Lords Sitting of 11 June 1945

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

THE LATE EARL OF ONSLOW.
2.5 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, it is with great regret that your Lordships will have read in the Press this morning the sad news of the death of Lord Onslow, lately Lord Chairman of Committees in your Lordships' House. Others of your Lordships with far longer experience than I can speak of the valuable work which the noble Earl performed in the execution of his very responsible duties as Lord Chairman. He brought to that office not only the legacy of his father's previous tenure, but a long and varied experience of public affairs seen from many angles and from many Departments. He had served in the Foreign Office, and in the Diplomatic Service abroad. From Lord-in-Waiting he had passed successively through the offices of Civil Lord of the Admiralty, Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, to the Ministry of Health, to the Board of Education, Under-Secretary of State for War, and Paymaster-General. Moreover, in such spare time as the tenure of these posts allowed him, he had taken a prominent part as Chairman or member of several important Committees and Commissions, the principal of which was the Royal Commission on Local Government of 1923, of which he was the Chairman.
He brought the fruits of all this widely varied experience to the service of your Lordships' House, when he was first appointed Lord Chairman of Committees here in 1931. To this office he was reappointed Session after Session until last year, when in 1944 increasing ill-health compelled his retirement. During the previous two years he had fought with indomitable courage against the recurrent heart trouble to which he has now succumbed. Your Lordships will remember that, even after his resigna-
528
tion, when we had but little hope of ever seeing him in his place here again, he returned for a last brief period of activity, apparently much restored, and spoke to us in several debates with much of his old vigour. And now the long and unequal struggle has ended, and we can but express our personal sorrow and sense of loss at his passing, and our sympathy with his widow and his family.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I wish with my noble friends to associate myself with what the Leader of the House has said about the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. With many other members of your Lordships' House I have on a great many occasions received most friendly help from him. I knew him mainly as Chairman of Committees. One knows that he had behind him a ripe experience and a wide knowledge of procedure and he was at all times a very valued and helpful adviser, as I am sure many of us found on several occasions. Apart from that, he often brought to our discussions an entirely independent and exceedingly well-informed view. He was especially wide minded and alert when matters of a constitutional character were involved. He had, too, as many of you know, an intimate knowledge of foreign affairs, especially in some countries. In many ways he brought to the service of the House the resources of a full mind which was always at the disposition of those of us who had to consult him, as many of us did privately, on business of the House. I am quite sure that we all wish to join with the noble Lord in his expression of sympathy, and we mourn the loss of a man who was a most disinterested, right-minded, and valued public servant.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, it was only a little more than a year ago that we expressed our gratitude to Lord Onslow for his long and devoted service as Chairman of Committees of this House during a period of no less than thirteen years. Although he was able to resume some attendance here after his retirement, it was plain, nevertheless, that his health was failing; and now he has left us. He touched life at many points— the Army, the Foreign Office, diplomacy, Government offices; but especially it will be for his service in this House that his name will be remembered. His long public career was marked by a single-minded devotion to duty, and he gave a

529
fine example of the traditions of British public life. To his widow and family we offer our deepest sympathy.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD STANMORE): My Lords, as Lord Onslow's successor as Chairman of Committees I should like to add my word of regret to those which have already been spoken. During the last fifteen months I have constantly come across instances of the valuable work he did as Lord Chairman and the many reforms which he initiated. His memory will long be treasured by all those connected with his work.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WESTON-SUPER-MARE)BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (DONCASTER) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (IRWELL VALLEY WATER BOARD) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

FINANCE (No. 2) BILL.
2.11 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill. If your Lordships have provided yourselves with a copy of the Bill, you will be struck by its slim and graceful appearance. The explanation is that it is not the main Finance Bill of the year at all, but merely contains a few provisions of the main Bill which it is either necessary to pass now or just as well to pass now since they are quite uncontroversial. The Finance Bill that was introduced in another place after the Budget Resolutions had been adopted and was printed on the 3rd May is what you would expect, in these modern days,
530
a Finance Bill to be: that is to say, it is a volume of over fifty pages of print, it has a very large number of clauses, and I think several Schedules, and is interesting reading to those who like reading that sort of thing. The present Bill, however, is very attractive because of its brevity.
There is very little left in our system of taxation which requires to be annually renewed by Statute. In the old days, when some of us were younger, we used to be taught that there was one direct tax and one indirect tax which were a matter of annual enactment, and it was alleged that this was for the purposes, among other things, of securing an annual meeting of Parliament and of establishing the control of the House of Commons over the system of taxation. As a matter of fact, there are other very good reasons why the House of Commons should control such things, and nowadays there is no need to provide that Parliament should meet every year— it meets nearly all the time. It still is the case, however, that the Income Tax Act has to be annually renewed, though the Tea Tax has not, and the most important clauses here are Clauses 3 and 4 which provide for Income Tax continuing in this present fiscal year at the present rate, and then the following clause, No. 4, which provides for what might hereafter be authorized in the way of Surtax or Supertax. I might perhaps just observe, in order to remove a passing anxiety, that though in connexion with the Surtax the figure of £1,500 is mentioned, the Surtax, as some of your Lordships will remember, only begins now at £2,000, and the lower figure does not, in itself, indicate a change of policy hereafter. Authority was needed, however, to start at a lower figure, and the decision will be taken later by Parliament as to the figure—not lower than that—at which the Surtax will in fact start. The other provisions are of a technical character, important to those they may affect, but not so important to others.
The first clause, which deals with the Customs Duty on hops and the like, has to be enacted now because the present provisions are provisions for four years at a time. It started in the year 1925, and four times five is twenty. If you add twenty on to 1925 you will find that 1945 is the year when there has to be another

531
four years' jump. The provision under Clause 2, regarding the Purchase Tax, is a useful provision because it may be that certain relief will be needed in the case of goods which, though not marked with what is called the "Utility" mark in some cases, may be marked in some other authorized way. Subsection (5), which increases the standard profit in certain cases for the purpose of the Excess Profits, is really designed to give additional help to the small trader. He is not to be compelled, in the calculation of his excess profits, to start at the minimum figure at which he often started before, because, in any event, there will be added to that minimum figure one-tenth of the difference between that figure and £12,000.
Lastly comes the provision in Clause 6 which varies the present statutory provision as to the permanent annual charge for the National Debt. The Finance Act passed, I think, at the time when the present Prime Minister was at the Treasury, fixed that figure at £355,000,000. The effect of it was that if you did not require as much as that to pay the permanent charge on the National Debt, you had at least to set aside that much. That was the limit, unless, indeed, the charge was more, when the larger charge had to be met. That figure has really passed out of the area of practical reckoning and it is better, therefore, to adopt the higher one of £465,000,000, which I am informed is very much like the amount which will be needed in the present year for meeting fixed debt charges. Those are the objects of the Bill. I feel sure your Lordships will pass it with alacrity, if only because of its brevity.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
2.18 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I can assure the Lord Chancellor that we shall offer no opposition to this slender and handsome Bill which he has introduced. I have only one observation to make. Since the long sickness of my noble friend Lord Arnold, his mantle has fallen on my shoulders and I shall go through the form of initiating the small debate which your Lordships devote to perhaps the most important Bill of the year, the Finance Bill. This time I want to make a suggestion for the Bill that will follow
532
this. The Lord Chancellor said that this is an interim, temporary measure and that some Government will presently have to draw up the real Finance Bill. Whatever the result of the forthcoming appeal to the country, I am at this moment addressing certain Cabinet Ministers and I venture to suggest that some consideration should be given to using our arrangement of taxes to encourage exports. I particularly address myself to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, because he is still, I understand, in charge of reconstruction, and if it is his duty to look into these matters perhaps he will consider this point.
The system of differential taxation in this country is unpopular, particularly with regard to Income Tax, but with regard to excess profits perhaps it might be possible to consider those firms which are in the export trade and give them some rebate or allowance. In most cases it is far more difficult—and it will be especially so in the years ahead of us—to carry on the export trade, with all its risks and uncertainties, than it is to cater for the home market; and some encouragement, we suggest, should be given to those manufacturers and merchants who are engaged in the export trade to compensate them for this extra risk and trouble. Particularly in regard to excess profits, if there could be some tempering of the wind to the shorn lamb it might give a fillip to our export trade which would be of great value to the whole nation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say, in reply to the noble Lord, that I will see that his suggestion is considered in the proper quarter?
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

HOUSING (TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION) BILL.
2.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, that the Government should have to ask your Lordships to consider the present Bill and at this time in the life of this Parliament is a measure of the urgency and difficulty of the housing situation with which we are faced. In October last the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act was

533
passed into law, and we have now begun the production of temporary houses under this Act and the flow of houses will steadily increase throughout the summer. We realized that one of our main difficulties was going to be the provision of sites for these houses and the Act of 1944 made special provision for the acquisition of land for that purpose. At an early stage, however, it became quite clear that special difficulties were going to arise in a few of the most completely built up and bomb-damaged areas in this country, particularly in London, Manchester and Birmingham. The amount of land of any description in these areas which has not been built upon is necessarily small. Moreover, if one uses land which has been acquired for the provision of permanent houses and puts temporary houses on it, it means that permanent houses cannot be built on the land for something like ten years. We find ourselves in the same position if we put temporary houses on bombed sites.
The position in the County of London illustrates the matter very well. The London County Council and the Metropolitan Borough Councils have found sites for 10,301 temporary houses out of their allocation of 12,000. Two thousand of these sites are on London County Council housing sites outside the county, so that 8,301 have been found within the county. There remains, however, a balance of 1,700 sites which cannot be found in London without blocking some other development and these sites accordingly will, if your Lordships pass this Bill, have to be found on parks and open spaces. Open spaces have the incidental advantage that in some cases they are fringed by roads which have the necessary services under them and the land is already in the possession of the local authority. Thus we save time in the legal processes of acquiring the land and we probably save from two to four months in development work.
Now may I say a word as to the existing law and the alteration that the present Bill will make? Under Section 143 of the Housing Act, 1936, parks and open spaces can be appropriated for housing purposes only by a Provisional Order unless other land is given in exchange that is equally advantageous to the public. The procedure by Provisional Order is of course protracted. Under the Bill the
534
Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health will be enabled, for a limited period of two years and subject to important safeguards, to authorize a local authority to use for temporary houses an open space vested in them. The Bill contains a number of important limitations on the use of that power by the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Health. The first is that the Health Ministers can give the authorization only on the application of the local authority. Obviously no local authority will lightly make an application for the use of an open space for this purpose.
Then authorization can only be given if the Minister of Town and Country Planning certifies that he is satisfied that this use of the land is "expedient in the public interest in consequence of the emergency that was the occasion of the passing" of the Rousing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944, "and in the particular circumstances in which the authorization is sought." The Minister of Town and Country Planning proposes to issue a certificate only after a special survey of the area of the local authority, bringing under examination all possible sites, and only after he is satisfied that there is no alternative land available, having regard to sound planning considerations. I think the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, will be satisfied that here at any rate we have taken full recognition of the proper powers of this new Minister. Even where that certificate has been given in respect of a particular area of land, it is still within the discretion of the Health Minister to decide that on balance the authority could do without the houses or have a smaller number of houses. All my observations upon the Bill seem up to now to be an apology. The truth is that none of us like this idea of putting houses upon open spaces and we are only doing it under the greatest pressure of emergency. Finally, the Bill is of short duration. Authorization can only be given during a period of two years from the beginning of the Act. The authorization cannot be for more than ten years and there is a definite provision that the land is to be reinstated at the end of that period.
May I now refer to some anxieties that were expressed during the Committee stage in another place? The first was lest the houses should not be removed

535
from open spaces when the authorization to use the land expired, and the second was that the local authority after the removal of the houses might neglect to reinstate the land. It has been suggested that the Minister of Health should take power to act in default. The inclusion of such a power is outside the scope of this Bill as imposing a charge on the Exchequer. In any case such a power is unnecessary. The Minister already has power under Section 2 (1) of the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944, to remove the houses and any Minister of Health would have the strongest reasons for taking all necessary steps to enable an open space to revert to its original purpose as soon as the right to use it for another purpose expired. As regards reinstatement, any local authority who neglected to reinstate the site after it had been cleared by the Minister— and such cases would surely be extremely rare— would be under the strongest pressure both from their own ratepayers and the committee of the council responsible for open spaces. The Minister of Health also has strong powers of persuasion in these matters.
As regards the cost of reinstating the land, a local authority can require the Minister of Health to remove the temporary houses at any time afterten years from the passing of the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944. The Government appreciate that this might involve expenditure on the local authority which would not arise in the case of ordinary sites, and my right honourable friend is prepared to modify the normal terms on which temporary houses are made available to local authorities so as to ensure that the total expenditure which the local authority is called upon to bear in respect of temporary houses will not be increased owing to the use of open spaces including cost of reinstatement.
Your Lordships will, I am sure, wish me to indicate the position with regard to commons. Only those commons which are either invested in the local authority or are at their disposal come within the scope of this Bill. The great majority of the commons vested in local authorities are vested as public open spaces and all common rights have in fact been extinguished. There may, however, be a few rare cases where a common vests in the local authority and the common rights
536
are still exercisable. The Minister of Health will not approve any proposals submitted by a local authority which involve the disturbance of existing common rights. Then in regard to rights of way the Bill provides that any right of way over the part of an open space which is used for temporary housing shall cease to be capable of being exercised. No public right of way will be stopped up except where an equally convenient or alternative right of way is provided.
As I said, we regret the necessity to introduce this Bill. At the same time it should not be thought that the provisions of the Bill will involve a widespread spoliation of the open spaces which are so necessary for our densely populated towns. It has been estimated that the number of temporary houses in the whole country which are likely to be put on open spaces will number between 7,000 and 8,000. Moreover, a number of the open spaces which will be used have never been properly laid out as parks. Many have been used during the war for war-time purposes, such as the siting of anti-aircraft batteries, and it is that sort of area, and in particular the fringes of that sort of area, which will be used. With the provisions of this Bill so carefully restricted as they are to give the maximum possible protection against the misuse of open spaces, and with the Bill providing as it does an opportunity which will enable us to get some of these temporary houses situated in the areas that want them most and where the local authority have expressly asked for these provisions, I hope your Lordships will be pleased to give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a —(Lord Woolton).
2.33 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I am sure it will be with the utmost reluctance that this House will give this Bill a Second Reading. The towns and cities of this country are so ill provided with open spaces that none of us in this House would wish lightly to take steps which would alieniate existing open spaces from their use as such, but it must be admitted that the demand for housing accommodation is so clamant that even this drastic step must be contemplated. The local authorities, including the London County Council, have with very grave misgivings

537
and much regret taken the view that powers of this kind should be conferred upon local authorities in the hope that they will only be used where all chance of obtaining alternative land has been exhausted. In London the position is particularly acute. We are already ill provided with open spaces for our great population and what open spaces we have, including some of the most beautiful parks in any city in the world, are so mal-distributed that they do not provide for the population generally those lungs and those facilities for open air recreation to which they are entitled. It is precisely in those areas of London where open spaces are most needed that most of these temporary houses are needed. Unfortunately, it will fall out that if any of the London open spaces have to be used it will be those which can be ill spared in the over-built, congested areas of the East End and the south-east of London.
I think that both the Minister of Health in another place and the Lord President of the Council in your Lordships' House are a little too optimistic as to the ability of the London County Council to find in its open spaces suitable sites for 1700 temporary dwellings. I would remind your Lordships that considerable inroads have already been made on the open spaces of London for war purposes. I am not complaining of that. It was inevitable that if a gunsite were needed in a London park, permission had to be given for that gunsite. In the result over 1,400 acres of London open spaces excluding the Royal parks, have been given over to military and civil defence occupation. It may well be said that that occupation has already ceased, or will soon cease; but the land will not therefore become available as an open space on the morrow of evacuation. It will take several years to put back the cricket pitches, the football pitches, the tennis courts, the shrubberies and the gardens of rest. During all that time the London public will be denied the use of 1,400 acres of open spaces. Moreover, quite properly, some 700 acres in addition have been given over to allotments. No one can say what the future policy of this country generally will be as regards allotments, but in any case the land at present being used for that purpose is not available and will not, I
538
apprehend, for some time be available as open space.
So, as I have said, already considerable inroads have been made on the open spaces of London, and the Minister of Health in another place was a little inaccurate, if I may say so, in his figures as to the availability of local authority open spaces in London. He said there were some 8,000 acres of public open spaces vested in the local authorities. I think that is an over-statement. That 8,000 acres includes 1,900 acres constituted by the Royal parks. They are not vested in the local authorities and they are not proposed to be dealt with by this Bill. Moreover, 500 acres of Wimbledon Common, which is exempt under this Bill—I make no complaint about it, I am simply stating the fact—is included in that 8,000 acres, as are also some 350 acres constituted by the London squares, and it is not proposed—I hope, at all events— to appropriate the London squares for this purpose. Therefore, when those adjustments are taken into account, the acreage of open spaces vested in local authorities in the County of London is no more than about 5,500 acres, and out of that 5,500 acres, as I have said, some 2,100 acres have already been alienated — not permanently, I know— for purposes other than recreation and restful enjoyment.
In order to provide accommodation for 1,700 temporary dwellings, we shall need to remove some 800 allotments. It is not a case of just walking into the park or open space and saying: "Here is some open land, we can put temporary dwellings up here." This must be fringe land. It must be land near the existing services; land near the existing roads and streets. Therefore, you are limited to what I have described as fringe land, the depths of which must be from sixty to one hundred feet, and we shall have the gravest difficulty, though acting with the best will in the world, to find sufficient accommodation for 1,600 or 1,700 dwellings, which, as I have said, will mean removing some 800 allottees. That is on the footing that London needs only 12,000 temporary dwellings. The revised allocation for London, as at the 18th May, is 15,000— not 12,000. If 15,000 temporary dwellings are ultimately allocated — as it is to be hoped that they will be — then we shall need additional land for

539
some 4,700 temporary dwellings, which will mean, in total, not 170 acres in strips all over the place, but 470 acres.
I confess that I do not share the easy optimism of the Minister of Health that it will not be necessary to consider the use of some portions of the Royal parks for this purpose. I have no desire to see any park defaced by temporary dwellings, and I do not believe that any member of your Lordships' House has. But, I do not see, in the face of the admitted urgency that exists, why the Royal parks — so described merely because they were acquired by the State and are maintained by the State— should be exempt, and other open spaces should not. There is nothing sacrosanct about the Royal parks. Several of the parks now vested in local authorities were at one time Royal parks. Victoria Park, in the East End, which serves Hackney, Bethnal Green, Shore-ditch, Mile End and Stepney, was until 1877 maintained, as it had been acquired, by the State. And it was a Royal park. Kennington Park until 1887 was a Royal park; so was Battersea Park. Now it is the case that the large remaining Royal parks, like Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, are situated in areas and districts much better provided with open spaces than many of the districts which surround, say, Victoria Park or Battersea Park, or the parks which we shall have to encroach upon to provide these sites.
It seems to me to be something of an injustice that the more fortunate districts of London, where the Royal parks are situated, should be able to retain unaffected, unimpaired and unreduced their open spaces, whereas the less fortunate districts, the overcrowded districts, that great agglomeration termed sometimes, by way of reproach, the East End, should have to sacrifice some of their very scanty and very spare open spaces. I hope, therefore, as the London County Council said in its letter to the Minister as far back as December 22 last, that if this power is to be given to use open spaces, then the Royal parks may be considered from the point of view of their making their contribution to meeting the clamant need which exists for housing.
I was glad to have a repetition of the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in another place, that the Government
540
would bear the cost of reinstatement. The local authorities will be much obliged to the Government for that assurance. I only want to enter this caveat, if I may, that I hope that neither the Ministry nor the Exchequer will be too niggardly when they examine the costs of reinstatement. Reinstatement of an open space as a playing field or as a cricket pitch will always take at least two years, and will sometimes take very much longer. Much money, much attention and much work have been given for many years by the local authorities, not only in London but in the provinces as well, to developing their open spaces to a proper state for use as playing fields or as places of rest. It will take years to reinstate those which have been used for military and civil defence purposes, and it will take years to reinstate those which will be used for the purpose of temporary houses. The cost will not be merely the capital cost at the time that the dwellings are removed, but will also include the wages of park staff, perhaps for years afterwards, for rolling, tending, sowing, cutting and all the other activities which combined go to make a good playing field or cricket pitch. I hope, therefore, that the Ministry of Health and the Exchequer will, in discharging the assurance which has been given, discharge it—I do not say in a wasteful way but in a liberal and responsible fashion, having regard to the circumstances and to the cost of reinstating an open space to its original purpose.
I regret as much as any member of your Lordships' House that the first step in the replanning of London, a replanning which, includes the provision of much more open space for the citizens of London, should have to be, in the circumstances, to ask this House to pass a Bill to enable existing open spaces to be encroached upon; but the fact is that the housing problem is so acute that I do not believe there is any alternative.
2.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I share to the full, as I am sure all your Lordships will, the deep regret expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, and by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, that a Bill of this character should be needed and should have to be introduced into your Lordships' House. It is only sheer necessity that would induce Parliament to pass such a measure. If it had been

541
any financial consideration which had been advanced in support of it, not for a moment would that have been listened to; for the value of our parks and open spaces is beyond all price. Noble Lords on these Benches must, however, in the circumstances most regretfully support the passage of this Bill.
As to the Royal parks, I do not find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Latham. It is not only a question of the comparative needs of the inhabitants of the quarters that surround the Royal parks and of the inhabitants in the East. End and in the south of London with which we are concerned; there is another consideration which comes in which is of very great importance, and that is the dignity and the seemliness of London as the capital of Great Britain and of the Empire. London is a centre which attracts great numbers of visitors from the Dominions, from the Colonies, from the United States and from all other countries. Owing to the neglect of past generations, it in many respects falls short of the dignity and greatness which properly belong to so august a capital; but certainly the parks in the centre of London are a remarkable feature of the city, which to a great extent redeem many of the other districts of London. It would be most regrettable if round Hyde Park, Kensington Gardens, Green Park, St. James's Park or Regents Park there should be erected for a period of ten years a number of temporary houses. That, I think, would be very detrimental to the status and prestige of London.
It is hoped and expected that in the corning years the number of visitors to Great Britain will be enormously increased, particularly with the possibility of cheap air travel from America and from other parts of the world. It may be that this industry of tourism will develop to a degree unimagined at the present time. It may, indeed, develop sufficiently to be an important factor in the economics of Great Britain. In these circumstances, I think that this fact should be taken into careful consideration, and the matter should not be dealt with solely from the point of view of the needs of the comparatively poor and the comparatively wealthy parts of London, though I realize to the full the cogency of the argument from that point of view advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Latham. Perhaps the
542
noble Lord, Lord Woolton, when he replies, will specifically state, for the information of the public, that this Bill does not apply to the Royal parks. That is clearly the case, because it applies in terms only to the parks vested in local authorities; but the general public may not be aware of that, and I do not think that the noble Lord mentioned the point in his introductory observations. It would remove possible misapprehension outside if it were stated in terms that the Royal parks are not affected by this Bill.
There is one other point on which I should like to address your Lordships. This Bill provides, and quite rightly, that all these temporary houses are to be removed within ten years at the latest. There is, however, a great danger in legislation of this character, which is passed more or less under duress and which is subjected to a time-limit, that when that limit is reached the conditions of that day may render it difficult to fulfil it. There may well be a movement in 1955 to ask Parliament to pass another Act to amend the Bill which is now going through your Lordships' House so as to extend the period of ten years and to remove that limitation. By that time, of course, the housing problem may have been solved. Perhaps your Lordships will consider, though from varying points of view, that that will depend largely on the result of the forthcoming General Election, in which, apparently, the noble Lord, Lord Latham, shows physical symptoms of having recently taken part!
Let us suppose, however, that the housing problem is not solved by then, and that to pull down these houses might involve the eviction of some thousands of people who would find it very difficult at that date to obtain other accommodation. A somewhat uneasy situation might then arise. I would suggest that it should from the outset be made quite clear that such a situation should not be allowed to arise, and that all these local authorities who will receive permission to erect these houses should definitely be regarded as under an absolute obligation to make such provision that at the end of these ten years these houses will in fact be removed, and that no request will be made for an extension of the period. In this House to-day I think we should make it clear and put it on record that we pass this Bill with great reluctance, and on the clear understanding that the ten-year

543
limit is meant to be a real statutory limit, and that it must be observed when the testing time arrives ten years from now. With those observations, I for one reluctantly support the Second Reading of this Bill.
2.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF CAVAN: My Lords, after the reluctance which has been expressed not only from the Front Bench but elsewhere in regard to the passing of this Bill, I have no hesitation in saying that I think that it is a horrid little Bill, so horrid that I look on it as a pill rather than a Bill, and, however much sugar may be used to coat it, although it has to be swallowed I regard it as medicine. As things are, I can only ask the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning to extend a sympathetic and protective arm to the very few playing fields that are in existence in the neighbourhood of the great cities. They are essential to the safety of the children of this country. Further, I would ask for that protection especially to the King George's Fields which, as your Lordships will remember, were subscribed for by public money in memory of King George V, and of which two other members of your Lordships' House besides myself are trustees.
There is one thing which I personally quite fail to understand, and that is why it is necessary that these sites for the erection of houses should have to be inside the boundaries of great cities. We have been told for some time past that it is the desire of town and country planning authorities to spread houses out into the country, and not make congestion worse congested. I fail to see why advantage cannot be taken of the surrender of aerodromes where you have perfect runways, electric light laid on, water laid on, all ready. I hope that the local authorities may have their attention drawn to the possibility of the use of these sites outside the boundaries of great cities, so that there may be no serious threat either to Royal parks or to the intensely valuable and not too numerous playing fields that are situated within them. Then I think the shocks that undoubtedly will be administered to the public by the passing of this Bill may be greatly lessened, and it is only because of the Bill's necessity that I would venture to support it.
3.2 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just sat down, I very deeply regret the necessity for this Bill, and I should like to give an answer to the question which the noble and gallant Earl has just asked. In my view the reason why it is necessary to have housing on open spaces in London is that the previous Government— and noble Lords opposite are as much concerned in this as noble Lords on this side— neglected to take the first steps towards a housing policy, which was to have proper land legislation. The late Government failed to tackle that problem. They paid lip service time and again to the fact that they intended to go in for decongestion, dispersal, and redevelopment, but they did not really do anything serious about it because it was too controversial. What is going to happen in that regard now remains to be seen. I am glad to see that the Prime Minister's manifesto has put into the forefront, or, if not in the forefront, has given a very respectable amount of prominence to the intention to deal with compensation and betterment and the location of industry. That is there; I am delighted to see it. But if that land policy had been recognized as what it is— namely, the first step to a proper rehousing policy— two or three years ago, then I think this lamentable necessity might have been avoided. That was not done, however, and we are faced with the necessity of this temporary housing in open spaces.
What has interested me about this discussion is that, although we all dislike this Bill, we are all apparently agreed that it is necessary, and I think my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill did make good his case. The strength of that case is, I think, really known only to those of your Lordships who have been dealing with this housing matter at close quarters for a good many years. The strength of the demand for housing has still to make itself felt. Only one item in the discussion has proved controversial, and that is the question of whether or not the Royal parks should be included within the scope of this Bill. I am bound to say that I entirely agree with what fell from my noble friend Lord Samuel in every respect but that one. I found myself unable to accept his arguments about not

545
including the Royal parks. My Approach is not quite that of the noble Lord opposite, who said that Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park were situated in areas much better provided with open spaces than certain other areas. Well, of course, any area that contains Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park is bound to be better provided with open spaces than others, because those are the best open spaces in London.
LORD LATHAM: That is what I said.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I thought there was an implication that other places should have a share in those open spaces. I think the noble Lord is going to be on my side tomorrow, because I have already given notice that I intend to move an Amendment to this Bill to bring the Royal parks within its scope. Having given that notice, I do not think it would be proper to develop the point to-day, because this is a debate on the principle of the Bill. But the reason for the necessity is that there are certain boroughs in London—I will not particularize because I think my noble friend opposite may have other examples to bring forward— which cannot find even the few sites required for the number of temporary houses they want. Whatever the number may be, there are certain Metropolitan boroughs which cannot find their quota without impinging on the Royal parks. The case will have to be debated tomorrow, and I do not say more to develop it now. Subject to that, I am quite certain it is right that your Lordships should pass the Bill to-day.
3.8 p.m.
LORD HARMSWORTH: My Lords, I venture to intrude on your Lordships' attention for a few moments because this is a subject in which I have been very greatly interested, and indeed actively concerned, for perhaps thirty or forty years; I mean the general subject of parks, open spaces and playing grounds for the people of this country. With all the other noble Lords who have addressed the House, I join in deprecating the necessity for introducing a Bill of this kind. I am not at all sure, however, that the Government, in framing their Bill, have taken all the steps they might have taken to render it of a temporary character. For as certain as we are assembled in this House to-day I am convinced that ten
546
years hence, twenty years hence— and far longer than that— these temporary houses will still be encumbering parks and open spaces. It will be excessively difficult to remove them, and if the cost of removing them is cast on the local authorities my impression is that they never will be removed.
The Government could take charge of the cost of removing these houses, especially having regard to the fact that, as I understand, they will be the property of the Government. Certain assurances were given in another place the other day. Assurances by Ministers, of course, have no enduring quality, and I believe I am right in saying they need not necessarily have any effect on Courts of Law. But I think it would strengthen this position in regard to assurances if my noble friend on the Front Bench, with the immense authority that attaches to his position and his office, would reinforce these assurances of the intentions of the present Government so that at all events they would be on record in both Houses of Parliament.
I hope I am not out of order in saying that the activities of the Government, with their legislation, have caused more anxiety during the last few months to those interested in the open spaces of this country than at any period in all my association with that movement. It would be out of order if I were to discuss the Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill, which was a positive menace in its original form to practically every open space in the country. Fortunately the Government have yielded to representations in Parliament and to a considerable amount of pressure from outside, and have very largely remedied the defects which made that Bill, in my judgment, one of the most unfortunate (having regard to the subject we are discussing) that has ever been introduced into Parliament. The time will come, I think, if it has not already arrived, when Parliament should lay it down as a principle for the guidance of Government Departments and local authorities that they will have no chance of laying hands on a public common or an open space without the express sanction of Parliament given in each instance, and not necessarily merely the sanction of the Minister. This is an enormously important subject and, as has been pointed out before, it is a great pity that in these days of reconstruction and

547
rehabilitation after the war, our own Government, within the last two or three months, have proposed to take measures inimical to all the best interests of open-air life and recreation in this country.
3.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I rise not to say anything in the least controversial on the subject of this measure which has been described as a pill. I think it is a pill but, after all, pills are sometimes a very necessary part of sustenance which human beings have to take. All I wish to point out is a purely legal matter of which perhaps the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has not thought. There is a question with regard to whether commons should ever be taken unless all common rights have in fact been extinguished, and in regard to that the Government are willing to give a very definite assurance. I only want to point this out. There are commons in the country with regard to which nobody knows whether all the common rights have been extinguished or not, and there are also commons in which there may be a very few people interested—I have known cases in which there was only one person left with common rights at all. I would venture to suggest to the noble Lord that the promise that he gives might be, so to speak, limited in this way: that he would not approve— he can speak, I suppose, only for himself— a proposal which involved the disturbance of existing common rights unless there were very few commoners (who could be dealt with) or unless it was impossible to ascertain whether there were any commoners with rights still subsisting. It is a very small matter but it might, in some parts of the country, be very important.
3.15 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down for advising me to make that limitation to the somewhat general words which I used. I do accept that limitation to the assurances that I gave. The noble Lord, Lord Harmsworth, says that Ministers' assurances do not have the force of law. I am glad they have not, because if we were to clutter up the Courts of this country with Ministers' assurances through successive ages the judges might find themselves in a very difficult position.
LORD LATHAM: So might the Ministers.
LORD WOOLTON: I did make my introductory remarks on this Bill longer than I would otherwise have done because I wanted to give this assurance. The noble Lord was good enough to say my words carried some weight with some people. I wanted to give this assurance on my own behalf as well as on behalf of my right honourable friend the Minister of Health, who gave it substantially in the same sort of words, either himself or through his Parliamentary Secretary, in another place.
Now I come to another assurance. The noble and gallant Earl, after all he has done for the playing fields of this country, asks that they shall be protected. This question was raised in another place; and there I thought the Minister went just as far as ever he could go to give that assurance to the Playing Fields Association. If you add to that assurance the fact that the Minister of Town and Country Planning has also to be satisfied, then I think the noble Earl can rest assured that playing fields will only be taken in the most dire necessity.
After all, none of us like this Bill. No one, including myself, has spoken a word in favour of the Bill except to say that here is a balance of disadvantage. Are we going to leave people without homes, or are we going to leave some people with less open spaces than they otherwise would have? On that balance of disadvantage I think we have all come to the conclusion, regretful as we are, that this Bill should pass. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh is quite right in saying he has given a different explanation from the explanation I would have given, because I was a Minister in the last Government. Of course there has been one other factor that has been involved besides the negligence of the last Government, and that was that little incident of the war, which did come in and make it necessary for us to have all these temporary houses. That probably is one of the factors that the noble Lord has taken into consideration. I do not propose to say any more on the subject of Royal parks, other than, in reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, to say that it is true that Royal parks are not included in this Bill, which is a Bill that deals

549
with open spaces in the possession of public authorities. Obviously we are going to have another discussion to-morrow on that subject, on the Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (BOUNDARY COMMISSION) BILL
3.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House be put into Committee on this Bill. In doing so will you allow me to fulfil a promise I made on Friday to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, about the Commissioners? This is the reply which I hope you will be good enough to allow me to read. As regards the Commissioners it may be desirable to start with a negative. It is not intended that they shall be selected to represent the interests of any particular type of local authority. The preliminary conversations which the Minister of Health had with the Local Government Associations disclosed a general desire that the Commissioners should not be regarded as advocates or even arbitrators appointed by parties, but that they should be as far as possible selected for their capacity to take a broad view. Indeed the Associations, very wisely, expressed the unanimous view that they should not be consulted in the appointment.
As is stated on page 14 of the White Paper, the aim must be to secure the best possible design of local government areas in the future and not merely to adjudicate on the merits of conflicting claims. It is contemplated that three of the Commissioners will be appointed on a part-time basis; that the Chairman shall give the whole or the bulk of his time to the work of the Commission, at any rate in its earlier years; and that the Deputy Chairman shall give at any rate a substantial portion of his time. As Chairman the Government would hope to obtain a person who would enjoy the confidence of all sections of local government, and indeed of Parliament and the public— broadly speaking, a person of judicial calibre and outlook. Beyond these
550
general observations it is not practicable for the Government at this present moment to make any statement, but the House can be assured that the Government's intention is to place on the Commission persons whose record, experience and outlook are such that Parliament can feel the fullest confidence in their capacity and impartiality. I hope the noble Marquess will regard that as a tolerably satisfactory answer to the question he addressed to me and to which I promised to reply at this stage. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.

DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
REIGATE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (IRWELL VALLEY WATER BOARD) BILL.
Reported, without amendment and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.