Lords Sitting of 18 November 1947

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord De Ramsey—Took the Oath.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government a question of which I have given them private Notice—namely whether they are prepared to summon a conference of representatives of the three Parties in this House with a view to considering the question of the constitution of the House of Lords.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOINT ADDISON): My Lords, the Government have given careful consideration to the suggestion made in the noble Viscount's question. As the Prime Minister stated in another place, the Government "will be ready to look at any proposal for the reform of the Second Chamber," but they feel that this consideration should not delay or jeopardize the progress of the Bill dealing with the powers of the House of Lords that is now before Parliament. The Government, therefore, do not feel that it is appropriate at the present time to convene the formal conference suggested by the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, my question had no relation to the present Bill, which must be judged upon its merits or demerits, but I am disappointed to hear that the Government do not think that the time is suitable for some investigation of the problem of the composition of this House. The question was put down because I believe that among all sections in this House there is a desire for a reform in the constitution, and I was assuming that the Government would take the initiative in summoning a conference of all sections in order that the ground might be explored in the hope

703
that some measure of agreement might be discovered—which is not impossible—that would avoid what otherwise would, perhaps, be a prolonged and bitter controversy. Of course, if such a conference were summoned consisting of representatives of both Houses of Parliament, its value would be greatly increased.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I would like to re-echo what has been said toy the noble Viscount the Leader of the Liberal Party. I must say that all of us on this side of the House will deeply regret the answer which has been given by the Leader of the House. It will, I believe, create a deplorable effect in the country that the Government should refuse even to consider the reform of the composition of this House, a House which they themselves say is at present an unrepresentative body. I think it is an utterly illogical position. I think that the answer that has been given only reacts on the heads of the Government themselves.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I hope that the noble Lord will not misunderstand my answer. We do not refuse to consider any proposition. We say we are ready to look at proposals, but some of the considerations mentioned by the noble Viscount were discussed with great care by us in framing this answer, and I would ask noble Lords to look at it more carefully and perhaps bring it up again on another occasion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I may say so, it is really not a case of the Opposition Parties proposing certain plans and then submitting them to the Government, it is a question of the collective wisdom of the House being pooled with a view to getting an agreement satisfactory to all concerned, and I do not think that the Prime Minister's suggestion had any bearing whatever in that connexion.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not think that the happy event which the noble Marquess refers to is in any way prejudiced by this reply.

I.R.A. PRISONERS.
LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, I would like to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they will review the cases of 30 I.R.A. prisoners who are serving a total of 551 years penal servitude in Parkhurst Prison with a view to a general amnesty or individual release in order that they may return to Ireland.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I have been asked to reply. It is the invariable practice of the Home Secretary to review from time to time all cases of persons sentenced to long terms of penal servitude, and to consider the question whether in any given case the time has come when the offender can properly be released on licence. All the cases of these men will be reviewed individually in accordance with this practice from time to time. I cannot, of course, anticipate in any way what the result of this periodical review will be, but I can assure the noble Lord that in these cases, as in other cases, there will be no failure to take account of any consideration which tells in favour of advancing the date of an individual prisoner's release on licence.
LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount on the Woolsack for his reply. I would like to ask him if it is not a fact that these long-term sentences are reviewed only every four years, and that there are 22 prisoners in Parkhurst at the moment whose average age is still under thirty and whose sentences will not be reviewed until 1951?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have no reason to doubt that the Home Secretary will review these cases, as I have said, from time to time as and when the occasion demands.
LORD SHERWOOD: Might I ask the Lord Chancellor also if any consultation has taken place with Mr. de Valera in regard to these cases?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should have to have notice of that question.

NEW BUILDING.
2.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, I beg to ask the questions which stand in my name on the Order.
[The questions were as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government

(a) Whether they are aware that, at the very time of the Minister of Health's announcement that only houses for agricultural and mining purposes would be built, and when there was a great shortage of building material for essential housing in the London district, two blocks of buildings were being started in Theobald's Road, opposite Gray's Inn Fields, W.C.

(b) Can they say what is the estimated cost in rough figures of these buildings.

(c) Are they being built subject to the ordinary restrictions and has a licence been granted for the supply of facilities, labour, steel, concrete, windows, etc.

(d) Have His Majesty's Government any knowledge for what these buildings are going to be used, and can they say if there is any truth in the rumour that these offices are being built to house civil servants needed for future nationalization schemes.]

LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, there are two office buildings in the early stages of erection on adjoining sites in Theobald's Road for which building licences to a total value of £256,000 have so far been issued to Belfort Trust Limited. The total estimated cost is £850,000. W.B.A. priority for certain materials has been granted for these buildings. Application has been made by the contractors for W.B.A. priority for labour and this application will be considered, but I cannot say whether it will be granted. These buildings, which will house about 3,000 staff, will be taken on lease by the Ministry of Works when completed. They will be used for the purpose of accommodating Government staffs, and so will enable requisitioned residential and office property to be vacated; but the question of the allocation of the accommodation has not yet been considered. Within the revised building programme, provision is made for agreed proportions of housing and other work to go on. These buildings have been properly fitted into the non-housing portion of the programme.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the reply he has given, and, arising out of it, may I ask
706
him, when he mentions the fact of permits for certain materials being issued, what about other materials? Does he know whether permits have been granted for them?
LORD HENDERSON: As I understand it, priority has been granted on certain materials. If W.B.A. priority is required for other materials they 'will have to make an application in the usual way, and that application will be dealt with in the usual way.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I thank the noble Lord.

TERRITORIAL RECRUITING.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I beg leave to ask His Majesty's Government the question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, what steps have been taken to acquire and show nationally a Territorial Recruiting Film, which was recently shown throughout the county of Middlesex, and which was so well reviewed by the War Office and the Central Office of Information, and received by the general public.]
LORD AMMON: My Lords, this film has been acquired by the War Office. It is being revised so as to include more Air Force material and will then be issued to all Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Has there been, or will there be, a consultation with the film companies, such as the Rank organization and Associated British Cinemas, before this film is put on in the cinemas of the country? Further, may I ask the noble Lord what body is going to be responsible to see that the full effects of this film are shown and made? Can the noble Lord possibly answer that? Will it be the War Office or will it be the Territorial Associations?
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer that in any detail now. I know that all the people whom is necessary to consult have been con suited with regard to this. I can assure the noble Viscount that what he has just

707
said will be brought to the attention of the people concerned in the appropriate quarters.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Lord Hatherton and the Lord Walkden be added to the Select Committee.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

STORNOWAY HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY WIDOWS' FUND AMENDMENT ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
2.43 p.m.

RIVER BOARDS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, the River Boards Bill is a simple measure of administrative reform. It is a first step, and an extremely important one, in dealing with the many problems connected with water in this country. The rivers of our islands, which provide so much of our water throughout the country are extremely important to us to—day. We are indeed fortunate, speaking generally, in having an adequate rainfall, though its distribution varies. But as industry expands and the standard of life is raised; and having regard to the augmentation of the agricultural programme and the growing of food which is so necessary to-day, I think that the importance of our water supply becomes every day more apparent. We are only
708
too well aware of the evils of pollution and the use, or abuse of our rivers as receptacles for sewage and trade waste, and I think that we should be very unwise if we did not at this stage take far reaching steps to control and administer our water supply.
I should like to pay tribute to noble Lords in all parts of this House who have been aware of this problem for many years and who have, from time to time, pressed for some measures to be taken in regard to pollution, drainage and fisheries. But may I make it clear to your Lordships that in this Bill we do not propose to alter the law or to take any new powers? That will have to come later when the Government have been able to receive and digest the reports of the Central Advisory Water Committee and its sub-Committees, which are now studying these questions. His Majesty's Government are convinced that reorganization must precede other legislation. In fact, without reorganization any new powers that were taken might not be used with proper effect. At present, there are in England 45 fishery boards, 53 catchment boards dealing with land drainage, and some 1,600 pollution authorities. This Bill proposes to replace all these authorities by river boards. They will be few in number and will have jurisdiction over the whole country, with the exception of London and the Thames and Lee catchment areas. The new river boards will take over from the existing authorities all their functions dealing with land drainage, fisheries and river pollution, and will have a general duty to conserve the water resources of their areas. They will be responsible for the measuring and recording of river flow and rainfall, and for the collection of information from private persons operating river gauges. They will have powers also, in appropriate cases, to take over functions from navigation, conservancy, or harbour authorities. The areas for which these boards will be responsible will be the watershed areas of one or more river systems, with certain areas adjacent.
These new local authorities will be large enough to have competent staffs and to call upon the best expert advice on matters concerned with their areas, and to give effect to it. Each river in England and Wales will, therefore, be under the control of a single authority from its source

709
to its mouth. I should like to remind your Lordships that this is no new conception and that, in fact, the Land Drainage Act of 1930 embodied the principle, already applicable in the case of fisheries, that a river and its tributaries must be treated as a whole and must come under the control of a single authority, so that action on one part of the river can be carried through in another. Various Committees and Commissions have proposed the same thing over a long period of years.
The state of some of our rivers to-day is a sad indication of the defects of our present system, showing as it does the pollution and terrible wastage which take place. These Committees and Commissions recommended not only the treatment of each river as a whole, as regards pollution, but also that the pollution function should be combined with the exercise of other functions in relation to each river by bringing them under the control of a single authority. This they regarded as extremely important. It was left to the Central Advisory Water Committee, under the chairmanship of Field-Marshal Lord Milne, following a recommendation from the Joint Advisory Committee on River Pollution in 1937, to make concrete propositions which were embodied in their Third Report to the Ministers of Health and Agriculture, which was presented to Parliament in August, 1943. This Report was generally endorsed by the Government of the day in their White Paper on a National Water Policy in 1944. I should like to take this opportunity of paying a sincere tribute to the great services rendered by Lord Milne and his Committee, in this connexion.
I want to emphasize one particular point as certain noble Lords may contemplate referring to it. The Government do not need reminding that the powers given under existing legislation, and particularly those relating to land drainage and pollution, are in many respects in need of strengthening and amendment. But very controversial issues are involved. The Government thought that the establishment of these river boards was a reform of such great importance that it would be wiser to go ahead with it rather than to wait for the final conclusions on the amendment of the existing powers and then to bring in all the legislation at the same time. In fact, it may well be a great advantage to
710
get these river boards fixed up and into the saddle before any new functions or new legislation are introduced. A Central Advisory Water Committee, the successor to the Committee I have just mentioned, was established some eighteen months ago. At the Government's request this Committee has set up two Sub-Committees—one to examine how legislation should be effected in regard to river pollution, and the other to deal with land drainage. These Sub-Committees have received a lot of evidence already. Obviously the Government's policy will be affected by and will be largely settled having regard to their Reports when they are made.
I should like now to come to the Bill itself, and I wish to go briefly through the main concepts; then, if your Lordships will bear with me, I will examine one or two of the major policy decisions and major matters of moment in their respective places. The Bill proposes a composition for river boards largely based—as noble Lords who have examined the measure will know—on the catchment boards under the Land Drainage Act, 1930. Generally speaking, a river board area will consist of the catchment areas; of one or more rivers bounded by the line of the watershed. Each board will have a constitution similar to that of a catchment board, one member being appointed by the Ministers and the remainder representing the councils of counties and county boroughs, drainage boards and fishery interests in the river board area. They will all contribute directly to the board's funds. Areas will be defined and boards established by order under a procedure set out in the First Schedule to the Bill, opposed orders relating to areas being subject to Parliamentary procedure.
Clause 4 and the Third Schedule of the Bill transfer the necessary powers given under general or local Acts to river boards, when they shall be set up, by substituting in any enactments concerned references to river boards and river board areas instead of references to the authorities from whom functions are transferred and the areas in which those functions are exercised. The Bill enables the transfer of the functions of navigation, conservancy or harbour authorities to a river board as recommended by the Central Advisory Water Committee, by order subject to special Parliamentary procedure if opposed.

711
A number of clauses in the Bill provide a uniform procedure in relation to such matters as borrowing, the acquisition and disposal of land, powers of entry and the making of bylaws to replace or supplement the diverse powers exercisable by the existing authorities. Further clauses provide for the transfer of assets and liabilities to the boards and are followed by important provisions relating to pensions for officers and servants of river boards taken over from other authorities and compensation to any who suffer financially by the transfer or by loss of their employment. As river boards will be important local authorities, we have tried to obtain the same procedure as is usual to local government authorities and their staffs. The Second Schedule to the Bill sets out, along the lines of the Land Drainage Act, the arrangements governing the proceedings of river boards, the setting up of committees and other matters.
Now I come to the important question of areas. Under Clause 1 the Ministers of Health and Agriculture must define river board areas for the whole of England and Wales excepting the Thames and Lee catchment areas and London and its environs. The areas, for reasons which I will explain later, are not set out in a Schedule to the Bill, as was proposed by the Milne Committee, but are to be defined individually by Order as soon as possible after the Bill has passed into law. The First Schedule to the Bill requires the Ministers to give notice of the draft order and to consider objections to it and Part II of that Schedule makes the Order subject to special Parliamentary procedure if opposed; that is to say, an opposed order will be of no effect until it has been laid before Parliament.
The areas proposed by the Milne Committee did not cover all the rivers of England and Wales, as the Committee thought that the circumtsances did not warrant it at that time—boards could always be formed later. It is true that the fast running rivers flowing mainly through rural areas such as Cornwall, a county whose exclusion was proposed by the Milne Committee, do not present the same pollution problems as the industrialized rivers of the Midlands or the same drainage problems as the slow-moving rivers of the fens. Nevertheless,
712
in all parts of the country problems of drainage, pollution and fisheries do arise, and there is always the need to measure and record rainfall and gauge river flow. For these reasons, my Lords, the Government feel that all the rivers of England and Wales and their watershed areas should be brought under the control of river boards.
There is another important aspect to this provision. All round our coastline there are a number of important county boroughs and boroughs with comprehensive sewerage systems for the disposal of storm water, which discharge directly into the sea or into the tidal portion of rivers. Under present procedure these built-up areas are outside the areas of catchment boards and do not contribute to the cost of land drainage in the surrounding districts. I hope your Lordships will agree, however, that indirectly they benefit as much as anyone else by the drainage and other work carried on throughout the country, and the Government consider it proper that these areas should be brought into the general scheme of the river board system, so that every part of the country, whether urban or rural, shall contribute something towards the water control system., The principle of spreading charges over wide areas is a generally accepted principle in local government administration. It is the principle behind Government grants, including the block grants and contributions by county councils to local authority services in their area.
The principle that river board areas shall cover the whole country simplifies the question of deciding whether certain localities come into a river board area or not. It will not be a question of deciding whether or not a particular district should be brought under river board jurisdiction, since that is decided in the Bill. The question will be into which river board area any particular locality shall come and what size the river board area shall be. We have found from discussions with interested associations that that alone is an extremely controversial issue, and we thought it far better to leave those issues out of the Bill so that in the first place they could be decided by means of consultation, rather than by debate in your Lordships' House. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that that is a wise and speedy procedure.

713
Before passing from the question of areas, I should like to mention the provisional exclusion from Clause 1 of the Thames and Lee catchment areas and of London. The Milne Committee recommended that these areas, as they had very special problems, should be left entirely out of the river board scheme. It was thought undesirable to interfere with the powers of the Port of London authority in relation to navigation and pollution and the powers of the London County Council in relation to flooding. The Government recognized these arguments, but on the other hand considered that in a far-reaching measure of this nature it would be wiser to insert in the Bill provision by which we could, if it became desirable or necessary at any future time, bring these areas within the river board scheme. Accordingly provision is made in Clause 7 for the making of orders, which will be subject to special Parliamentary procedure if opposed, for bringing within the scope of Clause 1 all or part of these areas. These special provisions are necessary because of problems which do not occur in ordinary catchment areas, such as the relations of the Metropolitan Water Board to the Thames and Lee Conservancy Boards and the pollution functions exercised by the Port of London Authority.
I should like to mention one or two matters on which this Bill differs from the Land Drainage Act. Under the Land Drainage Act such number of members of catchment boards as the Minister may determine is appointed by councils of counties and county boroughs in accordance with their rateable value in the catchment area, and this number must not be less than two-thirds of the membership after allowing for one member appointed by the Minister. It will be seen from subsection 2 (b) of Clause 2 of the Bill that we are allowing a modest degree of flexibility as to local authority representation in the case of orders constituting river boards to allow for a somewhat larger representation of land drainage or fishery interests in appropriate cases. This Bill proposes that the number to be appointed by councils of counties and county boroughs shall be specified in the order and shall be not less than three-fifths or more than two-thirds of the membership after allowing for one member appointed by the Ministers. One case where
714
obviously a lower limit might well be desirable is the Great Ouse catchment area. In that area, as some of your Lordships know, quite apart from the very special concern of the drainage districts with the operations of the catchment board, some half of the board's revenues come from contributions from those drainage districts. I think, in. fact, it might well be argued that in this particular case the fishery and drainage interests should have a very much larger representation, but if that case were put forward the converse would have to be agreed, that where drainage and fishery interests are very small their representation would have to be considerably reduced. So I think it is wise to keep to the procedure laid down in the Bill. In fact, it will be left to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to determine in each case how the representation should be allotted as between the two interests of drainage and fisheries. I think that we can rely upon him to perform what one might call his amphibious function with that discretion and partiality which is customary to the holder of that office.
Under sub-section 3 (a) of Section 3 of the Land Drainage Act councils of county boroughs are not entitled to appoint more than one half of the local authority representatives on a catchment board, whatever the rateable value of those county boroughs falling within the catchment area may be. The Government think it right to abolish this provision. It has been quite strongly suggested in favour of retaining it that the county boroughs are often the chief offenders in the matter of river pollution and that their representatives would not be over eager, shall I say, or show great enthusiasm for measures controlling pollution and insisting on efficient drainage to the benefit of agricultural land. The Government have carefully considered those arguments but believe that ultimately the representatives of our great municipal corporations when they have been given this new authority to look after large areas will take a broad view, not just for their sectional interests but for the main interests of the country. Therefore Clause 2 (3) of the Bill provides that of the total membership to be appointed by councils of counties and county boroughs, the distribution between those councils is to be determined by the Ministers having

715
regard to the estimated amounts which those councils will respectively contribute to the board.
At the other end of the scale it has been suggested that county districts in the river board area should be grouped and have a right of direct appointment to the river board. Here again the Government are satisfied that no real provision of this kind is needed but that the county councils can be relied upon to give—in fact the opening words of Clause 2 (5) insist on it—adequate representation to the county districts. There is, however, one exception to this and that is where the district is such a large one that special representation should be allowed. Cases in point are obviously the boroughs of Bedford and Cambridge in the Great Ouse catchment area. Such special provision for the representation of the more important county districts is made in Clause 2 (5).
Before leaving Clause 2 I would like to make mention of the recommendations of the Milne Committee that all interests should be represented on the board, including navigation, conservancy, harbour authorities, water undertakers, and industry. That was a difficult problem but again after careful consideration the Government adopted the principle that only those who directly contribute to the funds of the river board should have representation on it; in fact, we thought that on the whole these different interests were more likely to make their wishes felt by the old established processes of consultation than by having a minority membership on the board. There is also the point that the river board have the power to set up a finance committee. Under the same clause they can set up other committees if they think it necessary for general or special purposes, and these other committees may include persons who are not members of the board up to a maximum of one-third of the committee.
I should like to come for a moment to finance which is dealt with in Clause 10 of the Bill. This clause confers on river boards powers to issue precepts to the councils of counties and county boroughs similar to those given to the catchment boards. We are making one change in this. Up to now the catchment board has had the power to levy a precept up to twopence without the consent of the
716
representatives of the local authorities. Under this Bill this is increased to four-pence. The Government obviously did not do this without seriously considering the increased heavy burden which would fall on the rates, but relief is being given generally to rates under a Bill which is now before another place. I hope the House will support me in this, that if we are to set up river boards we must see to it that they have adequate funds. Already more than half of the catchment boards in England and Wales issue precepts for amounts in excess of the product of a twopenny rate, and a considerable number have reached a figure of threepence or over. A fair part of the present expenditure is in respect of loan charges on completed works and fresh loans will, no doubt, have to be arranged. The cost of maintenance of drainage works and expenditure on salaries and wages are much higher than before the war and if twopence was a proper figure when the Land Drainage Act was brought in in 1930, I hope your Lordships will agree that fourpence does not represent a great increase and is a more proper figure today. In the circumstances the Government are satisfied that river boards should have this authority and that only precepts above this level will be issued with the consent of the local authority representatives on the river board.
I do not think it is necessary on the Second Reading to go into the various other provisions of the Bill which do not really deal with policy, but would like to commend this Bill to your Lordships' House as a measure which gives practical effect to a reform which has been advocated for many years by responsible persons and bodies in England and Wales. The principle of the Bill is, I believe, agreed. The Government would be more than pleased to examine any suggestions made for the improvement of the machinery. The scandal of river pollution is fully recognized and must be dealt with. Last spring brought home to us the danger of flood and damage and the vital part drainage is required to play in our home agriculture. The country will benefit in food and in recreation, from the development of our inland fisheries. This Bill will enable a co-ordinated advance to be made in all these aspects of our national life. I am confident that its provisions should have the support of your Lordships' House, which has always

717
shown itself so interested in the protection land development of our native rivers. Therefore, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill foe now read 2a.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
3.12 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, may I first of all thank the noble Earl for the very thorough way in which he has outlined this Bill to us, and the very clear manner in which he has put before us many of the more important problems with which it deals. In the main, I would like to welcome what seems to me to be a very useful measure, and I welcome it all the more warmly because the noble Earl has stated quite clearly that he regards it as nothing more than a first step.
I had been prepared to be rather critical of the fact that the Bill contains no new powers whatsoever for dealing with the problems which are concerning us, notably the problem of pollution. I think the noble Earl would not consider me unfair in describing it in this way. It is really a bit of rationalization, rationalizing the machinery for dealing with a variety of matters concerned with rivers. The Bill reduces the number of bodies dealing with all these problems. I think the Advisory Committee mentioned that there are something like 1,500 to 1,600 bodies who now deal with these problems, and they recommended that the number should be reduced to twenty-nine. The noble Lord has given us No 1ndication of what number he really means to adopt for the new river boards. Some of us might feel that the figure of twenty-nine was a little on the low side. Not only is the Minister reducing the number of bodies but he is going to incerase their powers. The bodies we have described in the past as catchment boards—I think they were originally set up when Lord Addison and I were working together in harness, the noble Viscount being in the front of the tandem—are now to be called river boards. They are to deaf not only with land drainage but with the almost equally important subject of conservation of water, with pollution, with fisheries and, in some cases, with navigation.
On that point I would like to say a further word in a few moments. I think most of your Lordships will welcome the fact that for the first time we are likely
718
to have bodies which are sufficiently powerful—or at any rate sufficiently large—to deal with these vital questions of pollution. I suppose there is not a noble Lord in this House who is not horrified by the state into which we have allowed our rivers to get at the present moment. There is danger to health, to pleasure, to recreation and to national life. I am glad that the noble Earl mentioned the question of food supply. When we remember that there was a time when a clause was inserted in every wages agreement in Scotland—I see the noble Duke is here, and he will correct me if I am wrong—which stated that no agricultural worker was to be compelled to accept salmon more than twice a week in part payment of his wages, we realize that something has happened to the fish which used to be in the waters in those days. Whether or not it is all due to pollution, I am not prepared to say, but most of us suspect that pollution has made the major contribution to the change in the situation.
Many of us will be glad, too, that this Bill deals also with the question of the conservation of water. So far, of course, it deals with it only to the extent of the furnishing of information; but at any rate the gathering of information on this subject is of some importance. Many of us have felt disturbed for a long time at the extent to which we thought almost solely in terms of land drainage—that is, getting the water away—and never in terms of its conservation. I know perfectly well that this matter was mentioned in the Land Drainage Act of 1930, although I think the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will agree that it was mentioned only by a side wind. The extent to-day to which we suffer in the winter from flooding and then, after a few weeks without rain, from an intense shortage of water, is really quite crazy. Noble Lords will see in Clause 9 (2) (b) that information has to be furnished as to the abstraction of water from any river, stream or inland water. Noble Lords who live in Hampshire have informed me that they are deeply concerned about what is being done there with regard to the abstraction of water and the head waters of the chalk streams. I know it is a matter of technical controversy, upon which I would not for one moment attempt to offer an opinion, but

719
this clause has enabled us at least to gather information on such a point.
Disturbing statements have been made recently by those whom we regard as experts as to the way in which we are now dissipating our national water resources. Every year the demands for water are increasing, and I do not suppose that even the propaganda against washing by Mr. Gaitskell will lessen our increasing demands on water supplies. Having welcomed these provisions for handing over powers to possibly more effective bodies, and for the gathering of greater information with regard to the conservation of water supplies, I would endorse the point that has already been made by the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, that this Bill contains not a single extra power for dealing with these problems. There are certain questions I would like to put to the noble Earl. I do not want to go into them in detail—perhaps the Committee stage would be more appropriate for that—but I would like to mention them to the noble Earl now.
The first is, perhaps, of a rather general character. I should much appreciate from the noble Lord an undertaking—which is perhaps inherent in some parts of his speech—that this Bill does not in any way rule out further amendment to the Land Drainage Act of 1930. There are many points in that Act that want looking at—and I say that with the full consciousness that I introduced that particular Act, as a Bill, to your Lordships' House. Any Bill, however perfect, can always do with amendment ten or fifteen years after it is passed. If the noble Lord can give us that undertaking, as I am sure he can, I need not deal at any length with the words that we should like amended. I wish to mention one point, however—the question of representation. I believe other noble Lords are to deal with that question, and so I will leave it at that, except to say a word about the representation of those concerned with navigation.
As I read this Bill, and as I understand from what my noble friend said, it is considered unnecessary or undesirable to give any representation to those who are interested in rivers from the point of view of navigation. I quite realize that this does not affect a great number of rivers, and it would be quite unreasonable to
720
ask for representation of those concerned with navigation on rivers that are not affected. But, as I read this Bill, under Clause 8 it is in fact intended on occasion to transfer navigation functions to these boards. Under Clause 8, when that is done and the navigation authorities are actually made subject to contributions, they will not have representation. And of course in other cases, where they are affected but where the navigation functions are not formally transferred, there will be no representation at all. And, once the Bill is passed, no matter how successfully the navigation authorities convince the Minister that they have a strong case for representation, he will not be able to give them that representation. I would ask the noble Earl to look into that matter, because it is a matter which could be usefully brought up and discussed during the Committee stage.
I have already mentioned the number of river boards and the fact that a recommendation has been put before us (not by the Government in this Bill), that there are to be only twenty-nine boards. That reduces the number of boards from the present forty-five catchment boards. We all realize that by large-scale operations we frequently increase efficiency, and it is possible to obtain more highly-qualified and better staff and so on. But I hope the noble Earl will look at this matter very closely so that we do not overdo rationalization and thereby lose the benefit of local knowledge and local keenness and pride. It has been suggested to me that if the reduction from forty-five authorities to twenty-nine is made, it may well be for the purpose of obtaining a superficial tidiness, and may overdo the cutting down of authorities.
Finally on the question of the financial provisions, the maximum precept that is going to be allowed is, I think, the product of a fourpenny rate. Can that be adequate? In the Land Drainage Act of 1930 there was a limit of twopence, which personally I thought too small at the time and we accepted it only as a compromise. I do not think anybody would suggest that fourpence to-day is worth very much more than twopence in 1930. We are going to add a large number of duties—for instance, those dealing with river pollution, and fisheries—to these bodies, while virtually leaving them with the same financial provisions. Looking back over

721
the last fifteen years or so, I think few of us would say that we are satisfied with the progress of land drainage during that time. Therefore I ask the noble Lord to look very carefully at the question of adequate financial provision. It is no good having these monster bodies sitting without sufficient finance to enable them to carry out the considerable duties that are to be placed on them. I close by wishing the Bill well, but I would appeal to the noble Lord to give us the fullest possible time before asking us to deal with the Bill in Committee, so that we shall have a chance to settle a few of these outstanding points.
3.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, we on these Benches not only regard this Bill as a non-controversial measure; we warmly welcome the purpose it sets out to achieve. I wish it had been brought in at an earlier date. For the first time regional authorities are to be constituted for land drainage, fisheries, river pollution and the conservation of water. Up to now each of these problems has been treated separately; although there have been attempts at co-ordination there has been confusion and overlapping resulting in ineffectiveness. We hope that under this Bill that will cease, and we congratulate the Government on having introduced the measure.
I want to say a few words about each of the functions bestowed on these river boards. But before doing so there is one question of constitution which I should like to bring to the noble Earl's attention. River boards are to be established under Clause 2 of the Bill, and every board is to have not more than forty members, of whom, except, the one member to be appointed by the Ministers, not less than three-fifths and not more than two-thirds are to be appointed by the county council and the county boroughs in the river board area. So far, so good. But if your Lordships will look at subsection (3) of the clause you will see that the number of members to be appointed by the county councils and the county boroughs is to be determined by the Ministers having regard to the estimated amounts of the contributions to be made by those councils towards the expenses of the board. Under Clause 10 these contributions are to be apportioned according to rateable value. If this is right, it would appear that the
722
county boroughs of which the rateable value is high will have the appointment of a larger number of members than the County Councils. That would seem to have rather an unfortunate result, because the members appointed by the county boroughs will surely not take the same interest in land drainage; and any question relating to pollution would be likely to affect not only the county boroughs but the whole river board area. I think that the county councils, therefore, should have a larger representation. The way to remedy that would seem to me to be that the Ministers should have more power of discretion and not be bound by this rateable value formula. In fact, I would suggest that, when we meet for the Committee stage of this Bill the last part of subsection (3) of Clause 4 should be omitted.
I am glad that the river boards are to take over the functions of both catchment and fishery boards. It is thought, much too often, that agricultural and fishery interests necessarily conflict. That is, I am certain, by no means the case. It is quite unnecessary for good land drainage that rivers should be dredged and straightened and turned into unsightly canals. Adequate land drainage, so that the land can be put to its best agricultural use, should neither injure nor seriously affect fishing. I am equally certain that fishing in no way benefits by the river being surrounded by badly drained or marshy land. I have had long experience of this matter because for five years I have been chairman of the Hampshire Rivers Catchment Board, which contains the two most notable chalk streams in the South of England, perhaps in England and even in the whole world—the Test and the Itchen.
No one who takes an interest in our rivers and water courses can but be horrified by the great and growing evil of pollution. I am not going to dwell on the subject in any detail now, because it was largely explored in a recent debate in your Lordships' House. I gather that the noble Earl himself is not satisfied that these new river boards will have the power at present to deal adequately with pollution. The noble Earl held out some prospect that at a future date new legislation would be introduced. That is all very well, but meanwhile the evil of pollution and the menace of pollution is

723
growing. I earnestly hope that the Government will not delay in dealing with this very serious problem. I want to put to the noble Earl two questions on this point of pollution. First, will the river boards (I have in mind particularly the question of prosecution in cases of pollution) have the same power of prosecution as that to-day possessed by the Thames Conservancy Board? If so, I shall be more satisfied. If not, I think that they should at once be granted at least those powers. Secondly, will the river boards have the power to deal with pollution in estuaries? I need not emphasize the importance of that question too.
I come lastly to the conservation of our water resources, a matter which is dealt with in Clause 9 of the Bill. It is really difficult to over-estimate the value of the duty of water conservation being bestowed on the river boards. In this connexion, I would like to put to the noble Earl the question: Will the river boards have to be consulted before new borings take place, and in cases where existing borings are to be deepened? I do not know that the effect of these borings is altogether recognized. It is equally a very serious problem, particularly, at any rate, in the chalk areas. I know of cases where, within the last twenty years, rivers now rise one, two and even three miles from their original sources. I know of another case where, owing to borings, a brook which used to flow freely has completely dried up, and water has to be brought to nearby villages from other sources. Personally, I believe that some day we shall have to alter the whole system and take water from the rivers near the mouth and not continuously tap the water near the sources. I agree, however, that that is a major engineering scheme and at this juncture we obviously cannot afford or endeavour to undertake such an immense project. Therefore, we must do our best to conserve what water we can under existing conditions. I have put. to the noble Earl perhaps rather a large number of questions, and I hope he will forgive me. Before I sit down, I should like to make one appeal. When the Ministers have to define the river board area, I trust that they will remember, from what I have said, that the Hampshire rivers are sui generis and
724
that, therefore, they will continue to treat them as a separate entity.
3.36 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, first of all I have to congratulate my noble friend the Earl of Huntingdon on the very clear way in which he introduced this Bill, and also on the way in which he condensed his observations and yet covered quite adequately a somewhat complicated measure. In your Lordships' House, we seem to be specializing in Bills dealing with water. Not only have we this Bill initiated here, but I note also that the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, has another Bill dealing with water; and I hope it will not be long before the real Bill dealing with water comes before your Lordships. Certainly that is needed, as the noble Earl who has just sat down has pointed out, and as the noble Earl, Lord de la Warr, also reminded us. This is a step in the right direction, but it is only a step, and my noble friend quite frankly admitted it.
I have a few observations to make on the Bill. They are principally on behalf—so far as I can speak on their behalf—of 1,000,000 anglers, for whom I have had the honour of speaking before in this House. There are 1,000,000 anglers in the whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This Bill applies only to England and Wales, but I have broken down the figures. I think I proved in previous debates that there are that number. They feel a grievance, so far as they have expressed themselves (I daresay the rumours have reached my noble friend), that they are not to be represented directly on these river boards. They may be taking too gloomy a view, because there is some ambiguity in the language of Clause 2. Clause 2, subsection (2) says:
"the remainder of the members … shall consist of …
(ii) persons appointed to represent fishery interests in the river board area."
By "fishery interests," I would understand the net fishery interests in the estuary or mouths of rivers; but if "fishery interests" includes the anglers up-stream, that seems to be all right. Perhaps my noble friend, when he comes to reply, will make that point clear. At any rate, the anglers seem to think that they should have direct representation and that they have not got it at present in this Bill.

725
I would like to read to your Lordships a resolution which was passed in May of last year at a conference of the National Federation of Anglers. The resolution has been sent to me by the London Anglers' Association, which itself represents 12,000 anglers—and that is only about one-twentieth of the number of anglers who set out from London to go to places where they can get fishing—a sober and decent crowd, thoroughly law-abiding, and, I am sure, worthy of protection. The resolution states:
"The Federation … consider it essential that licensed anglers should be accorded in the Bill direct representation on the new river boards in like manner as they are now given representation on the Fishery Boards under Section 48 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923, and that for the purpose of appointing these representatives in any district, the licensed and rates fishery interests recognized by Sections 47, 48 and 50 of the Act of 1923 shall be reconstituted as a Fisheries Advisory Committee for that district."
That, at any rate, is what they thought last year and, from the communications I have had, and no doubt others of your Lordships have had, they think the same to-day. My noble friend said that only those who contributed should 'be represented, but up and down the country there are these associations of anglers who do contribute funds to the existing machinery for looking after the rivers, particularly from the point of view of fish preservation and against pollution, and therefore they can be said to be contributing now. In any case, I am quite sure that the great majority of them would be glad—as many of them do already—to pay an annual fee to help this great work.
The other point I desire to make is this: that if we can directly interest these multitudinous anglers they will be the best watch-dogs on the river banks to report pollution. We cannot have a multitude of inspectors because it would be too expensive, but the anglers on the spot will be the first people to detect that kind of poisoning of the water. They will make a very efficient body of river watchers if we can directly interest them and throw the responsibility partly upon their willing shoulders. My own regret is that this Bill does not put the responsibility for the prevention of pollution directly on the shoulders of the two Ministers concerned, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. I hope that in the much larger Bill which
726
has been foreshadowed, that direct responsibility will be put upon those Ministers of the Crown. My noble friend, Lord Saltoun, I understand, is to deal with the financial aspects of this matter and I do not want to go into them in detail. He will doubtless point out that the weakness of these boards, as of similar boards in the past, will be that they have not sufficient funds for prosecuting local authorities and others who are offending.
One day, I suppose, when we have got through our present troubles and we are once more engaged in what is called capital expenditure—-which is really only a natural development—we shall have the great water grid system, the full plans of which I understand are at the present time accumulating dust in the pigeonholes of the Ministry of Health. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, spoke about drawing water from the estuaries instead, of from the upper reaches of the rivers. That is part of the great scheme of the water grid.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I said nearer the mouth.
LORD STRABOLGI: I understand; nearer the mouth. That is part of the whole scheme of a water grid which I have heard described and discussed by engineers for twenty or thirty years. It takes far too long in this country to get a great scheme of that sort adopted. We talk about it for too many generations before we take it in hand. As the noble Earl, Lord de la Warr, pointed out to your Lordships in his speech supporting the Bill generally, it is ridiculous in this year of grace that we should first of all have floods and then, within a very few weeks, a severe drought. The terrible floods of the early spring of this year were followed by the serious drought in the Cheshire and Manchester districts. That really is absurd. As a civilized community we cannot go on like that. Therefore I hope this Bill is a stepping stone, as I believe it is meant to be, to the much larger scheme which is required if we are to make full use of our magnificent rivers in this country and prevent the scandals of pollution and ill use of water which are depriving us of their full benefit.
3.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I wish to detain your Lordships for only

727
a few minutes in reference to one point, which has also been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Perth; and that is on the question of estuaries. It is a curious thing—or may be to some of us—that pollution in rivers often exists through estuaries forming a sort of barrier of pollution which prevents fish getting to the upper waters, which, being free from the estuaries, are also free from pollution. It is not so surprising to people who spend a great deal of their time on the tidal waters of the Thames. I have often been upset in these waters, and have swallowed a certain amount of water, and I am easily persuaded that there are a good many other estuaries in England where the pollution swings backwards and forwards with the tide, exercising a very deleterious effect on the river above by reason of the fact that fish do not get up there. I may remind your Lordships that there was a time when salmon used to be caught at Chelsea, and that whales passed almost as far as that in Stuart days; but they will not come now.
I think one of the reasons for that in late years has been that pollution has not been much under the control of the river boards, or the authorities that preceded them. That has resulted in the river above the estuary being carefully purged of pollution, where authorities probably exercised their functions, and yet constantly polluted a little lower down. I venture to think—I am not sure, because I have not given the time to this that I should have liked to give—that that is intended to be cured by the provisions of Clause 5 of the present Bill. I think that, as the rubric suggests, is an extension of the powers of the river boards in respect of certain functions. The clause states that:
"A river board area shall… for the purposes of the functions of the river board relating to river pollution include such tidal waters and parts of the sea adjoining the coast of the river board area as are included"
in a certain definition of "stream."
I have to admit, with regret, that I have not had the opportunity of considering exactly the extent of that definition, but I venture to suggest to the noble Earl who introduced the measure that he might make quite clear that this intention, as I think it is, to include tidal waters in the powers of the river board has been duly carried out.
728
It does not follow, of course, that in every case of an estuary the board are required to stop all pollution, because it may be that in the wider parts of the river it does no harm to anybody. On the other hand, there are parts of estuaries where it is desirable that the river board should have this power. As I have already mentioned, I am only suggesting that for consideration and, if I may, expressing my strong approval of the extended powers of river boards including that not unimportant question. For the rest, everything necessary to toe said on the subject of the Bill has, in my opinion, been said except, perhaps, that there has been no reference to the subject of finance. I am, myself, strongly in favour of the Bill as a first step in carrying out the very important business of cleaning the rivers of England.
3.50 p.m.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, it is a great and somewhat unexpected pleasure to me to be able to extend an almost unqualified welcome to a Bill introduced by this Government. They will not last long now and it is nice to think before they pass—certainly for a very long time, and I think possibly, with their present composition for ever—into the shadows, that they have introduced at least one really good Bill.
The pollution of our streams has been going on for a very long time, and it has been grossly neglected. Really, it has been neglected ever since the onset of the industrial revolution. The writing has been on the wall for years, and countless Commissions and Committees have gone into the matter. They have made their recommendations and, generally, their recommendations have been pigeon-holed. Very few indeed have been reflected in legislation. I believe that this Bill does really make a beginning on a real reform. The trouble has been, I think, that the matter has been in the hands of too many authorities and too small. There have been something like sixteen hundred local authorities concerned with the question of river pollution. Many of them are too small, and are really almost impotent to deal with the question. Many, again, are very big and some of the greatest offenders are to be found amongst the greatest and most powerful local authorities. I do not suppose that there have been worse offenders in this matter

729
than the London County Council, who certainly ought to know better.
I am inclined to disagree with my noble friend who spoke a little while ago from the Opposition Front Bench. I believe it is most essential that the authorities dealing with the question of river pollution should be few in number and powerful. No one dislikes taking away powers from local authorities more than I do, but I believe it is essential that these powers should be in the hands of large authorities who can take a really wide view of the whole area, the whole watershed. What has happend so often, in the past, is that an authority with some sort of powers to deal with pollution has said in effect: "What is the good of our taking action. The water when it reaches us is so badly polluted that it really does not matter what we do to it." So you find a stream getting more and more polluted as it flows towards its mouth.
Earl DE LA WARR: My Lords, may I interrupt for a moment to say' that the noble Duke must have misunderstood me? I welcome the reduction in the number of authorities. But with regard to the maximum of 45 I merely questioned the balance of merit as between 45 and 29. And I think that that is still open to question.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My noble friend and I need not quarrel about that. As I have said, I do welcome the Bill. I think that, on the whole, the powers which the Bill confers should be in the hands of a few large and powerful authorities, people who are able to take a really wide area view and not merely a parochial or county view. I hope that the Bill will open the way to reconciling all the various claims which arise from questions relating to rivers. There are many conflicting interests—land drainage, industry, public health and fisheries. The interests in each case are not necessarily the same. I believe that the Bill will open the way towards establishing authorities which will be able to deal with these subjects on really comprehensive lines. I have been asked by the Fishmongers' Company, a very ancient body of which I am. a member, and the Salmon and Trout Association, which flourishes under the wing and protection of that very ancient but still active body, to say that we do very warmly welcome this
730
Bill. I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the work of the Clerk of the Fishmongers' Company, to whose efforts over many years is very largely due the fact that this Bill has finally come into being.
I do not think the Bill is perfect as yet, and when we come to the Committee stage I shall have certain Amendments to put forward. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to meet me upon them because I think they are reasonable Amendments. For one thing, I think that the number of authorities should be defined and that river board areas should be scheduled in the Bill. My noble friend Earl De La Warr and I need not fight over points relating to exact numbers—those are questions for discussion. I think that areas should be scheduled so that when we pass this Bill—as I hope we shall do in the near future—we shall not be buying a pig in a poke, but shall know just what we are passing. That is a precedent which was followed, I believe, in the Electricity Act, 1947. The areas which it defined were scheduled in the Bill, and the White Paper on which this Bill is at least partly founded also said in so many words that an Act to provide for the constitution of river boards should schedule the areas for which they would be set up. I understand that this is a matter requiring a good deal of consideration and that there may be difficulties about putting these in the Schedule to the Bill. But I hope that the noble Earl will find it possible.
Another not very great matter is this. It relates to fishery interests and is dealt with towards the end of Clause 2 of the Bill. I have no objection to the councils of counties and county boroughs appointing not less than three-fifths or more than two-thirds of members of river boards, or the persons being appointed by the Minister to represent the drainage beards after consultation by them. But if you look at the Bill, you will see that whereas the Minister consults before appointing these earlier categories—this is in subsection (3) of Clause 2—he merely appoints the persons representing the fishery interests. I think that there should be some say in the matter by fishery interests (that includes those anglers for whom a noble Lord spoke just now—the so-called coarse fishermen, though I often wonder why they are called coarse seeing that they use far finer tackle and much greater skill than the majority of salmon

731
and trout fishermen). I think both sides would feel that they might at any rate be consulted by the Minister as to their representatives rather than that he should merely appoint them.
I hope that this Bill will lead us towards a new era in the protection and preservation of our wonderful heritage—our natural watercourses. As the noble Earl who introduced this Bill has rightly said, one of our compensations for a somewhat abundant rainfall is the unparalleled beauty—as it should be—of our river system, too much of which we have converted into a system of stinking open drains, supporting no kind of life. I do not know if we can go so far as the ancient Persians of whom Herodotus wrote:

We may not be able to achieve that extremely high standard, but even if we cannot I hope that we shall go a long way towards it and at least make our rivers fit to wash our hands in—if we are allowed to do so. How the ancient Persians would have treated a person who discharged undiluted sewage or industrial effluent into a stream I cannot imagine.
Quite rightly, I think, this Bill does not go into over much detail, or make substantive laws dealing with river pollution. That would be trying to go too fast. It must be for the boards, when they are set up, to make recommendations. I hope that in the not too distant future we shall see further legislation dealing with this very concrete question brought forward by these boards and that they will give us some guidance on this question.
We have heard references this afternoon to the so-called salmon Clause 1n the indentures of apprentices, by which apprentices were not to be compelled to eat salmon more than two days a week. I have heard of that from London, Nottingham, Bristol, Dundee and many other places, but the Clerk of the Fishmongers' Company, who has been hunting this clause for years, has not been able to find an authentic case of it. However, the mere fact that the legend exists does indicate that salmon was once a more plentiful and cheaper article of food than it is now. Think what an enormous commercial asset our rivers might
732
be if they were not polluted. The pollution of the Thames is very bad below London Bridge, and although it may be taken that on rare occasions mature fish can ascend the Thames, I think it is certain that it is always fatal to young immature fish trying to go up the Thames by slow stages through the tideway. If salmon can pass up the river, the smelts can never get down from the spawning beds. As late as last week, on Thursday, a school of porpoises, neglecting the attractions presented by your Lordships' House, passed up the river and were seen disporting themselves upstream. But the position is not past praying for. If a salmon can get as far as London Bridge upstream, he is all right. The problem presents many difficulties, but it is not insoluble, like some other problems at which one looks almost with despair. I would congratulate the Government on having brought forward a Bill which tackles the thing in the right way. I wish them every success.
4.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, this measure seems to have received an unexpected measure of praise from various noble Lords who have spoken. I must confess I do not find it so excellent as do some other noble Lords. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, in introducing it, endeavoured to disarm criticism in advance, a principle which he has carried out with effect in the past. In my case, however, he failed to disarm what criticism I have on the Bill. He said it is a purely administrative measure and creates no new powers—I think I am quoting him aright. It is not quite true to say it creates no new powers, because there are a few, but it is an administrative Bill.
The water problem in this country is a, very big and important problem. It covers water supply, pollution, and land drainage. In bringing in a purely administrative Bill which does not tackle the great problem of water supply, the Government are once again showing a propensity to take two bites at the cherry. We should have had a Bill dealing with the whole water problem. True, this is only a preliminary Bill, but we know from past experience that when we have a preliminary Bill any attempt to get a Bill which deals with the core of the problem, is met by the Government by the statement that they cannot spare the time and we had a

733
Water Bill the other day. This Bill does not touch the great question of pollution, because it grants no new powers to these bodies. That is the criticism I have to offer. But I do not propose to oppose the Bill, which has certain merits. As has been pointed out, it does create one authority to deal with problems which are now dealt with by a number of different authorities who very often face the same problem in connexion with their area from diametrically opposite points of view. To that extent it is good. There is also one new thing, which I believe is new in any Bill dealing with water—it makes direct reference to the necessity of the conservation of the water supply. It is true it is a barren reference, because no powers are given to the new bodies set up to ensure that water supplies are in fact conserved. All the same, it is a welcome thing that there should be this recognition of the necessity for conserving our water supplies., because they are being increasingly depleted as the standard of living causes increased use of water.
So far as the Bill itself is concerned, I am not entirely happy about the actual composition of the river boards. It seems to me that the composition as set out in the Bill overweighs the representation of the centres of population as against those interests, which are very important interests, in the agricultural districts outside the centres of population. So far as my researches into the Bill go, there is no direct reference anywhere to agriculture, although this is a Bill dealing not only with conservation but also with drainage and various other matters which concern the agriculturalist very closely, and in many ways concern him more intimately than the dweller in towns. The latter is chiefly interested in water to the extent that he gets an adequate supply, and, moreover, he is not flooded out by the source from which the water comes.
I am not clear in my mind as to how the representation is worked. Clause 2, subsection (2), does state fairly specifically how the members shall be appointed, but one is left somewhat in the dark when Clause 2 (5) is considered. I do not know if any noble Lords read the last ten lines, but I read them through with some considerable difficulty several times and so far as I can see the subsection says that under certain conditions county districts will be represented in proportion to rateable value. But it takes ten lines to say
734
that in the most complicated way. I commend to the noble Earl the suggestion that that subsection might be redrafted in a manner more simple and more easy to understand. On closer examination I think that the very difficult question of representation of the varied interests concerned might be the subject of Amendments at the next stage because, speaking as a countryman, I am not at all satisfied that a true balance of representation has been reached in this Bill.
As regards finance, my noble friend Lord De la Warr said a word or two on that and directed attention to the fact that fourpence to-day is probably not worth more than twopence when twopence was first allowed. I would ask the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, to tell the House when he replies whether he is genuinely of the opinion that he has made adequate provision for finance by allowing them to make a precept of fourpence. My own conviction is that that is rather too small a sum to enable these river boards to carry out even the restricted functions which they are allowed to carry out under this Bill. It certainly will not be sufficient to enable them to carry out those much greater functions which I hope most sincerely will be embodied in a subsequent Bill in the near future.
I do not want to detain your Lordships too long, but I would like to say a word or two on the question of pollution, which has figured in almost every speech that has been made so far on this Bill. What the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said is quite true, that it has a. considerable effect on fishing. The only point I wish to make is this. Pollution in its early stage; is very difficult to spot. It may be spasmodic and periodic, and it is not easy to spot it. It is quite true that the number of people who actually fish, compared to the total population of this country, is comparatively small, and the fishing interests in some cases—particularly is it so in the case of the area with which the noble Earl, Lord Berth, is concerned most—are the prerogative of those who have a considerable amount of wealth. It may be that some people will try to cry down the fishing interests in connexion with the pollution of water., I do not want the noble Earl to run away with the idea that they are not of value on this whole question of pollution. The first indication of pollution in any river is the disappearance of fish food, and

735
then of fish life. It is most valuable to help the fishing interests in every way in order to ensure that, by proper reports as to the products of the industry of the followers of Izaac Walton, you may get an indication whether or not the stream concerned is suffering from pollution. The moment you have the indication you can follow up the question and probably discover the source of the pollution.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: The noble Earl will remember that there are people on the banks who drink the water and who wash in it as well as those who fish.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I quite agree with the noble and learned Viscount, but I am inclined to think that the fish spots when there is a taste in the water rather more quickly than the man who drinks that water.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: That may be so.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I would not condemn this Bill. It is, so far as it goes—the short distance that it goes—quite a useful measure. I do hope, though, that the noble Earl will stress in his reply that the Government are intending at a very near date—because the matter is so important—to deal with the whole problem of water supplies, pollution and conservation in a comprehensive way.
44 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am bound to say that I waited for this Bill with mixed feelings of fear and hope. I think both emotions have been justified, because my fear is that a bad or ineffective Bill (I do not think this is a bad Bill) is a definite obstacle to a better Bill on any subject to which it relates. I had great fears about this Bill. I approach it from one angle only, and that is an angle which I know has the sympathy of the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading. Therefore I will say quite frankly what I think about the Bill, because I know he will receive it with sympathy, and perhaps consider the points I wish to make. I am concerned with the question of pollution. I will not nauseate your Lordships by repeating the account of the pollution of the rivers of England which I gave in March of this year. I am bound to say that I know of very few rivers where, as my noble
736
and learned friend Viscount Maugham suggested, people can drink of the river as it passes their door; they mostly get their water from very much higher up the stream.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: It is the farmers who get the river water.
LORD SALTOUN: Sometimes. Before I come to the main question of pollution there are one or two points on which I should like to touch. In the first place, I also have found some difficulty in regard to Clause 5 of the Bill. I would suggest that the definition given in paragraph (a) should be adopted throughout. I think it is important that the authority of river boards should extend round the coast and from watershed to watershed, and meet at the appropriate point. In parenthesis I may say that I very much welcome the proposal in this Bill for the setting up of river boards.
I would also like to draw the noble Earl's attention to a small point in connexion with subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 9, coupled with subsection (8). It seems to me that a very small matter is being made into a very great crime, and in your Lordships' House I have always opposed this artificial manufacture of crimes. After all, the persons referred to in subsections (5) and (6) are going to be the best friends of the river boards. Almost everybody who lives on a river has a gauge of some sort and regularly gauges his river; and very often he keeps records. To say that any person who fails to give notice, or to comply with any direction, shall be liable on conviction to a fine of twenty pounds, seems rather a teutonic, mailed-fist method of approach. I suggest that any river board that knows its business is going to be in the closest touch with all these people who are watching the life and state of the river, without administering what you might call a slap on the back so severe as that.
I now come to the question of pollution, and what I feel is the greatest fault in the Bill. That is contained in Clauses 2 and 10. The noble Earl, in his introductory remarks, displayed a great deal of skill in trying to reconcile those two clauses, but I humbly suggest to your Lordships that they are in essence repugnant to one another, and directly contradictory, at any rate in regard to pollution. We are to have a river board

737
which consists very largely of representatives of local authorities, and the expense of purifying the river is to be put on the rates. I wish to suggest to your Lordships a reason why that should not be done. The greatest offenders in polluting the waters of Britain are the local authorities. It stands to reason that they should be so. They are going to be very strongly represented on the river boards. If they have to provide the money, it will be found that there will be every incentive for them to oppose the purification of the streams with which they are concerned. Let me take a case. I will not mention any names. Each of your Lordships will probably think of a different place, but let me take the case of a great city of perhaps 1,000,000 people which is busily polluting the water that passes by the town, and polluting it to the extent that no fish or anything other than a few anaerobic bacteria can live in the water.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Sewage bacteria, is it not?
LORD SALTOUN: I am afraid I am not acquainted with the bacteria of these fishless rivers. If you try to introduce some scheme to deal with a situation like that, it must entail great expense— £100,000 will go nowhere in performing such a task. There is every incentive for the representatives of the local authorities on the river board to block any scheme that is suggested and to spoil the effort of the river board to purify the waters under its control. Moreover, if the board, in the teeth of opposition from a body of its members, does succeed in its work of purification, instead of it being a united body, agreeing on the business for which it is engaged, it becomes one which is divided.
Furthermore, I doubt the justice of the proposed step because any great town will be able to turn at once to the river board and say: "Why do you propose measures which entail such an enormous expense upon our town? If you insist on this, not only are you going to impose a great burden on our rates, but you are going to hamper the trade of the greatest firm in the town which gives employment to thousands. Altogether you are going to put the town in a very unpleasant and unfair position, because the pollution which exists, and which we quite acknow-
738
ledge, has been carried out under the protection of an Act of Parliament." The Act to which I refer is an Act of 1876 against river pollution It says in that Act that it is an offence to discharge sewage into a stream unless it has been subjected to the best known means of rendering it harmless. It adds that the Department of Health
" … shall not permit proceedings by the local authority unless it is satisfied the proceedings will not injure the industry."
That is the point which vitiates all the measures which have been taken by Parliament for the prevention of pollution From what I have seen of the rivers and streams of England and from the evidence I have heard on the matter, it seems to me that the problem is a major problem which should be tackled by the Government itself, and that a large proportion of the funds should be found by the central Government. It is quite possible that the river boards, constituted as is proposed in Clause 2, will get people who will work together with the greatest enthusiasm to purify the rivers of which they are given charge; but if they have to find the funds from their own localities and by local rates then something is being introduced which will change their minds altogether. I do not think it will be sufficient to do what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, suggested, which is to give the Minister authority. Finance must be obtained very largely from the centre and not from the locality.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, I shall certainly not oppose this Bill. I wish it well, even where I disagree with it, because the urgency of the subject is more important than possibly anything else in the country. When our time ends and we leave behind us clean rivers, those who come after us—they may be our descendants, or they may be another community altogether—will say we have been a civilized race; but if we leave our rivers in a state of pollution we will be considered the most abject barbarians.
4.24 p.m.
LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, it seems to be agreed by your Lordships on all sides of the House that the principle of unifying all interests under one authority, to be called a river board, is both desirable and necessary. I think the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, very rightly sounded a warning on removing a community of interest too far. This applies particularly

739
to a long river such as the Great Ouse. I would like to feel that His Majesty's Government appreciated the importance of the community of interest where it applies to land drainage.
This brings me to the question of representation. I realize that at present the councils pay two-thirds of all the contributions towards land drainage, and that if their contribution is doubled from twopence to fourpence, that balance of payment is not likely to be altered. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, mentioned the exceptional position of the Great Ouse Catchment Board. Perhaps this is not a proper time to go into the details of an exception, but in the interests of the land drainagé of the Fens, in the interests of food production, and of the production of potatoes in particular, I hope that the noble Earl has not said the final word on the balance of representation on the Great Ouse Catchment Board, or what will become the Great Ouse River Board. I hope that in the interests I have mentioned he will give the Fens an option of increased representation for increased taxation. They are in a position to pay more and they might well welcome it in order to be better represented.
I am confused by the reference the noble Earl made to Clause 2 which deals with the area of river boards. I realize that the confusion is no doubt due to my own muddle-headedness, but I would like an assurance from the noble Earl that the principle of the Medway letter remains in force and that there is No 1ntention of diverting from the principle of "No benefit, no rating." With that assurance, and with some hope for proper representation for the Fens on the Great Ouse Catchment Board, I would most heartily welcome the Bill.
4.28 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I should like from this side of the House to support what my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has already said, that we welcome this Bill as a good co-ordination Bill. I served a good apprenticeship upon the Yorkshire Ouse Catchment Board—I believe the second largest in the country. In reply to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I would like to say that the cash was supplied by the great county boroughs in the West Riding of Yorkshire and the West Riding County
740
Council. It is an old Liberal doctrine that where there is taxation there should be adequate representation, and I hope the Ministry of Agriculture will see to it that those great authorities which have provided the cash—in the case of the West Riding, 66⅔ per cent., as against 25 per cent. for the Great Ouse Catchment Board—and, I admit, the pollution, will be adequately represented. I would rather not issue a warning, but I hope that the Association of Municipal Corporations will watch this Bill and see to it that these great authorities are adequately represented.
The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, asked what will be the incentive to these great industrial authorities to avoid pollution if they are so adequately represented that they can control the river boards. I want to tell the noble Lord, at any rate so far as Yorkshire is concerned, that we have a most honourable record in co-operating with the agricultural areas who could not supply the cash. We have co-operated with them, and on only one occasion was war declared by the great industrial authorities I have mentioned; and that was on a conservative Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Elliot. The rebellion was led by the leading Conservatives and also by one or two of the Liberals who are left. I was brought in as conciliator to make peace between these warring elements.
LORD SALTOUN: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think he must have misunderstood me. I probably expressed myself badly. I said that I welcomed local representation, but that the representative may find that a suggestion made means an imposition on his constituents.
LORD CALVERLEY: What I want to emphasize—and I have a high personal regard for my noble friend—is that the industrial authorities have done a fine job of work with regard to land drainage and pollution.
There is a most excellent article in The Times to-day paying high tribute to these same industrial authorities for the work they have done in connexion with the rivers in the West Riding in the matter of pollution. My own authority have spent over £1,000,000 at the behest, and with the co-operation, of the river board which at the present time have to do with

741
pollution. We were faced with the difficult problem of 20,000,000 gallons of sewage a day, domestic and industrial, containing fats from the sheeps' backs, produced in the course of wool washing in the great textile areas. We spared neither time nor money in research to find a solution to this difficult problem. The sewage is now treated chemically, and I may say that this solution can be recommended to authorities who may be faced with the same difficulty. You may go and drink a glass of the water after it has been treated, and if you did not know where it had come from you could drink to the health of the Labour Party. But knowing where the water had come from, I personally would prefer something of a different quality in the way of a beverage!
Actually, in the City of Bradford, we are making a profit out of sewage. The ladies are our best customers. Thanks to the wool fats they are able to beautify their complexions—from the sewage of Bradford. Not lipstick, but the finest soaps and face creams come from these wool fats. My own home town is a benefactor to the female section of the community in this way. On the fop of this we get from sewage fertilizers and similar things. I do not know where the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, lives when he goes to Scotland, but he does not seem to know what we have tried to do in England. If he did he would know that we have the incentive, in the way of public service. We are right to spend money in order that river pollution shall be abated; we have taxed ourselves to the extent of £1,000,000 in order that: our rivers shall be made safe—not for the industrialists but for the agriculturalists.
LORD SALTOUN: May I point out to the noble Lord, that most of my information is taken on the expert evidence given before a Committee of your Lordships' House on the Leicester Water Bill?
LORD CALVERLEY: Well, never mind about Leicester. I will take the noble Lord, not to a backward area, but to Bradford. Bradford gets its water from the upper reaches. If the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, is going to carry on a crusade for drinking water from the estuaries of the Tyne or of the Thames, he is welcome to it; he has there body, meat, and drink. But my own authority have their own water
742
grid. We supply twenty-six authorities besides ourselves. That is a happy example to the Government to go forward in providing a water grid for those authorities not so well supplied. That is what has been done in drainage, in preventing pollution and in the provision of a pure water supply. I have been asked by the Yorkshire Fisheries Board to say that they do not want a lot of representation but they certainly want a voice, so that they can once more get fish into some of our Yorkshire rivers. I passed over South Leeds bridge this morning and there was not a sign of trout, although there were plenty of signs of garbage. But, of course, Leeds is not so progressive as some other authorities I could mention. I welcome this Bill. I hope that the West Riding and the great industrial parts of Yorkshire will have adequate representation. The Minister can then be assured that there will be an incentive in the form of public service. We shall co-operate with him. But if he manhandles us we shall oppose him.
4.38 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, the noble Earl who introduced the Bill said that one purpose of the Bill was to increase the rate leviable from 2d. to 4d. The noble Earl treated that as a quite natural thing. The noble Earls doctrine, as I understand it, is that because prices have doubled in the last ten years, therefore a rate of 20s. in the pound now is equivalent to a rate of 10s. in the pound ten years ago. That seems to me to be a thoroughly unsound doctrine. Your Lordships know only too well that the rates are creeping up all the time. The objects are always good, and no doubt these increases can be justified. But the rates have become a crushing burden. Almost every month we have an increase of 1d. for this or 2d. for that. I do think that it is the duty of your Lordships to regard with a highly critical eye any measure which proposes to add to that burden.
4.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I rise to address the House for a few minutes only. I feel that it is my duty to do so, having presided about twenty years ago over the Royal Commission on the Land Drainage of England and Wales. I have had the opportunity of having a short consultation with two of the three surviving members of that Commission since I entered this building, one of them

743
being my noble friend Lord Courthope and the other being that dear, sturdy old agricultural worker, Mr. George Dallas, whom I was delighted to meet in the precincts of this House. On behalf of them and myself, as representing the Royal Commission on Land Drainage in England and Wales, I should like most heartily to welcome this Bill, and to express the hope that, when it becomes an Act of Parliament, it will prove to be far more effective than have been the catchment boards—an expression for which, I believe, I am mainly responsible—created under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, which incorporated and embodied the recommendations of my Royal Commission.
I am not at all sure that I agree with my friend and neighbour Lord Raglan, when he expresses some anxiety about the additional burden that may be thrown upon local authorities when it becomes possible to levy a fourpenny rate for the all-embracing and important purposes of securing a pure water supply, of improving the land drainage of this country, now sadly defective, and also of preventing pollution. Indeed, I am inclined to think—and in this I share the views of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor—that it may prove to be an extraordinarily good investment, both from a national and a local point of view, if sufficient funds are made available for the effective and skilful administration of the new river boards. And may I add this? I have watched with real sorrow during the last six years the gradual disappearance by erosion of some of the most fertile land and alluvial land on my own estate which through erosion has been carried away, to the extent of from 50 to 100 acres. The main reason, as I have good reason to know, why drastic and effective measures were not taken at the outset to prevent that erosion, was the multiplicity of authorities concerned. It is because these numerous authorities will all now have their powers concentrated in one river board that I, for my part, most heartily welcome this Bill.
I would go further and say this. In connexion with the loss of this valuable alluvial land, to which I have referred, it was found that the internal drainage board had not sufficient authority or means to deal effectively with the stoppage of this erosion. It eventually was passed over to the catchment board. They similarly
744
certainly had not the finance, even if they had the authority, to deal with it. However, because there was a danger of its undermining the Great Western Railway, which runs not far distant from the river bank, and also undermining an important plywood factory which, during the war, under Government control was providing material for aircraft, eventually the matter was referred to the Treasury, and really effective means were at long last adopted to check the erosion, which, I am glad to say, to all appearances has now ceased. I hope that your Lordships will forgive my mentioning that as an illustration of the effect of having that multiplicity of authorities, none of them with sufficient powers or sufficient finance to prevent the disappearance of a large area of extremely fertile land. I, for my part, if I may speak on behalf of the old Royal Commission on the Land Drainage of England and Wales, give my most hearty welcome to this Bill.
4.47 p.m.
LORD ASHBURTON: My Lords, I would like to say one word in support of the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. Down in the chalk stream areas, I think most of us have long ago reached the conclusion that, bad though pollution may be in those streams, the chief threat to their very existence is the abstraction of water. It is not the abstraction of water by small men; it is not the odd bore to supply a few farms that is going to be the trouble; it is the wholesale extraction by local authorities for perfectly worthy and praiseworthy purposes.
We, in Hampshire, have just undergone an extremely unpleasant experience; I have found it disagreeable. A local authority quite properly wished to obtain supplies of water. The procedure at present laid down was scrupulously followed and No 1nterests could possibly have any feeling of unfairness or of not having been heard, and so on. The agricultural interests were allowed to have their say; the landowners, whose private supplies to their farms were threatened, were allowed their say; the people interested in amenities, and even the humble fishermen, were given at least a semiofficial opportunity of having their little say. But the point was reached, as it always is and always will be now, when the decision had to be come to: Was this water to be allowed to go down the river

745
fulfilling its functions, working presses and occasionally driving a mill or two, and then be abstracted as far down stream as possible, or was it to be taken from the water table high up and never allowed to get to the river at all?
This point was reached, and the local authorities did the only thing they could do. They said: "We must get a very big water expert on this." They did, and the water expert, of course, said that, to the best of his knowledge, there was plenty of water where they wished to bore for it. He admitted that he did not have the specialized local knowledge of somebody who had lived on the river all his life, but he said: "In my judgment, and to the best of my knowledge, it should not do very much damage to any of the local interests, provided that certain precautions are taken." Naturally, the local authority took the expert's advice. I do not see that they could have done otherwise. That was the position. There were at least four different practical everyday interests put forward by reasonable people living on that river, and yet they were completely upset by the opinion of one expert, who was an equally reasonable man. But the local authority had to follow his opinion.
I cannot see how, for all the setting up envisaged in this Bill, it is ever going to decide this problem of really big-scale water abstraction, and unless that is solved the river authorities in the South Country are not going to have a very long life or strenuous job, because the rivers there are not going to exist. It is a point which I think must be kept in mind. I should be very glad if noble Lords who are far more able than I would consider this matter and see what can be done to find some way of treating the various interests concerned rather more fairly instead of always taking the opinion of, perhaps, one expert. Subject to these observations, I think the Bill is a most excellent contribution, and I very much welcome it.
4.51 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, it is always a most gratifying experience to any member of the Government to get a Bill welcomed by most noble Lords as this one has been this afternoon. We have had a certain amount of criticism and many suggestions, and I should like to say at once that the Government
746
appreciate the importance of many of the matters raised—for example, in regard to pollution. That is obviously vitally important, and has to be dealt with on a large scale. There were also the fishery interests which have been so well sponsored, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. We do realize the vital importance of fish in our diet and the part that fresh water fishing, both as a pastime and as an industry, plays in our national life. Why, I saw in the Press the other day a story to the effect that when the husband is left minding the small child and the job becomes rather difficult, the solution is simply to put the child in the bath and pour in a pound of sprats!
I should like to emphasize that we do want to use the collective wisdom of the House and my right honourable friend the Minister will welcome any suggestion. We will carefully examine all the points which have been made this afternoon and see if we can improve the Bill on those lines. I would like to refer to certain matters which have been raised and try to satisfy noble Lords in regard to them. In the first place the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, asked specifically for an assurance that this Bill would not rule out amendments in the Land Drainage Act of 1930. Of course it does nothing of the kind. Drainage has been, and is being, examined by the sub-Committees and nothing in this Bill will stop further examination by the Government of that problem.
Another point raised by the noble Earl and others was this question of representation of navigation interests. This is a difficult point. Fundamentally the larger interests in navigation have been taken over under the Transport Act of 1947, but a certain amount of internal navigation may come under this Bill. It would seem to me however that their levied contributions are rather small. However, I think that when the river boards appoint committees other than finance committees in areas where navigation is a leading interest, they would almost certainly appoint a navigation committee in such circumstances, then in that way navigation interests would be quite well represented. Also many members of the local authority representation might well be people concerned with navigation interests. However, we would be glad between now and the Committee or Report stage of the Bill to consult with the associations and see if something can be

747
done, but as things stand at the present I do not think that it will be possible to bring in further representatives to these committees.
I would like noble Lords to consider this point: that as regards the numbers which are finally appointed for river boards, they will comprise about forty people already, and it will be difficult to get adequate representation of local authorities and other interests if we are going to add any more representatives of navigation or industries or other different interests. It will be exceedingly difficult to get a true representation, and for that reason I think we shall have to resist bringing on to the river boards outside interests who do not pay direct contribution.
Of the further points that were raised, one that seemed to cause some anxiety concerned the representation of county boroughs. The large representation of county boroughs on the board mentioned by one noble Lord was related to an allegation that they are the greatest contributors to the pollution of rivers. This is a difficult point and Lord Calverley strongly gave the views of the local authority in this matter. But, after all it is the local authorities we are bringing in to help in this matter and they will probably be the greatest contributors from the financial point of view. That is a very definite aspect and I think they will demand, and rightly, a fairly large representation on a board which is going to require a large contribution from their rates. I think that is one of the things we ought to consider. The second is the fact that the responsibilities of a local authority comprise many different departments, and one would imagine that the wide outlook which is inseparable from their multifarious duties would be brought to the work of the river boards, to the advantage of fisheries, drainage and all the other interests. The question they would ask themselves would be: How can we work this area in the best interests of the community?
LORD SALTOUN: I beg the noble Lord's pardon for interrupting, but what he said just now is exactly what I was saying. I was pointing out the repugnance of such a situation and I was asking whether there is any possibility of getting grants for special schemes from
748
the Government so as to diminish that repugnance.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I could not say off hand, but I will bear that matter in mind and bring it to the notice of my right honourable friend. I do not think so, but I would not like to answer that without notice. To go back to this question of the county boroughs; another aspect of the matter is that a river board will not be merely a representation of the borough councils. There will also be county council, drainage, and fishery interests, and it is by no means certain that in the composition of the boards county boroughs would have an absolute majority.
THE EARL OF PERTH: Is it, therefore, not true that the Minister will have power to depart from that rateable formula if the county council have a smaller number than the county borough?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I think he will have to give consideration to the rateable value. It depends, naturally, on the balance between the wealth of the county borough and of the county council, as to the exact proportion to be decided between them. I wish to make the difficulties in this question quite clear. With regard to really big local authorities, the Government hope that they will take a broad interest in this matter, that they will not sit on these river boards as a sectional interest but will envisage the problem as a national one, and do their best to deal with it from that point of view.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, brought in the anglers very strongly. He is interested in fishing and I should like to give him an assurance that anglers as such are naturally included as a fishing interest.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, gave a certain qualified acceptance to this Bill. I think he liked the general principle, but was rather frightened of various possibilities. His general criticism, I think, was that this Bill might hold up a further Bill, which is badly needed to deal with this matter. I would impress upon the noble Earl that essentially this is a case of first things first. It would not be possible to implement legislation in this connexion,

749
effectively, without getting the administration side built up and ready to receive an Act when it was passed. I can tell the noble Earl that the Government are waiting anxiously for Reports from the Committees concerned, and that they do recognize the vital need for legislation to deal with these very important problems. In other words, this Bill is not a sort of break or stop gap, nor yet a substitute for another big water Bill. Rather is it in the nature of putting into effect the first stage in our water policy.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships too long, but, of course, there were a number of other questions raised in the course of the discussion. There was, for example, the question relating to the four-penny rate. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, seemed to be rather anxious about that. Other noble Lords, on the other hand, thought that fourpence was not enough. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that a fourpenny rate represents the only precept that can be demanded without the consent of the local authorities. With the consent of the local authorities, the precept can be larger, and, in some cases, probably would be so.
Most of the other questions, I think, concerned Committee points. The noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, asked about "no boundary, no rate." Of course it is true that this Bill does not affect the boundary of the internal drainage districts; it merely transfers powers from the catchment areas to the river boards.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I asked the noble Earl three specific questions. He has not yet answered any of them. I do not know what his intentions are.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I apologize to the noble Earl; I had inadvertently overlooked my note on his questions. The first one, I believe, was as to whether river boards will have the same powers of prosecution as the Thames Conservancy. All that happens under this Bill is that there is a transference of existing powers to river boards. In order to give them additional powers we shall have to bring in new legislation. Then there was a question regarding estuaries. Will river boards control estuaries? At least in regard to fisheries, I think they will have control so far as concerns
750
any exclusive rights which His Majesty's subjects may have in fishing.
With respect to pollution, obviously if we want new powers relating to estuaries we shall have to bring in new legislation. Next there was the question as to river boards being consulted in regard to boring under the Water Act of 1945. Under that Act notice must be served on catchment boards and that provision also will be transferred to the new river boards. I hope that I have not left out any other question which I ought to have dealt with. As I have said, I think many of the points which have been raised merit discussion in Committee. I should just like to add that I hope that the House, having welcomed the Bill, will now give it a Second Reading and help to pass it into law as soon as possible.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS AND PHARMACISTS BILL. [H.L.]
5.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the 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 Earl of Drogheda in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Provision for registration of persons of certain categories as colonial or foreign practitioners.
1.—(1) In the case of a person to whom this section applies, the General Medical Council (in this Part of this Act referred to as "the Council") may, if they think fit and subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, give a direction that he shall be registered in the medical register under this section.
(3) Registration of a person under this section shall be either (in accordance with the subsequent provisions of this Part of this Act in that behalf) as a colonial practitioner or as a foreign practitioner.
(5) Such a direction shall not be given except in the case of a person who is resident in the United Kingdom otherwise than for a temporary purpose.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out ("colonial") and to insert ("Commonwealth"). The noble Lord said: This is the first of a series of

751
Amendments designed to remedy what the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, during the Second Reading stage, called "an important matter of terminology." The Medical Register has included separate lists for colonial and foreign practitioners since provision was first made for those lists in the Medical Act, 1886. The word "colonial" was used in the draft Bill to fit in with existing usage. I share the view of Lord Altrincham that it is wrong in 1947 to use a word which, in my opinion, had already in 1886 begun to acquire its modern restricted meaning, especially following the British North America Act of 1867. The unsuitability of the word to present-day conditions is obvious, and it will be seen from Clause 9 (4) of the Bill that the draftsmen were aware of it because it was considered necessary in the Bill to say what was meant by "colonial."
I am not surprised that this method of dealing with the matter did not commend itself to the noble Lord. Nor did it allay my own doubts. I indicated on Second Reading my willingness to have the matter reconsidered. This has now been done and the result is the proposed series of Amendments which are on the Paper. I am confident that they will be particularly welcome to the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition and to my noble friend the Leader of the House, who have both been specially concerned with Commonwealth relations in the recent past. It has not been easy to find an expression which exactly fulfils the intention, but consultations with the Department of Commonwealth Relations and the Colonial Office have taken place and have led to the joint conclusion that "Commonwealth," as a general term, is the best. It is true that the term "British Commonwealth of Nations" is recognized and accepted as connoting the present association of the Dominions and the United Kingdom as independent nations, but I am advised that the word "Commonwealth" alone can properly be given the wider meaning of all territories within the Empire, including the Dominions. The series of Amendments, therefore, propose the use of "Commonwealth" and thus achieve the intention of the Bill without perpetuating the offence to the Dominions which is inherent in the terminology of the Act of 1886. I hope and believe that, in proposing this I
752
shall have the approval and support of all noble Lords. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, leave out ("colonial") and insert ("Commonwealth").—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, since I was responsible for calling attention to the use of the words "colonial" and "foreign" in this Bill, I should like to thank the noble Lord warmly for the satisfactory manner in which he has dealt with the representations which we made. I am sure this feeling will be shared in all parts of the House. The word "colonial," in referring to fellow members of the Commonwealth of Nations, is an anachronism and improper in 1947, Indeed, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that it was improper in 1886 when it was last done. When I first saw these Amendments I was a little disturbed by the fact that the word "Commonwealth" was used to cover not only members of the Commonwealth of Nations but also the Colonial Empire, and I presume also the trust territories. It is very interesting and satisfactory to me to hear that in the opinion of the legal advisers who deal with these matters, and particularly those of the Department of Commonwealth Relations, as well as the Colonial Office, the word "Commonwealth" can be held to cover all parts of what used to be called the British Empire. I believe that we are making a new departure and it is a profoundly interesting one. So far as I am concerned, all I was anxious about the noble Lord has done. The representatives of other members of the Commonwealth nations who come to this country by this Act will now be properly described. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has dealt with our representations and I congratulate him in succeeding in introducing these Amendments now.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: This and the Amendment at line 5 are intended to give effect to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, on Second Reading. We agree that the wording of subsection (5) of Clause 1 could be improved but considered that the form of words suggested by Lord Llewellin might be somewhat difficult in administration, since it is easier to decide whether residence is temporary than whether it is

753
permanent. We are therefore proposing an alternative form of words which would make the subsection read as follows:
"Such direction shall be given only in the case of a person who is resident in the United Kingdom and is resident therein otherwise than for a temporary purpose."
I think the noble Lord will agree that this is an improvement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("not be given except") and insert ("be given only").—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I did draw attention to the great difficulty of understanding Clause 1 (5) as originally drawn in this Bill. I am one of those who dislike double negatives and that was the way in which it was drawn. I put down some Amendments to deal with this matter but frankly I prefer those put down by the noble Lord opposite. I think they are much better than mine and completely meet the point I made on Second Reading. The noble Lord said it was easier to discover whether residence was temporary than whether it was permanent, but I do not see how one is easier than the other. I think he must have meant to say that it is easier to decide when residence is temporary than when residence is intended to be permanent, which were my words. That difference I can see. If you decide that one is temporary, you are surely deciding that it is not permanent. I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I think we have improved the phrase so that it is more understandable of the people and that ought always to be the aim of this House.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I rise only to say that, having given some attention to this particular point, and observing the difficulty which the original word occasioned, I am quite satisfied with the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and I think it should be accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, after ("Kingdom") insert ("and so resident").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Persons registered under Defence Regulations or 10 & 11 Geo. 6. c. 19]:
LORD HENDERSON: I beg to move the three following Amendments, which are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("colonial") and insert ("Commonwealth");
Page 2, line 34, leave out ("colonial") and insert ("Commonwealth");
Page 2, line 44, leave out ("colonial") and insert ("Commonwealth").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Persons who have served in a medical capacity in His Majesty's forces overseas]:
LORD HENDERSON: I beg to move the two Amendments to Clause 3, which are also consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 8, leave out ("colonial") and insert ("Commonwealth");
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("colonial") and insert ("Commonwealth").—(Lord Henderson)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Other qualified persons in the U.K. in war circumstances.
4.—(1) Section one. of this Act shall apply to persons, other than such as are mentioned in the two last preceding sections, who, before the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, have been permitted to enter, or to remain in, the United Kingdom in view of circumstances attributable to war, as to which, in case of doubt, a certificate of the Secretary of State shall be conclusive:
(2) The giving of a direction in the case of such a person shall be conditional on his satisfying the Council either—

(a) that he holds some recognised colonial or foreign diploma or diplomas, or

and that he is of good character, and on his having been selected for employment in a medical capacity in a hospital or other institution for the time being approved by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of S: ate for the purposes of this section.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out ("apply to persons") and insert: ("apply—(a) to persons"). The noble Lord said: I would like to take the next four Amendments together because they are associated.
They meet a difficulty which has arisen in relation to the registration of Polish doctors under the Polish Resettlement Act. This Act authorizes the registration of Polish doctors, subject to certain conditions, up to the end of 1947. This date was inserted to correspond with the termination of temporary registration under the Defence Regulations. It was expected that all Polish doctors eligible under the Act would have arrived by that time and the majority have, in fact, arrived. There are, however, a considerable number of Poles who are still awaiting transfer to this country and with them a number of doctors, some of whom—43 is the present figure I am given—are not registered; and it appears probable that some of these will not arrive here by the end of the year. There is nothing in the Bill, as it stands, which would permit registration of these doctors, but we must clearly provide for them. The first Amendment enables such doctors to be registered by virtue of Clause 4.
The Amendments at lines 36 and 39 require any such doctor to fulfil the same conditions as have applied to registration of other Polish practitioners coming over under the Polish Resettlement scheme. Registration will be provisional in their case, as in the case of other doctors covered by Clause 4. The time limit of twelve months for application should allow ample time for the arrival of the Polish doctors concerned. I feel sure noble Lords will accept this Amendment, in view of its limited application. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 16, leave out ("apply to persons") and insert ("apply—(a) to persons").—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think this is perfectly right if I may say so. There is just one question I would like to ask. Are these forty-three doctors, about whom my noble friend has spoken, with the Polish Forces, and coming back with the rest of the Polish Forces who are gradually being brought back to this country?
LORD HENDERSON: Yes.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Then quite clearly it is right that they should have exactly the same advantage as those who came back with units which were ordered to this country earlier. If it is to meet that
756
case, I am certain that everybody will be in complete agreement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: This is the first consequential Amendment of which I spoke. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 22, at end, insert—
("and
(b) to persons not falling within the preceding paragraph but falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (3) of Section five of the Polish Resettlement Act, 1947 (which specified the classes of persons to whom that section applied):").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: This also is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, after the second ("and") insert ("in the case of a person falling within paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: This is the fourth of the Amendments to which I referred., I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, at end insert ("or, in the case of a person falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (3) of Section five of the Polish Resettlement Act, 1947, on his being employed, or having been selected for employment, in a medical capacity for the care solely or mainly of persons being members of any of the Polish resettlement forces or otherwise as mentioned in paragraph (i) of that subsection").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: The next two Amendments are consequential on an earlier Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 31, leave out ("colonial") and insert ("Commonwealth");
Page 4, line 43, leave out ("colonial") and insert ("Commonwealth").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Registration fees]:
LORD HENDERSON: This is a similar consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, leave out ("colonial") and insert ("Commonwealth").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Appeal to the Privy Council against refusal of application]:
LORD HENDERSON: These are similar consequential Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 23, leave out ("colonial") and insert ("Commonwealth");
Page 5, line 25, leave out ("colonial") and insert ("Commonwealth").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Power to register as colonial or foreign practitioners certain persons in the U.K. temporarily for employment in hospitals.
8.—(1) In the case of a person who satisfies the Council that he is or intends to be in the United Kingdom temporarily for the purpose of employment in a medical capacity in a hospital approved by the Council for the purposes of this Section, and that he holds some recognised colonial or foreign diploma or diplomas, the Council may, if they think fit, give a direction that he shall be registered in the medical register under this section, and a person as to whom such a direction is given shall be registered in the medical register without examination in the United Kingdom.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1), after "hospital" to insert, "or other institution." The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading I pointed out that Clause 8, which everyone welcomed most heartily in this Bill, allows distinguished foreign medical men to come and practise in this country in association with our own doctors without there being any kind of breach of professional etiquette because those men were not on our medical register. In that Clause 1t: is provided only that they shall be so brought on to the register if they have employment in a medical capacity in a hospital. In Clause 4 (2) we deal with "a hospital or other institution" for the purposes which are dealt with in Clause 4. I pointed out that if you include "or other institution" in one clause of the Bill, and do not include it in this Clause 8, if one of these men happens to be working in some medical institution which is not technically a hospital, the provisions would not apply to him. I do not think that is what the Government or anybody means to imply. If "or other institution" had not been put in Clause 4 (2) it might not have been necessary to put it in here, but having inserted it there, I do suggest, in order
758
to be quite safe, that we should have it in Clause 8 as well. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 40, at end insert ("or other institution")—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD HENDERSON: In practice I understand that the occasion for approving institutions, other than hospitals, will very rarely arise, but I agree with the noble Lord and I am happy to accept his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: The next two Amendments are similar consequential Amendments to those already agreed. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 42, leave out ("colonial") and insert ("Commonwealth");
Page 6, line 11, leave out ("colonial") and insert ("Commonwealth").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, after Clause 8 to insert the following new clause:
" Substitution of" Commonwealth" for "colonial" in Part II of the Medical Act, 1886.
(1) In Part II of the Medical Act, 1886, for references to a colonial medical diploma and to a colonial practitioner, there shall be substituted references to a Commonwealth medical diploma and to a Commonwealth practitioner respectively, and references in any document to a colonial medical diploma and to a colonial practitioner shall be construed accordingly.
(2) References in section two of this Act to registration as a Commonwealth practitioner and to a Commonwealth diploma shall be construed as if the preceding subsection had been in force at the time of the registration in question."
The noble Lord said: This proposed new Clause 1s very simple. The first part of the Amendment is really consequential on the acceptance of the first Amendment, and it brings Part II of the Act of 1836 into harmony with the Bill as so amended. The second part of the Amendment applies the word "Commonwealth" where appropriate to persons who were temporarily registered under war-time regulations. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8 to insert the said new clause.—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: This is clearly consequential on the very wise Amendment with which the noble Lord started the proceedings on this Bill to-day.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Provisions as to interpretation of Part I]:
LORD HENDERSON: The next two Amendments, again, are consequential Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 29, leave out ("colonial") and insert ("Commonwealth");
Page 7, line 5, leave out ("colonial") and insert ("Commonwealth").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
PHARMACISTS.
Provision for registration as pharmacists of persons holding qualifications granted outside the United Kingdom.
10.—(1) The power of the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain to make by-laws under Section two of the Pharmacy Act, 1852, shall include power to make by-laws as to the registration as pharmaceutical chemists or as chemists and druggists under the Pharmacy Act, 1852, and the Pharmacy Act, 1868, of persons holding or having held a diploma as a pharmacist granted in a place outside the United Kingdom, or having passed the examinations necessary for obtaining such a diploma, providing for their registration (subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the by-laws) either—

(a) without examination in the United Kingdom, and without satisfying any requirements to which they would be subject apart from this section under by-laws made by virtue of paragraph (a) or (c) of Section four of the Poisons and Pharmacy Act, 1908 (which relate to preliminary practical training and to periods and courses of study); or

LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, in subsection (1), after ("conditions") to insert ("as to character and otherwise"). The noble Lord said: This Amendment again meets a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, on Second Reading, when he urged that the Bill did not specifically require evidence of good character in the case of pharmacists to be registered under the Bill, though it does so in the case of doctors covered by Clauses 3 and 4. I understand that in the case of pharmacists the whole matter of conditions is left to the Pharmaceutical Society, and it is for
760
them to lay down a condition as to good character, as they did in the case of bylaws made under Defence Regulation 32C. The words of the Amendment are inserted to ensure that the Pharmaceutical Society have power to insert such a condition, doubt having arisen, in view of the fact that the Defence Regulation specifically authorized such a condition, whether the wording of the Clause 1s sufficiently explicit. A further reason, if I may say so, was that my noble friend Lord Llewellin seemed to feel on the Second Reading a preference that if he were to receive poison he should have it from a chemist of good character! I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 29, after ("conditions") insert ("as to character and otherwise").—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am obliged to the noble Lord once again for meeting my point. I believe that what I said was that with a man who had a lot of dealings with poison it was rather a good thing that he should be a man of good character. I thought that if that were so there was less chance, not only of myself but of any other noble Lord, and many other people of the populace, having administered to them the poisons which are in the care of these gentlemen. I was not thinking particularly of myself, but perhaps trying to safeguard all of us from having people without that good character in this extremely responsible position of a chemist or pharmacist.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
5.30 p.m.

RENT RESTRICTION.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER rose to call attention to the law relating to rent restriction, and to the injustice arising therefrom, and to the necessity for the introduction without delay of a new Bill revising and consolidating the existing Acts; and to move for Papers. The noble

761
Viscount said: My Lords, in bringing this matter to your Lordships' notice once again I think it right to say that I am president of two property-owning associations. At the same time it is only fair to add that my personal interest in property of the nature we are discussing is entirely negligible. It would not be right, nor would it be fair to the noble Lords who have been good enough to receive me on these Benches, if I were to put this matter before your Lordships as one in which one section of the community or one Party were aligned against another. Nothing could be further from the truth. As your Lordships are aware, 98 per cent. of the houses in this country are controlled by the Rent Restriction Acts, and nearly every member of the community, be his financial status great or be it small, is affected by these Acts.
I am anxious to avoid, as far as may be, any legal disquisition. I do not want to refer to the complex and confusing Statutes which have so often excited the criticism of His Majesty's Judges. Your Lordships will recollect that the Ridley Committee, which was appointed in 1943 to look into this matter, gave it as their unqualified and unanimous opinion that it was urgently necessary that the "present chaos of overlapping Statutes should be replaced by a single comprehensive Act." There have been in fact sixteen Acts of Parliament. Twenty-five Rules and Regulations have been passed. Six Committees have been appointed to deal with this matter. This list of leading cases in the chief work upon this subject occupies seventeen pages of close print and represents only a minute fraction of the total litigation which these Acts have involved.
In brief, the position is this. Rent restriction was started by an Act of 1914 which, to use its own words, was passed for controlling the rent of "small dwellings." This brought under control these small dwellings at the rent paid on August 3, 1914 A mass of legislation followed, but in substance two results were achieved. First, it became possible to increase rents by 15 per cent. and a further 25 per cent. if the owner were responsible for repairs, making a total permitted increase of 40 per cent. Secondly, in certain circumstances it became possible to secure the decontrol of property. The last World War, or rather the probability of the
762
World War which has just taken place, made it necessary to pass the Act of 1939 which controlled all the houses in London which had a rateable value of £100 and under. It controlled these at the rent payable on September 1, 1939, and it fixed a figure roughly three times that chosen in the Act of 1915.
Now I have finished with these Statutes. The point to which I am trying to take your Lordships is this. The result of this is that you have two different sets of controlled property. You have the property controlled by the Act of 1915, as subsequently amended, "the small dwellings," and you have the property controlled by the Act of 1939. Now it follows that the owners of what I will call the old controlled property are particularly hardly used. Their rents are fixed on a standard existing prior to the First World War, a standard which, even if you allow for the permitted increase, bears no relation to reality. Nor is this the end of the story, for, if when the owner sought to let the house it was in his own occupation—in other words, if it was not then let—then under whatever Act it came you had to go back to the time when it was last let. You may, therefore, not have to go back merely to 1914, but you may have to go back to the Boer war and you may conceivably even have to go back to the Crimean war. There is no limit to the date to which you may have to have recourse.
There is one other way in which I think the owner of these small houses, particularly in the country, was hardly used. I do not propose to touch upon this matter of country property, because I trust other noble Lords more competent than I will deal with it. The man who owned a small property in the country often felt it a social obligation—and indeed, if I may be allowed to say so, it was an obligation of which your Lordships were by no means unconscious—to charge a somewhat lower rent than that which was economically sound for these cottages. He did not wish to be hard on the small tenants. But whether he charged too low a rent or whether, when it subsequently became possible to decontrol his property, he did not take advantage of it, the result in each case is the same. The good landlord is punished and punished always to the full extent of his generosity. The hardship which these Acts occasion is considerable.
It is not right to suppose that every owner of property is a man of great wealth and substance. There are many thousands of small people in this country who have invested their life savings in property only to see these savings gradually disappear, because without recourse to their ever dwindling capital they are unable to keep their property in repair. I hesitate to say how many thousands of houses there are in this country at this moment which are falling into decay and disrepair. Many of them are no longer habitable, and many more will soon cease to be habitable; not a very happy reflection on our attempt to solve this great question of houses.
I have no wish to weary your Lordships with any figures, but I would like, if you will allow me, just in the shortest way to give an illustration of how the cost of two quite simple repairs has risen. If we examine the figures, we find that the cost of retiling a roof—if we take 1935 as the basis—rose by 53 per cent. in 1943, and showed an increase of 117 per cent. in 1946. The cost of repairing a floor, again taking 1935 as the basis, shows an increase of 121 per cent. in 1943 and an increase of 183 per cent. in 1946. Now I particularly wish to stress the date—1943. That was the date when the Ridley Committee was appointed to investigate this matter. Now, while we can accept—and I do accept—that the figure which they gave of an increase in the cost of repairs of 50 to 75 per cent. was entirely accurate then, we must realize that it can bear no relation whatever to the rise which has since taken place; nor is there any sign that this rise is likely to stop. The figures I have given are merely those for 1946, and a further sharp increase has taken place since.
It is not merely the general hardship to which I would like to draw your Lordships' attention. I want, as briefly as I can, to bring to your Lordships' notice one or two particular instances. I have in mind the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, which for the sake of simplicity I would like to be allowed to call the Furnished Houses Act. This Act was passed with the idea of stopping an unduly high charge for furnished accommodation—a purpose with which I am entirely in sympathy—but unfortunate
764
results ensued. What happened was this—it is not altogether easy to explain but I hope I may be able to do so. The owner of property controlled under the earlier Acts, that is to say the owner of property in London of a rateable value of £100 a year or under, who let it at a rent which includes the cost of services, finds himself in a position where he is caught not only under the existing Acts but under the Furnished Houses Act as well. In other words, if he finds, as he will surely find, that the cost of these services in involving him in loss, and he goes to the tribunal and seeks relief on this account, he will be told: "Yes, the claim is just, and we agree you chould have an increase, but the rateable value of your house is under £100 a year and so we can do nothing for you. If it were over £100 a year we should be prepared to assist you." That is a highly anomalous position and one which is quite unjust.
I have in mind a case which has been brought to my notice. A man at the outbreak of war let the upper part of his house—in order that his wife might have some company—at a trifling rent. He undertook to provide certain services. Now what is his position? He is caught in every way. If he were to ask relief from the arrangement on account of the increased cost of services he would be told that nothing could be done. There is no means by which under the Rent Restriction Acts he can increase the rent. There is no means under these Acts whereby he can gain possession of the upper part of his home: indeed he cannot eject the tenant, because his is not a furnished letting. I suggest to your Lordships that that is a most unhappy position. It reminds me almost of the unhappy position in which our old friend Sinbad the Sailor found himself when the Old Man of the Sea twined his legs round Sinbad's neck and refused to be dislodged. In Sinbad's case the dislodgment was achieved by the use of alcohol, a remedy not open to the unfortunate landlord.
The Government have strenuously resisted any legislation to adjust this matter. I venture to say with great respect that it is a great injustice, and I do not believe that in the end any advantage is gained by laws which are based on unjustice. I am encouraged in this view by a quota-

765
tion from a Latin poet with whom your Lordships will be familiar. I will attempt a rough paraphrase, if I may. He said, some 2,000 years ago: What without moral sanction can any laws avail?
I will pass from this aspect of the matter and turn as briefly as I can to the question of the owner who seeks to regain possession in order to live in his house himself. The Ridley Committee, with certain qualifications, said that such a man should be granted this as an act of right. What is the position now? Without going into the law in detail the position is this. If he comes under a certain provision he has to show hardship; he has to show that the hardship of denying him possession is greater than that of ejecting the sitting tenant. If he comes within another category be has to offer alternative accommodation, which is by no means easy. I would like to show your Lordships how hardly this matter presses by reading a very brief extract from two letters. The first says:
"Dear Sir—For five years I have been kept out of my own house by a Rent Restriction Act protected tenant. Whilst I am unable to offer him alternative accommodation I have been compelled to live for five winters in the bottom compartment of an old tramcar together with my two infant children."
Not a very happy state of affairs.
The other letter touches on an even more complex point, which I think might well be brought before your Lordships. The writer of this letter is a man who has let a large house, too large for his own use. The tenant does not need it all for himself. The writer of this letter suggests, not unreasonably, that if he cannot be granted possession of the whole, he might at least be granted a part. The law says: "Yes, you can have possession of part, provided you have a separate kitchen. If you have not got a separate kitchen, you cannot have it. The top part must remain empty." Not a very wise solution to our housing problem. This is what the writer says:
"Twelve months ago I appealed to the County Court for part possession"—
only part possession, your Lordships will note—
"but the judge decided against me, with costs"—
he was penalized for trying to get that which was his—
766
"but it seems that sharing the kitchen ruled out all alternative accommodation. As a consequence my wife is continuing to live a difficult and lonely life in Birmingham and I am obliged to reside in a London hotel."
We have in fact a position where a man who has executed a lease, or concluded an agreement and who after giving proper notice tries to get back that which, by law and right, he thought was his own. But he cannot have it. Everything he believed in, legal agreements, leases, the sanctity of contract, apparently mean nothing. Not a very happy position; and I trust the noble and learned Viscount who will reply shares my view.
We might ask in such a case why, when the Ridley Committee so strongly recommended that something should be done the Government so strenuously refuse to take any action in this matter. It cannot be, I think, because the demands that have been put forward are immoderate. I myself have endeavoured to couch this Motion in terms with which none could quarrel. If I were asked for a solution to this problem I would say that the findings of the Ridley Committee form a sound basis for negotiation. I would qualify it to this extent, that I feel that the tribunals which the Ridley Committee proposed should be set up should not be composed of the same personnel as the tribunals under the Furnished Houses Act. As your Lordships are aware, the Minister, when he introduced this Act, said that it was a "rent reducing" Act. He meant these tribunals to reduce rents; he did not intend them to have any power to increase rents at all. It was only by an Amendment in your Lordships' House that a modification of this most unjust principle was secured. Further, I feel, that the appointment of the members of these tribunals should rest not with the Minister, whoever he may be, but with the Lord Chancellor of the day who, if I may say so, although his appointment may be political is, by his legal training and experience, better qualified than any other person to choose the personnel of these tribunals. We can only rely on his discretion to see that the tribunals are not fettered in their instructions by Party bias.
In regard to repairs, the Ridley Committee recommended that after an interval of three years a special Committee should be set up to deal with this matter. I

767
have tried to show how much repairs have risen since the Committee was appointed up to the present date. I venture to think that the ground has altogether slipped away from under their feet and that there is an urgent case for some relief in regard to repairs forthwith. If no such relief can be granted, then I think that a technical Committee should be appointed without any further delay.
I have always been deeply conscious, if I may say so, of the courtesy and patience with which the noble and learned Viscount who will reply has listened to me whenever I have addressed him. I have not, therefore, pressed this matter with the force and vigour with which I have felt inclined. I have tried to be moderate in my views and in the expression of them. I only hope that the noble and learned Viscount may give some assurance of early action, and that at least I may have convinced him that this demand for a reform of these Acts is something which cannot with reason or with justice any longer be resisted. I beg to move for Papers.
5.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for only a short time in attempting to follow my noble friend Lord Buckmaster in setting out the facts which result in our being face to face with a crying scandal which calls for immediate redress. In saying that, I am really saying what I feel most sincerely, and I can express it with more straightforwardness because I am in favour of rent restriction and, in particular, of the modern alteration of the law which applies rent restriction to what are generally called furnished lodgings. But it is the injustice which is embodied in these Acts of Parliament—a number of which some of your Lordships must have heard of with surprise—and the extraordinarily confused language in which some of them are now expressed, which have largely led to the difficulties of landlords of all kinds, rich and poor. There is hardly a County Court Judge in the land who has not said that he does not know what the Acts mean. Some of the decisions have ultimately gone to the Court of Appeal, and there Judge after Judge has said that he has never come across anything which beats the complexity with which he is faced. The late
768
Lord Mackinnon expressed the matter in a very pungent way only a short time before his lamented death.
With all this complexity of obscure legislation before us, it is not surprising that a supervening event—namely, the enormous rise in the costs of repairs of any sort—has made matters worse than they were before. The result, therefore, is that many of the poorer landlords are quite unable to carry out urgently needed repairs to their property. It is not surprising, as my noble friend has said, that many men who, perhaps with their wives and even with their families, have towards the end of their lives put all their savings into buying the small houses in which they have lived, have subsequently had to leave those houses owing to the increased cost of living. They have let their houses and they are liable for the cost of repairing them. They simply have not the money to do it, as things are, and they know perfectly well that if they were able to borrow it they would not be able to get back in increased rent anything like the sum they would have to spend. It is the fact, as noble Lords who are acquainted with the countryside will tell you, that there are thousands of houses in this country belonging to landlords who are unable to repair them, which are gradually getting worse and worse. That is indirectly adding greatly to the difficulty of the housing situation.
Then there are many landlords—I know some of them myself who are members of this House—who have numbers of houses, sometimes on their own estates and sometimes elsewhere, which they let to people at less than one-third of the present economic value of those houses. That is not uncommon, and yet it is justified by the present Acts of Parliament. I think it is perfectly dreadful. However, the lack of time, which no doubt is pleaded as a reason for not doing anything to improve the present state of things, is considered as a ground for once more putting off this badly needed legislation the introduction of which has been urged so often in this House.
I am not going to repeat the history of the legislation with which I once, I am afraid, detained the House, and the long series of Acts which I sought to explain and the rather strong language I used with regard to the whole matter. Those who have taken any interest in these topics

769
will perhaps be able to remember some of the things I said, and I will not repeat them. I would say that all the charges that are being made to-day by my noble friend Lord Buckmaster are fully justified, and that the law with regard to the present position of affairs has been expounded absolutely accurately by him. I can see no exaggeration in his story of the whole set-up. I venture to think that there is the strongest possible ground for urging the Government—not on any Party ground, for to me this is not a Party question at all, but on the ground of the justice of the case and the great advantage which would be gained by a complete reconstruction of rent restriction legislation—to see if it is not possible to bring in a measure which will consolidate and improve the present legislation and remove some of the distressing injustices which that legislation imposes upon so many people.
My noble friend has mentioned some personal cases, and I could mention others. I went down to a County Court more than once to hear these cases disposed of, and I was staggered by stories of hardship which people were telling the learned County Court Judge. I have heard of many people who are living in outhouses; I have heard of one family which is living in an old pig sty. Such cases as those are caused by the impossibility of getting fair play for landlords, and the absence of inducements to improve the premises they have let, and to put new roofs on houses which have defective roofs. There is—I will not shrink from it—the further necessity of imposing rents which are to some extent economic upon many people in this country who are entitled, or whose families are entitled, to remain in occupation of premises at a half or a third of the economic rent, notwithstanding the enormous increase in the value of their houses. This is due, simply and solely, to the unjust Acts of Parliament which are now upon the Statute Book.
The improvements which we suggest are not suggested in the name of Party. A good Act of Parliament in this matter would be a mainly uncontroversial matter, and I think all noble Lords in this House would do their very best, even if they hoped for something better at a future date, to help such legislation to be passed by the present Government. I have nothing more to add to the remarks of my
770
noble friend, Lord Buckmaster, except to say that everybody who heard his speech will feel that all he said was well justified.
6.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I do not propose to detain you long on this subject, because I cannot speak with the detailed and intimate knowledge of rent restriction that has been displayed by my noble friend, Lord Buckmaster, and by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham. I think both of them have made it quite clear that the complexity of the legislation dealing with rent restriction is such as to cry out for some consolidating and revisionary measure as soon as possible. If further argument is required in that direction, I have in my hand a memorandum prepared by the Ministry of Health purporting to answer some of the questions which are often; put to the Minister of Health on the subject of rent control. In its preface emphasis is over and over again laid upon the fact that you must consult a solicitor. It goes even to the extent of twice putting those words in italics. It is deplorable that a Government Department should have to say to a large part of the population that, in dealing with problems which affect their very living, they must consult a solicitor. It may be added that those problems in the main affect the poorer and less educated members of the population.
Although there may be a great deal of litigation on the subject of rent restriction, how many cases are there that ought to be brought but are not brought because the people who are being injured or who are suffering under this legislation may not have the knowledge or the experience to go to a solicitor? We cannot blame His Majesty's Government for the complexities of the legislation; they are not responsible for all the laws that were passed with regard to rent restriction. The only blame that can attach to them is if they are not prepared to try and remedy the wrong that is there. I trust that the noble and learned Viscount when he replies may, at long last, be able to give us some hope that some genuine consideration will be given to this matter.
So far as rent control is concerned, I imagine that its original purpose was, first, to ensure that wage earners should not have to pay too much rent. With this object was coupled a hope that, by keeping rents down, there would be no

771
necessity, on account of higher rents, for wages to rise. In that way it was hoped to counteract any inflationary tendencies that may have existed when rent restriction first started. There is, to-day, a further reason, and that is to prevent the exploitation of individuals through the scarcity of houses. I am rather doubtful of the rightness of the first reason, if it is a genuine reason—the attempt to prevent inflationary tendencies by keeping down rent—but I am quite certain that there must be some control of rents while the present scarcity of houses continues. It would be all wrong that there should be an exploitation, especially of the poorer people, on account of the known scarcity of houses.
My main experience in rent restriction lies in the country districts. Perhaps some of my arguments may apply to the towns, but I will use them mainly in reference to the country districts. My first and main point is that the artificial restriction of rents is, in fact, a concealed subsidy to wages which the wage earner does not realize, and it is a subsidy which is not paid by the general public. It is paid by the houseowner almost individually to the man who occupies the house. Wage earners who live in houses in the country districts have not even yet realized the extent of the subsidy they are getting. That has this effect. There are some new houses which are appearing in the country districts, and there are some which were built during the war when Mr. Hudson was at the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. I think 3,000 houses were built in those days in rural districts, and they were built as a first instalment to improve conditions in the country. Those houses were supposed to be let to agricultural workers at a rent of 10s. 6d. a week. It would be extremely interesting to know how many agricultural workers in fact actually went into them. I know of a number of cases where, after completion, the houses remained empty for quite a considerable time, because an agricultural worker could not be found to pay 10s. 6d. a week rent when his neighbour, in a controlled house, was paying 3s., 4s., or it may be 5s. This controlled house may have been just as good, but it probably was not. Even so, the agricultural worker could not see the logic of paying double the rent which a man earning exactly the same money
772
wages as himself was paying. It will be more interesting still when houses which are being built by local authorities under the present difficult conditions are ready in country districts—and I understand that there is going to be a very definite priority for houses in country districts—to see whether farm workers can be persuaded to go into them, at the rents which will, necessarily, have to be asked for them.
The only other fact upon which I wish to lay emphasis is one which has already been touched upon by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. That is that the permitted increases above the standard rent do not compare in any way with the actual increases in the cost of maintenance today. It is quite true that the wealthier owners of houses in country districts have, generally, made it a point of honour to keep their cottages in decent order, even though it costs them a great deal of money. But there are great numbers of people, again in country districts—the owner-occupier, for instance, who, between the wars and even now, is still being virtually compelled to buy his farm at a high price in order to retain possession of it—who cannot afford to dip their hands very deeply into their pockets for over and above the amounts of the rents they are getting for their cottages. The result is that the minimum is done in the way of repairs to a very large number of cottages, and, consequently, there is, in many cases, a definite lowering of the standard of living and accommodation. That, to my mind, is a state of affairs which, in view of the necessity of getting the right type of labour and the right numbers of wage-earners into agriculture, is almost disastrous, for we do want to give them not only good jobs, but also good homes.
It is only in this way that we shall attract the men to our agricultural industry who ought to be in it. On that account, therefore, I think there is some very clear case for a revision in order to bring the rents that can be charged under rent restriction somewhere in line with the rents that will be charged for the new houses that are coming along. Otherwise, you will find that the new houses will not be occupied by the people who are wanted on the land, and the standard of life of those who remain on the land will go down. I hope, therefore, that at least there will be a sympathetic answer from the noble and learned Viscount who sits

773
on the Woolsack, because I think it is so clear that this particular problem is not merely one of helping the landowner and the landlord of houses out of a hole—and he is in a hole in many cases—but that it has far wider social implications which ought to be pat right.
6.14 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I hope that the Government will be able to deal with this matter, and, among other things, with the following aspect of it. During the war, many thousands of houses which were controlled by the Rent Restrictions Acts were totally destroyed by enemy action. Some thousands of those houses have been rebuilt, or will be rebuilt, with the assistance of a cost-of-works payment. That is to say, there will, in those cases, be a new structure on the site of the old house. That new structure may be identical with the old house or it may differ in some respects, possibly substantial respects, from the old house. The question arises as to whether the Rent Restrictions Acts do or do not apply to the new structure.
Then there is another matter that requires consideration, and that is the position of the statutory tenants in these cases. As your Lordships well know, under the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) (Amendment) Act, 1941, it is provided, in effect, that the whole system of disclaimers and notices of conditional retention do not apply to short tenancies, and all these houses about which we are talking to-day are held under short tenancies. Suppose that the tenant of a controlled house which was totally destroyed by enemy action desires to occupy the new structure which has been erected on the site of his former house. Is he entitled to do so, and, moreover, what is the position with regard to the standard rent of the new house? I may say that this is a most complicated question, and I have no doubt at all that I have ceased entirely to elucidate it.
But let me add this. A few months ago, I put down a question on this point on the Order paper, and, in due course, I received a most courteous and helpful reply from the appropriate Government Department in a lengthy memorandum. In that memorandum the appropriate Government Department said two things: first of all, that any questions relating to the Rent Restrictions Acts have to be
774
decided by the Courts; secondly, that it was not the intention of the Government to deal with the matter piecemeal, but they intended to deal with it at some future time in a comprehensive manner. I would respectfully submit that for the reasons which have been stated this afternoon, the time has now come when all these questions should be dealt with in a new and revised and consolidated Act, having regard, among other matters, to that aspect of the case to which I have just referred—namely, the application of the Rent Restrictions Acts to houses which have been erected on the site of controlled houses which have been totally destroyed by enemy action.
6.18 p.m.
LORD MIDDLETON: My Lords, very briefly, I would like to reinforce what the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has said, in respect of cottages in rural England. When I began to study estate management and agriculture, nearly 25 years ago, I was informed that no agricultural landlord ever expected a cash dividend from the money spent on building cottages. The small rents charged constituted a fund for the maintenance, repair and improvement of cottages when necessary. If I venture to say something of my own property in the East Riding of Yorkshire, it is because it is typical of a great many other estates in the North and East Ridings. Rents have not been raised within living memory, and the rents were fixed when the occupants of the cottages were receiving wages of from 16s. to 18s. a week. To-day the minimum wage for the agricultural worker is £4 10s. At my Last Riding property, for 117 cottages I receive an average rent of 2s. 0½ d. a week. It is very difficult, indeed, to create a fund from these small rents that will meet the cost of any kind of repairs at all.
The noble Viscount Lord Buckmaster, has mentioned repairs to roofs. I would mention another repair which is frequently required at cottages, and that is to kitchen ranges. The lives of these ranges depend, of course, upon the competence of the occupiers wives. Up till 1939, one could get at wholesale rates from Sheffield quite adequate kitchen ranges for little more than 50s. To-day they cost £23 10s.—that is about 4½ years' rent. And the cost of roofs, sinks and other things is more or less in proportion. I do not sug-

775
gest that all controls should be removed, but there are bodies in rural England—housing committees and rural district councils—who should be competent to judge to what extent rent should be raised. We are not asking for anything unfair. I know many of my old employees, when they realize how difficult it is to find money from other sources to supplement this cottage repair fund, say, "Why don't you put up the rent?" The answer is, we cannot do it. I do not think there should be any ill-feeling about it. With proper control, it is a matter which should be attended to forthwith.
6.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I do not claim any special knowledge of this very complicated matter and the only reason I am speaking is that I am President of the National Federation of Housing Societies, which have recently felt impelled to put to the Minister of Health a very detailed case showing the great difficulties they are getting into owing to the operations of the Rent Restrictions Acts in their present form. The housing societies are not pleading a special position and the remedies they are suggesting to meet their case are not of a kind which could form a precedent for any other class of owner. For that reason and because the matter is a public question, I do not propose to say anything about the solution to their troubles. But I think the evidence they have produced is of a wider interest and certainly does bear out what has already been said to-day.
Their main conclusion is that the present cost of labour and materials bears no kind of relation to the scale of the permitted increases of rent. For that reason the societies are apprehensive as to the future of their properties, which are progressively deteriorating, unless something is done. Whereas the Ridley Committee, bearing out what has already been stated by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, reported that in 1943 there was no evidence to show that the cost had gone up by more than fifty per cent. on the 1939 costs, the housing societies say that by their experience the costs of labour and materials in 1947 are at least double and sometimes almost three times what they were in 1939. A secondary conclusion they have come to is that a certain amount of available accommoda-
776
tion is being wasted because the Rent Restrictions Acts prevent the societies from moving tenants from larger to smaller houses, and vice versa, to fit in with the size of their families.
I do not wish to weary your Lordships with elaborate statistics to prove these points, though I have a good number of them here. I think it is sufficient to remind your Lordships that these societies are largely philanthropic in origin and control some sixty thousand houses. They have a very long and practical experience in the management of working-class houses; and they are not hard-fisted business men trying to get the last pound of flesh from the tenants. In fact, the maximum profit they can make is on a standard fixed by the Treasury. I think the main motive that inspires these housing societies is a sort of missionary zeal to carry out what they regard as a very high form of public service. I hope that your Lordships will not deduce anything to the contrary from the fact that I happen to be President of this Federation. When people of this kind talk, as they are doing, of grave concern, of running into debt and of being completely crippled because of the effect of the Rent Restrictions Acts, I am sure your Lordships believe these are plain factual statements and not exaggerations put up by any Party or sectional interest. Indeed, many members of these societies are very loyal supporters of the present Government.
I cannot believe that these conclusions are confined to housing societies only. We have had some very convincing cases put up by other noble Lords. As the owner of agricultural land, I am always surprised at the extraordinary, crazy anomalies in rent that seem to be inevitable under these Acts and it seems extremely difficult to give estate and farm employees any fairness of treatment. I have no expert knowledge and therefore I do not feel qualified to make any suggestions except that the position ought to be reviewed by people who are qualified. I feel there might be something to be said for some greater degree of flexibility, so that these cases could be treated more on their own merits and not as precedents for some other case of an entirely different kind. I cannot believe that the interests of housing are being served by allowing matters to drift as they are at present.
6.28 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I think we all agree that the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has raised to-day a very important matter. It is certainly one which may be represented to the Government as a very urgent problem and one about which they should as soon as possible try to do something. I am very glad to be able to give support to my noble friend's Motion. Many anomalies have grown up under these Rent Restrictions Acts. There are no fewer than ten of these Acts existing contemporaneously with one another, and superimposed on them is the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act. So that is eleven—a little team. It is obviously most confusing for the ordinary man to find his way about this conflicting mass on the Statute Book. That is not the fault of the present Government and I am not suggesting it is. It is part of their inheritance. But the time has surely come to get, at any rate, a consolidating measure.
The first step towards getting a new Consolidation Bill amended up to date was the appointment of a Committee, over which the noble Lord, Lord Ridley, so ably presided. Its findings have been available now for some thirty months. It is not only the complexity of the legislation but the way it is working in practice, in every village and town, which disturbs me. One house which may never have been under the Rent Restrictions Acts stands in a row exactly similar to the house next door which is under those Acts. In some cases of houses that are semidetached and are exactly the same except that in one the door is on the right and in the other the door is on the left, one is under an uncontrolled rent of, say, 20s. or 25s. a week while the other is still at its original rent-restricted or standard rent, plus, perhaps, an increase for repairs.
I cannot understand why the Government have not done anything about this subject. It is not such a non-controversial matter as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, would have one believe, and certainly—I can see them sticking out a mile—it presents a lot of very thorny problems. The real controversy on this matter is not between the Party that sits on these Benches and the Party that sits on the Government Benches, but between those who prefer the short view rather than the long view. In the short view,
778
of course, if you do something to solve this problem it must mean in a number of cases increasing the rents of a certain number of people. That will never be popular. On the other hand, taking the long view, if you do not do something to enable these houses to be kept in a proper state of repair, then you are postponing for years the day when this problem will be ultimately solved by having enough houses for the whole population, when controls can be taken off altogether.
Why do I say that they cannot be kept in repair? The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, touched on this point. If you take a house—and there are a lot of them—which in 1914 was let at 3s. a week, the utmost increase the landlord can have on that runt brings it up to 4s. 3d. a week. That rent equals £ 11 a year. Incidentally, at my own home—if I may quote my case, as the noble Lord cited his—we have long had a house let at 3s. a week. We have not in fact put on the increase, although I suppose we might have done so. It is a thatched cottage, and this year it needed a new roof. It will take seven years of the rent of that cottage to pay for that thatched roof. We did it, and are glad to have done it, but a large number of owners of cottages of that sort cannot afford to do it. Many indeed are in that position. After all, when the 25 per cent. increase for repairs was incorporated in the Rent Restrictions Acts the wages of bricklayers, joiners and plumbers were in the neighbourhood of 8d. and 10d. an hour, and now they have gone up to something in the neighbourhood of 3s. 7d. an hour. That is a figure I have had given to me, and I gather that quite a number of them can get 3s. 7d._ an hour. As the noble Viscount, Lord, Buckmaster, said, materials have gone up considerably in price. Since 1914 they have certainly gone: up 200 per cent. As a result, the 25 percent. increase for repairs is obviously not enough to carry out the repairs, and, therefore, even corporations which run housing estates—like the Peabody Trust, which run them largely for charitable purposes—find it very difficult to make both ends meet, while the small person who puts some savings; in houses has not got the money, and those houses are getting into a worse condition every day. I think something will have to be done about it.

779
The local authorities are doing it. The houses of the local authorities, as your Lordships know, are not under the control of the Rent Restrictions Acts. In the last year twenty-one local authorities, varying in the composition of their councils considerably, have put up the rent of their houses in order to meet these increased charges. They are allowed to do it, but the small man who has got a few houses cannot increase the rent at all because he comes under the Rent Restrictions Acts. It is being done by authorities as far apart as Hove on the south coast, up to Morayshire in the far north of Scotland; from Chatham to the Menai Bridge authority, taking a diagonal from east to west; and they cover a considerable area of the country at the present time. It is, indeed, an anomaly that these local authorities are allowed to charge an economic rent that will cover repairs while the ordinary private owner is still restricted by the Rent Restrictions Acts.
I do not want to keep your Lordships very long. There are some extremely good suggestions made in the Ridley Report, if I may say so. I hope we may get something in the nature of a tribunal which can go into individual cases, look at particular districts to see where the anomalies lie, and work them out as common-sense men without any restrictive terms in the Statute such as the 5 per cent. rise if you do one thing, and 25 per cent. if you do the repairs, and so on. Another anomaly has been referred to to-day with reference to service. Your Lordships' House prevented it happening in certain cases where there was a contract to provide a certain amount of service, and the cost of the coal, the cost of wages of the lift man, and so on, had gone up so much, that the landlord could not afford to carry out the service on the rent he was getting. That anomaly was removed in the case of a house of a rateable value of over £100. But if there is some service in the case of a house under the rateable value of £100 in London, and £75 in the provinces, then the man has still got to provide that service, although the rent he may get from his tenants does not provide enough to enable him to pay for that service, for which in normal times he would have charged more. I do hope that problem can be dealt with at the same time.
780
As I said, the Ridley Committee reported nearly thirty months ago. We had a discussion in this House almost twelve months ago, when we had a very sympathetic speech from the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, whom I see sitting opposite. He then said, talking about the Government (I quote from Hansard of December 12 last):
"They fully sympathize with the expressions which have been advanced in support of those points, but they cannot see their way clear to formulate any legislative proposals on those heads just now"
I would like to ask the Government how long "just now" lasts, because that was very nearly a year ago.
"They do not expect that they will be able to take effect earlier than, say"—
he put in the word "say," which was perhaps lucky—
"sometime in 1947"—
not to be introduced, but to take effect—
"Whether or not the expressions of the two noble Lords in the House this afternoon"—
that is, the noble Viscount, Lord Buck-master, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham—
"will have some effect in accelerating that, I am unable to say. Of course, it will also depend upon the rate of progress made in other matters"
Well, we have made pretty good progress in other matters in the last two years. I support my noble friend's Motion. Let us now make some progress in this matter also.
6.41 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very much afraid that the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, will not be pleased at what I am going to say. When this matter was debated on December 12, 1945, he quoted Burton's lines:
"… Fortune and Hope adieu;
Mock me no more, for I have done with you."
He did not give the preceding words:
"Mine haven's found"
Perhaps he can now say that more rightly, having regard to his new position on the Bench where he now sits. It is the fact that he then expressed some degree of impatience, but I am afraid that although nearly two years have passed we are in the same position. The noble Lord, Lord Ammon, was always a cheery optimist,

781
perhaps a bit too optimistic, but we still hope that before an undue time has elapsed we shall be able to bring in this very necessary measure, for I quite agree that it is a. necessary measure. It is quite inaccurate to say that we have strenuously refused to bring it in, unless the mere failure to bring it in is something from which you can infer refusal.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I was referring to the refusal in another place to make any concession over this question of increase of rent for services.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That certainly we strenuously refute, and I will deal with that in a moment. We want to follow out the recommendations of the Ridley Report. Let us see what the Ridley Report said on this. Their recommendation in paragraph 31—the words are printed in italics—was this:
"In our opinion it is urgently necessary that: the present chaos of overlapping statutes should be replaced by a single comprehensive Act in which the whole law relating to rent control should be clearly set out and we recommend accordingly"
Then, in the next paragraph they say this:
"We are emphatic on the necessity for this new simplified legislation and we feel bound to say that all the recommendations we make are based on this premise. If this recommendation is not accepted, we should have no confidence in putting forward the rest of this Report."
I entirely agree with the Ridley Committee. I will come presently to the detailed matters which the noble Viscount mentioned, in regard to which they said they did not recommend that these things should be done apart from the fulfilment of the major premise; that is to say, a complete comprehensive review.
I am bound to tell your Lordships this. In my view it is an exceedingly complicated and an exceedingly difficult piece of work. I think any of your Lordships who have had any acquaintance with this subject at all will realize that. Further, as an old House of Commons man—the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, was also trained there, and we have had some experience of such Bills there—I think we may both fairly assert that this is a highly controversial matter. It is no good saying it is not. Therefore, we are confronted—if we accept the major premise of the Ridley Committee—with an exceedingly difficult piece of work and
782
a lengthy piece of work which, in my view at any rate, is likely to prove highly controversial. Now what should we do? We accept (if this is any consolation to the noble Viscount) the recommendation of the Ridley Committee that the only thing to do is to have one Statute setting out as clearly as possible what are the rights and obligations. Are we to abandon that hope? Quite frankly, we cannot introduce such a Bill this Session.
I am struggling, and struggling without success, to make room this Session for a Bill which I believe is very necessary, quite simple and wholly uncontroversial—namely, my Legal Aid Bill. Up to the present time, however, I have not been able to get that Bill into this Session's programme. If I cannot do that, if is perfectly idle to think that we can get this immense piece of legislation into the programme. Therefore, I am afraid that all I can say to the noble Viscount is that, although I entirely agree with what he. is saying and with what noble Lords in all parts of the House have said, that it is deplorable that the present chaos of Statutes and uncertainty should go on, yet I can say, for this Session at any rate, that it is manifestly impossible for us to carry out this major premise of the Ridley Report. We cannot introduce such a comprehensive piece of legislation at present.
What follows? We might of course abandon the idea of bringing in comprehensive legislation and deal with the particular matters which the noble Viscount mentioned. Let us understand that if we do that, we are departing entirely from what the Ridley Committee recommended. I will take first of all, if I may, the principle of a flat increase in rent in view of the enormously increased cost of repairs. I will read from the bottom of page 24, paragraph 79, where, after dealing with the increased cost of repairs, the Committee point out how sharp the increases are. They indicate that such costs may go on increasing after the date of their Report—I think their Report was dated February, 1945—and then they say this:
"It seems to us an inescapable conclusion that, in view of the different levels of rents prevailing, a flat rate percentage increase applied to all controlled houses would fail to achieve the fairness of rents at which we am, and would merely have the effect of perpetuating and exaggerating the disparities and anomalies that now exist … "

783
They begin paragraph 80 by saying:
"For these reasons we have come to the conclusion that we cannot recommend any general increase in rents to meet the increased cost of repairs"
Those of your Lordships who advocate this particular piece of legislation, on the ground that it would be carrying out the recommendation of the Ridley Committee, are doing so under a complete misapprehension. The Ridley Report is emphatic that that should not be done, and in the same way has regard to the increase by reason of the provision of services. May I read from the top of page 26 of the Report, which I think sums up the matter? They are dealing there with the increased cost, and in the first line on page 26 they say:
"The amount of the increase must obviously depend on the services provided in each individual case. This is a question eminently suitable, in our view, for decision by the Rent Tribunals, who will be able to decide on the appropriate increase on the evidence produced to them" There again, their recommendation, as we all know, was to set up these tribunals. There would be something like 200 of them set up for the purpose of dealing with the question of increased rent by reason of the increased cost of repairs or of the added cost of provision of services. They did not recommend—in fact they negatived—the idea, that these matters should be dealt with by an express particular rate increase, such as was done in 1920 over and above the 1914 rates.
There is one other matter which the noble Viscount specifically mentioned, and here, I think, is the only point on which I am inclined to part company, though I do not say my mind is made up. It is the question whether the owner of a house should, by reason of his right of property in the house, have an absolute right to recover possession of the house without regard to the question of comparative hardship. That was a matter on which there was dissent on the Committee. The members of my Party who served on the Committee thought that there should be no such absolute right. We all, I hope, respect the rights of property, but there are occasions when we are apt, rightly as I think, to disregard the rights of property, having regard to other considerations. The illustration I always give is of people who find themselves in a lifeboat, their ship having sunk. No one would be allowed to keep
784
to himself a tin of biscuits or a bottle of water on the ground that it was "his" water or "his" biscuits. I confess that when we are dealing with this tragedy of the shortage of houses—for it is a tragedy—I should not think it right to enable a man to acquire possession of a house which, for instance, he wanted as a "week-end cottage, displacing some woman with young children who was living there and had nowhere else to go. I should think it would be wrong and I would not be prepared to accede to any such proposition, though I think it should be considered as a relevant factor. Speaking for myself—and this matter, let me be quite frank, has not been considered by the Government—I cannot accede to the proposition that the mere fact that a house belongs to a man should entitle him, without any consideration of hardship or comparative hardship, to turn out the sitting tenant. But that is obviously a matter which would have to be considered, and it is likely to prove a highly controversial one.
For the rest I am afraid I can only say this. I have complaints made to me very frequently about the decisions of County Court Judges. I do not attempt to interfere with the discretion of the County Court Judge. I find out what are the facts, and I find that it often happens that the person who has written to me has the story from one side and does not know the story put forward by the other. The stories on both sides are very often heart-breaking, and one realizes the extraordinarily difficult job these County Court Judges have to do; and they feel it very deeply. I would like to say, having surveyed a great many of the decisions, that I am full of admiration for the way in which the County Court Judges are discharging this task. It is a trite saying, but obviously there is only one satisfactory solution of this problem, as we should all agree, and that is to build more houses. At present there are married couples who are not able to get a house of their own and are living under difficult conditions. The social trouble and social disadvantages of this situation are frightful. But while I agree that the landlord, in the cases that have been mentioned, has a real grievance in the matter of the cost of repairs, there are other and more serious grievances and consequences which come from the shortage of houses.

785
We are deeply conscious of the problem here involved. It is a very real problem. We are anxious to deal with it, but it is a long, complicated, difficult and probably contentious task. There is no chance of dealing with it this Session and I cannot say whether there will be a chance of dealing with it next Session; but it is quite obvious that sooner or later, however difficult and however lengthy it may be, it is a task that any Government will have to face and must attempt to solve. That, I regret to say, is the only consolation—if it is a consolation—I can give the noble Viscount: the fact that we accept what I think is a major premise of the Ridley Report and that we shall, as soon as may be, try to carry it out.
6.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, before I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his reply, there are too small points which I should like to make. The first is that I personally am, and always have been, in favour of a measure of rent control in times of crisis or emergency. The second point: is that the Ridley Committee were appointed in 1943, and issued their findings in 1945, although it appears clear to me that they accepted 1043 as the date on which they based their calculations in regard to repairs. In reply to the noble and learned Viscount, I have not yet abandoned all hope, although I am somewhat shaken by his reply, which I will not attempt at this hour to deal with in detail. There is one thing, however, which I feel I should say. The noble and learned Viscount said that these matters can be dealt with only by one complete and comprehensive Act. I would venture to remind him that the Government who are now so anxious to apply this salutary principle against me have already departed from it. If I may draw your Lordships' attention to Section 7 of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, it provides that Sections 9 and 10 of the Act of 1920 do not apply. The Government have already interfered with rent restriction and have thereby departed from the sacrosanct principle that is now invoked against me. I am disappointed with the noble and learned Viscount's reply and I must feel myself free, as indeed I am, to raise the matter again at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

EMPLOYMENT OF POLISH NATIONALS.
6.58 p.m.
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government, what progress is being made with the absorption into employment of our late Allies the Polish nationals at present in this country. The noble Lord said: My Lords, recently this question of the employment of Poles was raised in your Lordships' House; and in reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and myself, the noble, Viscount, Lord Hall, gave a reply which I felt obliged to challenge. Since then I have had a courteous communication from Lord Hall. I fully realize that for me to challenge the correctness of the reply which was given was an unusual line to take. In order to clarify the position perhaps your Lordships will permit me to read a brief quotation from Hansard of Tuesday, November 4,
"The range of employment offered is so wide that no Pole has been impeded by any cause from taking up employment."
I am grateful for the noble Lord's courtesy in the qualification of this paragraph by the addition of the words "without the offer of alternative employment," which does of course in a considerable degree change the sense of the sentence which was used by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, in his reply.
This question is motivated partly by considerations of sentiment, but more particularly from anxieties about loss of production. It had been the intention of other noble Lords to take part in this discussion this afternoon, notably the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, but, thanks to the initiative of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, an opportunity has been offered for a discussion with himself and the Ministry of Labour officials in which to explain the anxiety there is as to the manner in which the Polish Resettlement Act, passed by Parliament, is being implemented, and the belief that the measure needs some revision. It was thought that this could be effected by two particular suggestions. One was that there should be instituted a link on various levels between the Polish Resettlement Corps units and the Ministry of Labour channels. The other was that the time appears to have arrived for new consultations between the Government and the trade unions in an effort to reach

787
agreement on matters of alleged difficulty. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, has been good enough to agree that he not only will look into the matter, but will use his offices to try to secure discussion in the proper manner which may result in correction of some of these difficulties. It seems much more convenient that this matter should be dealt with in this way, but, failing the results which there are naturally good grounds now to expect, it would be more effectively dealt with by debate on a proper Motion in this House at a later date. I therefore would change the character of the question which I put, in the hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, will be able to give me some confirmation of the impressions which I have given.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, I rise to confirm what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby. I have discussed with him various matters concerning the resettlement of Poles in this country, and I have heard from him that there are certain matters of detail and one or two of principle. The noble Lord has readily agreed to a suggestion which was made, that these matters can be adjusted probably better as the result of a conference between himself, myself and any other noble Lords interested in this matter with representatives of the Ministry of Labour. I repeat that suggestion which has been made.
I would like to take this opportunity of stating that the resettlement of the Poles is certainly proceeding at a fairly rapid rate. Your Lordships will be interested to know that, of the 101,000 Poles who belonged to the Polish Resettlement Corps, nearly 50,000 have already been placed in employment, 10,000 have left this country (some to go to Poland), and there are now left some 40,000 to be resettled. Those Poles have been resettled at the rate of 1,000 per week. There is approved employment awaiting them, and it is rather interesting to note that very much of the prejudice which did exist at one time amongst trade unions, and, indeed, employers' representatives, has now given way and in a very large number of industries—including the mining
788
industry, which, after all, is a most suitable industry for quite a number of Poles, and the agricultural industry—there is little difficulty about getting them placed when they become available. I certainly am prepared to do what I possibly can to smooth out any of the difficulties which the noble Lord and his colleagues have in mind.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, mentioned my name, I should like to say that I welcome very heartily the statement which the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, has just made. There are undoubtedly difficulties to be faced still, but they would be much more easily ironed out by a conference round a table than across the floor of your Lordships' House.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the

Borough of Grantham;

Urban District of Bicester;

Urban District of Filey;

Urban District of Ross-on-Wye;

Urban District of Shipley;

Rural District of Wayland;

Borough of Aldeburgh;

Borough of St. Ives (Hunts.);

Urban District of Long Eaton;

Urban District of Otley;

Urban District of Seaton Valley;

Rural District of North Cotswold:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.

MANCHESTER GAS ORDER, 1947.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and citizens of the City of Manchester:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at seven minutes past seven o'clock.