Lords Sitting of 11 April 1946

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, owing to demands upon Parliamentary time, and the desirability of sending Bills now before this House back to another place, for the consideration there of any Amendments which your Lordships may have made in them, with a view to their securing the Royal Assent before Easter, it has been necessary to make certain alterations in the legislative programme which we propose for next week. I am afraid that we shall have to ask the House to meet on Monday next, for the purpose of concluding the consideration of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) and the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bills, the Committee stages of which we are taking this afternoon. There will be a Royal Commission on Monday afternoon, probably at four o'clock, immediately after the House has met. After that, we shall proceed to the remaining stages of the two Bills, which are so important in connexion with the housing programme, which we are considering this afternoon. As already announced, there will be a formal sitting of the House on Thursday, the 18th, before we rise for the Easter Recess, when there will be another Royal Commission for giving the Royal Assent to the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill and any other Bills which may then be awaiting a Commission.
May I remind your Lordships that we shall reassemble on Tuesday, April 30, at half past two o'clock, when the principal business will be the debate on the Second Reading of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill. There is every indication that the number of your Lordships wishing to take part will be so large that it will be necessary to carry the debate over, and conclude it on the following day, Wednesday, May 1. We
710
much regret that this may mean displacing the business which is already on the Order Paper for that day, as we shall ask the House to take the adjourned debate on the Trade Unions Bill first, and it appears likely that it will extend over the whole of the sitting that day.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, it is obviously quite reasonable that we should be asked to sit on Monday. We appreciate that these Bills must be disposed of. There is only one point I would like to ask. The noble Lord did not say at what time the House will sit on Thursday next. I take it that it will be in the morning.
LORD AMMON: Twelve o'clock.
GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (SHAN STATES FEDERAL FUND) ORDER, 1946.
GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (GOVERNOR'S EMERGENCY ALLOWANCES, REPAIR OF FURNISHINGS) ORDER, 1946.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (ADAPTATION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1946.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (HIGH COURT JUDGES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1946.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Government of Burma and the Government of India Orders named on the Paper be made in the form of drafts approved by your Lordships on March 21 last.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Orders be made in the form of the drafts approved by the House on March 21 last.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

INVERNESS WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ACQUISITION OF LAND (AUTHORISATION PROCEDURE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The VISCOUNT MERSEY in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Temporary powers for speedy acquisition of land in urgent cases.
(2) Where during the period aforesaid the Minister of Transport is satisfied that it is expedient that he should purchase any land under any enactment mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the foregoing section, or the Board of Trade are satisfied that it is expedient that they should purchase any land under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, and the Minister or Board are satisfied that it is urgently necessary in the public interest that the Minister or Board should be enabled to obtain possession of the land without delay, the Minister or Board may, in lieu of being authorized to purchase the land in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing section or of the said Act of 1945, be so authorized, subject to the provisions of the Third Schedule to this Act, by an authorization in writing given by the Minister or Board under this subsection.
In the following provisions of this section and in the Third Schedule to this Act the expressions "acquiring authority" and "confirming authority" include the Minister of Transport or Board of Trade acting under this subsection.
(6) Notwithstanding anything in the two last foregoing subsections, where apart from this subsection the compensation for the compulsory purchase of land in respect of which an authorization has been given under this section would be reduced by virtue of paragraph 9 of the Fifth Schedule to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944 (which relates to purchases under that Act of houses unfit for human habitation), the reduction shall not be made unless an order under the said paragraph 9 has come into operation before the date on which the acquiring authority entered on the land.
4.11 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN had given Notice of two Amendments to subsection (2)—namely, to omit the words "Minister of Transport is satisfied that it is expedient that he should purchase any land under any enactment mentioned in paragraph
712
(b) of subsection (1) of the foregoing section, or the," and, after "the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945," insert "or where the Minister of Transport is satisfied that in connexion with such action by the President of the Board of Trade it is expedient that he should purchase any land under any enactment mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection I of the foregoing section."
The noble Lord said: The two Amendments that stand in my name on this clause are consequential one upon the other. They attempt to do this. In this Bill we are giving these extra quick powers to four Ministers—the Minister of Health, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Minister of Transport. I think probably there is no noble Lord who, in his heart of hearts, really likes having powers of this sort and taking land and property from people without the owners having the right to be heard. And indeed the Government are not greatly enamoured of these powers because, although they say they are necessary, they are to take them for a period of five years only. Nobody, as I said on Second Reading, wishes in any way to hamper expeditious house building in this country, nor does anyone want to see unemployment growing in some of the distressed areas because of the difficulty of acquiring land for factories. But the Minister of Transport, of course, is on a rather different footing from either of these two purposes, and yet he is given exactly the same powers as the Ministers concerned for housing and building factories.
In another place an attempt was made to delete the Minister of Transport entirely from this Bill and not to allow him to have these powers. I read very carefully what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport said on that occasion, and, as I understand it is in order to quote a Minister, perhaps I may just quote what he said. He justified the powers on one ground, and on one ground only. He said:
"In order that we may assist the President of the Board of Trade in creating his Development Areas by making the necessary access roads, to make them really effective for their purpose, it is desirable, it is essential that my right honourable friend the Minister of War Transport should have the powers which we propose in this subsection."

713
That was the only ground on which this clause was justified. My Amendment, if accepted, would give the Minister of Transport that power, because in connexion with such action by the Board of Trade he gets the full powers which were the only powers that the Parliamentary Secretary has asked for in this Bill.
I do not think that we should give those powers unless they are really shown to be necessary. So far no justification has been put forward for their being given to the Minister of Transport on any other ground. He never wants them for his ordinary trunk roads. They are planned ages ahead and work started on them. Plans are made and the land can be acquired well in advance, and surely there is no necessity to have these rush powers in cases of that sort. If this Amendment is passed we give those powers where they are asked for—I would not say justified—and restrict them to that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, leave out from the second ("the") to ("Board") in line 16.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD PAKENHAM: We are very grateful to the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment for the very reasonable way in which he has done it, thereby giving us a chance in this House of making a full explanation of the point involved. I have been at some pains in the fairly short time available to conduct some researches into this question, and I hope the noble Lord will tell me when I have said enough, because otherwise I might be in danger of detaining the Committee for too long a time. I have one positive piece of reassurance here which I think I might impart to the noble Lord at the beginning, because it may be of comfort to him and to your Lordships. If these powers are acquired by the Minister of Transport it does not mean that no local inquiry will be held. This is a point that may be new to many members of your Lordships' House. The Minister of Transport has no power to construct a new trunk road anywhere save under the provisions of Section I of the Trunk Roads Act, 1946, which has just passed through Parliament. Under that section he must first make an order, advertise it locally and in the London Gazette, receive objections, and if a public inquiry is demanded, hold that inquiry before he can confirm the order. It
714
is only after that has been done that he has power to buy the la ad for the construction of the new road. So that one inquiry is bound to take place anyway, in the case we are discussing. All that is being cut out, in the exceptional situation where Clause 2 is used, is a second inquiry which would otherwise be necessary. I do not know whether that will satisfy the noble Lord or whether he would wish for a rather more detailed account of the kind of purpose for which the powers in question are being sought.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Apparently, those powers, as drafted in the Bill at the present time, do not give him any wider power (if he has still got to rely on the Trunk Roads Act) than would be given to him if my Amendment were accepted. Is that what it comes to?
LORD PAKENHAM: No, it does not quite come to that. If the noble Lord's Amendment is accepted be would be involved in two inquiries, one under the Trunk Roads Act and one under Clause 1, and the ordinary case will be where he does use Clause 1. In exceptional cases Clause 2 will be relied on. I do not know whether the noble Lord would like me to indicate the kind of case where it would be required, and where it would be denied under this Amendment. I am told that it is needed quite independently of action taken by the Board of Trade—of course we hope it may still be effected under Clause 1—and it may be required for schemes which are not themselves within a Development Area, though they may be absolutely fundamental to the prosperity of the Development Area. Examples which I will give are the proposed new bridge across the Severn and its associated roads. The roads in question will in many cases not be in the Development Area themselves, yet they are vital as access roads to South Wales. That is one example. Perhaps I might conclude by reminding the noble Lord that powers very similar to those under Clause 2—in some ways more drastic—were in existence and were used from the Act of 1920 onwards for a period I think of about fifteen years, so that there is nothing very novel in making use of powers of this kind in this connexion. May I once again repeat what I feel cannot be repeated too often, that it is only in exceptional cases and during the emergency

715
period that Clause 2 will be used. I am genuinely grateful for the chance of making this explanation, and I hope the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: After that explanation by the noble Lord I will withdraw my Amendment. I gather of course with regard to the Severn Tunnel bridge that there is bound to be some public inquiry. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I only wanted to ensure that in the normal case there would be some public inquiry in which local opinion could be expressed and men given an opportunity of expressing their views. After the noble Lord's explanation I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My first Amendment is a mere drafting Amendment. These words appear three lines lower down and need not appear twice.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 40, leave out ("as the case may be").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next, too, is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 13, leave out ("those provisions") and insert ("the provisions of those sections").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "entered on" and insert "took possession of". The noble and learned Lord said: This is perhaps slightly more than drafting, but very little more. It really is clarification. The words "entered on" are rather ambiguous words. They might cover the case where a man entered beforehand to take a survey or a photograph, or something of that kind. What we have in mind is entering for the purpose of taking possession. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 23, leave out ("entered on") and insert ("took possession of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Power to extinguish certain public rights of way over land acquired.
3.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where land is acquired, or proposed to be acquired,—
and there subsists over any part of the land a public right of way, not being a right enjoyable by vehicular traffic, then if the Minister of Town and Country Planning (hereafter in this, section referred to as "the Minister") is satisfied that a suitable alternative right of way has been or will be provided, or that the provision thereof is not required, he may by order extinguish the right of way as from such time as may be specified in the order, not being earlier than—

(i) the making of the order,

(ii) if in the exercise of any power conferred by this Act or by the agreement to acquire the land the acquiring authority enters on the land before the acquisition thereof is completed, the date on which the authority enters on the land,

(iii) if the acquiring authority does not enter on the land in the exercise of any such power as aforesaid, the date on which the acquisition of the land is completed:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1) (ii), to leave out "the agreement to acquire the land" and insert "agreement." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is necessary because it is not uncommon for acquiring authorities to agree with the persons interested that the former may take possession of the land after notice to treat has been served, notwithstanding that the actual purchase has not been completed and the land has not been conveyed to the authority. The closing of a footpath or bridle path should clearly not be made to operate before possession is taken by the acquiring authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 15, leave out ("the agreement to acquire the land") and insert ("agreement").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is consequential on an Amendment I have already moved.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 16, leave out ("enters on") and insert ("takes possession of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, leave out ("enters on") and insert ("takes possession of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 19, leave out ("enter on") and insert ("take possession of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.
4.24 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 6:
Application of S. 1 to Local Acts.
"—(1) Where, apart from this Act, power to authorize a local authority to purchase land compulsorily is conferred by any enactment contained in a local Act and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, the Minister of Health may by order made on the application of the local authority direct that Section one of this Act shall apply in relation to the enactment as if the enactment were contained in a public general Act:
Provided that nothing in an order under this section shall empower the authorization of a compulsory purchase in accordance with the provisions of Section two of this Act.
(2) Where an order has come into operation under this section the last foregoing section shall apply as if the local Act to which the order relates were specified in the Fourth Schedule to this Act, and as if there were specified in the second column of that Schedule such amendments of the local Act as may be provided for in the order, being amendments appearing to the Minister to be consequential on the making of the order.
(3) Any order under this section made after the expiration of two years from the commencement of this Act shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of the Lord Chancellor. This Amendment, which would become Clause 7 of the Bill, requires a word or two of explanation. You will recall that the main object of Clause I of the Bill is to simplify and harmonize the various procedures by which local authorities are at present empowered to acquire land compulsorily under various public general Acts. Those Acts are set out in the Fourth Schedule. Noble Lords will be aware that local authorities also possess in some cases powers of compulsory acquisition under local Acts, and, to put it quite briefly,
718
the object of this clause is to assimilate the procedure under local Acts to the procedure under public general Acts.
I would, particularly call the attention of your Lordships to the proviso at the end of the first subsection. There it is laid down for all the world to see—which I know will reassure this House—that nothing under this clause shall authorize the use of the Clause 2 procedure, which some regard with a certain amount of anxiety. That does not come in at all in this case, but it simply assimilates the procedure of which local authorities will make use when their powers are derived from local Acts, to the procedure which they will employ when their powers are derived from public general Acts. I do not know if there are any detailed points noble Lords would like to raise, but perhaps I have said enough to explain the main purpose to the Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 42, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Pakenham.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: So far as I am concerned, I have no objection whatever to this new clause. I think it is another useful piece of consolidation and should therefore be welcomed in this measure, particularly so because of the proviso to which the noble Lord has already drawn our attention.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Interpretation]:
4.26 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is a mere drafting Amendment which adds the word "also".
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 37, after ("includes") insert ("also").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Provisions as to Scotland]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This also is a drafting Amendment, which is required by the Scottish draftsmen who are not quite satisfied with the English phraseology. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 29, leave out from ("For") to ("references") in line 33.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment became necessary because on the Report stage in another place a reference to the "appropriate Minister" was inserted. That being so, you have to have this Amendment and we leave out subsection (13) on page 11 This also is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 15, after ("expression") insert ("'appropriate Minister' means in relation to the undertaking of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, the Secretary of State; the expression").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment, too, is a drafting Amendment required by the Scottish draftsmen.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 47, at end, insert ("(8) Subsection (2) of Section three of this Act shall have effect as if for the words '(that is to say, the Council specified in subsection (1) of Section two of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932)' there were substituted the words 'within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945'").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsection (13). The noble and learned Lord said: This is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 11 line 36, leave out subsection (13).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
First Schedule:

PROCEDURE FOR AUTHORIZING COMPULSORY PURCHASE.
PART I.
Purchases by local authorities.
3.—(1) Before submitting the order to the confirming authority the acquiring authority shall—

(a) in two successive weeks publish in one or more local newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land comprised in the order is situated a notice in the prescribed form stating that the order has been made and is about to be submitted for confirmation and the purpose for which the land is required, describing the land, naming a place within the locality where a copy of the order and the map referred to therein may be inspected and specifying
720
the time (not being less than twenty-one days from the first publication of the notice) within which and the manner in which objections to the order can be made;

(b) except in so far as the confirming authority directs that this provision shall not have effect in any particular case, serve on every owner, lessee and occupier (except tenants for a month or any period less than a month) of any land comprised in the order a notice in the prescribed form stating the effect of the order and that it is about to be submitted for confirmation, and specifying the time (not being less than twenty-one days from the service of the notice) within which and the manner in which objections thereto can be made;

Provided that no direction under head (b) of this sub-paragraph shall have effect in relation to an owner, lessee or occupier being a local authority or statutory undertakers or the National Trust.
PART IV.
Validity and date of operation of compulsory purchase orders.
15.—(1) If any person aggrieved by a compulsory purchase order desires to question the validity thereof, or of any provision contained therein, on the ground that the authorisation of a compulsory purchase thereby granted is not empowered to be granted under any such enactment as is mentioned in subsection (1) of Section one of this Act, or if any person aggrieved by a compulsory purchase order or a certificate under Part III of this Schedule desires to question the validity thereof on the ground that any requirement of this Act or of any regulation made there under has not been complied with in relation to the order or certificate, he may, within twenty-eight days from the date on which notice of the confirmation or making of the order or of the giving of the certificate is first published in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule in that behalf, make an application to the High Court, and on any such application the Court—
4.30 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved, in paragraph 3 (1) (a), to substitute "twenty-eight days" for "twenty-one days." The noble Lord said: If I may have the permission of the Committee to move both the Amendments on this Schedule standing in my name, I think it would be for your Lordships' convenience. The points are very similar. They are certainly not in their intention antagonistic to the Bill; in fact, I think if they are agreed to, they will expedite some of the working of this Bill These matters, of course, not only affect the larger but also the small landowners. Both these Amendments are designed to extend to twenty-eight

721
days the period in which objections shall be lodged. In the Bill as originally introduced, no period was fixed, but it seemed that it was desirable that some period should be specified and it was felt that twenty-eight days would be of considerable assistance to landowners in this matter. With regard to precedents in this matter, I find that in the Town and Country Planning Act of 1944 and in the Water Act of last year, a period of twenty-eight days is prescribed.
An extra week will make little or no difference to an acquiring authority, but it is obvious that it would be of considerable importance to a landowner, who would almost certainly have to consult his solicitors. If the Government persist in retaining the shorter period, the result will very likely be that in order to safeguard themselves landowners will automatically lodge objections, because there will not be time to give the matter adequate consideration. On these grounds I hope the Government will see their way to allowing this longer period. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 25, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("twenty-eight")—(Lord O'Hagan.)
LORD WOLVERTON: I should like to support my noble friend on this Amendment, because I think it is important having regard to the fact that there are so many people who may have land who are away on foreign service. Twenty-one days seems to me a very short time and I should like to support my noble friend in his proposal that it should be extended to twenty-eight days. I cannot see that that extra time will make a great deal of difference to His Majesty's Government, but it may make all the difference to owners.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We have taken the period of twenty-one days because we consider it a very reasonable compromise. Your Lordships will remember that the period under the Public Works Facilities Act, which we are proposing to terminate by this Bill, was fourteen days. That also was the period under the Housing Act of 1936. It is quite true that under the Water Act of 1945 and, I think—I am speaking from recollection—the Town and Country Planning Act of 1944, the period was twenty-eight days. The Local Govern-
722
ment Act of 1933 established a happy mean between those two periods—that is twenty-one days. We have two precedents for fourteen days, two for twenty-eight, and one for twenty-one. We thought we would take the happy mean, on the principle in medio tutissimus ibis.
I would like to point out to your Lordships that, after all, there is a period of twenty-one days from the publication of the first notice in which to give notice of objection, but there is no need to give the grounds of the objection; it is only necessary to say, "I object." Your Lordships will remember that in another place we used to object to all sorts of private Bills coming on, and we simply said "Object." It seemed to us that twenty-one days is a very fair time to take, because surely a man can simply say, "Object," within twenty-one days, and thereafter have ample time to discover, if he did not know beforehand, what is the ground of his objection. We ask you to accept this period of twenty-one days.
LORD O'HAGAN: I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.35 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON LORD WOLVERTON moved, at the end of the proviso to paragraph 3 (1) (a), to add:
"and no such direction shall be given unless the confirming authority is satisfied that the acquiring authority has no information in its possession from which the name and address of the owner, lessee or occupier can be ascertained and that in such a case the acquiring authority has ascertained that the inspector or collector of taxes or, where the acquiring authority is not a rating authority, the rating authority for the district in which the land is situated has no such information."
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the House, I would like to move this Amendment, and also refer to a consequential Amendment on page 22, in the Third Schedule. The object of this Amendment is to make certain that before the confirming authority give permission to the acquiring authority, steps shall be taken to find out who is the owner of the land. If this Amendment is agreed to, it will mean that the acquiring authority will have to inquire of the local taxation authority, giving a certificate to that effect, and not just to stick a notice on the fence to the effect that they cannot find him I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 3, at end add the said words.—(Lord Wolverton.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I should like to support my noble friend on this Amendment. It seems reasonable that before a notice is stuck up the authority shall have inquired from any other authority who may have information, such as the rating authority or the taxation authority, as to who the owner is. It seems to me a very reasonable provision to make, and I very much hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I also wish to support this Amendment. There is something very similar to this in the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act. The way in which it is expressed there, if my memory serves me correctly, is "where the address cannot be ascertained," or words to that effect. Here there should be some limitation on the power of the confirming authority to give a direction because, as far as I can see at the moment, the authority is left absolutely free in any case to say, "We do not like that man; we will give a direction in his case, so that he will not have the chance of a personal notice." I do not think that can be the intention of the Government. However, whether this suggested Amendment is in the best form or not is a matter for the Lord Chancellor to consider.
LORD PAKENHAM: I wish we could accept this Amendment, but I am afraid it is impossible to accept either this one or the one on the Third Schedule which the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, described as consequential upon it. I do not want to quibble, but as a matter of fact they are distinct Amendments. One is concerned with the Clause I procedure, and the other with the Clause 2 procedure. With your Lordships' permission, I will deal with both at the same time.
The House will realize, I am sure—I am dealing with the first of the two Amendments, which refers to (the Clause I procedure—that we have no intention to set up machinery whereby as a general rule a local authority will be permitted to forgo the trouble of discovering the owner and sending him a notice. In the ordinary way, in the vast majority of cases, the owner will receive a personal notice. It is intended to have this power in reserve—I am still referring to Clause I procedure—but it is intended, in cases
724
where it is extraordinarily difficult to obtain all the addresses within a reasonable time, that it shall be open to the Minister, considering the merits, to sanction the method referred to in the Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not carry away any idea that in the ordinary way the Minister will allow authorities not to bother about finding out the addresses. There are cases where a direction of this sort may be given by the Minister; perhaps the most usual case is where land has been "blitzed" and boundaries obliterated, but I understand it might also arise where land which it is proposed to purchase is divided into small ownerships, and a great deal of time and effort will be required to trace all the lessees and sub-lessees. So far as the point raised in the first Amendment moved by the noble Lord is concerned, the power to give the direction would be used only in very exceptional circum stances, but if the power is to be of any real value in the exceptional case under Clause 1, the Minister really must have the discretion, subject always, it is fully understood, to Parliamentary scrutiny.
As regards the second Amendment referred to by the noble Lord, the proposed procedure is slightly different as it comes under Clause 2, and we know that Clause 2 in any case will only be used in exceptional circumstances. We are clear in our minds that much of the value of the speedy procedure, and much of the solid advantages which would accrue from it in the exceptional case, would disappear if an Amendment of the kind the noble Lord has proposed were accepted. I remember that on the Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, argued with some force that it was difficult to see where the gain in time did result; but a substantial gain of time does result in Clause 2. Clause 2 is a good deal faster, or may be in an extreme case, than Clause I and such benefits as will accrue from Clause 2 might largely disappear if in fact the Amendments were accepted.
Replying to both the Amendments, I can only say we sympathize with what the noble Lord has in mind, but we hope he will be good enough to withdraw them.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am not sure that the noble Lord who has just been speaking realizes quite the effect of leaving the Bill as it stands. The clause

725
in question provides that, except in so far as the confirming authority directs, service shall be made on every owner, lessee and occupier, and there would be some circumstances in which that provision is not to apply. If it is left as it is, as a matter of construction the clause is in effect saying this, that the confirming authority shall, where it thinks fit, serve a notice on every owner, lessee or occupier of the land comprised in the order. Surely that is not intended. There should be something stated, and for my part I think it might be in very general language, but there should be some statement made in the Bill which in some respects compels the confirming authority in the normal case to serve the notice, and only in exceptional cases of a special kind to give the direction which makes the notice unnecessary. It really is bad legislation, in my respectful opinion, to leave it to the confirming authority to say whether or not a notice shall be served. If the clause was so framed that the confirming authority should have power to make a direction in any case where it is impossible or where it is very difficult, or something of that sort, to serve a notice on all these people, we should then understand where we are. After all, confirming authorities include a lot of bodies who are not constantly in touch with the Minister and they may be dealing with people who have a very wide view of how they are entitled to exercise their powers.
LORD PAKENHAM: I hope the noble and learned Viscount will forgive me, but I think he may have used an expression he had not intended to use when he said the confirming authority may not be in touch with the Minister. In the case we are considering the confirming authority would be the Minister. I do not know whether the noble Viscount intended to say the acquiring authority.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: The acquiring authority.
LORD PAKENHAM: Without wishing to quibble over words, it did seem to me that some of the expressions he used about the confirming authority were intended to apply to the acquiring authority, which would be the local authority, whereas the Minister would be the confirming authority. In the ordinary case the acquiring authority, the local
726
council, would have to trace the owner or occupier of the land unless the Minister excused him. That is the intended procedure, and I am not quite sure whether that was what the noble Viscount had in mind when he was speaking.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am afraid I am guilty of a slip of the tongue. I did mean the acquiring authority, but, with that amendment, I do suggest that the Government should consider before the next stage—if they cannot accept this Amendment—whether some limitation should not be put on the cases where the direction can be made.
LORD WOLVERTON: I am very disappointed with the answer. I cannot see that it does cause a great deal of hardship. If the noble Lord would make every endeavour to find out to whom the land belongs through the local authority or taxing or rating authority, and I could have some assurance that the noble Lord would look into it before the next stage, it need not go any further. But I am disappointed.
LORD PAKENHAM: I can promise to have a very good look at it, but I am afraid I must not hold out any hope on that point. I will refer it to others who will also have a very good look at it.
LORD WOLVERTON: In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.49 p.m.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON moved to add to paragraph 5:
"Provided that where the confirming authority seek to confirm an order authorizing the acquiring authority to purchase compulsorily any land which was not included in the order as originally submitted to the confirming authority by the acquiring authority (such land being hereinafter referred to as 'the added land') the confirming authority must direct the acquiring authority—

(a) in two successive weeks to publish in one or more local newspapers circulating in the locality in which the added land is situated a notice in the prescribed form stating that the acquiring authority seek to include the added land in the original order and the purpose for which the added land is required, describing the added land, naming a place within the locality where a copy of the original order and the map referred to therein and also a map of the added land may be inspected and specifying the time (not being less than twenty-one days from the first publication of the notice

727
under this paragraph) within which and the manner in which all persons interested in the added land must effectively express their consent or dissent to the inclusion of the added land in the said order;

(b) serve on every owner, lessee and occupier (except tenants for a month or any period for less than a month) of any land in the added land a notice in the prescribed form stating that the acquiring authority seek to include the added land in the original order and specifying the time (not being less than twenty-one days from the service of the notice under this paragraph) within which and the manner in which all persons interested in the added land must effectively express their consent or dissent to the inclusion of the added land in the said order: The confirming authority shall not be entitled to dispense with such service under this paragraph."

The noble Lord said: I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name. Paragraph 5 of Part I of the First Schedule provides in effect that an order as confirmed by the Minister must not authorize the local authority to purchase compulsorily any land which was not included in the order as originally submitted to the Minister, unless all persons interested consent. First of all I should like, with great respect, to ask the Lord Chancellor a technical question, which is, what is meant by the term "all persons interested "? Does that include mortgagees and trustees? I do not pursue that matter any further for the moment because it does not, strictly speaking, come within the terms of the Amendment.
In order to explain the Amendment I can give this very simple example. Suppose that the order as originally submitted to the Minister includes all the land in the parish of A. At some later stage in the proceedings—you do not know precisely when—either the Minister or the acquiring authority decide that they would like to include all the land in the adjoining parish of B. So far as the parish of A is concerned, all the people in that parish would have received notice of the original order by means of publication in the newspapers, and unless the Minister has dispensed with it by means of notices served on owners and lessees and occupiers. But the people in the parish of B may know nothing about the original order, and they will certainly know nothing about the desire of the Minister or the acquiring authority to include the parish of B in the original order which only relates to
728
the parish of A. Moreover, I would point out that paragraph 5 of Part I of the First Schedule involves the doing of a positive act, that is to say the expression of consent or dissent, by all persons interested.
This Amendment is really intended to help the Minister as much as the people in the parish of B. Summarizing the position, the object of the Amendment is to devise machinery whereby, firstly, all persons interested in the parish of B shall be ascertained; secondly, all persons interested in the parish of B shall be informed of the fact that the Minister or the acquiring authority desires to include the parish of B in the original order; and, thirdly, all persons interested in the parish of B shall be apprised of the fact that their positive consent is required before the parish of B can be included in the original order. It may well be that a matter of this description can be dealt with by regulations, but I must confess that I prefer to see a thing in the Act of Parliament rather than in regulations.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 42, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Meston.)
LORD PAKENHAM: In reply to the particular question that the noble Lord raises, I am authorized to say that mortgagees and trustees and others who possessed a legal interest would be covered by the expression to which the noble Lord referred. I do not think that there is any difference between the noble Lord and ourselves in respect of the way in which we would like to see this operate in practice. I hope that when I have explained the meaning of the paragraph the noble Lord will agree that our words give effect to the intention which he has in common with us. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied, in fact, that the paragraph gives him already what he wishes. The point is that the Minister can only include fresh land in the order, when he confirms it, if the consent of all the parties interested has been obtained, so that if there was an order referring to the parish of A, there could be no question of it afterwards being extended to cover the parish of B without the parish of B consenting. If there was anything of that kind contemplated, there would, in practice, have to be a new order for dealing with the separate parishes and the people

729
of the parish of B would be allowed to raise their objections.
As a matter of fact, this part of the procedure is not intended to cover that kind of case at all. The kind of case it is intended to cover is this. Supposing an order is advertised which refers to the land of the noble Lord, Lord Meston; suppose that discussions follow and, finally, he suggests that if they are going to take that much land they might take a little more—if they are going to take land in one direction they might take it in another. There may be discussions, and, in the end, they may take land which it was not originally announced they were intending to take. But they cannot take from the noble Lord or from anyone else land which, was not advertised originally, unless the consent of the noble Lord or whoever is concerned is obtained. Therefore he, himself, is absolutely safeguarded.
On the other hand, if the noble Lord is thinking of an amenity society who might, in this way, see a small piece of land disappearing because the noble Lord has conceded it by agreement to the Minister without the society getting wind of what was going on, then that, I would point out, is something that can already take place. If the noble Lord had his way, what would happen would be that the Minister could buy, or the local authority subject to the confirmation of the Minister could buy, the extra land from the noble Lord and the amenity society would not come into it at all, because in cases of acquisition of land by agreement for statutory purposes no advertisement is necessary. So, looking at it from the point of view of either the noble Lord or of the party who has no legal interest in the matter, we can say in the one instance that there is adequate safeguard, and in the other that no right is being removed which exists at the present time. So I hope that the noble Lord who, I think, quite clearly has the same intention as we have, will realize that our words cover what he wants.
LORD MESTON: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, but I still remain very dense on the subject. I took a rather exaggerated example when I mentioned the parish of A as being in the original order and the parish of B as being in what one might call the added order. In point
730
of fact, it would be a better example to say that the original order included 1,000 acres of land, and after it had been submitted but before it had been confirmed the Minister or local authority decided to take in another 100 acres in the parish of B. In those circumstances if there were only one owner or occupier of that 100 acres there would be no difficulty in getting his consent. But suppose there were 50 or 60 occupiers of the 100 acres. How are you going to get their positive consent unless you advertise? That is the object of my Amendment.
LORD PAKENHAM: I can only assure the noble Lord that unless their consent is secured, the extra land cannot be compulsorily acquired. So it would be up to the Minister or the local authority to see how it was possible to let them know and to enter into negotiations with them. There is no question of taking land from them without their full consent unless that land has been advertised originally.
LORD MESTON: Having regard to what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.1 p.m.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON moved, in sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 7, to leave out "as soon as may be."
The noble Lord said: May I take my next two Amendments together? Their object is simply to purify the English language.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 19, leave out ("as soon as may be").—(Lord Meston.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have great sympathy with every Amendment designed to purify the English language, but this particular purification has been left rather late. I am told that these words have a rather considerable antiquity and go back a very, very long time. I confess that I should be sorry to say precisely what they mean. I suppose it is something of this sort—"with reasonable promptitude, having regard to all the circumstances." And that, I think, is a more clumsy phrase than "as soon as may be". Of the two phrases I would rather have "as soon as may be." I had thought of the word "forthwith." It

731
reads badly, and "forthwith" does not bring in the idea that you may be delayed by circumstances—if we had flood, famine, murder, civil war, or pestilence. It must be "as soon as you can in all the circumstances," and I think we had better stick to the words we have made use of in the last 100 years and resist this attempt to purify the English language.
LORD MESTON: I thank the noble and learned Lord Chancellor and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.4 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved, in paragraph 15 (1), before "any such enactment," to insert" this Act or." The noble Lord said: This is slightly more than a drafting Amendment and relates to the grounds on which a compulsory purchase order may be challenged in the High Court. As we have just seen, under the procedure we have just been discussing, under Clause I procedure, it is possible by agreement between the public authority and the owner for land to be added which was not advertised as coming within the scope of the compulsory purchase order in the first place. To put it briefly, unless we make the small Amendment standing in the name of the Lord Chancellor, it would not be possible for the owner or other person who wishes to raise an objection to challenge the order on the ground that it is ultra vires because no voluntary arrangement has been entered into. It is a small point, but unless we make this small Amendment, we deny the right of challenge which obviously should belong to the challenger who wishes to complain that the order in this particular case is ultra vires.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 20, alter ("under") insert ("this Act or")—(Lord Pakenham.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: A slight alteration is, I think, necessary, and I support the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.6 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved, in Part IV, paragraph 15 (1), to leave out "twenty-eight days" and insert "two months."
The noble Lord said: I hope the Lord Chancellor will take more kindly to this suggestion than the last suggestion I made. I beg to move to leave out "twenty-eight days" and substitute "two months." I would remind the House that the procedure which it is proposed to codify in the present Bill will apply to powers exercisable under at least forty-four Acts of Parliament, those shown in the Fourth Schedule, and will probably be applied to Acts passed in the future which confer compulsory powers of acquisition. In the corresponding provisions in the Local Government Act, 1933, the period is two months, and the Housing Act, 1936, and Water Act, 1945, each specifies six weeks. I very much hope that even if the Amendment proposed is not accepted, some extension of time will be given in dealing with what must be difficult cases. It is considered that twenty-eight days is not long enough to consider whether grounds exist for testing the validity of a compulsory purchase order. In such a case it would almost certainly be necessary to take Counsel's opinion on what might be a very involved point of law. In the Public Works Facilities Act of 1930, only twenty-one days was allowed, it is true, but this Act was a temporary measure and concerned with the express object of expediting procedure and facilitating the acquisition of land. I hope very much the Government will reconsider this matter and give at any rate some extension of time.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 26, leave out ("twenty-eight days") and insert ("two months").—(Lord O'Hagan.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I would like to support the Amendment, at any rate in so far as it suggests that twenty-eight days is not quite long enough. Nothing is more complex than the legislation in connexion with these particular questions. I cannot imagine a layman who found that his land had been compulsorily taken—he perhaps being abroad at the time when the preliminary proceedings were taken—being able to advise himself, if he had access to books, on the question whether he had any case which would justify an application to Court. All that is really necessary, I think, is that he should have time to consult Counsel in the ordinary way. This involves the employment of a solicitor and the drawing

733
up of a case, Counsel being in London and unable to help him. I think something of that sort should be borne in mind by the Government to increase the 28 days to something rather longer.
I would only add this. It is a point on which I am afraid my memory does not serve me. We know quite well that there is a statutory meaning to twenty-eight days when it is used with regard to the proceedings of Parliament, and it does not include the time when Parliament is not sitting, but I am not at present aware of any general Interpretation Act which provides that an application which has to be made within twenty-eight days can be made whilst the Courts are in vacation. I would suggest that if the period of 28 days is not increased to some period which would cover the vacation, the Government should consider whether they should not somewhat enlarge it by defining what they mean by twenty-eight days—days which ought not to be counted if the Court docs not happen to be sitting. I hope the noble Lord who sponsored this Bill may be a little more kind to the suggestion made than he has been hitherto this afternoon.
LORD WOLVERTON: I would support the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, in what he has said on this point. Solicitors are very, very busy in these days, and twenty-eight days is not sufficient.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I just add one word? The noble and learned Lord Chancellor said they were taking the middle way in the other three instances quoted, and I think perhaps in this, too, we might take the middle way.
LORD PAKENHAM: I think I can say we are not too impressed by the argument brought forward. I think it is right to remind your Lordships that in practice the month or six weeks or whatever it is which elapses under this heading is probably time wasted as far as action on the part of the local authority is concerned. Although there is nothing about this in the Bill, I understand that in practice, having obtained an order, the authority wait a month, or whatever the period is, to make sure that an objection will not be forthcoming. So that one must add in this month when one is working out the time schedule and is asking how long it takes from first to last to acquire the land and put a house on it. I would remind your Lordships that in
734
the case of the Public Works Facilities Act, as the noble Viscount has told us, twenty-one days was the time allotted, while the Town and Country Planning Act of 1944, which is not a temporary Act, prescribed a period of twenty-eight days. In choosing the twenty-eight days therefore we are following the precedent set by the Town and Country Planning Act which was intended to be permanent and which was passed in 1944 by the Coalition Government. At the same time I am authorized to say that we will have a look at it before the next stage.
LORD O'HAGAN: In withdrawing my Amendment, I would remind the noble Lord that the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act with respect to authorizing compulsory purchase are comparatively few and straightforward. I do not know if that applies or can apply with respect to this Act. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule [Incorporation of enactments]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: To this Schedule there is merely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 37, leave out ("those provisions") and insert ("the provisions of those sections").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule:

PROVISIONS AS TO AUTHORIZATIONS UNDER SECTION 2.
1.—(1) No authorization under Section two of this Act shall be given with respect to land of any description specified in subsection (2) of Section one thereof, or with respect to any dwelling house.
2.—(1) Before an authorization is given under Section two of this Act the acquiring authority must—

(a) have published in one or more local newspapers circulating in the locality in which any of the land to which the authorization relates is situated a notice stating that the confirming authority is about to take into consideration the giving of an authorization under Section two of this Act with respect to land described in the notice, being land consisting of or comprised in the land to which the authorization relates, and that representations which any person desires to make must, be made to the confirming

735
authority in writing within fourteen days from the date of the publication of the notice; and

(b) have served on every owner and occupier of any of the land to which the authorization relates a notice in writing stating that the confirming authority is about to take into consideration the giving of an authorization as aforesaid, and that representations which any of the persons required to be served desires to make must be made to the confirming authority in writing within fourteen days from the date of the service of the notice on him.

3. Before giving an authorization under Section two of this Act the confirming authority shall consider any representations duly made to the authority.
5.13 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, at the end of paragraph 1 (1), to add "or with respect to any building on his use of which the occupier is dependent for his livelihood." The noble Lord said: When this Bill originally saw the light of day there was no restriction on its being used in any way under this Third Schedule with regard to any description of property. But as it comes to us, paragraph 1 (1) of the Third Schedule reads:
"No authorization under Section two of this Act shall be given with respect to land of any description specified in subsection (2) of Section one thereof, or with respect to any dwelling house."
My Amendment would add the words
"or with respect to any building on his use of which the occupier is dependent for his livelihood."
The kind of case one has in mind is the small garage, small smithy or shop on which a person is dependent for his livelihood. If my Amendment were accepted it would only mean that such a man or woman, would not have that business on which he is absolutely dependent for his livelihood taken away without the right of being heard and saying why it should not be taken. It would still mean that it can be taken under the provisions of the First Schedule, which we have already discussed, but cannot be taken under the Third. Really, when a man is dependent for his livelihood on a building, a provision that he shall not be denied the right to be heard must appeal to any noble Lord with a heart that throbs in sympathy. I very much hope that not only will the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, or whoever replies for the Government throb in sympathy, but
736
that his tongue will utter the words which will allow these men the right which otherwise we shall be denying to them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 26, at the end add ("or with respect to any building on his use of which the occupier is dependent for his livelihood").—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My heart is with the noble Lord but my tongue, I am afraid, will give utterance against this Amendment, and for this reason: I cannot too often remind your Lordships that this Clause 2 procedure, which is an unpleasant procedure, as we all agree, a regrettable procedure we all agree, is nevertheless an absolutely necessary procedure, because we shall inevitably find, however wisely we plan, that we have made mistakes, or we ought to have taken this bit of land, and we have not done it, and, therefore, we have got to have prompt powers. It is good to have a giant's strength in these matters. It is most certainly tyrannous to use it as a giant. I quite agree with the noble Lord that, where we have a lock-up garage or a lock-up shop from which a man earns his livelihood, that is a most relevant factor which the Minister ought to consider in making up his mind whether to allow this summary and sharp procedure under Clause 2 at all. With that I agree. When the Bill was originally discussed in another place in Committee, I think I am right in saying there was a great deal of argument because the provision in paragraph I about dwelling houses was not there. We conceded on the Report stage the provision about dwelling houses, and it just shows how dangerous it is to make concessions. Having given way in that respect we are asked to give way further by the noble Lord, and we really cannot, because, if we do have to use this procedure, the less we have to use this procedure the better tribute it is to the efficiency of our planning, and the more we have to use this procedure the more obvious it is that our planning is not sound.
I am presupposing a case, however, where you have got to use this procedure. In these circumstances I am bound to ask your Lordships to say that, these circumstances arising, the public welfare must be preferred to the individual welfare, and, although it is a most legitimate consideration for the Minister in making up

737
his mind whether to use this procedure or not, to consider facts such as the noble Lord has mentioned, yet, if notwithstanding these facts, the Minister comes to the conclusion that he must act, then he must have power to use the Clause 2 procedure in such a case. Consequently I am very sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Of course I am not at all satisfied with that, but suffice it for me to say to-day that I hope the Government will not in future stand up as being the defenders of the small man, because they are not. They override him in this kind of way, and it should be known throughout the country that they do so.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.18 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved, in paragraph 2 (1) (a), to leave out "fourteen days" and insert "twenty-one days." The noble Lord said: With the leave of the House I should like this Amendment and the next one standing in my name to be considered together. I submit that a period of fourteen days is really far too short. Although the fourteen days period is taken I suppose from the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944, the circumstances are quite different, since that Act was in operation for less than fifteen months and was confined to a single object. Allowing for the possibility that several days may elapse before the owner receives a notice, he has then to consider its effect in conjunction with his legal adviser and decide what action he ought to take. He must then draft his representations, which provide the only means through which his ground of objection can be conveyed to the Government Department concerned, in sufficient time for the controlling authority to receive them within the fourteen days period. As this procedure stands at present it is possible for an owner to have been dispossessed of his property within the space of less than a month from the date on which the matter was first initiated by the acquiring authority with no rights of appearance at a public inquiry. The owner's sole protection is provided by the requirement that the confirming authority must consider all representations made before giving an authorization under the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 42, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("twenty-one").—(Lord O'Hagan.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We are here dealing with the Clause 2 procedure, and I would remind your Lordships again that the hypothesis on which, and on which alone, Clause 2 procedure can be used is this: the Minister has to be satisfied that it is urgently necessary in the public interest that the acquiring authority should be enabled to obtain possession of the land without delay. Only in those circumstances can he avail himself of this procedure. If those are the facts—that it is urgently necessary, in the public interest, that the acquiring authority should, obtain possession of the land without delay—then I must ask your Lordships to see that you really do have a sharp and summary procedure. After all, to extend the period of fourteen days to any longer period, say up to twenty-one or twenty-eight, necessarily slows up this procedure and will therefore be slowing up the accomplishing of that which, on this hypothesis, is urgently necessary in the public interest. To my mind, it is quite necessary, if we are going to have a summary procedure of this sort which none of us likes very much, that it must be summary; otherwise there is no point in it at all.
I would remind you that after the last war, in the Unemployment Relief Works Act, 1920, the corresponding period then proposed by Mr. Lloyd George's Government was seven days. We are so anxious, in spite of what the noble Lord who spoke on the last Amendment said, to preserve the rights of the oppressed individual, that we have doubled that period and made it fourteen days. For that we have a good precedent, for, after all, that was the period fixed in the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944. It is true that that was a temporary Act; but is it the doctrine of the noble Lords opposite that you can do injustice to the individual so long as you do it in temporary Acts? No, that was a reasonable provision, and therefore, following the example of the Coalition Government, we are doubling the period allowed by the Government after the last war. If you are having a summary procedure, you must take care to see it is summary. I think the objection to this procedure has been very largely met by our having

739
removed dwelling houses from it altogether. In those circumstances, I must ask your Lordships to stick to the period of fourteen days.
LORD WOLVERTON: The Housing (Temporary Provisions) Act was only for twelve months, and this is for five years. That is the difference.
LORD O'HAGAN: I must say I am very disappointed by what the Lord Chancellor has said, but at the same time I do not think I will trouble the Committee to go to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH moved, after paragraph 2, to insert the following new paragraph:
"3.—(1) Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the confirming authority that the owner or occupier of any land to which an authorization under Section two of this Act relates is at the date on which notice is published in accordance with head (a) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule engaged on the service of His Majesty outside the United Kingdom, the period in which that owner or occupier may make representations in writing to the confirming authority shall be fifty-six days from the date of the publication of the notice.
(2) A statement embodying the effect of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall be included in any notice published or served under paragraph 2 of this Schedule."
The noble Earl said: Having listened to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, on previous Amendments, I feel the shrift he will give this Amendment will be very likely the same on the plea of urgency, with which I and many noble Lords are Still not quite so impressed as the Lord Chancellor himself. I do believe that this Amendment, even if not in the right form at least in spirit, is an attempt to do genuine justice to the man who is serving his; country abroad. He fights for his piece of land and then comes back to find he does not own it. A man abroad at the bidding of His Majesty cannot possibly have a chance to raise objection within a fortnight. With the present speed of postal services to the further ends of the earth, where quite possibly he may be, it may easily not be possible for him to make his objection within fifty-six days.
It may be argued that, after all, a man who goes abroad should leave somebody
740
with a power of attorney. I have held a great many powers of attorney during this war for persons serving abroad, and I am quite certain I should hate to have to give a decision quickly on such a major problem affecting the livelihood and vital interest of somebody abroad without being able to consult him himself. But how many small men do give a power of attorney? They have not thought of it, and the difficulty of getting hold of Private Smith, who may be in Egypt or in Burma, is a very serious one. A great many of those serving His Majesty abroad are not in uniform, but are probably the finest body of civil servants the world has ever seen. They also are in a similar difficulty, and I have therefore ventured, in the intention of this Amendment, to include them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 30, at end, insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am bound to say, with the greatest regret, that the anticipations of the noble Earl are perfectly accurate and I cannot possibly accept this Amendment. The Amendment, if I accepted it, would finish altogether the summary, sharp procedure. It would no longer be quick at all if we had to give fifty-six days from the publication of the notice, and I regret we cannot possibly do it. Besides, look at it on principle. Why should it apply only to the man engaged in the service of His Majesty? Are there not other equally reputable employments? For instance, take merchant seamen, or the fellow who is travelling abroad trying to push up our export trade. Why should they not all come in? If one is to have fifty-six days, why not another? Why should not everybody absent have fifty-six days? The long and the short of it is that, in the whole history of the law on this topic, there has never been an express provision of that sort for an absentee class. The provision for objection under the Housing Acts is fourteen days, and that has been in operation since 1925—more than twenty years. In the Public Works Facilities Act it is fourteen days, in the Local Government Act twenty-one days, and in the Water Act twenty-eight days. But the old tradition is fourteen days, and in none of those cases has there ever been a provision made for the special treatment of particular categories of people who happen to be away.

741
I really think we have met the great bulk of the objection to this clause once we have said that this summary procedure shall not apply to dwelling houses. If we are going to have this procedure at all, it must be summary, and in those circumstances I cannot possibly accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: The noble and learned Lord said that there was no reason for exempting one class of person serving abroad. I think there is a very strong reason. Certainly, even if you omit the civil servant, the soldier has no option but to be abroad while conscription lasts. While that continues, I feel there is a very strong reason for the Amendment. I cannot imagine there would be many cases to which this procedure would apply, where the man concerned would be serving abroad. Should it happen, however, though the time limit I have suggested may be too long for summary procedure, I still feel that it is an unjust and unfair thing for a man serving his country without choice abroad to be unable to make any representations when it is proposed that his land shall be taken from him, even though it may be a rare case. In the circumstances, however, and under the almost indecent haste of the steam roller, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON LORD WOLVERTON moved, in paragraph 3, after "shall," to insert "afford to any person by whom a representation has been made (other than a representation relating exclusively to matters which can be dealt with by the tribunal by whom the compensation is to be assessed) an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the confirming authority and shall."
The noble Lord said: I should like in moving this Amendment to refer to the next one, which proposes an addition to paragraph 3. The object of these Amendments is to give an opportunity of appearing before a person appointed by the confirming authority. In the Second Reading debate the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, dealt with this at considerable length. He said:
"I think that is a very important provision, but what I am not at all sure about is this—whether something more could not be done to temper the wind to the lamb about to be shorn by empowering the Minister (and
742
I am not quite sure whether it need be compulsory that those representations had been made by the person or persons whose lands are going to be taken), to send down an independent person to interview the objectors and to report to the Minister."
We feel that there should be some opportunity, before the confirming authority gives a direction to the acquiring authority, for these people to be heard. That is why I wish to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 32, after ("shall") insert the said words.—(Lord Wolverton.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I should like to support this Amendment. I do not see that any time would be lost if the Government were to accept it. On the other hand, I am quite certain it would take a lot of the sting out of this provision if the man were allowed to be heard. The Amendment is so wide that he could be heard at a Ministry. There is no question of a public inquiry; it merely means somebody would be appointed by the Minister to see the man who had these representations to make. With a letter, one never knows who has read it; nobody outside the particular department would know who had seen it. If this Amendment were accepted, the Minister would appoint somebody who would go into the matter for him and who would see the person making the representation.
I believe that many cases of grievance which otherwise might well arise from the wording of the Schedule would be removed if the man had the right to express his views to someone. I do not see that you would lose anything by it. On the contrary, you would gain, in courtesy and in satisfaction to the person concerned. He would have to attend at once, and an appointment would be made. He would see the person appointed by the Minister and have the matter explained to him, and in that way much friction that might well arise under the Schedule would be avoided. I think it is a reasonable Amendment, and I do not think any time would be lost if it were accepted.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I should like to support this Amendment. As it stands now, paragraph 3 of this Third Schedule reads,
"Before giving an authorization under Section two of this Act, the confirming authority shall consider any representations duly made to the authority."

743
How are these representations to come to the authority? The individual concerned may not have an opportunity, as far as is known, to make any representations at all, and I feel that the individual will be left with a sense of injustice if he is not given the opportunity to put his own case. As it stands, only the authority puts the case. After all, we know what sometimes happens in these cases; it has been known for the individual's interest to be entirely overlooked. I know of a case which occurred not long ago when a certain town councillor heard for the first time in the council that his land had been taken. That is an instance of what can happen, and if it can happen in the case of the town councillor, what may happen in the case of a more humble individual? I beg to support very strongly this Amendment put forward by my noble friend, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will be able to give sympathetic and practical consideration to it.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am in favour of this Amendment, or at any rate in favour of something which, as far as possible, without interfering with the efficiency of Clause 2, will cause people whose property is being compulsorily taken to feel that everything has been done in their cases that can fairly be done. Your Lordships will remember that in relation to Clause I procedure there is a somewhat similar provision in the First Schedule, which provides in paragraph 4 (2) that
"If any objection duly made as aforesaid is not withdrawn, the confirming authority shall, before confirming the order, either cause a public local inquiry to be held"—
we do not, of course, press for that because we know the answer will be that it takes too much time—
"or afford to any person by whom any objection has been duly made as aforesaid and not withdrawn an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the confirming authority for the purpose…"
What happens there has got to be considered and the report of the person appointed has to be borne in mind by the confirming authority.
I venture to support what has been said in so far as it deals with the question of time. This is not going to increase the time required to make an order
744
effective under Clause 2 by more than possibly forty-eight hours; it is something quite trivial. We are not suggesting that there should be anything except an opportunity for the man or woman whose property has been taken away under this very special clause to be heard—to be given a chance to explain why it is not just, why it is not reasonable, or why it may be most improper to make a compulsory order under that clause. I cannot help thinking, therefore, that those are right who say that the main objection to Clause 2 (which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack feels as strongly as any of us) ought as far as possible to be removed by giving the persons affected the right to be heard.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the position as I see it, in regard to this Amendment. First of all, let us remember that we are dealing with the summary procedure. You have to give a notice and you have to allow time for representations to be made. You will see from the bottom of page 21 that the representations which any person desires to make must be made to the confirming authority in writing within fourteen days. Then on page 22 it is said that before giving any authorization under Clause 2 of this Bill the confirming authority shall consider any representations duly made to the authority. I quite agree with what the noble Lords opposite have said—namely, that very often you can, by meeting a man and letting him have a talk with you, remove a sense of grievance which otherwise would exist.
I do not think there is anybody who has had any Ministerial experience who likes the people with whom he is dealing to have a sense of grievance. Every sensible Minister wants to remove a sense of grievance. The practice has recently developed whereby, when a man has sent in his letter with his objections, which have to be considered, he is given a chance of coming up to the Ministry to make his objection in the flesh, and sitting beside him the Minister's officer will hear what he has got to say and argue it out. It does not take very long and very often you remove the grievances altogether. At any rate, the fellow will think, he has had a chance of stating his case.
I am entirely with your Lordships that this is a practice which should be done,

745
and in the normal case it is a practice which will be followed. But if you ask me to say it is an absolute condition precedent to this summary procedure, and that you cannot go on with the summary procedure unless and until this is done, then that is something I am not prepared to do, because' there may be cases of a man being abroad or something of that sort. There is the case just referred to of the soldier in Burma. Are you to hold up all this summary procedure until our friend has come back from Burma and can go and have a talk with the Ministry of Health? That is impossible. Therefore, what I say is this. You cannot ask us to accept this as an absolute condition, but I do give your Lordship the assurance, that this is the practice which ought to be followed wherever possible. It is the practice to-day to do this wherever possible, and in the future we shall intend, when we are using this procedure, wherever possible to see the man in the flesh and see if we cannot remove his grievance. I hope your Lordships will accept that, and not press me to accept the Amendment.
LORD WOLVERTON: In view of what the noble and learned Lord Chancellor has said, and if it is going to be the usual practice, I am satisfied and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.43 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, at the end of paragraph 3, to add "and as soon as he makes a decision shall cause replies to be sent to such representations as he has received, informing those making the representations of the reasons for his decision." The noble Lord said: This is another Amendment which is also designed to try to get rid of any sense of grievance there is at the moment. The confirming authority has to consider any representations duly made to the authority, but there is nothing to say that they are going to communicate the result to anybody except the acquiring authority. I want them to answer the man and give the reason. I must say a number of us were quite satisfied with the undertaking just given by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor that the man would be answered wherever it was practicable to do so. It may be thought with regard to this Amendment that it is un-
746
necessary to put it into the Bill. If an undertaking will be given that where the man is not seen the letter will be answered within a reasonable time, or, if we may use the words, "as soon as may be," I shall be satisfied. Could we have some assurance that something was going to be done to try to eliminate the sense of grievance which people will have if either they are not seen or their letters are not answered giving them the reason why the Minister has been unable to reply to their representation? I should like the words, included, but it may not be possible. If I get the undertaking I require I shall not press for that. At any rate at this stage I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 33, at end, add ("and as soon as he makes a decision shall cause replies to be sent to such representations as he has received, informing those making the representations of the reasons for his decision.").—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD PAKENHAM: I am afraid we have been very hard-hearted this afternoon. Noble Lords have asked for bread and we have given them nothing but stones, or very little more than stones. Here we should like to concede half a loaf if it is possible, but it is not quite so easy as the noble Lord perhaps conceives. I am grateful to him for the suggestion that perhaps an indication about the general practice to be followed would satisfy him. I am afraid I cannot hold out the hope that the general practice would be to give an owner the reasons for the decision of a confirming authority. At the present time, I understand, it is not usual when land is being compulsorily acquired, and an inquiry has been held, to inform the owner of the reasons for the decision. There are various administrative factors governing that practice of which the noble Lord is probably well aware, but it is not the usual practice at the present time, and I cannot hold out any hope that it will be the normal practice to give the owner the reasons for the decision. I can hold out very strong hope that if pressed very hard we might find words to include in the Bill that an answer to the person making representations will be given. If the noble Lord feels very strongly about that, words might be found before the next stage to meet it, but not, I am afraid, with regard to the reasons.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am obliged to the noble Lord, and I think it would be a nice gesture, if he can find suitable words, to put them in the Bill to cover this point. I think it is most important that it should always be in front of people that it is an absolute practice that these representations when received must be answered. I appreciate the point about giving the reasons, but the two cases are not quite analogous, because in one case he has had the advantage of hearing the case argued at a public inquiry and then afterwards the reasons are not given. In this case one must remember he has never come in contact with any sort of inquiry, any sort of clash of minds on the thing at all, and this representation may just be in writing and a reason should, if possible, be given. I can understand they may write back and say they are very sorry having to do this in his case, but there is a very important public interest and it has to take precedence, which I suppose would be the reason. I understand it might be difficult to put those words in, but I should like some words in if the noble Lord can find them. That cuts down my Amendment a little, but I hope the practice will always be to answer these representations. I am sure it would be the right thing to do, and I would like to see it in the Bill. If the noble Lord would look at this before another stage I would be obliged. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Schedule agreed to.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.
MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.

Enactment amended.

Amendments

The Water (Scotland) Act, 1946. (9 & 10 Geo. 6. c..)

In relation to local water authorities, the Act shall be amended as follows: In section twenty, in subsection (4) the words "by means of a compulsory purchase order made by them and confirmed," and subsections (5) to (8) shall cease to have effect, and in subsection (9) for the words "to acquire by a compulsory purchase order made" there shall be substituted the words "to purchase compulsorily."

5.48 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in the reference to the Water (Scotland)
748
Act, 1946, to leave out "In relation to local water authorities, the Act shall be amended as follows." The noble and learned Lord said: This is an Amendment which relates to the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946. We have got it rather wrong, because, I am told, in Scotland there are no water authorities at all except local water authorities, and therefore we need not start by saying "in relation to local water authorities." We can start quite generally because there is nothing else. The second point is that we have used in those succeeding lines words which, though they are not quite apt to Scotland, according to the Scottish draftsman, do not alter the substance but just specify Scottish phraseology.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line two, leave out ("In relation to local water authorities, the Act shall be amended as follows").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.50 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR had given Notice of an Amendment, in the reference to the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, to leave out "subsections (5) to (8) shall cease to have effect, and in subsection (9) for the words 'to acquire by a compulsory purchase order made' there shall be substituted the words 'to purchase compulsorily.'" and insert:
"the words 'under this section' and subsections (5) to (8) shall cease to have effect, and for subsection (9) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(9) A local water authority may be authorized by the Secretary of State to purchase compulsorily, or may acquire by agreement, land for giving in exchange for land belonging to the National Trust for Scotland for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty which is inalienable under Section twenty-two of the Order confirmed by the National Trust for Scotland Order Confirmation Act, 1935, or for any land forming part of a common or open space, which they are authorized under this section to purchase compulsorily."
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, leave out lines 7 to 11, and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble and learned Lord Chancellor to give some explanation of that because I do not quite know what the effect of it is?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have tried to give an explanation and I will try again. This is a matter of Scottish law with which I am rather unfamiliar. May I read what is before me? Investigation made since the provisions of the Fourth Schedule amending the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, were added to the Bill upon that Act receiving the Royal Assent, has disclosed that there are no statutory water undertakers in Scotland who will require to invoke Section 20 of the Water (Scotland) Act, or the corresponding provisions of the Fourth Schedule thereto, for the purpose of compulsorily acquiring land.
The first Amendment accordingly removes the limiting words at the beginning of the provisions amending the Water (Scotland) Act in the Fourth Schedule of the Bill on page 37. Consequently, provision is made by the second Amendment for amending Section 20 of the Act by rewriting sub-section (9), which, authorizes the acquisition of other land to be given in exchange for National Trust land or commons or open spaces, purchased under Section 20.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I understood that this was a new Amendment, but apparently it is an Amendment from an existing Act.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: In view of the fact that the Police Bill to which the next Amendment refers has not yet been received back from the House of Commons I do not propose to move that Amendment to-day. It is hoped that the Police Bill will be ready to receive the Royal Assent on Monday next, April 15, and I therefore propose leaving this Amendment until the Report stage of the Bill which will be taken on Monday after the Royal Commission.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth Schedule agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert:
750

The Water (Scotland) Act, 1946. 9 & 10 Geo. 6. c. 42.

In Section twenty, in subsection (4) the words "by means of a compulsory purchase order made by them and confirmed", and the words "under this section", aid subsections (5) to (8). The Second Schedule.

In the Fourth Schedule, in Section seven, in subsection (1) the words "by means of a compulsory purchase order made by the undertakers and confirmed" and (he words "order made."

The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on the two Amendments on page 37. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 23, at end insert the said new paragraphs.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
5.54 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for he House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The VISCOUNT MERSEY in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Standard amount of Exchequer contributions for flats, etc., on expensive sites.
4.—(1) For a flat provided in a block of flats on a site the cost of which as developed (ascertained in accordance with Part I of the First Schedule to this Act) exceeds one thousand-five hundred pounds per at re, the standard amount of the annual Exchequer contribution shall, subject to the following previsions of this Act, be determined in accordance with the Table contained in Part II of the said First Schedule:
(2) Whore a house (not being a flat in a block of flats)—

(a) is provided on a site the cost of which as developed (ascertained in accordance

751
with Part I of the First Schedule to this Act) exceeds one thousand five hundred pounds per acre; and

(b) is provided under a scheme of development which makes provision also for the erection of one or more blocks of flats on the same site as the house;

then, if the Minister thinks fit so to direct, the standard amount of the annual Exchequer contribution for that house shall be determined in accordance with the Table contained in Part II of the said First Schedule:
Provided that the Minister shall not give any direction under this subsection in relation to any house unless he is satisfied, with respect to the total housing accommodation which has been and is to be provided on the same site as the house, that satisfactory arrangements could not have been made for providing that accommodation on that site in a single building containing in all its parts the same number of storeys, or in two or more such buildings, unless the number of storeys in that single building, or in each of those two or more buildings, was at least three.
5.55 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), after "For," to insert "a house or." The noble Lord said: There are two Amendments on the Paper in my name and they hang together. With your Lordships' permission I will deal with them both on this Amendment. What I am concerned about—and this is one of the points I tried to make on the Second Reading—is the effect that the financial provisions, as set out in this Bill, will have in relation to the question of flats or houses. I am not going, at this stage, to argue the merits of flats or houses, because I think we have really reached agreement that where single-family houses are possible they are eminently desirable. We are all agreed about that here, and that is a view which is shared by about ninety per cent, of the population. I think that every single survey which has been made has produced the result that between eighty per cent, and ninety per cent, of the population want houses of their own if they can have them, houses where they can bring up their children, houses which have gardens and afford privacy and other advantages.
But, as your Lordships know, it nevertheless remains true—and it is agreed—that a proportion of the population must be housed in flats because there is not room for anything else. I think that nobody who listened to my noble friend Lord Latham a few days ago could remain unconvinced of the definite necessity
752
which besets the London County Council, and of the absolute need that there is in central areas, and areas adjacent to the docks and so on of having blocks of fiats on these expensive sites. I want to make it clear that I am not under any illusion about that point whatever. The provisions in this Bill for flats on expensive sites are entirely appropriate for special cases such as those I have mentioned, and, to put a limit on it, I think the special cases, broadly speaking, concern land which costs upwards of £10,000 or £12,000 an acre or even a little higher. But this is not a Bill for special cases. This is the Government's general Bill and one expects it to be in line with their general housing policy. I have congratulated the Government on their policy of dispersal. They have agreed that the congested central areas of the great towns have got to be redeveloped in such a way that the density is lower. That does not alter the fact that in some parts we have got to have high density.
The general policy of the Government is a policy of dispersal into satellite towns and new towns. What alarms me is that this Bill does not seem to be in line with that policy. It is admittedly a long-term policy. If you have got a long-term policy for land use and for dispersal in housing, then your Housing Bill ought in common sense to reflect that policy. I am told that these provisions are only for two years and that then they can be altered. That contention I venture to say is not borne out by the facts. In Clause 16 of this Bill provision is made for the review of contributions. The clause says:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister may from time to time by order provide, in relation to new houses completed after such date, not being earlier than the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, as may be specified in the order—
(a) for reducing all or any of the standard amounts of the annual Exchequer contribution;
—and so on.
That, of course, is properly put in to meet what we all hope will be the case of falling costs. There is no provision that I see for fundamental alteration of the relation between flats and houses. We have some basic figures which I want your Lordships to bear in mind, and I will trouble you with as little arithmetic as possible. In Clauses 1 and 2 we have a general standard of contribution and

753
that, as your Lordships already know very well, is £16s. 10s. from the Exchequer and £5 10s. from the rates, making a total of £22. That general standard contribution is going to have a capital value over sixty years of £594. Then we come to Clause 4 which I am seeking to amend, and we have the standard contributions on expensive sites. To get them you have: to go to the Schedule. If your Lordships will turn to the First Schedule you see the scale set out on page 22, beginning at £1,500 per acre. I want at this point to mention one rather significant thing. I cannot help thinking that there is here a definite bias in, favour of flats. A significant bit of evidence is shown in the Table in Part III, where you have the standard amount of annual Exchequer contribution and rate contribution in the case of flats. It begins at land more than £1,500, but not more than £4,000, and the Bill goes out of its way to provide for contributions for lifts right down to land just over £1,500. It looks as if the Minister contemplates five, six or ten-storey flats on land costing just over £1,500 an acre.
That makes me wonder whether there is not rather a bias here in favour of flats. That was quite common in Socialist circles in Vienna after the last war. They built what are outwardly some fine blocks of flats, but inside they are not good flats. They are very small, poky little places. The Russians, too, about the same time, thought the single-family house was a bourgeois conception, and they did not like it for that reason. Now, it is true, continental thought has gone back to the single-dwelling house, and I am very anxious to have an assurance that it is understood that what the Government want is to house the population in the most adequate way—that is, in houses—where the land permits. I know that in central areas you cannot have everybody in houses, but what alarms me is the proviso to Clause 4—a very obscure bit of drafting. I will not read it, but if your Lordships will just look at it you will see it begins at line 29, and goes on to line 37. I can tell your Lordships that it means an over-all density of three-storeys. It means that the Minister can only give the higher subsidy where there is an over-all development at a density of three-storeys. In response to my inquiry the noble Viscount, the
754
Leader of the House, said on the Second Reading that the maximum development which would be considered satisfactory was thirty-five dwellings to the acre. We have not been told authoritatively what the minimum development would be, but: I venture the supposition that it might be twenty-five to the acre. Thirty-five dwellings to the acre might include seven houses and twenty-eight flats, according to the noble Viscount. That would be 80 per cent, flats.
If I am right in supposing that the minimum density would be twenty-five to the acre, it would give a proportion of 44 per cent, flats—I have had it worked out. It comes to this; nothing less than the development of 44 per cent, of flats is possible on land over £1,500 an acre. The Minister is fettered by his proviso that on land over £1,500 an acre he has to insist, in order to give the higher subsidy, on 44 per cent, flats. I believe there will be 2,000,000 people to be housed in the central area of the County of London, and I refuse to believe that 44 per cent, of them will accept flats. If the County of London plan is developed in the way some parts of it indicate, at 200 to the acre, it means, great areas of 100 per cent, flats of eight to ten storeys. I feel sure that after we have built from 4,000,000 to 6,000,000 houses, these areas would become derelict. But that is by the way.
I want to try and explain what it means to a local authority which wants to build houses and is, as I think, forced to build flats. Here are two figures I want you to carry in your minds for the ordinary three-bedroomed house. The subsidy scale is based on the idea that a house with about 900 feet floor space will cost £1,000, exclusive of land, while a flat, which will only have 750 feet, will cost £1,460. An inferior flat will cost £460 more than a comparable house. That means inferior three-bedroomed dwellings for £1,460. I venture to suggest that this high cost is the reason why this unfortunate scale has come about. The greatly increased cost of building has altered the whole relationship of the cost of land to the cost of building. Before, you could save money by building flats, even on lower-cost land, because the cost of building was so much in relation to the cost of land. Now, it becomes more expensive to build flats than houses, unless on a very expensive site indeed.
Take the case of a local authority which has land at £4,500 an acre. That represents £3,000 more than the limit of £1,500. If the local authority wants to develop it in houses, it means that they have to find £250 additional for the land per house—twelve into three thousand. Now if they are to build these houses, they have either to find the extra £250 from the rates, which is not practical policy, or make their tenants pay higher rents, which is also not practical policy. The only other choice is for the authorities to submit, and build fiats. Once they agree to build flats, they get not £594, which is the capital value of the house subsidy, but £1,078—or £484 extra—for building flats. And that is more than the additional cost of building these flats. I hope that illustrates to your Lordships the absurd extravagance this proposal will lead us into. It is going to cost millions of pounds more. I am perfectly certain that the problem which faces the London County Council is such that it is unlikely there will be any land which is less than £6,000 to £7,000 an acre, even on the fringes. That will mean, because the Minister has fettered himself, that there will necessarily be flats in places where, I am sure, my noble friend Lord Latham would prefer to build cottages.
I will give one or two examples. I take the example of Poplar, and my authority is the London Evening News for December 4 last. I am informed that Poplar had a scheme for 21.5 houses or dwellings per acre, and under the influence of the London County Council they have unwillingly put it up to 23. If my reading of this Bill is right—and I am prety sure it is—neither 21 nor 23 will be possible, assuming the land in Poplar to be worth more than £1,500 an acre—which it is. Consequently, Poplar will have to revise its density and go into flats. There is a great area of high-cost land outside the County of London. I quote such places as Croydon, Willesden, and West Ham, where there is land at the middle figures which would be available without undue encroachment on agricultural land. Or take a town like York. York developed in its central areas at 12 dwelling houses to the acre before the war, and I think that is the sort of development many "blitzed" towns will want to see in their centres. But because the land is worth more than £1,500, they will be
756
prevented from doing it, and millions of money will be spent on subsidies and hundreds of thousands of people will be forced to live in flats who would rather live in houses. This subsidy scale as it stands makes it impossible to do what is sensible in areas where these central conditions do not exist. Central conditions necessitate special treatment, but this Bill applies its treatment to all areas, central and other.
In case the argument is produced that my Amendment would be administratively difficult, I am confident that it gives the Minister the discretion which I want him to have, and that in cases where open development of twelve to the acre was agreed to be suitable, he could give the right amount of subsidy to compensate for the additional cost of land, which is of course what this expensive land subsidy is really intended to do. If it is argued that that would be administratively difficult, I am happy to be able to point to the Scottish Bill, because in the Scottish Bill (which I think has not yet been to your Lordships, but is coming; it has been in another place), the Secretary of State has discretion to make an appropriate contribution. It would be very flattering to my Scottish pride to think that the Scottish Office is able to administer this clause and that the Ministry of Health is not. But indeed in refusing my Amendment my noble friend on the Front Bench is himself putting forward that argument. At least I do not see that he really can escape that dilemma.
Finally I would like to refer to this question of Privilege, because I think it may be argued that this is a Privilege Amendment as it has to do with finance. I dare say there is an argument that it is not Privilege because it does not increase the burden, but in fact diminishes it. But the spirit in which I offer the Amendment to your Lordships' House is that I think this is a technical point of some difficulty which has slipped through the other House possibly without the other House realizing quite what they were doing, and I think it is our duty, as the revising Chamber, to give the other House the opportunity for second thoughts. If your Lordships see fit to accept the Amendment we can send it down to the other place and then they can have a look at it again. Of course if, having their second thoughts, they say, "No, you are all wrong; we are not

757
interested in the Amendment" whether they say it is Privilege or not, your Lordships then will have no more to say, but I think we should exercise our function of a revising Chamber in pointing out this grave defect and I earnestly beg your Lordships to support my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1, after ("For") insert ("a house or").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
6.11 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: I think it would be convenient if I were to emulate the noble Lord, who has moved the Amendments, and deal with his two Amendments together, because they do in fact hang together. I think I ought to make it perfectly clear that the noble Lord is quite wrong when he suspects that in the policy of the Government there is a bias in favour of flats. The issue between the noble Lord and the Government is a perfectly simple and straightforward one. The noble Lord wants local authorities to be free to develop central areas largely or wholly by houses. The Government, on the other hand, are satisfied that the space cannot be afforded.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord—not central areas, any area over £1,500 an acre.
LORD HENDERSON: I am coming to the point in a moment. I am just dealing with the general case. It is suggested that the Government have in mind that the areas should foe mainly developed by flats. I agree that this is the Government's position in the main in dealing with expensive sites in built-up areas. The noble Lord stressed the case of sites costing from £1,500 upwards. I think he is quite wrong when he says that the Government compel local authorities to build flats on such sites. In point of fact, local authorities are free to choose, but if they want the larger subsidy then they must build flats. Perhaps I can relieve my noble friend's mind to some extent by telling him that from a purely financial point of view it can be accepted that it will always be cheaper to local authorities and to the tenants to build houses rather than flats, when the cost of the land is within the lower reaches of the costs set out in Part II of the first Schedule.
LORD LLEWELLIN: HOW far?
LORD HENDERSON: I should say, according to my information, up to about £6,000, not exceeding £6,000. Therefore it is wrong to assume that, because the Government provide a higher subsidy for fiats, the local authority is induced by that higher subsidy to build flats, when, in point of fact, as I have just stated, it would be cheaper for them to build houses. There is a general point which I think I must stress. The higher subsidy is not offered as an inducement to build flats rather than houses. It is a compulsion to build flats on expensive sites because of the very serious shortage of building land in central areas. That is the position that the Government have taken up, and it has been announced quite clearly by the Minister in another place. The policy of developing these areas mainly by flats, subject to an overriding density of approximately 35 to the acre, is in agreement with sound principles of planning, and I think I am right in saying in the Abercrombie plan for these areas flats were indicated as the primary need.
Now the real position is that the Government have laid down their policy. As to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord this afternoon, I am not sure how far I am in order in referring to the proceedings in another place which have not been officially reported to your Lordships' House, but I think I may say that during the Second Reading and Committee stages of this Bill in another place the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, were very freely ventilated. On the Committee stage an Amendment somewhat similar to his own Amendment was moved, and, as I slated in the Second Reading discussion in your Lordships' House two days ago, while there was strong opposition from certain members of another place to the policy of the Government, that policy was in fact generally accepted D3 the House without a Division. The position of the Government remains unchanged. They stand by their policy and by Clause 4, and for the reasons which I have stated I am unable to accept the Amendment.
6.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I hope we shall not leave this Amendment and this matter generally in what I think would be really a very unsatisfactory position, after the

759
speech we have just heard. I am not challenging the intentions of the Government and I feel sure the noble Lord has expressed them in a friendly and sincere manner, but I cannot conceive words less well designed to give effect to those intentions than the words of this clause as I read them. I believe there is really very little between us in intention here, but it is very important that we should express that intention with complete certainty in the Bill, and that local authorities and the public at large, as well as the Minister, should understand what this policy is to be.
I am not an expert in drafting and I am not going to say that my noble friend's Amendment will do exactly what I believe the majority of us want to do. It may be that it is admirably phrased for the purpose. However, I want to put to your Lordships what I believe is the common intention of all of us. This schedule and this proviso to the clause seem to me to have been drafted having in mind very expensive sites or very densely populated areas. But it goes a great deal wider than that, because it deals with every piece of land anywhere in the country of which the cost is more than £1,500 an acre, and it deals with it at a time when, the cost of building having gone up greatly, the ratio of cost of land to building is a very different proposition from what it was six or seven years ago.
Let me see if I can carry your Lordships in agreement with me over certain propositions. The first is that where you get a densely populated area which has to be rehoused, where the people have to live near their work and where there is only a very limited amount of ground physically available, then we should all agree that if you can house that number of people on that amount of land only by building flats, there is an unanswerable case for building flats. I think we would also agree that when you get into the very high priced land, land costing £16,000 or £18,000 an acre—well, I will not take the debatable land but land which is not debatable, at £12,000 to £16,000 an acre—where to house otherwise than by flats would involve either a colossal subsidy or an unduly high rent, there again we should all agree that you must proceed by flats.
But surely we should also agree that where there is plenty of room, where the
760
cost is not excessive—and the noble Lord has told us, if I followed him aright, that until you get above £6,000 an acre it is going to be cheaper to build houses—then the Minister should have a discretion to approve a building scheme of either entirely houses or partly flats and partly houses, with no rule-of-three sum, as I may term it, as to the number of houses and the number of flats. This I think will certainly be admitted: that, broad and large, the majority of people would much rather live in a house than in a flat. I do not think there is any doubt about it. Therefore, provided there is land available and the cost is not too excessive, surely the reasonable thing to do is to build houses and not flats. The noble Lord says: "Let them build houses if they want to. It is not the intention to force people into building flats or to induce them to build flats." But surely, if it is not the intention, the inducement is put there most strongly. He says the local authorities are free to choose, but in fact the form in which this schedule is drawn up is a direct bribe to the local authorities to build the more costly and less popular flat. You get £484 more in subsidy if you build a flat than if you build a house.
I would beg the Government to look at this again and give the Minister a much wider discretion. I would like your Lordships to look at this proviso because it is what appears to me to govern it all. If it were not there, the Minister would have a general discretion, but in the proviso he is deliberately fettering his own discretion. Indeed, I go so far as to say that he has made it impossible for himself to exercise a discretion. Let your Lordships observe what it says:
"…the Minister shall not give any direction"—
that is, shall not exercise his discretion—
"under this subsection in relation to any house unless he is satisfied, with respect to the total housing accommodation which has been and is to be provided on the same site as the house, that satisfactory arrangements could not have been made for providing that accommodation on that site in a single building containing in all its parts the same number of storeys, or in two or more such buildings"
containing the same number of storeys.
That merely means that what you have got to do is to put the thing on what I may call a "flat basis" to start with. That means, according to the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour,

761
if I understood him correctly, that you have got to build 25 to the acre. If you have to do that, I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which it would not have been physically possible to put up a block of flats and house people in those flats. Why should the Minister's discretion be limited in this way? I am not sure whether my noble friend's clause forces the Minister or not—I do not think it does—but he does not want to force him. He is perfectly content to leave the Minister with the widest possible discretion. What we want—and I really think it is carrying out the intention which the Government have at heart—is for the Minister to have an absolute discretion, where he is satisfied—I think I carry my noble friend who moved the Amendment with me on this—on the representation of the local authority that it is sound economically and socially to build houses rather than to build flats, to build entirely houses or to build partly houses and partly flats. We want to get rid altogether of this rule-of-three sum about so many flats to the acre of three or more storeys. It seems to me that that is a straightforward proposition.
There is no great question of principle involved in this. I know how easily these things slip through when you have your mind entirely on one thing. I accept completely the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, made—and who would not when he speaks with the authority with which he does? Nobody wants to fetter the complete discretion of the London County Council to do whatever it thinks is the wisest from the point of view of planning. But this is not a question of just one or two cities; I beg the noble Lord not to think it is. It concerns every local authority in an area where the land is going to cost more than £1,500 per acre. Although the Minister may have in mind London, Liverpool or somewhere else, what he has done in his Bill is to take in every town, large or small, where the land is going to cost more than £1,500 per acre. I am sure this has been drafted on the assumption, first, that land is a bigger factor in the; cost, as it was in the old days; and secondly having very much in mind these densely populated places in which housing needs can only be met by the provision of flats.
That will not in any way be prejudiced if the Government will look at this again and give the Minister this wide discretion
762
which will enable him, where he is satisfied on the representation of the local authority that it would be sound both economically and socially to build houses, to give a subsidy irrespective of this mathematical formula. I beg the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, to go into this again and to see whether he cannot meet us by some form of amendment, which I have not attempted to draft. I believe I have expressed what is the common desire of everybody in every quarter of the House—on the Benches opposite as well as on this side. If that be so, I would beg the noble Viscount, with the assistance of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—who has been very good in meeting us over these things, in consequence of which I think we have been able to make great improvements in many of these measures—to give to us that something which will, to his satisfaction and to ours, carry out what is, I believe, the common intention of all of us.
6.35 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: I wish, if I may, to give some indication of the background and approach to this problem from the point of view of local authorities. I will say quite frankly that, representing the London County Council, I have repeatedly pressed for a special subsidy for cottages built on expensive land, although as I said in your Lordships' House on Tuesday there is not much available land within the County of London upon which cottages could properly be built. The Minister was asked if he could find it possible to provide special subsidies for cottages built upon expensive land, but he found himself unable; to do so for, I think, fairly good reasons. We must remember that this Bill is a Bill to deal with, special circumstances, and that the subsidies which are provided in it are to operate for a limited period. The subsidies are high, and the proportion to be borne by the Exchequer has been increased from 2 to I to 3 to I. Nevertheless, it must be remembered—and I think when it is appreciated, my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh will agree he was a little less than fair to the Government when he suggested that in the settlement of these subsidies they were actuated by a bias against cottages and a preference for flats—that this is the first time that a special subsidy has been granted for cottages.

763
For many years local authorities have pressed successive Ministers of Health, when questions of subsidies were under consideration, to provide for some special treatment for cottages built upon expensive land. In these proposals it is provided for the first time that, for mixed development of the prescribed order of I to 4, the cottages will, if they comply with the proviso to Clause 4, attract a special subsidy. The special subsidy in respect of expensive land upon which fiats are built was not, in my view, granted initially in order to encourage the building of flats; it was a recognition of the almost intolerable burden which would otherwise have been cast upon certain local authorities if they had to build flats, or indeed any other housing accommodation, on very expensive land. I think it is not perhaps unfair for the Minister, since a special subsidy has to be given because the land is expensive, to insist that the land should be used to the best advantage to provide appropriate housing accommodation, and should not, from the point of view of finding accommodation, be wastefully used by building cottages, or too many cottages, upon it.
In those circumstances, I think the Government have gone some way in these proposals towards meeting the case of the local authorities in whose area land is expensive. Where land in the central areas is expensive it is because there is a shortage of land, and that shortage of land must be taken into account in relation to how it is used to provide the housing accommodation which is needed. Therefore I think that the Government have gone some way to meet us. I cannot say definitely, but I am not persuaded that the proposals suggested in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, could be satisfactorily administered. Personally, having read them twice, I should imagine there would be some difficulty in making them administratively workable. A good deal has been made to-day, as was the case on Tuesday, of the change in the ratio between the cost of land and the cost of building. There has been a change of ratio, but the result is that the total cost has gone up. The total cost having gone up, the total deficiency has gone up, and the total deficiency has got to be met by the rates or
764
by the taxes. It seems to me that the proposals in this Bill are a fair recognition that in the special and difficult circumstances of high cost of building the State should bear an additional burden.
I do not take the view that these proposals may operate as a bribe to local authorities to build flats instead of cottages. There has been since 1930 a higher scale of subsidy for flats than for cottages, but I do not believe that any evidence can be furnished that any local authority has therefore built flats because flats would attract a higher subsidy. It is the case that local authorities have built flats with great regret, and much against their wish and will, not because flats attract a higher subsidy but because there was no other way of dealing with the housing problem. If it is suggested that these proposals are a bribe, then you have attempted unsuccessfully to bribe local authorities for the past fifteen years, because it has been for that period, or approximately that period—I cannot charge my memory exactly—when there has been a special subsidy for building flats on expensive land. I therefore think your Lordships would be well advised to accept the proposals as set out in the Bill.
I was a little surprised that my noble friend Lord Balfour, who was sitting near me for some time before he spoke, quoted from the Evening News—which newspaper is not always an authority—a statement that the London County Council had insisted that the Borough of Poplar should increase its density from twenty-one to twenty-three. That may or may not be the case, but I should doubt whether the facts are fully stated in the statement in the Evening News. You must bear in mind that in connexion with housing in the metropolitan boroughs, the London County Council frequently have to carry out duties which, as regards the rest of the country, are carried out by the Ministry of Health because we are the sanctioning authority and the approving authority. I can assure this House that if we suggested an adjustment of the density, it was not because of the financial implications, but for other considerations which were thought proper in connexion with the planning of the district. I therefore hope the House will not accept the Amendment.
6.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: This Amendment raises questions of great national importance and, for my own part, I should like to offer my support to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh in respect of the Amendment which is before us now, largely for the reason so fully stated by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that the scope of this Bill in this particular provision appears to extend somewhat wider than the arguments which support it would extend. He said that those who promoted this provision have in view the centre of great cities like London or other great industrial towns, but in fact the application of this clause would apply to a great number of towns of an entirely different character.
I should like to give your Lordships one particular instance. During the war I was resident in Oxford, where the Oxford Preservation Trust is very greatly concerned with the effects upon the character of the town of the gradual industrialization that has befallen it, and they appointed a committee for the future planning of Oxford. It included the Chairman of the Planning Committee of the City Council, and the Chairman of the corresponding body in the county together with other experts, and they did me the honour to make me the Chairman of that Committee. This very problem came before us because there is, in the centre of Oxford, a considerable area which is known to many of your Lordships and which has been marked down for some time past for demolition of a number of old and unsatisfactory properties and the rebuilding of that area. The question arose whether a considerable number of flats should be built there or not. That has been a matter of controversy in the city of Oxford for some time. It was agreed that, in view of the general industrial and other conditions of the town, it was necessary to have at all events some blocks of flats in that area or in an adjoining area, but the question arose how far that principle should be adopted and whether the whole of that part of Oxford should be converted into an area of big flat dwellings.
I did not know this question was coming forward, and I have not acquainted myself as to the actual valuation of those particular sites, but I would like to ask the Minister whether, assuming that the value of the sites would bring it within
766
the scope of this clause, the City Council of Oxford would be put in this dilemma. If they cover the whole of that area with blocks of flats would they or would they not get 50 per cent. more subsidy than if they covered a considerable part of it with houses and a comparatively minor part with flats? That is the question which I should like to put to the noble Lord, because the matter is at present not quite clear, at any rate to my mind, and perhaps to the minds of some other members of this House. Will the City Council and the ratepayers be put in the dilemma that if they cover this large area with flats, they would gain financially something like 50 per cent. in subsidy compared to the erection of houses?
I mentioned at the outset that this raised new questions of national policy, because this country is now faced, in this controversy between flats and houses, with a problem closely affecting the future generations, and those of us who hold that the principle of the family is at the present time of supreme importance and that we should deal with these matters largely with a view to the children of the future and not merely to economic considerations, hold most strongly the view that it would be lamentable if the British people were converted into a race of nomadic flat dwellers. What we want above all is to preserve the idea of the English home and have houses which are fit for children to live in, and not only heroes. In so far as the Government could give any financial bias to one set of dwellings or to the other, it should rather be in favour of the house than in favour of the flat. We cannot ignore the fact that the present Minister of Health, in whose hands these questions largely lie, has actually suggested that the way to solve the rural housing problem is to erect in the agricultural districts large blocks of fiats for the housing of the people.
Now legislation passed by Parliament often has quite unexpected results, results not at all intended by the authors of the Bills. It may be that this clause which we are now discussing will, in the course of time, if it remains in its present form, have the effect of changing the character of our old English towns. Places like Oxford and many other similar towns, it may be found, will, in the course of a generation or so, have their character changed by the presence of great blocks of flats such as may be necessary in the

767
centres of great cities—as, for instance, in the centre of Vienna—but are not necessarily called for in less congested areas. Incidentally, I have visited Vienna, and have seen those blocks of flats, and I agree with what has been said about them. But, as I was saying, the ultimate result of this would be greatly to the detriment of the character of our country as a whole. Lord Latham said that he doubted whether this Amendment, as drafted, would be administrable, and he suggested that it might give rise to great practical difficulties. But the noble Lord who moved the Amendment said that a provision to very much the same effect is already included in a Bill presented by the present Government for Scotland, and we cannot accuse the Government, surely, of presenting, in another Bill, a provision which is not capable of proper administration. Therefore, I support the plea that has been made to the Government to give fresh and fundamental consideration to the proposal contained in the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh.
6.53 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): I should like to assure your Lordships that we on this side of the House do not yield to the noble Viscount in our enthusiasm for the English home. We have just as high a regard for the English home as he has. We have never abated our zeal for it, and I hope that we never shall. It is quite evident that the well-being of the race is dependent upon the people having homes in which they can bring up their children and give them a proper life. But that is not, in the very least, the issue that is before the House to-day. May I say with regard to the noble Viscount's conjecture as to what might happen at Oxford, that if the Corporation of that city were inclined to do the very foolish thing that he suggests, then, notwithstanding the increased subsidy it would, in fact, cost the City of Oxford more than if they built houses. So the noble Viscount's illustration is entirely hypothetical, and it has no relation to the actual issue that is before us.
I am just as much impressed with the necessity of getting a right solution of this problem as are noble Lords opposite.
768
I am sure that we all agree on that. I think myself, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has already said, that in principle there is no essential difference between us. It is recognized, as Lord Latham has said with incontrovertible force, that there must be areas in our towns, certainly in London and elsewhere, where the only way of accommodating populations that have got to be accommodated is to build flats. There are such places, as we all know. Their existence puts us under an unfortunate necessity, but there it is. But we must remember that, coincident with that, for the first time there is in this provision an additional subsidy for cottages—which has not been granted before—erected on this highly expensive land. I want to assure the Committee that there is on the part of the Government no bias in favour of flats. We want just as much as everybody else to see homes provided, and what affects us as members of this House is what affects members of local authorities and members of the population generally. I have not yet met a local authority which is enthusiastic for putting its people into flats. Such an authority may exist in dreamland but I have not come across it. Local authorities like their people to live as their people like to live; that is to say, as far as possible in their own homes. Every local authority that I have ever heard of is so minded. But that does not get away from the grim necessities of the case. There must be some flats in some places. To provide them is the only way to deal with the situation.
I was rather surprised and, quite frankly, I was also gratified to find that it is anticipated that, as a matter of fact, it will be cheaper and more advantageous, under the Bill, to build houses instead of flats on land costing up to round about £6,000 an acre. I must say that so far as I was concerned I found that a gratifying assurance. I think it ought also to gratify my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh and to rule out a good many of the misgivings which he seemed to entertain. So that the danger is, if I may say so, very much exaggerated. It is true that this is a Bill of general application, but knowing the feeling of authorities, knowing how, in fact, it is more advantageous to build houses rather than flats, except in the case of very high valued

769
land, I cannot, myself, see that we need be very apprehensive.
A point put by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, impressed me very much. He expressed misgivings that as the relevant proviso stands a special bias is implied in favour of flats. That is, I think, a fair way of expressing it. I do not mind saying that I have read this proviso several times, and I have also read Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Amendment several times. But I am not a lawyer, and I confess that at the end of my reading I had not a very clear understanding of either the proviso or the Amendment. I could quite believe, and I was assured, that as it stands Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Amendment would be unworkable. But that does not necessarily apply to the Amendment only. I had a good look at this proviso, and it appears to me that the misgiving behind the whole of this discussion is that this proviso implies a bias in favour of flats and does not give the Minister—shall we say the discretion which we would like him to have? I believe that is a fair statement of the matter. I have put that point to officials of the Department and they are perfectly willing that I should give the assurance to the Committee that they will look into it between now and the next stage of the Bill and, if anything can be done that will make it clear that the Minister's discretion is a real discretion, we shall be prepared to consider words that will have that effect. I sincerely hope that the Committee will be willing to accept that assurance, and will not ask us to accept the noble lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Amendment.
6.59 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for what he has just said. He has expressed my misgivings with perfect accuracy. What I fear is that the mysterious proviso to which he has alluded does in fact limit the discretion of the Minister, and I am greatly indebted to him for his promise to look into it to see whether anything can be done to make it clearer.
I hope if the Department adheres—or if I may put it this way, I earnestly hope the noble Viscount will be successful in securing the redrafting of the words to make the point clear. If he has the misfortune to have to come back to your Lordships' House and tell us that I am
770
wrong, and that this does not limit discretion, I think it would be reasonable for the House to ask him to explain why that is.
A good deal of criticism has been voiced about the clarity of my Amendment. I challenge anybody to say it is not crystal clear, compared with the proviso in the Bill. With regard to my remarks about Lord Latham, I much regret if I have said anything to hurt his feelings. He is a tremendous authority on all that concerns London. I hope he will not take it amiss if I say that he knows so much about London that he is a little bit inclined to judge the national problem in terms of London. That sums up the objections to this Bill. It is not a special Bill for London. It is a Bill for the whole country, and he must allow some of us to have rather strong views. I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, and I earnestly hope that we may be so fortunate as to secure a redraft. In that hope and in respect of that undertaking I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.

EDUCATION BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
LICENSING PLANNING (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL, [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order): Amendment (Privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

WOOL STOCKS.
7.4 p.m.
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY asked His Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the dissatisfaction existing in the United States with regard to their policy on Dominion wool stocks, whether they are now prepared to publish in detail the information which would allay this, and when the Central Board of the foreshadowed joint organization will be put into authority.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting the question standing in my name, I would like to emphasize that it asks

771
for a reply on two particular points. The first is the publication of information, and the other is the announcement of the establishment of a Central Board. Both of these points have been promised, and I now seek for an indication as to when we may expect that promise to be implemented. There are two angles to the question I have put. One is the administrative and diplomatic angle, and the other the commercial and practical angle. The former I am unable to assess, through lack of knowledge; but the latter is painfully apparent in commercial circles.
Since I first went to the United States, I have been in intimate contact with the wool policy there, and its wool textile industry, and I have watched closely the power of the Wool Lobby in Washington. This is not the moment to provide avoidable ammunition for criticism. The United States in the last five years have bought wool to the value of upwards of 500,000,000 dollars from the British Government—an appreciable contribution to the exchange. If marketing arrangements in New Zealand had been more expeditious and had more closely approached the efficiency in Australia, there would have been a still larger total in replacement of South American wool. And that would still further have helped our exchange. Momentarily, there is confusion among intending buyers in the United States. They experience great difficulty and delay in learning when, or whether, their orders will be executed. In brief, they feel that the British Government are juggling and discriminating; and as the biggest buyers they are incensed. Personally, I am satisfied from the assurances I have had from the Board of Trade that their suspicions are groundless. But I am equally satisfied that suspicion could all be quickly allayed by effective publication of information on available supplies of all types. Already, since the collapse of Germany, I have twice urged, in this House that full information should be given on stocks of raw materials. This has been supplemented by Sir Arthur Salter in another place as recently as February 20, when he urged full publication of information on food and raw materials. The result has followed, so far as food is concerned, in Command Paper No. 6785, but the information promised on raw materials is still awaited. I urge that this be now expedited.
In the case of wool, it has been indicated that as from August I last, the management of wool surpluses was to be taken over by a joint organization. This is not yet in action. This delay is ridiculous and harmful, no matter what the cause. I wish to record the avoidable harm that is being done. It is dangerous. Moreover, under the pressure of annoyance, criticism is reflected on Wool Control, which in its provision of wool products for the Forces has done such an outstanding job. Sir Harry Shackleton has been supported by a devoted band of able commercial men, who have supplied their technical knowledge to the benefit of the Government, and who have been assisted by most willing collaborators in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. They should be disengaged from this criticism. I would ask the indulgence of the House for having taken up more time than I had intended. Since I put this question down, additional information has come into my possession, and in view of the propriety of removing any avoidable criticism from Washington at the present moment of delicate loan negotiations, I have felt obliged to make a fuller explanation than I had intended.
Experience tells us that very often questions put in this House do not achieve a hopeful answer, and I am inclined to think I shall not get a definite reply to these two questions. I would urge my noble friend, if he is not able to give me a reply to the two questions which I put, to take steps to have the matter investigated. To summarize, therefore, my object, I repeat, is to seek an assurance from the Government that they will forthwith make available the fullest information on wool stocks, and also that they will without further delay put into authority the Central Board of the promised Joint Association, both of which I most strongly urge.
7.11 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I know the House will wish me to welcome the noble Lord back after his travels. In the circumstances he has not, of course, been able to give us very much notice, and he must forgive me, therefore, if my reply is not in all respects a final one. We are not aware of any dissatisfaction in informed quarters in the United States. I say that with respect to the noble Lord. And, of course, I would add that the

773
Board of Trade, for which I speak in your Lordships' House, are only too pleased to welcome the noble Lord at any time within their gates and to listen to what he has to tell them. But we are not aware of any dissatisfaction in informed quarters in the United States on this matter. The report of the Conference between ourselves and the wool-growing Dominions was made public and communicated to the United States Government in August last. The Joint Wool Organization, which is expected to come into formal operation in a few weeks' time—I do not know whether that in formation is of interest to the noble Lord—
LORD BARNBY: I hope it is done sooner than that; the matter is so urgent.
LORD PAKENHAM: I take note of what the noble Lord has said. The Joint Wool Organization, which is expected to come into formal operation in a few weeks' time, is referred to in the wool programme prepared for the President by the interested agencies of the United States Government and published last month. This document points out: that it is to the advantage of wool growers in the United States to have wool prices stabilized in the major producing countries abroad, though it does also state that American growers are somewhat apprehensive lest the desire of the Joint Wool Organization to speed liquidation might result in undue pressure to sell in the United States. This document goes on to suggest that the Executive agencies in that country might approach other Governments with a view to mutual understanding and coordinated action, and we should of course be happy to consider any proposals so put forward. In the circumstances I hope the noble Lord will accept that as going as far as we can go today.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Darwen be appointed a member of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in place of the Viscount Southwood, deceased.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LONDON NECROPOLIS BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with an Amendment; the said Amendment considered and agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the petition for the following Bill:
Gas Light and Coke Company.
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for additional provision in the following Bill:
Leicester Corporation, [H.L.]
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY (PETITION FOR BILL).
  LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.] (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION).
  Examiners' Certificates of non-compliance with Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee.

  COWES GAS ORDER, 1946.
  Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  HERRING INDUSTRY (AMENDING-SCHEME, 1946.
  Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they hare examined the Scheme as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the Scheme does not raise important questions of policy or principle; that the Scheme is founded on precedent inasmuch as it provided merely for the further operation of a Scheme which has received already the approval of the House; that in the opinion of the Committee the Scheme can be passed by the House with-out

  775
  special attention; and that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Scheme.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  Fifth Report by the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
  House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.