Lords Sitting of 8 December 1949

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

  RIVER GREAT OUSE (FLOOD PROTECTION) BILL
  4.5 p.m.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That Standing Order 147 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments.
  THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, the promoters of the Bill desire to make five small Amendments to the Bill. I can assure your Lordships that they are purely drafting Amendments, and I beg to move that they be agreed to.
  Moved, That the proposed Amendments be made.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended until the House adjourn for the Recess at Christmas.—(Viscount Addison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
  4.7 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce; a Bill for further promoting
  1342
  the Revision of the Statute Law by repealing Enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary and for facilitating the publication of Revised Editions of the Statutes; and to move that the Bill he read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

  PARLIAMENT SQUARE (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That any Petition praying to be heard upon the merits against the Bill be deposited not later than next Monday, December 12.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS) BILL
  4.8 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, earlier this year the House gave its consent to the Public Works (Festival of Britain) Act, 1949, which dealt with various transport matters arising out of the decision to hold the principal exhibition of the Festival of Britain, 1951, on the South Bank site. The main purpose of the Bill of which I am now moving the Second Reading is to make provision for the use of part of Battersea Park as Festival Gardens in connection with the Festival. Because final decisions about the Gardens and the company to be set up to run them were not taken until the summer, it was not possible to deal with this matter in the earlier Bill.
  Some people have expressed the view that Festival Gardens are irrelevant to the main purpose of the Festival. The Government do not share that view. Foreign visitors to Britain would not be very satisfied with the attractions of the Festival if they were presented with

  1343
  nothing but a display of British achievements in science and technology, in industrial design and architecture and in the arts. I suggest that they will not come to Britain unless they think they will have a good time. If they do come and are disappointed, they will tell their friends, who will stay away in subsequent years. If Britain is to use the 1951 Festival to strengthen her tourist industry in a permanent way, she must make known to potential visitors that there are gay and lively things to do here. The exhibitions, however dazzling to the eye or uplifting to the spirit, will not alone make a Festival. I therefore hope that your Lordships will agree that it is altogether right and proper that this House should give approval to the Battersea Park scheme. Let the House proclaim to the world that in 1951 the grimness and drabness of post-war London will be things of the past.
  So far as I can discover, none of the great exhibitions of the past was staged without making some provision for the lighter side of life. The Festival Gardens are not just a frill. They are an essential part of the whole Festival. If there had been room on the South Bank site, an allocation of space for an amusement section would have been made automatically, but the South Bank site itself consists only of about thirty acres, and obviously there would not be room there for the amusement section. Battersea Park was considered to be far the best site for this purpose, in view of its situation near the centre of London, its own picturesque character and the river link between it and the main Exhibition. In fact, Battersea Park was the only place which offered the possibility of a river link. To have chosen any other site would have meant throwing an intolerable burden on road and rail services which will in any case, it is anticipated, be operating to capacity. For the visitor to London a trip by the passenger service on the Thames is the finest way of seeing London. Improved services will be provided for the Festival and will he used by many tourists. These river services should become a permanent feature of the amenities that we offer to tourists.
  Let me make it clear that the Government are not entering into the entertainment business. The Festival Gardens
  1344
  will be run by a company under the chairmanship of Sir Henry French. Among its directors are to be found such names as Lord Aberconway, President of the Royal Horticultural Society, Lord Latham, Chairman of the London Transport Executive, and Sir Charles Cochran, as well as those of the Chairman of the National Amusements Council and the Vice-President of the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain. As will he seen, the board includes some experienced and hard-headed businessmen who can be relied upon to see that the company's affairs are run in a businesslike manner. The amusement section will be let to concessionaires whose normal business is the operation of amusement centres. These concessionaires will pay a rental or a contract fee and take their own risks as to whether they make money or lose it.
  The part of Battersea Park to be enclosed is an area of thirty-seven acres, about one-fifth of the total area of the park. Of the thirty-seven acres only seven will be used for the amusement area. These seven acres are about a quarter of a mile from the nearest residences. No trees will be cut down. I make that statement especially for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Broughshane (I am sorry to see that he is not here), who is an expert on trees. When the Festival is over, the park will be restored and again thrown open to the public. If there are any features of the Festival Gardens which the London County Council would like to retain as permanent adornments of the park, the Bill provides powers for their retention. Here I would like to say a word of assurance to those residents in Battersea and Chelsea who may be afraid that they will be disturbed by the activities carried on in the Festival Gardens. Their interests are in responsible hands, and the Festival authorities are pledged to pay regard to them. Everything will be done to prevent excessive noise, traffic dislocation or destruction of the amenities of the park. When the summer of 1951 arrives, Battersea, I suggest, will have reason to be proud of her distinction, and her residents will have no cause to regret the decision which turned such a bright and cheerful spotlight on their borough. That is the background to the Bill.
  I now turn to the clauses. Clause 1 enables the London County Council to

  1345
  enclose not more than forty acres of Battersea Park and to authorise their use by the Festival Gardens Company, subject to terms and conditions to be agreed. This clause also enables the company, with the approval of the County Council, to carry out ancillary works in other parts of the park. This is to cover the provision of electricity, water, drainage and so on. Clause 2 deals with finance. The company will be put in funds to start its activities by loans up to a total of £770,000. Of this amount the Government will advance not more than £570,000, and the London County Council not more than £200,000. These loans by the Government and the London County Council will he the subject of an agreement between the Minister, the L.C.C. and the company specifying the terms as to payment of interest, repayment of capital and security. There is provision for the Minister and for the London County Council to release the whole or part of a claim against the company in respect of the loans. I would add that this provision is necessary, because in the short space of six months there would appear to be little likelihood of recouping entirely the capital outlay, plus the running costs.
  Clause 3 deals with the reinstatement of the site of the Gardens at the end of the Festival, and its restoration to public use. This clause requires that six months after the clay on which the Gardens were first opened to the public the company shall, as soon as may be, do all things necessary to restore to the satisfaction of the Council the site of the Gardens and any work which they may have done outside the enclosed area. If the company fail to carry out their obligations in this respect, the London County Council are required to do the work and to recover the cost from the company. Provision is made for the County Council, if they think it desirable, to retain for the benefit of people using Battersea Park any buildings which may have been erected for the purposes of the Gardens. Subsection (4) of this clause places upon the Minister of Health the responsibility for allowing by Order an extension of time for the work of reinstatement.
  Clause 4 provides that the execution of works and the carrying on of ally activity in the Gardens, if executed or carried on
  1346
  by the London County Council, the company or a person authorised in that behalf by either of them, shall be deemed to be authorised by this Bill, notwithstanding that it would otherwise be actionable on the ground of nuisance. In the normal way, any person who thought that he was likely to suffer a nuisance would take action by applying to the courts for an injunction to restrain the company from carrying out their activities. It is undesirable that the Festival Gardens Company should be hampered in carrying out the purposes for which they have been created by any fear of an injunction as to the methods by which they carry out their work. And, obviously, if an injunction were applied for and granted before work commenced, the preparation of the Gardens would be hampered. Once work has started, an application for an injunction is not normally granted if damages would meet the case. Having taken away the Common Law right, it was only right that the Government should make some provision to enable any person who had in fact suffered loss by reason of nuisance to claim compensation.
  Clause 5 applies to the Festival Gardens the same modifications of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, as were applied to the main Exhibition and the South Bank site. It relieves the company from any liability to payment of development charges; preserves the position of the London County Council under Section 82 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and provides that planning permission shall be deemed to have been granted. The provisions relating to the Exhibition traffic arrangements enable the Minister of Transport to restrict the use by vehicular traffic of the whole or any part of a street by imposing one-way working or diversion of traffic. The Festival Gardens are expected to attract a considerable volume of car traffic. In consultation with the Ministry's engineers and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the London County Council have prepared a scheme estimated to accommodate some 2,000 cars. Something less than half of this accommodation will be in the park itself.
  Clause 6 exempts the Festival of Britain office and the Festival Gardens Company from: (a) the operation of the provisions of the London Building Acts, 1930 to 1939

  1347
  and bylaws made thereunder, and (b) the provisions of Part II of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, in so far as they relate to drainage. The clause further provides that it shall not be necessary to obtain a licence for public entertainment of the kinds specified in the clause. May I say here that there is no desire on the part of the Festival of Britain office, or the Festival Gardens Company, to evade their responsibilities in these matters? When consultations had taken place with the London County Council and the local authorities concerned, it became clear that the local authorities could not, in the time available, deal in the normal way with the plans for Festival buildings. The only way out of this difficulty is to provide for exemptions from the requirements of the Acts concerned. I can, however, say that the Festival of Britain office have given His Majesty's Government an assurance that in all their undertakings, and those of the Festival Gardens Company, they will adopt standards of building construction and lay-out as exacting as those required under the Acts from which they are being given exemption. Officers of the London County Council and the Ministry of Works will be available to give the Festival authorities expert advice on these matters.
  Powers are sought in Clause 7 of the Bill to enable two piers to be built at the Festival Gardens site. It is proposed that the river services should be provided on a voluntary and co-operative basis by the Thames passenger boat proprietors, and discussions are taking place with them to ensure that adequate supplies of craft are available. In order, however, to ensure that the services are in fact provided on an orderly basis, with suitable craft, powers are sought under this clause to enable bylaws to be made controlling all traffic to the piers, laying down standards for types of vessels which can be used on the services and the amenities to be provided on them, and for fixing the fares which may be charged, as well as the charges for use of the piers.
  Furthermore, in order to ensure that services to the Exhibition and Festival Gardens from the other piers will not be unduly interrupted by services which are not operating to and from the Exhibition and Festival Gardens piers, power is sought to enable bylaws to be
  1348
  made jointly by the London County Council and the Port of London Authority to lay down priorities for the use of their piers. I am happy to say that both the London County Council and the Port of London Authority are ready to assist in controlling the use of the various piers concerned in such a way as to ensure the success of the Exhibition and the Festival Garden services.
  Clause 8 would enable the Minister of Transport to make grants towards the construction of additional landing stages on the river Thames. Clause 9 is the usual clause providing for payments out of moneys provided by Parliament. Clause 10 provides a saving for the existing powers of the London County Council and the Port of London Authority. Clause 11 is the Short Title and Interpretation Clause. I point out that in a number of places in the Bill—Clauses 2, 6 and 9—there are references to the Minister." Clause 11(2) defines this expression as meaning such Minister of the Crown as His Majesty may by Order in Council appoint either generally or in relation to a specific provision.
  There remains the question of the traffic arrangements in connection with the Festival Gardens. In consultation with the Metropolitan Police, the London Transport Executive, the London County Council and the boroughs affected, action is being taken to ensure that the normal travelling habits of the residents of Battersea and Chelsea will be subjected to minimum interference. Sloane Square Underground Station, which was badly damaged by bombing, is being restored, and some limited works at South Kensington, Battersea and Queen's Road stations to improve passenger handling facilities may be necessary. Additional bus services will provide links with rail and underground stations and with the South Bank Exhibition. But to relieve the road and rail services, the Festival Gardens will also be served to and from the South Bank Exhibition, and to and from eastern and western suburbs, by frequent water buses. I hope that I have given a fair summary of the provisions of the Bill. I think there will be general agreement that if the Festival of Britain is to he a real success it must cater for all tastes, and that it would be unthinkable that we should not include the

  1349
  lighter side. Finally, I stress again four points: (1) the Gardens will be run by the company on business lines; (2) the Gardens will be a substantial attraction to tourists; (3) they will enable us to build up and develop a river passenger service which will be a permanent addition to the amenities we offer to tourists; and (4) when the Festival is over, Battersea Park will again be entirely open to the public and will be in better shape than it is at present. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.(Lord Morrison.)
  4.29 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord who has just sat down, first of all for the delightfully light manner in which he commenced his speech to us and, secondly, for the very thorough manner in which he explained the provisions of this Bill. May I say at the outset—and I think I speak for those who sit around me—that we are fully in accord with the idea of having a Festival of Britain; and that if we have a Festival of Britain it must be done on an appropriately large scale. We all regret that the actual area of the site on the South bank of the river, by Waterloo Station, is not large enough to incorporate both the Exhibition and the amusement park, because I have always understood that the main purpose of an amusement park was to bring people to the Exhibition. That is why there was one at Wembley, and also one at the Glasgow Exhibition just before the war.
  So far as I can see, the purpose of this particular amusement park is to take people away from the Exhibition, because there will not be room on the small site near the County Hall, and there must be some place for the overflow of people to go to so that the actual site on the Exhibition is not too crowded. I do not know whether that plan will be successful. I imagine there will be one class of people who will go to the Exhibition and not the amusement park, and another class who will go to the amusement park and not to the Exhibition. If people come down from other parts of England, or Scotland for that matter, for a day in London, they will probably gravitate either to Battersea Park or to the Exhibition itself; quite a number of them will not go to both. But at any rate I, for one, am
  1350
  glad that opportunity has been taken to place the Exhibition near the London County Council building, and I hope that the reconstruction will be of permanent benefit to the whole aspect of that part of South London.
  To return to the actual provisions of this Bill, I doubt whether between these two sites we are taking quite enough space for the numbers of people who are likely to come to this Festival. I believe that the area at Wembley was far larger than the combined areas of this site by the river and the part of Battersea Park which it is proposed to take. I believe that the Wembley site covered about 260 acres. That is a great deal compared with the total of, I think, sixty acres that are to be taken for these two schemes.
  It is a pity, in a way, that we cannot have this amusement park in some position other than an area which is already recognised as a public park. I am one of those who would like to see somewhere in the metropolis a centre something like the Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen. I dare say some of your Lordships have been there. It is a delightful place where one may sit beside a lake and drink a glass of beer, or whatever other refreshment one would like to have, in the open air. I should like there to be such a place which could be a permanent acquisition to London. It is, of course, most extravagant to spend something like £800,000 in order to get £700,000 back—100,000 for six months' occupation of a site. A great deal of the proceedings will be the erection of buildings and their subsequent removal. I should have preferred to see this amusement park on some permanent site, and then we should not have this loss—which, as I understand it, is to be spread over between the Treasury and the ratepayers of London. This measure anticipates that loss of £100,000. In all earlier Exhibitions, however, it has been the amusement park portion which has made a profit. As this amusement park is going to be held in what is already a public park, and there is to be a loss even on that, we shall not have as a legacy something such as we had in the form of the Crystal Palace after the 1851 Exhibition. After all, we had the Crystal Palace for a good many years afterwards and it was frequently used for other Exhibitions.

  1351
  The noble Lord, in introducing the Bill, said that if foreign visitors come here and do not have a good time they will tell their friends and many will perhaps be kept away thereby. He went on to say that the Exhibition site alone was not enough to give them that good time, and that the Battersea Park plan was intended to fill the gap. But I think we shall have to do more than that for our foreign visitors if we are to ensure that they do have a good time. One of the matters about which we shall have to do something is in regard to the provision of accommodation for these visitors during the period of their visit here, especially if they come in larger numbers than they do now. At the present time 3,000 rooms in hotels which were formerly used by tourists in or near the centre of London are now used as offices, and so on—I am not saying Government offices necessarily. Some of the hotels, such as the Victoria, the Great Central (which I believe is now used by the Transport Board or the Railway Executive), the Langham and the Carlton, were all being used as hotels before the war and are now in use as offices.
  In this connection I should like to refer to the Report of the proceedings of the 21st Annual General Meeting of the Travel Association of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, at which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor took the chair. At that meeting Mr. Herbert Morrison, the Lord President of the Council, said:
  "I think, also, that we may well need more hotels in London and some of our chief cities—not luxury places, but more moderate-priced establishments offering good accommodation and good food and service and a kindly, homely reception in our best tradition."
  I entirely agree with the Lord President; and I suggest that we must try to do something to secure this extra accommodation for our visitors if we are to attract them to this Festival and give them a good time, so that they will go back to their friends and tell them that the Festival of Great Britain is a good thing to come to. I would like to ask, first, whether the Government have any kind of plan to derequisition before 1951 any of the hotels that they themselves are at present using. I do not know when the new
  1352
  Government offices will be ready. I remember that plans for them were well under way when the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, was First Commissioner of Works and I had the honour to be his Parliamentary Private Secretary. That is a considerable number of years ago. At any rate, they are in the course of building now, and they ought to be able to take some of these staffs. I hope they will be ready in time. In any event, I believe that we have to keep on pressing the Departments concerned to evacuate this essential accommodation if we are to accommodate all our tourists.
  If I may, I should like to quote from the Economist an article that was written on October 15 of this year:
  "Anyone who to-day contemplates building a new hotel to cater for the flood of devaluation tourists, or for holidays-with-pay, will find that the cost per room of building an hotel, reduced to an annual figure, is very much higher than the profit per room that can be expected after allowance is made for the effect of the Catering Wages Act, for the five-shilling limit on meals, for purchase tax on furniture and fittings and for income tax on the money needed to amortise the capital. It is a plain impossibility, so long as present conditions or anything like them continue, for any new hotels to be built."
  I do not think that that statement in the least exaggerates the position. People have no idea of the amount that purchase tax alone may cost a big hotel organisation. According to their annual reports, the Savoy group last year paid £60,000 in purchase tax, and they have to pay a further £80,000 this year. In the case of these hotels I was wondering whether something could be done to grant some exemption from that tax. It is done in the case of ships. Merchant ships bringing tourists to this country do not pay purchase tax on their furniture. Subject to certain special conditions which the Inland Revenue could make to deal with anybody who might try to take improper advantage of this scheme by getting the furniture free of tax and then selling it, I think something ought to be done to try to relieve any new hotel that is opening of that additional burden.
  Another point I have in mind is this. It is a curious thing about our income tax law that whereas factory buildings and plant have a generous measure of depreciation allowance, the measure of depreciation allowance for hotels as regards their articles of trade—that is, their buildings, their furniture and their utensils—is

  1353
  far less than in the case of any factory. That means that even if we derequisition the hotels we are liable not to have people going into that industry, certainly so long as the Minister of Food sees fit to retain the five-shilling limit on meals. I raise those points because I think they are material when we are trying to arrange what is partly a dollar-earner in this Festival of Britain. Somebody should apply his mind to this problem, so that it may be tackled in time and so that we may have proper accommodation in this country for those visitors whom we are so anxious to welcome here.
  The only other comment I wish to make is this. I certainly welcome the fact that this Festival of Britain is to have an amusement park. I believe that we are liable to be too dull in this country. The sooner we get back to the days of "Merrie England" and a little more gaiety, despite our preoccupations, the better we shall do our work. For that reason, I welcome this measure. I hope that such a park will be well run. I am pretty certain that it is possible to run one of these amusement parks without creating a great deal of nuisance to the surrounding people if adequate precautions are taken. I hope that that will be done. If these steps were taken, we might even have in Battersea Park a place which would be a kind of permanent Tivoli Gardens, because everybody would have accepted it and thought it was a good scheme. We on this side shall certainly support the Second Reading of this measure to-day.
  4.47 p.m.
  LORD LLOYD: My Lords, for my part I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and I beg to support this Bill. I am sure it is essential to have Festival Gardens or a place of that kind if the Festival of Britain is to be a success. I do not wish to detain your Lordships long, but there are two points I should like to make. The first relates to the question of finance. We have been told this afternoon that these Festival Gardens are probably going to lose money to the extent of approximately £100,000—I certainly hope it will not be more—and that this loss is to be apportioned as to £60,000 to the Government and £40,000 to the London County Council. I feel that it is not quite fair to the London ratepayer that he should have to stand this possible
  1354
  additional charge of £40,000. To begin with, the London County Council are already contributing a great deal to this Exhibition. The concert hall is being built at the ratepayers' expense, and the South Bank development, without which the Festival could not take place, is also being carried through at their expense. Moreover, labour and materials which would otherwise probably be going into building houses in London are being diverted at the London ratepayers' expense. After all, this is a national affair; it does not concern only London; and I think the arguments which have been advanced about the great advantages the average London ratepayer will get from the Festival have been slightly exaggerated. I admit that the ratepayer in the middle of London—in Westminster, Marylebone and Kensington—will probably derive considerable advantages from the increased tourist trade which may be expected as a result of the Festival, but I do not think the outlying parts of London will derive much advantage from it. Therefore it is fallacious to say that the average London ratepayer will benefit greatly out of the Festival of Britain. I think he is being asked to stand rather more than his fair share of cost. That is my first point.
  The other point I would like to say a word about is the question of nuisance. I represent Chelsea on the London County Council, and I know Battersea Park fairly well. As the noble Lord pointed out, under Clause 4 nobody may apply for an injunction against any nuisance. In view of the short term of these gardens, that is, in one sense, a perfectly reasonable provision. I do not see that these gardens could be made if there were going to be any number of injunctions the whole time restraining the organisers from doing this, that and the other. On the other hand, it does mean that if the private citizen is to be deprived of his ordinary legal rights in this matter we have to be very careful that he does not suffer any more nuisance than is absolutely necessary. We have had an assurance from the noble Lord. Lord Morrison, and also from the Lord President in another place, that nuisance would be reduced to a minimum. The Lord President said:
  "I can assure my right honourable friend that everything possible is being done to

  1355
  minimise the noise. In fact, it is thought there will be no nuisance to the people in the locality—at any rate, nothing material."
  The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, I think, said that so far as the fun fair was concerned the nearest dwellings would be 250 yards away. With respect to the noble Lord, I do not think he is accurate about that. So far as the amusement park itself is concerned, probably he is; but a car park is to be constructed on the South side of Battersea Park, which is not 250 yards away from the nearest dwellings; it is forty yards—I know because I paced it. When you consider that probably a thousand cars will be going in and out of that place (I do not know, because the noble Lord did not mention it, how late these Gardens are to stay open) it is clear that the life of the people who live in these dwellings, which are all flats, will be made very uncomfortable indeed; nor, so far as I can see, will they have any redress. I mention that merely because it is important that we should look into all these cases, and see what is going to be done. I do not know whether the noble Lord in his reply will be able to tell me what, if anything, is to be done about that car park—whether it will remain open until midnight, and whether anything can be done to reduce the noise. I am sure the people who live in Battersea would be pleased to have some words of reassurance from the noble Lord, because I know that some of them are very upset about the matter. Therefore, if he could give some reassurance upon that point I should be grateful.
  Finally, although my noble friend Lord Llewellin expressed the hope that these Gardens in Battersea Park might continue after six months, I hope they will not—for the following reason. We in Battersea and Chelsea are desperately short of playing fields, and anything which reduced the space available for playing fields at the present time would be a bad thing. I feel that the demand for playing fields has first priority.
  4.54 p.m.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I have no reason to complain about the short but interesting discussion that we have had, although I was surprised to hear the noble Lord who spoke last say that he
  1356
  hoped the Gardens would revert to playing fields. In point of fact, the space which is to be used for the Gardens has been allotments for a good many years, so playing fields are not being taken away.
  LORD LLOYD: If the noble Lord will forgive me, I think he has not followed my point. I know they are now allotments; the point is that we have been struggling for the last four years to get rid of them because they were formerly playing fields, and we want not only that space returned but a good deal more room also if we can get it.
  LORD MORRISON: The other comment that came to me was that while I tried my best to strike a cheerful note in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, and was ably supported by my noble friend Lord Llewellin, by suggesting that we should not go about making heavy weather of our difficulties, but rather make the best of things, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, fell back into the grumbling attitude of mind. If it is persisted in by the people of London generally that attitude will create a poor look-out for the tourists who are coming over to the Festival. I know all about the difficulties. Some of them are raised by people who are always complaining; and some by people who fear that there will be noise. I am not able to answer the noble Lord's question as to how long the car park will be kept open, or whether the amusement park will be open on Sundays. That is a question that we must leave to the consideration of the people concerned. I think it would be far better for us in Parliament to leave it to the people who are charged with the task, rather than to try and settle that multitude of details ourselves.
  The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, raised the most important question of the accommodation of visitors. I can give him a little information. I am informed, for example, that there are twenty hotels in London under requisition at the present time. They are already used for living purposes, as hostels and housing, with the exception of the Hotel Victoria in Northumberland Avenue, which is used as offices. The possibility of releasing these hotels is at present under urgent consideration. The Government have de-requisitioned many hotels in the last few years, and I am not going to claim that

  1357
  the few which they still hold in London would make anything but a very small contribution to the problem—and it is a big problem—of accommodating the visitors who are expected to come to the Festival. The Government, however, realise the importance of this problem if the Festival is to be a success. They are aware that there is a shortage of accommodation for visitors in London, and that this shortage is liable to be aggravated in 1951. The Board of Trade are in close consultation with the Tourists and Holidays Board in an endeavour to overcome these problems. In the meantime, the Government are anxious to derequisition what hotels they can, and I can assure the noble Lord that they will do all that is possible in this direction. May I add that there should be no difficulty in obtaining building licences for modest and essential work of repair and redecoration after an hotel has been de-requisitioned?
  The noble Lord also raised what I am afraid is a much more difficult point—namely, the question of purchase tax on items that will be required by hotel proprietors if they are to refurnish their hotels after derequisition. That is a difficult problem because I need not remind your Lordships that this Parliament is nearing its close. There will be a General Election long before this Exhibition has been held.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: But the problem is whether it will be before or after the Budget.
  LORD MORRISON: The noble Lord knows as well as I do that an alteration in the purchase tax requires legislation, and therefore I am perfectly sure that, even if I possessed the information—which I do not—I should not be in a position at this moment and from this desk, to reveal whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he opens his next Budget (whether he belongs to my Party or the noble Lord's Party, I can leave as an open question) will see fit to announce some alterations in purchase tax in favour of hotel proprietors or people who have had their property de-requisitioned and brought back for the use of the Festival. That is a point I would rather leave in its present state. I am not able to say anything definite; the noble Lord knows that that is the case.
  1358
  May I remind your Lordships that this matter was raised in another place quite recently? An honourable Member of that place asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
  "Whether, in view of the importance of the tourist industry, he is prepared to abolish purchase tax on furniture and furnishings for use in hotels."
  The reply was:
  "It is not possible to give special privileges to particular users of taxable goods."
  It only remains for me to thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, and others who have listened, for the friendly way in which they have received this Bill. I hope your Lordships will be prepared to give it, a Second Reading.
  On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived; and Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  CHARITY OF WALTER STANLEY IN WEST BROMWICH BILL
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed.

  WAR DAMAGED SITES BILL
  5.1 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Kershaw.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The Earl of DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4:
  Use and disposal of land by local authorities
  (2) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, the local authority may—

  (a) use the land for the purposes of any of the statutory functions of the authority (including the carrying out of any works which they are authorised to carry out under any enactment); or

  (b) let the land for any term not exceeding the period for which the local authority are entitled to possession of the land.

  LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (2) (a), after "enactment" to insert "not being of a permanent nature." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that if a local authority should erect a permanent building or works on a war damaged site and then wished to acquire the land compulsorily, they must make use of the relevant statutory provision for that purpose and not take advantage of this Bill by acquiring a lease of the land for ten years at the low rate of compensation rental to be paid under this Bill, thereby avoiding payment of the proper purchase price to the owner until the ten years has expired. Your Lordships will notice that under Clause 8 of the Bill provisions are made in relation to the compulsory acquisition of land of which a lease has been taken under the Bill. I suggest that it is contemplated by His Majesty's Government that some of these war damaged sites will be compulsorily acquired. This Amendment ensures that fair treatment will be given to the owners of sites. I hope that His Majesty's Government will have no difficulty in accepting this very reasonable Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 31, after ("enactment") insert ("not being of a permanent nature").—(Lord Teynham.)
  LORD KERSHAW: It may be remembered that on the Second Reading of this Bill I asked your Lordships to take particular note of the fact that the whole purpose of the Bill was temporary in character. I think the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment understood that very clearly, because during the Second Reading debate he said it was very unlikely that a local authority would erect anything but temporary buildings because of the insecurity of tenure of the site. The whole point is that it is almost certain that no local authority will build anything of a permanent nature on these sites. The Amendment might cause a difficulty which I think it would be the desire of everyone to avoid, by making it necessary to determine what is and what is not to be regarded as of a permanent nature. Gardens might in some cases be regarded as of a permanent nature, and there could be controversy and, maybe litigation on that point.
  I can, however, give the noble Lord an assurance that the Minister would not
  1360
  sanction a loan—which would, of course, be necessary if the work were of a permanent and substantial character—and therefore there is no purpose in inserting the words which the noble Lord would like to insert in the Bill. The period is not ten years, as the noble Lord said, but five years or less than five years. That is the period for which the land may be taken. Having regard to that and to the fact that under Clause 7 the land could be released to the owner or occupier and that it must be released if he is himself in a position to develop, and, taking into consideration the fact that the whole purpose of the Bill is temporary, it is felt that it is not necessary to have these words in the Bill. Therefore, I am sorry to say that I am not authorised to accept the Amendment, and I hope that, in the circumstances, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw it.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I think that what we are up against here is the general modern tendency to draw any Statute as wide as possible, although it is not in the least intended to operate it in that way. The drafts of measures which we get here often give far more extended powers than probably anyone needs to use. The people responsible wish to take those powers in order that may be amply covered. In this case we are met with an example of drafting of that sort. On the other hand, the noble Lord has said that the Minister certainly would not sanction a loan for any permanent building on one of these rented sites, so that what my noble friend Lord Teynham feared could not take place. I suppose it is only sensible to imagine that local authorities would not be very much inclined to put up buildings on a site of which they had only a short tenure, when if they wanted the site for any of their legitimate purposes they could probably acquire it by compulsory purchase under powers which they already possess. I do not know what course my noble friend will follow concerning his Amendment. The noble Lord opposite, of course, cannot speak for local authorities, but as he has told us that the Minister will not in any event give sanction to loans for anything of a permanent nature, I think we need not insist on this Amendment.
  VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment moved by my noble

  1361
  friend, Lord Teynham. I did not fully appreciate the force of Lord Kershaw's argument. This Bill, as I understand it, relates to local authorities throughout this country, and it may well be that among so many local authorities some will be found who are lacking in wisdom or foresight and who may wish to secure powers to erect permanent structures on land of this kind. Even if that is not a likely or probable contingency, I must say that it puzzles me to know what will be lost if the words which Lord Teynham has proposed are inserted in the Bill. I cannot see what would be lost by putting them in.
  LORD KERSHAW: As I have already said, if one reads the Bill through it will be seen quite clearly that its purpose is to provide for dealing temporarily with these sites. Having regard to the short tenure of these sites which is given by the Bill, I cannot conceive any local authority building anything of a permanent nature. These words raise the question of what is or is not of a permanent nature. For instance, one may plant a tree or make a garden, which is intended to be temporary, but there is an element of controversy about the meaning of the words in these connections, and there may be others. I suggest to the noble Lord that, having regard to the whole purpose of this Bill, the insertion of the words is unnecessary.
  VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation, which has made the matter clear. I did not realise the full difficulty that might arise in adding these words.
  LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I think there is a good deal of force in the argument put forward by the noble Lord opposite, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7:
  Determination of possession for purpose of development by owner
  7.—(1) If at any time during the period for which a local authority are entitled to possession of any land of which possession has been taken or retained compulsorily by virtue of an authorisation under this Act, the Minister is satisfied—
  1362
  (b) that planning permission has been granted or is deemed to have been granted under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, in respect of that development; and
  the Minister shall direct that the right of the local authority to retain possession of the land, or of that part of the land, as the case may be, shall be determined upon such date as may be specified in the direction.
  5.11 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1) (b) after "that" to insert:
  "where planning permission is required under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, such"
  The noble Lord said: Perhaps we can discuss this Amendment and the next together, as the second is consequential. As at present drawn Clause 7 reads:
  "If at any time during the period for which a local authority are entitled to possession of any land of which possession has been taken or retained compulsorily by virtue of an authorisation under this Act, the Minister is satisfied"—
  I need not deal with paragraphs (a) and (c), but paragraph (b) says:
  "that planning permission has been granted or is deemed to have been granted under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act in respect of that development,…"
  My Amendment would make paragraph (b) read:
  "that where planning permission is required under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, such planning permission has been granted…"
  and so on. I am advised that under existing regulations planning permission is not required in certain cases. For example, the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order, 1948, gives Class 11 as:
  "The rebuilding, restoration or replacement of buildings, works or plants which have sustained war damage so long as the cubic content immediately before the occurrence of such damage is not increased and such operations do not involve material alterations from the external appearance immediately before the occurrence of such damage."
  I am instructed that at present that class of building does not need planning permission at all. I want to preserve that state of affairs. I understand that the present wording brings them into Clause 7, but I do not believe that that is the intention of the Government. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 15, after ("that") insert the said new words.—(Lord Llewellin.)
  LORD KERSHAW: The noble Lord who moved the Amendment uses the term "I am advised," and I must use the same term. Who am I to give the legal interpretation of an Act when our two views are in conflict? I am advised that all developments of a substantial character, whether within the compass of the terms quoted by the noble Lord or otherwise, require planning permission. I am also advised that it is a common fallacy to think that under the Schedule referred to such permission is not required in certain cases. However, I am prepared to undertake that this matter shall be looked at. Evidently there is some conflict over interpretation of the Schedule, and I am authorised to say that the matter will be looked into from that angle. If it is as the noble Lord says, steps will be taken to deal with it. But at the moment, on that assurance I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I am obliged to the noble Lord. He is probably right in saying that the Bill does not intend to alter the position. I am not an expert on these matters, any more than the noble Lord is, but I remember from our discussions on the Town and Country Planning Act that these buildings are exempt from development charge, and I thought that they were exempt from development charge because they did not have to get planning permission. My advice was that so long as the same cubic content and the same exterior appearance was retained, planning permission was not required. I am prepared to talk with the noble Lord about this to see whether something can be done. If something is to be done, does the noble Lord wish me to put down this Amendment again or, will he put one down in his name?
  LORD KERSHAW: I should not like to mislead the noble Lord. I understand that it is hoped that the Bill will go through all its stages in this House to-day. While I am authorised to say that the position will be looked at, my experience of Parliamentary procedure is not good enough to say how effect will be given to the alterations necessary if the noble Lord's interpretation is correct.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not know where we get from there, because this is a Bill from another place; it is not like a Bill that can be looked at again in another place. The only way I can suggest is that we should not take Report stage to-day but should postpone it till Tuesday, when we could also take the Third Reading, because I know the Government are anxious to get the Bill through as soon as possible. I can see little value in the Government's undertaking if we are going to dispose of the whole Bill to-day.
  LORD KERSHAW: I did appreciate the position that would arise if all the stages were gone through to-day. It is suggested to me that perhaps the fairest thing to do would be to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, and if it is not acceptable in another place steps can be taken there.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: That entirely meets my point.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 16, leave out from ("under") to ("in") in line 17, and insert ("the said Part").—(Lord Llewellin.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  5.21 p m.
  LORD KERSHAW LORD KERSHAW moved to add to subsection (1):
  "Provided that the Minister shall not be required to give such a direction if the development in question consists only of the use of land for a period or periods not exceeding twenty-eight days in all in any calendar year, whether with or without the erection or placing of movable structures on the land for the purposes of that use."
  The noble Lord said: All owners have planning permission under the General Development Order, made under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, to carry out various types of development mentioned in the Order, and one of these permitted developments is the temporary use of land for not more than twenty-eight days a year. Thus, as the Bill stands, a site would have to be given up to an owner who wanted to do not more than that. This is clearly unreasonable, having regard to the purpose of the Bill, and therefore this proviso has been drafted. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 25, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Kershaw.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I understand this allows no one to claim the site in order to pitch his tent on it and spend a few days in it, or to have a caravan pulled in there, or something of that sort. It is only a temporary use. The Amendment is obviously a sensible one, and we have no objection whatever to it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9:
  Power of local authority to do work without taking possession
  (2) A person authorised by a local authority to enter upon any land in pursuance of the power conferred by this section shall, if so required, produce evidence of his authority before so entering and shall not demand admission as of right to any land which is occupied unless twenty-four hours notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier.
  LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (2) to leave out "twenty-four" and insert "seventy-two." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a simple one and is self-explanatory. As your Lord ships know, in the majority of cases war-damaged sites have been lying derelict for perhaps as long as nine years. I suggest it is rather unreasonable for the local authority now to have power to demand admission at twenty-four hours' notice. I cannot see the need for this urgency. It might well be that the owner or his representative is away for the week-end, or away on business from his usual address. I suggest that twenty-four hours is an unreasonable and quite inadequate period, and I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 34, leave out ("twenty-four") and insert ("seventy-two").—(Lord Teynham.)
  LORD KERSHAW: On the face of it, this would appear to be a reasonable Amendment, but I am unable to accept it. While the noble Lord says it is unreasonable for a local authority to enter on to a site at such short notice, I feel it is pertinent to say that an owner has acted unreasonably in having allowed the
  1366
  site to become offensive to the amenities of the neighbourhood.
  LORD TEYNHAM: Not all these sites are offensive.
  LORD KERSHAW: I must then refer the noble Lord to Clause 1 of the Bill which governs all the actions that follow: that is to say, that the site must be offensive to the amenities of the neighbourhood, or no action can be taken. Therefore, one of two things must have happened in regard to such sites: the site must have been allowed to deteriorate until it has become really offensive, and that deterioration may have taken place over a long period. I suggest that in such cases it is not unreasonable for the local authority to be able to go in and clear it up even at twenty-four hours' notice. The owner might have put it right at any time in the last ten years, as the noble Lord suggests, and he has not done so. Secondly—this is probably the main reason for the short notice—a nuisance can be created, and danger can arise suddenly on such a site by reason of the deposit of noxious rubbish. In those cases it would probably be necessary for the local authority to take immediate action. It will also be remembered that there is provision to pay compensation if damage happens to be done to the site.
  We are hoping that the provisions of the new clause which I propose to move later will help to reduce the need for this urgent action; that is to say, the provisions for penalties if people do deposit rubbish on the sites. Further, it will be remembered that this short notice relates only to those cases where the local authority do not want to take possession. It is not for the ordinary case, but for the case in which the local authority merely want to in and clear up the site. In all the circumstances, we feel that twenty-four hours' notice is quite sufficient. Any longer period than that might mean a continuance of a situation which is a nuisance, or even a danger, recently created, and we feel that the local authority should be permitted to clear up the site, subject, of course to the compensation clauses. I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
  LORD HAWKE: I feel that the noble Lord has been arguing almost under a misconception. As I read this clause of

  1367
  the Bill, it is the old, old story of a Ministry wanting to make certain of having a little power. The result is that they have put in a demand for too much power and have briefed the noble Lord to resist what seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable Amendment. The noble Lord led one to believe from his speech that the sites which the local authority are going to enter are offensive. I do not think there is any evidence whatsoever to assume that they must necessarily be offensive. The noble Lord also said they may be detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood. The vast majority of these bombed sites have been left for years and years, and are, admittedly, rather an eyesore; but they do not suddenly become offensive. At the same time, they might be described as detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood. By stretching one's imagination one can, of course, imagine a site which may suddenly become offensive. If all the local cats decided to die on one site, that site would suddenly become offensive. But that is not the normal state at all. I submit that the normal case can perfectly well he met by the seventy-two hours' notice.
  LORD KERSHAW: I find it very difficult to understand the noble Lord's concern for owners who have permitted their sites to become objectionable over a long period.
  LORD HAWKE: May I interrupt the noble Lord? It is not a question of becoming objectionable. There is a difference between "becoming objectionable" and "detrimental to an amenity." Detrimental to an amenity can mean just a plain simple eyesore; objectionable means something foul, offensive to the smell, and so on.
  LORD KERSHAW: But the noble Lord will remember that this is a clause only for the purpose of going on to a site to clear it of debris, or whatever may be there. It is not for the purpose of taking possession of the site. I hope the noble Lord has that quite clear.
  LORD HAWKE: Yes, definitely.
  LORD KERSHAW: Having said that, then I am submitting that we are rather too concerned about those owners who have allowed their sites to become a
  1368
  nuisance or offensive to the amenities of the neighbourhood. If, in their wisdom, the local authority feel that it is necessary to clear it up, no damage is done; and if damage is done, compensation is provided for in this Bill. On the other hand—and this is the case for which we feel the powers are needed—it is known that these sites have been used to a considerable extent by people for getting rid of, not a dead cat or even all the dead cats in the neighbourhood, but the debris from repairs in some other part of the district—I believe it is called "fly-dumping" or something of that kind—and it may be necessary to clear that from the site. It is for that reason that the Bill provides that there should be twenty-four hours' notice. There is no ulterior motive in this, and I am surprised that noble Lords object to it.
  LORD HAWKE: The only ulterior motive to which we object is that it is a case of yet another instance of the Executive demanding more power than is really necessary.
  LORD TEYNHAM: I must confess that I am a little disappointed by the reply given by the noble Lord. I feel that no one should be permitted to enter an owner's property at the very short notice of twenty-four hours. With regard to the question of whether the site is offensive, and so on, surely a local authority have bylaws and can deal with any matter which may arise suddenly, quite apart from the need of this Bill. But I do not propose to press this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10:
  Modification of Town and Country Planning Act, 1947
  (4) In the application of this section to Scotland for references to Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and to section fourteen of that Act, there shall be substituted respectively references to Part II of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, and to section twelve of that Act.
  LORD KERSHAW: This is an Amendment to cover the position with regard to Scotland. Subsection (3) of Clause 10 is included in the Bill to protect the rights of the owner of the land to serve a "purchase notice" under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Such a provision

  1369
  is necessary for England and Wales, but it is not necessary for Scotland. The reason for the difference between the rights of owners in England and Scotland is a technical one, dependent upon the respective definitions of "owner" in the two Planning Acts. In Scotland, an owner retains his rights under Section 17 of the Scottish Planning Act, whether or not the local authority are temporarily in possession of the site. Subsection (3) of Clause 10 is, therefore, unnecessary, and the Amendment will secure that it does not apply in that country. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 29, after ("Scotland") insert ("subsection (3) shall not apply and").—(Lord Kershaw.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11:
  War damage payments
  11.—(1) Where, under the War Damage Act, 1943, the appropriate payment in respect of war damage to a hereditament would, apart from this provision, be a payment of cost of works, and the War Damage Commission are notified by a local authority that the authority propose to take a lease under this Act of land consisting of or forming part of the hereditament, or to apply for an authorisation under this Act in respect of such land, then if it appears to the Commission—

  (a) after consultation with any authority whose permission, approval or licence is required under any enactment, regulation or byelaw for the purposes of the carrying out of works for making good the war damage, that that permission, approval or licence has been granted or would be granted if applied for; and

  (b) after consultation with all the owners of proprietary interests for the time being subsisting in the hereditament and of rent-charges (if any) to which it is subject and with any mortgagee of any such interest or rent-charge, that those works will not be carried out within a reasonable time,

  the Commission may, notwithstanding any previous determination of the amount of the payment to be made under the said Act in respect of the damage to the hereditament, determine to make under that Act in respect of that damage any such payment as is authorised by subsection (1) of section thirteen of that Act.
  5.35 p.m.
  LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1) to omit all words from and including "if it appears to the Commission" and to insert instead:
  "the powers conferred upon the Commission under subsection (1) of section thirteen of the said Act to make any such payment as is
  1370
  authorised by that subsection shall be exercised after consultation with any authority whose permission, approval or licence is required under any enactment, regulation or bye-law for the purposes of the carrying out of works for making good the war damage in any case where it appears to the Commission that that permission, approval or licence has been granted or would be granted if applied for."
  The noble Lord said: Clause 11 is a very complex clause, and I must confess that I have had some difficulty in understanding it. The clause seeks to amend the provisions of Section 13 of the War Damage Act, 1943, in regard to the type of payment to be made in respect of the damage. May I remind your Lordships that Section 13 laid down that in certain circumstances the War Damage Commission could make a value payment instead of a cost-of-works payment? Now what does Clause 11 realty do? In fact, it modifies requirements and conditions under which the War Damage Commission may change a cost-of-works claim into a value payment. It will be observed that this clause contains no safeguard for the owner of a war-damaged site, because as the clause is drawn the War Damage Commission no longer have to be satisfied that it is the wish of all the owners of the property that the damage should not be made good. Under this clause, the War Damage Commission change the payment from a cost-of-works payment to a value payment if they consider that the damage will not be made good within a reasonable time.
  The question is: Hew is a reasonable time to be defined? It is certainly not defined in the Bill, and, it may well be that delays will be caused by the difficulties of obtaining planning permission, and also, of course, of assessing the development charge. This might result, in the eyes of the Commission, in an unreasonable delay. I suggest that there is no justification whatever for this Clause 11, which will modify the provisions of Section 13 of the War Damage Act, as there is already sufficient latitude in that Act to allow a change from a cost-of-works payment to a value payment when circumstances are such that the damage or any part of it will not in fact be made good. I maintain that Clause 11 of this Bill will react very harshly on the owners of war-damaged sites; it may mean that instead of the full cost of restoration of war damage being paid out of the cost-of-works payment, owners will have to be

  1371
  satisfied with a much lower payment—a value payment plus 40 per cent. or 60 per cent., under Section 11 of the War Damage Act, 1943. The effect of my Amendment is to leave Section 13 of the War Damage Act, 1943, as it is, but to provide that before the War Damage Commission exercise their powers they shall consult with the building and licensing authority as provided for in Clause 11 (1) (2) as it is drafted at present. I hope the noble Lord will be able to allay our fears that this clause is an attempt to make a serious inroad into the rights of owners of land under the guise of this apparently harmless and, in many respects, welcome Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 41, leave out from ("then") to end of line 12 on page 8, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Teynham.)
  LORD KERSHAW: I studied this Amendment for a considerable time before I could understand what the noble Lord was trying to do by it. I came to the conclusion—which has since been confirmed by my advisers—that its only effect is to remove from the Bill the requirement that the owners of property should be consulted. In other words, there is already power in the War Damage Act to change this payment from a cost-of-works to a value payment, quite apart from the consent of all the interests concerned. Perhaps the noble Lord overlooked that. What this clause is doing in relation to this Bill is insisting that the change from cost-of-works to value payments shall take place only after consultation with the interests concerned. I am not sure whether the noble Lord appreciates that, but I am advised (and my original construction was apparently correct) that the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be to take away some protection that is already in this Bill. The noble Lord's Amendment would not provide for any consultation whatever with the interests concerned. Nor is there any provision that the power should be exercised only if the owner or owners are unwilling to take advantage of the opportunity for immediate restoration. It is not reasonable that war-damaged property, for the early restoration of which all the necessary consents have been given or can be obtained, should be left as it is for an indefinite period. It is undesirable in the
  1372
  public interest that all war-damaged properties, for the restoration of which all the permissions of every kind can and will be given, should be left to the whim or caprice of the property owner. The purpose should be—since the money is there to pay for the rehabilitation of the site—to do this Work as quickly as possible, and not to leave it to the caprice or whim of the people who own the sites. Your Lordships will remember that no action can be taken under this Bill (although it can under the War Damage Act) to change the character of the payment unless all the permits and authorisations and so on have been or can he obtained.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: It is planning permission—not all the permits. It does not get you your timber licence and so forth.
  LORD KERSHAW: That is so. The position as I see it is that the person can go and build on his property, but for some reason of his own he does not want to. That is the position we want to deal with, and for that reason we cannot accept this Amendment. I think the noble Lord would probably agree that action should be taken after consultation with the interests concerned.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I am not quite certain about this point. Under Section 13 (1) of the War Damage Act, the War Damage Commission can alter the cost-of-works payment to a value payment, (a) if there is consent of all the parties concerned, and (b) if they are satisfied that the circumstances are such that the damage or any part of it will not in fact be made good. The War Damage Commission were given everything they wanted within reason. Now we come down to a new provision which gives them power to alter a cost-of-works payment to a value payment in a certain specified number of cases. It occurs only in cases where the authority propose to take a lease under this Bill. But why should people be treated differently in this matter as between one local authority and another? The noble Lord, for instance, may hold property under a public authority who wish to take a lease, and he would come within the provision. I, on the other hand, may have property in the area of a local authority who do not wish to take a

  1373
  lease; if so, I am lucky, for I do not come within the provision. There is therefore a distinction in this matter at the option of a local authority. Let us get that quite clear.
  Under the Bill as drafted, it has to appear to the Commission: (a) that permission, approval, or licence has been or would be granted if applied for to put into effect the cost-of-works payment; and (b), after consultation with the owners, that these works will not he carried out within a reasonable time. As usual, the question arises, what is a "reasonable time"? It is true that in this case the owner will have got over one hurdle—that is to say, he will have obtained or will know that he can obtain, planning permission. But planning permission in itself is the first hurdle—and it is a fairly long hurdle race. Having obtained it, he has to get all sorts of other permissions. He has to get his house into the narrow limit of the one in ten which is the proportion laid down by the Minister of Health. He will find there is still a great deal in the way of his architect and his builder before the house can begin to go up. They have to argue with the Timber Control, for instance, about timber. The time lost is altogether unreasonable. All these delays impose a heavy burden on the man who wants to build a house. I should be prepared to agree with the noble Lord that we cannot have the offer of a cost-of-works payment and all the other necessary permissions and still allow the man to keep the site derelict indefinitely, especially when it is known that he has the money to do the work and is going to be given all the necessary licences and permissions. But I do not think the words as at present drafted meet the situation.
  LORD KERSHAW: Whether or not the exact wording of the Bill as it stands does what is intended, I am not at this moment able to say. But I can tell noble Lords that the intention is that before this clause can operate in respect of war damage payments every obstacle in the way of the owner rehabilitating the property must have been removed. That is the purpose of the clause: he has obtained his licence and all that is needed for building or whatever may be necessary. "Permission, approval or licence" are the words used, and, unless it can be shown
  1374
  that he has all these facilities for dealing with his property, the clause does not come into operation.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but perhaps I can elucidate this point. Are the words "any authority" meant to cover people other than local authorities? Are they meant to cover such a man as, for instance, the regional timber controller? Would that man be an "authority" under this paragraph? If people of that sort come in, then there is much to be said for this wording. I was reading this clause as though "authority" meant only the local planning authority. If this word covers all the other gentlemen who are liable, for good or bad reasons, to be obstructive, my point is largely met.
  LORD KERSHAW: I am advised that it is as I interpreted it: we were dealing with the case where nothing except the desire of the unwilling owner prevents the land from being rehabilitated. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that the intention of this clause is to cover only the difficult owner who prevents a site from being put right. If these words do not achieve that object, they will have to be looked at, but I can assure the noble Lord that that is the intention.
  LORD TEYNHAM: I am not quite clear on one point. The noble Lord has put forward an argument that the object of Clause 11 is to prevent a site owner, having obtained all the permissions and so on, from sitting on the site and doing nothing with it. But surely this point is covered under Clause 7 (1) (c):
  "that the said person will, upon obtaining possession of the land, proceed without delay to execute any works necessary for the purposes of that development."
  According to that clause, an owner cannot get his land back again from a local authority unless he proceeds "without delay" to execute the work. I should have thought that that clause met the noble Lord's point.
  LORD KERSHAW: We are dealing with quite a different point here. We are here dealing with the alteration of the class of war damage claims and it is felt that it is unreasonable that an owner of land, with no difficulty in his way either financial or otherwise, should be permitted to delay putting the land or the site into proper order merely because he does

  1375
  not desire to proceed. It would probably be an incentive to him to realise that, if he does not go on though he can go on, he must be content with an alteration in the war damage claim.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was not here at the beginning of this discussion, but there seems to be a difference of interpretation. It is rather an important matter. I am sure noble Lords opposite will agree that if the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, who is as well fitted as anyone in this House to interpret correctly the terms of a Bill, has made a mistake on it, it is clear that the clause is open to misinterpretation. We felt so keenly about this particular point that we had considered pressing it to a Division. It is obvious that the noble Lord has now put on this particular matter a new interpretation which may go far to meet us. It seems a pity that we cannot give him and his experts the opportunity of looking at the clause further and seeing whether it cannot be put into a rather more intelligible form. I wonder whether that cannot be done. I understood it was the purpose of the Government, if possible, to get the Bill through all its stages to-day. In these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the object of the whole House is to secure agreement, it surely would be justifiable to postpone the Report and Third Reading of this Bill until, say, Tuesday next, to enable agreement to be reached. It is not a point on which we wish to differ; it is a point on which we wish to secure an agreed interpretation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I believe the noble Marquess was not here at the time, but at one stage a discussion arose on this point. In view of the fact that the remaining stages were to be taken to-day, what was then decided was this: we accepted the Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, so that it might be looked at in another place, and, if they thought it was an unnecessary Amendment, it could there be rejected. I presume there will be an opportunity in another place of dealing with this matter. However, I understand that some words have been suggested, which the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, will mention, and that these words might go far enough to meet the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. Could we not do the same as we did in
  1376
  the other case, and leave these words in, so as to get the Bill through this House? Then it can go back to another place.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: May I suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that we have to put in some words with which another place can deal. We must make some alteration. The course taken in connection with my Amendment was perfectly all right; it was accepted. If the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, has some other words of which he is not quite certain and he wants to propose them now, we can listen to them. That would leave the matter open in another place.
  LORD KERSHAW: It has been suggested that the anxieties of the noble Lords opposite might be met if, after the word "authority" in line 42, the words "or person" were inserted. I would add, of course—I am only repeating what I said before—that the intention is that this should be an incentive to all owners of property who are in a position to put the property in order, to get on with the job and not leave it, as it has been left for many years, to get into a much worse condition.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Can the noble Lord say whether the word "authority" covers the regional controller of the timber control, and persons of that kind? Certainly, he is one of the people who may well cause some delay in the building of houses. I do not know whether he is covered by the word "authority." The noble Lord says that in case he is not, he proposes to put in the words "or person" to cover the position. That certainly shows that before this clause can come into play, it is intended that everybody who has outside control of the man who is to build the house must have given his permission for that man to go ahead.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is it the intention now that the noble Lord. Lord Teynham, should withdraw his Amendment, that the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, should move his Amendment, and that the clause should go to another place for consideration in that form? I think that would be all right.
  LORD TEYNHAM: In view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD KERSHAW: Then I beg to move what I suppose takes the form of a manuscript Amendment—namely, at page 7, line 42, after the word "authority" to insert the words "or person."
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 42, after ("authority") insert ("or person").—(Lord Kershaw.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
  6.0 p.m.
  LORD KERSHAW LORD KERSHAW moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following new clause:
  Suspension of justices' licences
  ".Subsection (3) of section twelve of the Finance Act, 1946 (which relates to the suspension of justices' licences on the compulsory acquisition of licensed premises) shall have effect as if references in that subsection and in the First Schedule to that Act to the compulsory acquisition of premises included references to the taking possession of premises by a local authority by virtue of a lease or authorisation under this Act."
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. This is what might be called a co-ordinating clause. A provision was inserted in the Finance Act of 1946 to place in suspense the licences on licensed premises which were compulsorily acquired, so that they could become effective again when alternative accommodation was found. Clearly, there should be a similar procedure where there is a compulsory taking possession of a site by a local authority under this Bill. It is to preserve the right of a licensee to get his licence back. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 13, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Kershaw.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: We have no objection to this. It is obviously right and fair that what was accorded to licensees under the other measures should be accorded to them under this Bill.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  LORD KERSHAW LORD KERSHAW moved, after Clause 14 to insert the following new clause:
  Penalty for depositing rubbish on war damaged sites.
  ".—(1) If any person, without the consent of the person entitled to possession of the land, deposits any rubbish or waste material—
  1378

  (a) upon land of which a local authority are entitled to possession by virtue of a lease or authorisation under this Act;

  (b) upon any unoccupied land which has sustained war damage,

  he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
  (2) Without prejudice to the foregoing subsection, any expenditure reasonably incurred by a local authority in removing (whether in the exercise of powers conferred by that Act or otherwise) any rubbish or material deposited by any person in contravention of that subsection may be recovered from him by that authority as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction."
  The noble Lord said: As will be observed, this is a clause prescribing a penalty for the wrongful depositing of rubbish and so forth on these sites. The clause is introduced here after strong representations had been made by some local authorities who have suffered from this kind of thing. It is felt that if this clause becomes part of the Bill, the mere fact of putting up notices prescribing a penalty will do away with a great deal of the evil that has been prevalent in the past. I hope the Committee will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 14, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Kershaw.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: This deals with those cases where people have been taking the opportunity of dumping anything they like on these sites. It is about time we had power to take steps such as are proposed by the noble Lord in this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Amendments reported: Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
  6.5 p.m.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION (DISSOLUTION) BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

  ELECTORAL REGISTERS BILL
  6.7 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, after Clause 1 to insert the following new clause:
  Voting rights of certain persons coming of age during currency of register
  "(2).—(1) A person who is not of full age on the qualifying date for a parliamentary or local government election in a constituency or electoral area in Great Britain, being an election at which the date fixed for the poll falls within the period beginning with the second day of October in any year and ending with the next following, fifteenth day of March, shall, if he is of full age on the fifteenth day of June in that year and is otherwise entitled so to do, be entitled to vote as an elector at that election, and the reference in subsection (1) of section eight of the principal Act (which relates to registration rights) to persons who may he entitled to vote as electors at parliamentary elections for which any register is to be used and the reference in subsection (2) of that section to persons who may be entitled to vote as electors at local government elections for which any register is to be used shall, in the application of those subsections to Great Britain, be construed accordingly.
  (2) A person who is not of full age on the qualifying date for a parliamentary election in a constituency in Northern Ireland, being an election at which the date fixed for the poll falls within the period beginning with the second day of October in any year and ending with the next following first day of April, shall, if he is of full age on the thirtieth day of April in that year and is otherwise entitled so to do, be entitled to vote as an elector at that election, and the reference in subsection (1) of section eight of the principal Act to persons who may be entitled to vote as electors at parliamentary elections for which any register is to be used shall, in the application of that subsection to Northern Ireland, be construed accordingly.
  (3) Where, by virtue of subsection (6) of section one of this Act, any part of the register to be used at such a parliamentary or local government election as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section falls to be used at an election at which the date fixed for the poll falls after the expiration of the period so mentioned, the said subsection (1) shall, as regards a person registered by virtue thereof in that part of the register, apply in relation to the election as it applies in relation to an election at which the date fixed for the poll falls within that period; and where, by virtue
  1380
  of the said subsection (6), any part of the register to be used at such a parliamentary election as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section falls to be used at an election at which the date fixed for the poll falls after the period so mentioned, the said subsection (2) shall, as regards a person registered by virtue thereof in that part of the register, apply in relation to the election as it applies in relation to an election at which the date fixed for the poll falls within that period.
  (4) The provisions of the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of making in the principal Act amendments consequential on the foregoing provisions of this section.
  (5) This section and the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to elections for which registers to be published in the year nineteen hundred and fifty-one and subsequent years are to be used and with respect to such registers and forms to be used for the purposes of such elections.
  (6) In this section and in the First Schedule to this Act the expression 'the principal Act' means the Representation of the People Act, 1949."
  The noble Lord said: As I informed the Committee on the Second Reading, we proposed to put down an Amendment in order to meet a strong view expressed when this Bill was before another place, that the position of persons who attain the age of twenty-one between the qualifying day for the register and the date when an Election is held ought to be safeguarded. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Home Office gave an undertaking that that problem would be looked at and, as a result, this Amendment has been put down in order that the rights of people of that age should be secured.
  The intention of the new clause is to give to persons who attain the age of twenty-one years as nearly as may be the same voting rights as they would have had if the autumn register had not been abolished, In order to secure that object the arrangement proposed is that in the course of the annual house-to-house canvass, which takes place, as the Committee are aware, for the purpose of preparing the annual register, the names of people who are not twenty-one on the qualifying date, but who will be by June 15 of the following year (or April 30 in the case of Northern Ireland)—that is, by what would have been the qualifying date for the autumn register, had it been retained—should be collected as a special category; that these names should be included in the register in the ordinary way, but that a distinguishing mark should be placed against their names in

  1381
  the register; and that the people so included and distinguished in that way should be entitled to vote at elections where the date of the poll is after October 1—which is, of course, the date when the autumn register would have been published—but not before. This will preserve the rights which the persons in question would have had under the 1948 Act, but will not enable any of them to vote at a younger age than the youngest person included in the register in the ordinary way. The new clause looks rather complicated, but that is its object. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is right that these young people should be allowed to vote, and I hope you will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Consequential amendments with respect to jurors books]:
  LORD CHORLEY: This Amendment is purely consequential on the insertion of the new clause which your Lordships have just accepted. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 46, leave out ("foregoing provision") and insert ("provisions of section one").—(Lord Charley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Power to make consequential amendments of local Acts]:
  LORD CHORLEY: This Amendment is really consequential, but perhaps I ought to say a word or two about it. Clause 3, as it stands, gives power to amend local Acts; this Amendment will extend this power to cover Public Acts. This is necessary because the proposed new clause may affect the meaning of the word "elector" in other public Acts. The Statute Book contains a substantial number of Acts in which this word appears. In the short time available, it has been impossible for the draftsmen to go through the Statute Book, and it is necessary that we should have this rather wider wording. I hope your Lordships will agree that that is reasonable and will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 7, leave out from ("any") to second ("to") in line 8 and insert ("other Act (whether public general or local and whether passed before, or at the same time as, the passing of this Act)").—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to insert as a new First Schedule:
  "FIRST SCHEDULE
  AMENDMENTS OF THE IR1PRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1949, CONSEQUENTIAL ON SECTION Two OF TIES ACT
  1. Regulations made under section forty-two of the principal Act may contain provisions as to marking registers of parliamentary and local government electors in Great Britain so as to distinguish persons entitled to vote by virtue of subsection (1) of section two of this Act, and as to marking registers of parliamentary electors in Northern Ireland so as to distinguish persons entitled to vote by virtue of subsection (2) of that section, and section forty-five of the principal Act (which relates to registration appeals) shall have effect as if the reference in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) thereof to a mark indicating that a person registered is, or is not, registered as a service voter or as an non-resident included a reference to a, mark indicating that a person registered is, or is not, entitled to vote by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) of section two of this Act.
  2. A person falling within subsection (1) or (2) of section two of this Act shall not be guilty of an offence under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section forty-eight of the principal Act by reason only of his applying, while not of full age, to be treated as an absent voter, and shall not be guilty of an offence under paragraph (b) of that subsection by reason only of his applying, while not of full age, for the appointment of a proxy.
  3. For the purposes of rules 8 and 29 of the parliamentary elections rules (which relate respectively to the subscription of the nomination papers of candidates at parliamentary elections and the issue of official poll cards for the purposes of such elections), the expression 'elector,'—

  (a) in relation to a parliamentary election in a constituency in Great Britain, being an election at which the date fixed for the poll falls within the period beginning with the sixteenth day of Marsh in any year and ending with the first day of October in that year, shall not include a person who, by virtue of subsection (1) of section two of this Act, is registered as a parliamentary ejector in that constituency in the register to be used at that election or who, by virtue of that subsection, appears from the electors lists for that register to be entitled to be so registered;

  (b) in relation to a parliamentary election in a constituency in Northern Ireland, being

  1383
  an election at which the date fixed for the poll falls within the period beginning with the second day of April in any year and ending with the first day of October in that year, shall not include a person who, by virtue of subsection (2) of section two of this Act, is registered as a parliamentary elector in that constituency in the register to be used at that election or who, by virtue of that subsection, appears from the electors lists for that register to be entitled to be so registered;

  and for the purposes of rule 6 of the local elections rules in the Second Schedule to the principal Act (which relates to the subscription of the nomination papers of candidates at local government elections in England and Wales) the expression 'elector for the electoral area', and for the purposes of the local elections rules in the Third Schedule to that Act (which relates to the subscription of the nomination papers of candidates at local government elections in Scotland) the expression local government elector', shall not, in relation to a local government election in an electoral area at which the date fixed for the poll falls within the period mentioned in subparagraph (a) of this paragraph, include a person who, by virtue of subsection (1) of section two of this Act, is registered as a local government elector for that area in the register to be used at the election or who, by virtue of that subsection, appears from the electors lists for that register to be entitled to be so registered.
  4. Notwithstanding anything in rule 38 of the parliamentary elections rules, rule 33 of the local elections rules in the Second Schedule to the principal Act or rule 31 of the local elections rules in the Third Schedule to that Act, in the case of—

  (a) a parliamentary or local government election in a constituency or electoral area in Great Britain, being an election at which the date fixed for the poll falls within the period beginning with the sixteenth day of March in any year and ending with the first day of October in that year; and

  (b) a parliamentary election in a constituency in Northern Ireland, being an election at which the date fixed for the poll falls within the period beginning with the second day of April in any year and ending with the first day of October in that year;

  no ballot paper shall be delivered to a person who, by virtue of section two of this Act, is registered in the register to be used at the election or to his proxy, except where the part of the register in which his name appears is being used at the election by virtue of subsection (6) of section one of this Act:
  Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to a person applying for a ballot paper as proxy of a person entitled, apart from section two of this Act, to vote.
  5. The two last foregoing paragraphs shall,—

  (a) so far as they relate to local government elections in England and Wales, apply also for the purposes of the local elections rules in the Second Schedule to the principal Act in their application to the election of district and parish councillors in England
  1384
  and Wales, save in so far as it may be provided to the contrary by district election rules or parish election rules made under subsection (1) of section twenty-nine of that Act; and

  (b) so far as they relate to local government elections in Scotland, apply also for the purposes of the local elections rules in the Third Schedule to that Act in their application to the election of elected district councillors in Scotland.

  6. The forms contained in the Appendices to the Second and Third Schedules to the principal Act shall be adapted so far as necessary to accord with the foregoing provisions of this Schedule.")
  The noble Lord said: This new First Schedule is consequential on the new clause which we have just inserted. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 1, at end insert the said new Schedule.—(Lord Charley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  First Schedule agreed to.
  Second Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
  LORD CHORLEY: This is merely a drafting Amendment, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 19, after ("Northern Ireland") insert ("shall be published not later than the fifteenth day of March").—(Lord Charley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Amendments reported; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.

  AUXILIARY AND RESERVE FORCES BILL
  6.16 p.m.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL)THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL) moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
  "() Without prejudice to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, it shall be the duty of an association to make itself acquainted with and conform to the plan of the Admiralty for the organisation within the area for which the association is constituted of the reserves of the Royal Navy and of the reserves of the Royal Marines in so far as that plan relates

  1385
  to matters with respect to which functions are conferred on the association under the next following subsection."
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I undertook when this Bill was before your Lordships in Committee to meet a point which was raised by the noble Viscount. Lord Bridgeman. In the interval we have had a meeting and as a result of our talks the Amendment which is upon the Marshalled List has been drafted. It meets the point which I promised to consider. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 21, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Hall.)
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, the noble Viscount has stated the position correctly. We are grateful to him for having proposed this Amendment which entirely meets the point we raised during the Committee stage. My noble friend Lord Mancroft has asked me to apologise for his absence on this occasion as he raised a question about the lettering to be employed in the Bill. I understand that his view is that this Amendment is a "capital" one in every sense of the word.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment, which is purely drafting.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 22, after ("(1)") insert ("of section two of the Act of 1907").—(Viscount Hall.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended:
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be react a Third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a(Viscount Hall.)
  VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, before this Bill passes from your Lordships' House I would like to say a few words. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, who dealt with this Bill on its Second Reading, said he regretted that I had not intervened in the debate. I will not detain your Lordships long. As the noble Lord said, it seems likely that one would need a consolidating Order in Council for the Royal Air Force at the same time as a consolidating Bill for the Army; then it would be possible to draft a Bill to repeal
  1386
  Section 6 of the Royal Air Force (Constitution) Act, 1917, and embody at the same time the provisions of the existing Orders in Council covering the Royal Air Force. He said that that suggestion is sympathetically viewed. I did not intervene in the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill because the Royal Air Force Act was pasted thirty-two years ago. I left the Royal Air Force twenty years ago. It may interest your Lordships to know that I recall some of the arguments which were used at the time when the Bill was introduced in 1917.
  The year the Royal Air Force Act was passed was the year that the Auxiliary Air Force was first thought of—I was then the first Chief of the Air Staff. I remember that General Sir David Henderson, as he then was, was instrumental in helping to put together that first Royal Air Force Act. He and others thought that something should be done to co-ordinate the Auxiliary Air Force and other voluntary services which might be formed—the Women's Auxiliary Services, the Boy Scouts, the A.T.C. (which was not then formed, of course)—and to bring together what I may call these "support services to the Regular Services" for the Army, Navy end Air Force. He wanted to utilise and unify the local esprit de corps which exists in every town and county in the British Isles in organisations like the Territorial associations under the lords lieutenant. But the war was still going on and it was thought too ambitious a programme then. Therefore, we had to adopt the simplest form possible in order to get the Air Force Bill through and constitute the Royal Air Force. Nearly a year later, after the war was over, there were bitter criticisms of the Royal Air Force. We spent many years defending it. There were also many attacks on the Auxiliary Air Force. It was hotly criticised, even by Ministers of the Government of that day, and by others outside the Government. The members of the Auxiliary Air Force were called "Saturday-to-Monday pilots" and were described as being dangerous to the community. I remember one hot Summer's afternoon, we had a long argument on this subject, but those of us who were in the Royal Air Force won the argument; and it was agreed to form an Auxiliary Air Force of twenty squadrons.

  1387
  That is all a long time ago. I do not feel very competent to intervene to-day, but I would like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, who introduced this Bill, that, whatever Government are in power next year, I hope they will find it possible to introduce a Bill which will put the Auxiliary Air Force on a better footing than it is to-day. Secondly, I hope that whatever Government are in power next year, they will remember that only twenty squadrons were formed thirty-two years ago. These Auxiliary squadrons always had the right spirit, and in the last war they did a lot to put the Royal Air Force into closer touch with the civilian life of this country, and they did a lot in defence of the country. To-day, there are still only twenty Auxiliary squadrons, and I hope the Government will double the number.
  6.25 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I would add only a word to say how glad I am that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has intervened in this debate, because there is no one in this House whose voice is heard with more authority, especially in Royal Air Force quarters. The issue is narrowed down in this Bill to one point—namely, the decision required by the Air Ministry whether the Air Training Corps is to be dealt with by Territorial associations. I would say once more that I hope the noble Lord will convey to his right honourable friend how anxious I am that that decision should be taken, and taken in favour of the Territorial associations. I do not believe that great expense is involved. It is not so much economy in national expenditure as a question of departmental book-keeping. I refuse to believe that the cost of running the associations is much greater or less according to whether or not the Air Training Corps are in them. However, let us leave it at that. To use the language of the R.A.F., as I do deliberately, I wish the Bill "a happy landing." I am not going to wish it at the same time a long life, for the reason that this Bill should have as short a life as possible and a consolidating measure should follow as soon as possible after its passage.
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I have attempted at an earlier stage to
  1388
  stress the great significance that the Government attach to this Bill, although on the face of it it does not appear to represent a major departure. We feel it is essential that the Bill should go through, and that it is most valuable for the purposes we all have in mind. I should like on behalf of the Government to add my thanks to both the noble Viscounts who have spoken. I seldom venture to throw out suggestions to your Lordships, but on this occasion I threw one out which was picked up with alacrity by the noble Viscount, and I should like to take a little credit for the authoritative announcement he has made, which will be followed everywhere with close attention. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that the remarks of no member of the House attract more attention than those of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, on these matters. And I should say the same thing of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. I should also like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for the way in which he has co-operated with us. As I said earlier, this Bill is a joint effort.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  ARMED FORCES (HOUSING LOANS) BILL
  6.26 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, like the last Bill, this Bill was welcomed by all Parties in another place, and I assume that the same welcome will be given to it in your Lordships' House. The provisions of the Bill are largely financial, but as the sum of £40,000,000 is involved I would claim your Lordships' indulgence for a few minutes to explain the purpose of the measure. Its main purpose is to authorise the Treasury during the five years ending March, 1955, to issue out of the Consolidated Fund sums not exceeding £40,000,000, to be used for the provision of capital for approved housing for the Services in Great Britain. This will place the financing of Service houses more on the basis of the financing of housing generally. The money so borrowed will be repaid by

  1389
  the Service Departments over a 60-year period. The annual repayments will be carried on the Service Estimates in the normal way. In effect, the Services will be empowered to finance a proportion of their housing on borrowed money in the same way as local authorities do, rather than to find all the capital required from current revenue. This special measure is justified by the special need of the Services to overtake the heavy arrears which have undoubtedly accumulated in the provision of married quarters.
  His Majesty's Government have appreciated the deep interest shown by noble Lords and Members of another place who have been pressing for sonic time for alleviation of the difficulties faced by Service men in the lack of adequate married quarters. Broadly speaking, the present situation is quite unsatisfactory. For the three Services our urgent need is for about 60,000 married quarters in this country. To meet this requirement we have at the present time only about 29,000 married quarters of a permanent or semi-permanent character. Of these, the permanent houses actually provided since the war number about 3,000 and the other 26,000 may be described as being of all kinds and, indeed, of all conditions. Some of them are fairly decent dwellings, which were erected before the war in the more modern camps, especially by the Royal Air Force. Others, however, are admittedly unsatisfactory. Our urgent need, therefore, is for about 30,000 additional permanent quarters in this country, and we are hoping that the provision made in this Bill will enable us to accelerate the speed with which they will be provided.
  It is well known that the policy of His Majesty's Government, and indeed the desire of all members of your Lordships' House, is that the highest possible proportion of our peace-time defence requirements should be met by Regular Forces. It is therefore essential in the national interest that we should take all proper steps to stimulate Regular recruitment, and in this connection the provision or absence of married quarters plays a most important part. I can say that, in the nature of things, no greater inducement can be made to obtain recruits and retain the long-service men we require, than to provide them and their families with suitable quarters in
  1390
  which they can reside reasonably comfortably. The problem has been increased through a number of factors. One of them is the fact that, so far as the Army and the Royal Air Force are concerned, there is a greatly increased requirement arising from the changes which have been made in the rules governing entitlement to married quarters. As noble Lords are aware, the age of eligibility for married quarters has been very considerably reduced, and this greatly affects the figure of requirements.
  From my own experience at the Admiralty, I am satisfied that the conditions under which a number of married officers and other ranks live at the present time are causing great concern and present a real social problem. The Service mar is essentially mobile; changes are frequent and the accommodation problem is always one of great anxiety to the married man and his family. Many have been compelled to take furnished rooms for their families, for which exorbitant rents are being charged, with the result that these men are faced with a financial burden, in many cases too heavy for them to bear. This causes worry and anxiety, which are bad both for the Service man himself and for the Services as a whole. We hope to start building approximately 6,500 married quarters in the year 1950–51, and to complete an annual average figure of some 5,000 during the period covered by the loan. The £40,000,000 will be divided roughly between the Army, £18,000,000; the Royal Air Force, £16,000,000; and the Royal Navy, £6,000,000. After the Bill has become law, married quarters will he provided for the Service Departments partly by the ordinary Estimates procedure and partly by loans under this Bill. Those provided under the Bill must have the approval of the Treasury, who will consult both the Ministry of Health and the Scottish Office on the question whether, in the event of the Services no longer requiring the accommodation, there is a reasonable prospect of the houses being taken over by the local authority for general housing purposes. Thus housing that does not qualify under the conditions of the Bill will continue to be met from the current Service Votes in the ordinary way; and the same is true of the cost of housing overseas.

  1391
  Noble Lords will probably want me to say a word about the effect of these proposals on the civilian housing programme. The total housing programme of the Services, whether financed from loans or from votes, will continue to be provided as at present from within the total allocation for housing under the capital investment programme. The number of houses required to make the important improvement in the provision of married quarters for the Services to which I have referred, is very small in relation to the housing programme as a whole. But it is right to regard the housing programme of the country as one problem and not two, and the step we propose to take is a measure to adjust the adverse balance from which the Services have suffered since the end of the war in the matter of housing.
  It is His Majesty's Government's intention that full Parliamentary control over expenditure for the provision of housing accommodation for the Services shall remain unimpaired. Accordingly, that part of the housing accommodation which is to he financed through the provisions of this Bill will be provided for under a new and separate Vote in the Service Estimates. The loans made under this Bill will be shown as appropriations-in-aid of the new Votes for the three Services, and the sum appropriated will not exceed in any financial year the sum approved in the Estimates. With those remarks, I commend this Bill to your Lordships' House, and beg to move its Second Reading.
  Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(Viscount Hall.)
  6.36 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, the noble Viscount opposite has explained this Bill very clearly, and has put the position, so far as facts go, exactly as we on these Benches see them ourselves. Of course, we welcome this Bill, because we always welcome any steps which go towards the efficiency and contentment of the Regular Forces, for exactly the reason mentioned by the noble Viscount—namely, that without the efficiency and sufficiency of Regular Forces we in this country cannot meet our commitments for armed Forces. Here at last is an attempt to tackle this problem which
  1392
  has existed for a long time. I am not going to pretend that under previous Governments the problem has ever been successfully solved, because when the 1939 war broke out the Army, so far as married quarters were concerned, had hardly recovered from the redeployment which took place when we left Southern Ireland in 1922. It is true to say that we on these Benches have drawn the attention of the Government to this problem for a long time. I find it was as long ago as October, 14, 1946, when my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, in a debate on recruiting for the Regular Forces, said he was sure the first and most important of all the remedies was housing.
  It really is a serious problem, and I sometimes wonder whether it can ever be fully appreciated except by those who have served in the Regular Forces in peace time and, as they say, have "followed the drum." No one who has not seen regimental life in peace time knows the great hardship which even before the war was felt by young married officers and non-commissioned officers who had to live out. Hardly ever, in my experience, was it possible to obtain lodgings at anything like a rent comparable to the marriage allowances which those young people received. The result was that for a young married man, officer or other rank, there was always a substantial reduction in real wages. The position cannot possibly be better since the war—in fact, it is a great deal worse. As to the officers, the point arises that we are now obliged to treat officers just like other ranks in this respect, so long as we continue the policy of drawing officers from the ranks and making the King's Commission a career open to anybody who proves his worth.
  Even at this late hour, I feel we cannot accept this Bill in blind admiration, and I am obliged to make one or two points on it. First of all, as I have said, we have drawn attention to this matter since October, 1946. It is hard to understand why it has taken three years to produce a solution like this, which, after all, is not so difficult. It is a matter about which the Government have known the whole time. I find that the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Air, when talking, I think, on the Second Reading of this Bill on November 29 last, said that, as compared to the size

  1393
  of the programme for the whole country, Service men certainly have not been allocated fair shares of national resources. Why not? I do not know, but perhaps noble Lords opposite do. Surely it is the plain duty of the Service Departments to see that when a national programme like this is available the Service Departments get at least as fair treatment—I am not asking for better—as their civilian counterparts. However, we now have this Bill and, although we welcome it, it does have a faint smell of inter-departmental bargaining behind it—a faint smell, but quite a perceptible one to me.
  Some of that inter-departmental bargaining does not appear to be immediately directed to what is the object of the Bill, which is a solution of the housing problem of the Forces. I say that because I cannot fully understand the references to local authorities and civilian accommodation. Surely, so long as we deal with the problem of housing for the Forces on level pegging, so to speak, with the problem of civilian houses, it does not matter whether a house is suitable for local authorities or not. If we need more houses for the garrison in Catterick or in some airfield in the West of Scotland, what does it matter whether the local authority is interested in them or not? It is nothing to do with the problem of dealing fairly with the Forces. I was going to make another point, but the noble Viscount opposite has given me the answer, for which I am grateful. It was with regard to how far the plan, as now envisaged, was meant to deal with the whole problem of houses for the Forces. He gave me the figures, which lead me to suppose that out of 60,000 houses needed, 29,000 houses were there, leaving only 31,000 houses to be provided under this scheme. That almost completes the sum. Therefore, I am satisfied with it and I am grateful for the information.
  This Bill, as we all know, leaves two other problems still unsolved. First, there is the problem of housing overseas, which is an extremely serious one into which I will not go at this late hour, because it was fairly fully ventilated in another place. But some of the housing conditions overseas, particularly in the Suez Canal area, are about as bad as housing for the Forces anywhere, and in a climate which is as bad as anywhere. Then we come to the housing in areas
  1394
  which, as envisaged in this Bill, are not places where local authorities are concerned to see houses. I would ask the noble Viscount opposite whether steps are to be taken apart from this Bill, presumably in the ordinary estimating, to deal with those problems, because it seems to me that on the face of things the problem of getting houses in unpopulated areas, away from local authorities, is more difficult than the problem of getting houses near to a populated area.
  It occurs to me to ask two or three more questions on this Part of the Bill. First of all, I wonder whether, in these negotiations with local authorities, any steps can be taken to modify the more difficult attitude of some local authorities in dealing with housing for Service men and ex-Service men on the grounds that they have not the residence qualification. I am going to throw out one suggestion, which may or may not he a sensible one. A great many cases for title to a house on a local authority's list might easily be proved by the position of a Service family on the Electoral Register as Service nonresident voters. I mention that only because it is a problem which needs to be dealt with.
  There are two other smaller questions I would ask, and I apologise for not having given the noble Viscount notice of them. One is whether steps are being taken, concurrently with the building of new houses, to deal with the obsolete houses in existing military quarters, such as those which have no bathroom and so forth. There is also a point which occurred to me only during the noble Viscount's speech—namely, whether Northern Ireland is or is not covered by these arrangements. Then we come to this comparison with the procedure for loans to local authorities. Here again, it seems rather odd to me because, if I understand the local authorities' procedure aright, the reason for raising loans is to equalise the rates. I wish I could think that this procedure would reduce the rates in the same way. I begin to wonder why it was necessary to go through all this procedure merely to equalise the spending of £6,000,000 a year; I also wonder why this figure looms so large in Service estimates, and how it would look if it came in the estimates of the Ministry of Food. At the same time, I do not want to quarrel with the procedure. I believe that His

  1395
  Majesty's Government are right in fixing this programme as a five-year programme, although the analogy with the local authorities seems to me a little strange.
  My last point is that in these days money alone does not buy houses. There is the licensing, the materials and the allocation of labour. Whatever procedure the Service Departments have, licences and allocations have to be obtained for bricks; they have to be obtained for steel; they have to be obtained for some softwoods which have to be paid for with hard currency; and priorities have to be obtained for the building labour. I hope that we can have an assurance to-day that the sound provisions in this Bill are not going to be stultified by difficulties later on in securing the proper proportion of labour and materials, because otherwise we are wasting our time to-night. Those are all the points I want to raise. I have attempted to point to one or two matters which do not seem to be quite right and which need further attention outside the scope of this Bill, but I do not want to disparage the Bill for what it is. I would point out that this Bill is only one of the measures which will have to be taken to achieve what I know we all desire, which is proper housing for the Regular soldiers, sailors and airmen of His Majesty's Forces, so that the right people may be attracted to those careers which are so important to the State. With those words, I should like to support the Bill and say that we shall not seek to amend it.
  6.48 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, as I expected, the noble Viscount has welcomed this Bill. It is a substantial step forward. Taking up the last point of the noble Viscount, I think he can be assured that there can be complete co-operation between the local authorities and the Service Departments, both with regard to housing for Service men and ex-Service men, and particularly in relation to the question of the residential qualifications. So far as the building of houses is concerned, the proportion to be built for the Services, even under this measure, is very small in relation to the proportion as a whole. The noble Viscount asked me whether married quarters can be provided in Northern Ireland under the loan. I am afraid they cannot. Northern Ireland will be treated
  1396
  just as some of the isolated districts in this country and the overseas requirements will be treated, which is out of the normal method of providing married quarters by estimating each year. Estimating, of course, will proceed, and we hope that, as a result of the additional houses to be provided, in the course of the five years it will not only be the £40,000,000 which will be spent, but sums in addition to that. I have answered the points put forward by the noble Viscount very briefly, although they are important. I am pleased that he has raised them, and I thank him for the welcome which he has given to this Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

WRITTEN ANSWER THE SPECIAL CONTRIBUTION
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIRasked His Majesty's Government: (a) what are the number of His Majesty's subjects who, liable to Special Contribution, and having paid after January 1, 1949, the full amount and the interest at 2 per cent. to the date of payment, have, up to November 30, received a demand from the Special Commissioner's Office at Lynwood for a duplicate payment of interest, notwithstanding the fact that interest had already been paid; (b) what is the number of officials still employed as at November 30 on Special Contribution assessments and interest thereon, included and not included respectively in Cmd. 7829.
LORD PAKENHAM: There are 24 cases in which duplicate demands for interest are known to have been made. The errors, which are regretted, have arisen through the failure of somewhat inexperienced staff to follow the instructions designed to prevent them. Arrangements have been made for additional checks which should prevent such errors in future. The total staff engaged on the assessment and collection of Special Contribution and the interest thereon was 154 as at November 30. The whole of this staff was included in Cmd. 7829; the staff employed on the work since October 1, to which date Cmd. 7829 related, has in fact decreased.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock