Sitting of 7 June 1932

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Marriages Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Fire Brigade Provisional Order Bill.
Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Thames Conservancy Bill [Lords] (King's Consent and Prince of Wales's Consent signified),
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Coatbridge Drainage Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  HOVE PIER BILL [Lords] (By Order).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Order Paper:
  On Second Reading of Hove Pier Bill [Lords], to move,
  "That it be read a Second time upon this day three months.—[Sir Cooper Rawson.]
  Sir COOPER RAWSON: Is it possible for me to give notice that I should like to withdraw the Notice of Motion standing in my name?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will state what steps are being taken, in view of the importance of certain Dominion markets in the past to manufacturers in this country of locks, latches, keys, steel traps, and trunks, to see that their interests are properly represented at the Ottawa Conference?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm Mac Donald): I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for East Islington (Miss Cazalet) on the 3rd May. The Industrial Advisers there mentioned are in consultation with the various interests in this country and will advise the United Kingdom Delegation on all questions affecting United Kingdom industries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be happy to consider in conjunction with the Industrial Advisers any representations that any particular industry may desire to submit.
  Mr. MANDER: Can the hon. Member give an assurance that these small trades of local importance are not going to be crowded out by the larger national industries?
  Mr. MacDONALD: If they have any representations to make, they will be most carefully and fairly considered.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the pottery trade also be considered, as it stands to suffer?
  Mr. MacDONALD: We shall consider any schemes put forward by any industry.
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Are we to conclude that both big and little industries are helped under these tariffs?
  Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAYasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is aware that the timber importers of this country had not been consulted up to last week by those who are to represent British timber importers at Ottawa; whether such consultations have taken place within the last few days; and, if not, will he take steps to see that this preliminary to the Ottawa Conference is completed at once?
  Mr. M. MacDONALD: As was explained in the reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) by my right hon. Friend on the 31st May, it is open to any trade which wishes to do so to lay its views before the Industrial Advisers who will accompany the United Kingdom Delegation to Ottawa, and I would suggest that the special interests referred to should get into touch with the Industrial Advisers as soon as possible.
  Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he can now arrange to publish the preliminary agenda for the Ottawa Conference; and, if not, what are the objections to such action?
  Mr. M. MacDONALD: It has been agreed that the agenda shall not be published until its details have been settled as the result of consultation between the Governments concerned. This consultation is now proceeding.
  Captain MACDONALD: Can the hon. Member say when he will be able to publish or make known the agenda, in view of the forthcoming Debate on the Ottawa Conference?
  Mr. MacDONALD: It is impossible to give any undertaking or to make any promise, but the consultations are fairly far advanced, and the agenda will be published at the earliest possible moment.
  Captain MACDONALD: I give notice that I will put this question before the Debate on the Ottawa Conference.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Does the hon. Member not see the necessity for the agenda being published before the Debate takes place?
  Mr. MacDONALD: I appreciate that point; but it is also necessary that these consultations should be completed before any publication takes place.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not the whole key of the Debate that the agenda ought to be known, because to a large extent the Debate will be abortive unless the agenda can be published?
  Mr. MacDONALD: The House may rest assured that we shall bear the importance of that in mind, and do everything we can to get publication before the Debate takes place.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    WEST AFRICAN COLONIES (ANGLO-FRENCH CONVENTION).
    Vice-Admiral TAYLORasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the advisability of terminating the Anglo-French Convention relating to our West African Colonies, in view of the large proportion of foreign exports going into these Colonies?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The position is receiving careful consideration, and steps are being taken to consult the trade interests concerned.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in 1929, the latest year for which I have the statistics, the foreign imports into Nigeria and the Gold Coast amounted to some £18,000,000 in value, and from this country to some £10,000,000, and, in view of that fact and in the interests of British trade, will he not take steps in order to give this country a free hand in fiscal matters with our own Colonies?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the welfare of the natives of these Colonies and not simply the interests of the traders?
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Can I have an answer?

    COKE IMPORTS.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that three cargoes of Belgian furnace coke have recently been shipped, discharged, and sold in London; whether he will state the selling price as compared with the price of British coke; and whether, as foreign importation is possible even in the face of the low rates prevailing at home, the facts and figures will be laid before the Tariff Commission?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir. Three cargoes totalling about 1,700 tons have been brought over in the last two months. I understand that the price of British coke in the area affected has been reduced by 1s. 6d.—2s. 6d. a ton to meet this competition. I do not think any action on the lines suggested is necessary at present.
    Mr. BATEY: Can the Minister say who got the coke? Was it some of the gas companies?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say without notice.

    COTTON INDUSTRY.
    Mr. REMERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received any reports as to the reorganisation of the Lancashire cotton industry; and if he will state what part the Lancashire Cotton Corporation has played in those reports?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: A matter in relation to the reorganisation of the Lancashire cotton industry on which I have received representations is the scheme which the industry has under consideration for concentrating production through a levy for the purchase of redundant machinery. As I have already stated in the reply which I gave on the 5th April to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Ehys Davies), I have been in communication with the Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations in regard to that scheme. The Joint Committee is representative of all sections of the industry, and I have had no separate negotiation with the concern to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. REMER: May I ask if the best means of preventing redundancy in Lancashire would not be the closing down of the Lancashire Cotton Corporation?
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking with regard to the representations of the Manchester Cotton Association relating to the desirability in the interests of the trade of raw cotton lying in accredited Manchester warehouses being made tenderable against the Liverpool futures contract?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have received a communication on this subject from the Manchester Cotton Association. As the matter seems to me to be one for settlement between the interests concerned, and as the Manchester and Liverpool Cotton Associations and the other interests concerned are all represented on the Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations, I am suggesting in reply that the Joint Committee should be invited to deal with this matter on behalf of the trade as a whole.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: In view of the fact that on an earlier occasion when there was a conflict of opinion between
    1756
    Liverpool and Manchester in connection with this matter, the representations of the Board of Trade were the decisive factor, will my right hon. Friend look into it and see whether or not those representations could not be made in this case?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope that an agreement will be reached between Manchester and Liverpool without the intervention of the Board of Trade.

    BROMINE IMPORTS.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the President of the Board of Trade what amount of bromine has been imported into, and exported from, this country since May, 1931; and what proportion, if any, has been consigned to Germany or Russia?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the 12 months ended the 30th April, 1932, the total imports of bromine and bromides into the United Kingdom amounted to 12,410 cwts., and the exports to 1,093 cwts. (including re-exports 664 cwts.). No exports of bromine or bromides were registered during this period as consigned to the Soviet Union, and the only consignments to Germany consisted of 5 cwts. re-exported.

    WAR MATERIAL (EXPORT LICENCES).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, since the system of export licences for arms and ammunition from this country has been in operation any permits have been refused; if so, when and to which firm; and for what country were the materials destined?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir; in numerous cases, but I am not prepared to give the detailed particulars for which the hon. Member asks.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the particulars cannot be given?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It has never been the custom to give these particulars, and it is undesirable to do so.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the profound interest in all parts of the world in this question, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that such information ought to be available?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Some information is available, but we cannot make it available in the form which the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest any other method whereby the information can be given?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know of any other.
    Mr. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade the origin of the system of licences for the export of arms and ammunition; whether arms and ammunition manufactured by the overseas branches of British firms and subsequently exported have to be licensed in the same manner; and in which other arms-producing countries there is a similar system of export licences?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The control of the export of arms and ammunition was first instituted on the outbreak of the Great War, and has continued ever since. The control exercised by this country applies only to exports shipped from United Kingdom ports. As regards the last part of the question, I have no complete information, but I understand that a system of export licences exists in most, if not all, of those arms-producing countries which were signatories of the International Convention for the supervision of the International Trade in Arms and Ammunition and in Implements of War, of 17th June, 1925.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Do I understand from the reply that where English people have firms abroad producing munitions of war they are subject to these licences?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir; licences can only apply to exports from this country.

    CHINA (CUSTOMS DUTIES).
    Mr. NUNNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the extent to which customs duties or other exactions are levied upon goods in transit up the Yangtze River or other parts of the interior of China either by officials of the recognised Chinese Government or by agents of the various generals or bandit chieftains for the time being in control of districts in the interior of the country?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): Various exactions of an irregular character upon goods in transit have been reported from time to time, such as, for example, escort fees in bandit-ridden areas, but it is impossible to give an estimate of the extent to which such exactions are levied.
    Mr. NUNN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as many as 14 such illegal exactions have been made on one parcel of goods, and that there are many such instances?
    Mr. EDEN: That may be, but the Chinese Government did make an attempt to amend this procedure last year, though I cannot say how far they have been successful.

    REGISTERED SHIPBUILDING YARDS.
    Mr. BURNETTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how soon the list will be prepared of registered shipbuilding yards within the meaning of Section 11 of the Import Duties Act, 1932?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): The conditions relating to the registration of shipbuilding yards under Section 11 of the Import Duties Act have recently been the subject of discussion with the interests primarily affected, and it is anticipated that it will be possible to proceed with registration in the near future.

    IMPOST DUTIES (SPELTER).
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of duty which had been imposed previous to the Import Duties Act on foreign spelter imported into the United Kingdom and on spelter from the British Empire, with the date of the imposition of the duty and of any variation in the rate since the duty was imposed?
    Major ELLIOT: Prior to the Import Duties Act there was no duty on spelter imported as such. Since the 1st March last the duty has been 10 per cent. ad valorem on foreign spelter, but spelter satisfying the conditions as to Preference is admitted duty free.

    IMPORTED HOSIERY.
    Mr. COCKS (for Mr. CHARLES BROWN)asked the President of the

    1759
    Board of Trade if he is aware that the management of a foreign factory at Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, is importing in a semi-manufactured condition silk and artificial silk hosiery, which is afterwards sold in shops in London and elsewhere with the claim that their factory is at Mansfield, Nottinghamshire; and if he will inquire into the matter and take steps to stop goods being sold under such a misleading description?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the case he has in mind I will cause inquiries to be made.

    INSURANCE COMPANIES (BRITISH POLICY HOLDERS).
    Mr. LEONARDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he contemplates the introduction of legislation designed to protect the interests of British policy holders in insurance companies and corporations registered out-with this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. Insurance companies registered abroad which do business in this country are already subject to the same general requirements in this country as insurance companies registered here.
    Mr. LEONARDHas the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the references in regard to such companies in the "Economist" and the "Investors Chronicle," and also in the Canadian Press; is he aware that one such company has been precluded from doing business in an American city, for the protection of its citizens; and, if so, do the Government contemplate legislation in this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should require notice of a question of that nature.

    RIVER EXE (DREDGING).
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received the report of His Majesty's Ship "Flinders" on the estuary of the River Exe; and whether he is now prepared to grant permission to men from Topsham to dredge for sand and gravel?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is hoped that prints of the chart resulting from the recent survey will be available during this month. The question of dredging will then be examined by my Department in conjunction with the authorities concerned.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    BOARD OF TRADE.
    Colonel GRETTONasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total number of the staff employed by the Board of Trade in 1913 and the total of their salaries; and what was the number of the staff in 1931 and the total of their salaries, in the latter case not including the Mines Department and the Overseas Trade Department?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that there are no figures readily available relating to the year 1913, but the staff of the Board of Trade, excluding the branches later transferred to the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Transport and the Department of Overseas Trade, numbered on the 1st August, 1914, 2,502, and the salary cost of this staff was £466,317 per annum. The average number of staff serving during 1931–32 in the Board, excluding Mines Department and the Department of Overseas Trade, but including Sea Transport Department and the Coastguard transferred since 1914 from other Government Departments, was 4,015, and the total salary cost of staff during that year was £1,159,870. The staff numbers now about 3,930.
    Colonel GRETTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the numbers of the staff of the coastguards and other services which have been transferred to the Board of Trade, if I put down a question?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I shall be glad to do so.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many have been added to the staff as a result of the Import Duties?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: None.

    SICK LEAVE.
    Mr. LEONARD (for Mr. McENTEE)asked the Financial Secre-

    1761
    tary to the Treasury whether every excise officer is expected to take six days' sick leave whether he is sick or not; and whether he will state what are the regulations governing sick leave in the Civil Service generally?
    Major ELLIOT: There is no foundation whatever for the suggestion that every excise officer is expected to take six days' sick leave whether he is sick or not. Any officer who absented himself from duty on a plea of illness which could not be justified would be regarded as guilty of a serious breach of discipline. As regards the second part of the question the position in the established Civil Service generally is that sick leave may be granted by the head of a department to an officer subject to the following conditions:

    (a) after two days continued absence a medical certificate is required;

    (b) if the number of days of sick absence without certificate exceeds seven a year the number of days absence in excess of seven is deducted from ordinary leave.

    If the hon. Member desires to have copies of the actual regulations governing sick leave in the Civil Service (Treasury Regulations dated 6th June, 1929, made under Article 6 of the Order in Council of 22nd July, 1920, and Treasury Memorandum of 24th April, 1925), I shall be happy to send him copies.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ROYAL TANK CORPS (RECORD OFFICE).
    Mr. ATTLEEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, with regard to the proposed transfer of the record and pay office of the Royal Tank Corps from Barnet, if he will consider the possibility of utilising the accommodation which exists at Mill Hill Barracks in order to avoid the inconvenience to the staff which would be caused if a more distant locality is selected?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that, in the event of it being decided to move, the possibility of using Mill Hill Barracks will not be overlooked.

    CONTRACTORS (INDIA TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY).
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the India Tyre and Rubber Company, Inchinnan, is on the list of contractors to his Department?
    Mr. COOPER: No, Sir, but the question of placing the firm upon the Department's list of contractors is under consideration.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I did not quite hear the answer to my question. Is this firm on your list?
    Mr. COOPER: No, Sir.

    TERRITORIAL OFFICERS (APPOINTMENTS).
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the fact that there is nothing in the Regulations to prevent the appointment of Territorial Army officers; to the command of Territorial Army divisions, he will issue instructions to commands that the qualification and recommendation for such appointments should be entered in the annual confidential reports for Territorial officers in a similar manner to that for Regular officers?
    Mr. COOPER: The point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend is already met by existing Regulations.
    Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: In view of the reply, may I ask whether, as there are a number of Territorial officers now commanding brigades, it would not be possible for at least one Territorial officer to be given command of one Territorial Army division?
    Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Does the hon. Member realise that the number of Territorial officers who can accept this position is negligible, and that the number who want it is even less?

    MILITARY TATTOOS.
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the increasing number and magnitude of military tattoos and the time given to their preparation, the Army Council are satisfied that there is no curtailment of training for those of all ranks employed in these annual displays; and can he assure the House that

    1763
    there is no loss of efficiency in the Army as a result of its undertaking this kind of work?
    Mr. COOPER: My hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension in thinking that the number and size of the military tattoos are increasing. I am satisfied that tattoos are not permitted to curtail the training of the Army and that the work in connection with them has considerable value for training purposes.

    SURGICAL DRESSINGS.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that, as a result of the recent economy proposals of the Government, the military authorities have ordered all bandages to be re-used after boiling, and all lint dressings worn by patients which are not unduly soiled to be used a second time, the purchase of antiseptic boracic lint is forbidden, and plain white lint is to serve for the same purpose; and whether, in the interests of the health of the troops, he will have these instructions withdrawn?
    Mr. COOPER: I am aware that the notice of all concerned has been drawn to the substantial economy which can be effected by the washing of bandages and the further use of unstained dressings, and that, in the interests of economy, boracic powder and plain lint will in future be issued in place of boracic lint. The Army Medical authorities are satisfied that these economies will in no way affect the health of the troops.
    Mr. McGOVERN: Will the hon. Member consult his medical officers again, because I have had representations from a number who say that this economy is most detrimental to the persons concerned.
    Mr. COOPER: I have consulted the medical authorities and their answer is definite, and their views quite plain. I see no reason to consult them again on the subject.
    Mr. MAXTON: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much his Department hopes to save by this somewhat disgusting economy?
    Mr. COOPER: Not without notice.

  SCOTLAND.

    INSURED PERSON'S DEATH, GLASGOW.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that Miss Dunnett, 44, Cook Street, Glasgow, was on the 25th February visited by a sick visitor, and as a result was called to a medical board on 4th March to be examined by the regional medical officer of the Department of Health; that the girl attended although very ill; that her sickness benefit was stopped on 1st March, and that she was taken ill at the board and sent home by taximeter cab, and subsequently died on 13th March; and if he will cause full inquiry to be made into all the circumstances?
    The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): According to a report which I have received about this case, Miss Dunnett, who was suffering from rheumatism, was seen by her insurance doctor on the 1st March, when he considered that her condition was such as to justify his certifying her as fit to attend for examination by a medical officer of the Department of Health for Scotland on the 4th March. Between these dates, however, unknown to her doctor, she developed influenzal bronchial pneumonia, and on her arrival at the regional medical office of the Department for examination, her condition was observed and she was immediately sent home in a taxicab. I am sorry to say that Miss Dunnett died nine days later. It is a matter for regret that she was allowed to leave home on the 4th March, but I am satisfied that no responsibility for this can reasonably be attributed either to the insurance doctor or to the arrangements for the examination of insured persons under the regional medical service. I may add that the approved society have informed me that sickness benefit was paid to Miss Dunnett until the 12th March.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the Under-Secretary aware that sickness benefit was only paid subsequent to the death, and has been stopped, and that this girl was afraid to refuse to go to the medical board after being visited by the sick visitor, and that the panel doctor was afraid that he would be censured if she did not attend?
    Mr. SKELTON: As to the payment of sick benefit, my information is the opposite of that of the hon. Member. In regard to the other allegations, I have absolutely no foundation for any of them.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I give notice that I shall raise this matter at the first possible opportunity on the Adjournment.

    WHEAT OFFALS (EXPORT).
    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that wheat offals have recently been so scarce in Scotland that they have been selling at £7 a ton, which is higher than the price of wheat; and if he will state whether this scarcity is due to exportation licensed by a recognised millers' association?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): I am aware that the price of wheat offals in Scotland is as stated by my Noble Friend, but the suggestion made in the second part of her question is not supported by the statistics relating to the exportation of wheat offals from the United Kingdom, which show no increase in the current year as compared with previous years.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Does not the Secretary of State remember the assurance given by the Minister of Agriculture in one of the Debates on the Wheat Quota Bill, to the effect that he hoped there would be little or no export of wheat offals except under licence. I do not think that I have had an answer to that part of my question.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Yes, but that undertaking has hardly come into operation yet, and my figures refer to the first four months of the year.

    LICENSING LAW (CLUBS).
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is prepared to introduce legislation limiting the hours of drinking clubs in Scotland to the same as other licensed premises, and providing for police inspection of the same, as recommended by the chief of police in Glasgow in his annual report?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: The recommendations referred to will be kept in view in connection with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Licensing in
    1766
    Scotland. I would remind the hon. Member that the number of hours during which exciseable liquor may be sold or supplied in clubs on weekdays is the same as in the case of licensed premises, namely, eight hours. In regard to police inspection, the recommendation of the Royal Commission for Scotland was of a more limited character than the proposals of the chief constable. I am not in a position to make any pronouncement as to legislation.
    Mr. McGOVERN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of an early desire on the part of his Department to give the police facilities for inspecting these clubs as desired by the chief constable?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: As to the possibility of introducing legislation on this question, I can only say that it is quite impossible at the moment, and I cannot make any announcement now.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Have not the police of Glasgow plenty to do without interfering in this matter?

    SILK TRIAL, EDINBURGH.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the costs to the Crown of the recent Silk trial at Edinburgh up to the date of the sentences; and the total amount of money involved in the frauds?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: The account of the costs referred to is in course of preparation and will be completed on the conclusion of the Appeals which are now pending. The amount involved in the first charge was £439,348, and in the second charge £362,733.
    Mr. McGOVERN: Is there any minute by which the right hon. Gentleman can tell me the number of persons who had money invested in this business?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am afraid I could not give an answer. Certainly I could not without notice.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Does that figure include only the costs of the Crown? There is no cost of the defence in this £750,000?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: That is the amount involved in the charge; the cost is nothing like that.
    Mr. McGOVERN: I have put this question on the Paper three or four times. Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the amount within a reasonable time if I put a question on the Paper again?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I will let the hon. Member know as soon as I am in a. position to inform him. I cannot do better than that.

    HOUSING.
    Mr. MACLEAN (for Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the names of the county and burgh local authorities who have failed to comply with the terms of Section 22, Sub-section (2), of the Act of 1930, requesting them to state the number of houses required to meet the needs of their areas?
    Mr. SKELTON: The county and burgh local authorities who have not yet submitted to the Department of Health for Scotland the general statement of the housing needs of their areas as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, are the county councils of Aberdeen, Dumfries, Inverness, Orkney, Ross and Cromarty, and Roxburgh, and the town councils of Cromarty, Falkland, Grantown-on-Spey, Kirkcudbright, Lerwick, Lochgilphead, Stonehaven, Tain, Tayport, and Wick.

    BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).
    Mr. MACLEAN (for Mr. D. GRAHAM)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the rise in the price of glazed fireclay goods and also in the price of bricks; will he state the date when the attention of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Prices of Building Materials was drawn to the matter; whether they have inquired into the complaint; and with what result?
    Mr. SKELTON: I am aware of the rise in prices referred to. The attention of the Inter-departmental Committee on Prices of Building Materials was drawn to the matter in June and August of last year. That Committee made inquiries and decided that the circumstances did not warrant any action on their part meantime.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Will any information which is derived from the inquiry be cir-
    1768
    culated so that we may know exactly what are the reasons for the increase of price?
    Mr. SKELTON: I shall have inquiry made into that question.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The question asks whether inquiry has been made.
    Mr. SKELTON: I dealt with that when I said that the committee had made inquiries, but that the circumstances did not warrant any action on their part in the meantime.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    ROYALTY RENTS (CHURCH ESTATES, DURHAM).
    Mr. BATEYasked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, if the Commissioners will now consider a reduction in the amount charged by them for royalty rents for coal in Durham, and for the amount remitted to be used directly for the benefit of the miners at the particular collieries?
    Mr. DENMAN (Second Church Estates Commissioner): It is not in the power of the Commissioners to deal with a portion of their revenues in the manner suggested, the whole being devoted by Act of Parliament to other clearly defined purposes.

    MINERS' WELFARE FUND.
    Mr. JOHN (for Sir WILLIAM JENKINS)asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of money that has been paid into the Miners' Welfare Fund; the amount allocated to each area separately and the amount paid into the central fund; and the balance in hand at the central fund and area funds at the last available date?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): The total amount paid into the Miners' Welfare Fund, up to the 31st May last, was £12,626,664, of which £8,650,415 had been credited to the Districts Fund, £1,809,245 to the General Fund and £2,167,004 to the Royalties Welfare Levy Fund. The balance of the Welfare Fund at that date was £2,650,467, divided as follows: Districts Fund, £1,354,990; General Fund, £394,925; Royalties Welfare Levy Fund, £900,552. Of this balance £1,433,722 has definitely

    1769
    been allocated for pithead baths and other purposes and a substantial portion of the remainder earmarked for specific purposes either by the Central Committee or by the District Committees. I am sending the hon. Member the other details for which he asks.
    Mr. LUNN: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the balance remaining?
    Mr. FOOT: The balance is here stated at £2,650,000. Of that, £1,433,000 has been allocated and, by a hasty calculation, it will be seen that the difference is about £1,200,000.
    Mr. JOHN (for Sir W. JENKINS)asked the Secretary for Mines what progress is being made with the Committee of Inquiry into the Miners' Welfare Fund; and when is the report likely to be published?
    Mr. FOOT: I am informed that the committee expect to complete their taking of evidence this month, and hope to present their report in the early autumn.

    ANTHRACOSIS.
    Mr. JOHN (for Sir W. JENKINS)asked the Lord President of the Council whether the Medical Research Council is still inquiring into the effect of coal dust upon underground workers who are suffering from anthracosis; and, if so, when will the report be published?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): The matter continues to receive the attention of the Industrial Pulmonary Diseases Committee of the Medical Research Council, but I am advised that serious difficulties are still being met in finding trustworthy methods of investigation. There is at present no question of a report.

  POST OFFICE (AIR MAIL RATES).
  Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Postmaster-General for what reasons air mail and telegraphic rates have been so adjusted as to enable a profit to be made on the former and a loss to be incurred on the latter; and whether he has caused any investigations to be made with a view to ascertaining the probability of a rapid increase being made in the use of the air mail if the rates thereon wore substantially lowered?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Graham White): Air mail rates are fixed at the lowest figure consistent with avoiding an actual loss on the service; and while a substantial reduction in rates would no doubt lead to a growth in traffic, such a reduction cannot be given without appreciable loss, as there is no immediate prospect of a reduction in the costs of transport, many of which are fixed by international agreement. As regards the reason for the telegraph deficit, it is not possible within the limits of a reply to a question to deal with this matter, but my hon. and gallant Friend will find the matter fully discussed at various times during the course of Debates on the Post Office Estimates.
  Captain MACDONALDasked the Postmaster-General whether the preferential postage rates given on ordinary correspondence within the Empire are reflected in the rates charged on air-mail correspondence within and without the Empire; and, if not, for what reason such preference is not extended to Empire airmail correspondence?
  Mr. WHITE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative: the second part therefore does not arise.

  EGGS (PRICE).
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that farmers in Devonshire have been receiving eightpence a dozen for eggs and in Cornwall even less, while they are being sold in London at from 1s. 3d. to 1s. 6d.; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): The low prices quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend are probably those paid for ungraded eggs. The retail prices to which he refers are the highest prices paid for special weight eggs. A large proportion of the ungraded eggs retailed in London are being sold at 1s. a dozen. The margin between the prices at which eggs are purchased and sold is not, therefore, so wide as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests. The remedy rests to a large extent with the producers themselves.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is not the reason why the price paid is so low, largely owing to foreign dumping, and cannot anything be done to stop it?
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: Is it due to the fact that the hens are laying?

  HOUSING SUBSIDY.
  Sir PARK GOFFasked the Minister of Health whether, in the interests of economy, he will notify local authorities that the housing grants from public funds were not intended by this House to provide houses for persons in a position to pay economic rents or to buy houses through building societies, and that subsidy houses should be reserved for the wage earners for whom they were and are intended?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): The attention of local authorities was directed to this matter in the Annual Report of the Department for the year 1930–31. In his report for the year 1931–32 my right hon. Friend proposes to deal further with the maintenance of the principle that subsidised tenancies should not be provided for those who can afford to provide for themselves.
  Sir P. GOFF: Is my hon. Friend aware that this subsidy is being abused and that a careful scrutiny of the applicants would save some millions of national expenditure?
  Mr. BROWN: If my hon. Friend will look at page 98 of the Report to which I have referred, he will find the matter dealt with fully.

  WESTMINSTER CRYPT.
  Mr. BURNETTasked the First Commissioner of Works for what reason he proposes to retain the existing painting and tiling of Westminster Crypt (St. Mary's Chapel Undercroft)?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I fear I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on the 20th April last.
  Mr. BURNETT: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he asked me
  1772
  what were the decorations to which I objected?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If my hon. Friend will make representations to me, and see me about it, I will go further into the matter. But I cannot hold out any hope that public funds will be available to make any alteration in the crypt decorations.

  MINISTERS' POWERS.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLERasked the Prime Minister whether the Government proposes to take any and, if so, what action to carry out the recommendations of the committee on Ministers' powers and, in particular, those regarding the assignment of judicial functions to Ministers in matter affecting their own Departments?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The question put by my hon. and gallant Friend is one which cannot be decided hastily, and in the present state of business it cannot be dealt with before the House rises, but the Government will consider it as soon as possible after the summer Recess.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    BEER DUTY.
    Sir A. KNOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the output of British breweries, in standard barrels, for the first three months of 1931 and for the corresponding months of 1932, and state the extra sum obtained by the increased tax in this period?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on 6th April to the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks). As regards the second part, it is not possible to state what additional revenue the increased duty has produced, since this depends on what the consumption would have been had there been no increase.

    UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will

    1773
    explain why the Government has agreed to pay 4 per cent. interest on the postponed debts to the United States under the Hoover plan in view of the prevailing low rates for borrowed money?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the low rates on three months bills, but I would point out that the proposal to which he refers was authorised by the United States Congress on 22nd December, 1931, on the basis that the period of repayment was 10 years.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in a reply recently given, it was stated that the rate of interest was arrived at, not by a unilateral statement but by agreement? Have not the Government made any protest in respect of the rate of interest charged by the United States? That is my question.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. My hon. Friend's question is not that at all. If he will read it, he will see that the question is different. I have answered the question on the Paper.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Arising out of that reply, would my right hon. Friend now say whether or not any protest was made or any representations made in respect of the rate of interest?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; no protest was made.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: No representations?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No protest.
    Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: In view of the possibility that this House may not consent to the renewal of the War Debt payment to the United States, why make the position more difficult?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is entirely hypothetical.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether our agreement to pay 4 per cent. interest on the postponed debts to the United States under the Hoover plan was arrived at after consultation with France and Italy?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government gave instructions in regard
    1774
    to the signing of the agreement on the subject of the amounts due to the United States and suspended under President Hoover's Plan in the knowledge that similar action was being taken by the French and Italian Governments.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Has my right hon. Friend any knowledge as to when France and Italy propose to sign?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I require notice of that question.

    TAXATION (BICYCLES).
    Sir PERCY HURDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what revenue would be obtained from a tax of 2s. 6d. on bicycles; and whether any proposal for the taxation of bicycles has been under consideration?
    Major ELLIOT: As indicated in the answer given on the 3rd May by my right hon. Friend to the hon. and gallant Member for the Ashford Division (Captain Knatchbull), the information available is not sufficient to enable me to estimate the revenue which would be derived from a tax of 2s. 6d. on bicycles. It is safe to say, however, that the cost of collection and administration of such a tax would be comparatively high and the net yield, after allowing for probable exemptions and withdrawals from use, comparatively small.

    INCOME TAX (POTATO GROWERS).
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that potato dealer-growers are escaping from Income Tax and Super-tax upon their profits owing to the fact that their Income Tax is based on the rent paid to the farmer for his land and not on their profits; and what steps he proposes to compel payment on profits?
    Major ELLIOT: The position is not exactly as stated by the hon. Member. It is the case that under the provisions of the Income Tax Acts potato growers are assessable under Schedule B on the annual value of the land they occupy and not upon profits. Where, however, they also deal in potatoes, any profits arising in the course of such business are assessable under Schedule D. Any alteration of the basis of assessment would, of course, necessitate legislation.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (DIVISION LISTS).
  Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the average annual cost for the past three-years of printing the Division lists for each day in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons?
  Major ELLIOT: The average annual cost for the past three Sessions, namely, 1928–29, 1929–30 and 1930–31 of printing the Division lists for each day in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons was £1,800.
  Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend realise that each day this information is duplicated, appearing in the Votes and also in a more permanent form in the OFFICIAL REPORT; and, whether, having regard to the huge cost incurred, he will, in the interests of economy, consider the question of not printing the Division lists in the Votes?
  Major ELLIOT: That is, of course, a matter for the House. I understand that a Select Committee is now inquiring into these printing costs.
  Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend consider the desirability of recommending that the Division lists should not be printed at all?

  CHURCH ESTATES, PADDINGTON.
  Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON (for Mr. GOLDIE)asked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the amount of revenue received by the Commissioners for the year ended 31st October, 1931, from their estates in the borough of Paddington; the amount by which that revenue exceeds the revenue in the year ended 31st October, 1921; and the total amount received during that period from the renewal of leases on these estates?
  Mr. DENMAN: The revenue of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from estates in the borough of Paddington was for the year to 31st October, 1931, £69,694. This exceeded the corresponding rental of 1921 by £36,088. Practically the whole of this excess was derived from renewals of leases and in
  1776
  addition on these renewals in the 10 years capital premiums of about £4,500 were received.
  Captain A. RAMSAY: Does not this Paddington area come within the scope of the houses to which the Bishop of London referred as being ghastly?
  Mr. DENMAN: No, Sir, not the area from which this increase in revenue comes.
  Mr. G. NICHOLSON (for Mr. GOLDIE)asked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether he is aware of the defective condition of, and the overcrowding existing in, the estates controlled by the Commissioners in the borough of Paddington; what steps it is proposed to take to remedy the conditions; and, in particular, what sum it is proposed to expend during the current financial year in alterations and improvements?
  Mr. DENMAN: The allegation in this question appears to be that houses in the borough of Paddington under the control of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are suffering from overcrowding or defective conditions. Far from being aware of this, I invite the hon. Member either to substantiate the allegation or publicly to withdraw it.
  Mr. NICHOLSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a statement has been circulated in the London Diocesan Conference on this matter?
  Mr. DENMANHon. Members are aware that they are responsible for the allegations which they put into questions, and, if the hon. Member accepted the statements in that document, I am sorry for him, because the document is in several respects grossly misleading.
  Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Is it not the case that this area was described some 20 years ago, during the Booth inquiry, as the blackest spot in London; and is it not also the case that the area is occupied by tenants of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and that the conditions to which attention is called in this question are conditions for which the Eccesiastical Commissioners now retain responsibility?
  Mr. DENMAN: The question relates to property controlled by the Commissioners. I believe that there are houses in the area referred to which are overcrowded and which will pass into the control of the Commissioners about the year 3,800; and I can promise my hon. Friend that, if the Government are still in power, they shall be promptly dealt with.
  Mr. NICHOLSON—
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is turning into a debate.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (SECRETARY-GENERAL).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the advisability of proposing, with a view to securing as the next Secretary-General of the League of Nations a citizen of a nation wholly detached from European controversies, that an American should be appointed?
  Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: Before asking the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister the question that I intend to ask him, may I, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, offer him our congratulations, and also the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on their recovery, and express the hope that they will both be able to stand up to it for the future? I wish to ask how far the
right hon. Gentleman expects to go tonight if his Motion is carried.
The PRIME MINISTER: The suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule is being moved in order to make certain of obtaining the Third Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill. The Government would like to obtain the Second Reading of the Patents and Designs Bill [Lords] and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution for that Bill, as well as the Second Reading of the Marriage (Naval, Military and Air Force Chapels) Bill [Lords], but it is not the intention of the Government to keep the House sitting unduly late for the last part of this desire.
Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is my right hon. Friend yet in a position to say whether the Government will prorogue or adjourn when this part of this Session comes to an end? It is really becoming very important for some of us to know, who are interested in Bills now before Committee.
The PRIME MINISTER: I sympathise with my right hon. Friend, but I am very sorry that I am somewhat the cause of the delay in answering. I have only got back this morning, but I shall lose no time in putting myself in a position to answer the question.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 298; Noes, 36.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

    TITLE.
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I beg to move, in page 1, to leave out the words
    "and for charging on owners of property expenditure on improvements within areas to which schemes apply."
    The omission of these words is consequential upon the decision of the Standing Committee to omit Clause 22, which dealt with expenditure on public improvements in areas to which planning schemes applied. As that Clause has gone, this phrase in the Title goes too.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move,
    "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Clause and Amendment standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Minister of Health and in respect of the Amendments standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Greenwich and in the name of the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities."
    It is my intention to accept the Amendment to this Motion in the name of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood)—in line 2, to leave out the words "the Clause and Amendment," and to insert instead thereof the words "Clause six and the Clause"—and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) which will permit of a discussion on recommittal of an Amendment to Clause 26 in the hon. Member's name. I do this without prejudice to the merits of the Amendments which will be moved under the recommittal Motion, but I understand that the acceptance of these Amendments to that Motion is the only way of obtaining a free discussion upon a certain wide principle which the House has expressed a desire to discuss. There is, I believe, only one wide question on the merits of Clause 6 to be discussed, which can no doubt be satisfactorily dealt with on the first Amendment.
    Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out the words
    1786
    "the Clause and Amendment," and to insert instead thereof the words "Clause six and the Clause."
    I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for indicating that he will accept my Amendment, so that we can have a general discussion on Clause 6. We do not wish to repeat all the arguments and Debates on all the Amendments that were raised in Committee. We are interested primarily in the question of the scope of the Bill. There is another question in regard to procedure which is covered by an Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hems-worth (Mr. Price)—in page 5, line 26, after the word "resolution," to insert the words
    "applying to any land not within the district or, as the case may be, districts aforesaid."
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
    Proposed words there inserted.
    Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: I beg to move, in line 5, at the end, to add the words:
    "and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 26 standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Southampton."
    The Amendment to Clause 26 relates to land which is included in the resolution to town plan and is scheduled as an open space. Land which is so scheduled is in an entirely different category from that of any other land which appears within the area of the resolution, and I submit that in this particular case—
    Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Do I understand Mr. Speaker, that you have passed over the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) and my name—in line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
    "and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 6 standing in the name of the hon. Member for St. Albans."
    I thought that the Minister of Health indicated that on the recommittal of the Bill it would be a proper occasion to discuss it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That Amendment is covered by the first Amendment to the Motion of the Minister of Health. We have included the whole of Clause 6.
    Miss RATHBONE: Would you, Mr. Speaker, kindly explain at what point there will be an opportunity for the wide discussion on the recommittal which we were promised on the Report stage?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not remember any promise for a wide discussion in Committee except on the actual Amendments which will be moved and which are included in the recommitttal Motion. These are the only subjects that will be open for discussion on the Committee stage.
    Miss RATHBONE: The Minister of Health said just now that he accepted the Amendment because it was the only way of giving an opportunity for a wide discussion, but where is the wide discussion to take place? It has already taken place in Standing Committee, and the matter has been carried on further. Is a wide discussion to take place again in the House, and, if so, at what stage?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill is to be recommitted in respect of Clause 6 and Amendments to Clause 26. These are the only two subjects on which there will be an opportunity for discussion.
    Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: I urge that my Amendment should be accepted.
    Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Ordered,
    "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of Clause six and the Clause standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Minister of Health and in respect of the Amendments standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Greenwich and in the name of the hon. Member for the- Scottish Universities, and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 26 standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Southampton."
    Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
    [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

    TITLE.

      CLAUSE 2.—(Local authority for purposes of Act.)
      Sir GEORGE HUME: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, to leave out the words
      1788
      "the London County Council and," and to insert instead thereof the words:
      "as respects the City of London, the Common Council of that City, as respects the county of London, the London County Council, and elsewhere."
      When this matter was before the Committee an Amendment was put down on behalf of the City of London to provide that the City should have the power to exercise a veto on any town planning scheme made by the London County Council which affected the City area. At that time there had been no opportunity for consultation between the London County Council and the City Corporation, and those of us who are interested in the Clause from the London County Council point of view said that we would not oppose it at that stage, but would reserve our right to raise the question on Report stage, the object being to enable the City Corporation and the London County Council to get into contact. It seemed very undesirable that two such authorities should be at loggerheads over a matter of this kind, which we were quite sure could be arranged in a friendly way. That contact was made. Several suggestions were made to the City Corporation,, and finally we came to an agreement by which the City Corporation should be its own town planning authority as regards the City area and the London County Council the authority for the rest of the county. Our objection to the City Corporation having a veto is that it would be inconvenient that one local authority should be vetoing another. An immense amount of work has to be done in preparing a town planning scheme, and for one authority to come in afterwards and possibly upset everything would cause great inconvenience and cost. It is better that each should be responsible for its own area, and if that were so I am certain that two bodies like the City Corporation and the London County Council would certainly get into contact at the very earliest stage, in order to put their heads together to see that their arrangements did not clash and that they were working together for the benefit of the whole area. The agreement come to provided, putting it broadly, that the City Corporation was to be the town planning authority for its own area; and then there were these qualifications:

      1789

      (1) That the expenditure of the London County Council as town planning authority should continue to be treated as a general county charge.

      (2) That where a scheme made by the City Corporation is consequential upon and forms a necessary part of a general scheme made by the London County Council the cost of the whole scheme, including so much thereof as affects the City Corporation, should be borne rateably by the administrative county as a whole; subject to any question of difference arising between the Corporation and the Council as to whether or not a scheme made by the Corporation is reasonably consequential upon and forms a necessary part of a general scheme made by the Council being referred to a determination by the Minister.

      (3) That arrangements with regard to schemes affecting both the Council and the City Corporation and complementary to one another shall be discussed and worked out in detail before final schemes are formulated.

      This creates no new precedent, because the City already is an authority on its own in connection with housing schemes, for example, and so on; and I venture to think we are fortunate indeed to have the representatives of the City combining with those who are interested in the London County Council to bring this arrangement before the Committee and I hope it will be agreed to.
      Sir PERCY HARRIS: I do not want to make any difficulties, because I know how jealous the City of London is about its ancient privileges, how very sensitive it is about the new body, the County Council, butting in or interfering in the City area, but I do not think the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) is quite right in his precedents. After all, the proper precedent is the London Building Act, which applies right throughout the county area. Before I agree to come into this arrangement I would like to be satisfied, and I think the Committee are entitled to be satisfied, about the distribution of the financial burden. The City has within it the highest assessable value in the whole of London, and surely it is proper that the City should pay its scot and lot of any expenditure that arises out of the administration of this Act. The hon. Member for Greenwich was not quite fair. He read his memorandum—I suppose that in a matter of such high policy he felt he ought to stick to the bare written word, and would not venture into the ordinary spoken word, in which region he is exceptionally clear. Suppose an improvement carried
      1790
      out under the Town Planning Act involves the London County Council in expenditure for Greenwich, to take a practical example.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMN: I must point out to the Committee that, if this Amendment is carried, there will be a consequential Amendment to Clause 44 dealing with the apportionment of expenses as between the Common Council of the City of London and the London County Council. If it is for the convenience of the Committee to have a general discussion now on the question whether the Common Council of the City of London should or should not be a town planning authority, and, consequently, how expenses fall to be borne by it, I have no objection to that course; but, if this matter is discussed now, it cannot be discussed again on Clause 44.
      Sir H. YOUNG: The suggestion you have made, Captain Bourne, seems to me to be an extremely wise one. All these matters are closely linked together, and may be disposed of in one discussion.
      4.0 p.m.
      Sir P. HARRIS: I will undertake not to repeat my arguments on the subsequent Amendment. I was putting a practical example to the hon. Member for Greenwich. Suppose there is a town-planning scheme in Greenwich and that involves expenditure. Will the City of London, with the rest of London—Whitechapel, Hammersmith, Hampstead and all the other boroughs—bear its share of the cost of that town-planning scheme? If not, is it a bad bargain for the rest of London; because the probability of a town-planning scheme inside the City area is almost remote? The City is already built up, and I cannot imagine any expensive town-planning scheme inside the City walls. If I am correct, then the City of London is making a very good bargain for the ratepayers and owners of property in the City of London, and may be making a very bad bargain for all the poor boroughs round about the City who will equally not have town planning schemes applying to them, but will have to bear the cost of a town planning scheme for places like Greenwich, Woolwich and other places on the outskirts of London likely to be town planned. I am all in favour of doing abeyance to the privileges of the City of

      1791
      London on one condition, that it is not at the cost of the rest of the ratepayers of London. I do not want to interfere with those rights, which date back centuries, but I do object if the rest of London has to pay extra rates in order to protect those rights. I think that the hon. Member for Greenwich ought to make it clear that this bargain is not going to cost the rest of London a heavy toll on its rates.
      Sir G. HUME: I thought that in reading out the agreement which has been come to, the matter was clear. I take it the position is, that if the City, as the town planning authority, on its own initiative plans a City area not affecting the general county, the City bears the expense. Where the expenditure is that of the London County Council as the town planning authority—take the case of Greenwich—that would be treated as a general county charge. Where a scheme made by the City Corporation is consequential upon, and forms a necessary part of a general scheme made by the London County Council, the cost of the whole scheme, including so much of it as affects the City Corporation, will be borne rate-ably by the administrative county as a whole, subject to any question of difference arising as to whether it is consequential or not.
      Sir H. YOUNG: The House may expect a word from me on this important Amendment. I think it need only be in the way of congratulation both to the County Council and to the Corporation for the wisdom and mutual forbearance which they have shown in arriving at an arrangement which, I am sure, will commend itself to the Committee as a wise arrangement. We may congratulate ourselves also upon being relieved of the painful necessity of acting as arbiter between the two authorities.
      Amendment agreed to.

      CLAUSE 6.—(Preparation or adoption of schemes.)
      The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:
      In page 5, line 26, to leave out Subsection (2).—[Mr. Greenwood.]
      After the word "resolution," to insert the words:
      "applying to any land not within the district or, as the case may be, districts aforesaid."—[Mr. Price.]
      In line 35, after the word "expedient," to insert the words:
      "or that there is danger that gradual changes may take place in the use of the_ land within the area of the scheme or in the character of any buildings thereon of such nature and to such extent as would in the course of time be liable to prejudice existing property or its amenities or satisfactory redevelopment of the land."
      In line 40, to leave out paragraph (b).
      In page 6, line 6, at the end, to insert the words:
      "or that there is danger that from time to time the erection of buildings or change in use of existing buildings may take place to such an extent as would be liable to injure rural amenities."—[Sir F. Fremantle.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before I call on the right hon. Member for Wake-field (Mr. Greenwood) to move his Amendment, I would refer to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price) and: to the three Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle). They all raise the question of built-up areas under Subsection (2). I think it might be convenient to the Committee if we had a general Debate on the first Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman on the whole principle of the Sub-section, reserving the right of hon. Members to move and divide on their Amendments if they wish to do so subsequently.
      Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 5, line 26, to leave out Sub-section (2).
      I am sure that your suggestion, Captain Bourne, will meet with the approval of the Committee. I move to leave out Sub-section (2) because since the Bill left the House after its Second Reading, what many people regard as a very substantial change has been made in the Bill. Clause 6 as it now appears before the Committee is different from Clause 6 as it left the House on Second Reading. It has, in fact, been restricted in its scope. That I regard as being a most serious Amendment to the Bill, and it is right that before we pass from this subject the Committee should either reaffirm its old decision, or quite openly and de-

      1793
      liberately scrap its old decision and endorse the change which was made in Committee upstairs. The Bill of 1931 empowered, under conditions laid down, the planning of all land, both built-up areas and undeveloped land not covered by previous legislation. That Bill, as many hon. Members will remember, got an unopposed Second Reading, and, so far as the scope of the Bill was concerned, it emerged from the Committee unimpaired. Had it been possible to bring the Bill back on the Report stage to that House of Commons, I have not the slightest doubt myself that the House would have re-affirmed its decision to include all land within the scope of town planning schemes. I say that in the presence of the present Postmaster-General, who, with his accustomed modesty, is sitting far below the Gangway, and who knows that that would have been the case. And that was so, I suppose, because in nearly a score of cases Parliament, in local Acts, has given local authorities powers which imposed no limitation whatever on the kind of land which they should be allowed to plan.
      The present Bill is substantially the Bill as it was left by the Labour Government with the Amendments which were made in Committee. It arrived in this House as a legacy from the late Parliament as a Bill which was an agreed Bill. I wish the Postmaster-General would come a little further into the House, because he could bear me out. For the second time, the principles were accepted. There was no Division. It is true that on the Second Reading sparrows twittered. But they had not the courage to challenge a Division. The general sense of the House was in favour of the principle of the Bill, and the major principle of the Bill was that town planning should now be able to cover all land, irrespective of whether it was developed or not built-upon. Unfortunately, as has been observed by a body which is interested in this question—the National Housing and Town Planning Council—what it calls "a strong and well-organised opposition to its main principles" manifested itself at an early stage in Standing Committee. Certain Members of the Committee prominently occupying the third bench above the Gangway were Members of the Committee last year. If they were not
      1794
      restrained then, they were at least overwhelmed and out-voted by the votes of their more enlightened colleagues in the Conservative party some of whom are now in the House, including, as I must remark again, the Postmaster-General himself. Not being satisfied, they have, quite rightly, returned to the charge, and deliberately sought to restrict the scope of the Bill.
      I would point out to the Committee that, prior to the introduction of the original Bill, there had been prolonged consultations with practically every kind of organisation and every kind of interests affected by it, not merely the local authorities, but bodies representing the landowners and the land agents, bodies interested in town planning and professional organisations. It may be that there was not absolutely universal agreement, but at least there was among all those varied interests who were concerned, general agreement as regards the scope which town and country planning should in future take, and the views of those people have not altered. Hon. Members who have been responsible for this very substantial change in the Bill have no real representative capacity in this matter. I thought, perhaps, that they might be speaking for certain landed interests, but I find that when the Minister three months ago received a. deputation on this question, neither the Land Agents' Society nor the Central Landowners' Association, who represent a considerable majority of landowners, had suggested any alteration to Clause 6 to curtail the scope of planning.
      It is clear, therefore, that recalcitrant supporters of the National Government cannot claim to represent the organised landed interests of this country, and, even more so, they cannot claim to represent the views of local authorities and regional and town planning authorities in this country. It is equally certain that they cannot claim to represent the views of bodies like the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and other bodies of that kind which have done so much to promote a healthy interest in this subject. Indeed, they speak only for themselves. At the best, they speak for a little knot of Diehard Tories. They can claim no authority from their own party. They can claim no authority from

      1795
      the Liberal party. They can claim no authority from any group represented in the National Government.
      Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: As a matter of accuracy, may I point out that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) represents the Diehard Whigs—not Tories.
      Mr. GREENWOOD: I believe that is a distinction that we may have to re-introduce into the currency of politics to-day, but we do not want to quarrel about terms. Let us call it a Diehard group. They do represent a Diehard group, not representative of the general body of Conservative opinion.
      Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: The right hon. Gentleman might tell us whom he represents.
      Mr. GREENWOOD: On this matter, I happen to represent enlightened public opinion. I have already explained to the hon. and learned Member that outside this House there are local authorities who, without exception, support the Bill as introduced. Every professional organisation, every propagandist organisation interested in this matter, the Central Landowners' Association, and the land agents have not asked for this Amendment. I have a right to say that I do represent enlightened public opinion in this matter. I should be sorry to pretend to represent that little group of Diehards who have forced their will upon the Minister. The Minister has had time to reflect about this matter. He introduced the Bill so that it should apply to all land, but he had to capitulate to this little group of backwoodsmen who represent nobody but themselves.
      Marquess of HARTINGTON: On a point of Order, is an hon. Member entitled to suggest that any hon. Member represents anyone except his own constituents?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood the right hon. Member to say that certain hon. Members represented no interest whatever. It is better not to make suggestions of that kind, but at any rate they do not contravene the Rules of the House.
      Mr. GREENWOOD: I think I was careful to say, "representing the views." If
      1796
      the Noble Lord had listened carefully he would know that I said that it is unfortunate that the Minister should have made this concession and capitulated on this Bill to the little group who were slapped very hard by their own leaders in the House of Commons last year. What has happened in fact is that this Bill has been butchered to make a holiday for the Diehard Tories. [Interruption.] Their hostility is to the whole principle of town planning. They have sought to wound the Bill in its most vital part; indeed, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), who showed great courage in speaking on a Scottish Amendment that the Bill should be confined to England and should not apply to Scotland, expressed the view that he would prefer the Bill—not merely a little bit of the Bill, but the Bill—to be confined to Scotland, because he said he hated the principle of the Bill. That is the motive.
      Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. All I did was to applaud the admirable suggestion made by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to leave England out of the Bill.
      Mr. GREENWOOD: That is so. That was hailed with great enthusiasm. That simply makes my point.
      Mr. BEAUMONT: I am not disputing the point.
      Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman. It is true that he said he hated the principle of the Bill. This is the kind of levity with which this serious subject has been treated. The Noble Lord in Standing Committee moved an Amendment, I thought rather unnecessarily, to leave out "April 1st" and to insert All Fools' Day." [Interruption.] He was so proud of this that he had to bring it into the discussion last night. The hon. Member for Aylesbury had an Amendment at an earlier stage to change the date of the operation of the Bill, and he said that he believed that if the Minister had been able to accept it it would have done the one thing that he wanted to do, and which he had in mind, that is restore some of the old England of the past.
      I could not help thinking and feeling at the time that it was a most appro-

      1797
      priate Amendment to come from a Member of the Diehard group. They have come back to the House on the Report stage and tried on the old game. The House has turned them down time and time again. Yesterday, I tried to help them, but they were defeated. They have not got a single further concession. The House is against them. Why? Because they know that hon. Members who are responsible for curtailing the powers in the Bill dislike the whole of the Bill, lock, stock and barrel, and it is very unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman should have given way to them so early as he did. If the Minister believed that the Bill, as introduced, was right, then he ought to have stuck to his guns, and I am satisfied that the House of Commons would have supported him. If he believes that he made a mistake, then I suggest that he ought not to have introduced the Bill until he had made up his mind as to what he was going to stand by when it came to a fight. There is no doubt that the Minister's concession has been received by that interested section of the public with nothing short of consternation. Hon. Members will be aware of the conference, which Was very hastily called by the National Housing and Town Planning Council because of what had happened in Standing Committee. The Resolution showed how deeply disturbed they were because of the curtailment that had taken place in the powers given under the Bill. Their view was expressed thus:
      "The conference, after careful consideration of the whole situation, records the opinion that the Amendment made in Clause 6 of the Bill will seriously prejudice, and in many cases render impossible, the effective replanning of built-up areas, and the preservation of amenities in rural areas,"
      and the resolution goes on to ask that the Government shall bring back the purpose of the Bill to its original intention. That is the view expressed at a very large conference of local authorities and other representative bodies, by people who thought that a serious disservice had been done by the Minister's capitulation to the little knot of gentlemen who now decorate the third bench above the Gangway. [Interruption.] The word "decorate" has more than one implication. I think it is right to say that instructed opinion has developed even more strongly as the time
      1798
      has gone by. It is of little use for the Minister to say that this does not damage the Bill, and does not hurt the prospects of town planning, because everybody else who understands the question is satisfied that it does. I cannot see him in the line of prophets who stand against the world as one who is right when everybody else is wrong. I must regard with seriousness the views of our great local authorities and of bodies who have made town and country planning their special province. It may be that the local authorities are primarily concerned with their own areas, and not specially with rural areas, but from inquiries I have made it is clear that those who understand the application of town and country planning to the rural areas believe that the effect of the restrictions will be to leave large areas of ordinary agricultural land outside the scheme. I have no doubt that many hon. Members have read the statement of one who was for a long time a Member of this House—Sir Leslie Scott—on that side of the question, and I would commend to hon. Members a very powerful plea made by Lord Phillimore at the Bonar Law College, Ashridge, which must be a highly respectable place, when he spoke on "Agriculture and the Preservation of the Countryside." He asked whether the Amendment, which was the chief Amendment on Clause 6, has been helpful or the reverse to agriculture, and he went on to say:
      "It is an argument of Sir Henry Cautley and those who are acting with him "—
      [Interruption.] I am sorry the hon. and learned Member is not with his colleagues on the other side.
      Sir H. CAUTLEY: I think the right hon. Member ought to explain what he means by "acting."
      Mr. GREENWOOD: My consideration of the Reports of the Standing Committee seem to show that their hearts beat as one. I believe there is a certain community of interest between the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) and the people who decorate the third bench above the Gangway. To resume my quotation from Lord Phillimore's speech:
      "It is an argument of Sir Henry Cautley, and those who are acting with him that it was not necessary to subject those areas to the restriction where there was no chance of development taking place."

      1799
      Then Lord Phillimore goes on:
      "Well, of course, this leaves a good deal of latitude for the Minister—too much I think. How is the poor man "—
      [Interruption.] I hope the Minister will not mind, because I am simply quoting from Lord Phillimore—
      "How is the poor man to know where development is likely to take place? If I knew that, I should make a lot of money. I don't think I know any district in the Southern half of England where development is positively not going to take place. In most cases it depends upon who, for pecuniary or other reasons, is forced to sell his land. It depends, too, on how much the market for land is already glutted within that particular area."
      4.30 p.m.
      He goes on and makes a very strong plea for the consideration of the Bill as it stood before in the interests of agriculture and the countryside, as indeed, one of the means of really saving the countryside. In view of the arguments which have been adduced by supporters of the Bill, and by people who are interested in this problem and stand outside all political parties, I hope that the House will come back to its original position, one which was affirmed last year and reaffirmed this year and one which was on previous occasions affirmed by the representatives of local areas. It is clear that planning ought to precede development. It ought not to follow on the heels of development; it ought not to scramble hurriedly immediately in front of it, because that means bad planning, and that means that neither local authorities nor individual landholders can look ahead. If planning means anything at all, it means looking as far ahead as you reasonably can and making your plan, and, as time goes on and circumstances change, altering the scheme within the general framework. Long-distance planning, I believe, is a wise policy. Long-distance planning has been crippled by the Amendment accepted by the Minister. I sympathise with his difficulties on the Standing Committee. I can understand how hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite, soaked as they were in 23 days of discussion last year, came armed to the teeth with all their arguments against the Bill. They had, in a way, a start of the Minister, which was a little unfortunate; but I should hope that the Minister will be prepared on this
      1800
      question to take the free unfettered view of this Committee here. [Interruption.] If there were a free and unfettered vote, I am quite satisfied as to what the result would be. If Members of the House of Commons representing a National Government really want to express here a national point of view on a particular problem, they have an opportunity of doing so now, when everybody outside is united—[Interruption.] I am not speaking of the ignoramuses and people who are not interested; I am speaking, as I have said, of bodies who can claim to be regarded with respect. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may, if they like, be contemptuous of local authorities; I am not. These great bodies who have been doing this work have a right to be considered; people and organisations whose energies are directed to this problem, and who understand it and its implications, have a right to be heard; and I say that, if the House wishes to express national instructed opinion to-day, it will agree to the deletion of this Sub-section and allow the Bill to stand as it was originally introduced.
      Sir F. FREMANTLE: I wish to support this Amendment from an angle rather different from that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wake-field (Mr. Greenwood). In fact, before this Amendment was put down by him, I put it down independently, and, if I had seen that his name was attached to it, I am not quite sure that I should have added my own, because, unfortunately, the angle from which he has approached it—quite rightly from his point of view—raises party feeling, and takes the question away from the really businesslike point of view. I speak for those who who have wished to support the Minister in his Bill all the way through, and who, I must point out to the Committee, were in a position of peculiar difficulty in putting their case, because certain of my hon. and Noble Friends organised a very strong opposition to the Bill, saying in most cases, although with some variations, that they would oppose the Bill root and branch. As they were thus organised, and very well instructed by the Property Owners' Association, whom they represent more especially, it was up to the Minister and, I think, five other Government Ministers who supported him in the Committee, to defend their Bill. Obviously, therefore, the less that was

      1801
      said by those who supported the Bill the better, but many of my hon. Friends, who were as keen as anyone could be on promoting town planning, and especially those who were new Members of the House, were boiling with rage at the fact that again and again speeches were delivered by my hon. and Noble Friends who were opposed to the Bill, and the others stood no chance; and then it was thrown in their teeth that no one had spoken for the Bill. My Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) did an ignoble thing last night when he said that no one had spoken for the Measure on Report. He knows perfectly well that the job of those who are supporting Ministers is to keep quiet and vote straight.
      I hope that the House, now in Committee here, will look upon the matter from a fresh and detached point of view. It is true that the whole question of town planning is at stake in this Measure, and I say without hesitation that all who have studied and have had great experience with measures of town planning, whether they be voluntary societies or local authorities, unanimously support this Bill as it was originally introduced, and almost unanimously regret the introduction of this Sub-section. They regret the influence that the Property Owners' Association and their representatives have had on this Bill, and they support the deletion of this Sub-section in order to get back to the position as it was before the Bill left the House and went to the Committee. I am asked by the Association of Municipal Corporations particularly to bring forward two further Amendments which I have put down later on the Paper. The Association, although they would wish the Bill to be restored absolutely, without Sub-section (2) of Clause 6, feel that, if the Minister will not grant that concession, they would at least like to see included, definitely and in words, provision for the possibility of gradual changes which may be overlooked as the Sub-section stands at the moment. Therefore, I have put down an Amendment providing for the inclusion of such gradual changes in town planning schemes. Do any of my hon. and Noble Friends who are opposed to the Bill or to this Amendment dare stand up to the association which represents the municipal corporations whom they represent, and say that it is wrong?
      Mr. M. BEAUMONT: Yes, certainly.
      Sir F. FREMANTLE: My hon. Friend does not represent one of the municipal corporations. I am speaking for the municipal corporations, who apply large minds to this subject, who have officials who are able to give their minds to it, and a large number of councillors and aldermen who have given voluntary service and who include many persons of the highest possible intelligence, even as high as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont). I say without hesitation that, if my hon. Friend and others who are opposed to my Amendment were to meet them face to face, they would not be able in fair debate to hold their own with those who represent the municipal corporations. The municipal corporations are opposed to the inclusion of this Sub-section because they know that they must have every possible power to deal with an evil that is growing. This question of town planning is not simply one of artistic merit. We are dealing with a matter which is developing every day, and in connection with which mischief is being done every day. Those who raised last night the question of economy, striking a sympathetic chord in every one of our breasts, did so without realising what they are really up against. The object of this Measure is that there may be control, reorganisation, and, as the Minister said yesterday, foresight.
      I have no particular means of estimating the value of the work that is being done, even in a year like this, on developing, building, Toad making, and laying out in one way or another, but I suppose it would be generally agreed that it would not be excessive to say that probably £10,000,000 a year is being spent throughout the country on this business of developing. I suppose everyone knows of cases in which buildings that have been up only 10, or 20, or 50 years are being pulled down by pickaxe and hammer because they stand in the way of development. It is pitiful to see some of these houses which have been built even since the War being pulled down because they are in the way of some other form of development. How are we to stop this waste which is going on in. front of our very eyes? Surely, the way is to have a plan. Everybody knows that a plan is necessary, and everyone knows

      1803
      that a plan requires a certain amount of work and that that work must be paid for. Last night my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said that he knew of one plan which had cost as much as £2,000, and he considered that this whole Measure would cost as much as £100,000 a year. Given that maximum estimate of £100,000 a year—
      Mr. M. BEAUMONT: Minimum estimate.
      Sir F. FREMANTLE: Maximum estimate as he gave it yesterday. He did not give it as either a minimum or a maximum, but I have not the least doubt that he put it as a maximum.
      Mr. BEAUMONT: I know that my hon. and gallant Friend does not want to misrepresent me. If he will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that I was putting £100,000 as the lowest possible figure, and I said that it would probably be 10 times that amount.
      Sir F. FREMANTLE: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has made such a bad amendment of his original suggestion. If he reads his own words, he will find that his original estimate was probably the more accurate one. Assuming that the expenditure is £100,000 a year on a business involving £10,000,000 a year, who will say that that is excessive for what is called rationalisation or bringing up to date? I am not going to enlarge on that subject, because everyone recognises the necessity for town planning. That being the case, we come to this particular point in the Amendment, and I want to quote the Minister of Health himself. The Minister said in Committee that the Amendment which is now incorporated in the Bill would exclude static lands, and that the effect of the second part would be the same with regard to rural land—it would exclude the merely static areas. I say that there are no static areas in this country at the present time. It depends upon what you call static areas, but I want the Committee to understand that in this matter of building and developing the country, especially on the wider basis of the road motor services which are now available, we are rapidly developing, and, in doing so, we are playing with fire. I will give figures relating to one or two cases.
      1804
      Take, for instance, the case of Ken Wood. Who does not know that magnificent possession on the heights of Hampstead, acquired for the public with infinite trouble and at enormous expense only a few years ago? Probably 100 years ago no one would have thought that any necessity for town planning would arise there, and under Sub-section (2) of Clause 6 as it now figures in the Bill there would be no chance of its being carried out. I suppose that then the land was worth, perhaps, about £50 an acre. What was the price that it fetched owing to the fact that there had been no town planning? When it eventually became public property, the public had to pay for it, if I remember aright, something like £1,000 an acre. That process is going on all the time.
      Another case is that of Welwyn Garden City. That was designed as an experimental example, to be copied in part or in whole, as might be required, by other developers. That area was bought at about £40 an acre 12 years ago. The cost of development has varied according to the situation, but it may be put roughly at from £600 to £700 per acre for roads, sewers and other services over the estate, so that an area costing £40 an acre is now worth about £650 an acre. In the central part of the town, however, the value goes up enormously. There, next to the station, which was only opened five years ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is what is becoming a street, and places have been taken by three banks. For the last of them, the independent valuation of the district valuer, agreed to by the banks, works out at no less than an average of £32,000 an acre. There, in 10 years, you have land going up from £40 to £32,000 an acre in value. Who shall say that that is static? But it might have been considered static if the Bill were passed in its present form. That development is going on the whole time, and one cannot afford to delay. I should like to quote from one who was then one of the Members for Birmingham and was Chairman of the committee on slum areas. He afterwards became Minister of Health and is-now Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is what he said in 1927, addressing a meeting of the Manchester and District Joint Town Planning Advisory Committee:
      "On the basis on which we are working now, it is not safe to leave any corner of

      1805
      old England unplanned, however remote it may seem to be from development to-day, and we shall not be content until every square inch of the country, from Land's End to John o' Groat's, is the subject of a town plan of some kind."
      He went further and said:
      "You are preaching to the converted. Very early in one of my town-planning schemes in Birmingham I had to deal with an area the greater part of which was undeveloped but which contained certain spots already built over, and I was harassed and exasperated at finding that those built-up spots could not be included in the town plan."
      Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MAN-NINGHAM-BULLER: Surely that would be included in the Bill without accepting the Amendment?
      Sir F. FREMANTLE: "Every corner from Land's End to John o'Groats." My hon. and gallant Friend has forgotten that.
      Sir M. MANNINGHAM-BULLER: That is not the point that I was dealing with. I was dealing with the last example that my hon. Friend gave of a town where development is hampered owing to the fact that there were a few old existing buildings there.
      Sir F. FREMANTLE: I am glad my hon. and gallant Friend has raised the question, because I do not want to deceive the Committee. One does not want to exaggerate the case. There are many cases where this kind of development is likely to take place, and therefore they will come under this Bill. I have a large number. If only this were a lecture, one could give instances with photographs, but, despite the entreaties of my hon. and gallant Friend, I will not do so. It is clear that there are instances over and over again to which the Bill, under this Sub-section, would not apply. I shall be glad if the Minister will reassure me on this point. Take an ordinary residential area consisting of suburban houses with nice little gardens, built perhaps 40 or 50 years ago. It is quiet, with no traffic going through it and no commercial development of any kind, lying in what used to be the outskirts of a town which are now incorporated in the town. Would that be considered ripe for development? If it is, what is the good of the limitation? Surely that, above all things, will be considered likely to be developed in the near future—to use the actual words:
      1806
      "or other development is likely to take place within such a period of time and on such a scale as to make the inclusion of the land in a scheme expedient."
      Sir M. MANNINGHAM-BULLER: The Clause that my hon. Friend has read deals with rural areas. The point that he was discussing is a residential area in town.
      Sir F. FREMANTLE: The actual wording is:
      "in the case of land which is neither already built upon nor in course of development nor likely to be developed."
      That deals with rural areas. What I quoted, paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2), deals with urban areas. I have here a case in which, a stable having been given up, it was started as a petrol garage, which may not be hideous, but which in this case involved intense trouble to the neighbouring residents, and two of the houses alongside it became vacant in consequence. I will only give another instance. The making of an arterial road knocked off a corner, and, as a result, a small shop which had been established between two residential houses became a corner shop. There is a case where there was no idea of an area being marked for development, and yet almost at once it became a busy corner, and the result was that several houses close by are now vacant and have gone down in price. With the present rapidity of development, you can never know what is going to be developed and what is not, at least in a town area.
      The only way in which you can really plan properly is to plan for a whole town. Of course, you will not plan in detail for the whole town. You will naturally only plan in outline and fill in your outline as and when required. But you want to have a grip over the whole area, and then you can deal with it as and when required. I am afraid, if the Sub-section remains, you will still have development going on in certain areas, and there will come trouble, and, what is more abiding, trouble which you cannot overtake, especially if it takes the form of reinforced concrete and large buildings which cannot be dealt with by a subsequent scheme. May I take an analogy from Army manoeuvres? I was often struck in the old days by the fact that

      1807
      various neighbourhoods had to be removed from the area of manoeuvres because, perhaps, there were woodlands which the owners did not want the troops to go through, and it spoilt the whole idea. My hon. and gallant Friend would realise the impossibility of waging war if there were a bit taken off here and a bit taken off there and yet he had to go on with his plan of campaign. It is the same with town planning. We are face to face with what may be an enemy. It is a constant force manifesting itself in intense development, in which immense loss is going to take place to industry generally as well as to amenities, both in the towns and in the country, unless we have the power to plan. I want the Minister to be given power to allow these things to be included. He will knock them out if they are irrelevant. He will remove certain parts which are unnecessary, but I want him to have a free hand. Unless you are unrestricted in covering the whole ground, your scheme is bound to fall short of requirements. From all these points of view, I hope we shall get the unimpeded possibilities of the Bill as it left the House on Second Reading.
      Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Had I not read this Clause and the Bill, I should probably have come to the conclusion, after hearing the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) that Clause 6 (2) was intended to prevent town planning. The Clause in no way interferes with town planning. It is only intended to give safeguards to the community as a whole, and, in particular, to the owners of property. I make no apology to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield because I am responsible for the Amendment which has produced this new Clause. I am as anxious as he is for town planning. I was determined, when I went to the Standing Committee, to do what I could to make a bad Socialist Bill into a workable Measure, and I think, with the assistance of the Committee and with the very close co-operation and assistance of the Minister of Health, the Bill now gives local authorities opportunities of planning in a better way than the 1925 Act did.
      1808
      It is improper to refer to my colleagues on the Front Bench and myself as representing any particular organisation. I represent no organisation. I have never been in communication with any organisation. My Amendment was put on the Order Paper simply based on the experience that I have had of town planning. Having been in contact with local authorities who were not fully acquainted with the conditions required under the Town Planning Act of 1925, which has created many hardships for property owners and liabilities for ratepayers, I intended to do my best to provide safeguards for the parties concerned. After all, Clause 2 says a local authority shall not have its resolution approved until it has bad the confirmation of the Ministry of Health. That is confined to two particular groups of property, to built-up areas, which are now included in town planning, and rural areas. There is nothing to prevent either of these categories of property being developed. As far as I have been able to judge, there has not been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield or by the hon. Member for St. Albans a single objection of a tangible nature which would justify the deletion of this new Clause. We have had a. tremendous lot said about town planning but nothing has been said upon this Subsection. The Committee would be very ill-advised to be influenced by the arguments put forward by these two Members. In the interests of town planning, which is most essential from Land's End to John o' Groats, I suggest that they give the Minister their support on this Sub-section.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. PRICE: I support the Amendment and trust that the Minister will give serious consideration to the obstacles which will be put in the way of efficient town planning if the Bill passes in its present form. I am very pleased that the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) has informed us as to whom our hon. Friends on the third Government bench above the Gangway were representing in Standing Committee A. As a Member of that Committee, it was pretty evident to me in the very early stages of our deliberations.
      Mr. M. BEAUMONT: Is it in order for the hon. Member to suggest that my

      1809
      hon. Friends and I represent any particular body? I represent no one but my own opinion and the opinion of common sense outside.
      Mr. PRICE: I do not think that any hon. Member in this House can say that I have attributed the representation of any particular section to the hon. Members opposite. I had not got to that stage. I was thanking the hon. Member for St. Albans who has told us whom they represent. For once I have backed a winner. He told us that they represent the owners.
      Marquess of HARTINGTON: The hon. Member has quoted my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) and may I say, on behalf of myself and those hon. Members with whom I am acting, that we do not represent any particular association. I did not wish to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans, but I now say that it was absolutely without foundation to say that I had any connection with the Property Owners' Association, and the hon. Gentleman opposite is not justified in quoting it.
      Mr. PRICE: The hon. Gentleman informed us that it was so, and, if he was wrong, it does not remove the fact that the views of the hon. Gentlemen which were put forward in Standing Committee certainly led me to think that it was so. But I will accept what the hon. Member says. I think that any hon. Member of the Committee who has taken part in town planning under the old Acts of Parliament will agree that if the Bill is allowed to go through with Sub-section (2) still included it will take away the opportunity of having town and country planning dealt with efficiently, and 20 or 30 years from now there will be the same difficult circumstances as those which have faced us when we have endeavoured to deal with town planning in the past. If the Amendment is accepted—and it ought to be—we shall have a Bill which will give for the first time greater power to the linking up of a large number of authorities, including the county councils, for town and country planning. If the Sub-section is withdrawn there will be nothing remaining in the Bill but what gives the fair crack of the whip to every property owner in connection with every scheme which may come for-
      1810
      ward. The owners of property and land are pretty well safeguarded in the Bill, but if the Sub-section is allowed to remain we shall fail to link up the future life of this country upon lines which are very essential in the planning of the town and countryside.
      The position of agriculture has been dealt with in the House in several Debates during the present Parliament. Is there any Member who can suggest that in dealing with future town and country planning large communities should not be linked up with the agricultural districts surrounding them? Agriculture has suffered owing to the fact that there has been no connecting link in town and country planning between large industrial centres and agricultural areas. Difficulties have arisen in transportation and the marketing of produce because there has been no co-ordination between the large centralised authorities and communities and the agricultural districts. We have reached a stage when we understand that agriculture is to be encouraged in this country to go further than it has ever gone before. It is to cultivate more and bring into the industrial districts fresh butter, cheese, bacon and all that kind of thing, and it is to establish bacon factories and develop sugar-beet factories. Therefore, I suggest to hon. Members who represent rural districts that in the formulation of a Town and Country Planning Bill, which has a view to the future, the best thing that can happen is to have all classes of land, both built-up areas and agricultural land, inside a large town and country planning scheme. If that takes place, there will be nothing which will rob the landlord or the property owner in any shape or form. I trust that the Committee will agree to consider the question very seriously and will enable the Bill to be presented for the Third Reading, as far as this particular part of it is concerned, as it was when it came to the Committee. Many of us have suffered tremendously owing to the lack of decent town planning in the past when our colliery villages were built round colliery muckstacks, and all that kind of thing. The Bill makes legitimate provision for compensation and claims by owners, and the House at this time of the day ought to take a wider outlook and give the town-planning authorities of the country a reasonable opportunity

      1811
      to plan the country on healthy, efficient, commercial and businesslike lines.
      Mr. RHYS: In listening to the speeches delivered by hon. Members who are supporting the change proposed in the Measure, the impression might easily be gained that no thought of town planning would take place under the Bill as it now stands. If hon. Members will take the trouble to read the Bill they will find that such is not the case. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), who has just left the Chamber, made an interesting and weighty speech, but it seemed to me that every word of it was covered by the Bill as it is now drawn. He drew a heart-rending picture of the development taking place before our eyes. If that were the case, it would most certainly be included under the Bill as it is now drawn. He and his colleagues complain that certain restrictions have been placed upon the planning of the countryside. If the Bill is carefully read, it will be found that there is still provision for every single local authority from Land's End to John o'Groats to pass a resolution to town plan their area. The only restriction put upon them is that the Minister shall not give his consent to such a resolution if it appears to him to be unnecessary. It is a very moderate restriction in view of the present necessity for economy. There are many areas already freshly built up in which there can be no possible reconstruction for many years to come, and it can be nothing but a waste of time and public money to make those areas subject to a town-planning scheme with all the inquiries which have to take place. There are vast areas in the North of Scotland which are nothing but mountain, heath and moorland. Under the Bill as it was originally drawn, they would practically have to be subject to a town-planning scheme when there was not the smallest danger of those areas being covered with buildings.
      Mr. PRICE: No, that is not true.
      Mr. RHYS: The hon. Gentleman can put his case afterwards if he can catch the eye of the Chairman, and perhaps he will allow me to make my speech in the way I desire. There are many areas in the country districts of England in which
      1812
      there can still be no danger. The hon. Member for St. Albans gave away the whole of his case in the concluding sentences of his speech. He said that if we will only put the original Clause back into the Bill we can rely upon the Minister to cut out all unnecessary frills. That is exactly what we have done. As I have pointed out, every authority can pass a resolution and if it is in the least necessary the Minister can authorise it. If we take this matter on a common sense and calm basis and are not led away by propaganda, we shall find that the Bill as now drawn will entirely meet all the requirements of town planning. No difficulty is placed in the way of town planning, which we all desire to see, no one more so than myself, and we shall at the same time have taken a step towards that national economy which is being preached from all platforms by Members of the Government, and which we are now only asking them to live up to.
      Town planning, obviously, is not necessary for the whole of England, if one reads Clause 47 of the Bill, which takes power to compel all authorities who could have town planned under the Act of 1925 to prepare schemes. They have not yet all done so, otherwise, there would be no necessity for that provision in the Bill. Presumably they have not done so because they have not thought it necessary and have not desired to spend the ratepayers' money. Under the Bill, those authorities will now have to prepare schemes whether they like it or not. It seems to be conclusive that there must still be many areas who do not require a town-planning scheme, and that is the justification for the attitude which we have taken. We are as concerned as the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) for the interests of the ratepayers and taxpayers of this country. Those are the main reasons which actuate me in supporting the Minister if he resists the Amendment now before the Committee. I am sure that it will be found that he has ample powers to carry out all he desires to carry out with due regard to economy.
      Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I support the Amendment, but I do not intend to deal with it from any particular political side or interest, because I feel convinced

      1813
      that everybody desires in this matter to come to the soundest conclusions from the point of view of the country as a whole. I approach the matter from that point of view. One must examine the Sub-sections which have been put into the Bill in order to see what is their application. It does not seem to be very profitable to discuss them in a very general way without first of all ascertaining the effect of the restrictions which have been put in. In regard to the first one, which deals with land already built upon, I want to give an illustration in order to see how it would operate. The Committee will bear in mind that one of the examples that brought about the insistent demand for the right to plan built-up areas was the Foundling site in London. The London County Council attempted to produce a town planning scheme under the old Act, but the Minister was advised that that scheme could not legally be brought forward under the old Act because it must be dealt with as a built-up area and not as an area likely to be developed under the old Act. If the Foundling site a few years before it had been sold had been considered under the terms of the prohibition in Subsection (2, a), it would have been found impossible for the Minister to be satisfied that he could plan it. Let me quote the words of Sub-section (2, a):
      "in the case of any land already built upon,"—
      that was actually found as regards the Foundling site, and for that reason it was struck out of the town planning scheme—
      "that public improvements are likely to be made,"—
      no one contemplated public improvements being made upon that site—
      "or other development is likely to take place."—
      no one contemplated re-development on the Foundling site. A few years before the site was sold by the authorities no one would have supposed that it would be other than a permanent site in London—
      "within such a period of time"—
      no one thought that such development was likely to take place—
      "and on such a scale as to make the inclusion of the land in a scheme expedient."
      1814
      Clearly, it would have been expedient to have included it in a scheme but it would never have been expedient at the best to make a scheme for that portion of land. Therefore, it would have been impossible for the Minister to be satisfied unless he was satisfied:
      "that the land comprises buildings or other objects of architectural, historic, or artistic interest, or that the land is so situate that the general object of the scheme would be better secured by its inclusion."
      The latter words only cover the inclusion of an extra piece of land in an existing scheme.
      Mr. M. BEAUMONT: What was the position of the Foundling site when the London County Council tried to make a plan?
      Sir S. CRIPPS: I am not dealing with that. The time with which I am dealing was five years before its sale by the authorities. It was not contemplated that it would be sold. It was sold because they happened to get a very remarkable offer by some speculators in land of a very large sum, which tempted them. Five years before that no one could have contemplated its sale, no one could have contemplated its re-development and no one could have contemplated that it would have come within Sub-section (2) (a) of this Clause. That means to say that if five years before the County Council or the Ministry had required and desired to get this open space, one of the very few open spaces which existed in that part of London, this provision would have effectively prohibited it.
      Mr. BEAUMONT: On the question of selling, it would have come under the Schedule.
      Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Member must see that that is too late. That is just the time when it is too late.
      Mr. BEAUMONT Mr. BEAUMONT indicated dissent.
      Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Member shakes his head. There you have created a new vested interest in the site. Some one has bought it for £1,000,000. You at once get up against a difficulty. They say: "We bought this site with the right to do what we like with it. We did not buy it subject to a town plan that it should be kept as an open space." That was the argument that was put forward at the inquiry when they were trying to town plan it.
      Mr. BEAUMONT: Anyone who bought such a site under this Act would buy it subject to the knowledge that in the night, so to speak, a Resolution dealing with it could be passed.
      Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Member will see that we could not pass a Resolution until the new vested interest had been created. You would then get someone saying: "We have paid £1,000,000 for this site. If you want now to turn it into an open space and pay me £750,000, which means that I shall have a site worth £250,000, I am prepared to do it." If that had been planned in the last 20 years or in the last five years there would have been no question of someone coming along and saying: "I want £750,000, because I have just bought this site." That is why I suggest that anything which takes away the possibility of the longsighted view is very undesirable in a Bill of this character.
      I appreciate that it may be undesirable from the point of view of economy at a given moment to plan the whole of the country, but I would invite the Committee to consider whether in fact this prohibition that has been put has not gone a great deal further than that. I am not arguing for the moment whether it is desirable to have prohibition, but I am asking what is the precise prohibition that has been put into the Bill. I suggest that from the point of view of the country and of the landowner this is going to raise great difficulty. The Minister will not have a free hand. He will not be able to say: "I do not think it is ripe for planning. I do not think you ought to do it from the point of view of economy. It is unwise to do it now." He has to say: "I cannot make this Resolution effective," unless he can find something in regard to redevelopment upon which he can put his finger. There are cases where you have large properties changing hands which one can never foretell. They depend upon some accident or some death in a family which owns a large amount of property, or some big charity suddenly finding itself in the position of wanting money or wishing to move into the country from the town. It is that type of case which is covered by this Sub-section and which it would be fatal to proper town planning to be so covered.
      1816
      Let me come to the rural portion dealt with in paragraph (b). I am at a loss to understand what this means:
      "In the case of land which is neither already built upon nor in the course of development, nor likely to be developed "
      the Minister has to be satisfied
      "that the land is so situated in relation to land which is already built upon, or in course of development, or on which development is likely to take place as to make its inclusion in a scheme expedient,"—
      That means an odd piece of land that is brought into a scheme and is not likely to be developed; a bit to round off the territory
      "or that it comprises objects or places of natural interest or beauty."
      Does that include the whole of "England's green and pleasant land," or not? If it does, the words of paragraph (b) might be omitted, because they can apply to anything. The Minister could be satisfied that any piece of countryside where there are trees, grass and hedges is a place of "natural interest or beauty." If, on the other hand, it is intended to curtail and confine it to places of particular beauty and interest, such as Symond's Yat, then it is going to be absolutely fatal to country planning. Let me illustrate the matter again with an example of a countryside which I know very well, the Cotswolds. What we suffer from there is not development in the ordinary sense and, not that land is likely to be developed in the near future. As far as one can see there is not likely to be what one generally knows as development in the Cotswolds for a long time. What we do suffer from is sporadic bungaloid growth in different parts of the Cotswolds.
      Mr. M. BEAUMONT: By the district councils.
      Sir S. CRIPPS: Not by the district councils. Whether it is by the district councils or not, what we object to is that we get it. Who puts it there I do not care. If the hon. Member agrees with me he will see that it is necessary to give someone the power to prohibit it, unless these bungaloid growths are going to form the nuclei of developments later on. I know of districts in the Cotswolds where one drives along and suddenly comes across some terrible little red brick building on the side of the road. No one could say that that was an area

      1817
      likely to be developed. No one could say that the Minister could possibly pass a scheme for that area. Here is a perfectly rural area with no development likely, and then you get these sporadic occurrences. The Committee will not be protecting the landowners if they do not leave out this Sub-section. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) laughs. I am perfectly serious. The good landowner does not like that sort of thing happening on his neighbour's land. It is always the other man who does the rotten things in the country. What power is there now to prevent it? An eyesore of that sort may spoil a whole district. It may spoil a view which the Minister might say was a place of exceptional beauty. I should agree that the whole of the Cotswolds would qualify under those words.
      Let me give another instance. Not many years ago in the little town of Eynsham a sugar-beet factory was dumped down, a corrugated iron building on the side of the river. It polluted the river, was extremely undesirable, and the beauty of that little town or village was spoilt. Before that happened no development was going on and there did not seem any likelihood of development. There ought to be powers to stop that sort of thing. I agree with the hon. Member that it is not necessary that the wilds of Scotland should be planned, but there are other places besides the wilds of Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that under Sub-section (2) (b) the Minister could not possibly say that the rural districts which I have mentioned come within the sort of area that could be planned. Surely hon. Members do not suggest that rural districts of that sort ought not to be planned. Let me remind the Committee of what the Minister said on the 23rd January, 1931:
      "If we are to keep anything of the amenity, beauty and form of the countryside, there should be forethought and power to enforce the results of forethought given to the proper authorities in a proper scheme of country planning."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1931; col. 541, Vol. 247.]
      I agree entirely with that view, and I suggest to the Committee that the words which have been inserted, however desirable it may be to economise and however desirable it may be to give the Minister power to say that in certain cases country planning is unnecessary, put a
      1818
      bond upon the Minister which is far too rigorous, because it is bound to stop cases of planning where everybody I think in the House, from whatever point of view they look at it, would say that planning is necessary and desirable in the national interest.
      5.30 p.m.
      Sir H. YOUNG: The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) was correct in his anticipation that I should not be able to accept this Amendment. He fired a very ringing shot and imported some warmth of tone into a Debate which has hitherto proceeded on the level of the legal argument of the courts. In his more vigorous rhetoric he made two observations with which I find myself more than usually unable to agree. He referred to this as an agreed Bill. I have had ample opportunities of ascertaining the facts, and to suggest that this is an agreed Bill is an affectation in this Parliament just as it would have been in the last Parliament. I think there was a certain lack of generosity in the right hon. Gentleman attempting to believe that the Bill was an agreed Measure in the last Parliament. There was one other passage in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with which I was totally unable to agree. The right hon. Gentleman taunted me with accepting Amendments to my own Bill. He has held the position which I now hold for a longer period than I have held it, and I have great respect for his authority, but I cannot accept the principle from him that a Minister ought to be ashamed to accept Amendments from the House of Commons. On the contrary, I say that it would be something of which he might well be ashamed if he refused to accept Amendments from any foolish sense of pride. The practice of the right hon. Gentleman is better than his precept, because he himself was not in the least ashamed to accept Amendments to his Bill in the last Parliament. Why should I be ashamed of accepting them to this Bill in this Parliament?
      Mr. GREENWOOD: There is a difference in accepting Amendments on vital principles of the Bill and accepting minor Amendments to the Bill.
      Sir H. YOUNG: All that means is that the right hon. Gentleman agreed with the Amendments which he accepted to his Bill and disagreed with the Amend-

      1819
      ments which I have accepted to my Bill. As to the merits of the Bill, I am afraid that we have received little assistance from the right hon. Gentleman except some vigorous assertions based upon authority. Surely of all others in the Bill this is a matter which deserves careful attention on its merits. Many of the apprehensions, indeed all the apprehensions, which have been expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), whose acquaintance with this subject is well known, and the hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps) are based upon a misconception of the provisions in the Bill as they now stand. I do not blame anybody for lagging a little behind a perfect comprehension of the true provisions of the Bill, because it presents peculiar difficulties not only in requiring a close and practical acquaintance with the working of such provisions—and I confess that I myself have that acquaintance only at second hand—but also because this is altogether a new sphere of legislation, and one is not likely at first sight to appreciate the exact bearing of many of the new provisions.
      Let me draw the attention of the Committee to the question on its merits, apart from any prejudices on one side or the other. I think we may leave aside the elements of prejudice which have been introduced and consider it simply and solely on its merits. The main object of the Bill, as I indicated on the Second Reading, is to promote the unity of planning. A plan cannot be a good plan unless it covers the whole of the area which ought to be covered. That is agreed; and the question is what is the area which should be covered by a plan. We ought also to remember this, that after all the control which is necessarily applied under planning is not in itself a good thing. On the contrary, it imposes certain disadvantages, and it is only to be accepted if it is necessary, for the purposes of a plan. Control ought not to be applied to a wider area than is absolutely necessary for the purposes of the plan. What has been done in Committee—a most useful and necessary work—has been to give the most scrupulous attention to what is the proper area, the minimum area, necessary in order to secure
      1820
      the maximum results from the control of the area.
      The next point to which I want to draw the attention of the Committee is this, the very wide extension which is actually given to the area which can be planned under the present law. We have made a very long step in the direction of widening the area and strengthening the unity of planning; and it is as long a step as is necessary in view of the present tasks which we have to perform. What have we done? We have extended the scope of planning for the first time to built-up land, provided that the land is not in what we call a static state, that is, provided that it is land on which developments, including public improvements, are likely to take place within such time and on such a scale as to make the inclusion of the land in a scheme expedient. For the first time built-up land is an area which can be planned. That was one of the principal things in the Bill, and it still stands in the Bill. Secondly, we are extending planning powers for the first time to built-up land which, though not included in the category to which I have referred, is so situate in regard to land in that category as to make its inclusion in a scheme expedient. The hon. and learned Member for Bristol East, minimised that provision as applying to little bits of odds and ends of land. He must have done so for the purposes of his argument, because there is no limitation of that sort in the Bill. Indeed, I was very much puzzled to follow the lines of his logic throughout his whole argument. When we make a restriction in the Bill, it is fatal; when we make an extension that also is fatal. Either way it is fatal to the efficient working of the Bill. It can only be accounted for by the fact that the nature of his argument was conditioned by the end he desired to obtain.
      Let me continue my description of the extension of planning given by the new Bill. We include for the first time rural land, which, though not being developed nor likely to be developed, is within the sphere of influence of such land and therefore ought to be protected by a scheme. Lastly, we include land, whether urban or rural, which contains features of historic or architectural interest. The hon. and learned Member for Bristol East says the value of that provision depends on the meaning of the word "place";

      1821
      and he asks whether it means the whole of England's green and pleasant land or only a "place." I suppose that when an Act says a "place" it means a place; and by a place it means, in the old phrase with which we are very familiar, a place within the meaning of the Act. I should imagine that there can be no doubt at all that by a "place" you do not mean a countryside but something which can be recognised as a feature or a spot in the landscape. I say this with some trepidation because I know how unwise it is to seek to read definitions into an Act of Parliament, because judges always come along and point out that you are wrong.
      What is the result of that situation; and here at the risk of wearying the Committee I ask the Committee to follow me again with the same close attention, if they are interested in this topic, because a clear apprehension of the wide sweep we have given to the powers of planning under the Bill will lead to a cessation of the rather unfortunate misapprehensions from which we have suffered and which have been the cause of a good deal of the criticisms in general. What can you include as a result of this extension of the powers of planning? You can include in the case of urban land any land on which development is likely to take place. Secondly, you can include any land which comprises buildings or other objects of architectural, historical, or artistic interest; and, thirdly, any land which is so situated that the general object of the scheme will be better secured by its inclusion. I ask hon. Members to think of any conceivable cases of land, which should reasonably be planned, and which cannot be included under one of these categories.
      The hon. and learned Member for Bristol East quoted the instance of the Foundling site. Ho will forgive me for saying that that is a most unfortunate instance to produce; and for this reason. Under ordinary circumstances such a site as the Foundling site would be land which is likely to be developed beyond any reasonable possibility of doubt, but there was a special reason why that particular site was not likely to be developed, and the reason was special and peculiar to that particular site. It was the status of the landowner. The trustees of a great
      1822
      historical Trust were not considered in those days to be likely to bring their land into the market because of their peculiar status, and it is for that reason only that the site could be brought into the argument by the hon. and learned Member.
      Sir F. FREMANTLE: With the Bill as amended, would there have been any power to plan the Foundling Hospital site until the recent decision of the Governors to move out; and then how soon would it have been possible to plan it?
      Sir H. YOUNG: In the first place, I must utter a word of caution about pronouncing upon any particular case. I do not think it really tends to clarify the argument; and it is for that reason that I have tried to keep it out of the way. The answer to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) is that it would depend on whether it was still held by the same people now as then. If the same peculiar conditions as to the status of the owner still attach, the conclusion would be the same now as it was then. Turning to the question of rural land, let me again ask the Committee to follow closely the state of affairs in regard to the extension of powers to which I have referred. In the case of rural land you can plan land, which is in course of development, or land which is likely to be developed. You can plan land in either of these cases, and also if it is so situated in relation to land which is already built upon, or is likely to be developed, so as to make its inclusion in a scheme expedient.
      Again, I ask the Committee to decide whether under these powers there is any possible case of land which ought to be included in a town planning scheme which could not be included. If we pass beyond these categories of land which is being developed or likely to be developed, or land which is so situated in relation to land developed or likely to be developed, that it ought to be included in a scheme, it is clear to every practical man that there are areas in the hearts of cities and in the remoter parts of the country to which none of these categories apply. If none of these descriptions applies to these areas, there is no reasonable cause for including them in a plan. A plan can serve no possible purpose in relation to land which has not

      1823
      been developed, is not likely to be developed, and whose inclusion in the plan on the ground that it is situated in some relation to land, which is developed or is likely to be developed, is not useful or necessary.
      The answer to the apprehensions of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Albans and to some of the cases quoted by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol was clearly given by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Rhys). Most of these cases are clearly cases that could be included in the planning scheme. There are the apprehensions felt in some quarters as regards other and more general cases in great cities, such as Birmingham, where there are many areas of undeveloped land, bits of land in the city surrounded by built-over areas. I wish again not to be understood to be expressing judgment on these particular cases, but I can say that in a typical case of undeveloped land included within the bounds of a city surrounded by buildings, that that is land which is likely to be developed and could as such be included in the planning area. That is one of the great gains of the Bill.
      Apprehensions were also expressed most clearly by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans as to the surrounding areas, the areas immediately around great cities. It appears to me that the typical case of open land which is surrounding a great city is clearly land which is likely to be developed. In fact it is characteristically the kind of land which ought to be included in a planning scheme. That can usually be done under the present law. Then we have the apprehensions expressed on two curiously contradictory grounds—the apprehensions lest the provisions should not work in the case where development is sudden, and the apprehension that the provisions would not work in cases where development is gradual. In either of those cases I think the answer is quite clear. Take the case of sudden development. I do not understand the difficulty of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol about the bungalows in the Cotswolds. If bungalows are going up I should think that in plain language that was development in progress. That is a condition which would warrant a plan. It is commonly said, "But development may
      1824
      be so sudden that it anticipates the plan; it takes place before you can deal with it." I am very sceptical about these cases, and about there being a number of cases worth noticing, in which there is development so sudden that it is not apprehended by anyone as possible or likely to take place. The mere fact that development has already begun is strong prima facie evidence that more is likely to follow. My answer to that criticism is this: In these cases, I should say that it is probable that the planning authority had been caught napping; they have not extended their plan sufficiently widely. If development comes along and takes them by surprise it shows that they have been lax in their duties. They have no one to blame but themselves. In the case of gradual development I think there is much less difficulty. In gradual development there will have been ample notice to the planning authority that it is an area which ought to be covered under the plan.
      I have dealt with what I believe are the principal criticisms directed against the Bill and have pointed out the misconceptions on which I think they are based. I submit that the planning powers conferred by the Bill are adequate to cover all the practical purposes which are to be served by the plan and that they are a long step forward in the direction of unity of planning. The further step of imposing control, involving legal machinery, upon land where it cannot be of any practical purpose ought not to be taken. In this matter I have the comfort of knowing that the provisions in the Bill excite the hostility equally of those who are most advanced in their views on either side.
      Mr. DENMAN: It is not quite fair to ask the Minister to give a specific answer with regard to special cases, but there is one region that does feel rather alarmed about Sub-section (2), and that is the Lake District. Those who are keen on. planning the Lake District and who, of course, include a large number of Members of this House, are not sure whether Sub-section (2) will or will not permit the planning of that region as a whole. As I read the Bill it seems to me that the Minister has power, that the regional authority can prepare a scheme for the whole district, and that nothing in Subsection (2) would prevent the Minister

      1825
      from giving his approval to that scheme. If the light hon. Gentleman is able to give a public assurance on that point it would console a great many people who do regard the Lake District as a unit of beauty and would wish above all things to see it so preserved.
      Mr. HOROBIN: I rise as one of those who attended every meeting of Standing Committee A, as a supporter of the Minister of Health. I am afraid that perhaps I did not give him much help, as I was able only on one occasion to vote against him, and that apparently is the duty of supporters of the National Government. I did not fail to note the sophistry with which the right hon. Gentleman submitted to the inevitable, for every single part of his speech, in so far as it referred to rural England, was an elaborate argument that it was totally unnecessary to waste the time of the House in introducing this Measure at all. The existing law gives us power to plan when building is in course of development or likely. We are not starting all this afresh. It is not on any ground of theory that people who are interested in the preservation of the countryside are anxious. It is because, in years of experience, it has been found in practice that all the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman who conducts the Ministry of Health with such distinction and with as much efficiency as possible, have been found untrue in practice. It is not possible to prevent being "caught napping," as the right hon. Gentleman put it; with the best will in the world, as long years of experience have shown, it is not possible to prevent sporadic spoiling of the countryside, the missing out of estates which should be perfectly safe estates, such as that of the Duke of Montrose which recently was split up with such unhappy results, and so on.
      It is not on the ground of theory; it is on the ground of practice. It was for that reason that this Bill was introduced; it was for that reason that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was necessary to plan the whole of England and Scotland. It was presumably for that reason that the Minister introduced the Bill in its original form. Why was the Bill altered? Why was it over-night curtailed in this unhappy fashion? It was because the right hon. Gentleman, to put
      1826
      it bluntly, was bluffed by the Parliamentary racket on the third bench above the Gangway. Those hon. Gentlemen and the Noble Lord pointed out quite truly that there were only two months before the House rose, and that each one of them was quite capable of talking without stopping for two months. They, therefore, said that if the Minister wanted his Bill at all he must do something about it. They put down an Amendment which, in effect, would have brought the Bill back to the original 1925 Act, and the Minister bought them off with this concession. I do not know that he gained very much by it, because even on the Report stage, after 26 days in Committee, we have had 150 Government Amendments which required what seemed like 150 speeches or the same speech 150 times from the Bill's opponents.
      6.0 p.m.
      However that may be, these hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who hate this Bill, and say so with great candour, made the unhappy Minister's life a misery in Committee, and they have done their best on Report to make the life of other Members a misery. I hope they are satisfied with the result, though I am quite certain that no one else is. I am certain that ordinary people in all parts of the House are not satisfied. This concession is so palpably silly that it cannot by any stretch of imagination be made to mean anything whatever. As regards the preservation of the countryside, it means, in effect, that with one single exception we are back to the 1925 Act. The exception is the difference between the word "developed" and the word "built." All we have done for the preservation of the countryside, so far as the area included is concerned, is that the word "developed" in this Bill has a very much wider meaning than "built." To that extent we shall be able to include a good deal of land which otherwise would not have been included. I am the last to say that all local authorities are perfect, and I agree with some of the Jeremiads which my Noble Friend opposite delights to make as to the inefficiency, wickedness, laziness, incompetence, and so forth of local authorities. But nevertheless that protection of the local authorities, for what it is worth, is all that this unhappy countryside of England possesses. Now

      1827
      when unfortunately great estates are being broken up, such protection as we have is to be found in control over speculative building by local authorities. It may not be worth much but it is all that we have, and the fundamental vice remains here, that instead of being able to say that the whole of the land is to come under that protection and that any development which takes place has to pass that test, you will, if this concession means anything at all, find that a. great deal of the land of England is without such protection.
      I am sure that, in his heart of hearts, the right hon. Gentleman cordially dissents, as I do, from the view that we want England just to have a few small beauty spots which will be carefully wired in and to which people will be charged sixpence admission and told, "This is what England used to look like." The whole of the English countryside in my short memory used to be, almost without exception, a thing of beauty. It is not little bits here and there that we ought to preserve, but the decency and general beauty of the whole, and I defy the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else to say that we should pick out little pieces of it for protection and to say, in effect, "You can do what you like with the rest." To do so would be just about as reasonable as to turn up somewhere in a beautiful evening dress with a large white shirt front but with two or three spots of mud on the shirt front, and to say, "These do not really matter because most of the shirt front is white." It is true that places which are known to be on the verge of being developed can be protected, but the ordinary normal quiet countryside, without special distinction, but with its own beauty, has not that protection, and we have found, not by theory but by practice, how much it needs that protection.
      We know that the right hon. Gentleman would have done as much as anybody to give it that protection. He himself introduced a Private Member's Bill for that purpose. The House of Commons, without a Division, decided to give it that protection, but a small distinguished, and pertinacious—I will not say loquacious—body of hon. Members opposite have compelled the right hon. Gen-
      1828
      tleman against his will to withdraw that protection. I believe that this Committee will have great reason to regret that decision. I do not see, however, that we can press the Minister to do anything about it. We all recognise the scrupulous fairness with which he has honoured every one of his pledges, and I do not see how one can press him to alter, by one jot or tittle, the definite pledge which he gave in Committee. All that I would say, beyond regretting that the right hon. Gentleman made that pledge, is that while hon. Members opposite are entitled to the strict letter of their pledge, they are not entitled to one tittle beyond it. This concession by the Minister is so drawn that in administration it can mean several very different things. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, could, administratively, allay a great many of the fears of those who have done their best to support him in what we know to be his genuine desire in this matter. He could do so by ensuring that this concession shall not prevent any authority which is willing and able to exercise the powers given by this Bill, from so doing, unless he is satisfied beyond a peradventure that equivalent protection is present. If there are special reasons, if a place is so inaccessible that it may be regarded as fairly safe, then we must make the best of it, but I earnestly hope that the Ministry of Health will so interpret this concession in its narrowest way that our fears in this matter will prove to be wrong.
      Mr. EADY: It is not often that I have the opportunity of showing myself in sympathy with hon. Members opposite but on this occasion I support the Amendment. When this Bill was introduced it was welcomed by all municipal authorities and by all associations connected with municipal authorities. I happen to be an old-timer in connection with this matter. I am an old town-planner and have had great experience in town planning and I come from a city which has done a great amount of that kind of work. The Bill as I say was welcomed as opening up a new era and enabling municipalities to enjoy many advantages. The idea, I understood, was to bring the old Act up to date and give us an opportunity of dealing with these matters on lines different from those which had been

      1829
      followed in the past. The Bill was also welcomed as giving an opportunity which we did not possess before, of dealing with built-up areas but if it goes through as it is now worded, all those advantages will be removed.
      Who should have more right than the people located in these districts to say in what part planning is to take place? We are told that authority rests with the Minister and we all admire the right hon. Gentleman who now fills that position, but he will not always occupy it and it is possible that someone may come along who will not be as careful and as scrupulous as the right hon. Gentleman. I support the Amendment because I feel sure that it would give encouragement to town planning. Town planning has to be continuous. It is necessary to have regard to such matters as changed conditions of traffic and other changing conditions. Roads have to be widened and plans have to be made in time to deal with the various developments that are taking place. Clause 6 is the crux of the situation. I believe that it is going to do more harm to this Bill than all the other things which have been mentioned put together. When the Bill was introduced we regarded it as a Measure which was for the country's good but it has now been so mutiliated that we can hardly recognise it. This is one of the most important points raised in connection with it and I sincerely hope that the Committee will support the Amendment and give local authorities every encouragement in this matter.
      Miss RATHBONE: I, like the last two speakers, am quite unconverted by the speech of the Minister. It is a great disappointment to me because I had hopes up to the last minute that the right hon. Gentleman would convert me to a belief in this complex Sub-section. Knowing the Minister's great interest in town planning and his general enthusiasm for planning I thought that the fault was in my own understanding and that his explanation would reveal some pearl of lucid definite meaning in the middle of the convolutions of this very involved statement. But as I listened to him it seemed to me that no such pearl emerged. What did emerge was an argument which really proved too much. The Minister tried to show that there was no piece of land,
      1830
      either under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this Sub-section that would conceivably need protection by a town planning scheme which was not capable of being covered under the Clause. But if that is so what is the need for the Subsection? Has the right hon. Gentleman such a poor opinion of the local authorities that he imagines that they will go to the trouble of town planning areas in which there is no conceivable justification for doing so? Has the earlier Town Planning Act been so enthusiastically carried out and so widely extended that all that is necessary is to place a check and a curb on the enthusiastic town planning of local authorities?
      Surely the opposite has been the case. The local authorities in many cases have been by no means eager enough to carry out their powers. If this Sub-section is only to rule out the town planning of bits of land which only a lunatic local authority would think of town planning, is it worth while going to the trouble and expense involved and wasting the time and hampering the energies of sound local authorities, by obliging a special inquiry to take place every time a local authority wants to prepare a scheme. It is true that the Minister is not to order a local inquiry in all cases but I fail to see how he will form the judgments required by paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) without a local inquiry in each case and the local inquiry is bound to cost money. The group of Members who are leading the opposition to the whole Bill—and to this Clause by way of hamstringing the Bill—are supposed to be enthusiasts on the subject of expensive inquiries and bureaucracy. What is more likely to lead to those results than to put upon the Minister every time a scheme is presented the necessity of satisfying himself on all the points raised by these two paragraphs?
      One of my objections to the Sub-section is that it is unnecessary unless indeed in the case of an eventuality which is very unlikely to arise namely that of over-enthusiasm on the part of local authorities. Further, it is expensive because it will lead to local inquiries. I have two other objections which have not been removed by the Minister's argument. The whole tendency is to ask for short term rather than for long term planning. What is the meaning of the words:

      1831
      "within such a period of time and on such a scale as to make the inclusion of the land in a scheme expedient,"
      if they do not imply that a scheme should not be made out until development is imminent. It is just when development is imminent that it is much more hampering to property owners and much more likely to lead to claims for compensation if a scheme is brought into existence, than if it were done well ahead when nobody has invested money in the land or made plans which are likely to be dislocated by the town-planning scheme. I do not see how the Minister can deny that the whole idea of this Sub-section is to prevent town planning authorities from producing their schemes until, so to speak, the very last hour of the last day.
      The other objection that I want to raise is that this is bound to lead to a capricious policy in the matter of town planning. Can anyone deny it? Read these two paragraphs, and note how amazingly vague are the expressions that are used in them. Here is one:
      "within such a period of time and on such a scale as to make the inclusion of the land in a scheme expedient."
      Then again:
      "or that the land is so situate that the general object of the scheme would be better secured by its inclusion."
      There are no definite criteria, there are no tests by which those words can be given a concrete substance. In the long run they throw the whole thing on the judgment of individual Ministers, and that is what I mean by saying that it will lead to a capricious policy in the matter of town planning. Everything will depend on who happens to be Minister of Health for the time being. So long as we have, as Minister of Health, a gentleman like the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young), who is the author of two private Members' Bills dealing with town planning, we shall feel pretty safe and know that he has a judgment, when he has not got a gang of back benchers behind him whom he has to buy off, which can be trusted in the matter of town planning; but supposing he is succeeded by a Minister who is a Philistine, a Minister who is a die-hard, he may reverse the whole policy, and it is not safe, in such a matter as town
      1832
      planning, that so much should depend on the views of a particular individual.
      As long as the responsibility was left to the local authorities themselves it was not so bad. I am not an enthusiast for local authorities in all respects, but at any rate you have something there that is never turned out of office altogether, so that there is a continuous stream of judgment brought to bear on town planning problems; and it is not good that local authorities should never know where they are, that they should feel, "Oh yes, we shall get this scheme through so long as the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks is Minister of Health, but it will be quite different if the Ministry goes out suddenly, through an election, and some other person takes his place."
      I do not want to sit down without making some kind of definite suggestion, though, of course the suggestion that I should like to see adopted, namely, the acceptance by the Minister of this Amendment, is not going to happen. We all know that if we carry this to a Division, as I hope we shall, we shall be beaten, and heavily beaten, but there is one appeal that I would like to make to the Minister, and that is that he should to a certain extent safeguard the defects I have pointed out in this Clause by supplying himself with some body of persons on whose advice he can rely. When the Minister in the last Parliament was making his Second Reading speech on the Bill introduced by his predecessor, I noticed that he found three main faults with the earlier Bill. One was that there was no Clause in it dealing with woodlands; he has remedied that. Another was that there was no Clause dealing with advertisements; he has remedied that. The third fault was that there was no Clause setting up an advisory committee. Well, there is no Clause—
      Sip H. YOUNG: That was sheer ignorance on my part. The Minister of Health has powers under the general law to appoint an advisory committee.
      Miss RATHBONE: I had already gathered that privately, but what I was leading up to was that if the Minister is not going to give us this Amendment, at least he should give us a promise that he will use his powers to form an advisory committee; and may I suggest that he should do more than form one advisory committee, that he should form regional

      1833
      advisory committees, because he really wants expert advice brought to bear on these problems. If this Sub-section is not to be capriciously used by Ministers with different policies and different Administrations, he really wants to be safeguarded by advisory committees representing the best opinion, not only of Whitehall, but of the different localities. This is largely a question dependent on intimate local knowledge. I happen to belong to a county which has not been kindly treated by nature in the matter of natural beauty—the county of Lancashire—and I note that such security as is given in this Clause for the preservation of beauty seems aimed mainly at safeguarding those counties that have been alluded to by speakers in the Debate, such as Sussex and Surrey, and the Cotswolds, bits of country that are rich in objects that are known as
      "objects of architectural, historic, or artistic interest,"
      but the ugly counties have to be considered too. Beauty is relative, and we who live in counties that are as flat as a billiard table and often covered in places with a cloud of smoke, know how beautiful they can be only so long as they are not uglified and made vulgar and disgusting and sordid by bad town planning, by bungaloid growths, by ugly groups of factory chimneys on a wonderful, elevated piece of country, perhaps where there is a stream and a bit of woodland, and something of a landscape is obtainable.
      I often think in this connection of a remark once made to me by a poor woman who was sent for a country holiday somewhere quite close to the Mersey, where there was little beauty visible to the ordinary eye, excepting a few chimneys in the distance and the sweep of the Mersey itself. Yet it made her weep to think how beautiful God had made the land and how few people could see it. That is the way that the beauty of what is often called ugly country is viewed by those who care for it, and I beg the Minister to try to mitigate the great injury done to his Bill by this Subsection by gathering together advisory committees all over the country, where he can get the best local advice possible.
      I feel that the one argument that appealed to him in the arguments of the Opposition was that the whole Bill puts too much confidence in the good taste of
      1834
      individual local authorities. We should not feel that there was so much danger from that cause if we knew that there were, all over the country, regional advisory committees advising the Minister as to the application of this Clause and of the rest of the Bill, committees which would contain representatives of the profession of architecture and experts on archaeology, on churches, and so forth, who could give him the best advice, and who would know beforehand what beauty spots there were in particular localities and what spots ought to be protected, and who would put the Minister wise before he was called upon for the decisions of so extraordinarily complicated a nature as. those raised by this Clause.
      Viscount CRANBORNE: I really cannot understand the fuss which the last two or three speakers have felt about this Sub-section. There does not seem to me that there is any real limitation at all under it. It includes—
      "the case of any land already built upon, that public improvements are likely to be made, or other development is likely to take place."
      Where is not that possible? The last speaker said that bungaloid growths might go up anywhere, but that means that any land is in a possible state of development, and therefore it would all come under this Sub-section. Then it says:
      "or that the land comprises buildings or other objects of architectural, historic, on artistic interest."
      Any place with a church in it comes under this Sub-section, and any part of England can be included under it. In my opinion my Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) has secured a purely illusory concession, and the Committee will make itself ridiculous if, having spent hours putting in an illusory concession, it now spends hours taking it out again. It will not do any harm to leave it in the Bill, and I hope the Committee will leave it there.
      Mr. WALLHEAD: If the Sub-section is as innocuous as the Noble Lord the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Cranborne) says, one wonders why on earth the Sub-section is in the Bill at all and why there is any objection to taking it out. As a matter of fact, it is highly important to those who wish to retard the operation of the Bill and who, by

      1835
      all possible means, have stated their objection to the whole theory of town planning. Instead of retarding it, we want to give some assistance in pushing it forward. I agree that not all local authorities are to be trusted on questions of beauty, of architecture, and so on, and there is a good case to be made out for an advisory committee of experts and others who are interested and who are conversant with the whole matter from every point of view.
      There is much force in what the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Horobin) said. He stated that he was afraid this House would regret the passing of this Sub-section. It is not merely this House. If it were, it would not matter very much, unless we use the word "House" with the meaning of continuity. One does not suffer immediately, from the beginnings of bad planning; it is the future generations who suffer. If bad buildings and bad planning were a temporary matter, it would not so much matter, but once begun on wrong lines, they continue and become of a permanent character, and one has to suffer for it for generation after generation, as we to-day know to our cost. When I was for a short spell engaged in municipal government, I was on a committee that had to do with town planning and improvements, and I know how important it is to have all the powers possible to deal with the questions that arise in that connection.
      I understand, from arguments used from the other side, that very much of their opposition to this planning is due to the cost. They talk of the necessity for national economy, but how long is the period of national economy to last? Are they so pessimistic that they think the National Government cannot get us out of this difficulty in the next five or 10 years? Are national economy and all its implications to go on for ever and to curb and check every move that ought to be made in advance? To my mind, it is bad economy to allow wrong planning to take place, and that is the evil of the whole business. It is economy to spend wisely and to plan far enough ahead, and it would seem that, even with regard to the so-called outside rural districts, with the
      1836
      development of rapid transport on roads in hitherto unsuspected directions, the necessity will arise still more for safeguarding places that are apparently at present outside the area of possible planning.
      6.30 p.m.
      It is very well for the Minister to tell us about an authority being taken unawares. Anybody who has a bit of land on the edge of land that he knows is to be planned can at once set about developing his bit, and can create the very evils that we are desirous of avoiding. I would not like to say, after what we have seen in the last 20 years with regard to the development of transport, how soon many areas will not be brought in. There is the question of aeroplanes. One does not know to what extent far-off districts will be brought near at hand by an effective method of air carriage; districts may spring up in a few months' time which at the present moment are regarded as impossible. Therefore, I suggest that it will be wise to withdraw this Sub-section in the interests of town planning as a whole, so that future generations, not merely in the neighbourhood of towns but in areas far distant from towns, may be protected from the evils that those who live in towns know too well to their cost exist.
      Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: I ask the Minister to resist the Amendment. Speaking as one of those who have not inherited any bitterness from the Committee I say with confidence that many friends of mine are convinced that we did not go to the last election to support an unqualified Measure such as the original Town and Country Planning Bill. We are grateful to the Minister for the concessions which he has made and the way in which he has tempered the wind to us. We appreciate those concessions and ask him to resist this Amendment, which, as in the case of the original Bill, we regard as suspicious in its paternity. Those of us who support the Bill because it is a Government Measure do so with a certain uneasiness of conscience, so we do thank the Minister for the concessions which he has made.
      Question put, "That the words, 'A resolution' stand part of the Clause."
      The Committee divided: Ayes 305; Noes 50.

      Division No. 214.]

      AYES.

      [3.33 p. m.

      Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

      Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

      Christie, James Archibald

      Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

      Broadbent, Colonel John

      Clayton, Dr. George C.

      Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

      Brockiebank, C. E. R.

      Clydesdale, Marquess of

      Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

      Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)

      Colman, N. C. D.

      Albery, Irving James

      Brown, Ernest (Leith)

      Conant, R. J. E.

      Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)

      Browne, Captain A. C.

      Cook, Thomas A.

      Apsley, Lord

      Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

      Cooke, Douglas

      Astor. Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

      Bullock, Captain Malcolm

      Cooper, A. Duff

      Atholl, Duchess of

      Burghley, Lord

      Copeland, Ida

      Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

      Burnett, John George

      Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

      Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

      Cadogan, Hon. Edward

      Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

      Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

      Caine, G. R. Hall-

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

      Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

      Craven-Ellis, William

      Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C)

      Caporn, Arthur Cecil

      Crooke, J. Smedley

      Belt, Sir Alfred L.

      Cautley, Sir Henry S.

      Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

      Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

      Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

      Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

      Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

      Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Blaker, Sir Reginald

      Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

      Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

      Bossom, A. C.

      Chalmers, John Rutherford

      Davison, Sir William Henry

      Boulton, W. W.

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)

      Denville, Alfred

      Sower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

      Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

      Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

      Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

      Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

      Dickle, John P.

      Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

      Chotzner, Alfred James

      Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

      Donner, P. W.

      Knox, Sir Alfred

      Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

      Dower, Captain A. V. G.

      Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

      Ramsbotham, Herwald

      Drewe, Cedric

      Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

      Ramsden, E.

      Duggan, Hubert John

      Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)

      Rankin, Robert

      Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

      Leech, Dr. J. W.

      Rathbone, Eleanor

      Dunglass, Lord

      Lees-Jones, John

      Rawson, Sir Cooper

      Eady, George H.

      Levy, Thomas

      Rea, Walter Russell

      Eden, Robert Anthony

      Lewis, Oswald

      Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

      Ednam, Viscount

      Liddall, Walter S.

      Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

      Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter, E.

      Lindsay, Noel Ker

      Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

      Elliston, Captain George Sampson

      Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

      Reid, William Allan (Derby)

      Elmley, Viscount

      Lloyd, Geoffrey

      Remer, John R.

      Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

      Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)

      Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

      Emrys-Evans, P. V.

      Loder, Captain J. de Vere

      Robinson, John Roland

      Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

      Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

      Rosbotham, S. T.

      Everard, W. Lindsay

      Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

      Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

      Falle, Sir Bertram G.

      Mabane, William

      Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

      Ferguson, Sir John

      McCorquodale, M. S.

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

      MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

      Runge, Norah Cecil

      Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

      MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

      Salmon, Major Isidore

      Fox, Sir Gifford

      Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

      salt, Edward, W.

      Fraser, Captain Ian

      McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

      Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

      Fremantle, Sir Francis

      McKeag, William

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

      Fuller, Captain A. G.

      McKie, John Hamilton

      Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

      Ganzoni, Sir John

      Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

      Savery, Samuel Servington

      George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

      McLean, Major Alan

      Scone, Lord

      Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

      Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll, N.)

      Selley, Harry R.

      Glossop, C. W. H.

      McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

      Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

      Gluckstein, Louis Halle

      Macmillan, Maurice Harold

      Skelton, Archibald Noel

      Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

      Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

      Slater, John

      Goff, Sir Park

      Maitland, Adam

      Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

      Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

      Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

      Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

      Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

      Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

      Smith-Carington, Neville W.

      Graves, Marjorie

      Mander, Geoffrey le M.

      Somervell, Donald Bradley

      Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

      Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

      Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

      Gritten, W. G. Howard

      Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

      Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

      Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

      Martin, Thomas B.

      Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

      Guy, J. C. Morrison

      Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

      Spencer, Captain Richard A.

      Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

      Meller, Richard James

      Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

      Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

      Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

      Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

      Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd)

      Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

      Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

      Hammersley, Samuel S.

      Milne, Charles

      Stevenson, James

      Hanbury, Cecil

      Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw-

      Stones, James

      Hanley, Dennis A.

      Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

      Strickland, Captain W. F.

      Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

      Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale

      Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

      Harris, Sir Percy

      Moreing, Adrian C.

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

      Hartington, Marquess of

      Morgan, Robert H.

      Sutcliffe, Harold

      Hartland, George A.

      Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

      Tate, Mavis Constance

      Harvey, Major s. E. (Devon, Totnes)

      Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

      Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)

      Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

      Moss, Captain H. J.

      Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

      Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

      Muirhead, Major A. J.

      Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

      Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)

      Munro, Patrick

      Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

      Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

      Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

      Train, John

      Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

      Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

      Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

      Holdsworth, Herbert

      Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

      Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

      Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

      North, Captain Edward T.

      Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

      Hornby, Frank

      Nunn, William

      Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

      Horobin, Ian M.

      Oman, Sir Charles William C.

      Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

      Horsbrugh, Florence

      O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

      Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

      Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

      Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

      Weymouth, Viscount

      Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

      Palmer, Francis Noel

      White, Henry Graham

      Hume, Sir George Hopwood

      Patrick, Colin M.

      Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

      Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

      Peake, Captain Osbert

      Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

      Hurd, Sir Percy

      Pearson, William G.

      Wills, Wilfrid D.

      Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

      Peat, Charles U.

      Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

      Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

      Perkins, Walter R. D.

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

      Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)

      Petherick, M.

      Womersley, Walter James

      James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

      Peto, Sir Basil E.(Devon, Barnstaple)

      Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

      Jesson, Major Thomas E.

      Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)

      Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

      Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

      Pike, Cecil F.

      Worthington, Dr. John V.

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Potter, John

      Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

      Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

      Pownall, Sir Assheton

      Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

      Ker, J. Campbell

      Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

      Kerr, Hamilton W.

      Procter, Major Henry Adam

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

      Pybus, Percy John

      Sir Frederick Thomson and Lord

      Knebworth, Viscount

      Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

      Erskine.

      Knight, Holford

      Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

      NOES.

      Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

      Daggar, George

      Grundy, Thomas W.

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)

      Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

      Batey, Joseph

      Edwards, Charles

      Healy, Cahir

      Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

      Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

      Hirst, George Henry

      Buchanan, George.

      Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

      Jenkins, Sir William

      Cocks, Frederick Seymour

      Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      1780

      1781

      Kirkwood, David

      McGovern, John

      Williams, David (Swansea, East)

      Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

      Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

      Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

      Lawson, John James

      Maxton, James

      Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

      Leonard, William

      Milner, Major James

      Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)

      Logan, David Gilbert

      Parkinson, John Allen

      Lunn, William

      Price, Gabriel

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

      Thorne, William James

      Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

      Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

      Division No. 215.]

      AYES.

      [6.33 p.m.

      Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

      Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

      Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

      Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

      Dunglass, Lord

      Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

      Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

      Eden, Robert Anthony

      Mabane, William

      Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.

      Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

      McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

      Albery, Irving James

      Elliston, Captain George Sampson

      McKle, John Hamilton

      Alien, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)

      Elmley, Viscount

      McLean, Major Alan

      Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

      Emrys-Evans, P. V.

      McLean, Dr. W.H. (Tradeston)

      Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

      Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

      Macmillan, Maurice Harold

      Apsley Lord

      Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

      Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

      Aske Sir Robert William

      Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

      Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

      Atholl Duchess of

      Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

      Mander, Geoffrey le M.

      Atkinson Cyril

      Everard, W. Lindsay

      Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

      Bailey, Eric Alfred George

      Fermoy, Lord

      Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

      Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

      Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

      Marsden, Commander Arthur

      Balniel, Lord

      Ford, Sir Patrick J.

      Martin, Thomas B.

      Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

      Fox, Sir Gifford

      Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

      Barton Capt. Basil Kelsey

      Fraser, Captain Ian

      Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

      Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

      Fuller, Captain A. G.

      Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

      Beaumont, M.W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

      Ganzoni, Sir John

      Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

      Beaumont Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

      Gillett, Sir George Masterman

      Milne, Charles

      Belt. Sir Alfred L.

      Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

      Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

      Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

      Glossop, C. W. H.

      Mitcheson, G. G.

      Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

      Gluckstein, Louis Halle

      Moreing, Adrian C.

      Bevan Stuart James (Holborn)

      Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

      Morgan, Robert H.

      Blaker, Sir Reginald

      Goff, Sir Park

      Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

      Bossom, A. C.

      Goldie, Noel B.

      Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

      Boulton, W. W.

      Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

      Morrison, William Shepherd

      Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

      Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

      Moss, Captain H. J.

      Bowyer, Capt. Sir George, E. W.

      Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

      Muirhead. Major A. J.

      Bracken, Brendan

      Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

      Munro, Patrick

      Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

      Gritten, W. G. Howard

      Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.

      Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

      Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

      Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

      Broadbent, Colonel John

      Gunston, Captain D. W.

      Newton, Sir Douglas George, C.

      Brocklebank, C. E. R.

      Guy, J. C. Morrison

      Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

      Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)

      Hales, Harold K.

      North, Captain Edward T.

      Brown, Ernest (Leith)

      Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

      Nunn, William

      Brown, Bring.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)

      Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

      O'Connor, Terence James

      Browne, Captain A. C.

      Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd)

      O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

      Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

      Hammersley, Samuel S.

      Ormiston, Thomas

      Butler, Richard Austen

      Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

      Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

      Cadogan, Hon. Edward

      Hartington, Marquess of

      Palmer, Francis Noel

      Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

      Hartland, George A.

      Patrick, Colin M.

      Carver Major William H.

      Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

      Peake, Captain Osbert

      Cassels, James, Dale

      Hasiam, Sir John (Bolton)

      Pearson, William G.

      Cautley, Sir Henry S.

      Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

      Perkins, Walter R. D.

      Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

      Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

      Petherick, M.

      Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E)

      Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

      Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

      Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

      Hoare, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

      Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)

      Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh

      Hornby, Frank

      Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

      Chalmers, John Rutherford

      Horsbrugh, Florence

      Pike, Cecil F.

      Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

      Howard, Tom Forrest

      Potter John

      Chotzner, Alfred James

      Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

      Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

      Christie, James Archibald

      Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

      Power, Sir John Cecil

      Clarke, Frank

      Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

      Procter, Major Henry Adam

      Clarry, Reginald George

      Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

      Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

      Clayton Dr. George C.

      Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

      Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

      Clydesdale, Marquess of

      Hurd, Sir Percy

      Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

      Cobb, Sir Cyril

      Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

      Ramsden, E.

      Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

      Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

      Ray, Sir William

      Colville, John

      James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.

      Rea, Walter Russell

      Conant, R. J. E.

      Jesson, Major Thomas E.

      Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

      Cook, Thomas A.

      Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

      Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

      Copeland, Ida

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Reid, William Allan (Derby)

      Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

      Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

      Remer, John R.

      Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

      Ker, J. Campbell

      Rentoul, Sir Gervais, S.

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Kerr, Hamilton W.

      Renwick, Major Gustav A.

      Craven-Ellis, William

      Kimball, Lawrence

      Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

      Crooke. J. Smedley

      Kirkpatrick, William M.

      Robinson, John Roland

      Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

      Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

      Rosbotham, S. T.

      Crossley, A. C.

      Knox, Sir Alfred

      Ross, Ronald D.

      Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

      Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

      Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

      Culverwell, Cyril Tom

      Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

      Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

      Curry, A. C.

      Law, Sir Alfred

      Salmon, Major Isidore

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

      Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

      Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

      Leech, Dr. J. W.

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwon)

      Denville, Alfred

      Leighton, Major B. E. P.

      Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

      Dickie, John P.

      Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

      Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

      Doran, Edward

      Levy, Thomas

      Savery, Samuel Servington

      Dower, Captain A. V. G.

      Lewis, Oswald

      Scone, Lord

      Drewe, Cedric

      Liddall, Walter S.

      Selley, Harry R.

      Duckworth, George A. V.

      Lindsay, Noel Ker

      Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

      Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

      Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunilffe-

      Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

      Duggan, Hubert John

      Loder, Captain J. de Vere

      Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

      1838

      1839

      Sinclair, Maj. Ht. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

      Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

      Waterhouse, Captain Charles

      Skelton, Archibald Noel

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

      Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

      Slater, John

      Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

      Wells, Sydney Richard

      Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)

      Summersby, Charles H.

      Weymouth, Viscount

      Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

      Sutcliffe, Harold

      White, Henry Graham

      Smith-Carington, Neville W.

      Tate, Mavis Constance

      Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

      Somervell, Donald Bradley

      Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)

      Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

      Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

      Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

      Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

      Soper, Richard

      Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

      Wills, Wilfrid D.

      Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

      Thorp, Linton Theodore

      Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

      Spencer, Captain Richard A.

      Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

      Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

      Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

      Withers, Sir John James

      Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

      Train, John

      Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

      Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

      Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

      Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

      Stevenson, James

      Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

      Worthington, Dr. John V.

      Stones, James

      Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

      Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

      Storey, Samuel

      Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

      Strauss, Edward A.

      Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Strickland, Captain W. F.

      Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

      Mr. Womersley and Commander

      Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

      Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

      Southby.

      NOES.

      Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

      Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

      Milner, Major James

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Hirst, George Henry

      Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale

      Briant, Frank

      Holdsworth, Herbert

      Parkinson, John Allen

      Buchanan, George

      Janner, Barnett

      Price, Gabriel

      Burnett, John George

      Jenkins, Sir William

      Rathbone, Eleanor

      Cocks, Frederick Seymour

      Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

      Salter, Dr. Alfred

      Cripps, Sir Stafford

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Thorne, William James

      Daggar, George

      Kirkwood, David

      Tinker, John Joseph

      Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

      Wallhead, Richard C.

      Eady, George H.

      Lawson. John James

      Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

      Edwards, Charles

      Leonard, William

      Williams, David (Swansea, East)

      Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

      Logan, David Gilbert

      Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

      Fremantle, Sir Francis

      Lunn, William

      Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

      George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

      Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

      Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)

      Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

      Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

      Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

      Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

      Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

      Mr. Groves and Mr. John.

      Grundy, Thomas W.

      Maxton, James

      Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 5, line 26, after the word "resolution," to insert the words:
      "applying to any land not within the district or, as the case may be, districts aforesaid."
      Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 313.

      [Division No. 216.

      AYES.

      [6.45 p.m.

      Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

      Hirst, George Henry

      Price, Gabriel

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Jenkins, Sir William

      Rathbone, Eleanor

      Buchanan, George

      John, William

      Salter, Dr. Alfred

      Cocks, Frederick Seymour

      Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

      Thorne, William James

      Cripps, Sir Stafford

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Tinker, John Joseph

      Daggar, George

      Kirkwood, David

      Wallhead, Richard C.

      Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

      Williams, David (Swansea, East)

      Edwards, Charles

      Lawson, John James

      Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

      George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

      Leonard, William

      Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

      George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

      Logan, David Gilbert

      Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

      Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

      Lunn, William

      Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

      Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

      Maxton, James

      Mr. Groves and Mr. Gordon

      Grundy, Thomas W.

      Milner, Major James

      Macdonald

      Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

      Parkinson, John Allen

      NOES.

      Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

      Atkinson, Cyril

      Blaker, Sir Reginald

      Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

      Bailey, Eric Alfred George

      Bossom, A. C.

      Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

      Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

      Boulton, W. W.

      Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.

      Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

      Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

      Albery, Irving James

      Balniel, Lord

      Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

      Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)

      Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

      Bracken, Brendan

      Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

      Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

      Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

      Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

      Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

      Briant, Frank

      Apsley, Lord

      Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

      Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

      Aske, Sir Robert William

      Belt, Sir Alfred L.

      Broadbent, Colonel John

      Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

      Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

      Brocklebank, C. E. R.

      Atholl, Duchess of

      Bevan, Stuart James (Holbo n)

      Brown. Col. D, C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)

      Brown, Ernest (Leith)

      Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

      Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peterst'ld)

      Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)

      Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

      North, Captain Edward T.

      Browne, Captain A. C.

      Hartington, Marquess of

      Nunn, William

      Burnett, John George

      Hartland, George A.

      O'Connor, Terence James

      Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

      Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

      O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

      Cadogan, Hon. Edward

      Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

      Ormiston, Thomas

      Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

      Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

      Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

      Carver, Major William H.

      Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

      Palmer, Francis Noel

      Cassels, James Dale

      Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

      Patrick, Colin M.

      Cautley, Sir Henry S.

      Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

      Peake, Captain Osbert

      Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

      Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

      Pearson, William G.

      Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh

      Holdsworth, Herbert

      Perkins, Walter R. O.

      Chalmers, John Rutherford

      Hornby, Frank

      Petherick, M.

      Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

      Horobin, Ian M.

      Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

      Chotzner, Alfred James

      Horsbrugh, Florence

      Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)

      Christie, James Archibald

      Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

      Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

      Clarke, Frank

      Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

      Pike, Cecil F.

      Clarry, Reginald George

      Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

      Potter, John

      Clayton, Dr. George C.

      Hume, Sir George Hopwood

      Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

      Clydesdale, Marquess of

      Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

      Procter, Major Henry Adam

      Cobb, Sir Cyril

      Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

      Pybus, Percy John

      Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

      Hurd, Sir Percy

      Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

      Colville, John

      Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

      Ramsay, Capt A. H. M. (Midlothian)

      Conant, R. J. E.

      Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

      Ramsay, T B. W. (Western Isles)

      Copeland, Ida

      James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

      Ramsbotham, Herwald

      Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

      Janner, Barnett

      Ramsden, E.

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Jesson, Major Thomas E.

      Ray, Sir William

      Craven-Ellis, William

      Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

      Rea, Walter Ruasell

      Crooke, J. Smedley

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

      Crooksnank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

      Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

      Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

      Croom-Johnson, R. P.

      Ker, J. Campbell

      Reid, William Allan (Derby)

      Crossley, A. C.

      Kerr, Hamilton W.

      Remer, John R.

      Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

      Kimball, Lawrence

      Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

      Culverwell, Cyril Tom

      Kirkpatrick, William M.

      Renwick, Major Gustav A.

      Curry, A. C.

      Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

      Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Knox, Sir Alfred

      Rosbotham, S. T.

      Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

      Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

      Ross, Ronald D.

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

      Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

      Denville, Alfred

      Law, Sir Alfred

      Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

      Dickie, John P.

      Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Doran, Edward

      Leech, Dr. J. W.

      Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

      Drewe, Cedric

      Leighton, Major B. E. P.

      Salmon, Major Isidore

      Duckworth, George A. V.

      Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

      Salt, Edward W.

      Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

      Levy, Thomas

      Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

      Duggan, Hubert John

      Lewis, Oswald

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

      Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

      Liddall, Walter S.

      Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

      Dunglass, Lord

      Lindsay, Noel Ker

      Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

      Eales, John Frederick

      Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunilffe-

      Savery, Samuel Servington

      Eden, Robert Anthony

      Loder, Captain J. de Vere

      Scone, Lord

      Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

      Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

      Selley, Harry R.

      Elliston, Captain George Sampson

      Mabane, William

      Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

      Elmley, Viscount

      Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

      Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

      Emrys-Evans, P. V.

      MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

      Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

      Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

      McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

      Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

      Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

      McKie, John Hamilton

      Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

      Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Bik'pool)

      Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

      Skelton, Archibald Noel

      Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

      McLean, Major Alan

      Slater, John

      Everard, W. Lindsay

      McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

      Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

      Fermoy, Lord

      Macmillan, Maurice Harold

      Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)

      Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

      Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

      Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

      Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

      Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

      Smith-Carington, Neville W.

      Ford, Sir Patrick J.

      Mander, Geoffrey le M.

      Somervell, Donald Bradley

      Fox, Sir Gifford

      Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

      Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

      Fraser, Captain Ian

      Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

      Soper, Richard

      Fuller, Captain A. G.

      Marsden, Commander Arthur

      Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

      Ganzoni, Sir John

      Martin, Thomas B.

      Spencer, Captain Richard A.

      Gillett, Sir George Masterman

      Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

      Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

      Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

      Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

      Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

      Glossop, C. W. H.

      Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

      Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

      Gluckstein, Louis Halle

      Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

      Stevenson, James

      Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

      Milne, Charles

      Stones, James

      Goff, Sir Park

      Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

      Storey, Samuel

      Goldie, Noel B.

      Mitcheson, G. G.

      Strauss, Edward A.

      Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

      Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale

      Strickland, Captain W. F.

      Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

      Moreing, Adrian C.

      Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

      Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

      Morgan, Robert H.

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

      Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

      Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

      Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

      Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

      Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

      Summersby, Charles H.

      Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

      Morrison, William Shepherd

      Sutcliffe, Harold

      Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

      Moss, Captain H. J.

      Tate, Mavis Constance

      Gunston, Captain D. W.

      Mulrhead, Major A. J.

      Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)

      Guy, J. C. Morrison

      Munro, Patrick

      Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

      Hales, Harold K.

      Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.

      Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

      Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

      Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

      Thorp, Linton Theodore

      Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

      Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

      Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

      1842

      1843

      Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

      Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.

      Withers, Sir John James

      Train, John

      Wells, Sydney Richard

      Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

      Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

      Weymouth, Viscount

      Worthington, Dr. John V.

      Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

      White, Henry Graham

      Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

      Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)

      Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

      Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

      Williams, Charlas (Devon, Torquay)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

      Wills, Wilfrid D.

      Mr. Womersley and Commander

      Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

      Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

      Southby.

      Waterhouse, Captain Charles

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

      Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, in page 6, line 41, at the end, to insert the words:
      "(b) In giving his approval to a resolution under the last foregoing Sub-section and in making an order thereunder the Minister shall by the imposition of conditions or, as the case may be, by the terms of his order secure that—

      (i) any person whose property has been injuriously affected by reason that since the commencement of this Act the Minister has refused, on an appeal made to him under an interim development order, to grant an application for permission to develop the property or that the Minister has imposed any conditions on the grant of an application made since that date; and

      (ii) any person who, for the purpose of complying with any conditions imposed on the grant of such an application, has since the commencement of this Act incurred expenditure which is rendered abortive by the revocation of the resolution to prepare a scheme;

      shall be entitled, if he makes a claim for the purpose within twelve months from the date when the resolution is approved or the order is made, as the case may be, to claim compensation from such authority as may be specified in the condition or order.
      Provided that the Minister shall not secure a right to compensation in respect of any injurious affection of property arising from refusal to permit any development, or from the imposition of any conditions where he is satisfied that, if a scheme had come into operation containing provisions which would have had the effect of prohibiting that development, or under which those conditions could have been enforced, no right to compensation would have arisen under this Act in respect of the injurious affection of the property by the coming into operation of those provisions."
      To anyone who may suspect that there is more in this Amendment than meets the eye, I would say that it is a very simple matter. It is part of the machinery for carrying out that arrangement as regards compensation during the interim period which I fully described to the House at an earlier stage. The criticism was made that it was unfair that anyone should be deprived of compensation where, after a resolution to prepare a scheme had been passed, a
      1844
      restriction had been imposed upon which a claim to compensation could normally be based and subsequently the resolution had to be negatived so that the scheme had never come into force. This Amendment provides that in such a case the right to claim compensation, which would have accrued, shall not be lost by the revocation of the resolution. The Amendment is just a working-out of that position, which I believe will commend itself to the Committee as being obviously fair. There are two Amendments to the proposed Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). In line 3, to leave out from the word "order," to the end of line 12, and to insert instead thereof the words:
      "Provide that any person who, after the date of the passing of this Act—

      (i) has appealed to the Minister under Sub-section (3) of Section sixteen of this Act and whose appeal has been dismissed or allowed subject to conditions and whose property has been injuriously affected thereby; or

      (ii) has incurred expenditure in complying with any such conditions, which expenditure has been rendered abortive by such resolution or order as aforesaid."

      To leave out lines 16 to 22, and to insert instead thereof, the words:
      "Provided that no such provision shall extend to entitle any person to compensation in respect of any such injurious affection as aforesaid in any case where the prohibition of development or imposition of conditions are of such a character that they would not have entitled such person to compensation if a scheme containing provisions which would have had the effect of prohibiting such development or authorising the imposition of such conditions had come into operation."
      There may be points in those Amendments which commend themselves to the Committee, but I suggest, with the consent of the hon. and learned Member that instead of their being disposed of now I should undertake to give consideration to them with a view to their being accepted, subject to any necessary drafting alterations, in another place.
      Mr. GREENWOOD: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) asked me to say that he is agreeable to that course.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 310; Noes, 41.

      Division No. 217.]

      AYES.

      [6.59 p.m.

      Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

      Duckworth, George A. V.

      Knox, Sir Alfred

      Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

      Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

      Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

      Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

      Duggan, Hubert John

      Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

      Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.

      Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington, N.)

      Law, Sir Alfred

      Albery, Irving James

      Dunglass, Lord

      Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

      Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)

      Eales, John Frederick

      Leech, Dr. J. W.

      Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

      Eden, Robert Anthony

      Leighton, Major B. E. P.

      Aske, Sir Robert William

      Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

      Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

      Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

      Elliston, Captain George Sampson

      Levy, Thomas

      Atholl, Duchess of

      Elmley, Viscount

      Lewis, Oswald

      Bailey, Eric Alfred George

      Emrys Evans, P. V.

      Liddall, Walter S.

      Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

      Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

      Lindsay, Noel Ker

      Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

      Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

      Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunilffe-

      Balfour, George (Hampstead)

      Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

      Loder, Captain J. de Vere

      Balniel, Lord

      Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

      Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

      Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

      Everard, W. Lindsay

      Lumloy, Captain Lawrence R.

      Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

      Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

      Mabane, William

      Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Ayiesbury)

      Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

      MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

      Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th. C.)

      Ford, Sir Patrick J.

      MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

      Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

      Fox, Sir Gilford

      McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

      Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

      Fraser, Captain Ian

      McKeag, William

      Blaker, Sir Reginald

      Fremantle, Sir Francis

      McKie, John Hamilton

      Bossom, A. C.

      Fuller, Captain A. G.

      Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

      Boulton, W. W.

      Ganzoni, Sir John

      McLean, Major Alan

      Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

      Gillett, Sir George Masterman

      McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

      Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

      Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

      Macmillan, Maurice Harold

      Bracken, Brendan

      Glossop, C. W. H.

      Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

      Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

      Gluckstein, Louis Halle

      Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

      Briant, Frank

      Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

      Mander, Geoffrey le M.

      Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

      Goff, Sir Park

      Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

      Broadbent, Colonel John

      Goldie, Noel B.

      Marsden, Commander Arthur

      Brockiebank, C. E. R.

      Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

      Martin, Thomas B.

      Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

      Gower, Sir Robert

      Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

      Brown, Ernest (Leith)

      Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

      Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

      Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)

      Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

      Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

      Browne, Captain A. C.

      Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

      Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

      Burnett, John George

      Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

      Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

      Cadogan, Hon. Edward

      Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

      Milne, Charles

      Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

      Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

      Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tt'd & Chisw'k)

      Carver, Major William H.

      Gunston, Captain D. W.

      Mitcheson, G. G.

      Cassels, James Dale

      Guy, J. C. Morrison

      Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale

      Cautley, Sir Henry S.

      Hales, Harold K.

      Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

      Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

      Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

      Moreing, Adrian C.

      Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh

      Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

      Morgan, Robert H.

      Chalmers, John Rutherford

      Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)

      Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

      Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

      Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

      Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

      Chotzner, Alfred James

      Hartland, George A.

      Morrison, William Shepherd

      Christie, James Archibald

      Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)

      Moss, Captain H. J.

      Clarke, Frank

      Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

      Muirhead, Major A. J.

      Clarry, Reginald George

      Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

      Munro, Patrick

      Clayton, Dr. George C.

      Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

      Nail, Sir Joseph

      Clydesdale, Marquess of

      Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

      Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.

      Cobb, Sir Cyril

      Holdsworth, Herbert

      Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

      Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

      Hornby, Frank

      Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

      Colville, John

      Horobin, Ian M.

      Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

      Conant, R. J. E.

      Horsbrugh, Florence

      North, Captain Edward T.

      Copeland, Ida

      Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

      Nunn, William

      Courtauld, Major John Sewell

      Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

      O'Connor, Terence James

      Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

      Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

      O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Hume, Sir George Hopwood

      Ormiston, Thomas

      Craven-Ellis, William

      Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

      Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

      Crooke, J. Smedley

      Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

      Palmer, Francis Noel

      Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

      Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

      Patrick, Colin M.

      Croom-Johnson, R. P.

      James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.

      Peake, Captain Osbert

      Crossley, A. C.

      Janner, Barnett

      Pearson, William, G.

      Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

      Jesson, Major Thomas E.

      Petherick, M.

      Culverwell, Cyril Tom

      Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

      Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

      Curry, A. C.

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

      Picktord, Hon. Mary Ada

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Ker, J. Campbell

      Pike, Cecil F.

      Denville, Alfred

      Kerr, Hamilton W.

      Potter, John

      Dickie, John P.

      Kimball, Lawrence

      Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

      Doran, Edward

      Kirkpatrick, William M.

      Power, Sir John Cecil

      Drewe, Cedric

      Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

      Procter, Major Henry Adam

      Pybus, Percy John

      Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

      Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

      Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

      Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

      Thorp, Linton Theodore

      Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

      Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

      Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

      Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

      Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

      Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

      Ramsbotham, Herwald

      Skelton, Archibald Noel

      Train, John

      Ramsden, E.

      Slater, John

      Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

      Ray, Sir William

      Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

      Vaughan Morgan, Sir Kenyon

      Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

      Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)

      Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

      Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

      Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

      Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

      Reid, William Allan (Derby)

      Smith-Carington, Neville W.

      Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

      Remer, John R.

      Somervell, Donald Bradley

      Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

      Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

      Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

      Waterhouse, Captain Charles

      Renwick, Major Gustav A.

      Soper, Richard

      Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

      Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

      Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

      Wells, Sydney Richard

      Rosbotham, S. T.

      Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

      Weymouth, Viscount

      Ross, Ronald D.

      Spencer, Captain Richard A.

      Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

      Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

      Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

      Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

      Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

      Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

      Wills, Wilfrid D.

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

      Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

      Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

      Stevenson, James

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

      Salmon, Major Isidore

      Stones, James

      Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

      Salt, Edward W.

      Storey, Samuel

      Withers, Sir John James

      Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

      Strauss, Edward A.

      Womersley, Walter James

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

      Strickland, Captain W. F.

      Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

      Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

      Worthington, Dr. John V.

      Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

      Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

      Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

      Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

      Summersby, Charles H.

      Savery, Samuel Servington

      Sutcliffe, Harold

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Scone, Lord

      Tate, Mavis Constance

      Major George Davies and Commander Southby.

      Selley, Harry R.

      Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)

      Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

      Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

      NOES.

      Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

      Hirst, George Henry

      Price, Gabriel

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Jenkins, Sir William

      Rathbone, Eleanor

      Buchanan, George

      John, William

      Salter, Dr. Alfred

      Cocks, Frederick Seymour

      Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)

      Thorne, William James

      Cripps, Sir Stafford

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Tinker, John Joseph

      Daggar, George

      Kirkwood, David

      Wallhead, Richard C.

      Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

      Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

      Edwards, Charles

      Lawson, John James

      Williams, David (Swansea, East)

      George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

      Leonard, William

      Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

      George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

      Logan, David Gilbert

      Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

      Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

      Lunn, William

      Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

      Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

      Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

      Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

      Maxton, James

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Grundy, Thomas W.

      Milner, Major James

      Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

      Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

      Parkinson, John Allen

      Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

      CLAUSE 17.—(Power to make orders for preservation of certain buildings.)
      Sir G. HUME: I beg to move, in page 21, line 25, after the word "effect," to insert the words:
      "the Common Council of the City of London as respects the City of London or the London County Council as respects the county of London, or."
      This Amendment and the other following Amendment to the same effect are consequential on the earlier Amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: In page 21, line 25, leave out the first word "county," and insert instead thereof the words "other county or the council of any."—[Sir G. Hume.]

      CLAUSE 26.—(Acquisition of land for open spaces and playing fields in area covered by planning resolution.)
      Amendment made: In page 37, line 32, after the word "and", insert the words "the Common Council of the City of London or".—[Sir G. Hume.]
      Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: I beg to move, in page 37,, line 41, at the end, to add the words:
      "(2) In any case where after a resolution to prepare or adopt a scheme has taken effect and an application for permission to proceed with interim development of any land is refused by an authority on the ground that it is intended to reserve the land by the scheme as a public open space and the refusal is confirmed by the Minister on an appeal the owner of the land shall be entitled to require the authority to purchase the land within six months after the date of refusal at a price to be agreed between the owner and the authority or, failing agreement, to be determined by the arbitration of such person as may be agreed

      1849
      upon or, in default of agreement, appointed by the Minister."
      This Amendment refers to land which is included in a resolution as scheduled for the purposes of public open spaces, and which comes in an entirely different category from any other land which is within the same resolution. I am asking in this Amendment that, if the owner of land which is scheduled as a public open space is refused an interim development order and that decision is confirmed by the Ministry of Health, the local authorities should be compelled to purchase the land at its proper price. Under the old Act, when land was scheduled in this way, the owner did not get his money for the land, nor did he get compensation until the scheme was approved, which might be long after. This is only introducing justice between the local authority and the property owner.
      Sir H. YOUNG: The principle of this Amendment is unobjectionable. It is only a minor extension of Clause 18 (2). I propose to accept the principle of the Amendment, but its place in the Bill is wrong, and the draft is not in the appropriate form. I will put it in the appropriate form in another place.
      Sir S. CRIPPS: I should have thought that this was a most vicious Amendment from the Minister's point of view, and I am very surprised that he is prepared to accept it. It is introducing a new principle as regards compensation, which can be very easily wangled by any owner who wishes to do so. All he has got to do, where he is certain that the land is to be used as an open space, is to ask for an interim development order, knowing perfectly well that it will be refused. By so doing he is going to cash in the whole price of the open space, which normally he would not be able to do. The right hon. Gentleman, by accepting the principle of this Amendment, is putting such an onus on local authorities as will effectively stop local authorities having open spaces. Nothing is more calculated to stop the most desirable adjunct of the town planning scheme, a sufficiency of open spaces, than an Amendment of this sort. Local authorities with a desire for economy, which is the desire of the hon. Members who have put down this Amendment, although they do not wish any economy in compensation—
      Captain WATERHOUSE: Not economy at the expense of confiscation.
      Sir S. CRIPPS: This is no new procedure. It is a procedure which has been going on for 23 years in this country in regard to compensation. Now it is proposed to change it suddenly, for no apparent reason except the pressure put upon the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have appreciated the enormous harm which this Amendment will do as regards the provision of open spaces. I can imagine nothing more calculated to stop the provision of adequate open spaces than this quite unfair provision as regards a local authority. The matter has often been dealt with by the House of Commons before, but never in this way, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision to insert such a provision.
      Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I rise to refute the perfectly absurd suggestions put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The only purpose of this Amendment is to say that an owner shall not be saddled with land which he is not allowed to use and which is to be open to the public. The compensation which is given in such cases is always, and must always be, tantamount to the whole value of the land. It simply says that when a town planning scheme includes a provision for a public open space which removes the whole of the value of the land from the owner, and when as the Bill originally stood compensation of the whole value of the land would have to be paid for the convenience both of the local authority and of the owner, the ownership of the land should pass into the hands of the local authority. It is not in the least likely to prevent the provision of open spaces. On the contrary, it is likely to facilitate very much the agreement between the owners and the local authorities in their provision.
      Amendment negatived.

      CLAUSE 44.—(Expenses of, and borrowing by, local authorities.)
      Amendments made: In page 49, line 39, after the word "defrayed," insert the words:

      1851
      "in the case of the Common. Council of the City of London as expenses of that council chargeable to the general rate of that city."
      In page 50, line 18, at the end, insert the words:
      "Provided further that any expenses properly incurred in or in connection with the preparation or carrying into execution of a scheme made by the Common Council of the City of London where such scheme is conseqential upon a scheme made by the London County Council in respect of a part of the county of London and forms part of a general proposal for planning an area comprising land in the City of London and land in the County of London shall be defrayed by the London County Council as expenses for general county purposes, and any difference between the said Common Council and the London County Council under this proviso shall be referred to and determined by the Minister."
      In line 20, at the end, insert the words:
      "(a) in the case of the Common Council of the City of London under the City of London Sewers Acts, 1848 to 1897."—[Sir G. Hume.]

      CLAUSE 45.—(Special provisions as to the administrative county of London.)
      Amendments made: In page 52, line 1, leave out Sub-section (4), and insert instead thereof the words:
      "(4) The London County Council shall consult with the Common Council of the City of London with respect to any of the following matters in so far as they affect or are likely to affect any scheme made or adopted or any resolution to prepare or adopt a scheme which has been passed or is proposed to be passed by the Common Council of the City of London, that is to say:

      (a)any proposal for a resolution to prepare a scheme or to revoke a resolution to prepare or adopt a scheme;

      (b) the preparation of any scheme which they propose to make;

      (c)the examination of any scheme which they propose to adopt;

      and the Common Council shall consult with the London County Council in such matters in so far as they affect or are likely to affect any scheme made or adopted or any resolution to prepare or adopt a scheme which has been passed or is proposed to be passed by the London County Council."
      In line 22, leave out the word "administrative," and insert instead thereof the words "City of London and the."
      In line 29, leave out the words "or by the Common Council of the City of London."
      In line 35, leave out from "1893," to the end of the Sub-section.—[Sir G. Hume.]

      CLAUSE 49.—(Interpretation.)
      Amendments made: In page 55, line 39, after the word "means," insert the words:
      "in relation to the Common Council of the City of London, the City of London, in relation to the London County Council, the county of London, and."
      In line 39, leave out the word "a," and insert instead thereof the words "any other."—[Sir G. Hume.]

      NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to contribute towards expenses of owners in connection with the proposal of schemes.)
      It shall be lawful for a local authority or joint committee to contribute towards the expenses incurred by owners of land in or in connection with the proposal of a scheme which is adopted by the local authority or joint committee or in co-operating with them in the preparation of a scheme.—[Sir E. Young.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
      This is a new Clause on a small matter to meet a reasonable suggestion that was made in Committee. The suggestion was that when owners co-operate in preparing a scheme, or themselves prepare a scheme, it should be within the power of the local authority to make a contribution towards the expenses. The Committee will observe that it is optional with the local authority whether they do so or not. It may be a reasonable thing for them to do, and will facilitate the cooperation between the owners and the authorities in the preparation of schemes.
      Clause added to the Bill.

      SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Adaptations and modifications of this Act in its application to Scotland.)
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I beg to move, in page 75, line 10, to leave out

      1853
      from the word "words," to the word "there," in line 11, and to insert instead thereof the words:
      "the Common Council of the City of London as respects the City of London, or the London County Council as respects the county of London, or the council of any other county, or the council of any county borough or county district."
      This is purely a drafting Amendment. We have just put in to Clause 17 a reference to the Common Council of the City of London in relation to the preservation of buildings. Any reference to the Common Council is unnecessary, and this Amendment is to remove it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 75, to leave out lines 21 to 26, and to insert instead thereof the words:
      "Section 21.—For Sub-section (11) there shall be substituted the following Subsection:
      (11) In this Section the expression 'disposition' means a disposition by way of feu or sale (including a sale in consideration of a ground, annual, or other similar periodical payment) or the grant of a lease or tack for a period of not less than three years, and references to the person who gives a notice under Sub-section (1) of this Section shall, where the property to which the notice relates has, since the notice was given, been the subject of transmission otherwise than by disposition, be construed as references to the person to whom the property was last so transmitted before the date on which a disposition takes effect or a change of use takes place."
      This is little more than a drafting Amendment, and I want to say one word Upon it. The Committee will remember that Clause 21 now includes with regard to betterment the use of the word "disposition." It is necessary in regard to that word to have the Scottish definition of the word in the Scottish Act instead of the English definition, which is in Clause 21. The words which I now wish to insert are the proper Scottish definition of the word "disposition."
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: In page 75, line 42, after the word "words," insert the words "the Common Council of the City of London or."—[Mr. Skelton.]
      Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 76, line 14, to leave out from the word "words," to the end of line 22, and to insert instead thereof the words:
      1854
      "and if the agreement shall have been recorded in the appropriate register of sasines, it shall be enforceable at the instance of the authority against persons deriving title to the land from the person with whom it was entered into:
      Provided that no such agreement shall at any time be enforceable against a third party who shall have in bona fide onerously acquired right (whether completed by infeftment or not) to the land prior to the agreement being recorded as aforesaid or against any person deriving title from such third party."
      The question at issue here is the proper inspection of purchase of land which has been subjected to previous agreements between the owner and the local authority. It is wholly unnecessary for me to say that to have kept this particular provision in complete consonance with the law of Scotland has been a matter of some difficulty. The form of words originally used in the Bill of last Session was this Session thought to be unsatisfactory. I suggested an alteration in the Committee stage, and from that alteration further improvements are now made.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 78, to leave out lines 27 to 36, and to insert instead thereof the words:
      "(3) The provisions of the Second Schedule to the Rating (Scotland) Act, 1926, and of paragraph (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section seven of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, shall apply in relation to claims for compensation under this Act as they apply in relation to claims for compensation under those Acts subject to such modifications as the Secretary of State may by order provide for the purpose of adapting those provisions to cases arising under this Act."
      This Amendment refers to Clause 46, which deals with the compensation to officers who may be displaced under the provisions of this Bill. I moved an Amendment in the Committee stage which the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) thought was excessively wide, and discussion on the subject followed. I promised that I would reconsider the matter and put it in a different form. I am glad to say that he and I have come to an agreement, and I think that the form is now satisfactory.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 79, column 2, to leave out lines 27 to 29, and to insert instead thereof the words:

      1855
      "For sub-paragraph (2) (a), (b), and (d) of paragraph 2 of Part I there shall be substituted respectively the following paragraphs:
      (a) Sub-section (1) of section thirty-two of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897; (b) Section one hundred and fifty-eight of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, as extended by Sub-section (2) (h) of Section one hundred and four of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903;
      (d) Section five of the Roads Improvement Act, 1925, as applied to Scotland by Section twelve of that Act; and sub-paragraph (2) (c) shall be omitted.
      In paragraph 2 of Part II, and in paragraph 2 of Part III, after the words 'for the purpose,' there shall be inserted the words 'by summary petition.'"
      This Amendment is necessary in order to adapt the new form of the First Schedule. The Committee will recollect that a new First Schedule has been passed, and the passage of it has made it necessary for me to move certain drafting Amendments in regard to its application to Scotland.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Bill reported; as amended, on recommittal, considered.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. GREENWOOD: We have now arrived at the stage when we part company with this Bill, and I should like to congratulate hon. Gentlemen opposite on the success of their efforts; I am sorry that more of them are not here now. They have fought a very determined fight to make the Bill what it is. It is not the Bill that I should have liked to see myself, but at least they are to be congratulated on the success of their efforts. I do not myself, after to-day's decision in the House, recognise this emaciated child as the lusty infant that I introduced into the House only 15 months ago. It is perfectly true that it might have died altogether in the hands of those baby farmers to whom it was entrusted for so long by the right hon. Gentleman. The infant has survived, but at least it has suffered a certain measure of ill-treatment. Nor can I recognise, in the harsh
      1856
      foster-parent of the little infant that I brought into the House, the sponsor of the Rural Amenities Bill, twice introduced by him into the House at a time when he enjoyed greater freedom and less responsibility than he does now.
      That Bill was the Bill of a wild revolutionary. I remember that, when I read it, shivers ran down my spine at the terrific possibilities that that Bill held out of trouble in the House of Commons, trouble in another place, trouble in the Law Courts, trouble everywhere; but at least it was the Bill of a bold visionary, who on two occasions made most eloquent speeches in the House in defence of the beauties of the countryside and in defence of rural England. I had hoped that, at the hands of a successor with such a history in this matter, the Town and Country Planning Bill might have passed from here to another place as strong as it was when it was left by the Labour Government.
      Unfortunately, it has been weakened during its rather hectic passage through Committee. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that I objected because the Bill had been amended, and he pointed out, quite rightly, that I in my turn had accepted a very large number of Amendments to the Bill last year as it was passing through its Committee stage. But the difficulty that I find with the Bill now is that, as one looks at it leaving us now for another place, it bears the marks of those destructive forces who, from its Second Reading down to this moment, have done their best to weaken and enfeeble it and to destroy its possibilities, with the result—I do not want to go into details—that in one way after another the Bill has been impaired. I feel—and this, I may say, is a great tribute to hon. Gentlemen on the third bench opposite—that, so far from the Bill ever having been strengthened in any particular as regards town planning powers, it has been weakened, and concessions have been made.
      I am prepared to admit—I must admit—that, although the right hon. Gentleman has ill-treated the infant, it is still there, and the Bill, of course, is in many respects an advance on the existing law. That is where hon. Gentlemen on the third bench opposite have met their defeat. They wanted no Bill at all. They would have liked to sweep from the

      1857
      Statute Book every law that touches town planning, as no doubt they would wish to sweep from the Statute Book every piece of legislation dealing with our local authorities. But, while it is true that the Bill does lead us some way along the road that we hoped to travel, it is idle to deny that, as it leaves us now for another place, a very large number of people—indeed, I can say all people who are actually working at the practical job of town planning—are left with a very deep sense of disappointment.
      Here was a real opportunity for what is called a National Government. Here was a Bill which had already been sifted and examined and amended and approved by all responsible sections of the House in the last Parliament—a Measure on which a National Government might have set its seal and said, "Viewing our responsibilities as a National Government, rising"—as has been said so often—"above the mere filth of party politics, we will take this Bill, examined as it was last Session and agreed to by all responsible Members of all political parties, and we will put it on the Statute Book as it was left by the late Government." That would have been a proof of the national character of the Government. Unfortunately, that is not what has happened. All the objections to the Bill, all the efforts which have been made to weaken the Bill, have come from one quarter; they have come from that quarter of recalcitrant, unrepentent, diehard Tories so ably led by hon. Members who sit on the third bench opposite—a bench that will become immortal in the history of Parliament; a bench of men who, in the days of a National Government, thought it their duty to oppose a Bill which was supported by all national parties at the time.
      If anybody wants proof that the diehard tail is wagging the national dog, they need only look at the restricted character of the Bill as it now stands, and compare it with the Bill as it was when it was introduced by the present Minister of Health. With the new limitations, with the new vexatious handicaps which have been introduced, with the efforts to put a brake upon the wheel of local authorities' endeavours, the greatest defect of the Bill, as I see it now, is with respect to the question, which has already been argued and which I cannot re-argue at this stage of the
      1858
      Bill, of its curtailed powers. It is interesting to note that most of the speakers who followed the Minister after he had made his defence explained that they were not satisfied with his statement, that they felt that he had not removed the doubts from their minds; and there remains the great blot upon the Bill, which everyone connected with town planning would have liked to see removed, that planning powers have been curtailed.
      The view of the right hon. Gentleman is that, as the Bill now stands, all conceivable cases where town planning is necessary will be covered. In that view he stands practically alone in the world. I have never had a letter—and I have had large numbers within the last two or three weeks—from anybody concerned directly or indirectly with local Government or town planning who does not feel that, as the Bill now stands, the Government have lost a great opportunity, and that the curtailment of powers and the curtailment of the scope of the Bill will prove to be a serious injury to the cause of town planning. The Bill, in fact, does not really embody the experience of people who have been engaged on this work, and it does not give the powers which are generally desired. If the right hon. Gentleman is right, and there is really nothing left to be desired in the way of further extension, why does he not say, "We will make it cover all land"? If it be true that all the land that is likely to be needed for development purposes, all the land that ought to be planned, is in the Bill, why does he not remove the suspicions of all the people who are engaged on this work by saying that the Act shall apply to all land? The answer can only be that he has made a real concession in the Bill as it leaves us now—a concession which has been due to the guerilla warfare of hon. Members who are assumed to be his supporters, but who have used their position to snipe him from behind.
      The Bill, as I have said, misses a great opportunity. Town Planning Bills rarely come to this House. A Town Planning Bill is a complicated Measure. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman realises—I realise it fully—that there is not going to be another Town Planning Bill for many years now. [Interruption.] I expected approval from hon Gentlemen opposite; I should

      1859
      have been surprised if they had not approved of that statement. It is perfectly natural that they should not want another one. But there are large numbers of people who do want another one, and whose hopes are now deferred.
      I am bound to admit that this Bill is a considerable advance, but I am bound to confess, as one who introduced this Bill originally into the House, and who had hoped to see it put on the Statute Book last year—I am bound to confess, and I think I am entitled to confess, a certain disappointment because a Bill which was approved so whole-heartedly by the Leaders of every party, and by all responsible people in every party, has been, I do not say destroyed, but substantially-weakened. I do not know whether it may come back with further Amendments; the chances are that it may; but we part with it now so far as serious argument is concerned, and I think I am speaking for the whole of our local authorities and their organisations, for the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, for the Royal Institute of British Architects, for all bodies who are associated with this work, when I say that, although they will welcome this Bill as an instalment, they are profoundly disappointed because the opportunity so magnificently given to the right hon. Gentleman has not been grasped by him, and they will have to look forward in some distant future for the day when their dreams will be realised.
      Sir J. WALKER SMITH: When this Bill came before the House for its Second Reading, I considered that there were many provisions in it which were contrary to the public interest. It has been modified a good deal in its passage through Committee. As qualified, it is more cumbersome and somewhat more confusing, but I must admit that it is somewhat less objectionable than it was before. Even so, I am a little disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) should have felt so ungrateful with regard to the Bill as it has come up for its Third Reading. I should have thought if there was anyone who should have been satisfied with it, that it was one who is perfervidly Socialistic in his outlook. To such a person I consider that the Bill should appear very satis-
      1860
      factory and very desirable. Launched by the Government, precipitately, in the misguided belief that it would be mistaken for an innocuous Measure, I have no doubt that it will find its way on to the Statute Book. Nevertheless, I still think that the Bill as it stands has some fundamentally unsatisfactory features.
      I propose to divide my observations on it into four categories. Firstly, there are those provisions which are typical of unwarrantable expenditure, not to say extravagance. Secondly, there are provisions which reveal the impossibility of the Measure effecting the desired purpose. Thirdly, there are provisions which constitute a very serious brake upon industry. Fourthly, there are provisions which tend to undue domination by the Government Department concerned as to the determination of questions affecting very vital and important interests by methods which are at the same time secret and arbitrary, and there are typical Clauses which provide means and methods for the use of a Government Department which are contrary to the principles of natural justice.
      I propose to deal with the provisions within these four categories as succinctly and unobjectionably as I can. The first provision that involves unwarrantable expenditure and, I think, extravagance, is very appropriately the first Clause of the Bill, under which a town planning scheme may be made with respect to any land, whether there are or are not buildings thereon, with the general object of controlling development. This constitutes an enormous extension of the powers and duties of those responsible. It is a very considerable extension of the town planning powers already available in. respect of undeveloped land, now to be extended to the whole of the developed land in the country. The duties that are at present laid on the responsible authorities have involved the employment of very considerable and expensive staffs, which are now to be increased and multiplied. This controlling of the development of land built upon and unbuilt upon will most certainly require very considerable staffs, and these staffs will be engaged on what is termed controlling development. Controlling is, in my opinion, a euphemistic term which really means restricting, pro-

      1861
      hibiting, and generally making it extremely difficult for anyone to build upon vacant land or to improve existing buildings or to build bigger and improved buildings upon vacant and Cleared sites.
      Let us see who are the authorities charged with this very important and all-embracing work. The first executive authority mentioned in Clause 2 is the local authorities of the country. They do not need very much encouragement to cause them to appoint very considerable and expensive staffs, and, once appointed, they are never got rid of. Their partners in this matter are revealed in Clause 6. This is the beginning of the partnership between local authorities and the Ministry of Health, which the Minister termed a complex of planning authorities, who will be charged with these duties, which, I think, will consist in controlling the property of others and considerably restricting development. In Clause 7 one gets the first taste of the sort of thing that is going to happen. It provides for enormous numbers of notices, forms, registers, and all the paraphernalia of expensive local authority and governmental administration. Under Clause 10, the Minister of Health, according to this arrangement, gets busy with the making of general Orders and special Orders for the purpose of controlling, which is restricting, development. Under the same Clause, when such Orders have been made, they will provide that applications for the gracious permission of local authorities to permit the owner to build upon his own land will receive the consideration of the staff of the local authority, which may grant the application of the owner to build upon his own land with or without any such conditions as they may wish to impose, and so on, all involving very expensive administrative machinery.
      Clause 11 involves the greatest amount of administrative costs in the preparation of the schemes themselves. Every scheme is to contain provisions for prohibiting or regulating development, and, in particular, for dealing with any of the matters mentioned in the Second Schedule. The Second Schedule contains elaborate provisions dealing with 21 items, and every scheme must contain provisions dealing with those items. I do not think there can be many in the House
      1862
      who have ever seen a town-planning scheme. It is a most complicated measure. Each scheme is almost as long as this Bill and, in addition, there are a great number of maps and plans of all kinds. The amount of work involved in the preparation of these schemes will be considerable and the amount of staff required will be very great indeed, as great as it will be expensive. I believe in the Ministry of Health there are engaged on this work of town planning a staff of about 20. The cost of that, when one takes into consideration the proportional cost of the secretaries, the Accountant-General, solicitors, counsel, and the many charges of a large administrative Department, must be at least £1,000 per annum for each member. So far as the Ministry of Health is concerned, that represents a cost of about £20,000.
      That is not so bad, except that there is a nucleus for galvanising into activity the local authorities throughout the country. One has had experience of the net result of the combination of a Government Department and the local authorities in the matter of education. One has Been that the education complex of the Government Department and the local authorities has resulted in an expenditure of something like £100,000,000 per annum. One has seen what I may term the road complex and what that has involved. The complex between the Minister of Transport and the local authorities in recent years has involved a capital expenditure of £500,000,000. These complexes of Government Departments and local authorities are not for the good of either the ratepayer or the taxpayer. There will be galvanised into existence large staffs in the large local authorities and smaller staffs in the smaller local authorities. One might very well say that there will be 500 local authorities engaged in town-planning operations. There will be about four members in each staff and they will involve an average cost of, say, £500 a year. The administrative costs of local authorities in respect of these operations is going to be £1,000,000 per annum. Then there will be similar expenses which will need to be incurred by owners of land in dealing with the local authorities, considering and preparing plans, entering into negotiations, legal costs, architects' costs and engineers' costs—no doubt, another £1,000,000.

      1863
      It really is too bad at this time if we have any regard at all for economy. I have heard the Minister of Health castigate Members of the Opposition for their inappreciation of the economic necessities of the day, and yet he imposes these provisions upon us whereby the administrative costs of local authorities and the Government Department will be considerably increased. Should he not have consideration to the increase of Government administration and local authority administration in the last 40 years? The cost of national Government has increased from £79,000,000 to £890,000,000—nine-fold—and the cost of local government has increased from £66,000,000 to £420,000,000—seven-fold—and yet this Measure, which will involve us in considerable additional administrative costs to be borne by the rates and taxes, is foisted upon us.
      8.0 p.m.
      I pass to my next point. My second category includes those provisions which reveal, in my opinion, the impossibility of the Measure effecting its desired purpose. One has to consider again who are the parties to be charged with these particular duties. The local authorities will become the executive authorities for the purpose, while the Minister of Health, the partner in this concern, will be the approving autocracy. That is the partnership. If it were not very serious, it would be almost farcical to believe that this partnership can deal with the question of planning and re-planning the whole of the country. These are the bodies to be charged with the preservation of the amenities of this country which the private owners have created and which no one has done more to spoil than Government Departments and local authorities. The so-called ribbon development which is an objectionable feature, was caused and induced almost solely by the lack of imagination, forethought and ability of the Government Department concerned. The partnership of the Minister of Health and local authorities for the purpose of preserving and creating amenities is almost humorous. One Department of the Ministry of Health in the prescribing of most rigid by-laws, and the local authorities in their rigid administration of the by-laws have done more to prevent the creation of amenities in the country than
      1864
      anything else I can possibly imagine. Local authorities have been compelled to comply with the by-laws and regulations prescribed by the Minister of Health. It has left them with no possibility of doing other than that which the rigorously applied by-laws permit, and that is the reason why the development of our cities and towns has been so unfortunate during the last 50 or 60 years.
      This partnership will never be able to do the job which is set for them as it requires considerable imagination, initiative and forethought. These are qualities which neither of these partners possess. Indeed, they possess qualities which are quite the reverse. They will both be slaves to precedent. They will flog the garden suburb idea to death. Dull, tame and uninspiring—we shall have these piffling little garden suburbs all over the countryside. Those particular bodies—the Minister of Health and the: local authority—are possessed of what I might call a dual mentality, rigid and entirely inelastic. Is it conceivably possible that matters of this kind requiring imagination and a certain amount of enlightenment in regard to ideas can safely be left to the Ministry of Health? This is the particular body who, on account of their reactionary and unimaginative attitude towards new methods of construction, such as steel-frame buildings and reinforced concrete, have set back the hands of the clock for years and years. They would not modify their by-laws and regulations and realise that entirely new methods were required. That is the dominant body of the partnership set to re-plan the whole of the countryside. If it were not a very serious matter, it would be farcical.
      I come to my third point, which is a reference to provisions which constitute a serious drag upon industry. I have already referred to the provisions which are required in town-planning schemes, but I have not referred yet to those which are required under Clause 12 of the Bill. The provisions required in a scheme may include provisions prescribing the space about buildings, limiting the number of buildings, regulating the size, height, design and elevation of buildings, imposing restrictions upon the manner in which buildings are to be used, and prohibiting building operations. There you have the

      1865
      whole thing in a nut shell. These schemes are for prohibiting, limiting and restricting. It does not need very much imagination to see where that sort of thing is going to lead us.
      I wonder if the Minister does not know—he certainly should know—that there are at the present time about 300,000 unemployed in the building industry. Nearly 30 per cent. of the total number engaged in this vast and important industry are unemployed. If ever there was a time when the brakes should be taken off the wheels of industry, this is the time. What do we get? We get this Bill which is to complex that it would baffle the astutest of brains. It will destroy the confidence of those who otherwise might, in due course, be tempted to commence more building operations. I do not speak for the building industry, but it must be obvious that all these restrictive measures will very seriously cripple an industry which has already been very severely dealt with.
      My fourth and last duty is to refer to two or three provisions which typify the proposed undue domination of the Government Department concerned and the methods secret and autocratic by which the Minister determines questions affecting very great and vital interests. They are provisions which give, for the use of the Department concerned, certain methods and means which are contrary to the principles of natural justice. The first typical provision of the kind appears in Clause 4:
      "If it appears to the Minister to be expedient that two or more authorities, being local authorities or county councils, should act jointly.… he may,.… by order provide for the constitution of a joint committee for the purpose and transfer to the Committee any power..… for the purpose."
      The object of the provision is to permit the county councils and larger local authorities to embrace the smaller local authorities when it is convenient for them to do so. That is the principle one will find a little further on in the Bill. Under Clause 32, Sub-section (2), the Minister may transfer to the county council powers to town plan the areas of all the local authorities with populations of less than 20,000. In this respect, the Minister reveals his policy. I observe that the Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. But this does reveal the policy of the Minister, which is that of securing the
      1866
      appointment of the chief administrative officers of county councils and large local authorities.
      Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—
      Sir J. WALKER SMITH: I was remarking that it was well to remember that the policy of the Minister was to secure the appointment of the chief administrative officers of the local authorities upon the lines and the standards of the Civil Service, thus showing that in time the appointment of the administrative officers of the large local authorities is to be based upon the Civil Service. I find in Clause 5, Subsection (1), a further sample of the power which the Minister reserves to himself under the Bill. It reads in this way:
      "If at any time it appears to the Minister to be expedient that any such council or local authority who have not claimed to be represented on the joint committee—he may by order.…transfer to the committee such of the powers.… and duties of the said council or local authority as he thinks fit."
      It is entirely in his discretion, and in that respect he has full arbitrary powers. Similarly, under Clause 6 which requires the Minister to be satisfied with regard to certain matters upon a resolution being passed by the local authority. But in this particular case, as in all other cases, it does not specify by what means, by what steps, and to what extent the Minister has to satisfy himself, and it certainly does not provide how the Minister is to satisfy anyone else. Is he to be satisfied by means of the local authority 2 It does not so say. Will he satisfy the public by some pronouncement of the grounds upon which he has been satisfied? Not at all. The whole proceedings savour of secrecy and autocracy. Also in Clause 6, Sub-section (4), the Minister
      "may, in giving his approval, vary the extent of the land to be included in the area to which the resolution is to apply."
      That means to say, that he can increase the area or he can decrease the area to any extent he may think fit without giving any reasons or explanations to anyone whatever. Similarly, in Clause 8:
      "The Minister may approve any scheme either with or without modifications."
      He can modify a scheme in any way he likes with certain reservations. There is

      1867
      no reservation with regard to his power of modification as far as the owners' interest is concerned, but a little modification with regard to his arbitrary attitude towards his partner in this matter, the local authority. He reflects his arbitrary powers a little in relation to his partners, but not towards the public generally. So you find throughout the whole of the proposals instances of the enormous powers of the Ministry of Health and their methods of administration which are couched in terms of secrecy and studiously avoid any possibility of power of appeal. I think that I am entitled, in dealing with the powers of the Minister of Health, to take a look at the record of the Ministry of Health in matters of this kind, and for that purpose I refer to the Committee on Ministers' Powers, a report of which has just been issued. The Committee were dealing at one stage of their report with the Clauses of enactments that have acquired the nickname of Henry VIII Clauses, because that monarch is regarded popularly as an impersonation of executive autocracy. On page 123 of the report the Committee give some examples of the exercise of executive autocracy by that Tudor monarch. They found a considerable difficulty in discovering instances of that executive autocracy, but they seem to have managed to find 11 of them, and it is peculiar that of the 11 Henry VIII Clauses—
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I am unaware that Henry VIII is mentioned in this Bill. The hon. Member must only discuss what is in the Bill.
      Sir J. WALKER SMITH: I was discussing the Minister of Health in regard to the Bill and I was about to say that it appears to me that the mantle of Henry VIII seems to have fallen upon the shoulders of the present Minister of Health. At that I will leave it. The method of the Ministry of Health in regard to these matters under this Bill are the very reverse from those that apply in a court of justice. In these particular matters one never gets face to face with one's judge. One does not even get an opportunity of considering the report of the inspector who holds the inquiry, with whom one does come face to face. There
      1868
      is no power of appeal. The Minister gives no reasoned judgment, no grounds on which he has satisfied himself or on which he has given any order, judgment, decision or whatever he may be called upon to give. I submit that I have established the fact that the provisions of the Bill involve unwarrantable extravagance, that they will not affect the purposes desired, that they constitute a brake upon industry at a time when that is extremely undesirable, that they tend to undue domination by the Government Department concerned and that they give them powers which are certainly not in accord with the principles of natural justice.
      Mr. TRAIN: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Sir J. Walker Smith), but I am not going to attempt to go over all the Clauses as he did. I should, however, like to mention one or two features of the Bill that appeal to me and one or two that do not appeal to me. I am very grateful and gratified that the Bill is in its present form. It is an entirely different Bill from that which was presented to us on Second Reading. It has been very much amended, and I must congratulate the Minister on his earnest desire to meet the Committee and to give confidence to those who ultimately will have the working of the Measure when it gets on to the Statute Book. He has had a very difficult and complicated task. There have been many conflicting interests at work. There have been the people who have been town planning all their lifetime in a practical way and have had to find the wages of the town planners and those who develop the land. There have been those who have great ideas about town planning, who have never had to pay one penny of wages to those who were developing the land and who would like to develop everybody's land in the way that they think fit and proper. There have been those who would like to protect historic monuments, and rightly so, and those with some sentiment about them. They have been talking as if nobody ever took an interest in such a question before. Apart from the great historic buildings, we have some very small and sentimental buildings. We Scotsmen are very proud of the cottage of Rabbie Burns.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: Robert Burns.
      Mr. TRAIN: Rabbie Burns. We are proud of Carlyle's house at Craigenputten and his birthplace at Ecclefechan. We are proud of Livingstone's home in Blantyre. When we cross the border and come down to the Lake District we are proud to go in and have a look at Wordsworth's cottage and, further along, at Coniston we are proud of Ruskin's home. These places have been preserved long before town planning was ever spoken about by these theorists and sentimentalists. People have been thinking of, and taking a great interest in these things. In this Bill all these interests have had to be considered. There have been local authorities who, clad in a little brief authority, are jealous of the powers that they had had in the past and frightened that they will lose touch with those powers. We have had the small burghs, the big burghs and the county councils, some of them objecting to the Bill and some of them asking for greater powers under it. The Minister has met each one of these units. He knows more about their conflicting opinions than any single Member of the Committee could possibly know and, having considered all these interests, he has produced a Bill that I think will be workable.
      It is not the Bill that I would like to see. As I said years ago in this House when the last Town Planning Bill was before us, the only proper way to town plan is by a watershed. I would ignore present boundaries. Having secured the watershed and got the contour of the land and the flow of the water, you get your water service and then you have the public health of the people secured and you get rid of all these small conflicting influences. We have had the optimists who tell us that they have great faith in this Bill and that it is going to bring works to the places that are town planned. They have told us that the places that have been town planned in the past are getting the new industries, and they have held out hopes to those who are going to town plan in the future that they will get a share of the new industries. I would like us to look at these things from a proper perspective. I do not see that by putting a few lines on a paper we are going to bring industries to those places that have not been town planned in the past. If we can be
      1870
      shown the people who want to build factories, there will be no difficulty in getting the land agents or the factors to show them the proper places. Indeed, the Trade Development Board of Scotland will I am sure present them with works within 24 hours.
      I hold out no hope that town planning is going to bring trade and industry to any part of the country. At the same time I am grateful that the Minister of Health has considered all these interests, although I think that the Government have missed a splendid opportunity of tackling town planning in a big way as a National Government; and that is the only right way in which it should be tackled, in a broad comprehensive way. The betterment Clause has given rise to much discussion. Having admitted the principle of betterment up to 50 per cent. in the 1929 Act, which in my opinion has some justification for it, I cannot see how you can justify a charge of 75 per cent. betterment, and I am wondering what effect it will have on the building trade. There is much unemployment in the building trade. There was a boom when houses were built by local authorities, and when they were being built by private enterprise for the owner-occupier, who was aided by building societies.
      In Scotland our land system, our feuing system, and ground rents, is entirely different from anything on this side of the Border. The developer when he got his land made use of it as part of his scheme and financed it accordingly. If he put 10 houses to the acre at a cost of £5 it meant 10s. per house per annum. But supposing he says that as he is putting in a security worth £700 in these houses he will put a feu duty on each house of £6. That means that each of the houses costing £700 he can sell for £600, but that £5 feu duty is there in perpetuity. He can sell this to the investor and it is regarded as trustee stock in our country. The Church of Scotland is endowed by this system as well as benevolent institutions of all kinds. It is a great investment for the country in this way, that hundreds and thousands of these feu duties and ground rents in Scotland are the means by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets his Income Tax, to some extent, every year. It does not fluctuate as do profits in trade and industry; and it is the backbone of the

      1871
      investor in our country. The purchaser gets into the house by the aid of a building society.
      8.30 p.m.
      What is going to be the effect of betterment? If a man is feuing it at its original price of £5 and he gets within a town planning area, as he is bound to do when development comes along, the local authority comes along and says, "We want 75 per cent. of the betterment." He is only left with 25 per cent. The developer will say that he is not going to put any more into it and will fix the price at the amount he paid for it. The purchaser of the house cannot afford to pay this, and consequently it will be only the moderately wealthy people who will be able to awn houses. It will have the effect of putting a brake on that class of building. It is not going to help the building trade at all, and I think the Minister would be well advised to look into this point. What is going to happen to the 75 per cent.? What is a local authority going to do? Is it going to be something from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to get some Income Tax every year; is it going to be anything which will benefit the purchaser of the house, or which will help the building trade? What good is going to come of it? I admit that we do not want to see speculation in land for building purposes, but this is a legitimate business built up for the benefit of the trade and the occupier and owner of the house, and you will interfere with it and paralyse the industry. I am optimistic and probably the trade will adapt itself to circumstances, but in the meantime you are going to paralyse the industry. What happened in the old days? There is not a man in Scotland to-day who is building houses to let unless he is subsidised to the extent of £9 per house for a period of 40 years. Since 1909 no one has built a house to let except local authorities, and they have got the local builder to build houses for them instead of for himself; but at what a cost to the country. We were told the other day that the Government is paying £12,750,000 in subsidies and that we are bound to do this for 40 years, over and above what local authorities are paying. If you take the Addison scheme and the 1d. in the £, and the other schemes, the £3 scheme
      1872
      and the £4 10s., it is at least £20,000,000 if it is a penny which is going towards the subsidising of these houses, which before were built by private enterprise, and may I say which were must better houses than the houses which are being built to-day. It comes to this that you are interfering with the houses built by the owner-occupier and doing no good for the building trade. That is the part of this Bill which wants examination. We have heard a tremendous lot about the bungaloid growth. Who is to blame for that? Most of it has been done by local authorities—
      Sir F. FREMANTLE: Not down our way.
      Mr. TRAIN: I am talking of what I have seen. There was never anything like this bungaloid growth built by private enterprise. [Interruption.]
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: Who built the slums—private enterprise.
      Mr. TRAIN: The slums of to-day are nothing like the slums which you will get from the houses that are being built under the subsidised schemes. I say that the older houses were better houses. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) knows that round about Glasgow there are tenements built within the last 30 to 40 years, and that people prefer living in them to living in the houses that are being built to-day, good three- and four-apartment houses, with bathroom, and up-to-date in every way. If we had been left alone to go on with these houses it would have been better for the country. Our City Improvement Trust in Glasgow, which built these houses, pulled down the slums, and the houses are giving a return to Glasgow of 1½ per cent., whereas all the other houses are costing £3 10s. to the city and £9 to the State. I deprecate any interference with private enterprise. I am all for town planning on sound and sane lines. I congratulate the Minister of Health on his honest attempt to make the best of this Bill, and to meet the various conflicting interests that have been put up against him. He is the man who should be the judge, because he gets in writing and in representation information as to these interests, and information that the private Members cannot get. The Bill

      1873
      is not the Bill that I would like to see, but we shall have other Bills, as we have had other Housing Acts from time to time. No doubt the next Minister of Health in a new Government will have another Town Planning Bill. I hope that I shall not be a Member of the Standing Committee that considers it, because we have had plenty of trouble with this Bill. I wish the Minister luck.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would not have taken part in the Debate but for the remarks that have fallen from the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train), who undoubtedly has sage experience as far as the building trade is concerned. The hon. Member has made a fortune out of the building trade, in his own day and generation, and he has made it all himself. He is one of the self-made men. You cannot make tens of thousands out of building houses without having "swanking" somewhere. But that is not what brought me to my feet. I have to pay the hon. Member the tribute that he understands the subject from his point of view, but certainly not from the point of view of the people who live in the houses that he built. The houses that private enterprise built were not built for people to live in; they were built by private enterprise in order that men like the hon. Member for Cathcart could make money out of them.
      The hon. Member said something that he knows to be absolutely untrue, that is that the houses that were built by private enterprise for the working class in Scotland were better as built 30, 40 and 50 years ago. Has the hon. Member forgotten the hellish conditions in which the people, particularly the miners in the county of Lanark, have to live—single apartments and no sanitary conveniences at all? No one knows better than the hon. Member, the miners' row, back to back, 200 houses on either side, with no sanitary conveniences, not even a water-tap. He has seen them. His class of individuals built that type of house. Of course it is true that in Glasgow, as in other parts of Scotland, there are tenements that are three and four-apartment houses, but they are not for my class, they are not for the engineer, they were not for the hon. Member for Cathcart when he started as a stonemason. No stonemason and no engineer could live in a three-apartment tenement, never
      1874
      mind a four-apartment tenement in Glasgow. No one knows better than the hon. Member that they were very very lucky if they were able to get a two-apartment house.
      Like others, the hon. Member boasts of how many in family they were, how his mother brought up seven on such a small wage. They should think shame on themselves. Their mothers were murdered, never had a ghost of a chance. And we are going back to that. No. The houses that are being built to-day, and by the hon. Member for Cathcart by the way, are not as well built, he said. That does not say very much for him. One of the biggest contractors that we have in the West Scotland for building these selfsame houses for us is the hon. Member for Cathcart. He tells us that the houses that are being built to-day are not as well built. If they are shoddy it can be taken from me that that is not the workers' fault; it is the fault of the hon. Member's class for having built these shoddy houses. That is proof of what I have said over and over again. I would have forgiven them had they not known how to build good houses for my class. But they knew always how to build good houses. But the single apartment, the brick rows, no pantiles, simply 'an old wagon roof, good enough for a collier but not good enough for the hon. Member for Cathcart. He must get a great mansion away out in the country. And he built these houses in his time, made all that money in his time out of working-class houses. Now he tells the world how he has managed to make a fortune in his day and generation out of building working-class houses. He says that the houses being built to-day are shoddy houses compared with what his father built before him. If ever there was an indictment of the whole system, here we have it. "Oh that mine enemy would write a book."
      Mr. MAXTON: It will be in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: My hon. Friend reminds that it will be in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, and will be used as evidence against the hon. Member. I do not want to irritate the hon. Member in any way, but I am not going to sit silently here and listen to men who are in comfortable circumstances. It is one of the terrible evils abroad to-day that

      1875
      men who started life hard up against it are now in comfortable circumstances. Their outlook changes because they are comfortable and because they have 20-apartment or 30-apartment houses. The hon. Member for Cathcart views everything from that standpoint. I remember when Dr. Addison as Minister of Health, after the War, set out to raise the standard of housing in this country. He gave my country a new outlook in life because our standard in Scotland up to then was a two-apartment standard. The vast majority of houses in Scotland—65 per cent. of them—were of that standard. This is what the hon. Member for Cathcart boasts about. When Dr. Addison came on the scene he got an Act of Parliament passed providing that the smallest house in this country—which included Scotland, thank God—must have three apartments. What happened? The ruling class of this country recognised that if Scotland was going to get a three-apartment standard of housing, it meant a three-apartment standard of life. It meant that our women folk would demand—
      Sir H. YOUNG: On a point of Order. For the guidance of the House in this Debate, I should be glad of your assistance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in finding out whether we shall be in order in discussing general housing policy on this occasion. The application to the Bill seems very remote if there be any application at all, and it opens up a very wide question.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is getting rather wide of the issue before the House. In Clause 12 (1, c) of the Bill there is a provision that the responsible authority has certain powers as to regulating the size, height, design and elevation of buildings, and the materials to be used in their construction. If the hon. Member confines his argument to pointing out what Scottish authorities may do to comply with that Sub-section, I think he is in order. I do not think that any general discussion of housing would be in order.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have no desire to fall foul of the Chair, but the very fact that the Minister has had to draw your attention to this matter, Mr. Deputy-
      1876
      Speaker, shows that I was making it awkward for him, never mind the hon. Member for Cathcart, to reply to me. What I was saying was God's truth, and "truth cutteth keener than a two-edged sword."
      Mr. MAXTON: But it is not in order on this Clause.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: I was replying to the hon. Member for Cathcart without deviation either to the right or to the left—although I am supposed to be very far on the left. The hon. Member referred to the houses which were being built now and said that they were not as good as the houses which were built previously, and I wished to take hon. Members back to the inception of the type of house now being built. It was Dr. Addison who introduced that higher standard of housing particularly in Scotland. We were down to the level of single apartment houses—single apartment houses for the working class, and 30-apartment houses for the Cathcart class, and the ruling class recognised that the new standard meant a three-apartment standard of dress, a three-apartment type of education for the children, as against a single apartment standard. But it was found by the ruling class that they could not give that standard of life and at the same time meet the interest on the War debt.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is now going beyond my Ruling. If he will point out what the Scottish town planning authorities can do to assist in the production of a particular type of house, I think he will be in order.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not want to use too much time and I leave, that point, but before I conclude there is another point on which I wish to correct the hon. Member for Cathcart. He is my fellow-countryman and he is in the habit of addressing meetings, and I hope that he will not again use the phrase which he used when he called our national bard "Rabbie" Burns. Robert Burns was never by anybody connected with him called "Rabbie." He was always designated Robert Burns. "Rabbie" in Scotland is a term that is used to the "half-daft" fellow about the village or

      1877
      the colliery. With that, I think I have corrected the hon. Member for Cathcart sufficiently for one sitting.
      Captain WATER HOUSE: As a mere Anglo-Saxon, it is not for me to interfere in a perfectly good Celtic row, and I do not propose to pursue the subjects either of murdered mothers or of the building of shoddy houses, beyond saying that if the late friend of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) had long had control of the department over which he ruled for a couple of years there would be no houses at all for anybody to live in, in any part of this country, either England or Scotland. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) is not in his place. I was not surprised that in the two speeches which he made this afternoon he hardly referred to the pith of this Bill at all, but dealt largely with those of us who happen to be sitting on this bench at the moment. He spoke of us as "twittering sparrows." He said we had not had the courage to vote against the Second Reading. He described us as a Diehard tail wagging a National dog, and made various other remarks of that sort. It occurred to me when he referred to us as "twittering sparrows" that it was possibly better to be associated with that small and rather light variety of bird than with the croaking raven, like the right hon. Gentleman who comes round occasionally to make remarks which do not help in the Debate or the elucidation of a difficult subject like this. As for having the courage of our convictions, surely anybody sitting on the Front Opposition Bench at present is in a rather doubtful position in talking about the courage of convictions, and most of all the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield. If he had had the courage of his convictions, and the courage to carry out his job as he should have done, his place would not have been empty, and he might have been able to carry through this Measure which he introduced into the House last year.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: His place is not empty. There is another Member occupying it.
      Captain WATERHOUSE: I was not thinking of the right hon. Gentleman's position as Minister of Health, but of his position as the representative of Nelson
      1878
      and Colne. I wondered at the time how he came to lose that constituency, and why there was such a turnover of votes against him.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is difficult to associate the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and his last constituency with anything contained in this Bill.
      Captain WATERHOUSE: I bow to your Ruling. I should have thought it equally difficult to associate us with twittering sparrows, and Mr. Speaker took that as a perfectly orderly and correct remark, but, in deference to your Ruling, I will leave that point. The right hon. Member for Wakefield told us that he represented the architects, the local authorities, and practically all bodies interested in all things good for all people, and I am not surprised, therefore, that the electors of his late constituency thought he represented enough people without them. I am only pained that he is not in the House now to put me right if, in any remark that I am about to make, I may at all overstep the mark. He said with truth that it was a very different Bill that we are now discussing from the Bill which left the Committee in 1931.
      There were inserted in the Bill upstairs some 86 Amendments and a new Schedule. I have not counted the Amendments put in on the Floor of this House on the Report stage, but they are certainly largely over 100, and another new Schedule. We had upstairs a good many disagreements. We did not see eye to eye from the start, but I believe that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend below me will agree that we put up no factious opposition and no dilatory Amendments, and that we were able in some material directions to persuade the Minister that our contentions were well founded. The right hon. Member for Wakefield charged the Minister with making concessions out of fear, or words to that effect. It does not seem to have occurred to him that the Minister may have made them from arguments put to him which carried weight. Members opposite are not used to bending to argument. They are only used to bending to the mailed fist of those who hunt them along from outside this House, so we for-

      1879
      give the right hon. Member for Wakefield for his little mistake in my right hon. Friend's attitude.
      I would remind the House that the Prime Minister, when he sat here leading the Socialist party, appealed, not once, but many times, to the House of Commons to become a Council of State, and I think that on this Bill we have come nearer to following his advice than on any other Measure that I have known since I have been in this House, but I find it rather hard when, on this occasion, we made that effort, that we were chided by those in authority. The Bill has been materially altered, but I still think that it is ill-timed and that it has a very great many imperfections in it. Yet real results have been achieved in Committee, and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which they went out of their way to understand the points which we put. Where they could, they made a real endeavour to meet us; where they could not, they gave us a courteous and a reasoned refusal; and, with all humility, I should like sincerely to congratulate them both on the way in which the Bill was handled upstairs.
      9.0 p.m.
      The right hon. Member for Wakefield said that there was no doubt that the Bill as it is now is a considerable advance on the existing law. I think it is a very material advance, and an advance in many ways in the right direction. When the Bill was first brought down, it was a moot question whether or not we should oppose it root and branch, and we decided not to do so. The Bill repeals the Act of 1925, and we believed we could make it a better Measure than that of 1925. I suggest that in material directions we have succeeded in gaining that objective. The Bill today covers a far wider scope than the 1925 Act, which is to be repealed. That has been fully discussed already, and I will not enter into the merits or demerits of Clause 6 at this stage, but there are other and no less important directions in which the 1925 Act has been modified. For example, the sanction of a Minister to a scheme under that Act made it operative; to-day a scheme has to be laid on the Table of this House. We might not think the lying on the Table sufficient, but it
      1880
      is an advance. We would have preferred an affirmative Resolution, but failing that, it is a real advance to have schemes laid on the Table of the House rather than made operative by a Government Department.
      Under the 1925 Act it was laid down that the Minister might make regulations; in this Bill we have got inserted provisions as to the sort of regulations which he shall make. We have a skeleton of procedure, a minimum of procedure. We have also got laid down certain stipulations. They were not new ones at all; they were stipulations already enforced, but we had in view a Minister not so well grounded in constitutional matters as he who now presides over that Department, and we think it is a real advantage to the country and to town planning that we should have a skeleton procedure incorporated in this Bill. We have dealt too with the compensation Clauses and, I think, dealt with them in a way which should help and not hinder real planning. Under the 1925 Act it was impossible to get any compensation for injurious affection during the interim period; to-day such compensation can be paid, and I believe that the fact that such compensation is payable will make local authorities very chary of refusing interim development orders and, therefore, will tend to promote and not retard development. Again, no compensation was payable in respect of schemes under resolutions subsequently revoked; to-day, compensation is there payable. Finally, various alterations rather in the other direction have been made in the categories of injurious affection which could be excluded from compensation under Clause 19. For example, in the 1925 Act it was laid down that the character of the building might be excluded as a matter proper for compensation; that has been modified to external appearance.
      I do not wish to weary the House with any comparison of the Measure as it is to-day with the Measure as it was introduced, but I want most definitely to refute the suggestion that has been made and repeated that the 1931 Bill as it left Committee was in any sense an agreed Measure. Anyone who says that was completely misinformed as to the whole attitude of mind of a very large section of Members who sat on that side of the House in that Parliament, and I assure my right hon. Friend, though I think he

      1881
      needs no assurance, and any doubters that had this Measure as it was introduced at the beginning of this Session been put to a free vote of the House, and had the Members of this House had an opportunity of studying its provisions then as they have had to-day, it would have been refused a Second Reading by a very substantial majority. This Bill leaves the House to-day a far better Measure than when it was introduced. It will now go to another place, and there are a good many Amendments, which we think are desirable, which we hope may be inserted there. It is in the hope and the belief that we shall have on the Statute Book a better Measure than we have had in regard to town planning for the last seven years, that I do not propose to divide the House against the Bill on the Third Reading this evening.
      Major MUIRHEAD: As one who sat on the Committee on this Bill last year, but not this year, I have naturally watched with a good deal of interest the somewhat heavy anxiety in this Measure, and particularly the efforts of the Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) and his associates. Their avowed intention, I believe—and I have been confirmed in that by the speech which we have just heard—was to improve the Bill. There was a danger at one time that it might resolve itself into killing the Bill by kindness, but luckily the Bill escaped that fate, and I am glad of it. I will not say that I agree altogether with the entire conduct of the Noble Lord and his associates, but I think that it has been an undoubted advantage that there should have been such a body of people watchful in a particular direction over the various provisions of this Measure. There is a slight danger that the Bill as we have it now is somewhat overloaded. I agree that a certain number of Amendments and additions to the 1925 Act were needed, but even under the 1925 Act in country districts, for which the Act was admittedly not designed, and where my interest in planning chiefly lies, it was possible to achieve great things provided there were people in the locality of a right disposition to administer the Act.
      When we take the new Clause 1 in this Bill coupled with Clause 6, I am bound to say that the case was well put by the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset
      1882
      (Viscount Cranborne) when he said that all the talk about it was really much ado about nothing. When I see the elaborate wording and the detailed way in which the objects for which a town-planning scheme should be undertaken are set out, I cannot help regretting the simpler and the more direct language of the 1925 Act. Undoubtedly, we wanted an addition to deal with the new conditions, but the verbiage in this Bill is a little excessive. There is a danger in a Bill of this description that it may become rather like the White Knight in "Alice Through the Looking-Glass." He provided against every possible eventuality, even to having mouse-traps on the toes of his boots, not, as he said, that any mice had ever been there, but one never knew. The trouble was that, having provided himself with that elaborate equipment, every time his horse moved he fell off. In other words, when it came to the main function, the personal factor was somewhat deficient. I do not want to be platitudinous, but I want, when a comprehensive Measure like this is going through the House, to stress as strongly as I can, from a certain amount of practical experience, the value and importance of what we may call the personal factor in matters of planning.
      This Measure with all its failings was undoubtedly asked for, and has been anxiously awaited by a large volume of expert planning opinion in the country; and in the hands of those expert planners I am convinced that good use will be made of it. There is a class of person, however, who is responsible for a large amount of the fear of, and consequently of the opposition to, anything in the nature of planning legislation. That is the class of person who treats, and by his words openly indicates, that he means to treat planning legislation as a sort of stick with which to beat somebody or something he personally does not like. Everybody who has been connected with planning matters must know the kind of people who say: "Look at that appalling bungalow, or that bungaloid development with pink roofs. Why do not the Government introduce legislation to make such a thing impossible?" Or he sees some rather unfortunate development, and perhaps he writes to the papers saying: "Why do the Government allow this?" and clamouring for extended legislation.

      1883
      In point of fact, he probably has not made the least effort or tried to use his influence in his own locality to get the thing improved or put right on the spot. He simply asks for increased legislation so as to make it easier for him, as he thinks, to get his objects achieved without putting forward his best efforts locally in a practical way to get the thing settled in the front line.
      I could not help thinking when I heard the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) speaking earlier in the afternoon and asking for all sorts of committees to be set up, that it is perfectly clear that you cannot by the multiplication of the machinery make up for the shortcomings of individuals. That is the point in planning matters which has to be borne in mind. On the other hand, we come to the attitude of the Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire. He says: "Why are we giving so much power to the local authorities?" He has, I think, a low opinion of local authorities generally, and in fact he says: "I, the Noble Lord, am a better planner than any local authority." That may be so.
      Sir S. CRIPPS: Hear, hear.
      Major MUIRHEAD: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member opposite applauds because he really thinks that the Noble Lord is a better planner.
      Sir S. CRIPPS Sir S. CRIPPS indicated dissent.
      Major MUIRHEAD: It is clear that, if the Noble Lord says that, he must answer the corollary question: "Is every landowner, great or small, as good a planner as the Noble Lord?" Unless he can answer that equally satisfactorily, there is a case for something to be done. I am sorry that the Noble Lord is not here, but one of his lieutenants is, and he will no doubt, if he thinks it worth while, report my remarks to him. The Noble Lord overlooked in one respect the value of the local authority. It is the value which the local authority has when it comes to the planning of rural areas. A great deal that is ugly, inconvenient and uneconomical is often done by people who have no particular desire to do an ugly or an inconvenient or an uneconomical thing, but they do it on their
      1884
      own, and very often they have had no other point of view put before them before the matter is completed. It gets done. Very likely there is a storm of protest all round. People say that it is ugly, in the wrong place, or that it is beginning a wrong type of development, and there is a good deal of personal recrimination. Often the man who does the thing wishes that instead of there being all this protest after the event he might have had the benefit of a little advice before it. In the end there is the maximum of recrimination with, possibly, the minimum of efficiency.
      When, however, such a proposal comes to a local authority which has a planning scheme, though it may not be a particularly enlightened authority, there is a sort of point fixe on which the various interests can concentrate. There may be slight delay before the matter is settled, but various points of view can be expressed, and the chances are that in the end you get a very much better result. The planning committee has the advantage of providing a rallying point for a great deal of the disinterested service and advice which one knows is so characteristic of public life in our country and in our urban districts. You get people coming in with offers of money or advice or service in one direction or another, because the local authority has become a rallying point for those offers of service. To make my point plain, I might quote a case with which I had a certain distant connection, and that is the planning scheme which is being undertaken in Oxfordshire by the Witney and District Town Planning Committee. That is probably about as typical an instance of county planning as one could get.
      Witney is a small market town, with a small industry in it as well, and all round there is the perfectly rural country of the Cotswolds and the Thames Valley. There can hardly be a more typical instance of country planning done under the 1925 Act, incomplete as that may have been. One of the things the committee benefited from was that a local architect, with a great deal of architectural and planning experience, placed his services voluntarily at the disposal of the committee, and looked over the plans which had been submitted to the committee from a planning point of view. Without a

      1885
      planning committee those plans would merely have been considered from the ordinary sanitary by-law point of view. Between the time when that scheme was started, in June, 1929, and the present month, under the Interim Development Order, 242 plans of buildings have been put before that committee. In 191 cases various alterations, either in siting or design, have been recommended, and in no less than 180 of those cases the recommendations have been readily, and in a great many cases gladly, accepted by those who submitted the plans. Only in 11 cases has there been any difficulty at all. Without any annoyance or inconvenience to anyone there are 180 instances in that area where things are better than they would have been otherwise. To show that there is no great measure of dissatisfaction, when the preliminary inquiry was held there were only four objections, and all those have been settled.
      It is because the local authority, even though it may not be particularly enlightened in itself, forms a basis for a discussion in the public interest that I think the local authority is so valuable an element in our planning structure. This Bill, if it becomes law, will place a very comprehensive piece of legislation in the hands of the public. By itself the Bill will not work magic or wonders, although a certain class of person thinks it will. It is only by personal effort in each person's locality that the Bill will ever be made effective, and I hope that when it becomes an Act it will obtain in many localities throughout the length and breadth of England personal effort and assistance of a very high order.
      Mr. M. BEAUMONT: The speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Major Muirhead) only confirms the opinion I already hold that the Standing Committee lost considerably through not having the hon. Member as one of its number. My first acquaintance with the hon. and gallant Member was when I was successful in getting my own local authority to turn down a planning scheme which he was urging upon it. Ever since I have been aware of his knowledge and ability on this subject. He quoted a case where county planning had been extremely successful, and I can confirm every word of what he said, but that case is not
      1886
      typical of town planning generally, but of the best type of planning, and it depends, as he himself has said, on the personal influence and service given to it. It is because we do not believe that in the country as a whole local authorities are capable of obtaining such service—and I could give instances where planning scheme have lowered values, disorganised industry and created great injustice—and because we believe there will be as-many, if not more, of those than there-will be of the type described by the hon. and gallant Member, that we are opposing this Bill. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) who, after having said many unpleasant things in the course of the afternoon, has not seen fit to be in his place to hear the reply—
      Sir S. CRIPPS: Perhaps I may say that the right hon. Gentleman asked me to state that unfortunately he has had to leave to speak at a meeting outside which he had promised to address, and was unable to remain here.
      Mr. BEAUMONT: Then I should like to be allowed to withdraw any aspersion I was casting upon the right hon. Gentleman. But he paid to those of us who have been associated in this matter what I consider to be a very high tribute. If we have succeeded in doing something that is disliked by him, by the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Horobin) and by the hon. Lady who sits for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), I feel that we may justly be proud of our work. One thing he said which is perfectly true, and that is that we are un-repentent. When this Bill was first introduced it was, in my opinion, vicious in principle, unnecessary, ineffective, extravagant and tyrannous. Well, it is a better Bill now, because it is no longer tyrannous, though I think it merits all the other remarks. I am not going to labour the point now, but we discussed last night the question of extravagance. We believe it is going to put a charge upon the rates at a time when no such charge ought to be laid upon them. Our view was voiced by an hon. Member for one of the Scottish divisions who said that at the last election we never thought we should be called upon to support such a Measure as this. We believe that it will be ineffective, because we think that the local authorities, who by their council houses have disgraced the Cotswold

      1887
      villages to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I see that the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and in that case I ask him to believe that I must know his own district better than he does, because I can take him to a village which has been spoiled by council houses—
      Sir S. CRIPPS: You have not seen ours!
      Mr. BEAUMONT: I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman keeps safe ward over his own village, a safer ward than he will allow any of us to keep over our villages, because under this legislation the local authority is a sort of tyrant over anyone who has his own ideas as to what is best. We think that the powers of local authorities, particularly small local authorities, in this matter should be diminished instead of being increased, because we believe that the era of taking the ratepayers' money in order to spend it on curtailing their liberty has passed. That is what this Bill will do. We do not think it is possible, so far as country planning is concerned, to stop the development of the countryside, even if it were desirable. It is impossible to prevent such instances as were given by the hon. Member for Central Southwark, because, as building grows and industries develop, so the countryside will undoubtedly grow less and less. It may be well, and it is well, that it should do so in an orderly and a reasoned fashion, but the local authorities, and certainly the rural district councils, are not capable, we believe, even if they were willing, to arrest that development. We think that if planning is to be done, it must be done on an entirely different principle.
      We regard this Bill as ineffective, as tyrannous, because it gives an essentially petty body extended powers over private property, and extravagant because it gives more money to be spent in this way. Finally, I wish to rebut the suggestion that public opinion as a whole is on the side of the Bill. It is certainly true that some town planners and local authorities, and some of those people who seek to gain, and some who merely have a passion for putting their noses into other people's business, demand this Bill. In a sense it has been a contest between the town planner 'and town planning. Those
      1888
      with whom I have been associated in this matter are not ashamed to have taken up the side of town planning.
      Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) exhausted his vocabulary of abusive epithets on the Bill, and reserved the single word tyrannous for his repetition of the catalogue. I note, therefore, from his observations, what I have had some reason to suspect throughout the proceedings, that he has not a very high opinion of the Bill. At this stage of the proceedings there are very few words which it is useful for me to add. I should like to say I was immensely encouraged by the speech of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). I feel quite sure that, with his close association with the previous Measure of this sort, if there is anything solid to be said against this Measure as an effective Measure of town planning, he would have said it; but, as a matter of fact, he did nothing of the sort. Instead, he indulged only in vague generalities of abuse of it which are of no great assistance to the House. We could have desired him to have given the Measure rather closer study and to have justified, by some reference to it, the terms of opprobium which he used. The greater part of his speech consisted of a series of self-congratulations on the preceding Measure.
      9.30 p.m.
      I am, indeed, sorry in any way to prick so brilliant a bubble of self-esteem. I can but say—and this is the appropriate occasion to say it—that the Measure in the form in which he left it and in the form in which I introduced it had imperfections. Why was it introduced in that form? For the reason that it was in that form that it had been passed by the House. I should have considered it as implying disrespect, if after the House had passed the Measure in a certain form, I had taken it upon myself to alter the form before it was re-introduced. What is it that has been done in Committee? The right hon. Gentleman said the Bill had been weakened. I waited for the analysis of his argument in support of that, but I found none at all. The account given by the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) was perfectly accurate. The subsequent changes made in the Bill are these: There has been a. change in the

      1889
      areas that may be planned, a matter which has been so fully discussed that it would be disrespectful to the House for me to repeat the arguments now. There has been a change in the provisions as to compensation in the interim period. That is a refinement which has emerged from argument and criticism in Committee. It is, I think, a matter for congratulation that the proceedings in this respect have resulted in improving the Bill. Then there has been the change in respect of the Clause regarding betterment, by which payment of betterment is now made, in substance, to be coincident only with realisation of betterment. I have no hesitation in saying that the change will make the Bill easier and smoother to work, and is for the better.
      Finally, there have been important changes in procedure which secure to this House the power of vigilantly watching the schemes made under the Bill and of securing the ultimate right of appeal to the High Court of Parliament to any persons who feel themselves so aggrieved as to bring their grievance here. I make no apology for securing that right. In all these matters I believe we have strengthened the Bill as a practical Measure of town planning, and I think it is a matter for congratulation that this has been achieved by the sensible process of putting our heads together so that we have succeeded in making improvements in a very difficult matter. This particular region of legislation is a new region in which nobody can hope, without consultation, to arrive at the best solution. That is what the House exists for—to bring the confluent streams of experience, knowledge and thought to bear upon a Measure, and particularly upon a Measure which covers a new region of legislation. And when we find that we gain advantage from our proceedings in Committee, I think that is a matter which should make us proud of the House of Commons, and not ashamed of any of our procedure.
      I have only one other word to say on the Bill before it leaves us. The House is, most naturally, gravely preoccupied with economic considerations in present conditions. It feels itself deeply concerned to make sure that no Measure is passed which involves extravagance, waste or even unnecessary expenditure at present; at the same time, I believe it is pro-
      1890
      foundly conscious that expenditure is necessary where it will have the direct effect of increasing the actual national wealth. It is because I am sure that the powers of this Bill, wisely exercised and properly controlled, will have the effect of increasing the national wealth, that I believe this to be a Measure appropriate to the present time.
      Let me put what I have finally to say in the form of a simple comparison. Who that is about to build a house but knows that it is a prudent and wise thing to employ some skilled person, called an architect, to make the plans for his house before he builds it? He knows that if he does not, he is liable to get the cellarage mixed up with the attics, and to get the windows opening indoors instead of out. He employs a skilled person to make the plans. Well he knows that the small percentage of the total cost which he pays in fees to that man for his house, is really the greatest possible insurance of economy that he can effect. The great structure of our national home is a building which is strictly analogous to that lesser building to which I have referred, in this circumstance, that here we have a great structure whose planning requires expert knowledge. The experience of all who are practically concerned in this sort of administration teaches that the small percentage of the total cost of development that we should pay, and that we will pay, in the form of charges for planning ahead, will be the greatest possible insurance of economy and the best development of our national assets in the future. On all these grounds, I commend this Measure to the House. It has received very full discussion, in Committee and on the Floor of the House during the Report stage, and now in this Third Reading Debate, I think the House is ready to come to a decision on the Bill.

  PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

  1891
  I hope that the House will approve of the method of presentation which we have adopted in connection with the Bill which I now introduce. A White Paper has been laid which sets out, in what might be termed consolidated form, the whole of the legislation relating to patents and designs, so that it is possible to read it in sequence as a narrative. By employing varying types of print, we have been able to show where the text remains unaltered, where it is proposed to omit certain words or passages from the text and where it is proposed to make insertions in the text. In this way we have avoided the evils attaching to legislation by reference, which has been so much criticised.
  In our consideration for the convenience and time of the House, and of those interested in these matters, we have added in the Bill, in the margin after each Clause, certain figures in brackets indicating passages in the Report of the Departmental Committee upon which the Clauses are based. The Bill is to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. The Committee was appointed in May, 1929, and it reported in March, 1931. In those two years, it made an exhaustive examination of all the legislation connected with patents and designs, and heard evidence from every quarter. The constitution of the Committee was such as to ensure that the members had particular qualifications to make sound recommendations to the Board of Trade. It was presided over by Sir Charles Sargant, a former Lord Justice of Appeal. I think we have followed their advice almost entirely. The Committee was appointed by the last Conservative Government; its main recommendations had the approval of the Labour Government, and we have seen no reasons to dissent. On the contrary, we have seen every reason to advance those recommendations in our desire to improve the status of patents in this country.
  The actual proposals are, of course, intricate and technical, but the House will be able to follow them, because of the method of presentation to which I have referred. Some of the Clauses are merely a statement of the existing law; Clause 3, for example, which sets out the grounds upon which patents may be revoked. Other Clauses, such as Clauses 11 and 6, remove certain weaknesses
  1892
  which have been disclosed in our present practice. I do not think that I need fully explain to the House what those weaknesses were, for they are so fully examined in the report of the Departmental Committee. There are, however, two major changes in the. law to which I deem it my duty to make some reference. The first relates to the area of search. As the House is aware, when application is made on behalf of an invention for a patent, it becomes the duty of the Comptroller of Patents to make a search—I am now dealing with Clause 2. The scope of the search is at present statutorily confined to the public specifications deposited in applications made in the United Kingdom within the previous 50 years. That is to say, the Comptroller may look only at British specifications filed in the previous half century. Anyone who, at a later stage, wishes to take objection to the patent, may cite other documents, and disprove the novelty of the claim. Accordingly, we propose to allow the Comptroller, at his-discretion, in the future to extend his search to any document other than British specifications in which he is of opinion that a possible anticipation may be found. It may be that this will involve the Comptroller in some additional expense, and it is only right that that expense should fall upon the shoulders of those who benefit from his labours. Consequently it is made permissive to increase the fee; charged on the filing of the complete specification, by up to one pound, and this will cover any further cost which may be incurred.
  The second major change concerns the jurisdiction of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. As the law stands to-day, there is an appeal from the Comptroller, at any moment up to the granting of the patent, to the Law Officer of the Crown. He is the judicial authority. His authority is a historic authority, and is not founded on utility. We propose to remove that authority from him, and to transfer it to a Judge of the High Court, a judge who will he appointed because of his knowledge and experience in Patent Law. This, of course, is not to lay any criticism upon the manner in which the Law Officers of the Crown have hitherto adjudicated. There is no reason to believe that their decisions have given anything but com-

  1893
  plete satisfaction. Apart from that consideration, the House will bear in mind that Law Officers come and Law Officers go. They change with each Government, but judges, or at any rate some of them, seem to go on for ever. Perhaps I should say that the Judicature is permanent, whereas the Law Officers of the Crown are not, and, therefore, I trust that the House will agree that it is a convenient as well as a logical change that the jurisdiction now exercised by my hon. and learned Friend shall be transferred to a Judge of the High Court.
  Those who have had audience hitherto before the Law Officers of the Crown may have been either counsel or solicitors or patent agents, and we do not propose to deprive the parties to an appeal of such representation as they have hitherto enjoyed. It will, therefore, be possible for them to instruct counsel or solicitors or patent agents to appear before the learned judge, just as they have instructed one of these categories to represent them before my hon. and learned Friend. I hope that this will not involve any increased commitment to the taxpayer. There is no reason why it should. There are only about 36 appeals in any given year, and the staff at the Law Courts ought to be quite adequate to deal with the slightly heavier work which we shall cast upon them. I do not think, therefore, that the economists need have any fear that the taxpayer will have to pay a greater contribution.
  These are the major proposals of the Bill to which I deemed it my duty to refer. These two major proposals, coupled with the other Clauses of which I have made a cursory note in passing, do, in the opinion of those qualified to judge, definitely put the British patent on as high a basis as that claimed to be enjoyed by any other patent in any other part of the world.
  Major PROCTER: Doubtless there will be opportunities of discussing in detail the various Clauses of this Bill. Tonight I should like briefly to call attention to the wonderful opportunity that was presented to us of producing a monumental Measure which would make British patent law at least equal to any patent law in the world. Despite what the Parliamentary Secretary has just said, I beg leave to join issue with his statement that this Measure will make
  1894
  the standard of the British patent equal to that of any other in the world. At the moment the monopoly which is granted by a British patent is infinitely weaker than that granted by Germany, and far more expensive than that granted by America; and the search, of which the hon. Gentleman has just spoken, which is undertaken by the examiners, is not as efficient as in either of the two countries which I have just named. One of the weaknesses of this Measure is that discretionary, and only discretionary, power is given to the examiner to make a search in those countries in which he thinks there might be the possibility of anticipation. What is the effect of this; and what is the effect of the law as it is at present?
  An inventor may apply for a patent in this country. He may be a poor man—many inventors are poor men. The search is made, and he is granted a patent, not because he has produced any new technical effect, as is the case in Germany, but because he has made some slight improvement, which in his opinion is a real improvement. He applies for the patent, a search is made over the last 50 years, and then he goes away rejoicing. He may find some financier who will put his money into that patent, only to discover that, after the expenditure of, perhaps, thousands of pounds on the part of the financier, and the work of many years on the part of the inventor, the monopoly which he has been granted by the British Government is not worth the paper on which it is written, because it has been anticipated in some other country where the examiner has no statutory power to look for such an anticipation.
  Therefore, it seems to me that the word "discretionary" should be expunged from the Bill, and that we should do what America and Germany do, namely, make a world-wide search, so that the man who has not the resources that the Patent Office has can avail himself of those resources and enlist the aid of the examiners in amending his specification so as to meet possible anticipations in other countries, and thereby make his patent a valid patent. If this were done, a British patent would then be equal, in the estimation of those whose business it is to exploit patents, to a German or an American patent. I am sure it would be a source of pride to this National Government if, instead of the inquiry

  1895
  being made, as it is at present, "Have you a German patent?"—because that is the highest of all patents from the viewpoint of validity—the financier will say, "Have you a British patent?" and that will be the hall-mark of the validity of a patent monopoly.
  Then there is the wonderful concession that has been given, that, for an increased fee of only one guinea per year, this discretionary power will be exercised, not if the inventor desires it, but if the examiner or the Comptroller desires it. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that one of the most expensive patents in the world is the British patent. It has been said, I think by the President of the Board of Trade, that the inventor is of far greater worth than the politician. At any rate, if we look at the history of our country, we shall see that the milestones that measure its advancement are the inventions that have been produced by our countrymen—poor men like Arkwright, Compton, and the rest, who made it possible for 44,000,000 people to live in a country that is only capable of sustaining by its own resources 12,000,000. And yet how greatly were these men penalised! An inventor—he may be a workman—has to pay £155 for every patent that he produces. If he takes out a patent this year, and then makes a slight improvement next year, for each patent that he takes out £155 is demanded as tribute by the British Government in order to give him a monopoly and protection for 14 years, after which period his invention is added to the storehouse of wealth of the people of England to use. In America the fee is £8, and that includes a world-wide search.
  I hope the House will not be satisfied with the Bill. While many learned men well versed in patent law have been con suited, I do not know whether any inventors have been brought into their consultations. It seems to have been made by lawyers in the interest of lawyers and not in the interest of inventors, and especially poor inventors. I suggest that it might be possible for the Government to see at the forthcoming Ottawa Conference if it is not possible to get an inter-British Empire patent, so that, instead of a man having to take out a patent in England and others, if he wants
  1896
  protection, in the Irish Free State, Ceylon, India and every one of our Possessions separately, he could have one all-comprehensive patent which will give him protection throughout the British Empire. I hope at a later stage to make some suggestions whereby the inventor will get a better deal than the Bill gives him. The Patent Office has been a great source of income throughout the years. I hope, if it is a question of economy, that it may be found possible to reduce the holidays of some of the officials and give the inventor the benefit of this increase of £l that you are putting on him, and you will have done something to help the cause of invention upon which we so much depend.
  Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: There is one Clause in this Bill which, if passed into law, will do palpable harm to the cotton trade of Lancashire. It is Clause 53 (3), the effect of which is to cut down the present 15 years' duration of a patent to 10 years. When I tell the Parliamentary Secretary that for the third five years we are paying 20 times as much as for the first, it will be apparent to him that we are placing a great value on the last five years. These designs are to a great extent for foreign nations, and they are for those nations where we are facing the fierce competition of Japanese trade. If we cannot get these designs retained for the five years, it means that the Japanese can come in and more readily cut us out. In most other countries the duration is for 15 years. In France it is for 50. When I tell my hon. Friend that in China alone there are designs going today which were put on 100 years ago, he will, perhaps, realise the great safeguard that it is to those concerned in the trade of Lancashire. I am not speaking simply on my own behalf; I am speaking on behalf of the Federation of Calico Printers and of the merchants in Lancashire. I raise the question to see if my hon. Friend will give the matter serious consideration between now and the Committee stage.
  10.0 p.m.
  Sir F. FREMANTLE: I want to raise the question of the patenting of food and drugs and to call attention to a point of great and growing importance which is omitted from the Bill designedly because of the difficulty of the subject. I should

  1897
  like to ask for some explanation of the attitude of the Ministry in regard to this most important point. I do not think it is sufficiently known that the patenting of a large number of the most important medical drugs and medicines recently discovered is subject to a patent law which has, unfortunately, put our research at the mercy of certain foreign countries. The position is extraordinary. I think most people will know the vital difference to the food of the country between fresh butter and margarine. Margarine is coming more and more into use, naturally enough, and yet it has been discovered of recent years that what it really lacks is a certain substance called vitamin D. The discovery of vitamin D was made only a few years ago, and it was due to research in this country when it was discovered how, by the use of ultra violet rays, it could be produced out of a certain material called ergosterol. Unfortunately the patent for the manufacture of this vital material was taken out by Professor Steenbock, a worker in an American university, and it is known as the Steenbock patent. It gave patent rights over not only America but all other countries, including this country, for all forms of manufacture of vitamin D. Professor Steenbock gave the patent rights over to the university. The university submitted it to a committee, and it is run by the committee for the benefit of that university.
  The patent rights are made out with definite conditions in this country which are found to be very hampering to research. It is considered that the patent ought not to cover the more modern processes, which have not been discovered there but here, and would, as is the custom in this country, be given to the research workers for their free use. The university has built up very large sums. It is a wealthy corporation and no one cares to challenge its rights. It is extracting large royalties from all who use this process of treatment of our food, and it is also hampering our research work. A large amount of the very best work is done in these subjects by the big manufacturing houses, but they find it worth while to pay the royalty rather than fight a corporation of that sort. They pay the royalties themselves and pass it on to the consumer, so that our consumers suffer because our patent
  1898
  rights are not sufficient to protect us against the patent rights taken out in America.
  In the same kind of way we are at the mercy of a foreign patent with regard, for instance, to the subject of insulin. When insulin was discovered in Canada, the patent right was given over to a Canadian University, which most nobly gave it to our Government. Our Government passed it on to the Medical Research Council, and they are able to use the patent rights in insulin and to prevent any commercialisation of it, which would have been fatal to a large number of our people, and they have seen that it is properly used and produced. There is a third product, the discovery of Dr. and Mrs. Dick working together in Chicago. They discovered the streptococcus of scarlet fever, the toxin and the antitoxin serum. They took out patent rights and gave them to the University of Chicago. They were used commercially and mercilessly by the committee running the trust, and the result has been to hinder and very largely to stop research in this country.
  These matters were put before the Board of Trade by the Medical Research Council three years ago with a view to giving evidence before the Departmental Committee upon whose report the Bill is founded, yet no action has been taken officially to incorporate their representations in this Measure. I maintain that that is a serious blot, although there may be good reasons for their omission. Perhaps it may be one of expediency. It is a very difficult subject, and I feel that the matter requires considerable explanation. If the Board of Trade are able to give good reasons for not including this most important principle in the Measure, I hope that they will be able to give some kind of undertaking that they are seriously considering the matter, which goes right to the root of the health of the people of the country. It is a matter which requires investigation even if it cannot be brought in as an Amendment to the Bill. A conference was called by the British Medical Association and it was attended by the President of the College of Surgeons and Physicians and members of the Medical Research Council and the matter was gone into. They came to the conclusion that they would first of all see the Board of Trade, and, having

  1899
  seen them, they were asked to consider whether it was advisable to move an Amendment to the Measure. We have been asked not to move any Amendment at the present time. We can only implement that undertaking if we are given some pledge from the Board of Trade that they recognise the seriousness of the position.
  The matter requires a good deal of international work, and a good deal of thought as to what we can do in this country. The medical profession definitely maintain that the results of research should be open to everybody and be above board, and it should be applied to universal use, and that there should be no patent rights whatever. As regards what are called animal medicines and products, vitamins, sera, anti-toxins and the rest of them, no patents should be allowed which are a disadvantage to other countries. As regards synthetic compounds made by chemical drug houses and so on, it would be impossible that patents should not be given for those purposes, but as a common practice, and a right one in this and other countries medical men should not be allowed to take out patents to make a profit out of them. It should be compulsory, as the conference suggested, that patents for such articles for medical use should be dedicated to universities or some public trust or body for general use. We require legislation to deal with all these matters. No doubt the League of Nations and their work and international matters come in, but it takes a long time to get anything through the League of Nations as we know full well, or internationally. In the meantime we ought to act. There are signs that we are not acting, that the Department do not understand these things, and that the Government are paying no attention whatever to them. I hope that we shall receive some explanation from the Board of Trade that they realise the seriousness of the situation and that they will do something to consider the matter in due course.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: I did not intend to intervene in the Debate because I thoroughly agree with what is in the Bill, but there is one matter which the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) has mentioned upon which I
  1900
  should like to say a few words. He has pointed out the difficulty as regards medicines and food products. The difficulty he mentioned with regard to ergosterol I know very intimately from inside information, but there is one way in which the difficulty can be overcome and that is by giving the Government power to expropriate patents. At present the Government have power to take patents, but only for the purpose of war uses; that is to say, if someone invents a particularly poisonous kind of bomb, the Government can acquire it for the purposes of national use, subject, of course, to compensation settled by the Treasury. I do not see any reason why a useful article such as some medical or food product should not also be subject to acquisition by the Government in the same way, and why it should not be capable of being put into safe custody to be used under the auspices of the Medical Research Council or some other such body for the benefit of the whole community.
  I would point out to the hon. Member that there might be other cases beside foodstuffs where it might be very desirable for the Government to be able to get the use of patents. Let me take a case which may not necessarily be a case in point, but suppose that the Government decided that they wanted to produce oil from coal or that they wanted to enter into the organisation of a body which could do it, some public utility corporation, at the present time the Government would be practically helpless because of the patents which would stand in the way. There would be no power to acquire and expropriate those patents for the purposes of some such national utility corporation. The only way by which any powers to use them could be got would be by applying to the Comptroller for a compulsory licence under each of the patents. It would be an unsatisfactory means of doing it. I do not criticise in the slightest degree the Comptroller or the way he exercises his discretion in the matter, but it is done in a way very often which does not succeed. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if some Clause could be put into the Bill which would extend the existing power to expropriate patents—patents other than those applied to war purposes—it would enable the Government

  1901
  to get over the difficulty both as regards foodstuffs and the possible anticipated difficulty as regards other matters. There would be no question of confiscation. The terms would be the same as those which exist as regards war material, and it would really be an extension of the existing powers to cover, if required, other matters besides war material.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): I do not think that it is necessary for me to reply at great length on the Bill, because no one is seriously threatening to oppose the Second Reading. But, as regards one or two of the criticisms which have been made, I should like, first of all, to answer the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Salford (Lieut.-Commander Astbury) who spoke about the curtailing of the period for renewing designs. I need scarcely say that if it can be shown that it is going to have a serious effect upon any particular industry the matter will seriously have to be considered in Committee. But I should like the House to understand that the Clause has been put into the Bill upon the recommendation of the Departmental Committee on the strength of statistics which were put before them to this effect, that the first period of the renewal was only applied for in under 8 per cent. of the eases, and that the second period of renewal of copyright and designs had in practice only been applied for in 1.3 per cent. of the cases. It really does not look, therefore, as if the curtailment of the right to make a second application is one which, prima facie at any rate, is likely very seriously to affect industry.
  Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Would my hon. and learned Friend allow me to say that; the 8 per cent. is the proportion, or some part of the proportion, which, as I said, deals with designs which we are sending to foreign countries, and those are countries where we find the fiercest competition with the Japanese.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I need scarcely say that any representation upon that matter which may be made in Committee—I cannot say more than that—will receive further consideration. With regard to the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), about research, let me
  1902
  say that there is already power to compel people who make anything which is the subject of a patent, available for the public service. That, of course, involves the payment of royalties to the inventor. I suggest to the House that there is no reason why a man who has made researches connected with health should be deprived of the result of his researches. Indeed it is not to be expected that he will devote his life to making researches unless he is going to get some reward for it. There is no more reason why a person who has spent his life in research and invention in connection with health should be deprived of the fruits of his labours than should any other inventor. The logical result of my hon. Friend's suggestion is to be seen in the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who went further and said that the Government should be able to appropriate inventions of any sort. As the hon. and learned Member knows, there is power under the existing law to enable the Government to appropriate for public service. It is true that there are special provisions with regard to munitions of war, keeping plans secret, etc., but, as I understand the law, there is no more power to appropriate without compensation in the case of munitions than there is in the case of any other invention.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: I think I am right—I had not the Statute before me—that the power, although it appears to be a wider power, when one reads the Section, is limited to such things as are useful for war purposes, and so on. That is certainly my impression.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Wider power is contained in the earlier Section which enables any Government Department at any time to exercise and use an invention for the service of the Crown. That is not one relating only to war service.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: But "the service of the Crown" has been interpreted as meaning the Air Force, the Army and the Navy and not as meaning any other service, such as running an electricity plant, or anything of that sort.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I should not like to be positive about that, but I would point out that it is the next sec-

  1903
  tion which deals with the question of munitions of war and expressly mentions the War Office, the Admiralty and the Air Service. However that may be, I want to make it perfectly plain that the Government are not prepared, as at present advised, to consider any question of expropriation, without compensation, of any particular form of invention.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: I said that I admitted that compensation should be paid on the same terms.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I was not referring to what the hon. and learned Member said, but to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans, who held the view that in regard to any question of health and medical research it should be made open to the public and should not be the subject of patent. The hon. Member for Accrington (Major Procter), who has great experience in these matters, made an appeal for a much wider and ampler Bill. That may be an excellent ideal for the future. This Bill is professively a modest Bill. It is designed to give literal and absolute effect to the recommendations for an amendment of the law which were made by the Departmental Committee. It is nothing more or less than that. We claim that the Bill does this. It may be that something more may be done in the future but we ask the House to-night to let us have this modest Bill.
  Dr. O'DONOVAN: There is a great difference in the outlook on life between the legal and the medical profession, and it is because of that that the Solicitor-General has not followed whole-heartedly the lead given him by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle). My profession has always resented any suggestion coming from His Majesty's Government that we have the right to exploit the people. There is no question that patents can be used for exploitation, and the idea that the sons of Hippocrates should be unfaithful to an oath which has been held for over 2,000 years has been made for the first time this evening. To me the suggestion is repulsive. It is true that chemists are entitled to the result of their studies in organic chemistry, but that the results of medical research should be followed by action and that
  1904
  again protected by patent is a conception which is new to the ideals of medicine. I was grieved to hear it from the Front Bench, and I hope that the point which has been put so boldly by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans will be borne in mind by the Government in the future discussions on this Bill.

  PATENTS AND DESIGNS [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order 71A.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Patents and Designs Acts, 1907 to 1928, it is expedient to authorise the expenses of the Appeal Tribunal to be constituted under the said Act to be defrayed as if the Tribunal were a Court of the High Court of Justice."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  MARRIAGE (NAVAL, MILITARY AND AIR FORCE CHAPELS) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  I do not think the House will desire a long explanation of this Bill. The Bill is entirely non-controversial and simply seeks to enable soldiers and sailors and men of the Air Force to be married in their own chapels. For obvious reasons the vast majority of the Naval, Military and Air Force chapels are not consecrated. That is to enable all denominations to make use of them. But, by the law of the land, marriages cannot take place in unlicensed chapels. This Bill allows the Bishop of the diocese concerned to license the chapels at the request of the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Secretary of State for War or the Secretary of State for Air. The only objection that could possibly be urged

  1905
  against, the Bill would come, I imagine, from those members of the Church of England whose churches will suffer and will not be used for marriages so much as they have been used before, and who will possibly lose some emoluments which otherwise they might get. The Bill was introduced in another place, where it received the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Winchester. They were satisfied that it was for the good both of the Services concerned and of the Church that this reform should be introduced, and they gave it wholehearted support. The Clauses of the Bill have exercised the Parliamentary draftsmen a great deal on account of the complication of our marriage legislation at the
  1906
  present time, but the principle of the Bill is one which I am sure the House wll support.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  MARRIAGE (NAVAL, MILITARY AND AIR FORCE CHAPELS) BILL [Lords].

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson]
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes after Ten o'Clock.

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 93.]
AGRICULTURAL CREDITS (MORTGAGES) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 94.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Fancy Jewellery (Standard Trade Descriptions) Bill): Major Nathan; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Janner.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Gas Undertakings Bill [Lords]: Mr. Ernest Brown, Marquess of Clydesdale, Viscount Elmley, Mr. Emrys-Evans, Mr. George Hall, Mr. Hore-Belisha, Mr. McKeag, Brigadier-General Makins, Mr. Nunn, and Mr. James Reid.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:

Public Health (Cleansing of Shellfish) Bill,

Goldsmiths' Consolidated Charities Scheme Confirmation Bill,

Ford Street Charity Scheme Confirmation Bill,

Maidstone Bread Charities Scheme Confirmation Bill, Epsom College Scheme Confirmation Bill, without amendment.

  UNEMPLOYMENT (DURHAM).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (DURHAM).
  RAILWAY ACCIDENT, DAGENHAM (INQUIRY, REPORT).
  RAILWAY ACCIDENT, DAGENHAM (INQUIRY, REPORT).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FEES AND FREE PLACES).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FEES AND FREE PLACES).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DRAUGHTSMEN).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DRAUGHTSMEN).
  SCOTLAND (LOCAL ADMINISTRATION).
  SCOTLAND (LOCAL ADMINISTRATION).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

MALTA CONSTITUTION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Constitution of Malta, and to remove doubts as to the validity of certain Letters Patent and other enactments relating to Malta; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

GOLDSMITHS' CONSOLIDATED CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMA- TION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
FORD STREET CHARITY SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MAIDSTONE BREAD CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.
EPSOM COLLEGE SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Negligent driving resulting in death or bodily injury.
1. Any driver of a motor vehicle who, owing to his negligence, kills any person shall be guilty of manslaughter; and any person driving a motor vehicle who, by his negligence, causes bodily injury to any person, shall be guilty of unlawfully wounding.
LORD DARLING LORD DARLING moved, before the first "negligence," to insert "own," and after "negligence" to insert "alone." The noble and learned Lord said: I desire to move the insertion of two words, and the clause will then read:
"Any driver of a motor vehicle who, owing to his own negligence alone, kills any person shall be guilty of manslaughter.…"
My object in moving this Amendment is to introduce into the Criminal Courts what is known in the Civil Courts as the doctrine of contributory negligence. At present in a Civil Court, if it appear in evidence that the plaintiff may have so far contributed to the accident in such a way that he would not have suffered any injury had it not been for his own negligence, then he cannot recover damages; but in a Criminal Court that does not apply. However negligent he may have been, however careless, the accused may be convicted of manslaughter or of doing grievous bodily harm, or whatever the charge is, although the jury are satisfied that the person injured was guilty of contributory negligence, and that, if he had not been, he would not have been injured at all.
Now, what is the definition of manslaughter? I had not the pleasure of hearing the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster, but I read it through carefully, and a most eloquent and affecting speech it was. He refers in that speech to the definition of manslaughter. I have often myself had to tell a jury what amounts to manslaughter, and the Judge has to tell the jurymen that negligence which would justify a verdict for the plaintiff in a Civil Court will not justify a verdict of "guilty of manslaughter" in a Criminal Court. In order to be guilty of manslaughter the person charged must not only have been negligent, he must have been, some Judges say, reckless, some say, guilty of gross negligence, which a
596
jury must consider nothing short of criminal. That is what one must tell the jury, and the consequence is that in very many cases the jury will not convict when they ought to. Why? One reason, I think, is that the person at fault is bound to insure against risk. I must apologise to your Lordships if you find it difficult to hear because I myself not long ago was knocked down by a motor vehicle. Your Lordships will, I hope, forgive me.
And, besides, when, as often is the case, the defendant accused is not a member of the criminal classes, they will do a great deal rather than see him, however careless, sent to prison; and they do not give those verdicts which they might otherwise give. It may be that the person injured may be greatly to blame and would have received no verdict in the Civil Court, but it is the fact that in the Criminal Court the defendant may be guilty of breaking the law and yet escape punishment. The law, I am afraid, protects careless people. It is tender to drunken people. A man may be very drunk, reeling about the road, and if he is knocked down by a motor vehicle through his own negligence or drunkenness that is neither here or there. That is put as well as can be in a case which was decided by Chief Baron Pollock. He said this:
"The prisoners are charged with contributing to the death of the deceased by their negligence and improper conduct and, if they did so, it matters not whether he was deaf, or drunk, or negligent, or in part contributed to his own death; for in this consists a great distinction between civil and criminal proceedings."
It may not be unworthy of the occasion to notice how this attitude towards the road rights of drunkards came about. The roads were originally used by people walking. They were then used by people riding horses or driving in vehicles and it was not until lately that they have been used by these motor machines. Mr. Chesterton, an ingenious writer, was well aware of this origin of the road for he has written:
"Before the Roman came to Rye, or out of Severn strode,
The rolling English drunkard made the rolling English road.
But there is good news yet to hear, and fine things to be seen
Before we go to Paradise by way of Kensal Green."
The law, too, has been long aware of that fact and the law has been very tender to

597
the "rolling English drunkard" when he gets in the way of a horse and cart or even, nowadays, of motor cars.
I desire to see this Bill, at all events Clause 1 of it, passed into law. I am very much afraid, however, that, left in the state in which it is drawn by my noble and learned friend it will not pass into law. He said in the speech to which I have alluded that there are mud banks between this House and another place on which one of his important Bills has already come to wreck. I am afraid that would happen in this case. But it seems to me that it is time that the law was strengthened against these motor vehicles and Clause 1 makes that a crime which, in the Civil Court, gives a remedy in money. That is exactly what is done. It leaves out all about those cases of wicked negligence, criminal negligence, and certain others. It appears to me that if that be done then it will be only just to enact at the same time that the defence which is a good defence in a Civil Court shall be a good defence in a Criminal Court. In fact, I should think it would be so a fortiori. The accused is charged with having done all that gives a right to a civil remedy, and I would say that if you are going to make it a crime, subject to imprisonment, to do what gives a right of action in a Civil Court, you ought at the same time to let him avail himself in the Criminal Court of that which is a defence in a Civil Court. I put the matter plainly, and that is why I suggest putting in these words.
I simply desire to entitle them to make use of the doctrine of contributory negligence. If this be not done I fear there will be no convictions. The counsel for the defence would always say "The facts here show conclusively that the prosecutor himself was to blame. In the Civil Court just across the passage, that would be a perfectly good defence. He could not recover one half-penny of damages in the circumstances which have been proved." That is the argument. I think I know enough of the Courts of Justice, and I have seen enough of juries, to know that that is an argument which would be very likely to prevail. You must remember that nearly everybody on the jury himself has a motor vehicle, or he has a near relation who has one and if only one man on the jury differs, you do not
598
get a verdict; the jury have to be discharged, and it would be almost impossible, after an argument of that kind, addressed to the jury, to expect a conviction. Therefore I shall move to have these words or words like them put in.
A good deal was said when the Second Reading of this Bill was carried about children; and possibly my noble and learned friend will say: "Well, but this will bear hardly in a case in which the defendants have killed or injured a child." I think that would not be so because it is the law that the negligence where children are concerned is not simply the kind of negligence which would entitle a grown-up to plead it successfully. The law does not expect, for a moment, the same care from a child as from a grownup. The law does not exact from the child the kind of care, the kind of intelligence and the taking of the same precautions which it thinks necessary in the case of grown-up people. They are expected by the law to show care in what they are doing. I might mention two cases to my noble and learned friend. There is the case of Lynch versus Nardin decided in the Queen's Bench Division in 1841, and there is the case decided in 1854 by Baron Parke a most eminent lawyer, perhaps the most eminent lawyer of his day and afterwards known as Lord Wensleydale. That case draws the strongest distinction between a grown-up adult person and a child. I think the difficulty present to my noble and learned friend's mind will not arise.
I apologise to your Lordships for having so imperfectly addressed you. As I say it is the fault of those who have allowed these dangerous things to be driven along our roads. It may not be the fault of a man who drives them. I do not know. It seems to me that we must deal with this matter by special legislation. The Legislature has licensed people to drive large, heavy and dangerous vehicles just as it allows other dangerous instruments to be used. The Legislature having allowed them to do this on the roads of England, it is inevitable that there will be great danger to a foot passenger. Therefore I think this does justify legislation of a distinctive character. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—

599
Page 1, line 7, after ("his") insert ("own") and after ("negligence") insert ("alone").—(Lord Darling.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I can hardly think that the first part of the Amendment to insert "own" after "his" is one upon which the noble Lord will desire to insist. It seems to me quite impossible to make any distinction between the word "his" and the word "own" and I do not understand what qualification he thinks can be introduced by adding the word "own" after the word "his" in the first sentence of this Bill, which says that "the driver of a motor vehicle, who, owing to his negligence, kills a person." I do not really think he himself can attach any great importance to the word, and for myself I cannot see that it gives any qualification or any emphasis whatever to the word "his" which still remains.
LORD DARLING: If any words remain which would introduce the doctrine of contributory negligence I will not insist upon that part of the Amendment.
Amendment to insert after the word "his" the word "own," by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DARLING: I shall insist on the other part of the Amendment, after "negligence" to insert "alone."
LORD BUCKMASTER: This, of course, is a more important and a more formidable Amendment. Let me just see if I can state to your Lordships what I understand to be the argument by which the noble Lord desires to support it. He says that at present, in criminal charges of negligence, contributory negligence is no defence, but that none the less in the Civil Courts it is, and he desires to assimilate civil negligence with criminal negligence and at the same time introduce provisions which are applicable only to civil negligence in the Civil Courts. I do not think, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, that he has stated the position exactly as it is. At the present moment it is not an answer to an action of negligence that the plaintiff has been guilty of negligence too, if it can be shown that notwithstanding the plaintiff's negligence it was in fact the defendant's negligence that was responsible for the accident. It is not enough merely to show that someone was guilty of negligence. You have to show
600
something more than that, and to introduce that into the Criminal Law under the words proposed would I think destroy the whole effect of the clause. It would mean that whatever might be the degree of negligence on the part of a foot passenger, however slight or however trivial, yet none the less the negligence of the motor driver would not render him responsible to the criminal proceedings which I desire to see introduced by this clause.
Further, when he says that I need not say more of the negligence of children, I most certainly am going to do so. If his words were introduced there is nothing to exempt children.
LORD DARLING: They are exempt now by the Common Law doctrine.
LORD BUCKMASTER: But the Common Law doctrine will not help you when you are dealing with a Statute. You have to deal with the Act of Parliament and its words, and if this Act of Parliament is going to provide that this punishment which I desire to see inflicted is only to be inflicted where there is nothing at all excepting the negligence of the motor driver, then the negligence of a child would be as perfect a defence to the proceedings as the negligence of a grown-up man. There are further Amendments to be moved on this clause mitigating the effect of these penalties. These will be discussed in due time. I may say in advance that I am not prepared to raise any strenuous opposition to them, but I think it is essential that we should retain in the foreground of this clause the fact that if a man by his negligent act kills or maims another person he Should be guilty of a criminal action. Therefore I am unable to accept this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): With regard to this Amendment, although I have great sympathy with what my noble and learned friend Lord Darling said, and although where a person has been killed and he himself has been partially negligent I see difficulties in saying that the man who caused the injury—that is the motor driver—should be liable for manslaughter, or whatever the offence is, yet I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster in thinking that the Amendment would materially weaken the clause. May I put this case without expressing any opinion as to the

601
desirability of the clause? Suppose two motorists came into collision, that both the drivers were negligent and that, as a result of the collision, a pedestrian was killed. Is it to be a defence open to one motorist to say: "Oh well, the other man was negligent and therefore I am not liable."? Then when action is brought against the second motorist, is he to say: "Well, the first motorist was negligent and so I am not liable"? I do think we must consider where the third person's negligence comes in. Therefore I should be sorry to see a great inroad made upon this particular clause because I think it would enable many people to escape.
LORD DARLING: As I said when I moved this Amendment I do not insist upon these particular words. I desire to introduce the doctrine of contributory negligence. If any form of words can be found which will without objection introduce that doctrine into this particular new crime in the Criminal Courts then I would gladly see those words put into this clause. I quite see the objection to these words and I see the puzzles that may arise in such a case as that put by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I therefore will not insist upon this Amendment, but I will try with such help as I can get, possibly from the Lord Chancellor, to find words which will introduce the doctrine of contributory negligence without being open to the objections to which these words have been exposed. In these circumstances I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved to leave out "guilty of manslaughter" and to insert "liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years." The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading of this Bill objection was taken in several quarters, and it seems to me with considerable force, to introducing the law of manslaughter with its very severe penalties into the First Clause of this Bill. I do, however, venture to urge upon your Lordships that the law does require amendment in this direction, and indeed several speakers on the Second Reading admitted the necessity of it. My noble friend the Earl of Plymouth admitted the necessity for further legislation although he did not like the particular form of the Bill. My noble friend shakes his head, so may I quote
602
the passage I refer to in his speech? It appears in column 183 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. This is what he said:
"I venture to say that an enormous problem of this kind ought to be dealt with more comprehensively than it can be by legislation such as is proposed by the noble and learned Lord."
That appears to me to bear out my statement of his views—that he did not like the legislation proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, but that he thought there ought to be more comprehensive legislation; in other words, that the problem does require legislation.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hanworth, said in the course of the same debate—his words are reported in column 185 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—
"We all do want something done and I think the proper solution might be, after the undertaking given by the Government that the matter will be considered, to ask for a still further assurance that something will be done in this Session."
The Government have not given an assurance to that effect. Therefore, as they are not going to do anything this Session, and as it is admitted by, I understand, Lord Hanworth and many others that further legislation is necessary, I suggest to your Lordships that the words which I propose will meet the case.
I do not propose to refer again to the appalling cases quoted by my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster in his speech on the Second Reading, when he showed that deaths had occurred over and over again which were caused by the negligence of motor drivers and that under the existing law acquittal followed and nothing was done. My Amendment is founded upon what I think your Lordships will agree is a somewhat striking precedent. That precedent is Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. That section is in these terms:
"Whoever causes the death of a person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description.…"
I presume that means—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Simple or the other.
LORD DANESFORT: He shall be punished with imprisonment—
".…for a term which may extend to two years or with a fine or both."

603
That is not verbatim my Amendment, but it is the same thing in substance. A man who causes death by his rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be liable to imprisonment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: With or without hard labour?
LORD DANESFORT: That is not in my Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Would you put it in?
LORD DANESFORT: If it is desired, certainly I should have no objection to putting it in and leaving it to the discretion of the Judge whether there should or should not be hard labour. There is only one other thing I desire to mention in connection with my Amendment and it is this. It may be said that the case is sufficiently met by the dangerous driving clause contained in the Road Traffic Act of 1930. I have some figures which show how that clause works. In the year 1930 there were 19,694 persons convicted of dangerous driving and it may perhaps surprise your Lordships to hear that of those thousands of persons only eight were punished otherwise than by fine. To many a fine is absolutely useless for preventing dangerous driving; they smile at it and go on to do practically the same thing next day. In the circumstances I think I have met the objections of Lord Atkin and others who were opposed to treating this as a case of manslaughter, but I have provided an appropriate remedy for an offence which is, undoubtedly, a most serious one and which is not adequately met by the existing law. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out ("guilty of manslaughter") and insert ("liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years").—(Lord Danesfort.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: In the course of the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill fear was expressed lest the use of the word manslaughter, drawing with it its consequential penalties, might cause juries to hesitate in convicting and might lead people to think that the sentence would be unduly severe. I think it is possible that the fact would be used, and rightly and properly used, by counsel for
604
the defence who was attempting to get off a man brought up on this charge. I realise that and as my object is to secure that these men should be convicted I can understand that there is an advantage to be gained by withdrawing the word "manslaughter" from the Bill.
With regard to the question of punishment it was also said that the punishment of manslaughter extends indefinitely and so it does. And although I pointed out that it lay within the discretion of the Judge, who could give one day or a lifetime as he thought fit, and my personal fear was and is that the sentence would err on the side of being too light instead of being too heavy, none the less the fact that there was such a range of punishment might to some extent blunt the effect of the clause. As the Amendment which has been put down by the noble Lord provides that this negligent killing or maiming shall be criminal, which is the first thing I want to secure, and, secondly, that there shall be a substantial term of imprisonment for its commission, I am not prepared to quarrel with the Amendment and am willing to see it introduced into my Bill.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to take this opportunity to re-state very briefly the views of the Government with regard to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Danes-fort, has quoted certain words I used during the Second Reading debate. I admit that perhaps I did not express myself very carefully but I think, taking my words in their complete context, it it not quite fair to put the interpretation on them which the noble Lord has done. At the time I think I was stressing the point that the Road Traffic Act, after very careful consideration in both Houses of Parliament, had been passed less than two years and that I thought it was undesirable to start tinkering with this measure so soon after. In fact I stressed the point that I thought it undesirable to deal with such a vast question by piecemeal legislation and I meant to say that if there were a case for dealing with it at all it should be done on a comprehensive scale. I was also stressing the point that at this moment this question ought to be dealt with by administrative

605
action rather than by legislation. It is in fact the view of the Government that legislation of this character is not necessary at the present moment, and I must make it clear once again that the Government can assume no responsibility for this actual Bill. I can only repeat what I said on the Second Reading, but naturally the Government are anxious, out of respect to your Lordships' House and the Committee, to give what assistance they can during its passage through the Committee stage.
I need hardly say that the Government welcome the opportunities provided by debates in this House of drawing public attention once again to the very serious danger of the roads and of exploring further any possible remedies. Since the Second Reading debate both the Minister of Transport and the Home Secretary have issued grave public warnings on the subject of road accidents, and I think your Lordships will agree that there are very definite signs that public opinion is becoming more alive to the urgency of the problem; and it is an enlightened public opinion which is more necessary in these matters than almost anything else. The Minister of Transport and the Home Secretary are continuously in consultation as to the best means of securing a substantial reduction in the number of accidents, and I am able to tell the Committee that following on certain suggestions made during the Second Reading debate in this House—particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin—the Home Secretary is about to issue a circular to justices of the peace in England and Wales drawing attention to the gravity of the situation in the light of the published statistics.
These discussions between the Minister of Transport and the Home Secretary have covered other matters bearing on the prevention of accidents, such as the more extended use of automatic light signals, the extension of the practice of indicating crossing places by means of special signs and markings, the functions of motor police patrols, the possibility of widespread propaganda for the education of the public and other such-like matters. I may add that the Home Office issued a further circular last month to the chief officers of police on the subject of the enforcement of speed limits for heavy vehicles. I hope the Committee
606
will think that what I have been able to tell them shows that the Government have not been inactive but are fully alive to the situation and the seriousness of it. As far as this particular Amendment is concerned, I certainly say that it is less objectionable than the proposal in the Bill as it stands at present and the Government would be prepared to support it.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: I think the Committee ought to be grateful to the noble Earl for the speech he has just made as it relieves us from so many of the complications into which it was obvious we were rapidly getting. He has told us with authority, first, that the Government is not prepared to take any responsibility for assisting the passage of the Bill. He also added that the Government is fully alive to the situation. Then he said that the Government always was glad that this House should engage itself in discussion upon subjects of general importance because, after all, discussion could do no harm and might even do some good. In those circumstances your Lordships will see that it really does not matter twopence, if I may be permitted to use a common expression, what you do with this Amendment: the Bill is not going to become law and whether you insert a new crime and call it manslaughter or insert a new crime and say that it is negligent killing, punishable with imprisonment, with or without hard labour, will not make any difference to the motor traffic or to the manslaughter which does take place and is unpunished.
I suppose, having given this Bill a Second Reading—not a First Reading, for the purpose of promoting discussion—which is supposed to deal with the principle, I may take it that your Lordships' opinion is in favour of making it criminal to kill or wound a person by driving a motor vehicle. One of the most eminent supporters of this Bill, and other Bills devoted to a similar object, said "Hear hear!" when I intimated that, and I see very little use in prosecuting any discussion myself upon the question whether it is to be a crime or not. Your Lordships were told on the Second Reading, by a number of members of this House very well qualified to express an opinion, that they did not believe any jury would convict anybody of manslaughter, and I think they would have added of unlawful

607
wounding, or any other kind of wounding, upon indictment for a criminal offence. Yet, full of hope, inspired by the usual British notion that something must be done, your Lordships have at any rate taken one step and said that it is in principle sound to make this form of bad driving, with its deplorable results, criminal, although you very well knew that for years and years the law had been brought into contempt because the Courts, which ought to have convicted people for exceeding the speed limit, would insist upon treating the whole thing as a joke.
Your Lordships know very well that the only form of punishment which is likely to be effective is dealing with people's licences and that is a form of punishment to which those in authority are most reluctant to resort, but with a still new hope, undeterred by these deplorable failures, your Lordships have adopted the principle that we should try what the effect of imprisonment will be upon people who will not be deterred otherwise. Therefore I will not trouble your Lordships with an inquiry, upon my own part, whether to call it manslaughter and face the consequences—the consequences being acquittal—or not to call it manslaughter but simply accept that without troubling what kind of negligence it is, or giving the Judges the trouble of explaining the inexplicable and telling what gross negligence is, if by your negligence you kill anybody you shall go to prison for a certain length of time. I do not believe that in any considerable proportion of cases you will get the justices to commit for trial, and I still less believe you will get juries, after they have been addressed sympathetically and emotionally by a properly qualified advocate, to send a well-meaning young person just entering upon life, perhaps an undergraduate who has only just matriculated, or perhaps a lady who has only just learnt, if at all, to drive a car—I do not believe you will get them to send such a person to the cruel stigma of gaol because, after all, if the victim is dead he is dead, or if his relatives have a claim for his death there is the insurance policy. If he is not dead, there is also the insurance policy.
There is another Bill before your Lordships directed to that aspect of providing plaster for the wounded in the shape
608
of sufficient Treasury notes. I think this House should consider which line is the most promising—that which provides new crimes in the doubtful hope that the law will ever be enforced, or that which is the line of insurance, providing that somebody shall pay something and thus secure that some solid solatium shall be obtained. If I may say so, anticipating a further Amendment, the one real hope which there is before us is by automatically dealing with the licence. That is what drivers think of. If they were deterred by the fear of manslaughter, they would be deterred by the fear of breaking their own necks, for they cannot always be sure that the other person and not they will be injured. They take the risk of those things because in the immense majority of cases they do not kill anybody, but they have well in their minds the risk of having their licences dealt with, and I believe that it is by inexorably dealing with the licence of everybody who gets into a collision and only restoring it when the driver has cleared himself of any blame by proper application to the proper authority, that you will ever begin to deal with this crying evil.
Will your Lordships remember this? If you had been told before Gottlieb Daimler invented the explosion engine, that the common roads of this country, open to everybody, for himself, his goods and his cattle, which came down to us from our fathers in a state adapted only partially even to the conditions existing at the end of last century, were to be turned into common highways for vehicles comparable only to railway trains, operated without any system of signals and without time schedules and with no responsibility except that of Tom, Dick or Harry, to whom licences have been given and who, in the fraction of a second, have to decide whether to do one thing or another, and if you had been told that such roads were to be carried on as highways common to anybody and you could take any engine which Parliament would allow you to take upon them, and to run them at any speed which Parliament authorised, and if you were told that Parliament, undeterred by the increasing slaughter had got rid of the speed limit and increased the authority to use those roads for huge vehicles which were very difficult to control, and

609
that the ordinary user of the road, whichever side he was on, had just got to take the consequences, you would have said that it was all a dream. That is where we have got to. Parliament has with its eyes open taken various steps which have led us to it, and we cannot hope now to get out of it by any short cut and by inventing new crimes to prevent that which arises from conditions imposed upon the road traffic, the cure for which can only come slowly and, as I believe, only by dealing with the licences. Therefore I can only say that I will vote on this Amendment with whatever part of the House seems likely to have a majority, reconciling myself to what we have been told, that we shall hear no more about this Bill here or anywhere else.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I did not intervene on the Second Reading of this Bill, but I was very much impressed by what the noble Lord who is responsible for it said. I have followed the debates carefully and I agree with the noble Earl who represents the Government on this occasion in thinking that piecemeal legislation is really not advisable at the present time. There is no question that we are being faced with a very vast problem. I came into your Lordships' House to assist my noble friend the late Lord Russell in the passage of the Road Traffic Bill through this House, and I also assisted in the production of what is known as the Highway Code. I am sure that the Ministry of Transport are anxious to do everything in their power to mitigate what is growing into a tragedy on the roads. I am not at all sure that the Government will not be forced before long to take very drastic steps in the way of fresh legislation; I am not at all sure that it will not have to follow the lines which have been foreshadowed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, who has just spoken; that is to say, that the roads will have to be in certain parts reserved for motor cars and for motor cars alone, and that they must have their own tracks, and not be allowed to interfere with other forms of locomotion.
But I have been struck in the course of the debate by the insistence that there has been in the arguments brought forward by various noble Lords on the criminality of the motorist and the entire
610
innocence of the pedestrian, and I think that has really been over-stressed. Those who have driven cars—I have driven cars for a good many years—can compare their state of mind in driving a car with their state of mind in walking the street, and they will see then exactly what very often happens. In driving car a man must keep his attention fully stretched the whole time. In walking the streets we walk and we think of other things. It is unfortunate that day-dreaming as one walks along, very pleasant as it has been, is now no longer possible. But the behaviour of pedestrians is really nothing short of suicidal, and I think that will be borne out by many motorists who go along country lanes and through country villages. Pedestrians do not take advantage of footpaths, they do not take advantage of subways, they do not take advantage of crossing-places. Therefore I think a great deal can be done still by the process of education, and I wish that the Pedestrians' Association, of which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, is a leading personality, would undertake the education of pedestrians. It has been done in the schools, and I think I am right in saying that, in the statistics of accidents that have been collected by the Safety First Association, the accidents to younger people are much fewer than the accidents to older people. The younger people are growing up with what is called a road sense, a new road sense. They are more alert, they are more on the look-out, they do not turn their backs to traffic coming along and cross roads diagonally, they do not come out from behind stationary vehicles: they are taught that they have got to be alert; and I think the new generation that is growing up will be more alert than we are.
But all these are very small mitigations, compared to the greater problem of the great loss of life and the enormous number of accidents, and I think a great debt of gratitude is due to the noble and learned Lord for bringing this matter up, because in the course of ventilation a cure may be found. With regard to the particular Amendment before the House, I am glad that the noble and learned Lord will accept it because I think it gives a better chance to the Bill, if it ever did become law, of being worked
611
and being productive of good results. I think the introduction of manslaughter gave it an undue severity which might have made it defeat its own object. But, on the whole, the attitude adopted by the Government in this matter is, I think, one which I, anyhow, feel inclined to support.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHEWOOD: When I was in the House of Commons I used to be told that when the two Front Benches agreed then it was quite certain that the course they recommended should be avoided, and I always acted on that—until I got on to the Front Bench. I believe it to be sound, because I believe that they are speaking the opinions only of their officials, and their officials, though admirable people, are not generally very good judges of what is desirable in the matter of legislation. My noble friend who has just sat down has said that he objects to piecemeal legislation, but really, if he will allow me to say so, that is a most reactionary doctrine. You cannot hope to deal with the immense complexities of every question always by omnibus measures. The only way you will really get improvements is by dealing with some particular point which has been shown to be in want of legislative change. If you have to wait until you can reconsider the whole thing you will never get on for years and years and years.
Just look—Lord Mount Temple will bear me out in this—how long we had to wait till everybody was agreed that something ought to be done with regard to road traffic, how long we had to wait for the Road Traffic Bill. He, I know, constantly pressed it on the Conservative Government when he was a member of that Government. And the reason was that it was such a big thing, it wanted such a lot of Parliamentary time, that it was impossible to do it; whereas, if it were possible to proceed by little steps of legislation which one would hope would be relatively noncontentious—at any rate we could try that—then you could get the thing gradually built up until at the end you would get your consolidating Act, dealing with all these little measures that had been passed. That, is the way in which unless my history is at fault, all the great advances, in public health for instance,
612
have been made. They have not been made entirely by epoch-making changes, but by a number of small changes which have ultimately been consolidated into one big Act. One other observation. My noble and learned friend said he thought that the younger people were suffering less than the older from the dangers of the streets. I am sorry I have not got the figures—they were given on the Second Reading—and they showed that, on the contrary, one of the most alarming features of the situation was that the young were suffering very severely, and a very large number of children and young persons were killed every year. As I have not got the figures I cannot tell whether they are increasing or decreasing, but the number is certainly very large.
May I say a word about what fell from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner? He says the Government have said that they are not going to let this Bill go through the House of Commons, or are not going to give it any facilities for going through the House of Commons, and that therefore it does not matter what we do. I think that is rather a counsel of despair. It means that the House of Lords is never to do anything unless it is assured beforehand that the Government will see that its legislation, or its proposed legislation, is passed through the House of Commons. I cannot think that is the sound view for a member of your Lordships' House to take. We must do the best we can. It is quite true we have not got as much power as the House of Commons; quite true that in the House of Commons, as at present constituted, the Government of the day is all-powerful; quite true, therefore, that, unless the Government choose, no legislation that your Lordships pass will become law. But I do not think it would be a sound conclusion from those facts to say that therefore your Lordships should never attempt any legislation except with the approval of the Government, which seems to be the logical conclusion of my noble friend's argument.
I think there is another great advantage which legislation by your Lordships' House has—namely, it helps to form public opinion. That is what we are continually told by the Government and others is the great thing to do. We are

613
told we have to form public opinion. I think if we could show that your Lordships were clearly of opinion that if a motorist killed somebody on the road by his negligence it was not merely a deplorable accident but was an act of a criminal character—if that was once made clear to the whole public opinion of the country, that would be a very large step towards a proper state of things on the roads. That is really the purpose of this Bill. No doubt, we who are supporting it would be glad to see it law, but I should be very glad even if we could show that we thought it worth while to pass it through your Lordships' House. It would be the most formidable and expressive statement we could make that such acts as we condemn in this Bill are, in our judgment, criminal, and ought to be so treated.
I know very well that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, is quite right in saying that when it comes to prosecuting a motorist in a Criminal Court there is a certain sympathy for him, because it is thought, however negligent he was, that it is, after all, very hard to send him to prison, or indeed to convict him. It is that frame of mind that ought to be destroyed. If it is a criminal act negligently to kill somebody on the highway then you ought to make it quite clear that sympathy is misplaced in that case if it goes so far as to prevent a conviction of the person who is guilty. I agree that it would be undesirable to say that in such a case he must always be imprisoned. But the Bill does not say that; it merely gives power to the Court to imprison up to two years. What it does say is exactly what my noble friend desires. It says that on conviction in any case his licence shall be suspended. Whether he is sent to prison or not is a different matter, but in any case his licence should be suspended. For that reason it seems to me that this Bill, with the Amendment proposed, really does enact what ought to be enacted—namely, that these acts are criminal, that they ought to be punishable, though they ought not to be punishable as manslaughter because manslaughter does involve very serious consequences indeed, and ought to be reserved for more serious crimes than these, but that these offences ought to involve a conviction and ought to involve
614
the suspension of the licence. For that reason I hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment, which seems to me to be reasonable.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I am afraid I cannot enrol myself as a supporter of this measure, not because I am out of sympathy with what I imagine to be the majority of your Lordships' House, or out of sympathy with the terrible distress resulting from the fatalities and injuries on the roads caused by the negligent, almost criminally negligently, driving of a small minority of drivers. It is not because I have not great sympathy for this measure that I am not supporting it. It is because I am quite sure it will not accomplish what the noble and learned Lord who moved this Bill has in view. The trouble, in my humble opinion, is not that the law at present is inadequate, but that the law is not carried out, because in the first place the police do not pay enough attention to the transgressors, on the road; and in the second place—it is an unpleasant thing to say—because the majority of benches of magistrates in this country do not carry out their duty, and also, I think, because juries are absurdly soft-hearted to the wicked motorist—the small minority who come before them.
This Bill of course cannot become law. We all know that Parliamentary time makes it impossible. But supposing it could become law, and you saw these manslaughters, penal servitudes for life, imprisonments, suspensions of driving licences enacted in an Act, you would find magistrates and juries much less inclined to convict than they are now. I may be wrong, but I feel if you make the penalty so savage and severe you are inducing the magistrates and juries to do even less than they are doing at the present time. It is for that reason and for no other that I think, although I do not say I am opposed to the Bill, that it is useless and may do harm. While I quite see it may be a good thing to ventilate the subject as the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, suggested and to form public opinion, I am sure if this Bill became law it would do nothing to diminish the terrible toll of life and injury to limb on the roads.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I do not wish to trouble your Lordships with another speech. I merely wish to point out that

615
the question before your Lordships is not whether the Bill is a good one or a bad one but whether or not the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Danesfort shall be accepted or not.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved to leave out "guilty of unlawful wounding" and to insert "liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year or to a fine not exceeding £100, or to both." The noble Lord said: If this Amendment is accepted by your Lordships Clause 1 will run:
"…and any person driving a motor vehicle who, by his negligence, causes bodily injury to any person, shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year or to a fine not exceeding £100, or to both."
On the Second Reading of the Bill it was pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, and I think also by the noble Viscount the Lord Chancellor and others, that it was very undesirable to introduce the law of unlawful wounding into a Bill of this character, and for several reasons which I need not enumerate, amongst others that the penalties for unlawful wounding as existing to-day are extremely heavy, so heavy that in many cases magistrates and juries refuse to convict. Consequently I will ask your Lordships to omit the words "unlawful wounding," and to impose a penalty upon a person driving a motor car "who, by his negligence, causes bodily injury." That, I venture to think, is certainly not more than the offence deserves. The arguments upon this Amendment are to a large extent somewhat similar to the arguments upon the last Amendment and I will therefore move without saying anything further.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("guilty of unlawful wounding") and insert ("liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year or to a fine not exceeding £100, or to both").—(Lord Danesfort.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: This is what might be called a consequential Amendment and I am willing to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved to add to the clause:
"And in both of the cases referred to in this section the person driving the motor
616
vehicle shall on conviction as mentioned above be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence for such period as the court thinks fit, but not less than twelve months from the expiration of his term of imprisonment."
The noble Lord said: My object in moving this Amendment is to secure that the person who is convicted of either of the offences mentioned in the previous part of the clause shall be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence for such period as the Court thinks fit but not less than twelve months from the expiry of the term of imprisonment. I do not want to repeat myself. We all know how little effect a fine has upon the worst class of offender, but the suspension of the licence, as my noble friend Lord Sumner says, has a great deterrent effect. Therefore I suggest that in addition to the previous provision of this clause we should add this deterrent.
After all, what is the object of this clause? The object is to prevent people from driving recklessly and seriously wounding people, and I think the addition that I venture to propose will make the case stronger. I will only add that in the case of killing persons by negligence, few of your Lordships will be found to say that a man should not have his licence suspended for a period. It is obvious that he ought. In the case of causing bodily injury by negligence the Judge, instead of imprisoning a man under the previous part of the clause, could impose a fine; and what would be the use of that?
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, at the end insert the said words.—(Lord Danesfort.)
LORD ATKIN: In reference to this Amendment I should like to say a word about the question of suspending a driver's licence. I have taken the view, and I have expressed it in this House, that that is the real way of dealing with motor offences. I am quite sure that a substantial penalty is likely to prove a deterrent, but I am also quite satisfied that if justices and Courts generally exercised the powers they now possess of suspending licences there would be a very considerable reform in driving. The trouble is that they do not. If they did, I think it would be quite possible within a short time to clear off the roads altogether that very small minority of selfish drivers who are causing these accidents.

617
But in order to do that this power ought to be exercised rigorously and for that purpose there must be convictions. When the Road Traffic Bill was before the House I suggested that it was a mistake to have automatic punishments—compulsory punishments which the magistrates must impose. I was very much influenced in that by the opinions which I obtained from a great many justices and by my own small experience as a magistrate. There is difficulty in getting convictions for drunkenness on the road when the offender is a man whose occupation is that of driving. Magistrates and juries will not take the responsibility of such a heavy punishment as depriving a man entirely of a means of living for a year or two years. They would rather refuse to convict.
It must be remembered that cases vary in gravity. I quite agree that in cases where a man has, by reckless driving, killed a person, such a man ought to have his licence suspended, and I hope that magistrates will be alive to their duty and will do that. On the other hand you have to remember that it is now proposed for the first time that a driver who by negligence, however slight, inflicts any bodily injury, however slight, upon a person, shall be held to have committed a criminal offence, and upon this proposal if he is convicted the magistrate must suspend his licence for twelve months. I venture to think that that is too much. These rigid punishments, I think, are contrary to the principle of punishment, which ought to be left to the discretion of the Judge, and I also think that they are likely to prevent conviction where conviction otherwise might be secured. I am not moving any Amendment, but I hope this proposal will be brought into line with other provisions in the Road Traffic Act. In that Act it is provided that a person's licence may be suspended "unless the court for special reasons think fit to order otherwise." I venture to hope that on the Report stage the noble Lord who has proposed the Amendment will adopt that suggestion. There really seems to be no reason why in this particular case we should go contrary to the general rules laid down in the Road Traffic Act.
May I make one other suggestion? Perhaps this ought to be addressed to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck-
618
master. A new offence is being created. It is very important, I think, that it should be made clear whether Quarter Sessions are to be given jurisdiction in such cases. Unless it is given to them these cases can only be tried at Assizes. Certainly in the case of minor offences they should be within the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions. There is another point which might be considered. At the present moment unlawful wounding, for which this offence is to be substituted, is a matter which can be tried summarily, according to my recollection, on the consent of the accused. My noble and learned friend will find it is very much easier to get people to prosecute and to get convictions in cases where it is not necessary to incur the expense of proceeding on an indictable offence and going to Quarter Sessions or Assizes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I add my testimony to the recommendations of my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin? Those of us who have had experience in trying cases know the difficulty there is where the punishment is automatic. I do not want to go into disagreeable cases, but there was one very disagreeable class of case known to the law where, if a man was found guilty, he had to be given a very long term of penal servitude. The result was that a man was never found guilty of that offence. He was found guilty of attempting to commit that offence and so he could be given a much smaller punishment. May I cite my own personal experience? Not very long ago I had to try a taxi-cab driver—not in London—for an offence. I think it was unlawful wounding. It was suggested then that the man's licence should be suspended for a considerable time. I do not suppose it would affect the pockets of any of us here very much to have our licences suspended, but it would have affected this man's living and the sustenance of his wife and children. To have suspended his licence for a long time would have meant inflicting punishment on perfectly innocent people.
I am not saying that there may not be cases where you ought to stop a man having a licence, even if he is a taxi-cab driver, but surely it is better to leave that to the discretion of the Judge who has to impose sentence. You can trust the Judges to do the right thing. Perhaps the noble Lord on the Report stage will consider this matter before making this

619
punishment automatic. It means that you may inflict injustice on many people. As I have said, there may be cases where it is right and necessary, but I think you should leave it to the man who hears the case and knows all the facts. The result of that would be to revive the discretion given to the Court in Section 15 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin has referred, of dispensing with or reducing the period of disqualification for special reasons if the Court thinks fit. I commend that to your Lordships' careful consideration. I hope that some amelioration will be made and that this automatic punishment will not be enacted.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I cannot help thinking that there is a very great deal of force in what has been urged by the noble and learned Lords, the Lord Chancellor and Lord Atkin. I was not so greatly impressed by the statement that if you take away a man's licence you injure innocent people because you do that whenever you send a man to prison. It is a necessary result, and it ought to be one of the things a man should remember. There is, however, something to be said for the view that if punishment follows automatically convictions will be more difficult to obtain. On the other hand, when you say "Leave it to the Judges," throughout this debate and the debate on Second Reading there has re-echoed the charge that everybody who administers this law lets people off. It does not seem much use to leave it to them. Possibly the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, will see whether on Report stage he can produce a form of words which to some extent will meet the difficulties and will not press this Amendment to a Division.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Do not the Judges sometimes hold different opinions?
LORD BUCKMASTER: Not good Judges.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am not quite sure it is safe always to trust the Judges.
LORD DANESFORT: I think there is considerable force—how could I think otherwise?—in the appeal that the discretion of the Judge who tries the case should be allowed to fix the period of
620
suspension of the licence, and if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, will produce on Report some such words as he indicated I for my part will be inclined to give them the most favourable consideration and I am sure your Lordships will do the same; but at present, I suggest, we can pass the Amendment as it stands.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Before the Amendment is finally disposed of, may I say that if it is passed the words ought to be added at the end: "if any, or where no term of imprisonment is imposed from the date of the conviction."
LORD DANESFORT: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I would move the Amendment in that form.
Original Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, at end insert:
("And in both of the cases referred to in this section the person driving the motor vehicles shall on conviction as mentioned above be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence for such period as the court thinks fit, but not less than twelve months from the expiration of his term of imprisonment, if any, or where no term of imprisonment is imposed from the date of conviction.")—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Penalty for failure to stop, &c., after knowingly causing damage or injury.
2. Any driver of a motor vehicle who has to his knowledge caused damage or injury to any person and who does not stop to render aid and give information, shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, and shall be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence for such period as the court thinks fit, but not less than twelve months.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT had given Notice to move, at the end, to insert "from the expiration of his term of imprisonment." The noble Lord said: As your Lordships see, the previous part of the clause says that where a man, having caused damage or injury, does not stop and give information, he shall be liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months and shall be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence for such period as the court thinks fit, but not less than twelve months. If he was dis-

621
qualified from holding the licence for only three months it might be that the moment he got out of prison he would be able to resume his licence. I therefore suggest that it ought to be not less than twelve months from the expiration of his term of imprisonment.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The words added on the last Amendment should also be added in this case.
LORD DANESFORT: If the noble Earl thinks his words will improve the Amendment I shall be prepared to move it in that form.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert:
("from the expiration of his term of imprisonment, if any, or where no term of imprisonment is imposed from the date of conviction.")—[Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Rate of speed for certain goods vehicles.
3. No goods vehicles exceeding in total weight five tons, shall exceed the speed of five miles per hour in any city, town, or village.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: This Clause 3 has nothing to do with Clauses 1 and 2 which your Lordships have passed. Clauses 1 and 2 deal with offences of motor drivers and give them not an inappropriate punishment. Clause 3, however, deals not with offences, but with the class of vehicles which shall be allowed to use the road and with their weight. I have read a good many extraordinary clauses in various Bills, but this is the most wonderful clause I have ever seen.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I point out that the clause is well within the title of the Bill which says: "An Act to amend the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and for purposes connected therewith."?
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I was not questioning that it was within the title of the Bill. I was trying to point out that it was dealing with entirely different aspects of the question from Clauses 1 and 2. What does it say?
"No goods vehicles exceeding in total weight five tons, shall exceed the speed of five miles per hour in any city, town or village."
622
My noble friend Lord Danesfort means to move later on that in no case shall vehicles exceeding in total weight five tons be permitted to be driven except by licence to be granted in special circumstances by the Minister of Transport. Now, about eighteen months ago Parliament passed a very comprehensive Road Traffic Act. It was debated ad nauseam in another place. I remember sitting for weeks and weeks in Committee on the Bill, and it was debated on Second Reading and even on Third Reading. If my information is correct it was also subjected in your Lordships' House to severe scrutiny and criticism. But at any rate after these two processes the King's Assent was given to a Bill which inter alia restricted very considerably the use of goods traffic on the roads, set down in the Schedule the speed at which vehicles should go, inserted in the Schedule the weights they could carry, and at any rate regulated for what was hoped would be a considerable number of years the legislation which should be passed to deal with these goods vehicles.
I would ask your Lordships what has happened in the last eighteen months to justify a measure such as this, which absolutely tears up the Act of 1930 and in effect prevents any road transport of goods at all. It may be necessary in the near future—I think it will be necessary —to have a Bill to co-ordinate railway traffic and road traffic, and to put them both in their proper spheres and prevent the railways from fading out of the picture, and for putting possibly some greater burdens upon the goods vehicles than they bear to-day; but to say, as you do in this clause, that no goods vehicle exceeding in total weight five tons shall exceed the speed of five miles per hour in any city, town or village, means in effect that all road transportation of goods must cease, except possibly the light motor carrying the washing to the country town or a basket of strawberries to a sick friend. Otherwise all road transport of goods must cease, because if you slow down the speed which is now allowed to a speed of five miles on one-third or one-fourth of the roads of this country, then in present circumstances it will not be an economic proposition to send goods by road, because it will involve a considerable increase in the cost of transportation, the cost to the consumer will rise to a marked extent, and

623
we shall lose all the economic benefit derived from the carriage of goods by road.
I ask your Lordships to hesitate many times before you set the seal to so outrageous, so unfair, unpractical and uneconomic a proposal as this. Then I would ask how you are going to enforce this clause. How can you tell where the city ends and the city begins, or where the town or village begins and the town or village ends? With this ribbon development all along our highways at the present moment, every road, except perhaps on the moor, seems to be through a village or town, and this clause means that you would sterilise the economic transport of goods over at least a quarter of the roads of the country. How would you enforce it at night? Are you going to the expense at the beginning of each control of having a big lighted signal stating "Here you are in—city or—town, and you must not go more than five miles an hour"? When I was at the Ministry of Transport we considered these questions ad nauseam, and we came to the conclusion that it was physically impossible to enforce such a regulation as this. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will hesitate before passing such a clause, which cannot be carried into effect, would damage the transport of goods by road to an incalculable degree, and injure the economic life of the country to such a great extent.
LORD BUCKMASTER: It is to my mind unfortunate that the noble Lord who has just sat down was not here on the Second Reading of the Bill because otherwise he might then have advanced the various arguments which he has advanced on this occasion.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I think I was here.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Then I am astonished that the noble Lord should have been so silent, because I do not remember his arguing anything about it, and this question of goods vehicles was discussed at considerable length, and I gave what I thought were sound reasons for adopting this clause. One of the reasons which he now suggests why the clause should not be adopted strikes me as peculiarly strange. He says: How can you define a city or town or village?
624
How can you enforce such a clause? Why, these very words are taken from the Schedule of the Bill for which he himself was responsible.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I was not responsible for it; Mr. Morrison was responsible.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I thought the noble Lord claimed credit for it, and said he had to discuss it ad nauseam in another place. These are the very limits applied by the Schedule of that Act to another and heavier class of traffic than these goods vehicles, and all I have done is to adopt the phraseology of that Act and make it applicable to another class of vehicle. I could understand it being said that I had not made my load heavy enough, and ought to have made it ten tons; but that something should be done in the interests of plain justice to stop these heavy loaded motor vehicles from passing through the streets of our towns, I think no one can doubt. The reasons why I urged this, to which the noble Lord has not done me the honour of referring, were, firstly, that the intolerable noise which these vehicles caused rendered the peaceful habitation of houses by the sides of the roads an impossibility, and secondly, what I regard as a very great injustice indeed, their vibration threatened the stability of all the houses that they passed by, with the result that the lessees—not always wealthy lessees, but sometimes small shopkeepers—who were under repairing leases, were bound to repair the houses damaged by these vehicles which made their lives intolerable.
I pointed out again—which nobody seems to have properly considered—that the nuisance created by these vehicles was of such a character that the law would stop it instantly if the vehicles were all owned by one person, but that you cannot stop it now because they are owned by a large number of persons and you cannot say that any one person is responsible for the nuisance which collectively they commit. Something ought to be done. There is no reason why people living alongside the roads should have their lives made intolerable and their houses shaken down; and although your Lordships might think that there is reason for an alteration as to

625
the weight of the load, it ought to be one of the first duties of the Minister of Transport to take steps without delay to deal with this matter. The people who drive these vehicles do not seem to realise that until the roads were made fit for them any damage done to the roads fell on those who caused that damage. Any person who was guilty of extraordinary use of the road was liable to make good any damage. Part of the burden of maintaining these roads has now been thrown upon the, very people whose houses these vehicles shake down and whose lives they make intolerable. But for the lateness of the hour I should have liked to have gone on to point out the injustice done to the railway companies, which has resulted in throwing people out of employment and endangering that industry, without much benefit except that of enabling the retailers of goods to get their goods a little more quickly from one place to another.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: This clause has nothing to do with the load of the vehicles, but deals only with the weight of the vehicle itself.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I think it covers both vehicle and load, but I will look into the matter and if necessary words shall be inserted.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: This clause and the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, which follows, are very closely connected, and I would ask your Lordships, after having considered this question from every point of view, not to press that this clause should stand. May I point out, to begin with, that if it were desirable to impose restrictions of this kind there is power now left to the Minister under the Road Traffic Act, as it at present stands, to impose such restrictions? One point on which a considerable amount of uncertainty has been definitely cleared up is that the vehicle to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, intended to refer was a vehicle of five tons total weight, including the load. I do ask your Lordships with all sincerity not to press this clause, because I believe that if we attempted to put it into operation it would prove to be quite impracticable. You have only to consider what would be the results in London. In any street which was at all narrow you would have complete chaos,
626
and the rate of traffic of every description would be brought down to five miles an hour. You would have one complete block throughout the West End of London.
Lord Buckmaster referred once again to the terrible noise which these vehicles make going along the street. I venture to say that they would make a very great deal more noise if their rate were restricted to five miles an hour. I am advised that if you were to impose this restriction on heavy goods vehicles, as the result of the modern construction of those vehicles it would be quite impossible for them to travel except in second or even third gear. You can well imagine the devastating noise that there would be in any street where we had a number of heavy goods vehicles travelling one after another in second or third gear.
There is another difficulty, too, and that is the administrative difficulty. I am bringing this argument forward now because the noble and learned Viscount has made it clear that he intends vehicles of five tons total weight, including the load, to come within the scope of this clause. It is extraordinarily difficult to distinguish vehicles by their laden weight, and the enforcement of a provision of this nature in consequence would be extremely difficult. All existing speed limits imposed by the Road Traffic Act have been based upon unladen weight. The last appeal I should like to make to the Committee is on this ground—that this is the very kind of question which at the moment is the subject of discussion by the Road and Rail Conference, which has recently been set up. Reference has been made this afternoon to the question of competition between road and rail. Far be it from me to express any kind of opinion upon it now, but this is the very kind of question which is being discussed by that Conference at the present moment, and I think that in the circumstances it would be highly undesirable for your Lordships' House to prejudge the case and to come to a definite decision until this very great problem has been approached and looked at from every angle, and until every interest concerned has been taken into consultation in regard to it.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The noble Earl has made an appeal to me, and I am so

627
unfortunately constituted that I always find it difficult to resist an appeal. But the trouble about the matter to my mind is this. When he tells me that the Ministry of Transport is considering this thing I suppose they have been considering it for years.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The Road Traffic Act was passed less than two years ago, after very full and careful discussion by both Houses of Parliament. We have hardly had time to see how it works.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Surely they have had two years, and the faintest consideration must have shown you that what the noble Earl does not quite appear to realise is the profound dissatisfaction which is felt with the administration of the Act—that, inasmuch as the Ministry are not exercising the powers that they have to restrict this traffic, it grows apparently worse and worse week after week. If the noble Earl could assure me that they were contemplating doing something—not merely thinking, but acting—I would consent to withdraw the clause, for I understand the force of some of the arguments that he uses. But if I am to be told that nothing whatever is to be done, and that you are just going on as you are, and, whenever a question arises you are going to say, "Look at the Act, it is a wonderful Act, passed only two years ago; that should satisfy you," I reply that the fact is that the Act does not satisfy us. And unless something is done very quickly in regard to this heavy motor traffic there will, I fear, be a very serious question as to how our traffic is to be carried on in our streets at all, and certainly how the peaceable enjoyment of our houses is to be procured. If the noble Earl is not able to satisfy me at all I must take the hazard of leaving the matter to your Lordships. I am quite willing to consider questions of weight and so on, but if he tells me to ignore the clause altogether I am not prepared to do that unless he tells me what is to be done.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck-master, says that the situation is becoming worse and it is going to be impossible to carry on owing to this extension of heavy motor traffic, surely he misapprehends what the noble Earl has just
628
said. The more you impose slowness upon these vehicles the greater will be the congestion of traffic. The one thing to accentuate the difficulty of these heavy vehicles is to slow them down. He complains of their noise. Their noise is very offensive, I admit, but it is far less objectionable than the noise of the Klaxon horns of the "smart set" cars; and when you have a heavy girder being brought into London, or into any town or village, you will have these infernal vehicles behind the big loaded vehicle blowing their Klaxon horns and making life perfectly unbearable so far as noise is concerned. Lord Buckmaster is increasing it. As far as vibration is concerned, I am told by those who have studied these questions that if you slow down a very heavy car the driver has to work his engine in a way that is not only noisier, but very often produces more vibration as well—the constant checking and so on. So that on both those points I think the noble and learned Lord is perhaps exaggerating a little bit the value of this clause.
The final point is what my noble and learned friend below the gangway mentioned—how are you going to enforce it? These words come into the existing Act, but that does not mean that they can be enforced. It is only an argumentum ad hominem on the part of the noble and learned Lord, who ought to know better. It cannot be enforced. Each of these vehicles is taken to a weighbridge and weighed. We know well that is impossible; it cannot be done; it will not be done. The law will be disregarded, and this clause together with the other savage clauses in Lord Buckmaster's Bill will not be put into operation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, who is a trained observer in these matters, and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, made the same point that if too excessive a view is taken of the frailties of the motorist, whatever be his nature or character, you will find convictions will not ensue. I am quite confident, if this very violent Clause 3 is inserted in the Bill, it will not be enforced properly and the state of things will be worse than ever.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I think my noble friend has made a mistake about the difficulties of enforcing it, because the weight will be known.

629
Unless I am mistaken the weight of every heavy motor lorry has to be stated upon it.
A NOBLE LORD: Only the unladen weight.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: It has been stated so in cases coming before me, and I know it is so in many cases.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I should like to say that I fully appreciate the feelings of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Buckmaster) in regard to this matter, but I do not think he can expect me to give him a definite pledge of any kind this afternoon. What I do say is that this question of goods traffic by
Resolved in the negative, and Clause 3 disagreed to accordingly:
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT had given Notice to move to insert the following new clause after Clause 3:
"( ) No goods vehicle exceeding in total weight five tons shall be permitted to be driven on the roads except by licence to be granted in special circumstances by the Minister of Transport."
The noble Lord said: I propose to move the clause standing in my name in a slightly different form—a better form—than that on the Paper. The form in which I propose to move it is this:
"After the first of January nineteen hundred and thirty-three—
that is to give time to adopt this—
"no goods vehicle exceeding in total weight ten tons when loaded shall be permitted to be driven on the roads except by licence to be granted in special circumstances by the Minister of Transport."
road and by rail is the subject of discussion by a Conference at the present time, which desires to report before the end of July. The Report will then be given to the Minister who will at once take into consultation all the other interests concerned. That is all I am able to tell him.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Will the noble Earl tell me that this Conference is considering the question of noise or vibration, or merely considering the question of competition between road and rail?
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Content, 27.

CONTENTS.

Buxton, E.

Ullswater, V.

Danesfort, L.

Morton, E.

Farrer, L.

Selborne, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L. [Teller.]

Lamington, L.

Newton, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Banbury of Southam, L.

St. Levan, L.

Hereford, V.

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

Wharton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Esher, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Mersey, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Salisbury, M.

Luke, L.

Askwith, L.

Mount Temple, L. [Teller.]

Bradford, E.

Atkin, L.

Rochester, L.

Lucan, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Selsdon, L.

Munster, E. [Teller.]

Darling, L.

Stanmore, L.

Plymouth, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Stonehaven, L.

Radnor, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Allendale, V.

I think it is probably the view of your Lordships that the motor lorries which are now travelling on the roads are almost a scandal by reason of the astonishing weights which they carry. I understand that under the Act of 1930 there is no restriction imposed upon the weight of a loaded vehicle. There are certain restrictions as to the weight of unloaded vehicles, but I do not think there is any restriction on the weight of vehicles when loaded.
I need not repeat what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, said as to the appalling nuisance that arises from these very heavy lorries driven along the road. In regard to what the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, said about the noise of a heavy lorry perpetually going along the road, I am inclined to say that the noise of these heavy lorries perambulating the country roads is a serious nuisance.

631
Then there is the vibration, which is also a most serious matter. I did not understand the noble Lord to say that the vibration is not increased by the speed of the vehicle. It is common knowledge, if you have a heavy body moving along the road, the greater the speed necessarily the greater the vibration it causes, and consequently the greater injury to the houses and their stability by the side of the road. But that is not all the objection to the present situation. There is also the damage to the road by these motor vehicles. The ordinary private motor car wears out the road to a certain extent, but nothing like the same extent as these heavy lorries carrying loads up to 20, 30 and 50 tons.
Upon that may I refer very shortly to a letter which I have just received from the chairman of the highways committee of a very important northern county council. He says that the weight and the speed of these heavy vehicles affect the cost of maintenance very seriously. That cost of maintenance falls on the ratepayers—partly, I dare say, helped out by the taxpayers, but that does not benefit very much. The cost of road maintenance is seriously increased. He goes on to say that the materials which six or seven years ago were sufficient for keeping the roads in good order will not stand the heavy weight now put upon them. He tells me further that the weight of these vehicles is continually getting heavier and heavier. Then he goes on to tell me of a certain rather interesting conversation which the surveyor of his county had with the driver of one of these heavy lorries. The surveyor commented to this lorry driver on the weight carried by his lorry, which was something like 47 tons. The answer of the lorry driver was: "Oh, this is nothing. My firm is going to put a hundred tons on the road before long." I have no doubt the firm will do it, unless they are stopped by legislation. Therefore I ask your Lordships to say that the time has come when these really grave nuisances, involving not only offence to the ear and the eye but grave damage to property and grave increase of cost to the ratepayer, should be stopped.
I may be told, and I dare say it is true, that there are cases in which it is necessary to have a greater weight than 10 tons on a lorry, as, for instance, when a heavy girder is being carried from the
632
works or from the railway station to the place where it is to be put up, but I have provided for that by making the exception that in special circumstances a licence for that purpose may be granted by the Ministry of Transport. I venture to think that this is a reasonable Amendment, and I hope that the Government will not put me off by saying that at some future time when the Ministry of Transport have had time to consider this question and proceed with some comprehensive legislation this will be done. I say that the present time is the proper time and that these great evils which now result from these exceedingly heavy lorries ought to be ended.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Danesfort.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: There is nobody who dislikes defeat more than I do, but I can at least recognise it and, I hope, accept it with as good grace as possible. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, has said about the uncertainty of relying upon action on the part of the Ministry of Transport. I do not rely on it. I do not think that this Conference is going to make any report that will help us. Therefore it does not appear to be worth while to argue this matter upon its merits.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I was not aware until a little while ago of the alteration which the noble Lord intended to make in the new clause which he has proposed, but it does not make any material difference. I will appeal to the noble Lord not to press for the insertion of this new clause on the same ground on which I opposed the inclusion of Clause 3 of the Bill. I can only repeat what I said, that the whole of this question is the subject of discussion by a Conference at the present moment. That Conference has been asked to report by the end of July and it is the intention of the Minister of Transport to take into consultation then on this enormous subject of the transport of goods traffic by road and rail, all the various interests concerned, including the local authorities. I cannot of course give a definite pledge as to exactly when any result from that Report will be forthcoming, but I do honestly think that it will be most undesirable to prejudge this question and to come to a definite decision

633
until it has been examined from every angle. It would be unfortunate if your Lordships by passing a clause of this kind were to prejudge the case. There are difficulties to which I have referred already in imposing a restriction of this kind. It would probably entail a good deal more expenditure of money. Probably there would have to be a considerable inspectorate if the Minister of Transport is entrusted with the duty of making special exemptions where he thinks it necessary or desirable. I repeat that it would be very unfortunate to come to a final decision on the question until we have before us the Report of this Conference which is now sitting and until we are able, as we have not been able up to now, to consult the many interests concerned.
LORD DANESFORT: I understand from my noble friend that the Conference which is considering this matter will probably report in July. If that is so I should like to get an assurance—possibly he may not be able to give it in absolutely final form—that when that Report is received there will be legislation brought in at the earliest possible time to deal with the undoubtedly great evils which he does not dispute. I do not know how far the noble Earl can go, but perhaps he will promise to represent to the Minister of Transport with all the power he can the importance of dealing with this matter as soon as possible, and that when the Report of the Conference is received he will see what can be done in the Autumn Session. If he can give that assurance I will not press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I hope the noble Earl on the Government Bench will give no such assurance.
LORD DANESFORT: Why not?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Because the clause as drafted is a bad clause. I hope that no assurance that the clause will receive any sympathetic consideration will be given on the part of the Ministry of Transport or the Government. The noble Lord is complaining that the size of these vehicles increases. Of course it increases; it increases every month and every year.
LORD DANESFORT: Why should it?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My noble friend wants to live small; he wants to live in the eighteenth or perhaps the nineteenth century, and he is opposed to all modern developments of science which involve greater stature of buildings, of locomotives, of ships and of everything else. He would like to get back to his constituency in a stage coach. The whole trend of modern construction and engineering is changing and we may as well recognise it. To say that every time anyone wants to move a girder he has to go to the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, for a special dispensation is really an absurdity. I hope the noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Transport will be careful in indicating anything that is going to hinder the progress of engineering and architecture.
LORD DANESFORT: Can the noble Earl who represents the Ministry make any statement as to the introduction of any legislation after the Report is received?
LORD BUCKMASTER: I would suggest to the noble Lord that he cannot ask the Earl of Plymouth to give any undertaking in advance as to legislation. That is really out of the question. While I wholly disagree with everything said by the noble Earl who has just sat down, I would beg the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, to withdraw the clause.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I was rather astonished to hear the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, make the speech to which we have just listened. The noble Earl is a great authority on art, but I am not aware that there is any art in any of the huge lorries which I unfortunately see about the roads. It is true that lorries have increased in size, but is that artistic, and do we not as ratepayers probably have to pay larger rates because of these heavy vehicles? In these circumstances I think my noble friend's artistic temperament, which I have admired for many years, has for once led him astray.
LORD DANESFORT: I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clause agreed to.

CARRIAGE BY AIR BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for Air, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The noble Marquess regrets very much that he could not attend in person to-day, but he is prevented by other duties of State from coming and moving the Second Reading. He has asked me to say that the subject of the Bill is one in which he takes a close personal interest and he trusts that the Bill will receive a welcome in your Lordships' House. The Bill is a very short one. It is to set up a uniform international system for the documents and liabilities of air carriers, alike in the case of passengers, luggage and goods. Originally there was a Conference in 1925 which led to the formation of an International Committee which examined into the subject of carriage by air for about two years. The result of that investigation was this particular Convention, which was agreed upon at Warsaw in 1929. The Convention has been signed by some twenty-three European and other Powers. The object of the Bill is really to bring uniformity of law and practice into carriage by air. At present there is uncertainty. A transport undertaking flying, say, between this country and Egypt, must pass over several sovereign States and is liable to be sued for damage in any one under national laws which vary widely. The Convention has arisen out of that need.
The First Schedule to the Bill consists of the Convention. It has been signed by twenty-three countries and now awaits ratification. His Majesty's Government have intimated to the principal Powers that they are prepared to ratify-subject to the passing of this Bill by Parliament. As regards the Dominions the Governments of Australia and New Zealand and the Government of India have decided to ratify or accede to the Convention, and I understand that the Irish Free State also proposes to do so. It is understood that other countries which have not yet ratified are prepared to do so at no very distant date. I may add that the representatives of the air transport industry, such as the Imperial Airways and the National Flying Services, have been kept in close
636
touch throughout and the Convention has the unanimous support of all parties concerned. Unless any of your Lordships wish for further explanation I will move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RIGHTS OF WAY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I regret that I must ask your attention to this Bill at so late an hour in our proceedings. The Bill is one which I trust you will think serves a very useful public purpose. In order to explain its provisions it is necessary that I should make a very short reference to what are known as rights of way in this country. There are two rights of way with which we are all familiar. The first is the private right of way and the second the public right of way. A private right of way is a right possessed by the owner of certain property to pass and repass, for the purpose of his property, over the land of another. A public right of way is a right possessed by everyone to use the King's highway, for the purpose of passing to and fro, and I would like those who are interested in the Bill which we last discussed to remember that that right is one of an absolute quality for every person who uses the road.
The manner in which these rights arise differs. So far as a private right of way is concerned the old principle of the law was that it could only arise by grant or Statute, and as it never did arise by grant, and seldom by Statute, it was difficult to ascertain how it arose at all. So the law assumed that there had been a grant if you could show that the right had been exercised for a time which, according to the legal phrase, was "time beyond which the memory of man runneth not to the contrary." The law in its wisdom fixed the first year of Richard I as the time beyond which the memory of man did not run, and I should like to have heard what that magnificent but rather irascible sovereign would have had to say upon that subject. The result of that was a confusion in the

637
proof of these rights of way, which led to the passage of an Act exactly one hundred years ago, in 1832, by which it was provided that if you could prove there had been enjoyment uninterrupted as of right for twenty years, that should not be defeated merely by showing that the right had arisen at an earlier date. If you could show that it had existed for forty years your right would be absolute against everybody.
The purpose of the Bill is to make these two principles applicable to public highways. The right of a public highway has always been deemed to lie in dedication and that dedication may be established by very short and simple acts, or presumed from long usage, and one of the difficulties which existed has been that if you have land for a long time in settlement you never found the absolute owner against whom dedication could be presumed, and although the public had exercised rights for a very long time nothing resulted when the property got into an absolute owner's hands. It is felt to be a grievance, and has caused frightful trouble and confusion in the Law Courts, because it is very difficult to get the evidence of older people and there is no limit of time which compasses your inquiry. I heard of a case only the other day in which the landowner lost and had to pay the expenses of the trial, amounting to £16,000, because these cases are very expensive. The proposal of this Bill is to assimilate the law with regard to public highways to that of private highways, and I trust your Lordships will think it is a wise and sensible proposal.
The history of the measure is rather interesting. It has been nine times before the House of Commons, it has passed its Second Reading twice without opposition and it has twice got as far as the Committee stage in the House of Commons, but no further. It is one of those small legal Bills which never excites the interest of a Government. It has been left to private members to introduce. The result, as your Lordships know, is that a Private Member's Bill in another place is, according to your fancy, either like a weed in a well kept garden or a flower in a garden of weeds. Whichever it is, it has not much chance of existing. Twice it has been before your Lordships' House. It was last
638
brought before you in 1913 and referred to a Select Committee presided over by a lawyer, and was reported to tile House. The House without opposition adopted the Bill, which is this Bill which I am producing to you. It is not this Bill literally and exactly, for this reason. All of your Lordships know that when a Bill passes through the tangled undergrowth of Committee in another House it comes out with strange burrs adhering to it. There is one such burr at the end of Clause 1, in which there is a statement that you have got to show that there was no person during the twenty years in possession of the land, "including access to the sea," capable of dedicating such way.
I have not the slightest idea what that phrase means in that clause. It is perfectly incomprehensible. The clause reads as follows:
"(1) Where a way leading from one public place to another upon or over any land has been actually enjoyed by the public as of right and without interruption for a full period of twenty years, such way shall be deemed to have been dedicated as a highway unless there is sufficient evidence that there was no intention during that period to dedicate such way, or unless during such period of twenty years there was not at any time any person in possession of such land, including access to the sea, capable of dedicating such way."
I cannot imagine how those words were introduced. It might have been some person whose Imperial ideas were inflamed by thinking of the seas as the highway of our Fleet, or some person disturbed by thoughts of bathing or by the approach of the summer holidays. There is no conceivable reason why the words should have got into the Bill, and if your Lordships do me the honour of reading the Bill a second time I will take care that these words are omitted in Committee.
Clause 1 has also got another burr upon it. Somebody has introduced the statement "leading from one public place to another." That is introduced, I suppose, with the idea that it is a definition of a highway. It is not necessary that a road should lead from one public place to another in order to be a highway. Your Lordships can recall many highways in London which are nothing but cul-de-sacs. There are courts and squares which do not lead from one public

639
place to another, but which are public highways. The phraseology of Clause 1, I think, needs altering. It provides, as you will see, that if during a period of twenty years there is a person who cannot dedicate, then twenty years is not enough, but after forty years it is assumed that there was a person capable of dedicating. Then there is a proviso greatly in the interest of the landowner. It is as follows:
"(3) A notice by the owner of the land over which any such way passes inconsistent with the dedication of the way as a highway, placed before or after and maintained after the commencement of this Act in such a manner as to be visible to those using the way, shall, in the absence of proof of a contrary intention, be sufficient evidence to negative the intention to dedicate such way as a highway—"
and so on. That is a very clear and wise statutory provision, about a matter which has often been the subject of controversy.
I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with subsections (4) (5) and (7). Subsection (8) may require examination in Committee. I do not quite know how that got in. There is another thing which is very important, and that is in subsection (6), a provision that you may look at any map, plan, or history or any other relevant document. Hitherto the decision of questions in dispute about these highways has been enormously complicated by the fact that the law of evidence relating to the admission of maps is so strict. For instance, a tithe apportionment map, which is one of the best maps you could possibly get, is not a map which could be admissible in evidence for this purpose. This clause does not provide that a map admitted in evidence proves what it says; it merely says that a Judge may consider this and other relevant documents. It is a wise provision, which I think must help both parties alike to simplify the issue and get a speedy decision. Therefore I hope that this Bill, after its rather weary history, and I hope not too wearisome recital, after its many vicissitudes and disappointments, will to-night at least find some safe shelter in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sure you are obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for his explanation of this Bill. As he explained, the effect
640
of settlements upon the law of dedication of highways is a serious obstacle to the proper development of rights of way, and it needs a remedy. As the law now stands, nobody can dedicate a way except an owner in fee simple, and where the land is settled there is no such owner, and no one can make a dedication. Now, it does seem reasonable that where a way has been used for forty years no presumption as to dedication should fail by reason only that there was not at any time during the period anybody capable of making an effective dedication. So much for the object of subsection (2) of Clause 1.
There is an even more important provision, and that is the point about maps and histories being used as evidence. It is very desirable that such documents should be admitted in evidence for what they are worth. Hitherto the law has been that you cannot admit the tithe map, spoken of by the noble and learned Lord, but it is far better to allow such maps to be admitted and to leave it to the tribunal to decide whether any particular map or history is of good evidential value or not. This will certainly cheapen litigation. One of the chief difficulties in such cases is the great number of witnesses. I have known in my own experience, I should think, sometimes thirty witnesses. I remember one case where eight of them were over ninety years of age, and to go round to all their houses and to examine them makes a very expensive class of case. Therefore I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill.
But I do want to point out to my noble and learned friend one or two points which I ask him to consider before the Committee stage, because the drafting of the Bill—it is not his drafting, I know—is not entirely satisfactory. I entirely agree with him with regard to the words "including access to the sea" in subsection (1), that nobody knows what they mean. I rather think that their object here is to make sure that the sea is regarded as a public place for the purpose of the section, but it does not have this effect the way the clause is drafted. May I draw his attention to subsection (2) which seems marred by the phrase about "sufficient evidence," which also occurs in subsection (1). One would have thought it would be better to put the clause the

641
other way about; I mean that it should say in effect that where a way has been used for forty years no presumption of dedication which would arise if an intention to dedicate were established or could be inferred by the Court, shall fail by reason only that there is no person capable of making an effective dedication of the way. Again, I would suggest to my noble and learned friend that he should look at subsection (4). One would have thought that it should be widened so as to extend it to tenancies of less than a year. That is a matter which wants consideration. There are cases, as he knows, where a six months user has sometimes been held to be sufficient for dedication.
I will not go into all the clauses at this late hour. I will take an opportunity, if I may, of seeing the noble and learned Lord about the matter. I agree with him with regard to subsection (8), which appears to be entirely covered by subsection (7) and might well be omitted. Where the dedication of a highway has been proved with the assistance of the provisions of the Bill it seems quite obvious that the highway will have exactly the same incidence as where the dedication has been proved in the ordinary way. But undoubtedly this is a useful Bill, and one which, speaking as a lawyer and not personally, I think it is unfortunate was not passed years ago, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to hear my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster say that he intends to move on the Committee stage an Amendment in respect to a right of way which leads from a public highway to a private place. I do not know whether he quite realises that there are a great number of rights of way leading from a highway to a farm over certain land. If those are to be made public rights of way and to be extended, the result, of course, would be very detrimental to the holder of the land and to the tenant. My noble friend must realise that the idea that the ordinary tourist is quite a nice fellow, who never does any harm, is a mistake. He does not walk across the path in order to contemplate nature, as Lord Crawford would do; what he does is to get on to the path and leave all the gates open, so that all the cattle can get out, and if it is a field laid out
642
with grass, and he has a lady with him, they roll about on the grass and do a considerable amount of damage. The idea that they are going to enjoy fresh air and that sort of thing is really all nonsense. I hope that my noble friend, when we come to the Committee stage, will at any rate leave what the House of Commons has put in—namely, that this Bill shall not apply to a right of way which leads from a public highway to a private place.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I am much obliged for the suggestion of my noble friend, but I would point out to him that, notwithstanding my rather elaborate explanation, as I thought it, he seems to have confused two things—namely, a private road to go to a particular house and a public road to pass along the highway. Such a thing as he suggests could never happen at all, because it is not the right of the public, it is the right of the people who use the path to pass backwards and forwards, and it is the farm which has access to the highway. It has nothing to do with the question of the highway. We need not discuss it prematurely, however. I can only assure the noble Lord that the question was not out of my mind, but I think he is under a quite needless misapprehension.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC HEALTH (CLEANSING OF- SHELL-FISH) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS, LIMITED (TROLLEY VEHICLES), PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDERS (ABERGAVENNY AND NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDERS (BRIDLINGTON AND WELLS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (LEYTON) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (OXFORD) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVIS- IONAL ORDER (PAIGNTON) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (RIVER DEE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
  THE MOST-FAVOURED-NATION CLAUSE.
  THE MOST-FAVOURED-NATION CLAUSE.
  TRADE WITH RUSSIA.
  TRADE WITH RUSSIA.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:

South Lancashire Transport Company (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order.

Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:

Sea Fisheries Provisional Orders (No. 2).

And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Commercial Gas,

South Suburban Gas.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

KENDAL CORN RENT BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
The King's Consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
MID SOUTHERN UTILITY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
CAMBRIDGE CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
WELWYN GARDEN CITY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.