Lords Sitting of 6 May 1947

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

  PEERS AND STATE CORPORATIONS.
  2.35 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government a question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether they can propose any general principles which should guide the action of members of your Lordships' House who are in the employ of State corporations, when matters affecting those corporations are under consideration.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I have to thank the noble Viscount for giving me this opportunity of informing your Lordships generally of the conclusions which have been reached after consultation with the noble Viscount himself and with the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Conservative Opposition, who is unfortunately unable to be present to-day but whose assent to these views I have obtained. We are of the opinion that a member of your Lordships' House employed by a State corporation, or similar organization, is not thereby debarred from exercising his constitutional right of speech in this House, even when the subject under discussion affects the particular corporation in whose employment he is engaged. It might well arise, however, that a Peer so employed should entertain a view different from that of the corporation to which he belongs. In such case he might well think that the seemly course would be not to speak at all during the discussion in your Lordships' House; but the ultimate decision whether he should or should not speak is one for himself to take—it is his own responsibility.
  Of course, we presume that a Peer engaged in the work of one of these cor-
  374
  porations will adhere to the accepted custom of your Lordships' House, and invariably make a disclosure of his personal interest when the business of his particular corporation is being debated, if he desires to intervene. Indeed, your Lordships may well look to a Peer so placed to give the House the benefit of his own informed opinion as an individual member. Finally, any question arising from such an expression of opinion must, we think, be a matter between the particular Peer and the corporation directly employing him, or even, it may be, the Minister immediately concerned with the business of that corporation. To sum up: in general, the view is that Peers holding positions in these corporations should not be prejudiced as members of this House from speaking according to their belief and good judgment—it being understood that they should inform the House of their personal interest in the matter under discussion.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I should like to thank the noble Viscount for the careful attention which he has given to this matter and for the expression of opinion which he has been good enough to deliver to the House, which I feel sure will meet with general agreement.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, as the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, is unable to be present, I would like to say tit I feel sure that the views expressed by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, will meet with general approval, and I think it is very convenient that they have been so clearly stated.

  TRANSPORT BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.

  FORTH ROAD BRIDGE.
  2.40 P.m.
  VISCOUNT EUBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To call attention to the Preamble of the Forth Road Bridge Provisional Order Confirmation and to ask His Majesty's Government when it is proposed to implement the undertaking

  375
  contained therein of the Minister of Transport to contribute from the Road Fund the equivalent of 75 per cent. of the cost of the Forth Road Bridge so that the work of construction may proceed with all celerity.]
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, in his statement in another place on May 6, 1946, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport said that he would:
  "concentrate on the preparatory work necessary to bring other major schemes, such as the proposed new bridge across the Forth, to the stage at which they can be commenced at short notice in the light of the policy of timed expenditure on public works."
  A grant of 75 per cent, has already been made towards the expenses of promoting the Provisional Order. The Government cannot at present give any indication when a grant may be forthcoming towards the cost of the actual constructional work.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I feel quite sure that the noble Lord's answer will be regarded in Scotland as very unsatisfactory, and I would like to ask two questions arising out of it. I wish to ask the noble Lord whether this means that public opinion in Scotland has once more to begin to bring pressure upon the Minister, which it has been doing for over fifteen years, and whether it is going to take another fifteen years of public pressure to bring this absolutely essential project to fruition. I would further like to ask the noble Lord whether he has had brought to his notice the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that the new Fife coalfields will ultimately become the most important in the Scottish Kingdom. If that is so, does he not realize how important it is to get this bridge completed, in order to meet that situation, which is rapidly arising?
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I am afraid that all I can add to my previous answer to the noble Viscount is that at such time as Parliament decides to approve the necessary financial provision and the grant-in-aid of the Road Fund, a grant of 75 per cent. of the approved expenditure incurred on the construction of such a bridge and works and of the costs of obtaining this Order will be made. The next step is with Parliament.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the noble Lord whether in this case, having agreed to the
  376
  75 per cent., it is not the function of the Government to invite Parliament to start on this project? If so, when will the Government ask Parliament to do it? The noble Lord says that it rests with Parliament, but the actual request to Parliament must come from the Government.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I have already explained to the noble Viscount, perhaps a little imperfectly, that this proposal is regarded by the Government as being one of the projects for timed expenditure on public works, when it should be found to be urgently necessary to engage in these extra public works. I am afraid that I cannot add anything else to my answer.
  LORD SALTOUN: Will the noble Lord, in making his representations to his right honourable friend, urge that in view of impending unemployment in Scotland it should be begun as soon as possible?
  LORD MORRISON: I will certainly bring to the notice of my right honourable friend the question which the noble Lord has put to me.

  BRITISH OFFICERS' PENSION CODE.
  2.44 P.m.
  LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government why, when the benefits of the new pension code for officers of the British Service were made applicable to officers of the British Army in India in December, 1946 (Army Instruction (India) No. 29/5/46 of December, 1946), they were withheld from certain corps—notably the I.E.M.E. and I.A.O.C.—and whether it is the intention to remove the hardship thus caused, and if not, for what reason.]
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, when the new British pension code was introduced the Government of India agreed that it should be applied to those officers and other ranks then governed by the 1938 code. Officers of certain corps, such as the I.E.M.E. and I.A.O.C., were not governed by the 1938 code, and the

  377
  Government of India have under urgent consideration the question of applying the new British code to them. I expect that a decision will be reached in the near future.
  LORD CHATFIELD: I thank the noble Earl for his answer.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
  COUNTY BOROUGH OF ST. HELENS ORDER,
  BOROUGH OF HERTFORD ORDER,
  BOROUGH OF MANSFIELD ORDER,
  BOROUGH OF ROYAL TUNBRIDGE WELLS ORDER.
  LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
  Moved, That the Orders made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Act to the said areas, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ACT, 1935 (PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 139).
  2.46 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the object of this Resolution is to obtain the approval of the House to the continuance for a further period of the powers conferred upon the Governor of Burma by Section 139 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935. Your Lordships will remember that it was agreed that during the period of transition which will elapse before the new Constitution for Burma becomes operative, the government of Burma will continue to be carried on, as it was during the war, subject to the direct rule of the Governor. But unless both Houses of Parliament renew, before June 10 of this year, the authority of the Governor to use his emergency powers, these powers will automatically lapse and there will be no legally constituted authority in Burma. A Resolution in this sense was passed in another place on May 2, and I am asking your Lordships to do likewise to-day. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 139 of the Government of Burma Act of 1935 by the
  378
  Governor of Burma on December 10, 1942, a copy of which was presented to this House on February 9, 1943.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  2.48 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I do not know whether it would be convenient, as there are two Motions on the Order Paper, if at this stage one were to put one or two questions about Burma. Then the noble Earl could either, with the have of the House, speak again, or, after any such debate as there may be, make his reply on the second Motion. The two really overlap. I want to initiate a rather general discussion, such as was had in another place, and to put these questions. I am sure the House will give its assent to both the Motions which are before it. The Governor must have these powers continued until the new régime comes into being. Equally the whole House, whatever feelings of misgiving may be entertained, will wish well the experiment which will follow upon the expiry of the Governor's temporary powers and which is dealt with in the other Motion. But I think it would be unwise for us or for Burma to underrate the great difficulties which lie ahead. The post-war problems of a devastated and disordered country would tax the most experienced Government, and, with all the good-will in the world, no one can say that the new Burmese Government, when it comes into being, can have had great experience such as they will require in their testing time. All the help and advice that can be given will, I am sure, be forthcoming, and will, I hope, be welcomed.
  There are two or three definite questions I would like to put to the Secretary of State. First of all can he tell us something about the actual economic position in that country to-day? It was devastated by the enemy, and then we ourselves had to cause a good deal of devastation: first when the Japanese invaded, and then when the Japanese were driven out. The House, I am sure, would be interested to know what progress has been made in restoration, because upon that progress depend the economic and trade prospects of that country.
  Then I would ask: What is the financial position, and what is our liability? If I have the figures right, the estimated deficit in the Budget, leaving aside all

  379
  the sums which have been advanced—they are called loans and I have no doubt they are irrecoverable—is something like 14,5oo,000. Before the war the whole Budget of Burma was a smaller figure than that. I would also ask the noble Earl, what has happened to the£15,000,000 loan which I think was given by this country. The past is the past, and no doubt your Lordships will be more interested in our commitments in the future, because we have these commitments all over the world and they are serious, and we are not getting richer. Of course, if we have made any firm commitments, we must discharge them. I am not saying that it would not be right for this country, after carefully considering their amount and purpose, to make other commitments of loans to Burma; but I think the Secretary of State will agree that if we are to be called up n to make further financial commitments we not only have a right to say what those commitments should cover, and to what purpose they should be devoted, but we ought to have some power to see that the money is wisely and prudently spent in accordance with these plans.
  The three exports of Burma, upon which all its economic prosperity depends, are, first and foremost, rice; then oil, and then teak. The export of rice was enormous. I think I am right in saying that before the war the exportable surplus of rice in Burma was something like 3,000,000 tons. That was very valuable economically to Burma; it was also extremely important to India and to Malaya. And, indirectly, it is now of great importance to the rest of the world, even people who are not rice-eating, because if the rice is not forth-coming from Burma for the countries which need it, then those countries go on to what I believe is called the General Cereal Pool. That affects even us in this country, in our bread rationing. It is, therefore, of common interest to all of us that the full production of rice in Burma should be restored as soon as possible. I believe the estimate for 1947 is an exportable surplus of 750,000 tons, and that the estimate for the following year is something like double, 1,500,000 tons. Even so, that is only half the pre-war surplus. It is one thing to produce it and another, if there is a surplus, to move it. There has been tremendous devastation of railways and the great bridges have been
  380
  broken down. In that connexion I would like to ask the noble Earl whether he is satisfied that if this surplus is produced it will be possible to move it to the ports. Once it is taken to the ports I believe the difficulty will be over, but one of the most difficult problems will be to get it down to the one or two ports from which it can be shipped.
  I am taking points rather disjointedly, and yet they are all connected. There are what are called the Secretary of State's Services, the civil servants in Burma. We had a statement from the Secretary of State the other day about the position of the public servants in India. I am sure he would agree that there should be no avoidable delay in making a similar pronouncement to the civil servants in Burma; so that they may know what their position is. Burma will certainly need administrative experience and trade co-operation, but to get both, the people concerned must know where they stand. You cannot get trade co-operation, and I do not think you can expect to get administrative co-operation, unless Burma and the British Government together are able to give firm assurances as to what the future will hold. Whether it be business experience or, in cases like oil and teak, highly technical experience, it should be forthcoming. Neither do I think you can expect to get the co-operation of the civil servants; yet both are vital.
  There are two further matters. As those who know it so much better than I do (knowing it only at second-hand) will agree, Burma is not a single unified place. There are the difficulties of the Karen people in the centre, and there are the tribes of the north, many of whom stood by us extraordinarily well, and some of whom have old indigenous constitutional developments, who have run themselves rather effectively in the past under a form of indirect rule with wise British guidance, and who would naturally wish that their developments within any unified Burma should be on their natural lines. After all, that is a thing with which, in the British Colonial Empire and the British Commonwealth, we are very familiar. We do not want these constitutional developments to occur just on "sealed pattern" lines. The secret of success—and I know the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, holds this view as strongly as I do—is the natural development of the best of the past with the proper reforms of

  381
  the future. I think your Lordships' House would like an assurance that these tribes will be safeguarded in what is, for them, the best and most natural development, and safeguarded not merely on paper but in fact. Behind all I have said of the economic needs of Burma and of its administrative needs, and in all I am saving, I wish the experiment well.
  The other prerequisite without which none of these can really go forward or succeed is the preservation of law and order. Even under wise British administration, Burma has not always been a very orderly place. Dacoity is one of the Burmese industries; or if not an industry it has been a very popular hobby. There have been rather alarming accounts; the Secretary of State will be able to tell us how far they are true and how far they are exaggerated. In the disordered state of the country, dacoity has been expanding by leaps and bounds. I would not be surprised if that were true, and I do not make it a great ground of condemnation of the Burmese. After all, in London itself to-day there is a certain amount of disorder going on. One becomes a bit nervous when the police are "shot up," and citizens have pistols put in their backs. We thought these things did not happen this side of the Atlantic; we were a little complacent.
  I would add only this. Law and order must be preserved, but we cannot achieve that by a system of private armies. I am sure the Secretary of State will fully agree with that. I do not like private armies in British Burma—and I trust Burma will remain in the British Commonwealth. Neither in Europe, nor in Asia is a private army a good foundation of security or guarantee of democratic government; these must rest on good will and firm, orderly administration, conducted by the proper Government.
  3.2 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am not sure whether I should be so bold as to ask your Lordships' leave to speak again, because I was quite unprepared beyond my initial remarks.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: There was a full debate in the other place, where the Under-Secretary dealt with many of these matters, and I thought the Secretary of State would naturally expect the same kind of debate here.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I was merely apologizing in advance for what can obviously be only a fragmentary and random answer to the observations that have been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I do assure him that if I am not able to answer fully the points that he has made, I will examine them very carefully. I am grateful to him for what he has said, because I am quite certain it will be of value to me. I should like to thank him for his views on Burma, because I am quite sure they will be encouraging to the people who are responsible for the Government of Burma at this moment. I think your Lordships know that Burma was far more unfortunate than most of the countries that were involved in the late war. The explanation of her present economic position is that two campaigns were fought on Burmese soil; one when the Japanese came in, and the other when the Japanese were driven out. That has resulted in an amount of devastation which will obviously take years to remove. A period of reconstruction has begun, but we cannot expect Burma to be restored, for several years at least, to her pre-war level of prosperity.
  As the noble Viscount remarked at the outset, the staple crop of Burma is rice, and the prosperity of Burma is bound up with the rice crop. It is very satisfactory to know that there was a surplus of about 750,000 tons in the current year—although that falls fir short of the prewar surplus. But, of course, the cultivation of rice has been immensely handicapped by what happened during the war. For instance, the Burmese lost a very large proportion of the oxen which they use for tilling the fields, and without which the rice cannot be sown. Again, very large areas went out of cultivation, and it will take some time before they can be brought back in-to cultivation. Furthermore, the reference which the noble Viscount made to dacoity has a bearing on the cultivation of rice, because unless people can feet they are safe in going out and tending their fields, and that they can move about through the fields without molestation, they will clearly leave undeveloped areas which might otherwise be productive of substantial crops of rice. The noble Viscount also referred to the oil and teak industries. Our scorched earth policy resulted in the destruction of the oil wells, and they will

  383
  need repairing before Burmese oil is available. The teak industry also will have to be revived by personnel and equipment, which were not available during the war years. But I assure the noble Viscount that the present authorities in Burma are acutely conscious of the need for reviving this industry and restoring the prosperity of their country.
  I agree with the noble Viscount that one of the most severe handicaps is the lack of transport. The Irawaddy flotilla was almost completely lost—and of course water transport is one of the main features of transport in Burma. Therefore it is essential to obtain the boats used in river transport, and it is also necessary to get the rolling stock needed for the railways, to get them properly restored. The financial position of Burma, to which the noble Viscount referred, is again another direct result of what has been happening in the last few years. I would say, in a general way, that I hope that in this matter of finance, arising out of our obligations for the defence of Burma, in the discharge of those responsibilities, and in our attitude to the Burmese, we shall show the generosity which is due to Burma. We are under an obligation to help her to stand upright again on her own feet.
  The noble Viscount referred to the position of the Secretary of State's services. I am glad he did so. I can assure him that discussions are going on at the moment in regard to the terms of service for those who wish to stay in Burma, and about compensation for those who wish to retire. I hope to be able to make a statement, on similar lines to the statement made with regard to India, in the near future. As I am sure the noble Viscount will agree, I cannot go further at this moment.
  Then the noble Viscount referred to the peoples of the frontier areas. These are very gallant and vigorous peoples, and we are most anxious to ensure that they will have their rightful place in the new Burma. I must acknowledge the debt that we owe to Mr. Rees-Williams for going out to Burma and for presiding over the Committee of Inquiry whose object was to find out in what way the peoples of the frontier areas could be associated with Ministerial Burma in drawing up the new Constitution, and for the Report which the Committee have produced. I think it is extremely satisfactory
  384
  that these peoples have decided—entirely of their own free will, of course—to be associated with the Constituent Assembly. They are absolutely free to choose whether they wish to become part of United Burma, or whether they prefer to stay out. That is a matter that rests in their hands, but it is a good sign of the degree of mutual good will and co-operation that exits throughout Burma that they should be prepared to sit with the representatives of Ministerial Burma in the Constituent Assembly.
  I fear that I have covered only some of the points raised by the noble Viscount, but I should like, in conclusion, to thank him for the good will that he has expressed towards Burma, and to say that I very much hope I shall have the assistance of the whole House in this extremely difficult job of helping Burma to her feet again after the appalling devastation of the war.
  3.12 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, I am sure that we are all very much obliged to the Secretary of State for India and Burma for having given us the information to which we have just listened. There is one question that gives me a good deal of anxiety, and that is the question of the Karens. To me it has always seemed a more difficult question than the question of the frontier districts. There is this great community in Burma itself, not upon the edge of the country. Though I am without any detailed information, I have the uneasy feeling that, taken as a whole, the Karens are dissatisfied with their present representation in the Constituent Assembly. If that be so, I would ask the Secretary of State to give very sympathetic attention to their position. During the war there was no community in Burma that helped us more effectively. Throughout all those years they stuck to us in a most remarkable way. I hope, therefore, that in the arrangements that are being made in Burma care will be taken to ensure that they have an opportunity of making their case, effectively and independently, and that we shall do our utmost to see that whatever may be the future arrangements in Burma they have the chance to play the part which is their due, having regard not only to their considerable numbers but also to their record of effort on behalf of the Empire and the Commonwealth.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (TEM PORARY PROVISIONS) ORDER, 1947.
  3.14 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, this Order has already been examined by the India and Burma Orders Committee of the House. It authorizes the Governor of Burma to increase the numbers of his Legislative Council from fifty to one hundred. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament, and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on April 22 last, be approved.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COTTON (CENTRALISED BUYING) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment.
  FOREIGN MARRIAGE BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  RURAL HOUSING AND LABOUR.
  3.16 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Selborne I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the question standing in his name.
  [The question was as follows:

  (1) Whether they can state, how many permanent houses have been completed in rural areas since December 1 1945, how many of these have been let to agricultural workers, and whether they will enact that, until the present economic crisis passes, agricultural workers shall have priority to all houses built by rural district councils.

  (2) How many prefabricated houses they propose to erect in mining areas and agricultural areas respectively during 1947?

  (3) whether former German prisoners of war, who have been repatriated and who have volunteered to work on farms in this country, will be allowed to return to do so."]

  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD INMAN): My Lords, in reply to the noble Earl's questions, I am informed that the total number of permanent houses completed in rural areas in England and Wales since December 1945, is 13,646: It is not possible to say with any accuracy how many of them have been let to agricultural workers, as this information is derived from the applications for the Exchequer subsidy, and I am told that applications are usually received six months after the houses have been completed. The number applied for to date is 1,255, but, because of the time lag mentioned, this substantially under-states the actual figure. The third part of the noble Earl's first question asks whether the Government "will enact that, until the present economic crisis passes, agricultural workers shall have priority to all houses built by rural district councils." The answer is that it is laid down by Statute that in their selection of tenants, local authorities shall give a reasonable preference to persons who are occupying insanitary, or overcrowded, houses, have large families, or are living under unsatisfactory housing conditions. Consistent with this provision, local authorities are being urged to let as many houses as possible to agricultural workers.
  I now come to the second question raised by the noble Earl. The housing programme for 1947 includes the provision for 10,029 and 4,875 permanent prefabricated houses in mining areas and rural districts respectively. In addition, the number of temporary prefabricated houses accepted by rural district councils is 9,760, of which 5,282 have already been completed. It is anticipated that the balance of 4,478 will be completed this year. The number to be erected in mining areas this year is approximately 5,000. With regard to the noble Earl's third question, it is not at present proposed to allow the return of Germans who were employed in agriculture in this country before their repatriation. The reasons are first, that there are already in this country large numbers of Poles, many of whom it is hoped will be absorbed in agriculture; secondly, that we are at present engaged in bringing over to this country many thousands of European voluntary workers (displaced persons from Germany and Austria), many of whom have had experience of agricultural

  387
  work; and thirdly, that there is a shortage of able-bodied men in Germany, and I am informed that, for the time being at all events, the authorities there do not encourage emigration, for that is what the return of Germans to work in agriculture would involve.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, there is just one question I would like to ask the noble Lord arising out of his answer to the second question. I think he said that something like 9,000 prefabricated houses had been approved, of which 3,000 or 4,000 had been completed. In a debate three weeks or a month ago the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, promised us that 20,000 special Airey prefabricated houses would be allocated to the rural areas. I took that to mean 20,000 additional prefabricated houses. Was I right in doing so, or would these 9,000, which obviously were started some time before this promise was made, have to be included in that 20,000?
  LORD INMAN: I imagine that the point raised by the noble Lord is that the term "prefabricated." also applies to the new Airey type of house, and orders have already been placed for 20,000 Airey rural houses. Of that 20,000, the rural district council authorities have already applied for 13,800 sets for Airey houses. I imagine that is in addition to the figures I gave for temporary and permanent prefabricated houses.
  3.22 p.m.
  LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, may I ask whether it is not a fact that to some extent the programme of erecting Airey rural houses has been delayed by a disinclination on the part of rural authorities to apply for these houses, and whether, if this is so, His Majesty's Government will do anything to encourage the placing of such orders?
  LORD INMAN: I will gladly bring that to the notice of my right honourable friend. The information I have is that there has been no undue delay, and that 13,800 sets of parts have already been applied for by rural district councils.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether, in view of the great shortage of agricultural houses, the Government will not reconsider their policy and enable rural houses to be reconditioned?
  LORD INMAN: I am afraid that is a point I must bring to the notice of my right honourable friend, and I hope that if the question is raised again I may be able to supply the right answer.

  TENDRING HUNDRED WATER AND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  The King's Consent signified, and Bill reported specially from the Select Committee with amendments, the Report to be printed.
  NAZEING WOOD OR PARK BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Viscount Chelmsford be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill, in place of the Lord Wakehurst: read and agreed to.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
  Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section for the Act to the

  Borough of Bedford;

  Borough of Swindon;

  Borough of Taunton;

  Rural District of Dursley;

  County Borough of Newport;

  Borough of Cleethorpes;

  Urban District of Bletchley;

  Urban District of Castleford;

  Urban District of Epping;

  Urban District of Wellingborough:

  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past three o'clock.