Lords Sitting of 29 June 1950

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

Prayers
The Viscount Chilston—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Lovat—Took the Oath.

LEE CONSERVANCY CATCHMENT BOARD BILL
4.6 p.m.
Read 2a.

WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

THE SITUATION IN KOREA
4.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether they have any further statement to make on the situation in Korea.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, the following statement has just been made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place:
"I have very little to add to statements which I have previously made in the House. Honourable Members will probably have learned by now with notification that the Australian Government has decided to place Australian Naval vessels at present in Far Eastern waters at the disposal of United States authorities on behalf of the Security Council in support of the Republic of Korea. Honourable Members will also have seen the statement of the Australian Prime Minister in support of President Truman's declaration. I understand that the Australian Government is not proceeding with the withdrawal of Occupation Forces from
1236
Japan until the present emergency is past.
The New Zealand Government have stated their firm support for the action which is being taken by the United States and have offered to make certain Naval Forces available should they be required."

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVIVISIONAL ORDER (CATTEWATER) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER (CONFIRMATION) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936), deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
MIDWIVES (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments.

TRANSFERRED UNDERTAKINGS (COMPENSATION TO EMPLOYEES) REGULATIONS, 1950
4.12 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH): My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on March 22 last, be approved. When compensation regulations in connection with nationalised industries have troubled your Lordships in the past, the occasion has usually been marked by complaints of failure to make them clear. I shall attempt to-day—whether I shall succeed or not I do not know—to make these regulations clear to all your Lordships; and I hope that when I have done so you will approve them. Many of the features of these regulations are common to the regulations made in connection with other nationalised industries, and I do not intend to trouble your Lordships with

1237
those. But I do intend to say a word or two about those which, perhaps, break new ground, because in making compensation regulations for road haulage we are, for the first time, legislating for an industry which previously has had no code of compensation, or any well-established procedure.
When we made compensation regulations in respect of the coal, gas and electricity industries and the railways, we were dealing with industries where upon nationalisation a complete monopoly was set up, so that if a man lost his employment in that industry he had to find an entirely new field of activity. It is not so in road haulage. If a man is unfortunate enough to lose his job through the nationalisation of the road haulage industry, there is abundant scope for similar work outside the Road Haulage Executive. The following figures will illustrate the position. At the end of March the British Transport Commission operated 50,074 motor vehicles. There were still 126,000 vehicles operated by individual "A" and "B" licensees, and approximately 34,243 heavy commercial vehicles—that is, vehicles of three tons and over—operated by "C" licensees. Your Lordships will appreciate from these figures that there is no monopoly in the road haulage industry.
In these regulations we believe that we have been fair both to prospective claimants and to the British Transport Commission. I think your Lordships will agree that in here would be no justification for creating in these regulations a set of new rights which would be far in excess of anything enjoyed in the industry before nationalisation. I believe that the standard we have adopted is better than anything that existed in the industry in general. But we are not setting a standard for the terms and conditions of the future. What we are seeking to do is to give compensation for loss of terms and conditions of the past. In doing so, we have been guided by three principles: first, to adhere as closely as possible to previous regulations in such matters as qualifying service, provision for appeals, and other details; secondly, to provide for all who qualify a minimum award such as a good employer might provide; and, thirdly, to give scope for awards above the minimum to those who can show they might have expected something better.
1238
Frankly, I have no illusion that there will be many cases in the industry where a claim on the basis of right of expectation can be maintained. I expect that the majority of cases it is the minimum award that will be paid. Therefore, I will describe in detail the minimum award. The amount of the award is two-thirds of emoluments lost (and emoluments are defined in paragraph (3) of Regulation 1), less two-thirds of any unemployment, sickness, or injury benefit drawn. The period over which it is paid for a man under forty-five is thirteen weeks, unless he obtains other employment within that period. For a man over forty-five a further week is added for every complete year of service after forty-five up to a further thirteen weeks, unless he gets other employment within the period. Anything over six months is reckoned as a complete year. The period of compensation in his case ranges from thirteen to twenty-six weeks according to his age. Where a man gets other employment within the period of his compensation, but at a lower emolument, he continues to receive two-thirds of his loss—that is, the difference between the amount of the emolument he did receive and the amount he is receiving—and this continues for the remainder of the period of the award.
I now come to the question of expectation. The periods of compensation I have outlined can he increased if a man cart successfully claim that he would have received something better from his previous employer. The extent of the increase will depend Oil the nature of the expectation, but may be of any length right up to the time of retiring age. These minimum awards are the best of which I have any knowledge, and I have spent thirty years on the fringe of this industry. I am sure they are better than most employees could have expected from their previous employers. How many of the employers in the road haulage industry would have been willing or able to see that an employee whom they discharged was in receipt of two-thirds of his previous earnings for at least three months, even making allowance for unemployment benefit? If there are any firms in the industry which would have given better terms than this minimum, the regulations provide for a claimant to receive such better terms. Your Lordships will see that expectation means this: What expectation did a man have that if he

1239
was discharged, his employer would have given something better by way of compensation than is stated in the minimum terms.
The qualifying period for compensation is that a man must have been employed by an "A" or "B" licence holder from January 1, 1940. Continuous service is required; there can be breaks in this employment but they must not exceed eighteen months in the aggregate from January 1, 1940. War service is not counted as a break, and war service includes service in the Armed Forces, the merchant navy, civil defence or any employment to which he was directed by the Ministry of Labour and National Service. It is as well to bear in mind that in order to qualify he must have been in the employ of an "A" or "B" licence holder before starting his war service. A further point that is worth emphasis is that we do not stipulate that he must have been in the employ of one employer. What we do say is that he must have been employed in the industry on "A" or "B" haulage.
When we come to pensions, these regulations do not deal with provisions (which remain to be made) for a claimant who has any pension rights, including expectation of pension under customary practice in his old employment, to have these rights fully preserved in the form in which they existed at the time of loss of that employment. These regulations will come later and will freeze and preserve the rights and the amounts he had already earned. These regulations provide for additions to those rights in the case of men over forty, who are likely to experience most difficulty in securing further opportunity for making provision against retirement. The addition we propose is equal to the amount by which the pension would have been increased had there been one additional year of reckonable service for each year that the man had served after the age of forty, up to a maximum of ten such added years. The example is a man who lost pensionable employment at forty-five would be credited with five additional years of reckonable service for pension purposes. If this man loses his employment over forty years of age, to the amount which we shall freeze will be added one year for every year over
1240
forty up to a maximum of ten; and the pension which has so accrued by the amount frozen and the amount we are going to add will be paid to that man upon the due date on which he would have been paid out had his original scheme gone on to maturity date. The completed liability for the addition to the pension will fall on the British Transport Commission whether the pension was contributory or not.
The pension rights include not only organised pension schemes, but also customary and ex gratia payments, whether by way of weekly pensions or lump sums. This provision for compensation for loss of pension rights is the same as in previous similar regulations. Under the terms of the Transport Act these regulations can apply only to employees of undertakings acquired by notices of acquisition. Many undertakings, however, have been acquired by voluntary agreement. The figures up to April 30 are: by voluntary agreement, 471 undertakings, and by notice of acquisition, 2,203 undertakings. In all cases of undertakings acquired by voluntary agreement, either the agreement contains a clause providing for the application of the provisions of these regulations or the British Transport Commission have given an undertaking that they will act as though this was so. Therefore, in effect, it will make no difference to an employee whether his former employer's business was taken over by notice of acquisition or voluntary agreement.
Should the question of liability to income tax of payments under these regulations be raised, I can only say that this would be decided in accordance with general income tax law. Subject to this qualification, I can say that the liability is understood to be (a) in respect of periodical payments—these will be assessable to income tax and will qualify for earned income relief; and (b), of lump sum payments—these are not regarded as assessable to income tax, but such payments will be few and will not normally exceed £250. The regulations, in my view and I hope your Lordships agree—provide a code suitable for an industry which previously not only had no general code, but could not show any generally accepted practice of compensation. It was an industry in which each employer was a law unto himself, and most concerns were

1241
small. It was also an industry in which movement from one concern to another was frequent. The regulations provide, in my view, a minimum award for all who satisfy qualifying conditions essentially the same as those adopted in other industries, and provision for a higher award when a man can show an expectation for something better. I hope your Lordships will approve these regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 22nd of March last, be approved.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
4.27 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, we on this side of the House certainly welcome these regulations so far as they go, and particularly as regards their clarity, in view of the number of previous regulations through which we have had to struggle with great difficulty. I feel, however, that a great deal of time has elapsed between the passing of the Act and the presentation of these regulations, and that that lapse of time has had an adverse effect on the people employed in that industry. I realise that certain negotiations have to take place with the interested parties, but even taking that into account I feel that the regulations could have been presented at an earlier date.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COAL-MINING (SUBSIDENCE) BILL
4.28 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenvsgor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Duty of National Coal Board to carry out repairs and make payments in respect of subsidence damage to dwelling-houses
1.—(1) The National Coal Board shall carry out such repairs and make such payments as are required under the following provisions of this Act, in respect of subsidence damage occurring on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, being subsidence damage occurring to or affecting any
1242
dwelling-house which al the time of the occurrence of the damage was a dwelling-house to which this Act applies.
(2) This Act applies to—
(a) a hereditament which is used wholly or mainly for the purposes of a private dwelling and has a rateable value not exceeding thirty-two pounds; and
and references in this Act to a dwelling-house to which this Act applies shall be construed as references to such a hereditament as is specified in paragraph (a) of this subsection and to such part of a hereditament as is specified in paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of this subsection:
Provided that, if it appears to the Minister of Fuel and Power that, having regard to any changes in the valuation of hereditaments for rating purposes, the aforesaid figure of thirty-two pounds ought to be, altered, he may by order, made with the approval of the Treasury, amend this subsection by substituting for that figure such higher or lower figure as may be specified in the order.
(4) In the application of this section to Scotland—
(d) any question arising under this section as to what would be the rateable value of any such part of a hereditament as is mentioned in paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of this section if it were separately valued shall be determined by the assessor appointed to act for the purposes of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, aid the Acts amending that Act in the county or burgh in which the said part is situated, and his decision shall be final.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven" and insert "June, nineteen hundred and forty-one." The noble Lord said: As the Bill is at present drawn it will cover only subsidence damage which can be proved to have occurred on or after January 1, 1947. This Amendment is set down to make the date coincide with that on which His Majesty's Government took over control of the mines during the war. During the war period a great deal of subsidence occurred which might have been avoidable in normal times. Every effort was made to get out as much coal as possible, and as quickly as possible, and there is no doubt that many of the usual precautions taken during the mining of coal were not taken. This Amendment covers this abnormal period; without it hundreds of small householders who have undoubtedly suffered grievous damage from the effect of subsidence will not be included in this Bill.
I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will not put forward the argument that, because the operations of the Coal Board commenced from January 1, 1947, which is the date in the Bill, therefore any cause of subsidence taking place previously should be set against the coal owners. The real position is that responsibility for subsidence which occurred before the Coal Board took over lies with the owners of mineral properties; and since the Act of 1937 the owners of mineral properties are the nation. In fact, I would say that the nation has been responsible for subsidence for the last thirteen years. It is also true that from 1941, the year mentioned in the Amendment, the State has been in operational control of the mines. We maintain that this date should be the one in this Bill. That will give a fair measure of justice to all those little people who have suffered very grievously due to the result of the working of the mines during the war years. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven") and insert ("June, nineteen hundred and forty-one").—,(Lord Teynham.)
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): I hope that throughout the Committee stage of this Bill we shall all follow the fine example of clarity, accompanied by brevity, shown by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. Before dealing with the noble Lord's Amendment, I think I should refer briefly to a question which he asked me when we were discussing this Bill on Second Reading. He asked about the number of acres of agricultural land which at present are waterlogged or derelict as a result of subsidence. I regret to inform the noble Lord that, after the fullest inquiries, the National Coal Board find that it is impossible to provide figures which could be regarded as being in any way reliable.
Regarding the noble Lord's Amendment, I think that my reference to this point on the Second Reading indicates that it is difficult for me to accept such an Amendment. On the Second Reading I put foremost the financial reason, which still remains a fairly formidable one. If we were to agree to this Amend-
1244
ment it would increase the burden not so much on the National Exchequer—because that burden is prescribed in the Bill and the Government have no intention of increasing the figure to be found in Clause 11—but it would fall almost entirely on the National Coal Board. We think that it would be very unfair to increase the financial burden on the National Coal Board at the present time. The noble Lord, if I may say so, adopted an attitude which those of us who have sat in the other House have adopted—trying to anticipate the arguments against the Amendments. As he said, however, January 1, 1947, was the vesting date for the National Coal Board, and we feel that we ought not to burden them with anything before that date. The other reason I would give is that after all this is the date recommended by the Turner Committee. They suggested January 1, 1947, and we know that it would be difficult to test the validity of claims before that date. It will not be easy to do so for the days immediately after January 1, 1947, but earlier than that it would be very difficult indeed. It is for those reasons that we feel unable to accept this Amendment
On Question, Amendment negatived
4.34 p.m.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE moved, in the proviso to subsection (2) after "purposes" to insert:
"or to any changes in the incidence of damage by reason of changed methods of building or of working coal,".
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Wolverton regrets his inability to be here to-day. The Bill provides a rigid limit of £32 rating valuation for the in demnification of subsidence damage, but it leaves the Minister with a loophole should the general level of rating valuation change, perhaps with the general value of money and cost of building and so on. I seek to provide him with some slight further discretion intended to cover other possible eventualities. I think one can say that the principle of the Bill is based on the fact that the £32 limit will cover all small dwelling-houses, and it is also naturally based on the estimated damage with which we are acquainted today. Both these things may tend to change. In the first place, we may be entering upon different mining methods. I am not experienced technically in

1245
mining, and so I will mention only one possible event—the gasification of seams. I can imagine that if a seam was gasified the whole thing would eventually collapse, instead of it being possible to provide supporting pillars over portions of the seam. That might lead to a far greater amount of damage than exists today, and the Minister might feel that for those reasons he would desire a discretion to be able to pay damage to a type of dwelling not at present contemplated in the Bill.
Further, any of your Lordships who has lived in earthquake areas will know that nowadays people put up earthquake-proof dwellings. It may well be that in some of these mining areas it will be necessary to adopt a certain type of construction for houses even for the small and cheap ones. It may well follow that, owing to the increased cost of construction, there may be an increased rating valuation above the £32. In that case the whole spirit of the Bill would be set at nought, because the Bill contemplates that the owner of a small dwelling shall receive compensation if it is damaged. I wish to give the Minister discretion in the future to guard against this type of eventuality. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 16, after ("purposes") insert the said new words.—(Lord Hawke.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is one of those Amendments which I well remember being dealt with in another place—an Amendment which does not convey its exact meaning, and the Minister has to await the explanation of the mover in order to know what it is the mover desires to insert in the Bill. I read and re-read this Amendment, and could not discover the purpose of it. I went through all the possible reasons in the hope that I might hit upon the one the mover would put forward, but I am afraid I failed. This proviso, I believe, will be acceptable to all noble Lords because it is a necessary proviso; but the primary reason for its insertion is that we know that at the moment revaluation of such hereditaments is in progress, and we know that the type of house it is intended to cover may vary in rateable value. It is that type of house we wanted to safeguard. If, as a result of revaluation the house
1246
now covered goes outside the limit, we want to enable the Minister to safeguard the type of house which was envisaged. So far as the methods of coal mining are concerned, and the building of houses, it was never anticipated—and I am sure the noble Lord will agree—to bring that type of consideration into this proviso. I agree that mining methods may vary and they may result in more subsidence. Knowing mining from the technical side, I think it is doubtful whether that is possible, except in the shallow mines, where the introduction of heavy machinery may cause more subsidence. In ordinary mining,.however, I do not think it is likely that any new methods would affect the damage. Therefore, I think the Minister has gone as far as he possibly can, and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD HAWKE: I feel that the noble Lord has advanced several excellent reasons why the Amendment should be inserted, because if what he says is true it is unlikely that any charge eventually will fall on anybody, for he says that in fact it would be necessary for both to be affected. But I have no intention of pressing the matter to a Division. I would ask the noble Lord to request the Examiners to consider whether the fact that we on this side are asking for the Minister to have a little more power may not be rather significant—that there may be some good reasons why the Minister should have that power. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (3) (d) to leave out "and his decision shall be final." The noble Earl said: This Amendment affects the valuation system of hereditainents in certain particular cases. Normally on every valuation there is an appeal, with one exception, and that is tie cases in which property is valued together for normal rating purposes but will be required under Clause 1 (4) (d) to be valued separately for the purposes of this Bill. On the general proposition, whether it be a house or not, I think it desirable that in rating cases there should be some measure of appeal. So far as I can see, this is the only case in England or in Scotland in which there would not be an appeal in regard to the annual value. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, leave out ("and his decision shall be final").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: It is with some trepidation that I now enter into the Scottish aspect of this Bill. I myself have a good Scottish name; I think my Christian name and my surname should entitle me to speak for Scotland—Gordon Macdonald is a good Scottish name. I remember the late James Maxton dealing with my name in another place. He said he always liked my name because it combined two very fine Clans—the Clans of Gordon and Macdonald. "But," he added, "I will swear you have the vices of both those clans and none of the virtues of either."
LORD HAWKE: Would the noble Lord be guided by the Gordon or the Macdonald?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I should not like to differentiate. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was good enough to intimate to me that he was moving this Amendment and I thought it well to take advice. I am advised that the purpose of this Amendment is apparently to ensure that in Scotland, where a question arises under Clause 1 as to what would be the rateable value of such part of an agricultural hereditament as is mentioned in Clause 1 (2) (d) if it were separately valued, and the county or burgh assessor has given his decision in terms of Clause 1 (4) (d), an appeal should lie from his decision, presumably to the appropriate county or burgh valuation committee and thence to the valuation appeal court. I think that, in fact, the Amendment as framed would not achieve this. The only appeals which a valuation committee can hear are appeals in respect of an entry in the valuation roll—that is, in respect of a decision made by an assessor in the course of carrying out his functions under the Land Valuation (Scotland) Acts. The assessor's powers under Clause 1 (4) (d) are entirely distinct, however, from his functions under the Lands Valuation Acts, and even if the final words of the paragraph were deleted, no appeal could be taken from an assessor's decision under Clause 1 (4) (d) to a valuation committee, or to any other tribunal. The suggested Amend-
1248
ment would, therefore, make no alteration in the meaning of the clause, and for that reason I am unable to accept it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should very much like to hear someone speak for Somerled, the mythical ancestor of the Clan Macdonald. I should have thought that this entry would have appeared in the valuation roll. I think it would appear in respect of a water rate in the valuation roll. I should have thought, too, that an appeal would have lain. However, I merely throw this point out and I do not intend to press it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Nature of obligations of National Coal Board
(3) If the reasonable cost of carrying out such reasonable repairs to the dwelling-house as are required in consequence of the subsidence damage thereto exceeds or would exceed the amount of the depreciation in the value of the dwelling-house caused by the damage, the National Coal Board may, in lieu of carrying out repairs or making any payment under the preceding provisions of this section, make a payment equal to the amount of the said depreciation.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved, in subsection (3) after the second word "damage" to insert:
"and in the opinion of the local authority for the area in which the dwelling-house is situated such dwelling-house is not capable of being rendered fit for human habitation at a reasonable expense."
The noble Lord said: This clause deals with the obligation of the National Coal Board to repair houses damaged by subsidence, and subsection (3) provides a safeguard for the National Coal Board where in the case of a house—an old one perhaps, or one in a bad state of repair—damaged by subsidence the cost of the repairs would be greater than the actual value of the house. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable safeguard. Generally speaking, it would be unfair to the National Coal Board to have to spend much more money than the house was worth on repairing it—whether the damage was caused by subsidence or anything else. In so far as the Coal Board are safeguarded I am quite satisfied.

1249
Where the trouble arises is in the case of the ordinary owner of a house, who is not safeguarded in the same way. Noble Lords will probably know that under the Housing Act of 1936, Sections 9 and 10, the local authority can direct the owner of a house to carry out such repairs as will make it fit for habitation, unless they are satisfied that that is not possible at a reasonable expense. Therefore the situation might arise where a man had been paid compensation by the National Coal Board for damage to his house and the local authority then ordered him to carry out repairs which exceeded in cost the compensation paid by the National Coal Board. All this Amendment asks is that whatever is regarded as fair for the National Coal Board should also be fair for the ordinary private individual. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 35, after ("damage") insert the said new words.—(Lloyd Lloyd.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSCIOR: As your Lordships are aware this Bill is intended to provide for the structural repair of damage to dwelling-houses caused by subsidence, or for payment for this structural damage up to the lull amount of the damage which has been caused. The Bill provides in the Schedule that the value of the property shall be assessed on terms most favourable to the owner—that is to say, sale in the open market with vacant possession. I do not think it would be reasonable to say that the Board should be required to repair or pay for more damage than has been done.
Had this been a re-housing Bill I could have seen something in the Amendment, and I am net surprised, especially after my reference last week to slum clearance, that the noble Lord has raised the matter at a time like this, when there is a housing shortage and a house that is habitable should be kept habitable. I can well understand the argument but the position is that the present condition of the house is due not only to subsidence but, as the noble Lord hinted in his remarks, also to age. If it is subsidence plus something that accounts for the condition of the house, in our view it would be very unfair to make the National Coal Board responsible for the "plus," which may be due to age or some other consideration, in addition to the subsidence. It is from that
1250
aspect that it would be far better not to bring the local authority into this. Moreover, the noble Lord., Lord Teynham, during his remarks on Second Reading, reminded us, quite rightly, that many of these houses are already owned by local authorities and therefore, you would be making the local authority the judge in their own case. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD LLOYD: Perhaps I am dense, or maybe it is that I have not explained it clearly, but I do not think the noble Lord has appreciated the point of my Amendment. I am not suggesting for one moment that the National Coal Board should be asked to pay one penny more than is laid down in the Bill. I am seeking merely to integrate two Bills. Suppose that the owner of the house has been paid in respect of the damage under this Bill. In the event of the compensation being less than what it costs to repair the house I am seeking to prevent the local authority from coming along afterwards and saying to this unfortunate man: "You have now got to make your house fit again." My noble friends and I felt that, if an Amendment of this kind were inserted into the Bill, it would mean that the local authority would come along, have a look at the house and say in advance: "We do not think that it would be worth while making any repair to this house. It is too far gone." Then the man would get the value of his house from the National Coal Board as laid down in the Bill. That is what we are asking.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Is there not a risk that the Bill may be doing something which is unfair if this provision is not inserted? I do not think that the owner should get more from the Coal Board than the result of the damage, but suppose that the result of the damage is to make a house tumble down—I am assuming that the house, before it tumbled down through subsidence, was fit for human habitation and in a condition where the local authority would not have served a notice.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWARNYSGOR: Yes.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If it were not, and if it were a house in respect of which the local authority could serve a notice upon the owner, obviously the Coal Board

1251
would not be responsible because that has nothing, to do with subsidence. But if the Coal Board cause the house to collapse, and the whole of the damage has been done by them, even though the house is old (and we know that an old house may be perfectly all right in ordinary times but may practically tumble down when the supports are removed—though, of course, if it is a well-built house, it may stand up pretty well) it seems to me that there may be a halfway position. No notice can be served by the local authority on the house as it stands, but then the Coal Board cause it to tumble down. The Coal Board agree that they should pay a lump sum in respect of that damage, but suppose the local authority come along and say they propose to serve on the owner a notice to do something in respect of which they could not have served a notice but for the damage caused by the Coal Board. It may be that the cost of complying with that notice is more than the compensation paid by the Coal Board. In such a case the man is clearly out of pocket, and all because the Coal Board have put him in a situation in which the local authority can make an order upon him.
I think that the position ought to be one of indemnity. Perhaps the noble Lord will look at this before the next stage of the Bill. Let the clause stand as it is. In nine cases out of ten, or in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, that will be perfectly all right; a fair amount of compensation is paid. But, where a local authority have served a notice, if the owner is able to establish (because the onus must be on him) that the new situation is entirely due to the action of the National Coal Board, then I think the Coal Board ought to indemnify him against the extra cost to which he is put. I think there is no difference between us here in principle of what ought to happen, but an injustice may occur if some such indemnity is not included in the Bill. I do not think the noble Lord can answer me now, but I think he ought to look at it between now and Report stage.
LORD MACDONALD GWAENYSGOR: Needless to say, any suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will always be fully con-
1252
sidered by myself. He knows that. I am pleased to see that the noble Lord. Lord Lloyd, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, agree that it is not intended by this Amendment to place the additional cost on the National Coal Board. In case we may have misunderstood each other, let me say this. I am advised that the housing authority can say only that a house should be repaired or demolished. That is all they can do. They cannot force the owner to do uneconomical repairs. They are limited in their powers. I am quite prepared to look at this between now and the next stage, but let it be clearly understood that I say that without any undertaking of any kind as regards this Amendment. I am hoping that the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: This Amendment will be withdrawn now. So be it. If the local authority can order a landlord to do only something which is economical, and if the local authority and the National Coal Board take the same view of what is uneconomical, well and good. The case cannot arise.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: No.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: As things stand, what really happens is that the Coal Board say, "Primarily, my obligation is to give you the money to keep the house, or indeed to repair the house, for you. As it would be uneconomical to repair that house, I will give you a sum of compensation in lieu." If that is an ordinary finding of everybody as to what is uneconomical, then I am perfectly content.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Yes.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: But if the local authority can come along later and say: "I do not care what the National Coal Board said, I do not think it is uneconomical," then I think we all agree that the owner is put in a bad position. If the noble Lord will look at it so that once and for all we can be sure that it is established, or may be established, whether or not a thing is uneconomical, and that that decision as to whether or not it is uneconomical will be equally binding on the owner, the Coal Board and the local authority, then the case cannot arise.
LORD LLOYD: May I add one thing? I will not press my Amendment. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has put his finger right on the point. What we are trying to do is to co-ordinate the activities of the local authority and the National Coal Board, and say merely that before the National Coal Board decide on a case like this they should agree with the local authority as to whether repairs are economical. If that is done the danger cannot arise. I am glad that the noble Lord will look at the point, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Notice of subsidence damage and repairs to be given to National Coal Board
5.(1) The National Coal Board shall not he required to carry out any repairs or to make any payment under this Act in respect of any subsidence damage to any dwelling-house to which this Act applies or any such part of a building as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section three of this Act, unless the owner of the dwelling-house or part of the building or any other person who is liable to make good the subsidence damage in whole or in part has given notice in writing to the Board of the occurrence of the damage in such manner, within such time, and containing such particulars, as may be prescribed, and has given to the Board reasonable facilities to inspect the premises, so far as he was in a position to give such facilities.
(2) The National Coal Board shall not be required to make any payment under this Act in respect of any repairs which have been carried out by any other person to any such dwelling-house or any such part of a building as aforesaid after the fist day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty, unless that person has given to the Board, not less than fourteen days before the repairs were commenced, notice in writing containing adequate particulars of the proposed repairs, and has given to the Board reasonable facilities to inspect the premises, so far as he was in a position to give such facilities:
5.0 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "time" to insert:
"not being less than three months after the occurrence of the damage,".
The noble Lord said: During the debate on this clause in another place, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power indicated that in the regulations he proposed to provide a period of one month for interested parties to put forward their claims to the Coal
1254
Board. This Amendment has been set down to ensure that a period of not less than three months will he available in order to make a claim after the occurrence of damage. It is quite true that the Minister said that he would, in fact, discuss with the interested parties the extent of the regulations, and would provide, I think, for the receipt of late claims. I would point out that there is great objection to this proposed arrangement because any acceptance of such late claims would, clearly, be an act against which there could be no appeal by the claimants. I think this Amendment now has very much greater power than it might have had, as the Government in another place have put an Amendment into Clause 14 (1) of the Bill, the effect of which is that immediately upon giving a notice under this Act a claimant will he deemed to have elected to receive compensation under the Act instead of such compensation as he might have been entitled to under various deeds relating to his property. In many cases compensation under those deeds might be more advantageous to him.
The Committee are well aware that when land is bought or sold it is very necessary to examine most carefully the title deeds, and I think it is rarely that a period of less than six weeks is allowed for such investigation to take place. It may well be that in cases which may come up under this Bill a claimant may have to examine many deeds, perhaps many years old, which may give him a right to compensation, and it may be that the whereabouts of those deeds may not be known or is difficult to ascertain. We maintain that the period of one month is quite inadequate, and that a minimum period of three months is essential for a claimant to be able to state his claim adequately and to decide what he is going to do. I think he ought to have time to discuss whether the covenants relating to his property contained in his deeds are more beneficial to him, or whether he should opt for compensation under the Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 20, after ("time") insert ("not being less than three months after the occurrence of the damage").—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I think it will he agreed by all that it is necessary that

1255
the claimant should have ample time, but personally I hardly think he needs as long as three months for this purpose. It will be agreed that the earlier he reports the damage the sooner the damage will be tackled. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, spoke of a reference made by the Parliamentary Secretary in another place. I can state now that the Minister has sent to the Associations of Local Authorities, the National Federation of Property Owners and the National Union of Mineworkers draft regulations which provide for a period of one month, with power to the Board or to the Minister to extend the period in any case in which it appears to them or him that there is a reasonable ground for the notice not being or not having been given within one month, or that the liabilities of the Board in respect of that damage have not been substantially increased by the notice not having been given within that time. He will review the draft regulations in the light of any observations which he may receive, and the regulations will, under Clause 15, be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament. We feel that the advantage of dealing with the matter by regulations is that if in practice the time prescribed is found to be too short or too long it can be altered without the passing of a further Act of Parliament. I think the noble Lord will find that in actual practice a month is adequate, and I hope he will not press his Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: I cannot say that I am very satisfied with the reply of the noble Lord. I am not quite clear on this point: If a claimant puts in his claim after one month, will he have the right of appeal?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I think that if he puts his claim in after one month and satisfies the conditions I read out, it will not affect the question of appeal in any shape or form.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Might I put this point to the noble Lord? He said just now that ample time should be given. One month is not ample time; it is an absurdly short time. A person may well be away from his house at the beginning of the damage, which is sometimes very gradual and may not be immediately appreciated, nor may it be obvious that
1256
it is due to underground work. I say, with respect, that this time is extremely short.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I agree that one month is less than three months; there is no question about that. What I am saying, however, is that the provision made here—the formula sent out to the interested parties—shows a readiness to listen to observations and a readiness to accept something after the one month. I do not think we are confined to the one month in the strict sense that the noble Earl suggests.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I make a suggestion? I understand that the Minister's present proposal is a month, with power to extend it—not, I hope, to reduce it.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: No, not at all. There is no intention of doing that.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I ask that because the noble Lord said something about the time being too short or too long. He is also at present consulting a number of interested bodies as to what the period ought to be. Suppose my noble friend (I put no pressure upon him) decides that he will not press this Amendment to-day because we have not heard what the interested parties propose or what the Minister will do as a result of the observations he receives in reply. I think it fair to warn the noble Lord that his figure will have to go into the regulations and that, after hearing what all these property owners and the mineworkers think of it, if we consider that the Minister has been unreasonable and puts an unreasonably short notice into his regulations, he will run the risk of having those regulations prayed against and having to take them back. If a Prayer is moved in either House against the regulations because the time is thought to be unreasonable, it must not be said that we are in any way bound in that matter because this Amendment is not pressed to-day.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I would make only one further observation. There is a tendency amongst all of us, if there is a required length of time for giving notice, to wait until the end of that period. That

1257
would be disadvantageous in this case. That is why we think the shorter period is to be preferred. The tendency is to wait to the end before we give notice. A three months' delay can increase the damage. It is for that reason that we are not inclined to favour this extension.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think that is very reasonable. But the case put by my noble friend was this: Damage has happened to a man's house, but he is not sure whether he can get compensation out of the Coal Board under its statutory obligation or out of somebody else who is liable to him under contract or the title that he owns in his property. I know something about these things because I used to make a living out of them at one time. They are pretty complicated and lawyers take a long time to hunt out the deeds. Thinking aloud, I would not at all mind saying that if a man's property is damaged he ought to give notice about it in a reasonable time, and I should think a month is reasonable. But at the same time it may be reasonable that he should have more than a month to make up his mind as to whether he is going to pursue his claim against the Coal Board or against somebody else. It is worth thinking about.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Yes, I agree.
LORD TEYNHAM: In view of what has been said by the noble Lord opposite, and by my noble friend Lord Swinton, I do not propose to press this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.10 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (2) to leave out "May" and insert "October." The noble Lord said: This Amendment refers to the date by which persons must put forward their claims to the National Coal Board in respect of any repairs or decorations which have been carried out by them—that is, by the people owning the houses. We appreciate the intention of the clause, which is, of course, to prevent persons who are, possibly, dishonest and who may have carried out repairs and decorations as soon as the Bill was published, from making a claim for damage which they had had repaired and which was in no way due to subsidence. I think that is
1258
the point of the clause. I agree that it might be difficult for the Board to determine the validity or otherwise of the claim after repairs and decorations had been completed. Clearly there must bee a date by which notice must be given.
But I suggest that the date May I as set down in the Bill is unfair and does not give adequate time to persons affected. Is it really contended by His Majesty's Government that a person in humble circumstances should become aware of the contents of the Bill before it has become law? Surely they ought not to expect people to become acquainted with the contents of a Bill before it is passed through Parliament. That would be an extraordinary idea. This Amendment changes the date from May to October. I suggest that this short extension is necessary for people who may be claimants and that it would be unlikely to produce, any real difficulties for the Coal Board. It is nothing less than a measure of justice to the various people who may have claims arising under the Bill. I cannot understand why the date May I was inserted, for the Bill was published, I think, on April 5. It seems illogical to have in the Bill such a date as this which is neither the date of the introduction of the Bill nor the date upon which it may become an Act. I hope that His Majesty's Government will have no difficulty in accepting the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, leave out ("May") and insert ("October").—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has quite rightly appreciated the purpose of this clause. He used rather a strong term, "dishonest," in respect of possible claimants, but perhaps it was not too strong. We are aware that there may be some people in the country who, seeking to take advantage of what is provided in the Bill, will get something done to their houses at the earliest opportunity, have it covered up, and then make a claim against the National Coal Board at a time when it could not be ascertained what had been done and what was the cause of the alleged damage. I agree with the noble Lord in what he has said about the effect of this clause. It is certainly most desirable that people should be fully aware of the Bill and its

1259
contents in sufficient time, and may I say quite frankly that I think a big effort has been made to let people know of its contents. Press notices were issued on publication of the Bill on April 6, and immediately after the Second Reading debate in another place on April 25—which was immediately before the operative date, May 1. Special attention was called on each occasion to the importance of the date. Good publicity was given in fifty national and local newspapers and six technical journals. There were also two B.B.C. broadcasts.
There is evidence that the information has got around wonderfully well. As far back as May 23, no fewer than 487 notices under the subsection had been given and notices have been coming in to the Coal Board ever since. I tried to-day to ascertain the number received up to date. It is a substantial increase on the figure of 487, but I am unable to give the exact total. Under the subsection the Board have discretion to make payments, even if a claimant has not fully complied with the provisions. I agree that the date, May 1, should come out of the Bill and it will. A later date will be inserted. I hope that I shall not be pressed on this point today, because I should not like to say now what that date will be. It will be later than June 1, but we prefer to give the date at a later stage. At the moment there is a little uncertainty about it. I undertake that the date will be given in your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am very glad that the noble Lord has said that. A big question of principle is raised here. I am sure that every effort is being made to publicise the contents of the Bill, but it is unheard of to say that some obligation shall be put upon people before an Act is passed. It is this measure which is the authority which gives a man a right to make his claim and it is also the authority which imposes upon the Board the duty of paying him. Whatever anyone may do, until the measure is an Act of Parliament there ought not to be an obligation on the persons affected. I think that, on principle, a date must be inserted here which is not earlier than the date of the passing of the Act, because there is no authority to give the notice or to do anything else until then. What date after the passing
1260
of the Act would be reasonable I do not know. I agree that as much publicity as possible has been given and the date which is substituted for May 1 by the Government might well be fairly soon after the passing of the Act: but that it should be after the passing of the Act I am certain.
LORD TEYNHAM: Do I understand that the Government will at the Report stage put forward an Amendment in accordance with what Lord Macdonald has said?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: That is correct.
LORD TEYNHAM: Then in view of the explanation given by the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Powers of National Coal Board in cases where further damage is likely
6.—(l) Where subsidence damage has occurred on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, to any dwelling-house to which this Act applies or any building comprising such a dwelling-house, and it appears to the National Coal Board that further subsidence damage may occur to that dwelling-house or building, they may give notice in writing to the owner of the dwelling-house or building to the following effect—

(a) if the notice relates to a dwelling-house, that the Board will not carry out any repairs to the dwelling-house while the notice is in force, other than works urgently required in consequence of the subsidence damage or works reasonably required for temporarily meeting the circumstances created by that damage, or make any payment in respect of repairs carried out to the dwelling-house while the notice is in force, other than such works as aforesaid;

(b) if the notice relates to any such building as aforesaid, that the Board will not make any payment in respect of repairs carried out thereto while the notice is in force, other than such works as aforesaid;

and the obligations of the Board under the preceding provisions of this Act shall be subject to the terms of the notice.
(2) It shall be the duty of the National Coal Board, as soon as permanent repairs to the dwelling-house or building can properly be carried out, to revoke any notice given by them under this section, and if, on the application of any person aggrieved by a failure of the Board to revoke the notice, a county court is satisfied that no further subsidence damage is likely to occur to the dwelling-house or building, the county court may by order revoke the notice.
5.17 p.m.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved in subsection (1) after "appears" to insert "probable." The noble Lord said: I can deal briefly with the two Amendments which stand in my name, because I have had notice from the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, that the Government agree to them both in principle. If I may, I will deal with them together because the first is consequential on the second. Their object briefly is this. As the Bill stands, if the National Coal Board think that there may at some indefinite date in future he a further subsidence after damage has already been caused by a subsidence, they may, in effect, do nothing but patchwork repairs to that house, note or less indefinitely. The object of the Amendments is to define the point which is involved a little more closely, and to say that unless it appears that there will be subsidence in the reasonably near future proper repairs shall be carried out. That is, I understand, in principle acceptable to the Government, though I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, is quite happy about the wording. For the reason which I have given, I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 45, after ("appears") insert ("probable".—(Lord Lloyd.)
LORD MACDONALD or GWAENYSGOR: Tie noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, is quite right he and I have discussed this matter and the Government accept his Amendments in principle. It is felt, however, that it is desirable that there should be one or two small alterations in the wording. I think we might dispose of that point now rather than leave it for a later stage. As a matter of drafting, we think that the second Amendment, instead of reading as it now does on the Marshalled List, should read:
"within such period as would make it unreasonable that repairs other than the works hereinafter mentioned should he carried out to that dwelling-house or building."
It would also be necessary to have a further consequential Amendment on page 6, line 1, to substitute "will" for "may." With these slight changes in the wording I am prepared to accept these Amendments.
LORD LLOYD: I am perfectly willing to accept the wording which the noble
1262
Lord has suggested; I think it is better than mine.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLOYD: I beg to move the following manuscript Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 1, leave out ("may") and insert ("will").—(Lord Lloyd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLOYD: I beg to move the following Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 2, after ("building") insert ("within such period as would make it unreasonable that repairs other than the works hereinafter mentioned should be carried out to that dwelling-house or building,").—(Lord Lloyd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment carries out an undertaking given in another place, well understood by noble Lords.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 22, leave out from ("and") to the end of line 26 and insert ("any person aggrieved by a failure of the Board to revoke the notice may apply to a county court and, if it appears to the county court in all the circumstances to be reasonable to do so, it may by order revoke the notice").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
5.21 p.m.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following new clause:
Provisions as to existing tenancies
". The tenant of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies who is occupying such dwelling-house under or by virtue of a tenancy agreement made before the passing of this Act shall not without the consent in writing of the owner thereof make any change in the use thereof or of part thereof or any structural alterations thereto tie effect of which would be that after such change of use or structural alteration such dwelling-house would no longer be a dwelling-house to which this Act applies, and every lease or tenancy of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies entered into before the passing of this Act shall be deemed for all purposes to be subject to a covenant on the pat of the tenant not without such consent to make such change of use or structural alteration."
The noble Lord said: By reason of the £32 rateable value limit in the Bill the owner of a house is put at some

1263
hazard. Against whomsoever he may have had a claim before, he now has a claim against the National Coal Board if his house continues to be rated at £32 or less. He might have let his house to a tenant with or without such covenants as would prevent the tenant making such alterations in his premises as to attract a valuation of more than £32. If the tenant by chance is legally able to do such things to the house as will attract such a valuation and the house subsequently suffers subsidence, so far as I can see it means that the owner has been deprived of his opportunity of obtaining compensation from the National Coal Board. For that reason I propose to insert this new clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hawke.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I can well understand the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, but I would emphasise that none of the present rights of a landlord is affected in any way by this Bill. Whatever they are, he continues to enjoy them. A house of a rateable value which does not exceed £32 in England and Wales and £52 in Scotland is covered by the Bill. Whatever the contract between landlord and tenant on the question of structural alterations which affect the valuation of the building, if a tenant decides to build a garage or greenhouse and thereby the valuation exceeds £32, the landlord ceases to be covered by the Bill. The relationship of landlord and tenant is something outside this Bill. The landlord may consider that because of the passing of legislation something might happen to endanger his interests, and he may approach his tenant and tell him that, since the Bill had been passed, if he were to add to the building the house might go outside the limit and the landlord would be unable to make a claim. The landlord is free to do that. But to introduce something in the Bill which would enable landlords to deal with their tenants in a manner different from that laid down in their contract would be misplaced. The Bill does not affect the rights of the landlord in any shape or form. If he wants a tenant to look at his contract again, very well; but I could not possibly accept an Amendment to cover the case put forward by the noble Lord.
LORD HAWKE: I take it that the noble Lord's reason for refusing the Amendment is purely that he thinks the relationship between landlord and tenant should not find its place in the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Bill. He agrees that there is a hazard which is not covered. I see the force of his arguments, and in the circumstances I must clearly take expert advice on what is the correct procedure. Therefore, I do not propose to press this clause at this stage and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved, after Clause 14 to insert the following new clause:
Contributions towards expenses of claim
". The National Coal Board may make such payments as may be prescribed by way of reimbursement of the expenses incurred by any person in substantiating a claim under this Act."
The noble Lord said: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, would agree that this Amendment is strictly germane to the Bill. It is obvious that in making a claim an individual will be put to considerable expense. No doubt he will have to employ a surveyor and obtain advice on the extent, nature and maybe costs of the damage. There may also be expense involved in employing a solicitor to go into the legal question of titles. Your Lordships will remember that the War Damage Commission agreed to pay surveyors' and architects' fees where a payment of cost of works was made, and the Central Land Board also made contributions towards surveyor's fees where a surveyor's certificate of the valuation was required in making a claim under Section 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act. I think I am right in saying that these are precedents for the suggestion made in the clause which I have the honour of moving. I think it would be agreed that this is a reasonable thing to ask. The National Coal Board should be prepared to meet these expenses under the regulations that would have to be made by the Minister in carrying out the suggestion in this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 14 insert the said new clause.—(Lord O'Hagan.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I am sympathetic to this Amendment, but I would point out that all expenses likely to be incurred are covered in the Bill in its present form. The noble Lord has been good enough to put his Amendment down in permissive terms, which makes it much easier for me to accept it; but in accepting it I must emphasise its permissive character. The Minister would be under no obligation to make such payments and I may say that at the moment he has no intention of making regulations. I am prepared to accept the Amendment with one or two small drafting alterations which I should like to read to the noble Lord. The Amendment as altered would read:
"The National Coal Board may make such payments as may be prescribed by way of reimbursement of the expenses incurred by any person for the purpose of securing the carrying-out of their obligations by the Board."
It is an alteration of only one or two words, and the meaning is the same. On that understanding, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
LORD O'HAGAN: I am obliged to the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw my original Amendment and to move it in its revised form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause—
Contributions towards expenses of claim
(". The National Coal Board may make such payments as may be prescribed by way of reimbursement of the expenses incurred by any person for the purpose of securing the carrying out of their obligations by the Board.")—(Lord O'Hagan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule [Determination of amount of depreciation and recipients of payments]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The two Amendments to the Schedule are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 23, leave out ("or").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 13 line 23, after ("(2)") insert ("or subsection (4)").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House resumed.

PUBLIC UTILITIES STREET WORKS BILL
5.31 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Parties to proceedings under the street works code
(5) In this Act the expression "street managers" (used in relation to a street that is not a maintainable highway) means—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, to add to subsection (5):
"(c) In Scotland the district council in respect of rights of way maintained by them."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is quite a simple point—namely, the definition of what is a street manager. There are two definitions already in the clause: one where an authority has an obligation to the public, and the other where they are defined as "having the management or control of the street." District authorities in Scotland who are responsible for maintaining rights of way are not under an obligation to the public to do it, nor strictly have they the management or control of the streets: they merely select those rights of way which they think are worth maintaining in their district. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 16, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am advised that it is unnecessary to make this alteration, because district councils are street managers. Those councils in Scotland are not highway authorities and have no roads vested in them, but they have certain responsibilities for the repair and maintenance of roads carrying a right of way but which are not maintainable highways and are not vested in the Scottish highway authorities, such as the county councils. The Scottish District Councils Association raised this point and we discussed it with them. They recognise that under existing legislation they are entitled to notice of plans of undertakers' proposed works, because for the purpose of such legislation they are the persons having control or management of district roads in Scotland. Having regard to this, we pointed out that they will be in no worse position under the Bill, because

1267
Clause 2 (5) (b) lays down that where there is no one liable for the repair or maintenance of a road, the street manager is the authority, body or person having the management and control of such a road. This means that if district councils are, as they say they are, persons having the control or management of a district road, they would usually be the street managers of such a road under the Bill as at present drawn. That position has been explained to the Scottish District Councils Association, and they are satisfied. Therefore I feel sure the noble Earl will agree that this Amendment is unnecessary.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is wrong in stating that the district councils are responsible. That may have been a slip on the part of the noble Lord. I am unaware of any definition of "street managers" except the one I have quoted. However, I do not propose to press the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3:
Settlement of a plan and section to be a condition of execution of major works
(2) This section applies to all code-regulated works except—
(b) placing, altering, renewing, changing the position of or removing a service pipe or service line or an overhead telegraphic line in or from a place not in a trunk road or a classified road, or in or from a place in such a road in so far as the works are to be executed elsewhere than in the carriageway of the road and so as not substantially to affect the traffic on the carriageway thereof;
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (2) (b), after "service line" to insert:
"which does not run further than one hundred yards along a highway."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on this point there seems to me to be in principle an omission from the Bill, but I have dealt with only one side of it. There are two methods of dealing with street works. One is what I call the full scale—that is, a plan which has to be agreed after twenty-nine days if, let us say, you are putting a ten foot sewer through the middle of Piccadilly. The other is the one in which three days' notice to start work is required, and
1268
this applies in the case where you merely take a service pipe along the edge of the road. There is no alternative or intermediate position between the two. I should like to ask the noble Lord what it is proposed to do in the case where a service pipe runs for a considerable distance along a road or highway. Are the local authorities to have no say whatever in regard to the position in which that pipe is laid? In other words, are the undertakers to he left free by Statute to run their drainage right up the middle of an unclassified-road? In a Bill of this kind regulations of this nature should be laid down. It appears to me that the division I have drawn here—namely, service pipes running one hundred yards along, a highway—is a fairly reasonable one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 35, after ("line") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Earl has a good point here, and I should like to examine it further. I am prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment, but I do cot want to be committed to 100 yards. If the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment and will give me the benefit of his advice, I will have the matter looked into and put something down on the next stage of the Bill.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am obliged to the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5:
Procedure as to plans and sections, etc.: provisions as to works in controlled land
5.—(1) Where a plan and section submitted under subsection (1) of section three of this Act are of works proposed to be executed in a street which is a maintainable highway or is prospectively a maintainable highway, the street authority (but not any other authority or managers concerned) may disapprove the plan and section on the ground that the works ought to be executed in controlled land abutting on the street, or they may approve the plan and section subject to modifications excluding some of the works on the ground that they ought to be executed in such land:
Provided that the street authority shall not so disapprove or require modifications unless they are satisfied that they will be in a position, by exercising powers in that behalf vested in them by virtue of the First Schedule to this Act or otherwise, to confer on the under-

1269
takers the right to execute the works in question in the controlled land and all the like rights in relation to apparatus the placing whereof is to be comprised in the works as the undertakers would have if it were placed in the street, and to render those rights exercisable from not later than the expiration of the period of twenty-two days mentioned in subsection (4) of this section.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in the proviso to subsection (1) to leave out "twenty-two" and insert "thirty-one." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a small point. I agree in principle that, as the noble Lord will probably say, this Amendment is unnecessary. However, I should like to remind your Lordships that this Bill is supposed to be a civil code for corporations. I submit that in a code of this character there should not be a case of illogical arrangement. I am not saying that it will happen often, but in this case I feel that the noble Lord will have to agree that there is, in fact, a lack of logic. Clause 5 deals with controlled land and the circumstances in which local authorities can persuade undertakers to do their work in controlled land instead of in the street itself. The first thing to notice is that under the First Schedule the local authorities must give one month's notice to people in controlled land before they can move on to it themselves—in other words, before they can make it available for undertakers to work it. Before they can claim compensation they must be in a position to say that the undertakers will have a right to work in controlled land within twenty-two days. In point of fact it is clear that in a hard case, for which the adjustment takes twenty-nine days and is allowed by Statute, if at the end of those twenty-nine days the local authority say: "We think you should do this in controlled land," the undertakers, as the Bill is at present drafted, can snap their fingers in the face of the local authority and say: "You may be right, but you are not legally in a position to give right of access to that land within twenty-two days, as you are bound to do by Statute." The least they can do, having decided at the end of twenty-nine days, is to give a month's notice. To make it logical I think it should be a month, and I have chosen the longest month of thirty-one days. I beg to move.
Amendment move—
Page 9, line 12, leave out ("twenty-two") and insert ("thirty-one").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I do not know how far the noble Earl agrees that logic and common sense are the same thing. I approach this matter from the angle of common sense. This Amendment has a somewhat familiar sound about it. It is like one which we argued in essence on the Committee stage, and my argument this afternoon is going to be exactly the same as it was then. They have in effect fifty-one days' notice, because a highway authority do not have to wait until it is settled that the, apparatus shall be laid in controlled land before they give notice of their intention to issue an authorisation under the First Schedule. They can do this at any time during the twenty-nine days during which they have to consider an undertaker's plans and sections, or during the period following this when, as a rule, they will be negotiating with undertakers about modifications to such plans and sections. As I have said, they have in fact a minimum of twenty-nine days plus twenty-two days—fifty-one days altogether, in which to notify interested parties of their intention to authorise undertakers to place apparatus in controlled land. That is the common sense way of looking at it. But I am quite willing to help the noble Earl in this way When we prepare—as I have given an undertaking we will—an explanatory memorandum, I will have included in that memorandum suggestions as to procedure and indeed I will see that highway authorities are counselled to give notice of their intentions to authorise undertakers to use controlled land as early as possible during the period in which they are considering undertakers' plans and sections. We made this offer to the Scottish County Councils Association, and they expressed themselves reasonably satisfied with it. I do not know whether it meets the noble Earl's point.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Your Lordships will observe that he did not defend the fact that it was illogical. I regard it as a pity that in a code of this character there should be positive lack of logic. I accept what the noble Lord has said, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Works not to be begun until after notice to authorities and managers concerned]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I have your Lordships' permission to take together the next Amendment and those on page 10, line 36, page 11, line 27, page 11, line 28, and page 11, line 40? They all hang together, and I think this course may save your Lordships' time and patience. It is a very simple point. Clause 6 (1) obliges undertakers to notify interested parties of their intention to start their street works. Certain minor works which do not involve interference with the fabric of the street are, however, excepted and undertakers can do these without giving notice to interested parties. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that it will mean that undertakers will not have to give notice to railway undertakings, even if they want to do something on a level crossing. The railway authorities say: "We must have notice of their intention to do this, because the safety of life and limb and the safety of the railways is at stake." These Amendments put that into effect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 34, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsections (4) and (5) of this section (as to certain surface works and)").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, so far as we are concerned, these Amendments are acceptable. I am obliged to the noble Lord for the explanation he has given, and I agree that it is convenient to take them together.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 36, leave out from the first ("works") to ("shall") in line 40.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this next Amendment concerns a small and self-explanatory point. This clause provides that if the undertakers do not start their works within one month after the date they notify highway authorities, the notice becomes invalid and they have to serve notices again. The County Councils
1272
Association think it is reasonable to extend this period to two months. It is a concession on their part. Nevertheless, they think it is a reasonable concession, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 22, leave out ("one month") and insert ("two months").—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am very pleased to accept this Amendment. As the noble Viscount has said, this is a concession offered by the highway authorities to the undertakers, and if it is agreeable to them we have no preference in the matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 27, at end insert—
("(4) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to works which fall within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (2) of section three of this Act and which do not involve either breaking up or opening the street or any public sewer therein or tunnelling or boring under the street:
Provided that, as respects any such works which are to be executed at a crossing of a railway on the level, subsection (1) of this section shall apply so far as regards notice to the authority concerned who have the management of the railway undertaking.")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 28, leave out from ("of") to ("being") in line 29 and insert ("works to which subsection (1).of this section applies").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 40, leave out from ("if") to ("or") in line 42 and insert ("notice for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section had been given before they were begun, by reference to that notice").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Requirements as to mode of excuting major works, and as to reinstatement]:
5.48 p.m.
THE EARL or SELKIRK THE EARL or SELKIRK moved, in subsection (6) to leave out "six" and insert "twelve" The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a clause upon which we disagree, and it concerns a mattter on which local authorities feel very strongly indeed. I will state quite shortly their point of view. The question is: How long should an undertaker who repairs a road be held liable for subsidence? The Bill as drafted says six months. The Scottish local authorities want twelve months. The reason for that is that, in the majority of cases, subsidence does not become apparent until after six months have elapsed. It is quite clear that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has a particular interest in what I would describe as the undertakers, many of which are in fact the "babies" of the present Government. Similarly, anybody who listened to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, defending the National Coal Board in the discussions on the last Bill would recognise that he had a special interest in that particular national service. I know that the noble Lord opposite has a special interest in the big public utility corporations.
It is admitted that to limit subsidence to six months is a considerable concession; in fact, it is more than the Scottish authorities think is fair. The only answer is that there are balancing advantages which they get out of it. I say frankly that, so far as they are concerned, they would scrap the whole lot in order to have an assurance that the work was done by public undertakers. If they had that assurance they would be responsible for subsidence for twelve months. The summer time does not provide a satisfactory test as to whether the ground will stand up to the demands made on it. Why do the Government regard six months as so important? The answer is simply that subsidence always takes place after six months. I do not think anyone experienced in public contracts of that character would deny that fact. The Scottish authorities have never agreed to six months. After all, it is a code which is supposed to last; whether it will last as long as the codes of Justinian and of Gaius I do not know. If it is not founded on justice Us life will be short. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 10, leave out ("six") and insert ("twelve").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, for the first time during the passage of the Bill through this House the noble Earl opposite has employed an unfair argument. The Government have not the slightest interest in this at all. To accuse me of protecting this vested interest of a nationalised undertaking is unfair; and, if the noble Earl will allow me to say so, it does him less than justice. We have not the slightest interest whether this is six months or twelve months. This was a bargain between the highway authorities, on the one side, and the undertakers on the other. I will allow the noble Earl this: that the Scottish representatives would not agree to anything—following a traditional trait, I suppose. As I said during the previous stage of this Bill, I could assume only that they were placing more reliance upon the advocacy of the noble Earl than on their own powers of persuasion. But this was a bargain between the highway authorities and the undertakers, who have done a good deal of giving and taking. I said on that previous occasion that if I were to give way to the noble Lord on this point I should he pestered by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, to take back the complementary concession on both sides. I am not prepared to step in and upset a carefully-balanced bargain between the highway authorities and the undertakers. I am sorry if the noble Earl thinks that in doing that I am protecting the vested interests of a nationalised industry. I hope that on reflection he will withdraw that, and I hope he will also withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLN: My Lords, whether or not this was intended to give an advantage to the undertakers it is certainly not a bargain for the highway authorities, because they have to make good any damage that appears after the six months in order to keep the highway reasonably efficient for the passage of traffic. Of course, the noble Lord and those who sit with him have laid themselves open to the kind of suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, by not being, as was once the case with Ministries, quite impartial, and known to be impartial, between the local authorities,

1275
on the one hand, and the gas and electric corporations on the other. Let us realise the alteration of the position in view of the fact that, as we know, sometimes the losses made by some of these undertakings have had to be made good by the taxpayers, and it is therefore in the interest of His Majesty's Government that these losses should not be made. After all, everybody who has to find the money—and certainly the Treasury—is naturally anxious to see that losses are not made.
But having said that, I must add that I think the noble Lord opposite was somewhat thin-skinned about the accusation made. Such accusations, made in certain circumstances, have some foundation. On this point I would say only that the majority of the road undertakers and highway authorities have agreed to this lesser term and that under this Bill, in any event, the highway authority can insist on doing the work themselves—which, I understand, is a thing they could not previously do. Now they can do that; and if there are any cases where one of these undertakers, nationalised or not, have not filled up the holes in the proper manner, next time, no doubt, the highway authority will take the matter over themselves and make certain that there is no subsidence, either within the six months or even beyond that period. I should have thought that that was the noble Lord's best argument against the point put forward by Lord Selkirk. At any rate, it is one that convinced me. However, perhaps we had better stick to the agreement made between the majority of the highway authorities.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I feel that I am placed in a rather difficult position by what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said. It is obvious that this was a bargain arrived at by the English authorities. The Scottish authorities' fear is that it was a bad bargain. I should be very unwilling to argue that point now. As the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has said, it was a bargain, and I have nothing further to add.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I should like to point out that I am not thin-skinned. Anybody who sits on these Benches and has to withstand the hurling of "bricks and stones" from the Benches opposite would never sur-
1276
vive long if he were thin-skinned. I ought to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and other noble Lords, if they are not aware of it already, that the Ministry of Transport is one of the largest highway authorities in the country. There is a saying that when a certain class of individuals fall out honest men come into their own. I appear to be the honest man coming into his own by difference of opinion: of three noble Lords opposite, one represents the interests of one side and one the interests of the other; and the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, acts as mediator between them. I shall be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, if he will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I suggest one thing? If the noble Lord wishes to make another speech on Report stage he might just ask the leave of the House.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, my purpose in moving this Amendment was to rouse the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on this issue, I think your Lordships will agree that I have been successful. But your Lordships will notice that he made no effort to reply to my submission that any arbiter would consider this an unduly favourable arrangement—at least, taking it as an isolated case. There is no counter-argument to that proposition. We in Scotland are driven or forced by a bargain into which we never entered, and with which we do not agree now. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Requirements as to safety, obstruction, etc., to be observed in execution of works]:
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (c) to insert:
"(d) that in order to give visible warning to drivers of vehicles approaching the works traffic signs of a size colour and type prescribed by regulations made under Section 48 of the Road Traffic Act 1930 shall be placed and maintained at the works and at suitable sites not less than twenty-five yards therefrom measured along the roads, and that in cases where in addition it is necessary, for the safe use of the roads or for preventing traffic congestion, to control the movement of traffic along the roads, traffic signals prescribed as aforesaid and operated by hand or mechanically and lighted during the hours of darkness shall be placed and maintained at each end of the controlled length of road to give warning to the drivers of vehicles as aforesaid;"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can only express the hope that in rousing the noble Lord opposite, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has not roused him to such an extent that in moving my Amendment I am going to lose my head as well. I should point out that there is a reason for it which does not make itself apparent in the Amendment itself. The Minister has power, as is shown by his regulations issued on June 13, to control the size, type and colour of traffic signs if and where an authority decide to erect them. I can find nothing anywhere that gives him the power to order the signs to be erected. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the Street Works Code which is to be enacted by the Bill will require the authorities who break up the roads to set up and maintain proper signs of warning for vehicle drivers that they are approaching road obstructions. Clause 8 of the Bill provides in subsection (1) (a) that the works shall be
"fenced and guarded and lighted—during the hours of darkness",
but it makes no provision for warning road signs to be placed at a distance and to be lighted at night to tell the driver of a vehicle to look out for obstructions.
The familiar sign, which your Lordships have no doubt seen in this area so often, "Road Works Ahead", is shown in the Report of the Minister of Transport's Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs, 1944. It has now become an authorised sign of the pattern and dimensions prescribed by regulations which were laid before Parliament on June 13, 1950. The "Stop and Go" (Traffic Signs No. 53 and No. 78 in the same regulations) are also now recognised and prescribed signs. These are required especially where road works, such as the laying of pipes or sewers along the road, involve closing one side of the road. It is submitted that the Street Works Code cannot be complete unless it includes a reference to the appropriate road signs which the undertakers and their contractors are required to provide and maintain when breaking up the streets. The highway authority will no doubt see to it that the appropriate road signs are set up. I have said "will," but I think I should say "may" I think it is necessary in the Street Works Code, if it is to be of any value, that the signs should be laid down and that they should be compulsory. It is not a case of "may
1278
put signs up" but a case of "must put signs up." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 14, after ("necessary") insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Sandhurst.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, first of all, may I apologise to your Lordships' House for my slip in not asking for leave to speak on the last Amendment when I accepted the advice of the noble Lord? I have given careful thought to this Amendment and I must confess that I think the noble Lord has a good point here, but I cannot yet make up my mind whether this Bill is the right Bill in which to effect its purpose. As it stands on the Marshalled List, the noble Lord's Amendment has one or two technical faults, but, if he will withdraw it, I will undertake to have it thoroughly examined to see whether 'between now and the next stage of the Bill I can do something to meet him in this matter. It arouses a great deal of sympathy in me because I believe the noble Lord is on the right lines. I think we have to regulate properly these street works at night. Sometimes there is chaos on the roads to-day. We find all kinds of "Stop and Go" signs, and even in the daytime we find some people of low intelligence who have a red flag and a green flag, and they wave the wrong flag at the right time and the right flag at the wrong time. Then there are the "Stop and Go" signals at night. The men in charge repair to their huts and go to sleep, and they have to be wakened in order to get the red light changed to green. I will look into this. I am coupling the present Amendment with the one to be moved by the noble Lord after Clause 8, because they hang together. If he will withdraw both Amendments, I will undertake to examine them thoroughly and perhaps have consultations with him between now and the next stage.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am sure he will not have expected me to be a Parliamentary draftsman, but I hope most sincerely that he will decide that this is the right Bill in which to insert this provision because I think it is a most essential part of this measure. In view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lord, this Amendment is put down to give effect to an undertaking which I gave to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, when in Committee he raised the question of rubbish. In that he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, who did not want good soil and useful material not to be conserved. Be did not think that "rubbish" was really the right term. We have drafted this Amendment leaving out the word "rubbish" entirely and inserting
"any spoil or other material not required for."
My legal advisers tell me that "spoil" is the correct term to cover it. I therefore hope that this Amendment meets the point not only of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, but also of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line l5, leave out ("rubbish arising in.") and insert ("any spoil or other material not required for").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg to thank the noble Lord. This Amendment seems to me to meet the point entirely.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following new clause:
Regulations for lighting of road signs
".The Minister of Transport may make regulations for the purposes of this Act specifying the system of lighting to be used for tilt purposes of signs giving warning to the public when approaching street works and obstructions."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment, I should like to draw attention to the fact that a paragraph in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs suggests very strongly that the Minister's powers under Section 48 of the Road Traffic Act were not enough with regard to the making and lighting of road excavations. If the noble Lord will address himself to paragraph 29 of the Report he will find that the Committee make a recommendation that he should take such powers. I think that might help the noble Lord to come to a decision. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Sandhurst.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lord, the noble Lord is right. There
1280
is no difficulty about the signs. My difficulty is: who shall have the authority? That is the difficulty, and that is what we have to make up our minds about. Whether or not this is the right Bill in which to do it, I do not know. Our legal advisers are carefully considering that point at the present time.
LORD SANDHURST: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Protection for transport authorities]:
6.10 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that on the last occasion we discussed the Bill, on the Motion that the House should resolve itself into Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, made some very pertinent remarks regarding what he called the ambiguity of this Bill. He asked whether I would receive representations from those on whose behalf he was speaking to clear up the ambiguity and to make the Bill clear. I gave the noble Viscount an undertaking that if he sent me all the points which his interests felt were not clear I would not only look into them but I would consult him and his interests and I would have the points cleared up. My Lords, that has been carried out, and I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his help. The next Amendments that I shall move are the result, through what the noble Viscount said, of my having had a toothcomb put through this Bill. From now on I shall be continually moving Amendments with the object of seeing that the Bill is crystal clear, which I undertook to do. And I hope that it will now be crystal clear to the noble Viscount. I am grateful to him for his help and I hope that, having now carried out my side of the bargain, he will be satisfied. If I may have your Lordships' permission, I will move all three Amendments to Clause 10, which are to improve the drafting of the Bill and nothing else. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 16, line 40, at end insert ("not later than");
Page 16, line 44, leave out;("within") and insert ("the expiration of");
Page 17, line 2, leave out ("within") and insert ("the expiration of").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I rise only to say that I am glad that this affair has had such a happy outcome. I am quite sure that owing to the noble Lord's intervention the people who have to work this Bill will find it very much more acceptable than it was before. I think that is a very good result. I am glad that on this occasion I can break the threat of brickbats which the noble Lord has said so frequently beset a Labour Minister, and can pay a heartfelt tribute to his good offices.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 14 [Storage by street authority of equipment at side of street]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this is another Amendment which makes it clear that the clause applies to apparatus laid before the passing of the Act, as well as to apparatus laid after the passing of the Act. It makes that point clear beyond any shadow of doubt. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 37, after ("placed") insert ("(whether before or after the passing of this Act)").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Provisions as to agreements concerning matters dealt with by the street works code]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I will move the Amendments to Clause 16 separately, hut I hope that I may again have your Lordships' permission to deal with this group of Amendments on page 23 together, because this is where we have made a great attempt to clarify this Bill. Your Lordships will remember that we had great difficulty in dealing with the 5,000 Special Acts which we knew existed somewhere, and in appreciating where they cut across the principles and the code laid down in this Bill. Your Lordships will doubtless remember that I also said we intended to give the same treatment to all agreements that any past agreements entered into by two authorities, such as an undertaker or highway authority, which in any way contravened the principles of this Bill, would be null and void in such respects, and could not be made in the future.
When we came to put what I have called the toothcomb through this clause,
1282
we came up against some real difficulties and we found that it was not clear beyond any argument as to what our intention was. We had brought in my right honourable friend as a contract judge, a position of course that would be quite wrong. What we have done by this Amendment and the consequential Amendments which I shall move to the Sixth Schedule, is to make it abundantly clear that these agreements are null and void, and we have taken out of it entirely all such references to the Minister. So the position now is that no agreement between two authorities which contravenes this code is valid, and if there are any agreements on which any two authorities, either the highway authority or an undertaker, can have the slightest doubt, their position is clear—they tear it up and they make another. If they want to know how to make another agreement which does not contravene this Bill, they must take the usual course of going to their legal advisers. That is the position, and it is made crystal clear by this Amendment and the consequential Amendments to the Sixth Schedule. With that explanation as to why and how it has been done, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 9, leave out ("made before") and insert (",whether made before or after").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I have no objection whatever to the general tenor of these Amendments, but I do not know whether I follow them aright. I do not think the Amendments do make it crystal clear. If the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will follow me, as Clause 16 is altered, so far as I can read it, it now reads:
"An agreement, whether made before or after the passing of this Act, which makes provision for regulating in any respect the exercise of a power to which section one of this Act applies as regards the relations between the undertakers and any authority, body, or person, concerned as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section one of this Act."
There, according to Amendment 2, we stop. Then we start up again:
"(2) Any such agreement made,"
and so on. My Lords, the part of subsection (1) that I have just read does not seem to me really to come to anything at all, the operative words having been taken out. Perhaps I have read the Amend-

1283
ment wrongly, but by the noble Lord's second Amendment we are asked to delete all the last part of subsection (1) of Clause 16, after the word "Act."
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The whole lot.
LORD LLEWELLIN: From the word "Act" we take out right down to the words "to this Act." Therefore there is no clarifying word; there is no verb left in subsection (1) at all, as I see it. I am only drawing the noble Lord's attention to the fact that he may have been moving to leave out too much.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if by leave of the House I may speak again, I think I can explain. From the words "Section one of this Act," down to the first line of subsection (2) is omitted; that comes out. It goes on:
"…of section one of this Act shall be of no effect in relation to code-regulated works."
The noble Lord has my sympathy about that. The Amendment reads:
"Page 23, line 14, leave out from 'Act' to the end of line 23."
I think the noble Lord will see that we cut out everything from line 14 to the end of line 23.
LORD LLEWELLIN: We leave out "subsection" and put in "section."
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I believe there is an Amendment missing here. Subsection (2) now reads
"Any such agreement made after the passing of this Act…
and so on.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Amendment now before the House and the one to which the House should be addressing itself is the Amendment at page 23, line 9, that we should leave out the words: "made before" and insert: "whether made before or after."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 14, leave out from ("Act") to the end of line 23.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, will now see that I was right. Line 23 is the first line of subsection (2). This makes it sense.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I see it now.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to move the next four Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 23, line 25, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section").
Page 23, line 26, leave out from ("code") to the end of line 27.
Page 23, line 28, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section").
Page 23, line 28, leave out ("validity of") and insert ("operation of—
(a) any agreement in so far as it relates to reinstatement or making good, or").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 17:
Exclusion or restriction of requirements of consent as to certain code-regulated works
17.—(1) Undertakers may, without obtaining any consent to which this subsection applies, execute in a maintainable highway any code-regulated works which they would be entitled to execute therein with that consent, other than—
This subsection applies to any consent of any of the following authorities, bodies and persons which apart from this subsection they or he would have been entitled in the following capacity to require the undertakers to obtain, that is to say any consent—

(i) of the highway authority as such,

(ii) of any other authority or managers concerned within the meaning of the street works code in the capacity which renders them an authority or managers so concerned, or

(3) Where an authority, body or person mentioned in subsection (1) of this section are or is entitled in the capacity therein mentioned to require undertakers to obtain their or his consent for the execution of code-regulated works, or any other street authority as such or any street managers as such are so entitled, a condition imposed on the giving of the consent shall be void in so far as the condition relates to a matter as to which provision is made by the street works code or a matter of a like nature:
Provided that, as regards a consent as to which an order under paragraph 5 of the Sixth Schedule to this Act has effect, this subsection shall have effect subject to the provisions of the order.
(4) The giving by the street authority of their consent to the execution by undertakers of code-regulated works in a street shall be without prejudice to the right of the authority to require modifications in a plan and section, or to disapprove them, on the ground that the works ought to be executed in controlled land.
6.24 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHhad given notice of several Amendments to subsection (1), the first of which was to add to sub-paragraph (i) the word "or." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment and tie following three are again intended to make clear what we mean in Clause 17. Clause 17 (1) relieves undertakers from any obligations they may have under existing legislation to obtain the consent in principle of any highway authority, transport authority or bridge authority before they can lay underground apparatus in a maintainable highway within their limits of supply. This means that we sweep away in the clause what I have termed the "paramount consents," but we now find that perhaps we have gone a little too far, because the Lone on County Council point out to us that subsection (1) would rob them of existing powers (under the Public Health (London) Act, 1936) to control interference by undertakers with London sewers.
At present, I understand, undertakers cannot break into sewers in London without first getting the consent of the London County Council. The London County Council have pointed out to us that their responsibilities are very great. They maintain that in view of the highly intricate sewer system in London and the serious effects which may result from uncontrolled interference by undertakers, it is of great importance that they should not be robbed of their paramount consent rights. So we have carried this right the way through. The case made by the London County Council may be equally strong in respect of other large cities. Moreover, the process after sweeping these paramount consents away of coming to the Minister for authority every time to secure a particular consent would, we think, be a little cumbersome. In the case of sewer authorities which have paramount consents, we desire that they should be maintained. That is what this group of Amendment seeks to do, and I beg to move the first of them.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 6, at end insert ("or").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 7, leave out ("other") and insert ("transport authority, or any bridge authority or managers who are an").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD LLEWELLIEN: My Lords, I am a little doubtful whether this reads correctly. The clause will read
"of any transport authority, or any bridle authority or managers who are an authority or managers concerned…"
I am wondering whether that is quite as it should be. Perhaps the noble Lord will just look into that point.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I think it is all right. Perhaps, by leave of the Committee, I may just explain this. As amended the paragraph would read
"of any, transport authority, or any bridge authority or managers who are an authority or managers concerned within the meaning of the street works code in the capacity which renders them an authority or managers so concerned…"
LORD LLEWELLIN: I understand.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 10, leave out from ("concerned") to end of line 14.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.29 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to leave out subsections (3) and (4), and insert—
"(3) Subject to any order under paragraph 5 of the Sixth Schedule to this Act, a provision made by way of condition imposed on the giving of a consent for the execution of code-regulated works shall be of no effect in so far as it would have been so by virtue of the last preceding section or of section twenty-five of this Act if it had been mace by an agreement.
(4) The fact that a street authority have given, as to works proposed to be executed in a street, a consent requisite on the basis of their being executed in the street shall not prejudice the right conferred on the authority by

1287
subsection (1) of section five of this Act (as to disapproving or modifying a plan and section on the ground that works ought to be executed in controlled land)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, This is another of what I called the "Gage Amendments"; it is one of the Amendments which we made at the instigation of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage. The intention of subsection (3) is to provide that conditions shall not be attached to the giving of a paramount consent which would be inconsistent with the provisions of the street works code or the code in Part II of the Bill. I do not think I need go any further into this. The Amendment simply says that if you are now entitled to have a paramount consent you cannot attach conditions to the granting of it which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 24, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Cases in which the code in this Part is to have effect]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment which the toothcomb has picked up. It simply says that this clause applies to undertakers' apparatus laid before as well as after the passing of the Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 31, after ("placed") insert (" (whether before or after the passing of this Act) ").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Undertakers' right to payment for works made necessary by, and obligation to facilitate, road etc. works]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, with your permission I will discuss this next Amendment and the following one together. Clause 22 lays down the principle, which your Lordships accepted, that when undertakers' apparatus is interfered with and has to be moved at the instigation of a highway authority carrying out road works, the highway authority should pay. It came to our notice that in the case of water undertakers there may be apparatus other than the undertakers' apparatus that may have to be moved. For instance, if a road alteration makes it necessary to shift or lower
1288
a water main in a road it may also be necessary to make consequential alteration to service pipes running through private land to premises along the side of the road. Such apparatus is not owned by the water undertakers. It is the private property of the consumer, but it will be the duty of the water undertakers to alter it. When this has to be done in consequence of road or bridge alterations, in our view it is only right that the cost should be included as part of the cost of altering undertakers' apparatus for which the undertakers concerned are to be paid by the promoting authority. I think the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, will agree this is a correct principle.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 20, leave out ("their").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 21, leave out ("their").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this is another point which we think should be clarified. Clause 22 lays down that undertakers shall be paid by the promoting authority for any alterations to apparatus to prevent interruption to their supply by road or bridge alterations. It has been pointed out to us that it is unreasonable that highway authorities should be liable to pay for measures to prevent "any" interruption of the undertakers' supply whatsoever. In the nature of things some interruption is inevitable and can be avoided only by considerable works which would not be justified if the interruption were of very short duration. The undertaker should not be liable to pay for a temporary supply system to avoid a short break of an hour or so in an undertakers' supply while a main is being removed as a result of a road alteration. The Amendment qualities the term "interruption" to make it clear that very temporary interruptions will not give undertakers the right to claim expensive measures to avoid this.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 21, after ("any") insert ("undue").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I think this Amendment is right. There are bound to be some interruptions. What we want to guard against is any unnecessary or undue interruption.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this Amendment removes the word "temporary" We think this word is unnecessary and produces a wrong effect, because undertakers should be reimbursed for any measures to prevent undue restriction of the supply while road works are being done, whether such undue restriction is temporary or permanent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 22, leave out "temporary").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Limitations on undertakers' right to payment for works made necessary, and county contribution towards such a payment]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this Amendment corrects a printers' error "Authorities" should have been plural and was printed in the singular. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 42, leave out ("authority's works") and insert ("such works as are mentioned in subsection (1) of section twenty-one of this Act").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, it seems to take a lot of words to convert a singular into a plural, but so long as it meets the point we agree to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Time for taking effect of the code in this Part, and exclusion of other statutory provisions]:
6.38 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord is going to accuse me of doing the same thing in this Amendment, which tries to make clear the definition of "corresponding enactment" for the purposes of Clause 24. Clause 24 deals with the amendment and repeal of existing enactments dealing with natters for which the code in Part II of the Bill provides. These existing enactments are referred to as "corresponding enactments" and this Amendment makes it clear that only
1290
those particular provisions of corresponding enactments which provide for matters dealt with by the code in Part II of the Bill are affected by Clause 24. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 36, leave out ("which") and insert ("in so far as it").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think this is a great improvement. It is obvious that this is what was meant originally.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Provisions as to agreements concerning matters dealt with by the code in this Part]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "made before" and insert ",whether made before or after". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think I can save your Lordships' time by telling you that this Amendment and the next four on the Order Paper do to Clause 25 exactly the same as my previous Amendments did to Clause 16. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line leave out ("made before") and insert (",whether made before or after").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the following Amendments are all consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 35, line 37, leave out from r ("under takers") to the end of line 1, page 36.
Page 36, line 4, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section"), line 6, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section"), line 6, leave out ("validity") and insert ("operation").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 28 [Restriction on breaking up by undertakers of maintainable highways recently closed for road works]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert:
"(1) Subject to the provisions of this section,.a statutory power of undertakers to break up or open a maintainable highway which comprises a carriageway, being a power conferred for any purpose other than road purposes or purposes of a railway undertaking or a tramway undertaking, shall not be exercisable in the highway during the twelve months following either—

1291

(a) the end of any period during which the use by vehicles of the carriageway has been prohibited, or the width thereof available for vehicular traffic has been reduced to less than two-thirds of its width, for the purposes of the execution of works for road purposes or of such works and other works, or

(b) the completion of a re-surfacing extending to one-third or more of the width of the carriageway,

if the following conditions are satisfied, that is to say,—

(i) that the highway authority had given to the undertakers, after the passing of this Act and more than three months before the date on which the works for road purposes, or the re-surfacing works, as the case may be, were substantially begun, a notice stating that works for road purposes, or resurfacing works, relevant for the purposes of this section were in prospect and specifying a date intended for beginning them; and

(ii) that the works for road purposes, or the re-surfacing works, as the case may be, were substantially begun on, or within one month from, the date so specified or, if any undertakers' works were begun in the highway before that date, within one month from the completion of those undertakers' works or, in either case, within some extended period agreed between the highway authority and the undertakers for the purposes of the operation of this subsection in relation to the works for road purposes, or the re-surfacing works, as the case may be."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to the most important Amendment of all. Clause 28 has troubled your Lordships for a long time, and the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and I have battled to get this as near perfection as we can. On Committee stage the noble Lord put down an Amendment to the clause which had the effect of applying the ban on the breaking up of a road by undertakers for twelve months following any substantial breaking up of the road by undertakers, as well as after the road had been reconstructed or substantially repaired by the highway authority. As the Bill was drafted we thought we had met this by the twelve months' embargo on breaking up a road where the roadway would be closed for one-third of its width for highway purposes, but the noble Lord pointed out to us that so long as the road was broken up and re-surfaced on account of undertakers' purposes the clause was inoperative. I pointed out to him that we would not place any statutory obligations on undertakers to bring the road back to any better condition than that in which it was before they started their works.
We have, however, sought to meet him, I hope, successfully. We now say that wherever a road has been resurfaced for more than a third of the carriageway width, whether at the initial instance of the highway authority or by the highway authority doing substantial resurfacing works to finish off a highway after substantial undertakers' excavations, and three months' notice of such work has been given by the highway authority to undertakers, the prohibition in Clause 28 (1) should apply. That is the principle that the noble Lord had in mind, and the one which we have now accepted. It was pointed out to us that with this marvellous Barber-Greene resurfacing machine they can resurface without closing the road at all. So we found the difficulty there that, even for resurfacing the road, if the criterion were the closing of one-third, it would not operate. I hope that we have now introduced a further category of works which impose the ban on breaking up—namely, resurfacing a third or more of the carriageway whether or not traffic on the road is restricted, and that we have now successfully tied this up so that it will be really effective. I do not think I need go into any further explanation, as your Lordships have followed the discussions with great interest right through the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 9, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. We have struggled along with this clause and we improved it to a certain extent on the Committee stage. Now I think we have really arrived at what we all wanted—namely, that where a road with the expensive surfacing which a road now has is taken up by one undertaker, the opportunity should be given at the same time to other undertakers, if their works follow the same line as the first undertaker, to do their works at the same time, or otherwise stand off for a period of twelve months, except, of course, for emergency works. It did not seem to me that it always depended on how much the road was stopped for traffic. I looked at the question more from the point of view of the expense and the unevenness of the surface which results once you interfere

1293
with a newly-laid carriageway. I notice that the noble Lord has met a further point that I made on Committee stage: that it did not matter whether this initial business had been done for road works. I thought the clause as it stands in the Bill at present was too restricted. I see that it now reads "for road purposes or of such works and other works." You must ham; a road work or "other works," once you break up the carriageway. I was afraid, however, that the clause was too restricted, and that it might be thought that it was inoperative because it did not cover one of the purposes of "other works."
I should like to thank the noble Lord and his advisers for the trouble they have taken over this clause. I feel that we now have t much better clause than that with which we started, and that it will be workable. The highway authorities can, of course, dispense with it by agreement in proper cases, but I hope that in the majority of cases they will insist that undertakers do all their works at the same time, if those works have to be done within a period of twelve months. I hope that this new clause will avoid what many of us have often seen—namely, one statutory undertaker coming along and getting his workmen to hack up the road, and when the road has been re-laid another undertaker coming along and hacking it up again, with the result that the highway is closed to traffic for a long time and it has to be resurfaced more than once.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his observations, and particularly for his acknowledgment of the hard work done by my advisers. As he has said, this has been a difficult problem, but I think we have now succeeded in solving it. I should like to add this. All of those who have been closely connected with this Bill—and I do not except the noble Lord—have rather proceeded on the assumption that the culprits in what we have called this "street-breaking menace" are the undertakers. That is not always so. The highway authorities themselves are occasionally blameworthy. The other day I came across a beautiful stretch of road That had been made and resurfaced—it was a tine example of the roadmaker's art. It was put down by a highway authority. It had not been down for- two months before it was hacked up for half
1294
its width and closed to traffic to put down rubber strips so that the lights could be traffic controlled. I should want a good deal of convincing that the highway authority could not have done that work at the same time. I hope that now the highway authorities throughout the country will give a lead to everybody by being, like Cæsar's wife, beyond reproach.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Interpretation]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 28, after ("railway") insert ("being one which is of the nature of a tramway, that is to say").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule [Definition of "controlled land," and provisions as to authorisation of works therein]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1:
"(d) in Scotland is subject to a servitude right of future use as part of a maintainable highway."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is really a technical point, but I think not without importance. In the beginning of the First Schedule it says: "In this Act the expression 'controlled land' means" —that is to say, it limits the provisions to what is afterwards defined as "controlled land." The question arises whether, in certain circumstances, a servitude road which is not already laid out as a street as defined in Clause 1 (3) is a street or whether it must be tin-eluded as "controlled land." We have had discussions on this matter, and I will not press the point. I am satisfied from the explanation that I have had so far that it does not include a street, and if this Amendment is not put in here I do not know how Clause 5 can be operated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 25, at end insert the said sub-paragraph.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, when the noble Earl moved this Amendment on the Committee stage I confess that neither I nor my advisers

1295
knew very much about it. I have a shrewd suspicion that the noble Earl did not know all he would wish to know about it. We have been trying to find out more about the matter. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell me whether I am right. Highway authorities in Scotland often buy the right to use a particular piece of land for the future widening of a road. They do not buy the freehold of the land, but acquire a servitude right over it, so that it can be used by private tenants for agriculture or other purposes, until in fact it is incorporated in a highway. I hope the noble Earl will tell me if I am right.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes. I think so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The proposed Amendment seeks to make such land controlled land within the meaning of the First Schedule, so that highway authorities could force undertakers to lay their apparatus in such land instead of in the street. On reconsideration of this question, I think there may be something in what the noble Earl has said. I do not know whether we shall come up against Section 5 of the Town and Country Planning Act, or Section 33 of the Public Health Act. If the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment at this stage, we will pursue our inquiries. We are trying to possess ourselves of some of these agreements to see just what they are. This was considered in relation to England, but it is rather rare in England and we have ignored it. The noble Earl says that it is a practice in Scotland.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is what I am given to understand.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We want to see some actual agreements, because we do not know whether we shall fall foul of the Town and Country Planning Act. If the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment, I will undertake to pursue inquiries with my legal advisers and put down an Amendment at a later stage.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his consideration, and I am glad to accept his offer. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 7:
"For the purposes of this sub-paragraph any payment made or required to be made by the undertakers to the street authority under sub-paragraph (2) of the last preceding paragraph shall be treated as part of the cost reasonably incurred by the undertakers of executing the works in the controlled land."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is again a rather difficult point. Under paragraph 6 (2) of the First Schedule undertakers have to pay highway authorities for the cost of compensating owners of controlled land made available to undertakers in those cases where the undertakers, at their own instance, seek to place their apparatus in controlled land. Having got so far, I think I had better explain what this really means. It means that controlled land—which is land designated for future road widening—may be used in the meantime by a farmer growing a crop of oats. If the undertaker wants to put his apparatus in that controlled land, and he takes up the land, it may rob the farmer of revenue and he has to be paid compensation. Under paragraph 7 (1) of the First Schedule, undertakers have to pay the highway authority a sum equal to any expenses the undertakers are saved by putting their apparatus in controlled land instead of in the street. The undertakers have pointed out—and I think they are right—that where they reimburse the highway authority for compensation to owners of controlled land under paragraph 6 (2) (which I have mentioned) this expense should be offset against any sum they may have to pay the highway authority under paragraph 7 (1). I think noble Lords will agree that this is eminently fair, and that we should put it in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 37, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I do not think anybody could take any objection to this. It is obviously fair, and I am glad that it has been included in this Schedule.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule [Reinstatement and making good by street authority or street managers after execution of undertakers' works]:
LORD LUCAS CF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this Amendment is to clarify the position. Under the Third Schedule, highway authorities can elect to restore roads broken up by undertakers. Where they do so elect, undertakers must notify highway authorities when their work has reached the stage where the highway authority can take over and do the restoration. When the undertakers give this notice the responsibility for filling in the hole passes to the highway authority, unless within four or eight days, as the case may be, the highway authority serve a counter-notice on the undertakers claiming that they are not satisfied with the way in which the undertakers have done their part of the job. There is no provision in Paragraph 2 (3) (a) to meet the circumstances where such a counter-notice is withdrawn by the highway authority after being given. This Amendment provides accordingly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, tine 30, at end insert ("withdrawn or is").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:
(2) In the case of a road alteration, if it appears to any such undertakers that a plan and section of the authority's works or any of them ought to he furnished to them, they shall, as early as practicable and not later than the expiration of twenty-nine days from the date of giving to Them of the authority's notice under the preceding sub-paragraph give notice to the authority requiring them to furnish a plan and section thereof.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 26, after ("of") insert ("Part I of").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is a small point which I raised in the Committee stage. If I may say so, to say, "as early as practicable" and then say, "twenty-nine days" is a little inconsistent in itself. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 4, leave out ("twenty-nine") and insert ("fifteen").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will not
1298
think that, as we are coming to the end, I am making one desperate effort to get into his good graces, but I am going to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I have to confess that this Amendment corrects a drafting slip. Part I of the Fourth Schedule provides a procedure for undertakers to claim that alterations to their apparatus are necessary in consequence of road or bridge alterations or works of that kind, and for which, under Clause 22, they will be paid by the promoting authority. Paragraph 4 provides that where the undertakers and the promoting authority cannot agree about such alterations the urdertakers can refer the matter to arbitration. There is no provision, however, for the promoting authority to refer the dispute to arbitration, and this is clearly a case where the promoting authority should be able to do so, because disagreement with an undertaker might seriously delay the promoting authority's works. This Amendment provides accordingly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 34, after ("undertakers") insert ("or the authority").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 40, lease out ("to") and insert ("by").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, this is quite an important drafting Amendment, and I am glad that the point has been noticed. It puts the thing the other way round, as was obviously intended from the start.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if I may speak again by leave of the House, I was trying to be polite in saying that it was a drafting Amendment. It was really a printers' error, and it should have been the other way round as the noble Lord has said.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Powers for consequential modification of special enactments and of agreements, and as to certain existing protections]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I move all the Amendments to the Sixth Schedule together? They are really no more than consequential Amendments to those which your Lordships have accepted to Clauses 16, 17 and 25. They make operative the agreement as I explained on Clauses 16, 17 and 25; and if your Lordships are content with that explanation I will move them altogether.
Amendments moved—
Page 68, line 9, leave out ("or on an agreement")
Page 68, line 13, leave out from ("effect") to the end of line 15.
Page 68, line 21, leave out from ("effect") to the end of line 24.
Page 68, line 28, leave out ("or agreement")
Page 68, line 28, leave out from ("question") to the end of line 29.
Page 69, line 12, leave out lines 12 to 24.
Page 69, line 33, leave out ("authorising") and insert ("rendering valid")
Page 69, line 33, leave out lines 35 and 36 and insert ("a provision made by way of condition imposed on the giving of a consent in any respect in which it would otherwise be of no effect by virtue of that subsection")
Page 70, line 44, leave out ("where the enactment is one")
Page 71, line 4, after ("Act") insert ("and")
Page 71, line 5, leave out from ("consent") to the end of line 8.
Page 71, line 10, leave out ("where the enactment is one")
Page 71, line 28, leave out lines 28 to 30.
Page 71, line 31, leave out ("of this Schedule").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

ARBITRATION BILL [H.L.]
7.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Bill reproduces in consolidated form, without amendment, the law contained in the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934. I
1300
beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be read 2a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment.

LAND SETTLEMENT IN SCOTLAND
THE EARL OF SELKIRKhad given Notice that he would call attention to the development of land settlement in Scotland, with special reference to the Highlands; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave not to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper but to adjourn it, if I may, and ask for it to be put down for July 20 next.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. Perhaps the House will allow me to say, in one sentence, that the Government are publishing to-morrow a White Paper on the Highland Development programme, dealing with many aspects of the Highland problem. Probably it will be useful to consider that between now and the adjourned debate.

SOUTH SHIELDS EXTENSION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred Ito the Examiners.
House adjourned at two minutes past seven o'clock.