Lords Sitting of 1 March 1949

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

  FUTURE USE OF TUDOR IV AIRCRAFT
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Swinton, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to make any statement on the future use of the Tudor IV aircraft.
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, shortly after the disappearance of the "Star Ariel," I invited the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, to inquire into the design and construction of the Tudor IV aircraft in relation to safety and airworthiness, and into any other relevant matters. Lord Brabazon, to whom I am most grateful for conducting this inquiry, has now communicated to me the interim results of his inquiries, and I have also received the preliminary report of the Chief Inspector of Accidents.
  Neither of these investigations discloses the probable cause of the disaster, just as no probable cause was found when the "Star Tiger" disappeared a year earlier. Had it been possible to determine a definite actual cause which could have been remedied, I feel that the aircraft might have continued to carry
  2
  passengers; but as this was not the case, and taking account of the psychological reactions of the travelling public, I have regretfully come to the conclusion that this type of aircraft should not continue to be used for carrying passengers, a conclusion with which the Chairman of B.S.A.A. fully agrees. Subject to certain modifications, it will be possible to use these aircraft for freight carrying purposes, and plans are being made for their use, in the first instance, on the Berlin air lift. This decision immediately raises the question of aircraft to replace the Tudors on B.S.A.A.'s routes, and this matter is under consideration.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend, who is aware that I have had many successful flights in these excellent aircraft, whether we may take it that the Report shows there is no truth in the rumours, which he knows are prevalent, that there was sabotage?
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I have no reason whatever to suppose there was sabotage, but in other respects I would rather not add to the statement I have just made.
  LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer.

INFECTION OF CACAO TREES
2.39 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
[To ask His Majesty's Government how many more cacao trees in the Gold Coast are now estimated to have been infected with swollen shoot disease as compared with the figure of 50,000,000 out of about 400,000,000 given on September 15, 1948; how many diseased trees have been cut out since that date: and what is the estimated production of cocoa for the year 1948–49.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFATRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWFL): My Lords, it is estimated that a further 4,000,000 trees have become infected since September 15, 1948. The number of trees cut out between September 1, 1948, and January 31, 1949, is 1,134,653. The estimated production for the crop season 1948–49 is about 275,000 tons.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for his answer. I would ask him whether he can give any forecast of the cutting-out programme that will mitigate the impression that this scourge is gaining over the efforts made to eradicate it.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that the Gold Coast Government are doing everything possible by way of propaganda to get the recommendations of the expert Commission on cutting out accepted by Gold Coast farmers, and are also planning a further cutting-out campaign which, when ready, will be submitted to the Administrative Council of the Gold Coast.

HILL FARMING SCHEMES IN WALES
2.41 p.m.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government what is the number of schemes under the Hill Farming Act, 1946, relating to Wales which have now received final approval, upon how many of these actual work has begun, and what is the total amount in subsidy involved.]
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I have been asked to reply. One thousand, four hundred and sixty-four proposals for hill farming improvement schemes have been received from Wales. Of these, 307 have been either rejected or withdrawn, 764 have been approved in principle, and 21 have been finally approved for commencement of work. The remainder are under consideration. When a scheme is finally approved, responsibility for starting work rests with the promoter of a scheme, but it is known that work has started on at least 14 schemes. The total amount of grant estimated to be paid in respect of those schemes finally approved is £11,600. The total amount of grant estimated to be payable for all the schemes—that is, those finally approved, approved in principle or still under consideration, is about £500,000.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, could the noble Lord say, in regard to the 307 schemes that were summarily rejected, what was the main cause of rejection?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Some of them were withdrawn by the promoters, some were found to have no relation to hill sheep farming and others did not comply with the conditions of the grant.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, arising out of the Question of the noble Lord, is the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, aware that the Conservative Party have to-day issued a publication dealing with their policy in regard to Wales, which might be helpful to His Majesty's Government in arriving at a more constructive policy in this matter, especially in regard to the 300,000 schemes that have been turned down?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I feel sure that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is well aware of all the schemes that are abroad, from whichever source they emanate. May I point out to the noble Viscount that only 300 applications have been rejected or withdrawn—not 300,000?

PUBLIC WORKS (FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
SOCIAL SERVICES (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
COLONIAL NAVAL DEFENCE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
CLYDEBANK BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

SUMMER TIME ORDER, 1949
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 16th of February last, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament. Your Lordships might like to know that the dates fixed for the present year under this Motion provide that Summer Time shall run from April 3 to October 30, thus shortening the period of Summer Time during the present year by almost three weeks.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 16th of February last, he made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE REGULATIONS, 1949
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved. The Regulations contained in the Order are little altered from those originally in operation. They were, in draft, the subject of conversations between the principal agents of the main Parties and the electoral registration officers, and have been approved by them. The only other point which needs to be mentioned is that the first register to be published
6
under the Order will be published on October 15, and the first qualifying date for that register will be June 10, 1949.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL
2.49 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.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Fees and charges for wireless telegraphy licences]:
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (2), to omit paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: In moving this first Amendment which stands in my name, I should like to make it clear that the object of the Amendment is to omit from the local authorities who issue certificates of blindness the Common Council of the City of London. Since the Wireless Telegraphy Act: of 1926 was passed into law, the London County Council have become the authority responsible for the welfare of blind persons residing in the City of London, and it therefore seems right and proper that the function of issuing these certificates should be transferred from the Common Council to the London County Council. The City Corporation have agreed to this change. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, leave out lines 21 and 22.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This Amendment is consequential upon the last one which has been agreed to by the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 23, leave out ("elsewhere").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Regulations as to wireless telegraphy.
3.—(1) The Postmaster-General may make regulations—
(a) prescribing the things which are to be done or are not to be done in connection with the use of any station for wireless telegraphy or wireless telegraphy apparatus, and, in particular, requiring the use of any such station or apparatus to cease on the demand in that behalf of any such persons as may be prescribed by or under the regulations;
and different provision may be made by any such regulations for different classes of case:
THE EARL OF AIRLIE THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, in subsection (1) after paragraph (b) to insert as a new paragraph:
"( ) for the taking of measures for the protection of any station for wireless telegraphy or wireless telegraphy apparatus against interference from any electric line".
The noble Earl said: Clause 3 deals solely with wireless and not with electrical apparatus and electric lines, but the clause does not appear to permit the Postmaster-General to make regulations to specify the steps which users of wireless should take to prevent interference with their equipment. It is our experience that in many cases it is a more practicable and economic proposition for the user of the wireless to alter his station or apparatus, or provide some gadget in order to prevent interference. Therefore, the real purpose of this Amendment is to allow (it is permissive) the Postmaster-General to make the user of the wireless apparatus look after himself, by altering his wireless apparatus or by taking other steps for his own protection. The Amendment, if agreed to, w ill to some extent prevent the whole onus of protection from falling on the user of electrical apparatus or electric lines.
I notice that His Majesty's Government have on the Marshalled List of Amendments an Amendment to Clause 11 at page 11, line 18, which they believe (they were good enough to discuss this question before to-day) will meet the point. In my humble submission, my Amendment goes much further, and theirs does not go far enough. The Government's Amendment will effect only a restraint. Under that Amendment, apparently, the Postmaster-General will not, in certain circumstances, serve a notice on the user of the electrical
8
apparatus causing the interference. We feel that there is a better method of healing the ill than that—namely, that it should be dealt with at its source. If the Postmaster-General is allowed to make the user of the wireless apparatus look after himself, by alteration of the apparatus or otherwise, the matter will be dealt with much more satisfactorily. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 17, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Airlie.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I sympathise very much with the general object of the noble Earl, but I respectfully suggest that the Amendment down in my name to Clause 11 meets the case more effectively than does his Amendment. I will not go into detail, but in a sentence I will say what my Amendment does. It will make it clear that the Postmaster-General cannot serve an enforcement notice against a person causing interference unless the person whose apparatus is suffering interference has taken every reasonable step to reduce or eliminate the trouble himself. That is the broad object of my later Amendment.
I would point out to the noble Earl two difficulties that I see arising out of his Amendment. The first is that it is proposed to be inserted in the wrong place in the Bill. Part I of the Bill deals with licensing, and Part II with interference. Therefore, the noble Earl's Amendment, which affects interference, should find a place (if at all) in Part II and not Part I of the Bill. In the second place, the noble Earl in his Amendment makes it a safeguard in the case of apparatus sustaining interference from electric lines, and in that way he limits it. I should like a much wider and more general protection. I feel that domestic and other electrical apparatus should have the same safeguard as the noble Earl desires for electric lines. I do not think we should be justified in discriminating in favour of one source of electrical interference. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl, on consideration, will take the view that the Government Amendment really meets his point more completely than the Amendment he has moved.
LORD CHERWELL: I have great sympathy with the intention of the noble

9
Earl, Lord Airlie, because it seems to me that throughout this Bill the whole onus is put upon the people causing interference, or the people alleged to be causing interference, and that the user of the wireless set is nowhere given an incentive to see that his set is in good order so that interference is avoided. However, I feel that the Amendment which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has down later will meet this case and, in view of what the noble Earl has said, perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, will not desire to press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I would like to thank the noble Earl for what he has said. It is quite true that this Amendment does deal with the matter of electric lines. I am dealing with that point in both the Amendments I have put down, because it is a matter which causes me concern. However, in view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Advisory committee and appeal tribunal
(2) The advisory committee shall be appointed from a panel consisting of such number of persons as the Postmaster-General may direct, to be nominated by the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers with the approval of the Council thereof, being persons who, in the opinion of the President of the said Institution, either possess expert knowledge of the matters failing to be dealt with by the regulations falling to be made under this Part of this Act or represent persons whose interests are likely to be affected by the making thereof.
(3) The appeal tribunal shall consist of—
(d) two assessors, to assist the president of the tribunal, to be appointed by the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers with the approval of the Council thereof, being persons who, in the opinion of the President of the said Institution, possess expert knowledge of the matters likely to come before the tribunal and are not members of the advisory committee:
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to add to subsection (2):
"and the Postmaster-General and the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers shall each exercise his powers under this subsection in such manner as to secure that the committee or the panel, as the case may be, is in his opinion sufficiently representative of persons
10
whose interests are likely to be affected as aforesaid."
The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to meet a point (if I may say so, I thought a very good point) made by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, on the Second Reading of the Bill. I hope that it will also meet the Amendment which the noble Lord has put down in the same place.
I think the noble Lord's view was that if Clause 9, as drafted in its present form, remained in the Bill, it would be possible for the advisory committee which is to be set up to consist entirely of experts, and that users and manufacturers of electrical apparatus would be without representation. The Government never intended that the committee should consist entirely of experts, and in practice the Postmaster-General would not have appointed a committee which did not include representation of persons whose interests are likely to be affected. I agree that the clause will be improved by this Amendment, and I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, that the words at the end of the Amendment
"sufficiently representative of persons whose interests are likely to be affected as aforesaid "
cover both users and manufacturers. The addition to the clause of these words will turn what has always been the intention of the Postmaster-General into an obligation by binding him—and, of course, the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers—to secure the services of a representative person. I hope the noble Lord will feel that this covers the very proper point which he made when he insisted that there should be a representative element on the panel, and on the advisory committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 28, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD CHERWELL: I agree that the Amendment put down by the noble Earl goes a long way to meat my difficulty. As the clause stood, the advisory committee would have been appointed from a panel nominated by the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. Although I have the greatest confidence in the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, there was no way of questioning in Parliament either him or his panel. I understand that under this Amendment the Postmaster-General will

11
be responsible for seeing that the panel is representative of persons whose interests are likely to be affected—which, we are assured, includes the user as well as the manufacturer—and that such representatives will form part of the advisory committee. Therefore, it will not be necessary for me to move my Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHERWELL LORD CHERWELL moved, in subsection (3), to add to paragraph (d).
"and two members appointed by the Postmaster-General, one from a list of persons nominated by the Federation of British Industries and the other from a list nominated by the National Council of Women of Great Britain or the Women's Voluntary Services."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is drawn to meet a similar point concerning the tribunal which is to be set up. The tribunals will have immense powers, and there will be no appeal from their decision. They will be capable of inflicting on numerous individuals small amounts of damage, and perhaps on large concerns they may occasionally impose enormous costs. It seems to us that it is a mistake to have one single man with judicial experience—it is true that he "shall be a barrister of not less than seven years' standing or a solicitor of not less than seven years' standing"—in a position to decide these matters without any possibility of appeal.
It is not as though these were technical matters. When we were first told that this was a matter of deciding what constituted undue interference, it seemed that these were questions of how many microvolts per metre should be allowed, or something like that. But from the debate in another place it became clear that the meaning of "undue" was to be construed rather in the form of "unreasonable." That is to say, if a man lived Close to a radar station, where he could not hear anything at all on his wireless because of interference, the tribunal would be entitled to decide that this was not "undue" interference. Similarly, we were told that if there was a factory causing interference and there was only one complainant, the tribunal would decide that the complainant had no case. These are not technicalities, but questions as to what is reasonable, which is the greater or lesser hardship and so on, which no technical assessor is particularly
12
qualified to decide. Therefore, I am anxious that instead of a tribunal of one, assisted by two experts, there should be a tribunal of at least three, of whom two should be people of the jury type—people who have not necessarily any technical knowledge, but who are likely to be affected. I am thinking of such people as the housewife, who may be told that her electric iron and domestic appliances must be suppressed, or a manufacturer, who may be told that his factory will be closed down if he does not stop radiation from it.
If the chairman of the tribunal were to be a man with the status of a High Court Judge, or something like that, I would not have so much anxiety, but when we know that the chairman might be merely a solicitor possessing seven years' experience, it seems to me that he needs some assistance in coming to a decision on matters which may be of such immense importance to a large number of people. I am not concerned particularly with the way these additional people should be chosen—I am ready to consider alternative proposals as to that. It has been pointed out that it would be better that they should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and not by the Postmaster-General who, by definition, would be party to the case and I agree with that. But I feel that a tribunal consisting of a single member is rather too small to undertake duties of such magnitude and importance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 17, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Cherwell.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I agree, of course, with the noble Lord opposite that it is essential that the right person or persons should serve on this tribunal in order to give an absolutely fair deal to the appellant. I cannot agree that one person is necessarily not enough. For instance, there are arbitration cases in which one arbitrator decides quite important matters. I do not think that numbers necessarily mean that one would get a fair decision. I am not altogether happy about the noble Lord's proposal that a representative of a women's organisation or trade organisation would be more capable of a reasonable decision in a matter of this kind than someone with legal experience. I do not think that is necessarily the case. What I do think—and here I agree with

13
the noble Lord—is that whoever is appointed must be capable of deciding, in the light of all the circumstances, what is reasonable in regard to interference. I also accept that that is not an easy decision to which to come.
I think there is a good deal to be said for someone who has had judicial experience because, of course, there are many cases in which a Judge has to interpret the common law in the light of what is reasonable under the circumstances of a particular case. It is not desirable that the Postmaster-General should be made responsible for appointing any of the members—they should be completely independent. It would be unwise if the Postmaster should appoint people to hear appeals against his own decisions. Apart from that minor objection, I will gladly look into the whole matter again to see whether there is a way to make even more certain that the tribunal is constituted in a way which it will give the most satisfactory results. Without, of course, committing myself, I will look into that matter again between now and the Report stage.
LORD CHERWELL: In view of what the noble Earl has said, and in the confident hope that he will find some method of meeting my difficulties, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, retaining, of course, the right to reintroduce something of a similar sort on the Report stage if we cannot reach agreement.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
3.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am not sure whether this is the appropriate point to raise this matter. As I understand it, this tribunal has to decide whether there has been undue or unreasonable interference. I do not believe there is anything between us on the merits of the case. There is interference—that seems to be common ground; otherwise no case would lie. But it may be that the interference is not unreasonable. The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, quoted an example of a man who places himself within a quarter of a mile of a radar station that is essential to the defence of the country and, indeed, to the navigation of ships. That interference would be absolute—but, of course, there are many gradations of interference.
14
Now the intention, as I understand it, is that the tribunal should have the right to say what ought to be done in a case of this kind; and even in the most extreme case, where the interference is absolute, they may say that nothing can be done and that therefore the absolute interference is to continuo—in which case people who have a television set will not be able to use it. I am not saying that that is not a proper course for the tribunal to take; I think it is, because such people have brought their television set into an established radar area. In a less absolute case the balance may tilt in favour of a person running an established business in that area. I think, therefore, that the principle is right. But what I want to be clear about is that the language now proposed will give the tribunal that right. It looks to me a little artificial. They are to have the right to say that there is no undue interference. But what is "undue" interference? If a person exercises a little influence such as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, constantly exercises upon me, that does not amount to duress; it is merely sensible advice given by a learned leader to his junior. If, on the other hand, a member of the other side of the legal profession exercises such influence upon an elderly lady nearing her latter end in such a way as to cause her to make a will in his favour, that is undue influence, because it is excessive influence, influence which cannot be resisted.
Suppose there is a radar station which exercises an influence which is even more complete than that which the noble and learned Viscount exercises over me, or even more complete than the solicitor exercises over his client, which is absolute and complete, nothing else can happen. Is the Minister of State right in saying that the tribunal can hold in these circumstances that this interference which is absolute and complete is not "undue"? I only ask that the language of the Act may be such as to conform to what is our intention; and I am fortified in asking that question because I read in The Times this morning a most astute judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord du Parcq, who cannot be accused of being a politician. In his judgment Lord du Parcq suggested that although his proper duty as a Law Lord was to try the case, it would not be contrary to public policy if the Legislature were to lay down in clear terms what it intended.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Without seeking for a moment to exercise undue influence on anybody, may I respectfully suggest to the noble Earl opposite, as he is to look into this matter further, that it might be wise to review the language that is used in Clause 9, about the tribunal, coupled with the provision in the Second Schedule as to the appeal tribunal? I myself am not at the moment quite clear what the conjoint effect would be. In Clause 9, if we leave out the two assessors, the tribunal consists of one person. Under paragraph (a) he will be a particular person for England and Wales; under paragraph (b) he will be a particular person for Scotland; and under paragraph (c) he will be a particular person for Northern Ireland. But the tribunal itself, apart from the two assessors, consists of only one person. The language of the Second Schedule, however, suggests that the appeal tribunal consists of more persons than one—possibly the members of the appeal tribunal including the assessors.
If your Lordships look in the Second Schedule you will see in paragraph 5 on page 23:
"The assessors shall give their opinions to the president on all matters of a technical nature and shall take such further part in the proceedings of the tribunal as he may direct but the decision of the president shall, on all questions, be the decision of the tribunal."
I think fundamentally, therefore, it is what may be called a one-man show." That emphasises the anxiety which has been expressed. It is putting absolute powers, from which there is no appeal, into the hands of one man. I should have thought it would be well to look at that side of the matter, if the noble Earl is to be good enough to have the scheme reconsidered, as he said he might do. This is a very strong order on a matter which includes not only technical considerations and persons but which touches ordinary people very closely. It is surely too strong to say in effect that someone shall be nominated, and that that is all there is to it.
If the noble Earl is going to make a statement, there is one other thing I should like to know. It would also be an advantage for the public to know something about the way in which he conceives such an appeal tribunal would work. Will it hear evidence, or will it simply have documents before it? Will the decision be arrived at in private?
16
There is something to be said for both methods. But the public would be relieved if they could know that the administration of this tribunal is to be such that they can be confident of getting what is commonly called a "hearing."
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: So far as the wording of the technical Schedule goes, I will certainly examine that, to see whether it is consistent with the provisions of Clause 9. I think the noble and learned Viscount was right in his suggestion that the decision of the tribunal would be the decision of the president.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Of one man.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The two assessors will sit in an advisory capacity. Whether it is proper to describe them, as is done in the Second Schedule, as "members," I cannot say without further consideration, but if that is incorrect it could easily be altered. So far as the procedure of the appeal tribunal is concerned, I imagine that it would be the same procedure as is adopted in arbitration cases, and cases of that kind, where other Statutes are applied and appeals are lodged from orders that are made by the Minister. I will gladly consult with my advisers about the whole legal apparatus of procedure before the tribunal and inform the noble Viscount on the Report stage. I think he would like to be informed on a public occasion, so I do not suggest that I do it privately.
The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, raised the important question of the meaning of "undue interference." I am just as much at sea in legal matters as is any layman in your Lordships' House. I will gladly examine this expression to see whether it is possible to make it clear from the point of view of the ordinary non-technical person.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is in order that the courts who have to interpret this expression may know exactly what Parliament intends, and that we may use language which the courts will interpret in the way in which we wish it to be interpreted.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I appreciate that. My intention is exactly the same as that of the noble Viscount. I am told by my legal advisers that "undue interference" means "undue interference

17
in the light of the particular circumstances of the particular case." The "circumstances of the particular case" would mean the cause of the interference, as well as the apparatus that was being interfered with. That would take into account a radar station or a factory, or whatever it may be, as well as a wireless set which was not working satisfactorily from the point of view of the user. I believe that that is the interpretation which has been put upon it. I will gladly examine the wording in the Bill to see whether it can be made plainer to the ordinary non-technical person, and to make quite sure that, when this Bill is interpreted in the courts, three can be no discrepancy between the intention of Parliament and the wording of the Bill, which is what I think the noble Viscount wanted.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Surely it would be an easy way out, and would resolve all doubts, if in the interpretation clause at the end we were to say that "undue interference for the purposes of this Act shall mean"—and then lay down exactly what it is that the tribunal is to have the right and the duty to do. The courts would then be left in no doubt at all.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will examine that point.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
3.23 p.m.
Clause 10:
Regulations as to radiation of electro-magnetic energy, etc.
10.—(1) The Postmaster General may, after consultation with the advisory committee, make regulations for both or either of the following purposes, that is to say—

(a) for prescribing the requirements to be complied with in the case of any apparatus to which this section applies if the apparatus is to be used;

(b) for prescribing the requirements to be complied with in the case of any apparatus to which this section applies if the apparatus is to be sold otherwise than for export, or offered or advertised for sale otherwise than for export, or let on hire or offered or advertised for letting on hire, by any person who in the course of business manufactures, assembles or imports such apparatus.

LORD CHERWELL LORD CHERWELL moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that a requirement under paragraph (a) of this subsection shall not be such
18
as to involve the expenditure by the owner of any apparatus used by him for the ordinary domestic purposes of his household of a sum exceeding one florin in respect of each such apparatus."
The noble Lord said: Here again, I am endeavouring by an Amendment to achieve what I am sure we all wish to achieve—that is, to prevent the ordinary domestic user of an electric appliance, and more especially the housewife, from being penalised and put to expense and trouble in order to facilitate the hearing of some programme by a neighbour. The cost of finding one of these interfering bits of apparatus, we are informed, is anything from £2 to £4. We are assured also that the cost of putting it right is small—a matter of shillings. If it costs such a small amount to put it right, it seems rather unfair that that should be thrown on the housewife; and it does seem to me that she ought to be relieved of the burden. But I am quite willing that she should pay a small amount—say, 2s.—because I am told that there is a certain type of suppressor which I think can be bought for 1s. 6d. Therefore, I have put a limit of 2s. as the maximum expense to which she should be put.
I am quite ready to agree that it is rather difficult to bring this matter into the Bill. It may be that the noble Earl can find some better way of doing it and some better place for inserting a provision which will have this effect. I, and all of us on this side, feel very strongly that something of this sort must be done. It is most unfair to create by law some totally new nuisance, suddenly to say that something which has been perfectly legal and absolutely within the four corners of use, convention and law is a nuisance, and place the onus of putting it right upon the person who is creating it. When it comes to numerous poor people who have been using perfectly legal domestic appliances for their proper purposes, I think that noble Lords opposite will agree that it is a hardship which we ought not to inflict on them. As I have said, it may be that a better place can be found in which to insert some provision of this sort, or it may be desirable to secure some better wording. If the noble Earl assures us that noble Lords on the Government Benches accept the principle, I shall be quite willing to consider alterations to effect the same result,

19
but I do not think that we could agree to give up the principle. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 14, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Cherwell.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: We all sympathise with the noble Lord's desire to avoid putting any new and unnecessary burden or hardship upon the housewife, or indeed upon any ordinary householder; but there are considerable difficulties in the way of doing what the noble Lord opposite wants. I think that the House would like to hear what those difficulties are. In the first place, we are very much afraid that if the householder knew that the cost of preventing interference by an electric apparatus—a refrigerator, a vacuum cleaner or a transformer, for instance—was not going to fall upon him or her but was going to be paid by someone else, there would be much less incentive to keep the apparatus in that state of repair which would prevent it from causing this interference. The incentive for preventing the apparatus, owing to clumsy or hard use or whatever it may be, from developing a capacity to interfere would be largely removed.
If this were to happen, the present cost of preventing interference by domestic electrical apparatus, which, as the noble Lord has said, is extremely small, would be likely to increase considerably, and, of course, according to the noble Lord's Amendment, which limits the contribution of the householder to a sum of 2s., the increase would have to fall either on public funds or on some other member of the public. Another difficulty is this. It has often been said—not necessarily here, but elsewhere—that the price that will have to be paid by a householder who does not like interfering with the neighbours and wants to stop doing it as soon as possible and to remedy the defect, is going to be quite considerable. I can assure noble Lords that that is not the case. The Post Office have taken a random sample of cases. They find that the cost of doing this little job varies from about 4s. 9d. to about 15s. 9d., so it is always a matter of shillings.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: 15s. 9d.?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: 15s. 9d. That is the range over a sample batch
20
of cases. So I do not think it would be fair to say that this provision was going to cause considerable hardship to a household where a reasonable and normal standard of life was enjoyed.
LORD SANDHURST: May I interrupt the noble Earl for the moment? I understand the expenditure is 15s. 9d. Does that refer to the cost of repairs to put the electrical gear in order, or to the cost of apparatus that has to be attached to it to suppress it?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I was referring to the cost of a suppressor, or whatever has to be done to the apparatus to stop the interference from taking place.
LORD SANDHURST: Is it a question of a repair or of totally new gear?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: It would cover the price of a gadget to prevent interference from taking place, whether caused by a vacuum cleaner, a refrigerator, a bed-warmer, or whatever it may be. It would cover not merely the cost of slightly altering the object to put it right. Those are the facts of the case. I entirely appreciate the strong view that some noble Lords hold, that if we can possibly avoid doing so, we should not add to the anxieties and pecuniary difficulties of ordinary householders who use electrical appliances. I share that view, but I think it is very difficult to adjust the set-up of the Bill in the way the noble Lord wants. At the same time, I shall be glad to examine this problem between now and the Report stage, in the light of what he has said and with proper regard for the weight of opinion and feeling in this matter from the Benches opposite.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We are obliged to the noble Earl for that assurance. But let us, if we can, see what is to be examined, because I think we ought to decide here and now on a very important question of principle. With great respect, I think the noble Earl has muddled the issue a little. The noble Earl has said that if someone has an apparatus which goes out of repair and does not work well and causes interference, he ought to put it into proper repair. I do not dissent from that in the least. As a matter of fact, anybody who has electrical apparatus which goes out of repair will

21
put it into proper repair in his own interests, because unless it is in decent working order it will not do the job for which he bought it. Here I am speaking not as an expert but merely as a householder, and that is my experience. If you find that any of your electrical gadgets are not working, you cannot operate them, and you put them right because they will not work. I have no objection at all to it being said that if a woman buys an electrical apparatus it ought to be kept in proper repair, and that if she does not keep it in proper repair but creates a nuisance to somebody else she should be required to put it into repair.
But that is not the case here. As I understand it, the case here is wholly different—namely, that the ordinary householder has bought an electric iron or a vacuum cleaner of the kind which is on the market—indeed, the only kind that you can buy, and the kind which two years ago the Lord President of the Council was encouraging everybody to buy. The purchase is perfectly legitimate; indeed, in these days of servant shortage it is not only legitimate, but is absolutely necessary. You go and buy the only machine you can buy on the market at the time of purchase. Surely that is a legitimate and reasonable thing to do. Then somebody comes along and installs a television set. I have no objection to their doing that. I happen to like television, even the rather indifferent kind supplied by the Postmaster-General. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. But because my neighbour installs a television set, why on earth should he then be able to come to me via the Postmaster-General, and say: "You have an electric iron, or a vacuum cleaner, which is in perfectly good repair. It has been supplied to you by a first class firm. But I am not seeing the Marx Brothers on my television set so well as I might because you are keeping your house clean with your vacuum cleaner." What have you to do then? You have to go and pay 15s. 9d. I do not know what I should say to my wife if she charged me that sum, or even a proportion of it.
What is the cost of an electric iron to-day? I understand it is somewhere in the region of 37s. 6d., of which probably 17s. 6d. is purchase tax. We
22
understand, after last week-end, that the great object of the Socialist Party and the Labour Government is to bring the cost of living down—that that is going to win the next Election, whenever it comes—and every housewife is to have better, happier and cheaper living in the brave new world that is going to be opened up for her. Let us look at the brave new world that the Postmaster-General and the Minister of State are opening forth for us. Every woman who owns a vacuum cleaner or an electric iron, with either of them apparently working perfectly, can interfere with a television set. Round comes the snooper and says: "I cannot repair this. It is working quite well, but it is interfering with Lord Addison's television set. You must not do that; it is a criminal offence." The woman can, of course, go to the court of appeal at her own expense; but who on earth is going to the court of appeal, whether it consists of assessors appointed by Lord Cherwell or by the Lord Chancellor? As always you sit down under the imposition. You would be a fool if you did not, because anybody who goes to law is a fool—I know because I lived by it for years. I had a very good practice at the Bar by way of settling actions. I had a great reputation in that regard, and I saved my clients a great deal of money.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I appeared for you once.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: And you got me off without a stain upon my character! But let us be reasonable about this matter, because it is a question of great importance to the ordinary householder. Far more people own vacuum cleaners and flat irons and things of that sort than these new-fangled television sets. Let us take 15s. as a rough figure. Fifteen shillings on a Hoover and 15s. on a flat iron is 30s., which this wretched woman has to pay merely for doing what she has to do to keep her house clean and decent. I ask your Lordships, is that reasonable? Why on earth should we not limit this expenditure in a reasonable way? I am quite agreeable to the insertion of any necessary words, saying that if a person has an electrical appliance in his house and is failing to keep it in repair, thereby causing a nuisance to his neighbours, then that person must put it in repair. But if

23
for the last two years you have been using an ordinary domestic apparatus which was bought in the open market and is of an approved type—advertised and approved by the Government—I cannot, for the life of me, see why you should have to pay 30s. in order to go on using it.
That is the simple principle before us to-day, and before we leave the Minister to go into further contemplation between now and the Report stage I want to know what he is going to contemplate. Is he going to contemplate difficulties which the Department have put to him? I was in a Department much longer than he has been, and I can assure him that if you do not want to do a thing there are no end to the difficulties which can be put up for contemplation. Any good civil servants—or even indifferent civil servants, for that matter—can put to you a perfect Grand National course of obstacles in the way of your doing the common-sense thing.
VISCOUNT SIMON: And exercise "undue interference."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes, and exercise "undue interference." Let the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who is a homely person (and he has good reason to be, because he is very happy in his domestic affairs) tell us whether he thinks this requirement is reasonable. I feel sure that he does not think it reasonable. Let us decide on the principle that what we should do is to tell people to keep their apparatus in order, and that if they have kept their perfectly legitimate apparatus in order they ought not to be charged 30s. extra.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): I am sure we have all been delighted by the charming dialectics of the noble Viscount. Of course, I knew before of his ability in that direction, but I am sure that we all have no reason now to wonder why he was in great demand when he was practising his profession. On this matter, there is really nothing between us. Being, as the noble Viscount properly said, a homely person, I entirely sympathise with the point of view which he has presented, and so does my noble friend, Lord Listowel. I agree with the noble Viscount's suggestion that
24
a householder who does not keep his apparatus in order may fairly be called upon to do so. That is quite reasonable—we accept that. But it would be hardship on a person who has bought a flatiron, or whatever it may be, and is using it bona fide, in a proper manner, if someone should go to him and say: "This is interfering with someone else's gadget and you will have to pay us so much." We should want to look very carefully into the matter before we made it possible for anything of that sort to happen. I will therefore give the Committee this assurance: if noble Lords will not press this Amendment, we will endeavour to frame some form of words which will avoid placing any hardship upon any householder or housewife which should not be placed upon them. I give the Committee that assurance, and I hope they will be content to leave it at that.
LORD CHERWELL: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the assurance which he has just given. Out of deference to our American friends, however, I would rather call the noble Viscount "home-loving" than "homely." In view of what he has just said, and with full confidence that he will be successful in achieving what is desired, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.44 p.m.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, after subsection (3) to insert as a new subsection:
"(4) In the case of any electric line the regulations in relation thereto made under this section shall where appropriate make provisions—

(a) for the allocation of the cost of adapting any electric line to comply with the prescribed requirements; and

(b) as to the persons or class of persons to be liable for the whole or any part of the cost of such adaptation and as to the mode of recovery of such cost."

The noble Earl said: Clause 10 deals solely with electrical apparatus such as electric lines, and not with wireless apparatus. This Amendment, I submit, is really important, and it is in the best interests of the cheap and economic production of electricity, especially so far as the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board is concerned. Under the Bill as it stands, the whole cost of any measures taken to prevent interference by electric

25
lines has to be borne by the user of the electric lines, and the purpose of this Amendment is to provide, where appropriate, for the allocation of cost between users of electric lines, on the one hand, and users of wireless telegraphy, on the other. I would, if I may, for one moment, remind your Lordships of this point in the original set-up. The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, when it was first brought into being, had given to it a statutory duty to distribute electricity in the sparsely populated portions of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Distribution costs in these far-flung areas, are very high, and any additional costs imposed under this Bill—the extent of which cannot be foreseen, since wireless equipment becomes more sensitive from day to day—might easily have a crippling effect on the Board's finances. In fact, in the long run, it might well be that the cost of electricity to the consumer would go up considerably.
As your Lordships will remember, the whole of Scotland was surveyed and schemes were prepared, some economic and some uneconomic. The plan was that the economic schemes with their profits were to pay for the cost of the uneconomic schemes. That way, it would be possible to have electricity distributed all through the Highlands and Islands in the far-flung districts. What the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board are worrying about is that, unless there is this allocation of cost between the two users, the Board may find themselves, in an area where they have an extremely uneconomic scheme, faced with the burden of paying for the prevention of interference by their lines with wireless telegraphy. Thereby their scheme would be made even more uneconomic than at present. I can visualise a situation such as this arising. One of the Departments—the Admiralty, or the War Office, for instance—might quite legitimately decide that they wanted to erect a radio station somewhere where a scheme of the Board is already in being. The result would be interference to such an extent that they could go to the Beard and say: "You have got to bear the whole cost either of removing the lines or (what would be worse) putting them underground." Putting lines underground is an extremely costly business—I understand that the expense would be something like £25,000 a mile.
It is not unreasonable, I suggest, for the Board to be somewhat perturbed at the possible chance of the whole of their finances being upset, and the purpose of this Amendment is to make it possible for this cost to be allocated between the two users. I have an idea that it might have a deterrent effect upon some Departments, such as the Admiralty, or the War Office, or even the Post Office, which might suddenly wish to construct some form of wireless telegraphy installation in a certain place, it might make them feel they had better look for an alternative site before incurring a share of the cost. I have endeavoured to explain what is worrying the Board, and I trust that His Majesty's Government will give careful attention to this point, and, if they cannot accept this Amendment, will give it careful consideration with a view to seeing whether there is not some means of helping the Hydro-Electric Board in this respect.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 41, after subsection (3) insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Airlie.)
LORD CLYDESMUIR: Before the noble Earl replies, I would like to say a word in support of the Amendment moved by my noble friend. The Amendment we have just been dealing with affects small household appliances, like vacuum cleaners and flat-irons, but this Amendment affects a great public enterprise whose electrical transmission lines carry electricity to wide parts of Scotland. I would like to emphasise, as my noble friend has done, the dangers we see in the present Bill in relation to Scotland. As your Lordships know, the Highlands and Islands are suffering from depopulation and it is at present under discussion whether they should not be made into a Development Area. The most important factor in developing industry would be the distribution of electricity. The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board are responsible for the distribution of electricity over that wide area and they are anxious that their costs should not be raised by the effect of this measure. The Board's distribution goes right down to villages and farms. We are really pleading for the fair treatment of one nationalised industry by another Government Department—which shows the tangled web we are beginning to weave, and I am sneaking particularly

27
of allocation as between one department and another. Without some provision like this, there is a danger that the Hydro-Electric Board will have to bear heavy on-cost charges. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support the Amendment, which raises a point of great importance to users of electricity in rural districts.
LORD SALTOUN: I should like to support my noble friend's Amendment. On the more general question, I would ask His Majesty's Government, where it is necessary on proper public grounds to establish very special immunity from interference in any district, is there any provision in the Bill whereby the public as a whole might be made to bear a part of the cost of securing that immunity.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: When the Hydro-Electricity Bill, which set up the Scottish Hydro-Electric Board, came before the House, I was commissioned on behalf of my noble friends, at that time sitting on the other side of the House, to speak in support, and I think there is nothing between the two sides of the House so far as support for the work of the Scottish Hydro-Electric Authority is concerned. We none of us wish to do anything which would diminish the importance of the service which they render to the people of Scotland. But I see a good deal of difficulty about the noble Earl's Amendment. In the first place, it deals with one particular source of interference—namely, electrical lines which supply consumers of electricity from an authority who generates electrical current. It would be difficult to do as the noble Earl suggests, because there are factories and hospitals which use electricity, and they equally would be entitled to say that the cost of the alteration of apparatus should be divided between them and the other parties.
I appreciate that the noble Earl wants an agreement about this between the Departments concerned; and that he seeks to ensure that, if agreement is not reached and the matter goes before the appeal tribunal, it shall be possible for the cost of putting things right to be divided between the authority and the other parties. Of course, the tribunal might say that the imposition of such a burden on the electricity authority would make it undesirable for the interference to be stopped. Therefore, they would
28
accept the case of the applicant, disallow the case of the Post Office and the Hydro-Electric Authority in Scotland would be none the worse off. That could happen under the Bill as it now stands.
I am afraid that I must make some further objections to the way in which the noble Earl's Amendment is drafted. I think it is moved in the wrong place. The regulations to which the noble Earl is referring will relate to classes of apparatus; they cannot therefore be confined, as he wishes, to a particular type of apparatus such an an electric line. Therefore it is impossible to include with the cost of stopping interference by one type of apparatus a provision about the allocation of costs between Departments. Moreover, at the time when regulations are made, at the early stage on which the noble Earl wishes the question of cost to be raised, it will be impossible to forecast in every case what kind of allocation will be involved in meeting the cost. There will be no way whatever of estimating the expenses that will fall upon the manufacturer or user. These estimates of cost can be made only at a later stage, when the general rule is applied to a particular case. I will gladly comply with the noble Earl's request that this matter should be considered, with a view to doing what we can to ease the burden of any large public authority concerned with the supply of electricity, and I will consult with the noble Earl again before Report stage, in order to see whether we can devise something which would go some way to meet his requirement.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: As someone who is entirely impartial in this case, and not an interested party—as my noble friends might in a sense be said to be—I would like to say that I find the brief of the noble Earl singularly unconvincing. He has not really addressed himself to the broad point put by the noble Earl who moved the Amendment. Instead, he has given us a series of arguments which are niggling and of a drafting description, the type of argument which is sometimes put up by civil servants and which politicians ought to resist. The broad case of my noble friend is that it is unjust that the Admiralty, or any other authority, should put other people, whether the Hydro-Electric Authority or anyone else, to expense without just cause. My noble friend suggests that the tribunal should be given power to

29
allocate the share of the expenses to be borne by either party. That is a very reasonable plea, and I confess that even now I do not understand why the noble Earl is unwilling to accept it.
It seems to me that one of the valuable results of the noble Earl's Amendment would be that before, say, a radar station was put up by any authority, they would be compelled to ascertain whether there was not a more convenient spot, which would meet the case equally well, but which would cause less expense to other people. My experience is that unless a Department are made liable to bear some of the expense in a matter of this sort, they are apt to be very inconsiderate of the interests of other people. Therefore, I hope the Government will give more consideration to my noble friend's Amendment, which embodies a perfectly legitimate and fair point. I find the arguments so far adduced by the noble Earl as to why the tribunal should not be given this power not to have great weight, and I hope he will examine them again. There is a conflict of interest in these matters. There is a conflict of interest between Government Departments, and also between Government Departments and private users. It is the duty of your Lordships to see that justice is done in that conflict of interests. For that reason, I very much hope that something on the lines of my noble friend's Amendment will eventually find a place in this Bill.
LORD CHERWELL: I hope the Government will give this point very careful consideration, as I understand they have undertaken to do. It is true, as the noble Earl said, that it is rather selective and applies to electric lines. I have an Amendment down to Clause 11 which is much more general. If the Government prefer the more general application, I hope they will accept that Amendment. It is true that my Amendment applies after the case has gone to the tribunal, whereas this Amendment applies at an earlier stage. If the Government are prepared to look into the two things together, then we might wait until the Report stage in the hope that they have Bern able to reach some reasonable compromise.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Naturally, I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he will give this matter further con
30
sideration, although I am somewhat disappointed to hear that he will look at it only from the very broad point of view. My plea is that this is a nationalised industry; and, to put it vulgarly, we have got to get the "juice" to put across to the people. If we are not able to allocate the costs in that way, it will gradually put up the cost to the people, which is the one thing we do not want to do. If the whole burden is thrown on the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, it must automatically—in the uneconomic schemes, which the majority are—put up the costs, and that is what we are trying to fight. It is true that the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, has a later Amendment, to which I hope the Government will give better treatment than they have given to mine, although, frankly, I prefer my Amendment. I hope that the Government will give this matter most careful consideration, because it is vital to the interests and the proper running of the affairs of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. I would mention just one thing more. The noble Earl mentioned that factories, and so on, would need the same treatment. The Board have a statutory duty to make ends meet over a period of years; they cannot afford to lose money over these matters. In view of the fact that the noble Earl has said that he will consider this matter fully between now and Report, when I shall have an opportunity of putting down a further Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
4.6 p.m.
Clause 11:
Enforcement of regulations as to use of apparatus.
11.—(1) If the Postmaster General is of opinion—
(b) that either—

(i) the use of the apparatus is likely to cause undue interference with any wireless telegraphy used for the purposes of any safety of life service or for any purpose on which the safety of any person or of any vessel, aircraft or vehicle may depend; or

(ii) the use of the apparatus is likely to cause undue interference with any other wireless telegraphy and in fact has caused or is causing such interference.

31
he may serve on the person in whose possession the apparatus is a notice in writing requiring that, after a date fixed by the notice, not being less than twenty eight days from the date of the service thereof, the apparatus shall not be used, whether by the person to whom the notice is given or otherwise, or, if the Postmaster General thinks fit so to frame the notice, shall only be used in such manner, at such times and in such circumstances as may be specified in the notice:
(4) On any such reference, the tribunal shall hear the Postmaster General and the person at whose instance the reference was made and any other person appearing to them to be interested who desires to be heard, and—
(b) if they are satisfied that the said requirements ought properly to be relaxed in relation to the apparatus, may direct the Postmaster General to revoke the notice or to vary it in such manner as may be specified in the direction,
and the Postmaster General shall revoke or vary the notice accordingly:
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) to insert:
"in a case where he considers that all reasonable steps to minimise interference have been taken in relation to the station or apparatus receiving the telegraphy".
The noble Earl said: This Amendment has been put down by the Government in the hope that it will meet the wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, who has tabled an Amendment to this clause for the same purpose. I believe what lies behind the noble Lord's Amendment is the wish that the Postmaster-General shall not issue an enforcement notice on a person whose apparatus is causing interference until he is satisfied that the person whose apparatus is being interfered with at the receiving end has done everything that can be reasonably expected to lessen interference with his reception. I think the noble Lord feels that that is a duty which should be placed on the Postmaster-General before he can issue a notice enforcing certain requirements on the user who is causing interference. I hope that my Amendment meets the noble Lord's point. From the point of view of drafting, I feel there is something to be said in favour of this Amendment, because, as I am sure the noble Lord appreciates, what is practicable is not always what is reasonable.
LORD CHERWELL: I have put in "reasonable."
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Perhaps the noble Lord amended it.
LORD CHERWELL: Yes, it was amended.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Lord. Then that objection goes. However, I think the noble Lord will also agree that we do not want to introduce any unnecessary new terminology in a Bill that is already bristling with technicalities, which may tend to make it difficult for the layman to follow the Bill. I think we can avoid the noble Lord's terminology by using the shorter and simpler Amendment which I have put down. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 18, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD CHERWELL: I am grateful to the noble Earl for endeavouring to meet my point with regard to the receiving end of interference. There is, however, one point which makes my wording preferable. There are two ways in which reception can be improved. One is by getting a stronger signal of the desired sort, and the other is by cutting out the undesired interference. Strictly speaking, the noble Earl's words might be held to mean that you only minimise the interference—that is to say, that you cut down the reception of the undesired signal—but that there is no duty to maximise the desired signal—for example, by putting up an outdoor aerial. For that reason, I feel that my wording is perhaps more accurate. However, I agree that we do not want to have undue technicalities, and if the noble Earl can assure me that he includes in his words maximising reception of the desired signal as well as minimising the reception of the undesired signal, I would be content. Perhaps the noble Earl would like to look at this again with his advisers, and see whether words to that effect should not be inserted.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I can assure the noble Earl that the intention is that "to minimise interference" should include maximising reception, as well as cutting down actual interference. If the present words do not cover both cases, I will ask my advisers to suggest another form of words.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This is a drafting Amendment to clarify Clause 11 (3). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 17, at end insert—
("This subsection applies in relation to a notice under subsection (1) of this section which has been varied by a subsequent notice as it applies in relation to a notice which has not been so varied.")—(The Earl of Listowel.,)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The object of this Amendment is to allow the appeal tribunal, if they think fit, to make an intervener in an appeal case pay or receive costs. Otherwise, of course, the whole of the costs of the case would fall upon the parties—that is to say, the appellant or the Post Office—and sometimes this would be a most unfair procedure. It can be avoided by the formal step suggested in my Amendment of having an intervener made a party to the reference. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 21, after ("heard") insert ("and has, in accordance with the rules regulating the procedure of the tribunal, procured himself to be made a party to the reference").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.10 p.m.
LORD CHERWELL LORD CHERWELL moved, in subsection (4) after paragraph (b) to insert:
"(c) if they are satisfied that compliance with the said requirements or those requirements as directed to be varied would impose unreasonable cost upon the person having possession of or any interest in the apparatus they may if they think fit direct the Postmaster-General to allocate the cost among such persons or class of persons as may be specified in the direction."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to meet circumstances somewhat similar, but more general, to those described by the noble Earl, Lord Airlie. As the Bill now stands, if the Postmaster-General serves a notice and the individual upon whom the notice is served disagrees with it, he can go to the tribunal and have his case heard. As I understand it, the tribunal can instruct the Postmaster-General only to revoke his notice or to vary his notice. But in many cases what is required is that a certain amount of money should be spent in reducing the interference or negativing it altogether. The intention of this Amendment is that the tribunal should
34
have power to instruct the Postmaster-General to consider the cost of altering the apparatus which is causing interference—in this case it would presumably be a large apparatus in which the alteration may cost quite a large amount, and would include the electric lines mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Airlie—and would also enable the tribunal to tell the Postmaster-General to allocate the cost of making this alteration among such classes of persons as may be specified in their direction.
I think we have gone a long way to meet the Government by allowing the Postmaster-General to allocate the cost. Strictly speaking, the tribunal ought to allocate the cost. If the Government will accept the Amendment, we might be content to allow the Postmaster-General to allocate the cost as between the parties—very often he himself being one party. As I have said, the Amendment is in a sense more general than the noble Earl's Amendment, because it applies not merely to electric lines but to any machine or apparatus which is causing radiation. On the other hand, it takes effect at a later stage than the Amendment of the noble Earl: it comes after notice has been served and after the appellant has gone to the tribunal. Nevertheless, I think it will have the effect which the noble Earl wishes, because when a Government Department know that if they insist on putting some station or other in such a position that it will suffer a great deal of interference, so that it will cost the Hydro-Electric Board, or whoever it may be, a great deal to get rid of that interference, but that the tribunal, on appeal, may allocate some of the cost against the Department, they may look round and see whether there is not another place to put their station where those difficulties and expenses will not arise. I hope the Government will be able to accept this Amendment, which would in many ways simplify the question raised in the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Airlie. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 30, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Cherwell.)
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I should like to say one word in support of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell. I do not want to detain

35
your Lordships long, because I spoke earlier at some length along these lines. I think the point he made, and the point I tried to make earlier, was that there was great safety in the saying, "A gipsy warned me." I cannot help thinking that if the Department had a gipsy at their side saying: "If you go to the Island of Barra or South Uist and put up your radar station you will have to share the cost," they might think twice and go to North Uist or somewhere else.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This Amendment raises a broad principle as to whether or not the cost of stopping interference should fall on the person or firm causing that interference with wireless apparatus. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House said at an earlier stage of this discussion that he would examine the principle in the case of users of domestic apparatus. The principle is exactly the same in the case of public bodies or private firms using electrical apparatus which interferes with wireless reception. I would be obliged to the noble Lord if he would allow me to consider this matter on the broad principle which the Leader of the House has already undertaken will be carefully considered between now and the Report stage.
LORD CHERWELL: With that assurance from the noble Earl, I am glad to withdraw this Amendment for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Enforcement of regulations as to sales, etc., by manufacturers and others]:
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment which the Committee has already accepted to Clause 11, page 12, line 21. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 36, after ("heard") insert ("and has, in accordance with the rules regulating the procedure of the tribunal, procured himself to be made a party to the reference").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Regulations and orders
(2) Any power to make any order or regulations under this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(3) Any statutory instrument made in the exercise of any power conferred by this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Under Clause 16, as it now stands, Orders in Council made under the Bill, as well as regulations, have to be laid before Parliament and are subject to the ordinary procedure of negative Resolution. But it is not in accordance with Parliamentary practice to provide that Orders in Council extending provisions of Acts to the Isle of Man or to the Channel Islands should be laid before Parliament. This Amendment has the effect of making it unnecessary for Orders in Council made under the Bill to be laid before Parliament. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 30, leave out from the beginning to ("shall") in line 33 and insert—
("(2) The power to make orders conferred on the Postmaster-General by section eight of this Act and any power conferred on him by any of the provisions of this Act to make regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and any statutory instrument made in the exercise of any of the said powers ").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHERWELL LORD CHERWELL moved to add to subsection (3):
"Provided that in the case of any statutory instrument made in the exercise of any power conferred by Part II of this Act a draft thereof shall be published in the London Gazette not less than sixty days before the same is made."
The noble Lord said: The intention of this Amendment is to make certain that any manufacturer whose processes may be interfered with by a new regulation setting out particular restrictions as to the form of apparatus he may sell, shall be warned in advance. By this means he will have plenty of time to put his case to the Postmaster-General, or to the advisory committee, and if he is not successful in his protest against any proposed new regulations, he will be able to turn over from one form of manufacture to another. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 34, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Cherwell.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think the noble Lord would agree that the modern practice of discussion and consultation between Government Departments and trade associations or local authorities makes it unnecessary to include this type of provision in the Bill. I can, however, give the noble Lord the assurance that the Federation of British Industries have been told by the Post Office that they will be consulted and will therefore have an opportunity of entering any objections or criticisms they may wish to make before a regulation affecting their interests is proceeded with; they will, therefore., be brought in at the earliest stage in the preparation of any regulations which the Postmaster-General may wish to make in relation to the industry.
LORD CHERWELL: In view of the noble Earl's assurance that manufacturers will be brought in at an early stage, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Financial Provisions]:
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This is a consequential Amendment upon the Amendments to Clause 2. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 40, leave out subsection (2).— (The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Interpretation]:
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The object of this Amendment is to define "interference" and to make it clear that "active interference" is not the interfering energy itself but the effect which the energy produces on the wireless telegraphy. This, I think, is consequential upon the Amendment to Clause 11, line 18, which has been accepted by your Lordships; on my recommendation, and which I submitted in order to meet a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell. I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that without this Amendment the definition clause might be interpreted in a way that would impose a duty on the "interferes" to do something about the apparatus of the "interferor." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 12, after ("means") insert ("the prejudicing by").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This Amendment is consequential on the last. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 13, leave out ("which prejudices") and insert ("of").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Short title and extent]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved to add to the clause:
"(4) This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, and no longer unless Parliament otherwise determines."
The noble Lord said: After the discussion on this Bill this afternoon, I think two things are perfectly clear. One is that the Bill is highly technical, at least so far as the second Part is concerned, and that it is largely experimental. The second thing that emerges is that we cannot possibly foretell with any accuracy what the effect of the working of this Bill is going to be. What we are trying to do in the Bill is to make rather delicate adjustments in the balance of the rights of two different classes of the community—those who are users and purveyors of electricity and electrical apparatus and those who are users of radio and television apparatus.
On the Second Reading the suggestion was made by two noble Lords who are experienced in this matter that the duration of the Bill should be limited to a specified period, so that there would be a chance to see how these provisions worked out in practice. That is the object of the Amendment which I am now moving. Your Lordships will remember that the first Wireless Telegraphy Act was specifically enacted for a term of two years at a time, and that it had to be re-enacted to continue in force. Whilst there is something to be said for that arrangement, I think two years is rather on the short side in a matter of this sort; on the other hand, I think it is certain that in the course of the next five years there will be great strides in the development, not only of

39
wireless and television but also of radar and of equipment, and in new sources of energy. The effects, therefore, are completely unpredictable. If this Bill were enacted for a limited time, say five years, it would be incumbent on the Government at the end of that period to renew the Bill; and that might be an inducement to make any alteration rendered necessary through changed circumstances. On the other hand, if the Bill is enacted for an indefinite time, at the end of a few years a Government with a lot of business before it may say "Well, there is legislation covering interference; we will just let it run on a bit." There would be a temptation not to alter the existing law.
I know that there are many public bodies who are concerned about the effects of this Bill. They are not confined to consumers and manufacturers of electrical equipment. Strangely enough, we have heard nothing this afternoon about the reaction of the British Electricity Authority—though we have heard something about that of the Hydro-Electric Board in Scotland. The British Electricity Authority would certainly be affected in considerable measure by this Bill. I cannot think they will welcome it with unqualified joy. My only suggestion is that if they have made representations they must have been on such a high frequency that they were inaudible to the human ear! On Second Reading the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that it was with extreme reluctance that he and his associates asked for these powers, and that he would be ready to listen to any suggestion that may be made at any stage. I ask him to listen to this suggestion, because I am sure this is one of the best ways in which we can allay the suspicions and fears and uncertainties which now exist in people's minds about the effects of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 45, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Polwarth.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: Perhaps I may be allowed one word in support of what has been so admirably put before your Lordships by my noble friend. It might be better to make this legislation last for a suitable period of years, but no longer,
40
so that it would call for reconsideration of an active kind at the end of that period. I am sure that the suggestion has a good deal to commend it. I think it might be that what my noble friend Lord Polwarth has in mind is the legislation in Part II of the Bill, because Part I merely re-enacts, with small modifications, what can be regarded as more or less static provisions.
No one can say that the topics dealt with in Part II have reached their ultimate development; no one knows. But it is a class of subject, technical in some respects and of increasing public importance, in which obviously great developments may be expected. Speaking as a layman interested in matter of science, I imagine that even the great scientific authorities would hardly be prepared to declare now that they know how these things are going to develop in the next five years. Some most extraordinary things have been found to be practical applications of advances in physical theory in a very few years: radar is just one illustration which we all dimly understand. Therefore, I venture to repeat what I said on Second Reading: it seems to me that this is a case where there is a good deal to be said for considering whether the Bill should not be given a limited life.
All of us who have been in Governments, or responsible for looking after the conduct of Government legislation, know well that there are certain kinds of amending legislation which a Government will undertake, and for which they will find time. But I should be very sorry for those who thought that it was time to amend the provisions of Part II of this Bill, and who towards the end of the Session submitted to the present Lord President, or to anybody else who was managing the programme of the year, a nice little measure for which time must be found. Such a Bill would be the first of the innocents to be massacred.
As a practical measure there is a good deal to be said for making the best provision we can, and for seeing that this matter is kept in active review by the Department and by those who advise them; otherwise, I feel sure that, with the increasing pressure of legislation, there would be a temptation to say: "Well, we have got the thing on the Statute Book: it may not be very good

41
but still it is there, and we must 'let the thing rip' for another year or two, or whatever it may be." There is also this to be said. The Department might well occupy a prominent position in suggesting what the legislation should be; that is the experience of everybody. There is no complaint to be made of that. But if a Department have on the Statute Book a measure on which they can rely, without any sort of limit as to its duration, it is natural that they should be rather slow to consider amendment necessary. On those grounds, I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has suggested is well worth consideration. I remember that on Second Reading the noble Earl was good enough to promise that he would look into the matter further. I hope that we shall have a sympathetic reply from him because, on the ground of public interest, there are many who would like this suggestion to be carefully considered.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I feel strongly about this, and I should like to say a ward in support of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. I submit that this Amendment is a wise one. I know that His Majesty's Government do not agree, but after all there are new inventions coming to light almost every day. Many of them in the electricity world are extremely sensitive—I refer to such things such as radar. I feel that it is nothing short of—I was going to say lunacy, but shall I say it is surely nonsense that the provisions of this Bill should not be reviewed and reconsidered at a not-too-distant date. Apparently, the Postmaster-General in another place had some misgivings about this, and said he was prepared to consider carefully, at another stage of the Bill, the suggestions put forward.
As the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has said, His Majesty's Government in five years' time would have only to renew the Act. That would not hurt them. I do not think they would find it difficult because, after all, in the last few years, they have proved themselves past masters at turning out legislation at top speed. They should certainly be capable of renewing an Act. I do not know what the British Electricity Authority think about it. I have no doubt they probably consider sound a good deal of what we have suggested. They find themselves in a somewhat awkward position because they
42
have a Chairman who, unlike us, has to react to the crack of the Party whip, whereas our Chairman reacts to the crack of no whip except his own.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: On the Second Reading debate, the noble and learned Viscount opposite raised this important point. I said I would give it careful consideration in consultation with my advisers between then and now. The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has now brought forward the same point in his Amendment. I should like the noble Lord to be fully cognisant of the serious difficulties which would be caused by the acceptance of his Amendment. In effect, the whole Bill, Parts I and II, would lapse in five years' time. The noble and learned Viscount said that he thought that the noble Lord was probably aiming at Part II. But he will no doubt agree that the Amendment as it stands covers Part I as well, and this, of course, as everyone would agree, is essential for the licensing of wireless transmission, without which there would be what is known as chaos in the air.
So far as Part II goes, I do not think that anyone could disagree with what the noble and learned Viscount and the noble Earl have said about the changes which are bound to take place in the next few' years, changes which are going on all the time in the use and application of electricity. But the very fact that electrical apparatus of a new kind is likely to be used by industry, possibly by Government Departments and also by people in their homes, shows that potential sources of interference with wireless telegraphy will multiply. Therefore, the provisions in Part II will probably be required five years from now. I would remind the noble Lord that these provisions apply to safety and life, as well as to the convenience of the person who is listening to wireless broadcasts. We need to be able to prevent interference in order to make sure that aircraft receive radar signals, and that ships at sea which are being guided into ports are able to use their radar apparatus. So I cannot honestly say that I think that either Part of the Bill can safely he dropped at this moment or in live years' time.
The noble Lord appreciates that that would mean fresh legislation. Any noble Lord who has had experience of Government business knows how much pressure

43
there is on Government Departments, and on Parliamentary time, which makes it difficult to fit in legislation which might be avoided by other measures. I certainly say this—and I can give the noble Lord this assurance—that the Government will carefully consider the desirability of amending the legislation in time to come. Circumstances will change. This Government have shown that they are most willing to give up powers which interfere with the liberty of the citizen at the first moment that those powers become unnecessary. Our whole career has shown how anxious we are to dispense with unnecessary controls and powers of interference—
VISCOUNT SIMON: Do I understand that the noble Earl is giving a pledge to the House in respect of the Government five years' hence?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am not making any prophecy about the Government in power in five years from now. I am only saying that, if we were responsible—I think that the noble Lord opposite was suggesting this—we would carefully consider the desirability of amending legislation if any of the powers in this Bill were proved to be unnecessary at that time in the future. That assurance I gladly give to the noble Lord opposite and to noble Lords who have taken an interest in this matter.
LORD CHERWELL: May I ask the noble Earl whether there is any provision by which the regulations can be revised from time to time? If a regulation is made by the Postmaster-General, and passed under the negative Resolution procedure, does it last for ever? Or is it possible to have an undertaking that regulations should be in operation for only a limited period, so that they can be reviewed from time to time?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I appreciate the noble Lord's point—that a moment may come when a regulation imposing a certain pattern on apparatus produced by a manufacturer becomes unnecessary. I think he will also appreciate, however, the difficulty of determining how long it will be before the regulation is unnecessary. However, I will gladly look into the possibility of annulling a regulation, or whatever the procedure may be, as soon as that particular regulation no longer serves the
44
purpose for which it was designed. I will gladly look into that and inform the noble Lord at a later stage of the result of my inquiries.
LORD POLWARTH: I should first like to thank noble Lords who spoke in support of my Amendment. I entirely agree that it would be more convenient if the first Part of the Bill continued in force, but I must make it clear that I made no suggestion that at the end of five years no legislation would be needed to deal with the problem of interference. In fact, even more complex legislation may be needed; the problem may become more difficult. I wanted only to emphasise that the measures we are laying down in this Bill are very largely experimental, and that a completely different set-up may be necessary at the end of a few years. There is no question of jeopardising life. I am not sure whether measures will still be needed, but my object was merely to give the Government an even easier opportunity of amending the law should it become unnecessary in the future. Between now and a later stage, we shall have to consider whether we desire to put down some other Amendment to secure this effect. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
4.43 p.m.
First Schedule [Procedure in relation to suspension and revocation of authorities to wireless personnel]:
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to add to paragraph 2:
"(5) Where the Postmaster-General revokes the authority or continues the suspension thereof, he shall, if requested so to do by the persons to whom the authority was issued, inform him of the opinion which the advisory committee expressed as to the action which ought to be taken as respects the revocation of the authority or the continuation or termination of the suspension thereof."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment would oblige the Postmaster-General, if asked to do so by the wireless operator concerned, to inform him as to the action recommended by the advisory committee of the Postmaster-General in their report as to the revocation or continued suspension of his licence. The intention of this Amendment, which has been introduced in the light of criticism expressed

45
in another place, is to safeguard wireless operators against the possibility of arbitrary action by the Postmaster-General That, I think, is an intention which will appeal to noble Lords, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Pare 21, line 46, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.45 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, the Bill to which I now invite your Lordships to give a Second Reading has already passed through another place and reaches your Lordships' House substantially the same, in its main objects, as when it was first introduced, but considerably amended in detail in response to the suggestions of the associations of local authorities and of various other bodies.
The Bill has three main objects. Perhaps the most striking of these, and one which has been universally welcomed, is that achieved in Clause 20 of the Bill—to increase from £6,375,000 to £20,000,000 the sum which the Secretary of State for Scotland is authorised by the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, to expend in grants in aid of schemes for the provision of water supply and sewerage for rural areas in Scotland. Throughout Scotland, comprehensive schemes are being prepared which will take wholesome water to parts of the country where at present there is no adequate supply. These schemes are a most important part of the development of Scotland, because they will bring to the worker who lives in the country some of the same comforts and conveniences as are available to those who live in towns. At present, housing schemes for agricultural workers are being held up in a few areas because there is no water available near the sites where the houses are required. Better water supplies are also urgently necessary for the development of dairy farming. The applications
46
that have already been received for grant under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, from local authorities in Scotland have shown convincingly that the amount of money made available for Scotland in that Act is quite inadequate and that, unless it is increased, many important and costly schemes may be held up indefinitely because they are beyond the means of the local authorities concerned.
The second object of the Bill is to provide, for the first time, for a uniform system of rating and charging for water in Scotland. There are at present as many as seven different systems of water rating in Scotland, and the many local variations have caused administrative difficulties in the allocations of grant and, in particular, have discouraged the combination of local water authorities. A Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir Robert Bryce Walker was set up in 1944 by the then Secretary of State to go into the whole question, and on the recommendations made in their Report, which was published it 1946, Part I of the present Bill is in the main based.
With your Lordships' permission, I shall not go in detail into the provisions of this part of the Bill, but I would call attention particularly to ore or two main provisions. Under Clauses 1 and 2, every local authority is required to defray not less than one fifth and not more than one third of their expenditure on water supply—so far as that expenditure requires to be met out of rates—by a public water rate levied as part of the general county or burgh rate and met equally by owners and occupiers. The remainder of the expenditure is to be met by a domestic water rate which is levied, broadly speaking, on the occupiers of premises that enjoy a supply of water provided by a local water authority.
These provisions, enabling a county council to levy rates for water throughout the area of the county, render the existing system of special water supply districts obsolete, and Clause 9 therefore provides for the dissolution of the special water supply districts. Henceforth the administrative unit in water supply in counties will be the county itself. The Bill also contemplates that the rating authority for water expenditure should be the normal rating authority, and in Clauses 10 to 12 provides that joint water boards and local

47
water authorities that supply water in the districts of other authorities shall no longer have power to levy water rates in the areas so supplied, but instead shall recover their expenditure by levying a requisition on the authority of the district.
The third main purpose of the Bill is to amend the existing law of water supply as contained in the principal Act, the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946. A number of amendments are made to simplify procedure and to remove difficulties that have been experienced in the operation of that Act. Two clauses in this part of the Bill, Clauses 26 and 27, may be mentioned particularly. Local authorities have sometimes bound themselves in the past to supply water free of charge or on special terms to certain estates, in return for the granting of water rights or of a wayleave or for some other reason. In some cases, the demand of the estates for water has grown considerably, and the obligation has become onerous on the local water authority. Clauses 26 and 27 enable the authority concerned to terminate such obligations on payment of compensation, either by agreement with the interested party or compulsorily by order of the Secretary of State.
The Bill also provides that local water authorities shall not enter into obligations of this kind in future, and that, whether they seek to end the obligations or not, they shall not be hound to supply more water on special terms than the quantity supplied in the year preceding October 27, 1948. Once the obligation is terminated, the persons concerned will become liable to pay the domestic water rate, and the compensation payable is to be assessed with reference to the amount of the rates that will then become payable. The Bill of which I have attempted to give some account to your Lordships is, I think, one which will not only be of assistance to local authority administrators, but will also be of the utmost importance in the future development of water supplies, particularly in rural Scotland. I heartily commend it to your Lordships, and move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Morrison.)
4.53 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords still here would like me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, on the admirable and concise manner in which he has expounded this Bill to us. He has dealt not only with the technicalities of water supply but also with the mysteries of the Scottish water rating system. I hope that his researches into the latter subject may encourage him to urge his colleagues to devote a little of their attention to a comprehensive overhaul of the whole Scottish rating system. I would like to make it clear, straight away, that we on this side of the House wish to support this Bill in its general principles, because in our view it is a really necessary measure. I am sure we should also join with Lord Morrison in paying, a tribute to the Committee which, under Sir Robert Bryce Walker, did a very good job of work by putting the different problems to clearly.
Our friends who come from the South are apt to wax facetious on the subject of Scottish water supply. "Surely," they say, "there is an abundance of natural water in Scotland," and they wonder what all the fuss is about. I am inclined to believe that sometimes they suspect us of embarking on these water schemes as a cloak for some nefarious activity! I can assure them that that is not so. The problem, of course, in Scotland is not simply to find water, but to catch it before it has run off the hillsides and down to the sea. People who live in the lower parts of Berwickshire can tell the noble Lord all about that, in view of their experiences in the disastrous floods of last summer. And yet, within two miles of the River Tweed, there are villages which are desperately badly supplied with water at the present time. Such is the nature of the problem confronting us.
I am sorry that there are not more noble Lords from England present in the House at this hour, because in this Bill we are, I think, going a step ahead of England. We are introducing for the first time a really comprehensive rating system for water, one which may well prove to be a pattern for a similar measure for England at a later date. Indeed, I think that this Bill ought to have rather more than an academic interest for our English colleagues and, as I say, I am, therefore very sorry that

49
there are not more of them here to take part in this debate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has said, this Bill is mainly a machinery Bill. Its purpose is to enable local authorities to carry out their duties under the Water (Scotland) Act of 1946, and it is a very essential piece of machinery. The principle of a domestic water rate, which we have had explained to us so clearly, is, I think, a very fair one—namely, that the main cost of supplying water is to be borne by the occupier, that is, by the person who uses the water. On the whole I think that that is as it should be. I am glad that it is laid down that the supply of water to be introduced into premises must be a wholesome supply, because in some of the smaller water supply schemes, certainly, there is trouble, both in times of drought and in times of flood, as the result of pollution of the source. I remember an occasion when my own water supply—not a public supply I am glad to say—at a certain season of the year, became polluted. A number of small, highly-active white objects were found coming out of the tap. I took the best possible local advice as to what cure to adopt, and I was told that the normal arrangement was to introduce a frog into the water system, as those creatures keep down the small objects to which I have referred. I would hesitate, however, to commend that remedy to any public authority!
When we come to this principle of a public water rate, I am not quite sure that justice is, in fact, being done. The noble Lord has explained that a proportion of the cost of supplying water—which may be as much as one-third and which, in any case, cannot be less than one-fifth of the total cost of a local authority's supply—will be borne, as a general rate, on all premises in the local authority's area, regardless of whether or not they receive a supply of water. This part of the rate will be borne equally by owners and occupiers. In the towns, I think it is conceivable that as much as one-fifth of the cost of the water supply may be in respect of water used for public purposes. We have, however, had examples given—particularly in another place—of services such as washing streets, cleaning out sewers and less essential purposes, like supplying fountains in parks, which come under the head of the public use of water.
LORD MORRISON: And putting out fires also.
LORD POLWARTH: With great respect to the noble Lord, no doubt that applies in the towns, but in the country a tire brigade does not take its own water supply with it. What it does is to put its pipe into the nearest river. As I say, I think that the proportion may be as high as one-fifth, but I should have thought that even in a town it was very unlikely that the proportion would rise to as much as one-third of the cost of the whole water supply. In county areas, more particularly in the sparsely populated counties, both in the north and extreme south of Scotland, I think it is inconceivable that as much as one-fifth of the cost of water supply can be attributed to providing water for public services. There are many premises in the country—farms and other premises—which will never have the benefit of a public main supply of water, either because of their remoteness or altitude above the source of supply, or for the good reason that they already have an adequate water supply, provided at the expense of their owners, which does not need to be replaced. I think it is a little far-fetched to talk to a man situated like this about paying a rate for such things as cleansing streets and flushing out sewers, when he has to scrape the mud off his own farm road and periodically clean out his own cesspool. I do not think you would receive a very printable answer to such a suggestion. We do not intend to oppose the principle of a public water rate but I think that those who live in the country will realise that to some extent they will be subsidising their more fortunate fellows who are on the main supply.
One other point I have about Part I of the Bill is Clause 16, which concerns the supply of water to certain nationalised undertakings. This may be merely a confusion in my own mind, because the clause is rather involved, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to clear this up. But certain local authorities have been under the apprehension that, as it stands, if a nationalised undertaking on one of their premises increase their consumption of water, it might not in all cases be possible for the local authority to exact a higher charge than they exact at

51
present. The sort of thing I was thinking of was a power station which installs an extra generator, thus causing more water to be used for cooling, or the use of more water on a railway station by the installation of a filling point for railway engines. Perhaps I am wrong, and it may be possible that in all such cases the local authority can meter the additional supply. I know that some authorities are concerned that there are cases where this might not be possible. I should like the noble Lord to clear up that point for me.
I come to Part II, which, as the noble Lord said, is really the mainspring of the Bill, because without this additional grant it would be impossible for local authorities to go ahead and carry out the schemes they have made. I think we should congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland on having extracted this additional sum from the Treasury. At the same time, if we look at it alongside some of the astronomical figures which are brought out about this season of the year—we have seen quite a few in the last few days—I do not think there is any danger that anyone will think we in Scotland are being unduly generously treated. The only thing I am afraid of is that many people may think that the provision of water in Scotland is not a very expensive affair. That is far from the case, especially with the present high cost of labour and materials. We should be on our guard against deluding ourselves into thinking that we have received a munificent gift when, in fact, in the end we are all paying for it. After all, it is only a question of-whether the extraction is more or less painless, according to whether or not we are under the anæsthetic of a subsidy. It is rather a sobering thought that we should be paying for the provision of one sort of liquid by the exaction of a tax on another—sobering in more than one sense!
I do not intend to go into any detail on Parts III and IV. I think that some of my noble friends have one or two points on these to raise now and on Committee stage. I have spoken only in general terms about the Bill, but we support it as being essential. We must remember that by itself it can achieve nothing: if it is to achieve anything, local authorities must prepare their schemes
52
and have them approved; dams have to be built, pipes laid and all sorts of things like meters provided, and a very large amount of labour and materials made available. That is the difficulty to-day, and it has certainly been the difficulty during the last few years. I wander whether the noble Lord is in a position to tell us how much of the previous grant of £6,000,000 has been spent on water schemes—I do not mean allocated to local authorities, but actually expended on the provision of water. I believe it is not a very great amount. If the schemes are to go ahead, the necessary priority must be given for labour and materials.
Of course, it is the country districts which will reap the main benefit of the schemes under the Bill. The towns are not too badly off as it is, though they have need of additional water for new houses and for expansion. We all know the importance of agriculture at this time, and if it is to play its part in our economy, it must be given every possible assistance. Farms must have water, and particularly for dairying it is essential to have a large supply of water. It is essential that we should keep our existing agricultural population on the land and that we should also attract more people to it. If we are to do that, no single amenity would do more than the provision of good houses with a good water supply and all the benefits which that would bring. I ask your Lordships to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
5.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, I desire to say only a few words. Like my noble friend, Lord Polwarth, I, too, deprecate very much that so few noble Lords on this side of the Border are present, because, as he says, we are far ahead of England in this matter. England will have something on much the same lines as this at no distant date, and noble Lords could possibly have reaped some benefit from listening to the words of wisdom from the noble Lord who is speaking for the Government. I feel that this is not an unreasonable Bill and on the whole I desire to support it. The provision of water is one of the most important questions in Scotland, particularly in regard to housing. As the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has said, the Bill introduces a new system of rating. I am

53
personally not entirely against the system of public rating, except for the fact that a great many parts of the country will be paying for something they can never possess. For instance, some parts of Scotland are so high that they cannot hope to get water brought to them, and other parts are so distant that it will be practically impossible to take them a supply.
I am not entirely against the new principle of rating provided that, having accepted it, we realise that there will be a demand from other quarters for a similar treatment of rates. I can see that demand coming from transport. To my mind, transport in Scotland is almost as important as water. In far-flung districts we must provide uneconomic transport to get people to the towns; otherwise they will not stay in those areas. I do rot want to depart from the subject of water, but, having accepted this principle, we will find it being carried out in other Bills as well. I desire to draw the attention of the noble Lord to two rather unfortunate facts of which he is aware and about which he was good enough to talk to me. They effect only my county of Angus. The county council and the county clerk are not trying to be awkward, but in the case of the county of Angus it is physically impossible for the procedure laid down in the Bill to be carried out in time for a proper rate to be levied for the financial year 1949–50.
It is not for me to deliver a homily on this subject, but it points to one of the chief difficulties of the present day, which is the fact that in another place they have got into the habit of trying to push legislation through Parliament with terrific speed, without affording an opportunity for it to be properly considered or, what is worse, without properly consulting the local authorities who in nine cases out of ten have to administer the Acts. It is a fact which reflects very badly on another place, that local authorities are not being more fully consulted than they are, and that a county council can find themselves in the position of being required to fix a rate without having either a proper requisition or an accurate note of the actual premises to be rated. I understand that the noble Lord is going to inquire into this point. It does not sound very good sense to bring in a Bill and find that one county
54
cannot possibly fix a water rate for the year 1949–50.
5.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has the art of presenting a with great simplicity, but the fact is that, although the principles of this Bill are fairly straightforward and are principles which we can generally agree, the actual drafting of the Bill is of some complexity. It is not simple. With the simple principles to be enunciated, it should have been possible to present this Bill is a simpler form. The noble Lord said—I do not know whether he is correct—that it is intended that the administrative area should be the county. I can see the emphasis on "the county" in the Bill, but it appears to me that the burghs remain water authorities at the same time. That is a matter of some importance, because the burghs want to know how they stand. Is this an effort to squeeze out the burghs? At the present time a curious situation—which I believe may be associated with what the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, said—has arises in certain parts of Scotland in which supplies are already being made by burghs outside their boundary. Under this Act these supplies become obligatory and formerly they were paid for under special arrangements. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us (we will have to investigate this point at a later date) how this matter stands. What is to be the relationship between the burgh and the external area? And is there any suggestion that the burghs are to be squeezed out of their present functions and the whole water supply taken away from them?
The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, referred to the question of the public rate. I think we should be quite clear on this point. Emphasis has been laid in this Bill on the fact that we are paying a uniform rate in the counties. The fact is that when this Bill was produced it was the fact that some people who would never get water were being charged a rate, and some people who were getting water were not paying the rate. I am bound to admit that that extremely anomalous position has been changed somewhat, in the sense that those who are getting water will always pay a minimum rate. But the fact remains that

55
some people whose interest in water supply is very small are still being charged a rate. I would like to go into that matter. The Government are acting on the recommendation of Sir Robert Bryce Walker's Committee. The explanation is that they have used an insurance premium or, as has been explained elsewhere, a sort of vicarious benefit. I do not know how you can insure yourself on somebody else's welfare. It certainly is a vicarious benefit, because some of the actual payers of the rate will get no benefit whatever. For that reason, I think we must be careful to see to what degree they will have to pay.
There are three differences between the Report and what is in the Bill. In the first place, the Report laid down a maximum payment in cash. That has been abolished. In the second place, the Report laid down the figure of 25 per cent. That has been increased to 33⅓ per cent. In the third place, I would refer the noble Lord to Clause 8 (1), where it says that at any time in which it is held that the burden on the occupiers in the district is greater than they can reasonably be expected to bear, the whole matter is then separated from the occupiers and put on the council rate. What does that mean? It simply means that the figure of 33⅓ per cent. is increased to some further figure—it may be 40 or 50 per cent. It means that in certain cases in the more remote counties the people will have to pay a heavier rate for water, although they get no benefit whatever, other than perhaps the pleasure of a visit to the towns which are well washed and possibly have good sewage arrangements.
I have a further objection to this system. It means that we are subsidising urban or town areas from the country, just as, in a sense, last week London was being subsidised by the rest of the country by the erection of a National Theatre in London. In the same way we are subsidising the water supplies in the urban areas by drawing part of the county rate from the remote areas. I suggest we have to be careful to see that the county rate does not go too high. I would now like to turn to the commercial rate. This Bill deals very little with the commercial rate; in fact, it deals so obscurely with it that I have some difficulty in deciding what is intended. I take it that in Clauses 4, 5, and 6, which deal with the levy of domes
56
tic rate on business and commercial premises, it is not intended to cover any trade water at all. I have no particular comment on that, except to say that, so far as I can see, the Bryce Walker Committee's Report has been followed. Whether it will be satisfactory or not remains to be seen.
I would like to comment on the manner in which the nationalised industries are going to pay for their water. In the 1948 Act there was an extremely complicated arrangement—which, with respect, I very much doubt if anyone in this House fully understood—which was passed in reference to the Transport Commission and the British Electricity Authorities. That, so far as I can see, is repeated in Clause 16 of this Bill. Can we be told what is happening with other nationalised industries—the National Coal Board, the Gas Industry, British European Airways and other nationalised industries in the same category? Do they pay rates in the same form, or are they to be excluded by some particular formula laid down here? It is important that this should be understood at the present time when we are considering this Bill. This is not a place in which the principles of rating of nationalised industries should be argued, but, none the less, the water rate is an important factor.
The second point to which I would like to draw attention is the effect of Clause 26 on commercial water. I am not absolutely clear which case the Government have particularly in mind. So far as I can understand it, the idea is that in certain cases where land has been taken from a proprietor, and local water rights have remained, those rights should be terminated. Surely, the wording covers exactly the premises envisaged by Clause 24, under which special arrangements can be made for making commercial water available to specialised firms. I submit that this is very important, because at the end of Clause 26 it says:
"No local water authority shall after the appointed day by agreement or otherwise incur any obligation of the kind to which this section applies."
This clause applies, so far as I can see, to any special arrangement which may be entered into for the large sale of water. It is of great importance in certain places. There are industries which want a large

57
supply of water, and may in fact require such a large supply that it will be worth the while of the local authority greatly to increase their water supply. In many cases the local authorities are glad to do so. I want to be quite clear (if the noble Lord is unable to answer now we shall have to press the matter on the Committee stage) that nothing of this kind is being interfered with, or intended to be interfered with, in the terms of Clause 24, with which I entirely agree.
I will end by saying this. Probably it is not possible to give an answer now, but I would like to ask the noble Lord whether he can answer the question which my noble friend Lord Polwarth asked: Just what has been spent since 1944? So far as we are aware, a certain amount of money—something like £20,000,000—has been provisionally allocated. The words used in another place were that £3,000,000 had been granted, but not taken up. Does that mean that no money has actually been spent by the Exchequer since 1944, and that the whole of the £20,000,000 envisaged in this Bill still remains open? The second point I would like to ask (upon which I think we should have sonic information) is whether any idea can be given of what the water rate is likely to amount to in some of the counties, so that it may be known what the effect of this Bill will be. I am quite sure that the principle of the Bill is sound and is one which will commend itself to your Lordships. There are, however, a number of points which will require closer examination in Committee.
5.20 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I did not anticipate that this would be an exciting debate and neither, I think, did any of your Lordships. The noble Earl, Lord Airlie, said that water is one of the most important subjects in Scotland, but it is not one of the most exciting. I have a foolish dream that some day it may be my great honour and privilege to stand at this Box and introduce a Whisky (Scotland) Bill. I have no doubt the House will then be crowded!
May I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, upon his exceedingly interesting speech? I think it is the first time tint he has taken on the task of leading for the Opposition, although I say at once—and I know he would not dis
58
agree —that in this particular Bill the word "Opposition" is not the right word. As he says, the problem is to catch the water and store it. The noble Lord particularly pointed out that both in Scotland and in England one often gets floods and droughts in the same locality. As one who served a good many years on the Metropolitan Water Board, I have always thought that the problem of water supply was really a problem similar to that of other commodities; it has to be caught and stored so that when the season of drought comes the water is there. I entirely agree that the towns are not so badly off, and that the main problem is in the country areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, asked me a question, which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has just repeated—namely: How much has been spent to date? I am advised that the amount is rather less than £1,000,000. I hope that from the passing of this Bill, and as materials and labour become more free, it may be possible considerably to increase that figure. With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and amplified by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, it is true that, in a limited number of cases where a public water rate has been paid in the past in respect of railway or electricity premises and no meter charge made, the water authority will not in future under Clause 16 be able to charge by meter for water supplied to the premises. I would point out, however, that there are provisions in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1948, for revising the standard amount in a manner which takes account of increased use, and thereby compensates local authorities for additional services provided.
The noble Earl, Lord Airlie, raised a question which, as he said, he was good enough to mention to me although, as he knows, it was a little unfortunate that it was not brought to my notice at an earlier stage, and not mentioned at all during the long process through another place.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I thought it was a very short process.
LORD MORRISON: It went through the Scottish Grand Committee and all its stages in another place, and one would have thought that someone would notice

59
it. But I am not complaining about that. I am merely making it an excuse for not being able to give him a full and complete answer now.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I appreciate that.
LORD MORRISON: There has been a good deal of consultation throughout, and as recently as January 7 the Secretary of State met all the local authority associations. The noble Earl's point, so far as I know, is mainly confined to one particular county, and from my own knowledge of it I freely endorse what he said, that neither the county nor any of its officials concerned in this are trying to be awkward; they are quite prepared to be helpful, but they are up against what they believe to be a very real difficulty. In reply I can say only that the Secretary of State for Scotland—who authorises me to make this statement—proposes to arrange for further discussions to be held with the county clerk who raised the matter. If, as a result of these consultations, it appears that the wording of the Bill as it stands would give rise to real difficulty, an appropriate Amendment will be introduced into the Bill on the Committee stage. If, when the noble Lord sees that Amendment, he is still dissatisfied, there will yet be another stage beyond that, as he knows. I hope that in the meantime he will be satisfied with that reply.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I did not want to interrupt, but the noble Lord mentioned this question of delivery by meter. I understood that the water authorities were not to be allowed to deliver metered supplies. One of my points was that we could not get an accurate note because the water was delivered by Dundee. I take it that that is one of the points into which the noble Lord will be inquiring.
LORD MORRISON: Yes. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, mentioned the drafting difficulties and the obscurity of the Bill. If I may say so, it is one of his favourite subjects, and the only reply that I can make is that whatever other responsibility I have for Scottish legislation I am never consulted as to the drafting of a measure. If it appears obscure to the noble Earl, how much more obscure does it appear to me! I am
60
glad the noble Earl has raised it, but it does not come under my responsibility. The noble Earl pointed out that there may be cases where those who pay the water rate obtain no benefit. That is not unusual in legislation. There are quite a lot of people who make contributions—for instance, people who have no children still pay the education rate—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask who receives the benefit of the education? Is it not the people who have to live with the educated people?
LORD MORRISON: Similarly, I think it might be argued that the people who drink no water except the water they find for themselves still get the benefit of mixing with people—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord realises that it is domestic water he is talking about.
LORD MORRISON: I do not want to pursue this subject too far, in case we get away from water and on to something stronger. I am not able to answer all the questions of the noble Earl, as he anticipated, but I can tell him that there is no legislation excluding gas et cetera from rating provisions.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: What about coal?
LORD MORRISON: I could not say at the moment. My information is "gas et cetera," and I do not know whether the words "et cetera" include coal—I am informed by the mysterious method of communication that we have in this place that they do.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: And also whisky, which is coming on the public rate, I understand, from this munificent Government!
LORD MORRISON: I have answered many questions put to me this afternoon, and it remains for me only to thank the noble Lords from Scotland for commending this Bill. The Bill went through another place without any Divisions, and it seems to be generally accepted as a strong point, appealing to all in Scotland, that the amount of money available for water in Scotland has increased from £6,000,000 to £20,000,000. I am sure that this will meet with the sup-

61
port of everybody in Scotland, whatever his political opinions.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
5.29 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

AMERICAN AID AND EUROPEAN PAYMENTS (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
CERTIFICATES FROM EXAMINERS
The VISCOUNT SIMON (on behalf of the LORD CHANCELLOR) acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:
COMMONWEALTH TELEGRAPHS:
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
RHODESIA RAILWAYS LIMITED (PENSION SCHEMES AND CONTRACTS) [H.L.]:
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STAFFORD AND DERBY AREA (CONSERVATION OF WATER) ORDER, 1949
Report by the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, under Section 3 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, That no Petition has been presented against the Order: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at half-past five o'clock.