Lords Sitting of 30 June 1948

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

  STATE OF EMERGENCY—HUMBLE ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY.
  2.34 p.m.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, in moving that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty thanking His Majesty for his most gracious Message which I read yesterday, I know I shall be voicing the thoughts of all here to-day and of the majority of our fellow citizens when I say how glad we are that better counsels have prevailed and that the dock workers have returned to their duties. In these happier circumstances the making of regulations under the Emergency Powers Act, which are already in draft, is no longer necessary.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, thanking His Majesty for His Most Gracious Message, communicating to this House His Majesty's Declaration that a state of emergency exists within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920.—(Viscount Addison.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to associate those who sit on these Benches with the humble Address to His Majesty which has been moved by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I should like also to join with him in the satisfaction he has expressed at the decision of the workers to return to work. We are all glad that, as so often is the case in this country, the counsels of prudence, wisdom and moderation have prevailed, and I hope with the noble Viscount that the emergency powers will now not be necessary. I do not want to say anything which in any circumstances would cause friction at the present time. We can only hope that a solution satisfactory to all concerned of the past unhappy dispute will
  90
  now be reached by the two tried methods of conciliation and collective bargaining which have made the trade union system in this country so justly respected in the world.
  On Question, Motion agreed to remine dissentiente; the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the Consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Children Bill [H.L.] over the other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Viscount Addison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  MIGRATION COSTS.
  LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government, the cost to the taxpayer in helping English and Scottish nationals to emigrate since April 5, 1946, to the nearest convenient date, and also the cost to the taxpayer in facilitating the immigration to this country of European voluntary workers including the cost of their training and maintenance.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, the cost to the Exchequer in helping British men and women to emigrate under the schemes for free or assisted passages from their inception in March, 1947, to May 31, 1948, was approximately £500,000. The estimated cost to the Exchequer of recruiting, transporting and maintaining European volunteer workers brought to this country between April, 1947, when the scheme was introduced, until May 31, 1948, was £1,800,000.
  LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his reply.

  FOREIGN EXCHANGE CAR ALLOWANCE.
  LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will consider restoring the additional £10 foreign exchange allowed to persons taking their cars overseas, observing that travellers by rail or air are allowed to pay their fare in sterling right through to their destination.]
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): No, my Lords. The car allowance was withdrawn last Autumn at the same time as the basic travel allowance because we could no longer afford it, and I am afraid there has been no improvement in our foreign exchange position such as would justify us in restoring this concession at the present time.
  LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, arising out of that answer, does not the noble Lord think that this is a very unfair discrimination on a man taking his car overseas? Would the Government consider allowing him the equivalent of the railway fare to his destination, in sterling, so as to put him in no better or worse a position than the traveller going by rail, air or sea?
  LORD PAKENHAM: The points that the noble Lord has raised were before the Government when the matter was recently reconsidered, and I am afraid that the decision was the one I have just indicated to the House, but I will gladly go into the whole matter in greater detail in private, if the noble Lord would like me to do so.
  LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord for his reply.

  EXCHANGE ALLOWANCE FOR FRENCH TRAVEL.
  LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government, in view of the fact that the United Kingdom is making a loan of £10,000,000 to France to enable that
  92
  country to meet her sterling deficit, whether they will investigate the desirability of increasing the £35 limit for foreign travel in so far as it is applicable to French francs; the additional sterling involved being a charge against the loan.]
  LORD PAKENHAM: No, my Lords. We will bear the possibility in mind, but I am afraid there is a serious objection to a differential rate in the case of one particular country.

  CHILDREN BILL. [H.L.]
  2.39 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now consider the Commons Amendments.
  Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  [The references are to Bill No. 68.]
  Clause 1, page 2, line 21, leave out from ("that") to end of line 22, and insert ("the care of the child is taken over either—

  (a) by a parent or guardian of his, or

  (b) by a relative or friend or his, being, where possible, a person of the same religious persuasion as the child or who gives an undertaking that the child will be brought up in that religious persuasion.")

  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in rising to move the first of these Amendments, may I take this opportunity of saying that a very large number of these Amendments, so far as I know, are completely uncontroversial. I will therefore take them and ask your Lordships to deal with them as rapidly as possible consistent with the rules of order that are ever present in our minds in this House. The first Amendment, on page 2, line 21, provides that any relative or officer who is to have the care of a child should be, where possible, a person of the same religious persuasion as the child or one who will give an undertaking that the child will be brought up in that religious persuasion. This Amendment was moved on Committee stage in another place. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I should like to say that generally, so far as I am able to see, none of these Amendments made in another place is in any way controversial. So far as I am concerned, the suggestion made by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, that he will deal with them briefly, is completely acceptable.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 3, page 5, line 11, after ("induces,") insert ("or persistently attempts to induce").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment makes it an offence in respect of a child in care either to induce the child to run away or persistently attempt to induce it to run away. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 5, page 6, line 13, leave out from beginning, to ("of,") in line 14, and insert ("assent of a local authority shall not be required for the making by the court of an order committing him to the care of the authority unless a probation order or supervision order is in force or the court proposes to make such an order at the same time as the order committing the child to the care")
  Clause 5, page 6, line 25, after ("that,") insert ("where a probation order or supervision order is in force as respects a child or young person, or the court proposes to make such an order at the same time as an order for committal to the care of the local authority, the last-mentioned order shall not be made unless the local authority consent to the making thereof.
  (1A) Before making an order under the last foregoing subsection in any case where the consent of the local authority is not required,").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that Clause 5 empowers a court at its discretion to commit a child or young person to the care of a local authority as a fit person. The Amendments provide that, where a probation or supervision order is in force, the court will not be empowered to commit a child to the care of the local authority unless with the consent of the authority. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 6, page 7, line 41, at end, insert—
  ("(44) Where under section seventy-four of the said Act of 1933 of section seventy-eight of the said Act of 1937, a child is under the supervision of the managers of an approved school or under paragraph 6 of the Fourth Schedule to the said Act of 1933, or paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule to the said Act of 1937, the managers of an approved school by licence permit a child to live away from the school, and in either case it appears to the managers that the child has no home or that his home is unsatisfactory, then with the consent of the managers, in a case falling within the said section severity-four or seventy-eight, or if the licence so provides, in a case falling within the said paragraph 6, a local authority may (without prejudice to the provisions of section one of this Act if those provisions apply) receive the child into their care; and where they do so—

  (a) the provisions of this Act, except subsections (4) and (5) of section one thereof and so much of subsection (3) of that section as requires a local authority to endeavour to secure that the care of a child is taken over by a parent, guardian, relative or friend, shall apply as if the child had been received into their care under the said section one; but

  (b) the child shall not for the purposes of the said Act of 1933, or the said Act of 1937, be deemed to have ceased to be under the care of the managers of the school.")

  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Clause 6 (3) of the Bill provides that the making of an approved school order for a child in care will take the child out of the care of the local authority, and will bring to an end any resolution that may be in force. This is necessary to avoid conflict of power, as an approved school order confers parental rights on the managers. The Amendment empowers the local authority, with the consent of the school managers, to receive into their care any child (not only a child who was in care previously), on licence or under supervision, who has no home or whose home, in the opinion of the managers, is unsatisfactory. This will enable the child care service developed under the provisions of the Bill to be made available in specified circumstances to children on licence or under supervision, while at the same time preserving the responsibility of the school managers for the welfare of such children. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 10, page 8, line 44, at end insert—
  ("(2) Where under subsection (4) of section one of this Act a local authority take over the care of a child from another local authority, that other authority shall where possible inform the parent of the child that the care of the child has been so taken over.")
  Clause 10, page 8, line 45, leave out ("the last foregoing subsection,") and insert ("subsection (1) of this section").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next two Amendments are to Clause 10. The first Amendment puts a duty on a local authority where possible to inform the parent if a child is transferred from their care to the care of the local authority in whose area the child was to be ordinarily resident when taken into care by the first-mentioned authority. The second Amendment is a consequential change. These two Amendments, in that they increase the parental rights, will, I am sure, commend themselves to your Lordships. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 13, page 10, line 10, leave out from ("under,") to ("being,") in line 11, and insert ("the National Assistance Act, 1948,").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the first Amendment to Clause 13 is a drafting Amendment, the National Assistance Act having now been passed. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 13, page 10, line 14, at end, insert—
  ("The approval by the Secretary of State of any premises for the purposes of this subsection shall have effect for such period as he may from time to time determine, but—

  (a) the Secretary of State may at any time withdraw his approval notwithstanding that the period for which it was given has not expired,

  (b) the Secretary of State shall not give or continue his approval for the purposes of this
  96
  subsection unless he is satisfied that suitable alternative accommodation is not for the time being available.")

  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment provides that the Secretary of State should not approve the use of any premises which I refer to, I am afraid, as workhouse nurseries, or continue his approval, unless he is plainly satisfied that there is no alternative accommodation. That, I am sure, will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, may I say a few words on this Amendment? We in this House were all rather hesitant about passing the clause in the form in which it left us. We all thought that the most stringent conditions ought to be applied before children were kept by local authorities in houses of this kind. I, for one, am very glad that the matter has been tightened up in this way.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 13, page 10, line 17, leave out from ("may,") to end of line 18.
  Clause 13, page 10, line 21, leave out from ("under,") to end of line 21, and insert ("the said Act of 1948 ")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that subsection (3) empowers a local authority to accommodate a child aged three or over for not more than fourteen days in premises provided under the National Assistance Act. The Secretary of State is authorised to approve an extension of the period of fourteen days. This Amendment provides that the Secretary of State cannot give his approval for more than eight weeks. That means to say that the matter must be kept constantly under review. We all agree that such accommodation is undesirable, and that there should be a limitation on the powers of the Secretary of State. These remarks apply to the next two Amendments to this clause. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 13, page 10, line 21, at end, insert—
  ("Provided that a child shall not be accommodated and maintained as mentioned in this subsection for any period exceeding fourteen days except with the consent of the Secretary of State; and—

  (a) the Secretary of State shall not give his consent for the purposes of this subsection for a period exceeding eight weeks, but may renew any such consent for a further such period or periods;

  (b) the Secretary of State may at any time withdraw his consent given for the purposes of this subsection notwithstanding that the period for which it was given or renewed has not expired.")

  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment, and part of the Amendment I have already moved about the fourteen days. I beg to move.
  Moved, This this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 15, page 12, line 36, leave out from ("may") to ("provided"), and insert ("remain in accommodation").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment necessitated by the previous Amendment to which we have agreed. I beg to move.
  Moved, This this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 15, page 12, line 38, leave out ("classes,") and insert ("descriptions")
  Clause 15, page 12, line 39, leave out ("classes,") and insert ("descriptions").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next two Amendments leave out the word "classes" and insert "descriptions." It was thought that "classes" was an undesirable word to use, having regard to its possible other meanings, and that the word "descriptions" was a happier word. I beg to move.
  Moved, This this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 17, page 13, line 22, after first ("child,") insert ("and that suitable
  98
  arrangements have been or will be made for the child's reception and welfare in the country to which he is going.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Clause 17 empowers a local authority, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to procure, or assist in procuring, the emigration of a child in their care. The Secretary of State has to be satisfied that emigration would benefit the child. It was moved in another place that the Secretary of State should also be satisfied that the "conditions of reception and arrangements for welfare are suitable." Whether the new words are strictly necessary or not I am not sure, but I do not think they can do any harm. Accordingly, I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 15, page 13, line 24, leave out from ("consents,") to end of line 25, and insert—
  ("Provided that where a child is too young to form or express a proper opinion or the matter, the Secretary of State may consent to his emigration notwithstanding that the child is unable to consent thereto in any case where the child is to emigrate in company with a parent, guardian or relative of his, or is to emigrate for the purpose of joining a parent, guardian, relative or friend.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it may be desirable to allow a very young child to be emigrated along with other members of his family and thus avoid separating him from the rest of the family. It may also be for the benefit of a very young child that he should be allowed to emigrate in order to join a parent, guardian, relative or friend. This Amendment provides that a child who is in the care of a local authority, and who is too young to consent, may be emigrated (with the Secretary of State's consent) only if (a) he is to be accompanied by a parent, guardian or relative, or (b) he is going to join a parent, guardian, relative or friend. In any other circumstances, the Secretary of State will have no power to consent to the emigration of a child who is too young to give his own consent. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 18, page 13, line 38, leave out from ("recover,") to end of line 39 and insert ("from any parent of the child any expenses incurred by them under the said subsection (1) and not reimbursed under subsection (5) of section twenty-two of the National Insurance Act, 1946 (which enables payments to be made to local authorities out of the National Insurance Fund in respect of the cost of burial or cremation of certain persons).")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Clause 18 empowers a local authority to cause to be buried or cremated the body of a child who dies while in their care, and enables the authority to recover any expenditure from any parent of a child who died while under the age of sixteen. The Amendment provides that an authority should not have power to recover expenses from a parent, if the authority has already been reimbursed out of the National Insurance Fund. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 19, page 14, line 18, leave out from beginning, to ("a,") in line 19.
  Clause 19, page 14, line 30, leave out subsection (3).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Clause 19 (3) empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations as to the conduct of hostels. The Amendment which was moved in Committee in another place proposed that this power should be replaced by a power to local authorities to make regulations, which regulations were to be made with the approval of the Secretary of State. These Amendments remove the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations off his own bat, giving him power in return to approve regulations by the local authority. I beg to move the two Amendments to this clause.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 26, page 17, line 38, leave out ("(2),") and insert ("(1)").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Amendment to Clause 26 is
  100
  merely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 27, page 19, line 17, leave out ("the references,") and insert ("to the reference").
  Clause 27, page 19, line 19, leave out ("included,") and insert ("there were added").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these two Amendments are designed to make it more obvious that the effect of the clause is to extend the definition of "voluntary home" to some institutions not at present included without taking out of the definition any homes already covered by it. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 27, page 19, line 23, leave out lines 23 to 27.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that the Curtis Committee recommended that all homes taking full custody of children should be registered and inspected by the central department. So far as is known, the only identifiable class of children's homes (other than local authority homes) not covered by the existing definition is the one comprising homes supported by endowments. Clause 27, accordingly, extends the definition of "voluntary home" in the Children and Young Persons Acts to bring in homes supported wholly or partly by endowments, not being schools within the meaning of the Education Acts. The proviso to Clause 27 empowers the Secretary of State to direct that any home which is brought within the category of "voluntary home" by the extended definition, should not be subject to the provisions of the clause. It was inserted as a safeguard, in case the extended definition should bring in some places to which the controls to be applied to voluntary homes in general should not reasonably be applied. There is no knowledge at present of any places which would qualify for exemption. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 29, page 20, line 18, after ("made") insert ("or directions given").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment relates to Amendments we have already made. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 30, page 22, line 27, leave out ("submitted") and insert ("substituted")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment corrects a printing error. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 31, page 22, line 38, leave out ("and,") and insert ("authorise the Secretary of State to give directions prohibiting the provision for the children in any home of clothing of any description specified in the directions, and impose requirements")
  Clause 31, page 22, line 40, at end, insert—
  ("(b) require the furnishing to the Secretary of State of information as to the facilities provided for the parents and guardians of children in the homes to visit and communicate with the children, and authorise the Secretary of State to give directions as to the provision of such facilities;")
  Clause 31, page 22, line 41, leave out ("limit,") and insert ("give directions limiting")
  Clause 31, page 22, line 43, at end insert—
  ("(c) provide for consultation with the Secretary of State as to applicants for appointment to the charge of a home and empower the Secretary of State to prohibit the appointment of any particular applicant therefor except in the cases (if any) in which the regulations dispense with such consultation by reason that the person to be appointed possesses such qualifications as may be prescribed by the regulations.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think we may consider these four Amendments together. Clause 31 empowers the Secretary of State to make
  102
  regulations as to the conduct of voluntary homes. These Amendments empower the Secretary of State by regulation, (a) to give directions where children are unsuitably clothed, (b) to require information as to facilities for parents and guardians to visit and communicate with their children, and to give directions as to such facilities and (c) to require consultation with him as to the person to be appointed to the charge of a voluntary home on the lines of Clause 15 (4) (d), which your Lordships will remember applies to local authorities. The last of these Amendments is consequential on the others. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords I would like to make one reference to the new paragraph (b) which has been moved. As I originally brought to the attention of your Lordships certain hostels or homes which did not provide facilities for the parents to visit children, I rise only to say that I heartily endorse the provision of the new paragraph, and that I hope the Secretary of State will take early powers to arrange for all the facilities that are possible to be provided for parents and guardians to visit their children as often as necessary.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 31, page 23, line 4, leave out ("classes,") and insert ("descriptions")
  Clause 31, page 23, line 5, leave out ("classes,") and insert ("descriptions ")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these Amendments relate to the words "classes" and "descriptions," to which I have already referred. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 31, page 23, line 8, after ("regulation") insert ("or any requirement or direction thereunder").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment consequent upon the preceding Amendments to Clause 31. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 32, page 23, line 28, leave out from first ("in,") to ("shall,") in line 30, and insert ("the year in which the particulars are varied, compliance with paragraph (a) of this subsection by the person in charge of any voluntary home").
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment corrects an error in drafting. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 33, page 23, line 47, at end insert ("and for enabling the Secretary of State to be satisfied that suitable arrangements have been or will be made for the child's reception and welfare in the country to which they are going").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to point out that Clause 33 ought to go in here, because page 23, line 47, is part of Clause 33. Also there is a clerical error: in the third line of the new Amendment your Lordships will see the word "child's"; it ought to be "children's." I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 33, page 24, line 11 leave out ("if the regulations so provide") and insert ("where it is so provided by or under the regulations").
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, the words in the Bill were defective. It is intended that responsibility for supervision should rest with local authorities with power to them to authorise a voluntary organisation to supervise. The Amendment would enable this to be done. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 37, page 25, line 41, leave out from ("date") to ("the") in line 42, and insert ("hereinafter specified").
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 37, page 25, leave out lines 44 and 46.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the next Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 37, page 25, line 46, at end insert—
  ("The date hereinbefore referred to is the last of the following dates, that is to say—

  (a) the date on which the application for the allowance was granted or, where the application was granted before the commencement of this Act but so as to take effect at a subsequent date not earlier than the commencement thereof, the date on which the allowance became payable;

  (b) the date of the death of the first to die of the child's parents;

  (c) where it is proved that at the later of the dates mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs the person in question had reasonable cause to believe that both parents of the child were alive, the date on which the said person became aware that one of the child's parents had died.")

  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, Clause 37, subsection (1) as it is drafted brings within the scope of the child life protection provisions total or partial orphans who are being maintained by a person other than a parent, guardian or relative, to whom a guardian s allowance or family allowance is payable by reason of the child being so maintained. As subsection (1) is drafted the child life protection provisions apply as from the date on which the person's application for a guardian's or family allowance is granted. A person may be in receipt of a family allowance by reason of maintaining a child who is not his own and who is not a total or partial orphan. In that case the child life protection provisions would not necessarily apply, but they would apply if the child became a total or partial orphan while being cared for in this way. The Amendment provides for

  105
  this contingency. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 37, page 26, leave out lines 16 and 17, and insert ("by a voluntary organisation or in relation to any arrangements in which the Minister of Pensions participates.")
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 37, page 26, line 17, at end insert—
  ("(5) Nothing in any of the provisions mentioned in section thirty-five of this Act shall apply in relation to a child on whom a requirement as to residence is imposed by a supervision order or probation order.")
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, the purpose of the new subsection (5) is to exempt from the child life protection provisions children who are the subject of a probation or supervision order containing a condition as to residence. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 37, page 26, line 17, at end insert—
  ("(6) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the references in section two hundred and nineteen of the Public Health Act, 1936, section two hundred and seventy-one of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, and section eleven of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, to hospitals maintained by a Government department include references to hospitals maintained by Regional Hospital Boards on behalf of the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State.")
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, the new subsection (6) makes it clear that hospitals which are now exempted from the child life protection provisions will remain exempted after they have been vested in the Minister of Health on July 5, 1948. I beg to move that this House
  106
  do agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
  Moved, that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 39, page 27, line 30, at end insert—
  ("(6) A sub-committee under the last foregoing subsection may be appointed by the children's committees of two or more local authorities jointly, so however that a subcommittee so appointed shall include at least one member of each of the local authorities.")
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, the immediate purpose of this and the next Amendment is to permit the joint appointment of sub-committees to manage two approved schools in Wales one of which is now managed by a joint committee of four authorities. The general purpose is to permit the joint appointment of subcommittees where this is expedient, for example to manage a temporary reception centre serving the needs of two or more local authorities. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
  Moved, that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 39, page 27, line 31, leave out from ("committee,") to end of line 34, and insert ("or committees by which a sub-committee is appointed under this section may, subject to any restrictions imposed by the local authority or any of the respective local authorities, authorise the sub-committee to exercise on behalf of the children's committee or committees, as the case may be, any of their functions.").
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 40, page 29, line 6, at end insert—
  ("Provided that nothing in this or the last foregoing section shall be construed as precluding a local authority from joining another local authority in establishing remand homes in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) of section eighty-one of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, and

  107
  subsections (2) and (3) of the last foregoing section shall not apply to any arrangement so made.")
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to cover the special conditions which exist in Scotland and to enable local authorities there to provide remand homes. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 43, page 30, line 16, after ("functions") insert ("in England and Wales").
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this Amendment is desirable because the Advisory Council on Child Care provided for in Clause 43 will be for England and Wales only, whereas some of the enactments mentioned in subsection (1) apply to Scotland as well as to England. A separate Advisory Council on Child Care for Scotland is provided for in Clause 44. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 43, page 30, line 22, leave out ("including,") and insert ("being)
  Clause 43, page 30, line 23, at end insert ("and persons having such other qualifications as the Secretary of State considers requisite.
  Among the persons appointed under this subsection there shall be persons having experience in local government.")
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, these two Amendments put more emphasis on the appointment of persons qualified in matters affecting the welfare of children and provide for the appointment of persons having local government experience. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Morrison.)
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, may I ask one question? Why is it
  108
  necessary for these persons to have local government experience? It seems to me so much more important that they should have experience of welfare. I do not see the point.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, to anyone serving on these committees, local government experience is most valuable; and anyone who has no knowledge of local government would be severely handicapped, and probably not so effective as if he had that knowledge.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Does the same argument apply to people who engage for voluntary work in children's homes?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Although a knowledge of children is the first prerequisite, if one has to gear up all these things with local authority arrangements it is very useful to have some knowledge of the functioning of the local government machine.
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 52, page 34, line 9, after ("which") insert ("under the provisions of section three or section four of the said Act of nineteen hundred and forty-eight.")
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Morrison.)

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 54, page 34, line 39, at end insert—
  ("(b) any premises in which under subsection (2) or subsection (3) of section thirteen of this Act accommodation and maintenance are for the time being provided for a child in the care of a local authority.")
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this Amendment repairs a defect in subsection (1) as drafted, by extending the powers of inspection to apply to (a) nurseries provided under the National Assistance Act in which children under the age of three are accommodated and maintained, and (b) other premises provided under that Act which may be used temporarily for the accommodation of children who have reached the age of three. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Morrison.)
  3.10 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 54, page 35, line 15, at beginning insert ("It shall be the duty of local authorities from time to time to cause children in voluntary homes in their area to be visited in the interests of the well-being of the children, and")
  Clause 54, page 35, line 17, leave out ("and,") and insert ("(4).")
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, it is considered that it would be more satisfactory to put local authorities under a duty to visit the children in voluntary homes in their areas. It has been intended all along that they should do this and assume a measure of responsibility for the welfare of the children in these homes. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 54, page 35, line 25, at end insert—
  ("(4) Nothing in the two last foregoing subsections shall apply to a voluntary home which, otherwise than by virtue of section ninety-four of the said Act Of 1933 or section ninety-eight of the said Act of 1937, is as a whole subject to inspection by, or under the authority of, a Government department.")
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Page 36, line 29, at end insert the following new clause:
  Transfer, superannuation and compensation of officers.
  ".—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide—

  (a) for the transfer to a local authority of officers employed immediately before the commencement of this Act by the Common Council of the City of London, or the council of a metropolitan borough or county district solely or mainly for the purposes of functions transferred by this Act from that council to the said local authority;

  (b) for enabling the Common Council of the City of London and the council of any metropolitan borough or county district in
  110
  the case of any officer of the council who is a contributory employee or local Act contributor within the meaning of the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, and is transferred under the regulations to secure, by resolution passed in respect of him not later than three months after his transfer under the regulations, that for the purposes of the said Act of 1937 any noncontributing service of his shall be reckonable as contributing service and, in the case of any such officer on whom if he had remained in their employment a similar benefit could have been conferred by the council on his becoming entitled to a superannuation allowance, that the length of his service shall be deemed for the purposes of the said Act of 1937 or, as the case may be, the local Act in question, to be increased by such period as may be specified in the resolution;

  (c) for granting to persons, who, immediately before being transferred under the regulations were, by virtue of the employment from which they are so transferred, entitled to participate in superannuation benefits, an option either to participate, by virtue of their employment by the local authority to which they are transferred under the regulations, in superannuation benefits under a superannuation scheme of the local authority specified in the regulations or to retain rights corresponding with those previously enjoyed by them;

  (d) for the payment by local authorities, subject to such exceptions or conditions (if any) as may be prescribed by the regulations, of compensation to persons of such descriptions as may be so prescribed who immediately before such date as may be so prescribed were employed by the Common Council of the City of London, the council of a metropolitan borough or the council of a county district such full-time work as may be prescribed by the regulations and who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to the passing of this Act;

  (e) for extending any provision made under paragraph (d) of this subsection to persons of such descriptions as may be prescribed by the regulations who, having before such date as aforesaid been employed as aforesaid and being persons who would have been so employed immediately before that date but for any national service (as defined in the regulations) in which they have been engaged, lose the prospect of their re-employment in any such work as a consequence of the passing of this Act;

  (f) for such matters supplementary to and consequential on the matters aforesaid as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary.

  (2) Regulations under this section may provide for the determination by the Secretary of State of all questions arising under the regulations and may make different provisions for different classes of cases."
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this is a very long and new clause, but for your

  111
  Lordships' convenience, I can summarise it in a few sentences. The purpose of this new clause is to make the necessary provision for the transfer of child life protection staff from the minor authorities to county councils and to secure for the transferred staff the same rights as to the preservation of their superannuation terms and compensation as they would have had if their transfer had been effected under the National Health Service Act, as originally enacted. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 58, page 37, line 21, at end insert—
  ("'Large burgh' has the same meaning as in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947.")
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, the words "large burgh" have no technical significance, apart from the Statutes in which they occur, and it is desirable to define them by reference to the definition in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 58, page 37, line 37, at end insert—
  ("'relative' has, throughout Great Britain, the meaning assigned to it by section two hundred and twenty of the Public Health Act, 1936.")
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 61, page 38, line 38, leave out from ("on,") to end of line 39, and insert ("the fifth day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight.")
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this Amendment inserts the date on which the Act comes into force, and so renders unnecessary the making of an Order. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  First Schedule, page 40, line 13, at end insert ("or is proposed to be established").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this brings us to the Schedules. In Scotland the sheriff would act as chairman of the independent tribunal to which a person creating a voluntary home may appeal against the refusal of the Secretary of State to register a new home. Paragraph 9 of the First Schedule as drafted refers only to the sheriff of the county in which the voluntary home to which the Bill relates is situated. In the case of an appeal against a refusal by the Secretary of State to register a new home, the sheriff of the county where it is proposed to establish the home would act as chairman of the tribunal. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Second Schedule, page 40, line 27, leave out from ("under,") to end of line 28, and insert ("the National Assistance Act, 1948.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a formal Amendment, made since the National Assistance Bill has become an Act by receiving the Royal Assent. I move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Second Schedule, page 42, line 26, leave out paragraph 8, and insert—
  ("8.—(1) Any land which immediately before the commencement of this Act was held by a local authority solely for the purposes of a children's home shall be deemed to have been appropriated under the Local Government Act, 1933, the London Government Act, 1939, or

  113
  the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, as the case may he, for the purposes of a home to be provided under Part II of this Act.
  (2) Where a local authority have taken any steps for the compulsory acquisition of land for the purposes of a children's home but the acquisition has not been completed at the commencement of this Act, anything duly done before the commencement thereof in relation to the acquisition shall have effect as if it had been duly done in relation to the compulsory acquisition of the land for the purposes of a home to be provided by the authority under Part II of this Act.
  (3) In this paragraph the expression 'children's home,' does not include any premises provided or to be provided under the Public Health Act, 1936, the Public Health London Act, 1936, or the Notification of Births (Extension) Act, 1915.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this new paragraph 8 (1) provides that any premises held by a local authority for use solely as a children's home should be deemed to be appropriated by them, on the commencement of the Act, for the purposes of a children's home under the provisions of the Bill. Paragraph 8 (2) is a transitional provision to secure that proceedings, which are not completed when the Act commences, for the compulsory acquisition of premises for use as a children's home may be completed, after the Act has commenced, without the need for repeating any of the procedure already gone through. I beg to move this that House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Second Schedule, page 42, line 35, at end insert—
  ("9. Where in consequence of the passing of the National Health Service Act, 1946, a person became employed by the council of a county or county borough in their capacity as a local health authority and there is conferred on him by any regulations made under that Act an option, exercisable by virtue of that employment, to retain rights to superannuation benefits corresponding to those previously enjoyed by him, then if in consequence of the passing of this Act that person becomes employed by the said council for the purposes of a home provided under Part II thereof, he shall have the like rights in connection with the option as if his employment for the said purposes were employment by a local health authority.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is intended that residential
  114
  nurseries provided by local authorities under the Public Health Acts, and after July 5 under the National Health Service Act, 1946, shall be appropriated, by administrative action, for the purposes of the Bill. This will involve a change in the terms of employment of the nursery staff who, though remaining in the employment of the same councils, will be employed by them in their capacity as local authorities for the purposes of the Bill and not as local health authorities; consequently, this Amendment becomes necessary. I move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Second Schedule, page 42, line 45, leave out ("seven days") and insert ("one month").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there are many cases of this kind. The Amendment increases from seven days to one month the period of grace allowed in the various applications which may be made to a local authority, in the case of a child brought under supervision on the commencement of the Act by the extension of the child's life protection provisions, or in the case of a child who comes within the scope of this provision within one month after the commencement of the Act. We have decided to allow the longer period because of the short time which will elapse between the passing of the Bill into law and the commencement of the Act. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Second Schedule, page 42, line 47, leave out ("seven days") and insert ("one month").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is the same point. I move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Second Schedule, page 42, line 51, after ("whom") insert ("a").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Second Schedule, page 43, line 4, leave out ("seven days,") and insert ("one month")
  Second Schedule, page 43, line 6, leave out ("seven days,") and insert ("month")
  Second Schedule, page 43, line 16, leave out ("seven days,") and insert ("one month")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is the seven days point. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Second Schedule, page 43, line 27, after ("nine,") insert ("or that by virtue of section thirty-seven of this Act a child in the premises becomes a foster-child or a child in respect of whom a notice is required to be given under the said Part I.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the transitional provisions of paragraph 9 as drafted cover the case where a child in the care of a person other than a parent, guardian or relative becomes a foster-child (within the meaning of the child life protection provisions) at the commencement of the Act, either as a result of the raising of the age from nine to school leaving age (Clause 35) or as a result of the payment of family or guardian's allowance being deemed to constitute "reward." A main purpose of these provisions is to apply the child life protection machinery, in the cases now brought within its scope, without retrospective effect, and thus to avoid the danger of foster-parents incurring penalties for unwitting contravention of the law. The purpose of the Amendments is to apply similar provisions where after the commencement of the Act, a child maintained by a person other than a parent, guardian or relative, becomes subject to the child life protection provisions as a result of the death of a parent bringing Clause 37 into play. I beg to move that
  116
  this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Second Schedule, page 43, line 31, at end insert—
  ("(6) Where by virtue of section thirty-seven of this Act the provisions of the said Part VII, Part XIII or Part I become applicable to a child after the commencement of this Act by reason of the death of a parent of the child, the provisions of the three last foregoing sub-paragraphs shall apply as if for references therein to the commencement of this Act there were substituted references to the date at which the said provisions become applicable to the child.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is part of the Amendment which I have just moved and is consequential thereon. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Second Schedule, page 43, line 42, leave out ("or,") and insert ("the commencement of this Act, no notice under the said section seven need be given in connection with the taking possession of the child.
  (3) Where by virtue of the said section thirty-five the provisions of the said section seven become applicable to a child.")
  Second Schedule, page 43, line 43, leave out ("seven days,") and insert ("one month")
  Second Schedule, page 43, line 45, leave out ("seven days,") and insert ("one month")
  Second Schedule, page 43, line 49, leave out ("seven days,") and insert ("one month.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Clause 35 applies the provision of Section 7 of the Act to children between the age of nine and school leaving age as they now apply to children under the age of nine. In the case of children of the age of nine who were placed by a third party, without reward, with a foster-parent before the commencement of the Act, it would be impracticable to require the third party to give notice of the placing now, as the placing may have occurred a considerable time ago. The Amendments are designed to relieve third parties of the duty to give notification in these circumstances, and to increase from seven days to one month the period of grace. I think we can take these

  117
  Amendments to page 43, lines 42, 43, 45, and 49 together. It is the same point. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Second Schedule, page 44, line 1 leave out from ("said") to end of line 3, and insert ("month").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment deals with the period of grace, and where the child under care and protection is brought under supervision by the extension of the upper age limit. Under the Act of 1939, apparently the foster-parent has a right to notify any change of address within one month after the commencement of the Act. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Second Schedule, page 44, line 4, leave out paragraph II.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the Amendment we have already made. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Second Schedule, page 44, line 17, leave out from first ("of") to ("shall") in line 18, and insert ("the National Assistance Act, 1948").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is an Amendment we have had before. It arises because of the passing of the National Assistance Act. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Second Schedule, page 44, line 19, leave out from ("Schedule") to end of line 22.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Third Schedule, page 44, line 31, at end insert—
  ("In section eighty two, in paragraph (a) of subsection (4), after the word 'indices,' there shall be inserted the words 'or persistently attempts to induce.'")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the Amendment we have already made. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Third Schedule, page 44, leave out line 36 and insert ("'or, being too young to form or express a proper opinion on the matter is to emigrate in company with a parent, guardian or relative of his, or is to emigrate for the purpose of joining a parent, guardian, relative or friend'.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this too is consequential on an Amendment we have already made. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Third Schedule, page 44, line 41, after ("paragraph (a),") insert ("after the word 'induces,' there shall be inserted the words 'or persistently attempts to induce,' and").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Third Schedule, page 45, line 43, after ("nineteen,") insert ("in subsection (1)").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Third Schedule, page 45, line 46, after ("words,") insert ("on whom a requirement as to residence is imposed by a supervision order or probation order, or who undertakes the nursing or maintenance of a child.")
  Third Schedule, page 46, line 22, leave out from ("and,") to end of line 26, and insert ("seventy-two, in subsection (3), for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
  '(b) in pursuance of any arrangement for the boarding out of a child by the Minister of Pensions, by a local authority under Part II of the Children Act, 1948, or by a voluntary organisation within the meaning of that Act;
  (c) with respect to a child on whom a requirement as to residence is imposed by a supervision order or probation order.'")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these next two Amendments are consequential on the Amendment which we have made to Clause 37 exempting from the child life protection provisions children who are the subject of a probation order. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Third Schedule, page 46, line 41, after ("child,") insert ("on whom a requirement as to residence is imposed by a probation order, or who is").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the reference to the Amendment which we have had before to a supervision order is omitted, as in Scotland a requirement as to residence cannot be imposed on a supervision order. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Third Schedule, page 47, line 19, at end insert—("In section eighty-six, in paragraph (a) of subsection (4), after the word 'induces,' there shall be inserted the words 'or persistently attempts to induce'").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential to the Amendment made under Clause
  120
  3, and amends the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Third Schedule, page 47, line 25, leave out from ("words,") to end of line 26, and insert ("'or, being too young to form or express a proper opinion on the matter is to emigrate in company with a parent, guardian or relative of his, or is to emigrate for the purpose of joining a parent, guardian, relative or friend'.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This, too, is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Third Schedule, page 47, line 33, after (paragraph (a),") insert ("after the word 'induces,' there shall be inserted the words 'or persistently attempts to induce,' and").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is consequential to the Amendment to page 5, line II. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Third Schedule, page 48, line 33, after ("protection") insert ("and").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Third Schedule, page 48, line 41, at end insert—
  "The National Assistance Act, 1948.
  II & 12 Geo. 6. c. 29.
  In the Sixth Schedule, in paragraph 8, in head (a) of subparagraph (2) after the word 'Act,' there shall be inserted the words 'or of Part II of the Children Act, 1948'.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is necessary in order to provide for the cases where premises of the kind referred to in Clause 13 have been

  121
  transferred to and vested in the Minister of Health under the National Health Service Act, 1946, if that part of the premises not used as a hospital is used solely for the purposes of children. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Fourth Schedule, page 49, line 25, leave out from ("subsection") to ("in") in line 27.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is consequential on a previous Amendment. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Fourth Schedule, page 50, line 35, column 3, at end insert—
  ("In section one hundred and two, in subsection (1) the words from '(f) in the case' to the end of the subsection.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential on the repeal as from January 1, 1949, of Section 95 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, by Clause 29 (9) and Part II of the Fourth Schedule. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTION OF RIBBON DEVELOPMENT ACTS) REGULATION'S, 1948.
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTION OF RIBBON DEVELOPMENT ACTS) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1948.
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (MINERALS) REGULATIONS, 1948.
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (MINERALS) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1948.
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (MODIFICATION OF MINES ACT) REGULATIONS, 1948.
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (MODIFICATION OF MINES ACT) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1948.
  3.30 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to move that these Special Orders be approved. I think that, perhaps, it would be convenient if I were to say a few words in moving these Regulations, and then, if your Lordships will allow me, I will do my best thereafter to reply to any detailed points that may be raised. Your Lordships know, of course, that, the Town and Country Planning Act, by Clause 81, I think, contemplated that Regulations might be made. The application of the Act to minerals has always been, in my view, a most difficult feature. Regulations may modify the Act in certain respects, and it is always rather difficult to know where modification ends and where alteration of the structure of the Act begins. These Regulations, which have been promulgated, should be taken by your Lordships, if I may use the phrase which the Minister used, as "interim Regulations." They are in no sense final. I contemplate with confidence that further Regulations will be made dealing with all sorts of other matters. When discussion arose in another place, the Speaker pointed out that it would obviously be out of order to have a discussion on these Regulations by considering whit was not in them rather than what was in them. I have no doubt that your Lordships would think it proper that there should be perhaps a light touch on what is not in them, but I apprehend—though, of course, we make our own rules of order here as we go

  123
  along—not a detailed consideration of what is thought to be lacking.
  I think it will be found that, so far as these Regulations go, they are quite unexceptionable, though there are several points on which explanation may be deemed desirable. I think, broadly speaking, that the Regulations have been agreed, in the sense that it is felt that there should be other Regulations as well; but so far as they go, I think they are accepted as being right. I have been at some pains in this matter. I have seen the Minister and also the Chairman of the Central Land Board and have discussed the subject with them. As to some of the matters which I understand are going to be raised, I can at the outset, I think, relieve anxiety. With respect to existing leases in regard to which it may be necessary to fix a development charge, it is clear that not only the mineral undertaker but also the royalty owner should have the fullest right of consultation with the Central Land Board in connection with the fixation of the charge. I am authorised, not only by the Minister but also by the Central Land Board, to give your Lordships the assurance that so far as existing leases are concerned there will be the fullest right to have consultation alike on behalf of the mineral undertaker and of the royalty owner.
  So far as it concerns me to make Regulations regulating references to a Tribunal, I shall certainly see that both the royalty owner and the mineral undertaker have the fullest right before that Tribunal, to appear, if they so desire, by counsel, and, subject to the Rules, to appoint their own representatives. I hope that will go some little way to remove anxieties in regard to the matter. I have limited what I have just said, your Lordships will observe, to existing leases. With regard to future leases, different considerations arise. I do not want to give any definite answer on future leases, because that is one of the matters which I anticipate may be the subject of further Regulations, which I hope will be agreed. All I can say with regard to these leases—here again I speak with the authority of the Minister and of the Central Land Board—is that we hope that consultations will continue (they are in fact now going on) between the Central Land Board and the representatives of the Federation of British Industries
  124
  who, I understand, are specially enlarging themselves in order to include representation of all sections concerned and of the Central Land Owners Association. I hope that, as the result of those discussions, we shall be able to arrange some formula with regard to leases for the future. That is all I wish to say upon these matters at the present stage. If any of your Lordships has points which he wishes to raise during the debate, I will do my best to answer them. But this is such a difficult and technical part of the Act that I devoutly hope that no one will raise points of which they have not given me notice. If they do, I shall, at any rate, expect, and I am sure I shall receive, deepest sympathy from all sides of the House. In the meantime, I beg to move that these Regulations be approved.
  Moved, that the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 9th instant, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  3.36 p.m.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I feel sure that your Lordships will welcome the remarks which the noble and learned Viscount has made in moving that the Regulations now before the House be approved. They are extremely difficult to apprehend, and indeed to a layman well nigh impossible. Nevertheless, as I understand them, they deal with matters of supreme importance, not only to the developer but also to the owner of mineral deposits and, ultimately, to the whole nation at large. I hope that before your Lordships approve these Orders by affirmative Resolution the noble and learned Viscount will be in a position to reply to a limited number of inquiries which, no doubt, other noble Lords, as well as myself, will wish to address to him.
  Although, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, these Regulations apply the general principles of the Town and Country Planning Act to the special case minerals, I frankly believe that a number of them could, in point of fact, have found their way into the Act during the passage of the Bill through this House. It is true that we have an opportunity of discussing them this afternoon, but I believe that it would have been more convenient for the House generally if we had known at a far earlier stage what the

  125
  Government had in mind in dealing with the whole question of minerals generally. Nevertheless, we have now the opportunity of discussing various points on the Regulations. I shall endeavour to put certain questions to the noble and learned Viscount, questions of which I hope and believe I have given him notice, and which, no doubt, will be enlarged upon by other noble Lords who will take part in our discussion. My first question is one of detail. It deals with paragraph 4 of the Schedule of Development Order which your Lordships approved some time ago. As I understand those Regulations, paragraph 4 does not apply to land which was to be developed by the winning and working of minerals, although such land is, in point of fact, covered by Part VIII of the principal Act. I am uncertain whether it would be correct to say that paragraph 8 of the Minerals Regulations, which your Lordships are discussing to-day, can, in point of fact, be overridden by paragraph 4 of the former Regulations, which your Lordships approved some time ago. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount may be able to give me some enlightenment on that point.
  I now turn to Paragraph 7 of the Minerals Regulations, which deals with the assessment of development value for the purposes of compensation. As I read this very complicated paragraph, it lays down that in assessing development value the presence of any buildings on that or adjacent land shall be taken into account, but that the actual value of the buildings, as such, shall be disregarded. I have no objection to that. It seems to me both fair and equitable. But now I turn to the other point under the same paragraph, by which the developer has to pay development charge on a portion of the land which he proposes to work, and for which he has duly obtained a lease from the owner and, finally, erected the necessary works. Let us suppose that in ten years' time the developer intends to extend his mineral operations to the adjacent property. As I read this paragraph, the Central Land Board will be obliged to assess the development charge on the adjacent land at a figure which must be much higher, solely because of the presence of works which have been erected in the first place by the developer. In point of fact, the developer will be called
  126
  upon to pay twice over. He will have paid a large sum of money for the erection of the works and he will again be called upon to pay for the value which those very works have created. I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount could give me an assurance that this paragraph 7 will not be applied by the Central Land Board in the assessment of development charge. At the beginning of this week in the course of discussion of these same Regulations in another place, the Minister recognised that there was a prima facie case, and stated that this was one of the points for discussion between the Central Land Board and the industry. Will the discussions between the Central Land Board and the industry result in further Regulations which will, in due course, be before your Lordships' House? If they do not, I see great difficulty in assuring ourselves that in assessing the development charge the Central Land Board will take into account the problem that I have briefly covered.
  I was going to make a further point, but the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has already covered it, in saying that the landowner will now have an opportunity of appearing before the Central Land Board before the development charge is made. So far as I am concerned, that certainly meets me and I think it is a valuable undertaking to have received. That case, as the noble and learned Viscount said, dealt with the assessing of leases. I should have had much to say on future leases but, as I understand the noble and learned Viscount, further Regulations will have to be made on future leases, and therefore I do not see any necessity to cover that point to-day.
  Finally, I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether he can give us some indication of the Government's view concerning the restoration of land after the extraction of the mineral. Is this work to be in future the responsibility of the landowner, the undertaker or the Central Land Board themselves? Surely, in the assessing of the development charge, the Central Land Board must have regard to the restoration of the land. It seems to me that clearly they have a duty to ensure that the charge which is levied on the undertaker and paid for by the royalty owner is at such a rate that either the developer or the owner of land is left

  127
  in a sufficiently solvent financial position to bear the cost of restoration. I do not want to weary the House with the Waters Report, with which many of your Lordships are no doubt familiar, but that very question of restoration was a subject to which they gave careful consideration. It will be remembered, in passing, that they commented at some length on the fact that no fewer than 3,600 acres in Northamptonshire alone were to-day lying absolutely derelict, with no charge and no opportunity of either one or the other party restoring the land to agricultural use or for afforestation purposes.
  No doubt your Lordships will recall that, during the passage of the main Bill through your Lordship's House, pressure was put on the Government to deal with this question. I am sorry to think that they took no power at that time to cover the restoration of land, and that in these Regulations there is no mention whatsoever of restoration. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will be able to give me an undertaking that in assessing a development charge the Central Land Board will take into account the whole question of the restoration of the land. Those are the principal points that I wish to bring to the attention of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. As I have said, the right of the owner to make representations to the Central Land Board before a development charge is made, is a valuable assurance and I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for it. I should be equally grateful if he could deal with the queries that I have addressed to him, and so enlighten me and, no doubt, other noble Lords on these points.
  3.48 p.m.
  THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, this adds one more to the rather complicated group of Regulations which have resulted from the Town and Country Planning Act. As the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has said, it deals with part of the Act which is perhaps rather more complicated than other parts, and that is saying a good deal. These Regulations are interim Regulations, as the noble and learned Viscount said. In doing so, he has merely repeated in other words, what was said by the Minister of Town and Country Planning in another place. It was contended with
  128
  some force in this House, in passing the Bill, that minerals ought not to have been dealt with by this measure at all, and that the subject was one deserving of a separate Act of Parliament altogether. As the result of these Regulations one is led to the belief, first of all, that the provisions regarding minerals were put in the Bill without due thought. That is borne out by the fact that, even at this stage, conversations are only in progress with regard to very important details. It must be pointed out that this is not fair to mineral undertakers, who have to look a long way ahead, and it will undoubtedly do a great deal of harm to the industry in this country by keeping them in suspense, as they are being kept at this stage.
  One point of a general nature which arises on these Regulations is, so far as I can see from the statements that have been made and from the Regulations themselves, that the Central Land Board are, in one way or another, to be given an immense amount of power. The Central Land Board are an excellent body of people; but the Act was passed by Parliament. The Act is a major measure of policy and, so far as one can see from the Regulations which I have studied, the policy so far is being dictated by the Regulations, which place upon the Central Land Board a great deal of the burden of decision, and take it out of the hands of the Government and Parliament who passed the Act.
  I now come in some detail to the Regulations which we are considering at this moment. I am glad that the noble and learned Viscount has been able to say that there will be the fullest consultation with the royalty owner in the fixation of the development charge on minerals in the case of existing leases. There is no such provision in the Act, or in the Regulations. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount in his reply will be able to tell us whether what he has said in your Lordships' House will carry more weight than the words that were used by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning when he introduced these Regulations in another place last Monday and dealt with this particular point—namely, consultation with the royalty owner in assessing the development charge. He then said:

  129
  "The power is not contained in the Act or the Regulations. It is a purely convenient arrangement by the Central Land Board."
  A little later on he said:
  "It is possible"—
  I ask your Lordships to note the word "possible"—
  "for the Central Land Board to take such persons into consultation."
  That is something conditional, whereas, if I understood the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack aright, it is quite definite that they will be taken into consultation at the time of the assessment of the development charge. It is, in my view, very important that they should have the right at that stage to make representations.
  Your Lordships will remember that, under normal conditions, in any case of development, it is the developer who pays the development charge. But in the case of minerals there is a further provision that at a subsequent stage the lease can be varied in accordance with the development charge; that is to say, that the developer will get some alleviation on his lease in the light of the development charge which he has to pay. It means, further, that the royalty owner will suffer as a direct result of the imposition of the development charge. So far as one can judge from everything one has seen and read with regard to it, it appears to be the intention that the whole of the burden of the development charge should be shifted from the developer on to the royalty holder. Therefore, he has a direct interest from the beginning in the assessment of the development charge. I hope we may have a very definite assurance from the noble and learned Viscount that his words will carry the further weight that is necessary, over and above those used in another place. With regard to I the second part—namely, representation before the Railway and Canal Commission, or the Tribunal, over the variation of the lease—I am very glad indeed that the noble and learned Viscount has been able to give us the assurance that the Regulations for which he will be responsible will contain the necessary provision I the royalty owner can make his representations. There, of course, he is directly interested.
  I would like to refer to the point mentioned by my noble friend Lord
  130
  Munster in regard to paragraph 7 of these Regulations, dealing with the question of taking into account the presence of plant, machinery and buildings in assessing the development charge. I will endeavour not to go over ground which my noble friend has already covered. In any claim that there may be against the global sum it has been made quite clear that the owner of the buildings is not allowed to take into account the presence of plant, machinery and building; whereas, when the development charge is being assessed, the presence of the plant, machinery and buildings is taken into account in addition to the value of the minerals for the development of which they were erected. That, in itself, seems to me to be inequitable. There is a further important argument that I think ought to be put forward. It is that the purpose—if I understood it aright—of the Town and Country Planning Act, and the development charge in particular, is that values created by the public should not accrue to the private individual, but should accrue to the public; and in the values created by the public is included the value of ungotten minerals. That is a principle, as I understand it, to which your Lordships' House agreed. Yet, in assessing the development value of minerals, it is proposed by paragraph 7 of these Regulations that there should also be taken into account the increased value owing to the presence of plant, machinery and buildings, put there, not by public money, but by the private individual. Again, it seems to me inequitable that that should appear at all in these Regulations.
  There is one other point I would like to mention—namely, that the getting of minerals is a very important part of the economy of this country. It would seem that under these Regulations a great deal is being done to deter any form of private enterprise from obtaining the minerals. If that should happen, it may prove to be disastrous to the country. The noble and learned Viscount talked about further Regulations with regard to new leases. I beg of him to use all the influence he has in high circles when those Regulations are finally dealt with, before their being brought before Parliament, to ensure that they are not of such a nature as to deter future lessees or lessees from getting the minerals that lie beneath our soil. It may be said that it is an article of political

  131
  faith, but in reality it is a practical statement of fact that we shall get more minerals out of our soil, and get them more cheaply and therefore be able to sell them more cheaply, by private enterprise than we ever shall by compulsory clauses in an Act of Parliament.
  I should very much like to move that the House do not approve of these Regulations. I have not done so, because it would in fact vitiate much that we have agreed to in the Act. But it is a most unfortunate method of dealing with important problems connected with great industries, to pass an Act of Parliament subject to Regulations, and leave it to the Regulations to deal with all the really important features which concern those industries. Dealing with matters by Regulations means that there cannot be that real parliamentary scrutiny which can be obtained in the passing of an Act of Parliament through Parliament.
  4.2 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, after what has fallen from my noble friends, I propose to confine my remarks to the extractive industries, because, as I have said before, I happen to be Chairman of the Cement Makers Federation, and that industry is very much affected by these Regulations. If I talk about the effect of the Regulations on the cement industry, it is only because I happen to know more about that industry than I do about the other great extractive industries. I think that everything I am about to say affects equally the steel industry, the pottery industry and other industries which, as the noble Earl who has just sat down has pointed out, are of vital importance to the economy of this country. Before I pass on to that aspect of the matter, may I say how much I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has just said about the menace to British liberties which results—no doubt unintentionally, but does in fact result—from the establishment of extra-Parliamentary authorities like the Central Land Board, which cannot be questioned across the floor of either House of Parliament though their actions may be of greater importance than the action of any Minister. They are not subject to the same scrutiny and cross-examination which all Ministers have to face in one House of Parliament or the other. It
  132
  seems to me to be a matter of real and growing importance.
  I do not quite know what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack meant by saying that these were agreed Regulations. Certainly so far as the cement industry is concerned they are not agreed, and I am not aware that the steel industry has agreed to them either. We were assured, when the Bill was passing through Parliament, that the intention of the Government was that the undertaker—that is the industrialist—should be no worse off than he was before. That intention appears to have been completely destroyed by the decision that the Central Land Board is bound to assess the development charge at 100 per cent. of the increased value. It is this decision to take away all discretion from the Land Board in the great majority of cases that has had such serious effects upon the extractive industries. We had been led to believe that their case would be considered on a different footing from that, for example, of housing development, because the circumstances and conditions were entirely different. We believed that their case was to be considered on its merits, but instead of that we are faced with this decision that the development charge must be 100 per cent. of any increased value that results from, let us say, mining chalk out of a field that had previously grown wheat.
  I must also allude to a point mentioned by both my noble friends, and that is the effect of paragraph 7 of the Regulations. That paragraph lays it down that the Land Board must have regard to any increase in the value of the land brought about by a factory. The noble Earl, Lord Munster, in his remarks, seemed to anticipate that that might be mitigated in some way, but I confess that I was not able to follow his argument. I would draw his attention to the words in the fourth line of paragraph 7 where it says:
  "…regard shall be had"—
  it is like the 100 per cent.; there is no room for discretion—
  "to any increase in the value of the interest arising from the presence of any buildings.…"
  What does that mean? It is a vital point to a steel or a cement company. Cement is made out of very common minerals—chalk and clay or limestone and clay. There are immense quantities of limestone

  133
  and clay soil in this country, the greater part of which is, of course, used for the purposes of agriculture. If a man decides to erect a cement factory which he knows must cost him over £1,000,000, he will naturally first either buy or lease sufficient chalk and clay to enable him to amortise the cost of his works—that is to say, he must supply himself with about eighty years' supply of chalk and clay; and he proceeds to go from field to field extracting the minerals that lie under them.
  As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, pointed out, the man is now to be charged on the increased value that his own factory has added to the field of wheat which overlies the chalk. That is clearly inequitable and monstrously unjust; it is, moreover, an exact reversal of the principle on which the Town and Country Planning Act is supposed to be founded. It is a case of the community appropriating a value which has been created purely by private enterprise. I should like to point out how this will actually work. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will correct me if I am mistaken, or if I make any misrepresentations—which I assure him would be unintentional. Let me take the example of a man who has either bought or leased his land on agricultural values. Suppose that he is paying a royalty of 6d. a ton on his chalk; and that the development charge is fixed at 8d. a ton. It is quite clear, in the first place, that the development charge cannot be passed on to the landowner because it is greater than the total royalty. I assure the noble and learned Viscount that a great deal of land has been bought or leased at low prices—which is one of the reasons why cement is so cheap. Suppose that the undertaker is paying a royalty of 6d. a ton and that a development charge of 8d. a ton is imposed. That is not the end of the matter, because it will be necessary that the land should be restored.
  For the sake of argument, I think it would be reasonable to say that the landowner must receive the equivalent of 2d. a ton with which he will be able to restore his land after operations have finished. Therefore, you must add to the development charge of 8d. a ton a further 2d. for the restoration, which means that the cement manufacturer will have to pay
  134
  10d. a ton for his chalk instead of 6d. a ton. I believe that that is a fair statement of what is likely to happen, in a great many cases, under this Bill. I am taking what I believe to be a normal hind of case. I have chosen the case of a man who is leasing his minerals, rather than a man who has bought them, because it makes the illustration simpler; but the principle is the same, whether the man has bought his minerals or is leasing them.
  What is the effect of that? The only possible effect must be to increase the cost of making cement, steel, pottery, and all the other products of these industries. Did the Government really want to bring about that result? What good will it do? It is the most amazing development of the social legislation of this Parliament. Just at the time when industrialists are being told to bring their prices down, and are urged to increase exports, the Government pass an Act of Parliament and Regulations the only effect of which on these industries must be to raise the cost of their products. It will mean that cement sold at home must be raised in price—no one is going to make cement at a lass. This will send up the cost of all building in this country. Do tie Government want that to happen? It will send up the cost of all housing, all new factories, all public works, dams, reservoirs, bridges, and roads. The cost of every one of these things will be raised.
  The Minister may say that his intention is, after all, fulfilled, because the industry will be no worse off than before, since they can raise the price of cement. But that would certainly not be true of the export trade—and it is particularly to the export trade that I would draw your Lordships' attention. In the export trade there is no possibility of raising the price of cement, for it is fixed by the laws of supply and demand, and there is keen competition from foreign competitors. Is it really the desire of the Government to put a tax on one of our most important exports, to handicap our manufacturers in their competition with their foreign competitors? You might as well put a tax on coal at the port as do this. Some people may think that the difference which this charge will make will not be sufficient to be of real importance; but I can assure your Lordships that that is far from being the case. It may be said that it is after all only a matter of 4d. or 6d. or 7d.

  135
  But the cost of cement is made up of four-pences; the whole cost of these products is made up of a large number of small items, and every item that is added to the cost of manufacture inevitably increases the cost of the product.
  Therefore do not let us be under the illusion that this is a matter that will not have its effect. It will have its effect and, so far as I can see, the effect will be wholly bad. I do not see one redeeming feature about this, or one advantage that can come to this country, or to any section of the community, by putting a tax of this nature on these great industries. I do not believe that the Government ever intended that that should happen. If I am right in that belief, may I beg the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to appeal to his colleagues that this matter should be given further consideration? I am aware that the Minister has held out hopes of further Regulations and further discussions but, as I understand this question, I do not think that you can get away from the difficulty that I have pointed out without an amending Bill. It is not really the Regulations; it is the interpretation of an Act of Parliament, an interpretation which, in the opinion of His Majesty's advisers, it is necessary to place on the Act of Parliament.
  I cannot see how any Regulations can get over this difficulty, if the Act be interpreted in the way in which it apparently is interpreted. Therefore, the discussions to which the Minister and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor have alluded, though no doubt very important in respect of other matters, in regard to this particular matter can be of no avail. What is required is an amending Bill. I hope that that suggestion will receive careful consideration. I notice that the Minister in another place has already suggested that in another connection an amending Bill may be necessary. He has already suggested that, although the ink is hardly dry on the Royal signature to the Act. If that is the case, if amending legislation is already visualised, I hope that the Government will consider the advisability of cutting out of this Act altogether the provisions relating to these extractive industries where the raw material derives its value
  136
  from the factory that has been built for making the finished product, just as much as the air that is turned into nitrates by the works at Billingham derives its manurial value from the presence of those works. To apply the ordinary arguments on which development charges have been founded to such processes is, to my mind, a complete confusion of thought. If the Government will only cut the provisions regarding the extractive industries out of the Act altogether, I cannot see that the main purpose of their legislation will be in any way affected. They will be removing what must otherwise be a millstone round the necks of industries which are of the greatest importance, not only to our internal economy, but also to our export trade.
  4.23 p.m.
  LORD COZENS-HARDY: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I propose to make one or two observations of a general nature in connection with these Special Orders. When considering the last batch of Orders which your Lordships approved a day or two ago—more than a hundred pages of them—the Special Orders Committee had the advantage of reports on them prepared by an Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of Sir William Spens. That Advisory Committee is an independent body, learned in the complicated provisions of the National Insurance Act, and, in accordance with the Act, the Minister placed Draft Orders before that Committee. No doubt, those drafts were then considered by the Departments concerned to be as perfect as they could be made, but your Lordships will have observed that in almost every case the Advisory Committee recommended amendments. Those amendments were accepted by the Minister and were embodied in the drafts laid before Parliament. There were, in fact, four stages: there was the preparation of a draft by the Minister, there was consultation with an Advisory Committee, there was a revision of the draft by the Minister in the light of the Advisory Committee's recommendations and, finally, there was the laying of the draft in unalterable form before Parliament.
  In the case of the Orders before your Lordships to-day, there was no second or third stage. No Advisory Committee was consulted, and the language of the unalterable drafts laid before Parliament was

  137
  the outcome of Departmental wisdom unaided by an independent Advisory Committee. If, as was the case, the National Insurance Advisory Committee found it necessary to recommend alterations in almost every Order drafted by the Department, it seems highly improbable that the Orders now before your Lordships would not have been improved if they had been considered by a competent Advisory Committee before the drafts were laid in unalterable form. It is not the function of the Special Orders Committee to consider the merits or the details of Orders and, even if amendments were permissible, I doubt whether the Committee would feel themselves competent to make them. By Standing Orders the Committee have only to report (i) whether the Special Order raises important questions of policy or principle, (ii) whether it is founded on precedent, (iii) whether it needs the special attention of the House, and (iv) whether further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision. In view of the number and complexity of Orders in these days, I cannot help feeling that consideration by an advisory committee which can recommend alterations has become a necessary stage in the progress of such Orders through the House. That compulsory stage could presumably be secured by putting a suitable clause into every important Bill, but it might be worth considering the achievement of the same object by some addition to the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House. The matter seems to me to be of some urgency and importance. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will give it his consideration.
  4.28 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we have had an interesting and informative discussion. If this discussion had taken place in another place and if Mr. Speaker, with all the authority which he possesses, had been presiding instead of a mere person like myself, with no authority, I feel quite certain that 90 per cent. of our discussion would have been ruled wholly out of order. But, notwithstanding that fact, it was for me very interesting. I was asked some questions as to the meaning of what I had said about these being "agreed Regulations." This bears closely on the subject matter which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord
  138
  Cozens-Hardy, who has just been speaking. These Regulations have been exhaustively and fully discussed by the Minerals Committee of the Federation of British Industries, which represents some 28 trade associations interested in the minerals industry. When these Regulations were in draft at least two meetings were held between the members of the Committee and officials of the Department. Independent representations were received from the Ironstone Royalty Owners' Association, who are not represented on the Federation of British Industries Committee, and from the National Council of Associated Iron Ore Producers and the Ballast Sand and Allied Traders' Association—they, I understand, not being represented.
  I think it right to say that substantially all the points raised by these bodies have been met, so far as they were within the scope of these Regulations and, so far as these Regulations go—and I emphasise that—I think they are agreed. The disagreement comes from the fact that I cannot and am not entitled to claim that I have the agreement of all these people, because they wanted certain other Regulations made—Regulations which are not at present made, but which are to be the subject of further discussion. So far as I apprehend, there is no criticism by anybody concerned of any of the Regulations now before your Lordships; the criticism is limited to the fact that we ought to have taken the opportunity of dealing with other matters beyond that with which we have dealt. That is chat I meant by saying that the Regulations were agreed; they are agreed only in that sense. Of course, I will consider what the noble Lord who last spoke said about the question of new machinery for this House to consider this matter.
  Now let me come to the questions of the noble Earl, Lord Munster. He asked whether paragraph 4 of the earlier Regulations would be used to deal with this topic, or whether it would be dealt with exclusively by the present Regulations. It is the intention to deal with this topic exclusively by the present Regulations and not to use Regulation 4 of the earlier Regulations at all to deal with it. Secondly, the noble Earl asked me about the meaning of Regulation 7, and, since this has been through the debate, may I point out to your Lordships that there

  139
  has been a complete misapprehension as to the extent and scope of that Regulation. It starts with these words:
  "For the purposes of Section 61 of the Act…in calculating the restricted and unrestricted values of an interest in any land…"
  we shall do certain things. Section 6r of the Act is a section which is to be found in Part VI, and Part VI of the Act is that Part which deals with the measurement of the claim against the £300,000,000; that is all. Part VI of the Act has nothing to do with the fixation of the development charge; that is Part VII. Therefore, in its expression this Regulation has no application whatever to the fixation of the development charge. Whether or not a similar principle will in due course be applied is a matter which I will discuss in a moment. But it is quite plain and beyond argument that paragraph 7 applies only to Part VI of the Act; that is to say, the ascertainment of the claim against the £300,000,000 fund. I apprehend that everybody will agree with me here—and, indeed, there has been, if I understand it aright, some pressure to get it in for this purpose.
  Of course, in dealing with this question of valuation, it is difficult to consider it, if I may use the phrase, in vacuo. Supposing that you are contemplating making a car park outside a large hotel, the question which the Commissioners will have to ask themselves is what development charge they are to levy for the right to make that car park. It is quite obvious that you cannot assess the development charge for making that car park without having regard to the fact that there is a large hotel in the neighbourhood, that being the whole raison d'étre of the car park. You cannot assess it as you would if it were to be in the middle of the Sahara. It is obvious that you must have regard to the surrounding circumstances. That, of course, applies to Part VII, the fixation of the development charge. I do not know whether a similar provision to what is Regulation 7, relating solely to the fixation of the claim against the £300,000,000, will necessarily be applied to Part VII—that is to say, the fixation of the development charge. Superficially, as the Minister said the other day, that is obviously a formidable and attractive case, but that is one of the very
  140
  matters upon which discussions have been going on and will continue to go on.
  Perhaps I may tell your Lordships this. I have for a long time known Sir Malcolm Eve as a very approachable man, and a man possessed of great common sense; and he would be the first to realise that if, in regard to these extractive industries or any other industry, they were to impose swingeing development charges the result would be a great misfortune to this country as a whole. One must assume that these provisions will be applied with some common sense and, therefore, I would say in answer to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, that Regulation 7 does not deal with the fixation of development charge at all. It is necessary to have Regulation 7; you would have to apply this principle because you are considering what is the unrestricted value of a piece of land, and you must consider all the circumstances relating to the land.
  Quite obviously, minerals such as those required for cement, chalk and the like, are of value if you have in the neighbourhood a factory at which you can deal with them, and are of very much less value if you have them situate in a place where it is impracticable to bring them to a factory. You cannot begin to ask yourself what is the value of the mineral unless you consider how it can be dealt with. The value means nothing at all unless you consider the surrounding circumstances. So you are told here in this Regulation, that, in order to assess the unrestricted value of the mineral, you must have regard to the fact that in the neighbourhood there is a factory which can deal with it. That, of course, tends to put up the value of the mineral, and consequently it tends to make the difference between the unrestricted value and the restricted value greater than it would otherwise be. Therefore, the fact that it becomes greater than it otherwise would be means that there is a higher claim against the £300,000,000. Whether and to what extent, in the case of minerals, that claim is to be the subject of what I call the preference claim is, of course, a matter which is not being discussed or debated in this Regulation, although it is obviously a matter which will have to be considered in the future. Therefore your Lordships will realise that, for the purposes of Part VI of the Act, in order to fix your claim against the £300,000,000

  141
  you must have regard to the existence of these facilities, and the fact that you have this regard means that the claim is larger than it otherwise would be.
  As I have said before, it is exceedingly difficult to reduce to any formula the principles upon which the development charge is to be assessed; that is a topic which is not dealt with by this Regulation at all. It is very desirable, for the reason (among others) which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne gave, that you should, so far as you can—and I emphasise "so far as you can"—reduce to some formula, or indicate by some formula, what principles you are to apply. For that reason, it is very much hoped by the chairman of the Land Board that discussions will go on. The F.B.I. is now so enlarged as to incorporate practically all industries—certainly, if there are other industries, clearly, they can come in. The Central Landowners' Association, I think, are sufficiently extended to be able to deal with the whole of their side of the business. What is desired is that the Central Landowners' Association, the F.B.I. and the Central Land Board shall continue with their discussions to see whether they can hammer out something which seems fair and sensible to indicate the principles on which development charge shall be assessed. That is, certainly, something which is devoutly to be wished.
  Let me point out again that these Regulations do not deal, and do not attempt to deal, with that topic at all. That is a matter for the future. There is another topic to which also these conversations ought, clearly, to extend; that is, the matter of the restoration of land. I am inclined to think that there has been some misapprehension about the Minister's statement dealing with this subject. Of course, on whatever basis you consider what ought to be charged by way of development charge, no person of elementary common sense can disregard the fact that there may be an onerous covenant. Take, for instance, the case of a man who has a right to develop on condition that having extracted mineral he restores the land to its original condition. Compare his case with that of a man who has a similar right but no such obligation. It is clear that in one case the right is much more valuable than in the ether, because in the former case the value of the right is depressed by the factor
  142
  that there is an onerous covenant which it may cost a lot of money to carry out. Therefore, in assessing development value regard must be had to the position where there is an onerous covenant to restore the land.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Will the noble and learned Viscount forgive my interrupting him? In the case of a freeholder who is extracting chalk or clay, surely the obligation to restore the land will rest on him though in a different form. Do I understand what the noble and learned Viscount has said to mean that the freeholder would be regarded as having a more valuable property because he was not legally liable to this onerous charge, though, in fact, I submit that he would be?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The freeholder would clearly be in a different position. Of course, the whole question of restoration or after treatment of land is, I frankly concede, a very difficult one, and we have not reached final conclusions upon it. Indeed, I am hoping that discussions upon this topic will go on, and that your Lordships will contribute some valuable suggestions. There have been two Committees in recent years—the Kennett Committee and the Waters Committee. Broadly speaking, their recommendation was that the cost of restoring land where there was not an express covenant dealing with the matter (that is the sort of case which the noble Earl put to me) should be shared between the royalty owner, the extractor and the local authority. This, clearly, is a matter that must be considered, and it brings in wider considerations than the mere incidence of the development charge. That is why in considering this topic fundamentally it was not possible to deal with this—at this stage, at any rate—merely in Regulations, even if those Regulations deal with the mater of development charge—which they do not. So I will answer the noble Earl, Lord Munster, by saying that this matter, too, will, we hope and desire, be the subject of discussion. Of course, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, is right in saying that the freeholder, just as much as the man with the lease, may be liable to restore the land, because he may be under that obligation by virtue of planning permission. Therefore, that is one of the matters we want to have discussed.

  143
  The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, seemed to think that we had not given due thought to this question of minerals. I deny the soft impeachment, and I think I may say—I do not know whether it is so or not, but I believe it to be the fact—that the F.B.I. and the Central Landowners' Association are going to meet the Central Land Board on these very matters. That will ensure that, whatever shortcomings there may have been in the past, there will be plenty of consideration given to this matter in the future. The noble Earl asked whether my words would carry more weight than the words of the Parliamentary Secretary. Modesty forbids me to give an answer to that question. I hope they will. At any rate, as I told your Lordships before, I have discussed the matter both with the Minister and also with the Chairman of the Central Land Board and, in a certain case, as the noble Earl pointed out, I must come in, because I have to make Regulations about the Tribunal. I think the noble Earl may well be easy in his bed on this score.
  The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, made his speech about cement. I have heard him make that speech before, and each time I hear it I think it is a better speech. But, really, it has very little to do with these Regulations. As he himself said, he fought the Bill on this point and he now wants an amending Bill on it. Let me say frankly, this Bill introduces such a complete alteration in our whole system of land tenure that I shall not be surprised if, as time passes, we find that we have to amend it here and there. I shall not be in the least surprised if we find that to be necessary. If that proves to be so, I think that we should not feel in any way ashamed to come to the House and say that a difficulty has arisen here or there and that we want the help of the House to put it right. It makes a most far-reaching change in our law in this connection. I very much hope that the somewhat gloomy prognostications of the noble Earl will prove to have no substance. I hope and believe that this is a most worth-while measure. The activities of the cement manufacturers of this country, I agree, are most important alike to the export trade and the import trade. We cannot easily consent to another fourpence going on this commodity
  144
  or another fourpence going on that commodity, especially if they are fundamental commodities. But I hope and believe that that will not happen at all, and that the cement manufacturers will find that they will not have to pay more than they have to pay to-day.
  The broad scheme of the Act, in this connection, is this. The mineral undertaker who has to pay development charge will pay less, in consequence, to the royalty owner. The royalty owner, in his turn, will get compensation out of the Fund. In future the mineral undertaker instead of paying one sum to the royalty owner will pay two sums, one being the development charge and the other the payment to the royalty owner, the sum total of the two being equivalent to the amount of the one. That is the principle which we desire to establish, and it will be for us to see, in the working out of our Regulations, whether we can achieve something on those lines which will not greatly increase the cost of cement. With these explanations, I hope that your Lordships will now allow me to have these Regulations. I have described them as interim Regulations. I hope that when we have further Regulations before us I shall be able to take up some of the other points which have been discussed to-day.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION'S REPORT.
  4.50 p.m.
  VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make relating to the Local Government Boundary Commission's Report. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on March 11 last a Report of great importance to all local authorities was presented to Parliament; but in spite of its importance little reference has been made to it in Parliament. That may be because all sides wish to consider the wide implications of this Report before expressing any opinion upon it, and it may also be that some consideration is being paid by the Government—and possibly by other Parties, too—to the question of whether this Report is likely to be popular at the next General Election.
  We are told by those who study these matters that there are not many votes in local government reform. If that be true, I can well believe that this particular Report is not likely to prove an exception. Nevertheless, whether this Report is popular or not, its publication has put a great many local authorities in considerable doubt, both as to their future areas and, to a less extent, as to their future functions. Although I do not claim to speak with any authority in this matter, I think noble Lords who know about local government will agree with me in thinking that, unless these doubts can be to some extent resolved in the fairly near future, some considerable difficulty may arise. As the Report itself points out, all local authorities are to be engaged in either preparing or completing a number of important schemes, chiefly deriving from recent legislation, dealing with such matters as education, town and country planning, children, old people, fire protection and so forth, most of them demanding the recruitment of new staff and perhaps the erection of new buildings when that can be done. It is surely a little difficult to make satisfactory schemes if you do not know the area for which you are to provide, and it is surely not surprising that you should tend to give the lowest priority and to spend the least money, if indeed any at all, in those areas which you have some reason to think may be transferred to somebody else.
  Then there is the point that the Commission, having completed their review of the major authorities, are now in the process of considering the minor authorities, without any real knowledge of the line that the Government or Parliament are likely to take about the main recommendations, in spite of the fact that the one is clearly dependent on the other. And so when they report, or even make orders—as they are entitled to do—with regard to the minor authorities, we shall have a fog of uncertainty descending on a whole range of local government activities. I do not think it can be a good thing for the efficiency of local government that this should go on longer than is absolutely necessary. I have no doubt that much will depend on the negotiations which I believe the Government are to have with the various associations. It is certainly right that that should be so, but I do not think everything depends on
  146
  that, because this Report goes a long way beyond mere boundary extensions. It is, indeed, a most unusual sort of Report.
  I think the most remarkable feature about it is that it should have been made by the people who have made it and at the time when it is being produced. If this Report is implemented, it will mean not only a good deal of legislation which the Minister of Health himself has described as likely to be very contentious, but also a complete administrative upheaval in local government. It will also mean a considerable breach of tradition in certain places, involving the disappearance of certain boroughs—and, indeed, counties—which have had long histories as separate entities. Yet all this is being suggested, not by a group of arm-chair theorists who do not fully know what they are doing, but by a group of people of great experience, who have recently had a unique opportunity of studying conditions all over the country. A good deal of interest surely must attach to the reasons why this Commission should have deliberately stirred up a hornets' nest, at a time when all local authorities are under a great strain in trying to digest the spate of legislation and the accompanying orders and regulations.
  An explanation is given, or partly given, in Part III of the Report, which is entitled, "Causes of weakness in local government." From that section it appears that while the Commission believe that efficient local government is a good thing, it has to be local and has to be government. It is also quite clear that, for a variety of reasons, they do not regard it as very effective at the present time. They point to the disparity in size and resources between different local authorities, and they make comprehensive recommendations for dealing with that. Then they refer to the sort of "cold war" that goes on between town and country, particularly at the time when these periodic boundary reviews take place. I think their suggestions in that respect are rather ingenious, but when they come to the haphazard way in which Parliament has devolved various functions to local authorities, or to the degree of centralised control exercised by the Ministries, it is clearly outside the scope of the Commission to make any specific recommendations. I think they have gone rather far as it is. They refer to these things and

  147
  even go so far as to say that if centralised control is carried much farther, it will cut at the whole roots of local government. But they cannot do anything about it; nor, I think, can any local government association.
  It seems to me that what the Report really demands is not only a change in the structure of local government but an entirely new relationship between the local authorities and Whitehall. I am wondering whether the noble Earl can say anything about that question, and whether in any circumstances at the present time the Government will be prepared to modify their present practices and policy. Are we to be told, for example, that while shortages last, the present system of controlling most of the materials, and a good deal of the labour, used by local authorities has to be continued? That system provides the Ministries with an immensely powerful lever over the detailed policy of the local authorities. In the matter of housing, for example, the Ministry of Health lay down the exact number of houses that each local authority can build at any one time. The site, the plans and the cost have all to be approved by the Ministry. They lay down the proportion of privately built houses that can be licensed. At one time it was four council houses to one private house; then it was no private houses, except for a few agricultural cottages; and now it is back to the four-to-one ratio. In education the position is much the same. Indeed, in my county we calculate that 88 per cent. of our expenditure on education is altogether outside the control of the local authority. In regard to labour, we have been told—no doubt other counties have been told in the same way—the exact number of county road men that we should retain, and the exact number that we should dismiss.
  The fact that Acts are passed giving powers to local authorities does not necessarily mean that the local authorities can use them. For example, last summer the Agriculture Act was passed with some urgency through your Lordships' House. Yet a few months later a circular was issued by the Ministry of Agriculture saying that the old Part IV of that Act should be put virtually into cold storage for the time being. In passing, I may say that the Ministry of Agriculture set us rather a
  148
  problem in official interpretation, because they ordained that Section 86 of the Agriculture Act should be in operation, but not in force. That is a difficult state to understand—possibly it is rather like the condition to which some members of the Labour Party would like to reduce your Lordships' House! There are a great number of other circulars which descend on us almost from day to day. I do not criticise any of them; there are probably excellent reasons for them all. But it does seem to me that, if that kind of action has to continue, it will tend to reduce local authorities rather to the status of agencies of the different Ministries.
  If it has to go on, too, it is difficult to see exactly what advantage is to be gained by adopting all these other drastic changes proposed in the Report. We shall not have effective local government as desired by the Commission; we shall simply be setting the stage for a new play, and shall then find that we have the same old performance all over again. If, on the other hand, it is possible for the Government to promise, in return for a drastic revision of the structure of local government, some real devolution of responsibility, I think that something on the lines suggested by the Report could well be tried. I should hope, however, to see some concessions to local sentiment. In a humble way, I agree with what the Commission say. I agree that the present state of affairs is not entirely satisfactory. I cannot see that a system under which so many decisions have, as it were, to emerge as the result of a great deal of conversation between a large number of people, is either particularly satisfactory or particularly efficient; and certainly it is not rapid in operation. But that is a personal view which I have no wish to develop at any length to-day.
  My object this afternoon, as I have already said, is to try to secure information. I wonder whether the noble Earl can tell us something of the procedure under which the Government intend to deal with this Report, so that, if we cannot be told to-day where we stand at least we shall have some idea as to when we shall be told. Can the noble Earl give us any clue as to whether the Government are to consider this Report with an open mind? I hope the noble Earl will not think that this is an inopportune time to put these questions. If he does, I must

  149
  remind him, in self-defence, that this Report has now been issued for over three and a half months, that the summer Recess is not far away, and that all the time we are supposed to be preparing these quite important schemes. I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
  5.7 p.m.
  LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has asked this question and that he has put it in this form. In particular, I would like to develop one aspect of his question by asking the noble Earl, who I understand is to reply, precisely what this Report is intended to be. In the first place, the Report does not seem to me to be consistent in itself. When the Commission was set up under the 1945 Act and Regulations were subsequently issued, the purposes of the Commission were stated, and one notable purpose of the Commission was to make orders to alter where necessary local government boundaries. In 1945, before the Act was passed, it was stated quite clearly in a White Paper (Command 6579) that the time did not appear to be ripe for recasting local government structure. It is, presumably, for that reason that it was not within the Act, nor within the terms of reference of the Commission, to make recommendations for recasting local government structure. But that is precisely what this Report does. The Report, as a matter of fact, falls into two parts. It makes wide and far-reaching recommendations about the whole organisation of local government, which was not within its terms of reference; and it makes recommendations for the modification of local government boundaries. But it has not made any orders to alter any of those boundaries.
  The more I read the Report the more surprising I find it. It is full of contradictions. On that particular issue, may I draw your Lordships attention to the first one. On page 3 of the Report it says:
  ".…we wish to say at the outset that the system"—
  that is, the system of local government—
  "as a whole has proved surprisingly adaptable is view of the fact that there has been no thorough-going overhaul"
  for some time. Then on page 5 the Report refers to:
  "The failure of the local government system to keep pace with the changing pattern of modern industrial England."
  150
  That type of contradiction finds a place not only in the generalities in the beginning of the Report, but more particularly in the recommendation which it makes on the structure of local government itself.
  Before turning to one or two points in that connection, I would like to protest very vigorously against the Report having been published without a map. There was no attempt to clarify the recommendations of the Commission in any respect by any map whatsoever, and the Report is, in fact, incomprehensible without a map—and in certain respects I think it would be incomprehensible with a map. That is notably true of the recommendations in regard to Staffordshire. There cannot be any reason why, upon an important subject like this, there should be no map. An example was set quite recently by the Report on the New Forest, to which I have referred previously in your Lordships' House. That is an admirable document in every way, and it is equipped with first-class maps to explain the recommendations. I regard the publication of this Report—which affects the life of everybody in the country and every local authority—without a map as something in the nature of a discourtesy to the public.
  In regard to the recommendations themselves, I do not want particularly to take up one with which I have been associated in the past, but I do want to say that the recommendations of the Commission set forth in the early part of the Report are not consistently carried out in the body of the Report. The Commission have decided, somewhat arbitrarily, that a unit of 200,000 inhabitants is the appropriate size for a local government unit. Nevertheless, they make recommendations which are completely at variance with that decision. One of the most amusing—if these things can be termed amusing—is in regard to the Isle of Wight. On page 33 the Commission recommend that the Isle of Wight, with a population of 92,000, should be left as an independent local government unit. To use the words of the Report, the area
  "…is far below the desirable population minimum, but it is an island and cannot conveniently be united with the mainland."
  Now we should agree with that. But we then turn to page 40, where we find that the Commission recommend that Anglesey, which is also an island, shall

  151
  be united to Caernarvon. They go on to say:
  "We do not forget that Anglesey is an island and in consequence has not the same common interest with its neighbour Caernarvon as it might have were it on the mainland. But we are not at present satisfied that, because it is an island, it ought to continue as a separate administrative county."
  That is one of the Report's many inconsistencies.
  The further point which strikes me particularly is that in dealing with county boroughs and in finding that a large number of those in existence are much too small, the Commission recommend the creation of many more county boroughs of approximately the same size. That will be found in Appendix C. The smallest of the county boroughs to which reference is made is Canterbury, with only 25,000 inhabitants. So far as I can find in the Report, Canterbury is to be left alone, and is not to be amalgamated with anybody. Proceeding to the part dealing with the various sizes that units ought to be, we find that the Commission are at variance with every recommendation that has been made in recent times. The Report does not propose that the Tyne area shall be amalgamated in one local government unit, because it is too big, and would have a population of 850,000. Therefore, the recommendation of the Commission is completely at variance with that of the Royal Commission of 1937. The Tyne area, therefore, is not to be united but is to remain in two portions. On the other hand, both banks of the Tees are to be amalgamated into one administrative unit and be transferred from Durham to North Yorkshire. Those are only a few examples. I could go on. There is the extraordinary recommendation about Poole and Bournemouth, which is virtually incomprehensible to me. It says that Poole ought to be joined to Bournemouth, but if Poole were joined to Bournemouth, Dorset would suffer so much that the only alternative is to take Bournemouth and transfer it to Dorset with Poole.
  May I now turn to the recommendation regarding Staffordshire? I do not know how many of your Lordships have followed, or have tried to read, what is said about the future organisation of Staffordshire, but, if your Lordships will permit a colloquial expression, it seems
  152
  to me nothing less than what has been described as a "dog's breakfast." The county is cut up into little bits, and the division runs across all existing areas of government and all existing tradition. I could dilate on these anomalies for a very long time, but I certainly do not intend to do so. I have mentioned these points in order to inquire whether the noble Earl who is to reply for His Majesty's Government considers that a Report of this sort forms the basis for a reorganisation of the whole structure of local government, about which the Commission was not invited to make its recommendations. I also wish to inquire whether, if a reorganisation of local government has to be made, some attention will be paid to geographical considerations, which appear to be completely foreign to nearly all the recommendations made in the Report. The existence of geography as a factor is certainly recognised by the Commission, but it is not followed out. If your Lordships would like me to do so I could give about half a dozen other examples on that subject. A notable one with which I have been associated is the case of Worcestershire and Herefordshire, but I will not go into that.
  However, I want to say that even if the answer to the question is that this Report is to be a basis for the reorganisation of local government, I submit that it is unworkable. It is premature, and has not been thought out. In final evidence of that, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the part which deals with Wales, where the Commissioners have, in fact, said: "We have many very good ideas about Wales here—four of them—but we cannot make out what we want to do ourselves." Is there any justification for throwing this very important question, to which the noble Viscount who has now just sat down referred—the whole basis of our future local government—into the melting pot in this way and at this time, on a Report which is as jejune as this one?
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, I think this would be an appropriate time to adjourn for the Royal Commission.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  ROYAL COMMISSION.
  5.30 p.m.
  The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

  Animals,

  House of Commons Members' Fund,

  Radioactive Substances,

  Companies,

  Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies,

  Education (Miscellaneous Provisions),

  Law Reform (Personal Injuries),

  National Insurance (Industrial Injuries),

  Children,

  William Brown Nimmo Charitable Trust (Amendment) Order Confirmation,

  Church of Scotland Trust (Amendment) Order Confirmation,

  Birmingham University,

  Shoreham Harbour,

  Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund,

  Round Oak Steel Works (Level Crossings),

  South Lancashire Transport,

  Cardiff Corporation (Extension of Time),

  University of Sheffield (Lands),

  Ascot Race Course.

  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION'S REPORT.
  Debate resumed.
  5.40 p.m.
  LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships for more than a few moments this evening. On first reading this Report of the Commission, I considered it a penetrating analysis of the problem of local government; but since listening to the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, I have come to the conclusion that this Report is nothing like so penetrating as his criticisms of it. I think your Lordships may wish perhaps to consider this Report in a rather more judicial manner, and I would draw your Lordships' attention to the Commission's own remarks as to their difficulties in dealing with this subject. They are contained in two arguments that they put forward in Section VIII of the Report,
  154
  which I should like to quote to your Lordships, because I think they are extremely relevant.
  The Commission say:
  "First, we have come to the definite conclusion that 'effective and convenient units of local government administration' cannot everywhere be procured (and that is our primary task), without a fresh allocation of functions among the various types of local authorities, particularly where the larger towns are concerned."
  Then, they add:
  "Secondly, none of us is anxious to be forced to make Orders which would weight the scales so heavily in favour of"—
  either one side or the other. I will not delay your Lordships by quoting any further. That seems to me to be a weighty reason for the action they have taken in presenting this Report. Further, I would like to comment on what they describe as part of their statutory duty, to draw up effective and convenient units of local government administration. What does that mean to-day?
  Local government has been turned upside down by the legislation that has been passed through your Lordships' House in the last three years. There is, practically speaking, no function of local authorities that has not been altered, extended, taken away or given to Government Departments; the whole picture has been radically changed. Therefore, it seems to me that some scheme of drawing out or drawing up these new areas is vital to-day, because at the present time local government is staggering under the burdens which have been placed upon it. I think that is no exaggeration. The only radical method of providing a solution is to make a reasonable alteration in many of the functions, as described in the recommendations of the Report. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennell has said, that may well be outside the scope of the Commission's mandate; but if they are to deal with this matter in a states-manlike manner they must go outside their mandate to find the answer. That will undoubtedly lead to a need for further legislation, and on page 42 of the Commission's Report is set out the method necessary, for giving effect to these Recommendations. It is not unreasonable at this time to ask the Government what are their intentions in this matter.
  My noble friend Lord Gage has pointed out that until the areas were over which any

  155
  one local authority will operate have been effectively determined, the immense amount of work involved in implementing the legislation proposed and passed by the present Government cannot be efficiently carried out. It is true at the present time that an enormous amount of paper work is being done—paper work which probably will go into the waste paper basket. Why is that? Because local authorities do not know what their future statutory areas will be. Surely there is quite enough work to do to-day without having to do work that will go into the waste paper basket. Therefore, I think it is reasonable, and not too soon, to ask the Government their intentions in this matter. I do not think this is the time to make any comments on either the one-tier or two-tier system; there are a great many things to be said for both. But surely it is for the Government to give a lead to local government at the present time, and I take it that that is the reason for which my noble friend put down his question.
  There is another point on which I should like to touch. Unless convenient and reasonable areas of local government are produced within the next few years, the smaller areas—whether they be county councils, borough councils, or non-county borough councils, will not be able to employ the right type of official to carry out the duties now imposed upon them. It will be quite impossible for a small urban district council, a small rural district council, or a small county to employ highly trained technical officers at the salaries which they are able to afford. Therefore there must be some form of rationalisation of convenient areas; and the convenient areas will have to be determined largely on the financial capacity of these authorities to pay the proper salaries for what noble Lords on the other side of the House would call "the job." To be efficient a local authority must be able to pay the rate for the job; of that I am quite certain.
  I would add one thing. Considerable play has been made of the fact that counties may lose their historic names, and so on and so forth. But that is not so; if you read this Report you will see that Yorkshire will remain Yorkshire. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Calverley,
  156
  agrees with that; no doubt, he has read the Report. There is no intention that a county shall be abolished. The intention is that, if necessary, counties should act together in a joint county council, and so all their—shall we say—historic traditions will be maintained. In any case, I think that that might be considered something of a red herring in dealing with a question of such magnitude as this. The important thing is to get effective units of local government. Therefore, I hope that when the noble Earl replies for the Government he will be able to give us some indication with regard to this matter. The Boundary Commission, from the very nature of their task, must cause a great deal of disturbance—and the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has referred to the sort of disturbance which will occur. It means that areas which have been taken away from county or from urban districts or county boroughs will receive less than their fair share of attention during this period of turmoil—for that is what it is now. In my view, there is every reason, in order to maintain and improve the standard of local government, why the Government should be prepared to say what they think on this subject.
  5.52 p.m.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I desire to join with the noble Viscount who introduced this question in asking His Majesty's Government that some action should be taken, not only on this Report but also on the previous Report of the Local Government Boundary Commission. In doing so, I would like first to deal shortly with some of the criticisms of that Commission which have been uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. I have no authority or duty in any way to speak for the Commission. But there is, of course, an answer to all the points which the noble Lord made. For instance, he did not mention that the Isle of Wight has almost double the population of Anglesey, or that the one is connected with the mainland by two bridges and the other by none at all—a point which surely makes some difference. It is easy to criticise the Commission for distinguishing between these two cases. I am certain that if the Commission had recommended that all islands having a county council should have that county council united with the neighbouring mainland county council, the noble Lord would

  157
  have criticised the Commission just as much for making a sweeping generalisation and applying it to all islands. That is just an example. Incidentally, I would like to point out that Canterbury is mentioned in the Report. There is a definite recommendation on page 52 that Canterbury should be a non-county borough.
  The noble Lord's strictures remind us of the fact that, admittedly, the Commission have gone out of their way to make recommendations for fresh legislation, but I do not think that they should be blamed for that. If they had remained quite silent about opinions which they must have formed on this subject, I do not think that they would have been doing the best service. What has happened is that, in making their detailed investigations into the matter of boundary changes, they have, time after time, come up against difficulties connected with the "present local government structure"—to use the noble Lord's own words. I think, therefore, that they are justified in suggesting alterations in that structure. In particular, I would like to mention one or two of them. The question of whether the country should be governed largely by county boroughs or single purpose authorities, as they are called, or by the two-tier system, in my view is a very difficult one, and I venture to think that the Commission have hit on a happy compromise in their suggestion that the larger towns should be retained as single large all-purpose authorities and that a large number of the existing county boroughs should, for some purposes, revert to the geographical or administrative counties in which they are situated. I think that that would be a good solution of a very difficult problem, and I ask the Government to give it favourable consideration.
  There are one or two other difficulties which could surely be put right at an early date by legislation. I would refer to the recommendation in the 1946 Report of the Commission that the distinction between boroughs, urban districts and rural districts should be done away with. That seems to me to be eminently sensible. I have never been able to understand why a very small borough, just because, centuries ago, it obtained a charter, should enjoy privileges of a concrete nature in local government over a neighbouring urban district. It may be that it was
  158
  all right years ago but now you get this sort of situation (and it is a fact), that in the matter of population the largest urban district is two hundred times the size of the smallest borough. And yet that tiny borough has certain privileges over that enormous urban district. I cannot think that that is right, and I suggest that the least that could be done would be to say that, for administrative purposes, those two places shall be equal. By all means let the borough retain its ancient privileges so long as they do not interfere with expediency and efficiency.
  That leads me to say that I have never been able to understand why tradition should be allowed to interfere with progress. I am all for tradition so long as it is harmless. The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, mentioned it in the speech with which he opened this debate. He said that counties with long histories were going to suffer. Maybe they are. But if that is going to be for the benefit of the community at large, I think they should. As the last speaker pointed out, the recommendations are exaggerated in order to make out a case against them. Yorkshire has a long history and a long tradition, as we are frequently reminded. Here, I must contradict the noble Lord who spoke last. He said, I think, that Yorkshire will remain Yorkshire. I would like to point out that, so far as local government administration is concerned, there never has been a Yorkshire.
  LORD HYLTON: I am sorry, but I really must interrupt the noble Lord. Of course everyone knows that there never has been a county council for Yorkshire. I must point that out.
  LORD MERTHYR: There is no recommendation here that there ever shall be a Yorkshire. But, be that as it may, there is one other point which I wish to ask the Government particularly to note. It is the difficulty which exists, owing to what I call a flaw in the 1945 Act, that it is not possible for the Commission to divide a borough. It is possible for two boroughs to be united, but it is not possible for any one of them to be divided between two others. If we have three boroughs, A, B, and C, we can join A to B, or B to C, but we cannot divide B between A and C. I do not know whether that was intentional or accidental, but I should like to ask the Government to put it

  159
  right, because I know that large schemes of suggested groupings and amalgamations have been handicapped by that flaw, as I have called it, in the Act of Parliament. There is great objection to the suggestions of the Commission for uniting county and other authorities.
  But I would urge this on His Majesty's Government. It is a strange thing to say, perhaps, but I hope that they will not be too impressed by any great degree of local objection. The Act says, and rightly says, that the wishes of the inhabitants shall be one of the factors that shall be taken into account, but it is only one. If it were the only one, no changes would ever be made at all, because, strange though it is, these suggestions for changes are always opposed by the local inhabitants. I go so far as to say that, whilst their opposition should be heard and should be considered and weighed, it should not be allowed to upset a decision which, after that process, is nevertheless decided upon. After all, it must be said that the local people are judges in their own cause. I do not think it is possible for a person who lives all his life in one locality to be entirely impartial in deciding whether his area should be joined to another.
  Finally, I should like to mention a part of the country which the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, mentioned—namely, Wales. The noble Lord criticised the Commission, I venture to say, unfairly, because, whilst they had made several suggestions for dealing with Wales, which they say is a difficult area to deal with, they had not come down in favour of any one of the five different alternatives suggested., It is easy to make that sort of criticism, but I think it is unfair. What they have done is to put these five suggestions in their Report and say that for twelve months they can be considered, discussed and debated, not only in Wales but elsewhere, and everybody can have a chance of thoroughly studying them, and in twelve months' time the Commission themselves will make a recommendation. What could be more just than that? I am aware that there is particularly strong objection in Wales to these proposals, but nevertheless I say, although I may be alone, that I very much hope that His Majesty's Government will make some drastic alterations in the Welsh county boundaries. As the Commission
  160
  point out, the Welsh counties, in particular, are far too small to get the best out of the local government structure. I am convinced that the Welsh people themselves would be greatly benefited if the number of authorities in Wales were largely reduced.
  I hope that the Commission's recommendations for reducing the counties to not more than five will be adopted, however strong the opposition may be. Some of that opposition, I am quite satisfied, is absurd. For instance, in my own part of Wales there is great opposition to the union of three counties, but, when I examine the matter, I see that if that union were carried out, those three counties together would still be smaller, not only in population but also in area, than the county of Devon. And the county of Devon has remained unaltered as a single county council area since at least 1888. Nobody has ever suggested that it should be divided into three, and if it were suggested now there would be equally violent opposition to the suggestion. This brings me to say that I am afraid that most of the opposition comes from the fact that everybody is naturally conservative and opposed to change just because it is change. If the Government have the courage, as I hope they have, to support the Commission's recommendations, and to carry through these changes in spite of some objection, I am quite satisfied that not only will the Government be rewarded for their courage, but that before long the changes themselves will be welcomed rather than opposed in the areas which they affect.
  May I mention one more argument in favour of change? There is a widespread tendency nowadays for the powers of local authorities to be taken away from the smaller authorities and given to the larger, and from the larger and given to the Ministry—a very noticeable and continuing tendency. Why? Just because those authorities are too small. If they had been larger and stronger and richer, I am convinced that there would be far less of this taking away of their own powers, and I wish that some members of those authorities could see that point. I therefore desire entirely to support the noble Viscount who introduced this question and to join with him in asking the Government to implement this Report as soon as possible.
  6.8 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I do not wish to go very deeply into the findings of this Commission. Some noble Lords have praised their work, and my noble friend Lord Rennell has condemned it roundly. But we are faced with this Report. It may be that if the Commission had not made the bold recommendations they have, they would have been merely tinkering with this problem. At any rate, they have made the recommendations, and some of them are obviously good. It is obviously good to have wider police services than we have had; it is obviously good that some of the county boroughs should pay some of the cost of the roads in the county districts surrounding them, because a great deal of the wear on these roads comes from their use for commerce or pleasure by those living in the county boroughs. I do not wish to go fully into the Report, except to say that we ought to know at the earliest possible opportunity—I hope this afternoon—what are the views of the Government upon it. The Report was issued three and a half months ago. It will have been read in every area affected by it. In the few moments during which I am going to speak, I would like to draw the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to some of the effects it is having in the locality which I know well—a locality, incidentally, referred to in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, when he spoke of the absurd conclusions about Bournemouth and Poole—the county of Dorset.
  We down there, especially those of us who live in Poole, do not think they are absurd at all. It is clear that all existing tradition would have been offended if Bournemouth had been allowed to swallow up the Borough of Poole. Incidentally, Poole sent more ships to fight the Armada than any other town on the south cost—at a time when Bournemouth did not even exist; nobody even knew the name of the little stream running through its delightful central garden. In the view of many people, it is a wise provision that these two should be equally new county boroughs, sitting side by side, both having the same status. Neither of them will be wishing to gobble the other up, and I hope they will be able to work amicably next door to one another.
  162
  Indeed, some extra authority will be given to the county of Dorset, through which so many of the people who stay at Bournemouth 'proceed to see the beauty spots of Dorset, so causing a considerable wear on the roads of the county.
  To get away from that particular point, I want to draw the noble Earl's attention to the kind of effect this is having. If you get, as you have in his case, a recommendation that Poole shall be one of the new county boroughs, then, according to the recommendations of his Report, it will have complete charge of its education services. At the present moment the education services are over the county of Dorset at a whole. That county had plans prepared, even before the war, to build a large new technical college in the Borough of Poole, where there is the bigger part of the population. It is the kind of college that would cost about £250,000 to build. The authorities have in mind other educational developments, such as a school of art, lager grammar schools, and other plans of that sort. What is at present happening, slice there is no decision on this matter, is that, naturally, the county authority are not over-anxious to spend the money of all their ratepayers on these big developments which, if Poole becomes a separate educational authority, will not be available for the remainder of the county, but will serve only that borough. The same thing is happening in regard to the planning of the health services. In both these matters, things are being held up until the local authorities know what is to be the attitude of the Government towards this Report. I am not saying what that attitude ought to be, but things are really held up because everybody is in the dark as to whether this Report—or how much of it—is to be adopted by the Government.
  I would like to refer your Lordships to one part of the Report—namely, the concluding sentences. Your Lordships will see that on page 44 the Report says:
  "If changes are to be made, the disadvantages of delay seem to us to be very substantial."
  They then conclude by saying:
  "…recent changes in legislation…have already created a very large disturbance in the economy of local authorities. The setting up of our Commission, too, with a procedure which provides a simple method of asking for changes of area or status, has itself

  163
  created unrest. The sooner this sense of unsettlement is removed, the better for local government."
  Those phrases are obviously sound. I would ask the noble Earl if he can tell us whether His Majesty's Government have come to any decisions on this Report; if so, what they are; and if they have not, whether he can promise us that we shall have that information at an early date.
  6.16 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, Viscount Gage, for his willingness to change into a question the Motion which he had originally placed on the Order Paper. The Government are not yet in a position to express any opinion on the merits or demerits of the recommendations in this Report of the Local Government Boundary Commission, or, of course, to reply to points raised for or against the Report in an extended debate on the subject. The procedure which the noble Viscount was kind enough to adopt has made it clear that this afternoon the Government spokesman should listen to the views of noble Lords, mark and digest them, and also see that those views are transmitted to the Ministers and Government Departments concerned, instead of himself making a statement about a policy that has not yet been decided.
  I am also grateful to the noble Viscount—and I am sure the House shares my appreciation—for the opportunity which his question has given for the expression of opinion about this Report by noble Lords, all of whom have had considerable experience of local government. From the point of view of the Government, it is important that we should have the views of Parliament on this Report before our policy is decided, in order that we may reach the right conclusions from the standpoint of the maximum efficiency of local government. This is particularly desirable in the case of these recommendations, because, as several noble Lords have pointed out, if they were carried out they would involve a piece of legislation which I believe would be somewhat controversial—certainly on the basis of the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon. This short debate has served an extremely useful purpose
  164
  in informing the Government of the views held by a number of noble Lords, both for and against the Report, and I can assure your Lordships that those views will be carefully weighed and considered by my right honourable friend the Minister of Health.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, asked if the Government would consider this Report with an open mind. That, I can assure him, the Government will do. We shall consider the Report without bias or prejudice. We shall endeavour to make up our minds in the best interests of efficiency and of an up-to-date system of local government. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, said that one of the great difficulties to-day is that everyone is conservative, and opposed to change just because it is change. I can assure the noble Lord that we are not conservative; we are not opposed to change because it is change. In the last three years, in fact, we have probably brought about more changes than any other Government in the course of this century. I hope that we escape the noble Lord's censure in that respect.
  The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, asked a legitimate question when he inquired whether the Government will make up their mind about this extremely important matter as soon as possible. Of course, the answer to that question is that we will not interpose any more delay than is necessary for a thorough and careful consideration of the whole question. As soon as our minds are made up, and it is possible to make a statement of policy, naturally that statement will be made to Parliament.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Earl realises that it is rather urgent?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I entirely agree with the noble Lord about the urgency of this matter. The Annual Report of the Local Government Boundary Commission for 1947 raises issues of great importance to all local authorities, and it is essential that adequate time should be allowed for discussion of the principles involved before any final conclusions are reached. The Government would be glad to receive, in due course, the views of the representative associations of local authorities on the Report, and I am advised that those bodies are actively considering the Report at this moment. In the meantime, the Government do not contemplate any immediate legislation. As this Report

  165
  appeared only in March, I do not think that sufficient time has yet elapsed for a full consideration of these important issues by local authorities. My right honourable friend the Minister of Health fully appreciates the magnitude of the issues raised in the Report, which suggest changes in the functions and boundaries of existing local authorities, and he will give to these recommendations the care and consideration which they undoubtedly merit before a final conclusion is reached.

  IMPORTS FROM SOUTH AFRICA.
  6.22 p.m.
  LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERONhad given notice of his intention to ask His Majesty's Government, with reference to a statement in the Daily Telegraph on June 8, 1948, regarding restrictions on the import of grapes, soft fruits, wines, canned fish, boots and shoes from the Union of South Africa, how much has been expended on these commodities in the last six months in other than Empire countries. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask the question which stands in my name, I think I should read to your Lordships the cutting from the Daily Telegraph of the 8th of this month which prompted me to put down the question. It reads as follows:
  "The possibility of restrictions on imports of manufactured goods into South Africa, especially from the United States, is being widely discussed here in commercial circles. This follows an announcement in the Afrikaner Party's Rand newspaper"—
  and here I apologise for my pronunciation—
  "Dagbreek en Sondagnuus, that Mr. Havenga, Finance Minister, has been urgently considering the steps necessary to preserve the Union's financial status. A recent reserve bank statement show its gold stocks have dropped to below the £100 million set as a minimum when the £80 million gold loan to Britain was negotiated last October. Exports of the current gold output, plus exports of commodities, are insufficient to pay for imports of 'luxury' goods. Britain, it says, has reduced its purchases from South Africa, and the New Government will have to make efforts to persuade Britain to relax her restrictions on imports from the Union. The 'restrictions' affect grapes, soft fruits, wines, canned fish, boots and shoes."
  Although my question is directed towards restrictions upon the import of certain commodities from South Africa, it raises the whole question of reciprocal Commonwealth trading. What I have
  166
  read is an illustration that, if we do not take sufficient of South Africa's exports, we shall lose our own markets in South Africa. Your Lordships will remember the effect of the increasing Commonwealth trade and the expanding markets after 1922, which enabled us to overcome the difficulties of the slump. On all sides we seem to be witnessing and consenting to a wholesale abandonment of the system of Imperial Preference.
  I have given the noble Viscount who is to reply notice of one or two questions, which I should now like to put. In the first place, I should be grateful if he could tell me something about the attitude of His Majesty's Government in connection with the development of Commonwealth trade. We are suffering from an acute dollar shortage which limits our purchases from the United States, but we have no such physical limitations upon our trade with the South African Union. As our trade with the United States decreases, I should have bought that our trade with South Africa and the rest of the Commonwealth would have increased proportionately, and so made up the deficiency. We are part of a great Commonwealth which is capable of great trading activity. It seems to me that in our hour of need we should take advantage of those capacities, and make it the basis of our struggle for prosperity. I understand that under the £80,000,000 gold loan from South Africa, negotiated last year, it was agreed that we should take a minimum of £12,500,000 a year of goods from the Union. I hope the noble Viscount will be able to assure me in his reply that that £12,500,000 is not being treated as the ceiling for imports as well as the minimum for imports from South Africa.
  There is one other question I should like to ask, to which I do not know the answer at all, and I should be grateful to the noble Viscount if he could give me a reply, because I believe it would cast a good deal of light upon the report I have read. Is there anything in the Bretton Woods Agreement that restricts the quantity of goods we are able to import from South Africa? If there is such a restriction, I believe that it would explain a good deal about this matter. Also, if there is such a restriction, I believe that it is in our interests to get rid of it as soon as possible. Our economic situation seems

  167
  to get steadily worse every day and it seems that it is folly not to take advantage of the one way out of our difficulties, the way through expanding Empire trade and markets. I believe that that course would be in the interests of the United States as well as of ourselves, because she depends, at least to a great extent, upon the existence of prosperous Commonwealth markets for the disposal of her goods.
  Here I should like to quote from a speech which was made on the wireless on June 4 by Doctor Malan, the South African Prime Minister, as it has a bearing on the matter. He said:
  "As far as our membership of the United Nations is concerned, we wish it to be clearly understood that we, like our predecessor in office, undertook membership on the clear understanding that there would be no interference from the outside in our domestic affairs or any breach of our sovereignty. We shall build on this foundation and utterly refuse to allow our destiny to be limited by any country or power or organisation except ourselves."
  Any veto of the right to discriminate freely in the arrangements for Commonwealth trade, to my mind cuts across sovereignty and means exactly what Doctor Malan was objecting to. I believe that we have a great deal to object to in the restrictions which are imposed upon our freedom to control our own trade, for they mean the limiting and the control of the destiny not only of South Africa and of this country but also of the whole of the rest of the Commonwealth. I believe it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to support those sentiments which were expressed on the wireless, and also to safeguard our right to control our own trade in our own interests and as we know best.
  6.30 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, when the noble Lord started his speech it was borne in upon me, if he will allow me to say so, that he has not had the advantage of membership of the other place. It is a rule there that one is not allowed to read extracts from the Press upon which to base one's speeches. So far as I am concerned, I welcomed the extract which the noble Lord read, and I am sure that he will not mind my having given utterance to the reflections that immediately arose in my mind. I am glad to say that his misgivings are completely ill-founded. I think the noble Lord could not have
  168
  read the debate which we had in this House quite recently, in which I gave full details of what we are trying to do in the expansion of Commonwealth trade. If the noble Lord had read that debate he would not have made some of the statements that he did make.
  I agree with him, and I think we all agree with him—especially in view of the dollar shortage which weighs upon us so heavily—that it is necessary to do everything we can to buy as much as possible of our necessities from sterling countries. And that is what we are trying to do. We are extending our efforts to buy not only from Commonwealth countries but also from the Colonial countries. I gave many details of these purchases the other day, in the debate to which I have referred. I can assure the noble Lord that he is pushing at a door that is already open. We have been pursuing this course energetically for a long time past—out of dire necessity, if for no other reasons. We should certainly supply ourselves in the near future with as much food as we can afford to pay for, and the more we can obtain from the Commonwealth and the Colonial possessions the better. That is what we are trying to do. At the present time, we have Missions nearly all over the world, in our Commonwealth countries and in the Colonies, trying to develop the possibilities. The noble Lord's admonition, therefore, if I may say so, was unnecessary.
  So far as the South African case is concerned, I am glad to be able to give him an assurance that we entirely agree with what Dr. Malan has said, and that we take no exception whatever to it. I should also like to say that there is nothing in the Bretton Woods Agreement which restricts the quantity of goods that we can take from South Africa; I can reassure the noble Lord completely on that subject. We entered into an Agreement with the Union Government on October 9 last year. That Agreement incorporated a scheme by which we were to take certain imports from the Union during 1948. We are adhering to that Agreement to the full; and anything we can do to extend it we shall certainly do. I will, in a moment, give the noble Lord the figures. I notice that his question referred to anticipated restrictions on the import of grapes, soft fruits, wines, and other things. These are

  169
  the figures of what we undertook to import, and are in fact importing: Fresh fruit, £6,200,000; Canned fruit, £400,000; Dried fruit, pulp, juice, jam and marmalade, £2,200,000; Wine, brandy and grape syrup, £1,460,000; High-strength spirit, £350,000; Canned fish, £870,000; Eggs, £220,000; Potatoes and pulses, £300,000—making a total of £12,000,000.
  I think the noble Lord will agree, therefore, that his apprehensions are quite unfounded. We are living up to that Agreement, and anything more that we can do we shall do. So far as the quota of shoes to which the noble Lord referred is concerned, there was a scheme, called a token import scheme, which was agreed to between ourselves and South Africa, the United States of America and Canada, which included boots and shoes. So far as South Africa was concerned, the scheme was for an amount of £60,000 per annum. These token imports are to keep goodwill alive, and they are being adhered to. Therefore, I assure the noble Lord that the misgivings which he has plainly and honestly and fairly conceived, after reading certain newspaper reports, are not well-founded. I have given the actual figures, and I shall be glad to supply him with a copy if he desires it. I hope we shall be able to expand this trade. I should like to emphasise strongly that we are seized more and more every day of the necessity of buying as much as we can from the Commonwealth countries, and we are doing everything we possibly can to foster that type of trade.
  LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for his full answer, and to apologise for my breach of Order at the beginning of my speech.

  MONOPOLY (INQUIRY AND CONTROL) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

  FUTURE BUSINESS.
  6.39 p.m.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, before the House adjourns, I wish to take the opportunity to inform your Lordships of an
  170
  important change in our programme of Business for next week. In order that both Houses of Parliament should have the opportunity of expressing their views, before it is signed, upon the Marshall Aid Pact, which is to be signed on Tuesday evening next, it has been necessary to transpose the business arranged for Tuesday and Wednesday next in your Lordships' House. We shall take the Marshall Aid Pact Motion or Tuesday, instead of Wednesday, and shall open the Committee stage of the Gas Bill on Wednesday, July 7, instead of Tuesday next, July 6. The House meets on both days at 2.30 p.m.

  FINANCE (No. 2) BILL.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Bill had been endorsed with a certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.