosphere we await the promised legislation. With its objects we are all in agreement; about the machinery we may perhaps differ. No one would differ from the analysis made by my noble friend of the problem, but one might differ, as I think I do, if I may say so, from some of the measures that he proposes. One of his suggestions was that fuller powers, indeed statutory powers of effective control and veto, should be given to the Fine Art Commission. Another suggestion was that that power of control and veto should be given either to the Ministry of Works or to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and that the Fine Art Commission should be used in an advisory capacity by either of those bodies.
While I entirely agree with him that control must be given to some body or
166
other, I personally very much prefer his second to his first suggestion. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Portal, in feeling that as the Fine Art Commission is not responsible to Parliament, as it is a Royal Commission and has not a statutory position or basis, it would create constitutional problems of very considerable magnitude were these powers to be delegated to that Commission, which is in a sense not answerable to Parliament. I would very much prefer that it should remain in its present advisory position and that the final responsibility should rest, as now, with the Ministers concerned. I feel very gratified that these extensive powers should be suggested for the Royal Fine Art Commission, but I cannot help feeling that the suggestion would not be desirable.
Your Lordships, in hearing the constitution of the Fine Art Commission read out, will have noticed that there were two stages. The second stage under the second Royal Warrant, gave to the Commission far more extensive power of reporting in cases on which its advice had not been sought. It may well be that with the greater responsibilities which must fall to the Commission, in dealing with the new problems, it will be found desirable to request that a further stage of a further Warrant should give to the Commission further and more extensive powers; but I do not think any Government could possibly give such extensive powers as have been suggested by my noble friend (Viscount Wimborne). The Commission is, as has been said, an independent and advisory body, and that is its strength. From what the noble Lord (Lord Portal) said, it is clear that all problems affecting Government Departments will be referred to it. It is clear, also, that any major schemes put forward by local authorities will equally be referred to it. That includes, as I see it, all the major schemes of post-war rebuilding. In that we have a very large safeguard against the kind of thing that has been described by the noble Viscount beside me. Already local authorities are coming to us. Already major schemes of postwar development have been brought to us for our consideration and advice. Others, of course, will follow.
The only point on that which I should like to make is that it is most desirable that these schemes should come before the Royal Commission before they have received publicity. The reasons are ob-

167
vious, and it would be very much to everyone's advantage if the local authorities would all come privately—because our deliberations are entirely private—at an early stage of the development of their schemes, rather than wait until a scheme has reached the full flood of publicity, public criticism, and public commitment to one thing or another. One thing, at any rate, is clear from the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Portal), and that is that the Government and the different Departments propose to keep the Fine Art Commission very busy indeed, and that plenty of work is going to come our way. If we are to be considered, to use his phrase, the ultimate authority on questions of taste, and if these schemes are coming to us, then it is equally clear that our scope, our staff and its status, must be extended in order that we may deal with these matters properly.
The noble Lord paid a very fine tribute to the work of the Commission, and as I am a new member of the Commission I can, in all modesty, say that that tribute was very well deserved. I am amazed at what has been achieved by the Commission in the past, by the generosity with which the Commissioners and the staff have given of their time, experience, and wisdom to the solution of the many and varied problems which are set before it. Their work is little known to the public, and if only for that reason I welcome this debate as indicating in some measure to the public the work that is being done behind the scenes. The Commission has done much in the past, and greater work and greater responsibility lies before it. The Commission is prepared to do this greater work and to accept the greater responsibilities, and to look forward to a period of greater service than it has performed in the past.
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM: My Lords, unlike my noble friend, I am afraid I cannot claim the indulgence which is extended to those who make a maiden speech, but as it is something like twenty years since I last troubled your Lordships with any remarks of mine, perhaps you will permit me for a few moments to intervene at this stage. In particular I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Crawford, not only on the speech which he has just made, but also on his gallantry in assuming the very difficult post of Chairman of the Royal Fine Art Commis-
168
sion at a time when, as is well known to your Lordships, his shoulders are already overburdened with an immense amount of war work which would have been more than sufficient for anyone with less vigour and patriotic willingness to undertake extra duties than he has. So far he has not had an opportunity of attending many meetings of the Royal Commission because, as he said, he is a new member, but he has already had time to show what an admirable choice was made in selecting him as our Chairman, and I can assure your Lordships that he commands the enthusiastic loyalty and support of his colleagues, both old and new.
I cannot claim, myself, that I have attended only a few meetings of the Commission. There have been two hundred in the last seventeen years or thereabouts, of which I have attended over one hundred and seventy, so I can perhaps speak with some knowledge of the work and needs of the Commission. It is really unnecessary for me to expand that point after the very full statement that has been made by Lord Portal and also by my noble friend behind me. He said that the activities of the Commission in the past were very little appreciated by the public. I believe that is true. There has been a sort of idea of a body of aesthetic gentlemen who occasionally consider some aesthetic question of which nothing more is heard. I doubt whether even many members of your Lordships' House are aware of the multifarious tasks that have been relegated to the Royal Fine Art Commission, ranging from cathedrals to postage stamps, from great Government buildings, museums and so forth to telephone kiosks and even helmets for the London Fire Brigade. No matter in one sense has been too small and no matter has been too great. I entirely agree with Lord Portal's warning that if too much is attempted to be piled upon the shoulders of a Royal Commission, a part-time unpaid body, it will itself collapse under the strain.
The point which Lord Crawford made that the task of the members of the Commission would be enormously facilitated if they were consulted at a sufficiently early stage, is one which has been sometimes more honoured in the breach than in the observance. If that were done, not only would they be enabled to discharge their functions more adequately,

169
but it would relieve them of a great deal of embarrassment. It is true they are possibly hampered in some respects by insufficient powers, but there will be an opportunity, as the Minister has pointed out, to make representations to that effect if need be and the Royal Warrant might be amended and extended in that respect. I entirely agree with him and with Lord Crawford that to confer a power of veto upon a Royal Commission over all buildings would be constitutionally impossible, and would really not carry things forward in the direction that we desire. It is a great encouragement, I am sure, to the Royal Commission to know that it is to receive such cordial and powerful support from the Government in performing its duties in the future, and. if I may do so at this point I would like to express the opinion that Government Departments themselves, when they are erecting buildings of importance, should in all cases set the example of consulting the Commission before matters have gone so far that it is too late to intervene.
As regards the suggestion that there should be a Ministry of Fine Arts, I would add my view to that expressed by Lord Crawford and Lord Portal that it would be a great mistake to try and set up a new Ministry of that character. Those of us. who have had to do with politics for a long time, know what would be the inevitable result. A Ministry of Fine Arts would be considered to be a Ministry of secondary importance. It probably would be entrusted to Ministers who had perhaps not been conspicuously eminent in other fields or were not likely to be so and there would be constant changes. You would get a constant change of Minister, you would not get continuity of administration and there would be no guarantee at all that a Minister of Fine Arts might not be as ignorant of aesthetic considerations as a Hindu is of skates.
I think it is a proposal which would not be an effective alternative to a Royal Fine Art Commission given all the powers that it requires, entirely independent, and acting in an advisory capacity. It is indeed a great deal more than that in reality because, particularly in cases where a grant of public funds is involved, the recommendation of the Fine Art Commission that a scheme should not be proceeded with enables; a Government Department concerned to veto the furnishing of
170
Government funds for it and the scheme falls to the ground. That is really a much stronger and more satisfactory position for the Commission to be in. As a member of the Commission I should like to thank the Government for the very encouraging statement which they have made this afternoon.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I would like to join in the congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, on his speech and in the hope that he will often address us. Perhaps, too, I should congratulate Rip Van Winkle, as the noble Viscount, Lord Lee, describes himself, on having addressed us once again after an interval of twenty years. I rise only to say that I do not think this debate, which has been so wisely initiated by Lord Wimborne, should end on a note of what might be called complacency, by saying that everything is for the best because the Royal Fine Art Commission is an admirable body and that it is going to be applied to in future. That is answered at once by the speech of Lord Crawford himself, in which I think he arrested the attention of your Lordships by saying that during the years between the wars our experience had been tragic and humilat-ing. Those were the words he used. Yet the Fine Art Commission was in existence all the time and why did it not intervene? The answer is because it had not the power.
And is it conceded, my Lords, that it would be a good plan if the Fine Art Commission had the power to prevent these tragic and humiliating things from happening? I think it is. The services rendered by the noble Viscount, Lord Wimborne, will only be adequately repaid if we in this House at the proper moment insist that the appropriate powers should be given to the Fine Art Commission to prevent these tragic and humiliating experiences happening for a second time, and that it should be consulted before any building is erected. This should not be limited to Government buildings or to buildings where there is a Government grant, but should apply to all public authorities and all buildings in our towns and villages. These should in some way be under the wise, benevolent and æsthetic power of the Royal Fine Art Commission so that the monstrosities and horrors which my right honourable friend calls "tragic and humiliating," shall

171
never occur again. That I think is the answer we should give to the noble Earl, Lord Crawford.
THE EARL OF WARWICK: My Lords, may I first of all extend my congratulations to the noble Earl on his maiden speech and say how much pleasure I had in listening to it and how very much I hope to hear him often? When Lord Wimborne first asked me to support him in this Motion, I was very enthusiastic; then I had cold feet. The reason I had cold feet has appeared very clearly from the debate this afternoon. Are we to go on with the Royal Fine Art Commission, which is doing and always has done a very, very good job indeed, or are we going to introduce some new Ministry, which would, as Lord Lee said, be considered a second-rate Ministry-a Ministry which would have no power and would be in charge of a Minister with very little authority among other Ministers, whose term of office would be very short, and so on? I felt very doubtful; I still feel very doubtful. I think it is a very questionable point. Lord Mottistone has just told us why. I do not think it may be questionable any more because, although from 1924 onward we had the Fine Art Commission, yet between 1924 and 1943 a very great deal of very bad building has gone on.
It is no good sitting down and asking the Fine Art Commission-although it is a wonderful body-to do something impossible. Something better must be evolved. Surely it can be. In trying to think out where the whole business went wrong, I came to a conclusion, which is possibly a wrong one, but it seems to me to make sense. This country is governed by Parliament and the only real way in which we can get anything done here is for noble Lords like Lord Wimborne or Lord Mottistone to get up and say, "I want to know why something has not been done, please do it "-in other words, to make a fuss.
That is the way we get things done. That is the way we like to be governed. But we cannot send for the Royal Fine Art Commission and say "Please will you tell us why there are these ugly buildings?'' We cannot send for the Minister of Health and ask that question. He is building cottages to-day and he has a very important job. He is responsible for providing all the essential modern con-
172
veniences. He has limited money to spend, poor man, and he is answerable for the drains and the kitchen stove. He is conscientious and must do his job properly. He is advised by the Royal Fine Art Commission, but when you are trying to put a gallon of beer into a pint pot you have to do what seems right, and if your terms of reference as Minister of Health are to look after amenities, beauty has to go to the wall. That is why I feel we must have someone who can come into Parliament and be answerable to Parliament when a place is ugly or something has not been done. It is not enough to ask the noble Earl as Chairman of the Commission to give advice. Looking at some of the building which has been done in the last few years, I am afraid that the advice of the Commission has not always been accepted, or else, through lack of funds and lack of staff, they have been unable to do their work fully.
Although the hour is getting late, I would like for a moment to draw your Lordships' attention to a side of the question which has not yet been mentioned, a side, other than building, which could be looked after if we had a Minister of Fine Arts as they have in France and indeed in most countries other than our own. Take, for instance, the tourist business. That has always been one of the great businesses of Europe and our country has had a good share. A Minister of Fine Arts could do a great deal to aid that industry. We have a heterogeneous collection of Trusts and Commissions and Committees who look after ancient monuments and pictures, the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery, and provincial museums have little committees of their own. If they were all collected under one Ministry would not the tourist industry profit? I think it would. Educationally also I feel that there is a lot that could be done by such a Ministry. We have wonderful things which we have inherited from our forebears. The museums are full of them. In winter when the weather is abominable there is very little to do in Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Glasgow or Edinburgh, except to go to the cinema. Would it not be a good thing if a selection of pictures from the Tate Gallery could be sent to Birmingham for a time, or to Edinburgh, and so on? There are many things that could be done if there were a

173
single authority. If that authority is to exist it should exist in the traditional way of British government: of having a noble Lord or an honourable Member in another place who can be called upon to answer questions and be required to give a proper and sensible answer. I feel that there is a very strong case for setting up a Ministry of Fine Arts on the lines of the Ministries in France and many other European countries.
VISCOUNT WIMBORNE: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Lord, Lord Portal, for his very interesting reply and I think he would have enjoyed the debate as much as I have had it been possible for him to stay to listen to it. If nothing eke has come out of the debate it has brought a most interesting speech from the noble Earl, the Chairman of the Fine Art Commission. Members of the Commission do not: seem very keen on the role I cast for them, but the noble Lord, Lord Portal, has at any rate given an assurance that in the matter of Government buildings and so far as possible where municipal schemes are concerned the Fine Arts Commission will be consulted. Nothing, however, in what Lord Portal has said can stop me as the owner of a freehold house pulling it down and putting up a building worse than the Odcon Theatre, if possible. I do not want to press the matter to-day, as there will be many opportunities in future when new legislation is introduced to raise the subject again. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the
Urban District of Market Harborough:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid on the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders
174
are applicable to the following Bills:

Marriages Provisional Order,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bucks Water Board),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Chiltern Hills Spring Water),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Banbury Water),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Harrogate),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Wetherby District Water).

The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

THE EARL OF NORBURY.
Petition of Ronald Ian Montagu, Earl of Norbury in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland: Read and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report upon to the House.

GLOUCESTER GAS ORDER, 1943.
Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power on the application of the Gloucester Gaslight Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

PORT TALBOT GAS ORDER, 1943.
Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power on the application of the Borough of Port Talbot:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

GAINSBOROUGH GAS ORDER, 1943.
Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power on the application of Gainsborough Urban District Council:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

WANDSWORTH AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1943.
Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power on the application of the Wandsworth and District Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for Affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned.