Sitting of 30 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 Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Kilmarnock Gas Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
Mid Southern Utility Bill,
Southern Railway Bill,
Trent Navigation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill [Lords],
South Metropolitan Gas Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
    Mr. CHARLES BROWNasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the Mansfield Guardians Area Committee have refused to continue the determination of transitional payments to the unemployed; if he will state the reasons for this refusal; and what steps he has taken to deal with the situation?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): Yes, Sir. The Mansfield Guardians Committee of the Nottingham County Council ceased to carry out their statutory duties after
    1986
    illegal determinations given by them had been revised by the public assistance committee of the council. The public assistance committee have now appointed an emergency committee under powers-conferred on them by the Order in Council, to discharge the functions of the guardians committee in relation to transitional payments. No intervention on my part has been necessary.
    Mr. COCKS: Why does the Minister say that these determinations are illegal, seeing that they are very sensible ones?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: They are illegal, because they do not comply with the law.
    Sir ADRIAN BAILLIEasked the Minister of Labour whether it is with his knowledge and sanction that public assistance officers, in assessing claims for transitional benefit, take into consideration amounts paid by way of workmen's compensation to members of a family; and whether, in view of the fact that such a practice tends to defeat the objects of the Workmen's Compensation Acts, he will take steps to cause this practice to cease?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: It is the duty of public assistance authorities to take into account all sources of income but at the same time to make due allowance in the exercise of their discretion for any special need arising from injury or disability.
    Mr. THORNE: Am I to understand that where a public education authority gives free meals to children, the value of that must be taken into account?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: That is not the question on the Order Paper. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down. The question on the Order Paper deals with the work of the public assistance committees in regard to assessment for transitional payments of compensation for accidents.
    Sir A. BAILLIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is justifiable that workmen's compensation should be taken into account by the public assistance officer?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: That is a question that has often been asked before. When it is said that this must be taken into account, it may well be that an

    1987
    amount may be put on one side, that is the debit side, and an equivalent amount in proper cases may be put on the other side, that is, the credit side.

    COURTS OF REFEREES.
    Mr. PRICEasked the Minister of Labour the total cost of the courts of referees for the first six months of 1931 and 1932, respectively, and how the amounts are made up as between chairmen's fees, representative or assessor's fees, and other charges?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply contains a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    Figures for the month of June, 1932, are not yet available. The amounts paid during the six months ended 31st May, 1931, and 31st May, 1932, respectively, on account of (a) remuneration to chairmen of courts of referees, and (b) travelling, subsistence, compensation for loss of earnings and incidental expenses, of chairmen, members of courts of referees, and boards of assessors and witnesses, and claimants summoned to attend meetings, were as follows:

    —

    6 months to 31st May, 1931

    6 months to 31st May,1932.

    £

    £

    Remuneration to chairman of courts of referees.

    50,902

    54,638

    Other expenses as specified above.

    8,863

    8,143

    Totals

    £59,765

    £62,781

    No fees are payable except in the case of chairmen of courts of referees. Compensation for loss of earnings is payable only in the case of workmen representatives.

    EXCHANGE PROCEDURE.
    Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the practice, in the case of an unemployed man who has found a job and reported it to his Employment Exchange with a request for a green card, of taking away the position from him and giving it to some other unemployed
    1988
    man higher up on the waiting list; and what action does he propose to take to check this practice?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The object of the exchange is to submit to a particular employer the most suitable man for a job. The object of the "Green Card" is to enable the employer to know that the man has been sent by the Exchange. The procedure relating to the issue of the "Green Card" is now under examination, and if my hon. Friend can assist me with particulars of specific cases where the present practice has given rise to misunderstanding, or is alleged to be working unsatisfactorily, I shall be grateful.

    TRANSFER OF WORKERS.
    Mr. PRICEasked the Minister of Labour what is the number of men, boys and girls who have been transferred from distressed areas to work in the London area since 1st January, 1932?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: During the period 29th December, 1931, to 30th May, 1932, 1,248 men, 24 boys and 104 girls were transferred through the agency of the Employment Exchange service from depressed areas to employment in the London division.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great increase in the number of unemployed men in the London area?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: It depends on the kind of places. I have not the figures in mind, but, if the hon. Gentleman says that that is so, of course I accept it.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. PRICEasked the Minister of Labour how many more unemployed there are now than in October, 1931?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: At 23rd May, 1932, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 15,214 more persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain than at 26th October, 1931.

    DOMESTIC SERVICE.
    Mr. GEORGE HARVEYasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the Twickenham Education Committee have opened a training centre for girls for domestic service with free training,

    1989
    board and pocket money; and what portion of the expenses involved, if any, falls upon the national Exchequer?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I am informed that the Twickenham Education Authority have not opened such a centre, and that the statements which have appeared to the contrary effect are based on an entire misapprehension. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

  IRISH SWEEPSTAKES.
  Mr. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give information as to the number of sellers in this country who received £2,357,000 in commissions for the sale of tickets in the Irish sweepstakes?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): No, Sir; it is not possible, on the basis of the available material, to form an estimate of the number of persons entitled to sellers' commission.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Cannot the Government take some action to prevent these people selling tickets in this way, considering that there was £13,000,000 subscribed, and only £7,000,000 came back to this country in prizes?
  Mr. STANLEY: That hardly arises out of the question on the Paper.

  FACTORY PROSECUTION, HARROW.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the charges brought by the inspector of factories at Wealdstone sessions on the 5th April against Adams Brothers and Burnley, Limited, sheet metal workers, Harrow, for not having a machine securely fenced on the night of 18th February, when a boy's right hand was severed, and to the magistrates' refusal to state a case for appeal against their dismissal of those charges; and, in view of this firm having been thrice previously prosecuted for similar offences, the last occasions being 5th February, 1929, and 30th January, 1931, when they were convicted and fined, whether he will both apply to the High Court for a mandamus to compel the
  1990
  magistrates to state a case to explain their decision in respect of this occurrence and also issue instructions requiring this firm to provide that all dangerous parts of their machinery are securely fenced so as to be equally safe to every person, young and old, in accordance with Section 10 (1) (c) of the Factory Act, 1891?
  Mr. STANLEY: The case to which the hon. Member refers has already been very carefully considered in consultation with our legal advisers, but it appeared that for technical reasons an appeal against the dismissal of the charges would be unlikely to succeed, and in the circumstances it was decided to take other steps to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Factory Acts. Since the charges were dismissed, a thorough inspection of these works has been carried out by the district inspector, accompanied by one of the engineering inspectors, and the firm have been given full and detailed instructions as to their obligations in regard to fencing and other requirements of the Act. These instructions will be carefully followed up and the hon. Member may be assured that all necessary steps will be taken to enforce compliance.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the Under-secretary not aware that the same firm, who apparently had been previously warned by his inspector, had been prosecuted on no less than three occasions for not fencing round their machinery, and now that a man has lost his right hand does the hon. Gentleman not think it is time that the magistrates in that particular division compelled this backward firm to do justice to their workpeople?
  Mr. STANLEY: That does not alter the question whether we should be likely to succeed if we lodged an appeal. We are advised by our legal advisers that, for certain technical reasons, there would be little chance of an appeal being successful.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not within the power of the Under-Secretary's Department to compel the magistrates, who dismissed the case, to reconsider it?
  Mr. THORNE: Will the Under-secretary make inquiries as to how many months it was prior to the accident that the inspector paid a visit to this factory?

  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (PROSECUTIONS).
  Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Home Secretary whether he will take steps to give power to benches of magistrates before whom cases of gross cruelty to animals are heard to order a medical examination of the prisoners whom they may decide to convict before sending them to prison?
  Mr. STANLEY: No, Sir. Magistrates can already obtain a medical examination in all cases where they consider it desirable.
  Mr. HUTCHISON: Are the magistrates not entitled to send criminals of this type to Broadmoor?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the Undersecretary see to it that the Department will extend no leniency of any sort or kind to anyone guilty of such gross cruelty to animals?
  Mr. STANLEY: Obviously, any action which my right hon. Friend takes will always depend upon the circumstances of the case. I can give no assurance with regard to a hypothetical case.
  Sir ROBERT GOWERasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Frederick Kay, who was recently convicted and sentenced to imprisonment by the Romford justices for beating a dog to death; and whether, in view of this and other cases of cruelty to animals, he will consider instituting legislation authorising courts to inflict the penalty of flogging upon persons so convicted and also forbidding the further issue to them of licences to keep dogs?
  Captain SPENCERasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider introducing legislation with a view to making more drastic the penalties imposed on persons convicted of cruelty to animals and preventing the further issue of dog licences to such persons?
  Mr. STANLEY: The attention of my right hon. Friend has been drawn to the case in question. He could not undertake to introduce legislation on this subject.
  Sir R. GOWER: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the man informed the court that within the last few years he
  1992
  had killed seven other animals in a similar fashion, and could he not introduce some form of legislation which would deprive the man, and others similar to him, of the right to own dogs in the future?
  Mr. STANLEY: The question has been very carefully considered, and there are almost insuperable difficulties in the way of introducing legislation. With regard to the other part of the hon. Member's question relating to flogging, I would point out that, in this particular case, the man was 60 years of age, and, obviously, flogging would not be a suitable punishment.
  Sir R. GOWER: Will the Under-Secretary tell me what are the insuperable difficulties?
  Mr. STANLEY: I could not do that within the limits of a Parliamentary answer, but, if my hon. Friend would like to discuss the matter with me, I shall be glad to do so.
  Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. Member not aware that the man in question had been to Church on the same morning?
  Mr. MAXTON: Does the Under-secretary regard the flogging of a man as a more moral action than the beating of a dog?

  TRANSPORT.

    ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. MABANEasked the Home Secretary how many persons have been killed and injured in the Metropolitan area and the rest of the country, respectively, in road accidents in which heavy road vehicles have been involved between 10th March, 1932, and the latest available date?
    Mr. STANLEY: For the period 11th March to 31st May, inclusive, the figures for the Metropolitan Police district are 101 killed and 2,618 injured. I regret that figures for the rest of the country are not available.
    Mr. MABANE: Is there any evidence to show that the new instructions recently issued to the police have had any effect in reducing the excessive and illegal speed of those vehicles, which is the principle cause of these accidents?
    Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question on the Paper?

    ROAD SERVICE LICENCES.
    Mr. HICKSasked the Minister of Transport what is the reason for the delay in making decisions in respect of appeals by motor coach proprietors serving London and the suburbs; and whether, seeing that the special committee appointed to hear appeals against the decision of the traffic commissioner of the Metropolitan area does not decide the cases but reports to the Minister, the Minister is going to decide in each case?
    Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. No delay is being incurred. The committee presented their first report, dealing with two matters of general policy which had been referred to them on 18th June, and are still engaged in hearing individual appeals. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

  SHOP HOURS, YARMOUTH.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Yarmouth Town Council recently decided to make an order under the Shops Act, 1928, extending during the summer months the hours of opening of shops on weekdays to 10.30 p.m., providing a maximum limit of 72 hours per week; and if he will refuse his sanction to this proposal?
  Mr. STANLEY: The attention of the Department has not previously been called to the order referred to. I would point out to the hon. Member that an order of this nature would be made by the local authority under Section 6 of the Shops (Hours of Closing) Act, 1928, and would not require the Secretary of State's sanction.
  Mr. DAVIES: In view of the fact that it is obvious that shop assistants in this town will be compelled to work at least 72 hours a week, is it not possible for the Home Office to call the attention of this authority to the very retrograde step that they are taking?
  Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member will realise that, as long as the provisions of the Act of Parliament which was passed
  1994
  by this House are in force, my right hon. Friend has no standing in the matter.
  Mr. DAVIES: Has not the Home Office some influence with a local authority like this, without calling in the aid of the law?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the Undersecretary aware that the Act under which the Home Office are operating was largely due to the efforts of the hon. Gentleman opposite; and that the proprietors of these establishments are finding it very hard to make a living and wish to employ as many assistants as possible?
  Mr. DAVIES: Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that there is only so much trade to be done in a week, and that all this trade can be done during the present opening hours?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is my hon. Friend aware that that argument would justify the opening of shops for only four hours a day?

  INDUSTRIAL. DISEASES (SILICOSIS).
  Mr. LAWSONasked the Home Secretary the number of compensation claims made, and the number granted, since the silicosis order came into operation?
  Mr. STANLEY: I understand that the hon. Member is referring to cases among coalminers. I regret I have no information as to the number of claims made, but the number of cases in coalmines in which compensation was paid since the 1st February, 1929, when the Various Industries (Silicosis) Scheme came into operation, up to the end of 1931, is 91, including 20 fatal cases.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Health what is the procedure adopted by his department to make sure that every compulsorily insured person, especially in the case of domestic servants, is brought within the scope of the National Health Insurance Scheme?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): The enforcement of compliance with the National Health Insurance Acts is secured by visits of inspectors to employer' premises and by the

  1995
  investigation of complaints, supplemented, where necessary, by legal proceedings. As regards domestic servants, although inspectors have no statutory right of entry to private houses, action is taken in all cases where information suggesting non-compliance is received from employed persons or their Approved Societies.
  Mr. DAVIES: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that employers, owing to the economic depression, are not carrying out the law in this respect?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I have no evidence of any increase in the number of breaches of the law.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the Minister take steps to release domestic servants from the burden of this Act? Does he not know that no employer can call in a panel doctor for his servant if he needs him?
  Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Health the separate amounts paid by the employers, the employés, and the Treasury to the National Health Insurance Fund for the year 1931 or the latest available date?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The contributions paid under the National Health Insurance Acts for the year ended 31st December, 1931, amounted to approximately £25,870,000, of which the portions payable by the employers and employés are estimated to be £13,150,000 and £12,720,000 respectively. The amount paid from the Exchequer was £6,320,000.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: In view of the universal execration in which this Act is held, could not the Minister save money by abolishing it?

  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Health the separate amounts paid by the employers, the employés, and the Treasury to the Widows, Orphans, and Old Age Contributory Pensions Fund for the year 1931 and also the balance at the end of the year?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The contributions paid under the Widows, Orphans, and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts for the year ended 31st March, 1932, amounted
  1996
  to £22,880,000, of which the portions payable by the employers and employés are estimated to be £11,790,000 and £11,090,000 respectively. The amount paid from the Exchequer was £10,000,000. The accumulated funds in hand at the end of the year amounted to £40,500,000.
  Mr. BATEY: In view of the fact that there is a balance of £40,000,000 in hand, does the Minister consider that he is justified in robbing unemployed people of their pension rights?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not make a statement of that kind in a question.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    VACCINATION OFFICERS (REMUNERATION).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Health whether he can supply information as to the arrangements made by the various county councils in regard to fees or salaries paid to vaccination officers; whether any county councils have incorporated the post of vaccination officer with other posts such as relieving officer; and what financial arrangements have been made in such cases?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I understand that, generally speaking, the county councils have continued the arrangements formerly made by boards of guardians for the remuneration of vaccination officers, and in some cases the vaccination officer still holds other posts, such as that of relieving officer. The financial arrangements made in these cases usually provide for the payment of suitable remuneration in respect of each separate office.

    PUBLICATIONS (DISTRIBUTION).
    Mr. J. P. MORRISasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a copy of a book, entitled The Nomenclature of Diseases, has been sent gratis to every qualified medical man; that the price of the book is marked 5s. net and the postage cost 6d.; that the only use of the book is that of a reference book in a library; and will he, in the interests of national economy, stop this practice of sending unwanted books and publications gratis to people at the public cost?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is

    1997
    in the affirmative. The cost of postage is 5d., not 6d. As regards the third part, the book is of regular and practical use to the medical profession. Successive editions have been recognised since 1869 as indispensable to accurate certification of sickness and of the causes of death. It was for this reason that steps were taken to secure that the latest edition (which supersedes an edition published in 1917) should reach the hands of every registered medical practitioner. My hon. Friend will perhaps accept my assurance that no such practice as is described in the last part of the question exists.
    Mr. MORRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of sending these books and publications amounted to over £9,500, and that such action is against the considered policy of His Majesty's Government of reducing unproductive expenditure?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Edward Williams.

    TUBERCULOSIS (STEVENS TREATMENT).
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the evidence submitted to the Ministry last year of certified cases of pulmonary and other forms of tuberculosis which were speedily cured by the Stevens treatment; and if he will take steps to examine the evidence and verify the cures with a view to officially adopting this treatment for the benefit of sufferers of tuberculosis?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on this subject to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on the 11th March last, of which I am sending him a copy.

    LONDON REFUSE (DISPOSAL).
    Mr. HICKSasked the Minister of Health seeing that on 16th June he communicated with the Metropolitan mayors on the question of the collection and disposal of refuse, and that on 13th June Lord Jessel, President of the London Municipal Society, explained the Minister's proposals to a meeting of Municipal Reform party leaders, in addition to certain questions affecting the proposed transfer of powers from the London County Council to the Metropolitan
    1998
    Borough Councils, whether the Minister communicated his policy to the London Municipal Society or Lord Jessel before officially communicating with the local authorities or with the London Labour party; and, if so, for what reason?
    Sir H. YOUNG: What I have done is to request all the Metropolitan mayors to meet me in Conference on the question of London refuse, as a preliminary to the formation of a common policy. In these circumstances, the question raised by the hon. Member does not seem to me to arise.
    Mr. HICKS: Do I understand, from the right hon. Gentleman's answer, that the statement was not available prior to the meeting of the Metropolitan mayors?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I do not know to what statement the hon. Member is referring.
    Mr. HICKS: I am referring to a statement made by Lord Jessel.
    Sir H. YOUNG: I have no responsibility for any statement made by Lord Jessel.
    Mr. HICKS: I am sorry to trouble the right hon. Gentleman, but is he aware that this statement was officially communicated to a meeting on the 13th, three days prior to the meeting of the Metropolitan mayors?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am not aware of that circumstance.

  BLIND PERSONS.
  Mr. E. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health if he will supply a statement of the names of the county councils and the county borough councils who have made declaration, under Section 5 of the Local Government Act, 1929, regarding domiciliary relief to blind per-sons and the gross expenditure from local authorities funds by way of addition to income of unemployable blind persons in areas which have made and areas which have not made such declaration, respectively?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I will send the hon. Member a statement giving the names of these councils. I regret that the information asked for in the last part of the question is not available.
  Mr. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health to what branch of local expenditure such additions to blind pensions as are found necessary are debited in those areas which have not made declarations under Section 5 of the Local Government Act, 1929?
  Sir H. YOUNG: Where this form of assistance is given under the Blind Persons Act, as in the cases mentioned in the last part of the answer given to the hon. Member's question of the 9th June, the expenditure is debited to the account out of which the expenses incurred under that Act are payable. In other cases the expenditure is debited to the public assistance account.

  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health whether the proposals for the amendment of the Rent Restrictions Acts are now ready; and if they can be circulated for the information of Members prior to the introduction of the Bill in the autumn.
  Sir H. YOUNG: The answer is "No, Sir."
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that we are not to learn anything about the proposals to amend the Rent Restrictions Act until we return in the Autumn?
  Sir H. YOUNG: Certainly I can hold out no hope at the present time of their being available to Members of the House before that time.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Could these proposals, when they are ready, be circulated to Members so that they may be able to examine them before the reassembly of Parliament?
  Mr. MAXTON: Is there any certainty that the Government will be able to produce them?
  Sir H. YOUNG: At the present time, as I have said in reply to the hon. Member opposite, I am unable to give any undertaking as to the time when they will be introduced.

  POOR LAW RELIEF (TEST WORK).
  Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Health if his attention has
  2000
  been drawn to a public statement by the chairman of the public assistance committee in Birmingham in which he explains the Order issued by the Ministry compelling men seeking relief to do navvying work without regard to their previous calling; and whether, in view of the fact that the Order when issued did not meet with the approval of the public assistance committee, he will consider the advisability of cancelling the regulation, which is causing much concern to those who are subject to its practice?
  Sir H. YOUNG: My attention has not been drawn to the chairman's statement, which I assume refers to the Relief Regulation Order issued by my Department in March, 1930. That Order provides for setting to work, training or instructing able-bodied men in receipt of out-door relief. It does not specify the nature of the work, and allows considerable latitude to local authorities in making the necessary arrangements. I see no reason for withdrawing the Order.
  Mr. CROOKE: Is the Minister aware that some of these men are physically unfit for the rough work that is given them; and, further, that some of them feel that the work is placed upon them as a punishment for crime, their only crime being that they are poor?
  Sir H. YOUNG: As to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I have no information to that effect. The responsibility is, of course, entirely that of the local authority. As to the second part, I do not agree with the suggestion contained in my hon. Friend's supplementary question.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the Minister aware that, when highly skilled craftsmen are put on to this navvying work, it does them damage which cannot afterwards be so repaired as to preserve their adaptability for their ordinary calling?
  Sir H. YOUNG: That no doubt would be a matter which should be considered by the local authority in determining the nature of the test or other work which they are going to apply, and I have no reason to suppose that that consideration is not present in their minds.
  Mr. CROOKE: Is the Minister aware that the regulations governing this matter were issued by the Minister of Health in the late Socialist Government?

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    CURRENCY.
    Mr. COCKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to reflate and expand the currency?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): Movements of currency are indicated in the weekly return of the Bank of England, to which I would refer the hon. Member.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the article by Sir Arthur Salter in to-day's "Times" detailing practical measures to bring this about, and will he act on it?
    Major ELLIOT: The Government could not act on instructions and advice contained in any portion of a newspaper.
    Mr. COCKS: Are the Government taking no steps at all?

    STERLING EXCHANGE.
    Mr. COCKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the action of the Government at the present time is being directed to preventing sterling from rising or to prevent it from falling?
    Major ELLIOT: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has on several occasions submitted to the House his decided view which I think met with general approval that no useful purpose would be served but that on the contrary harm might be done by Parliamentary statements upon the day to day policy pursued with regard to the sterling exchange. For the general trend of Government policy I would refer the hon. Member to the statements which have been made in the House on behalf of His Majesty's Government as to the objectives which they have in mind.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the Bank responsible for purchases and sales of sterling or is the Treasury still responsible?
    Major ELLIOT: The Bank act as expert managers on behalf of the Treasury.

    GOVERNMENT STOCKS (COMMISSION).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the amount of money paid by the Government in each of the post-War years in commission to bankers, brokers, and
    2002
    other agents, respectively, for transactions in Government stocks, and, if possible, the names of the firms to whom such moneys have been paid and the amount in each case?
    Major ELLIOT: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. DAVIES: Would it be possible for the Treasury to transact this business on their own account without handing money over to third parties?
    Major ELLIOT: I do not think that arises out of the question.
    Following is the answer:
    The brokers to the National Debt Commissioners are Messrs. Mullens, Marshall, Steer, Lawford and Company. They are remunerated by a fixed salary borne on the Vote for the National Debt Office Subhead A. Since 1920 the payment has been £2,000 a year. So far as other Government Departments employ brokers from time to time, whether this firm or any other, the remuneration would be by commission. Commission is paid by the Treasury to all bankers and brokers in connection with the issue and conversion of Government securities at rates set out clearly on each prospectus. It is not possible to give details as it is open to every banker and broker in the country to earn commission in this way. The total payments, which vary with the number and importance of the operations, have been since 1924–25 as set out below. Particulars for earlier years would be difficult to compile.

    £

    1924–25

    …

    …

    …

    333,000

    1925–26

    …

    …

    …

    73,000

    1926–27

    …

    …

    …

    183,000

    1927–28

    …

    …

    …

    710,000

    1928–29

    …

    …

    …

    306,000

    1929–30

    …

    …

    …

    640,000

    1930–31

    …

    …

    …

    161,000

    1931–32

    …

    …

    …

    19,000

    BEER DUTY.
    Sir WILLIAM WAYLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of standard barrels of beer brewed in May, 1931, and 1932, and the total amount of duty collected to 31st May, 1932, from the extra 31s per standard barrel of beer imposed in September, 1931?
    Major ELLIOT: The figures asked for in the first part of the question are 1,498,000 standard barrels for May, 1931, and 1,247,000 for May, 1932. As regards the second part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 7th June to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe, namely, that it is not possible to state what addition the increased duty has produced, since this depends on what the consumption would have been had there been no increase.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IMPORT DUTIES.
    Mr. LYONSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the amount of revenue received as Import Duty from the entry of typewriters into this country for the month of May, 1932?
    Major ELLIOT: The approximate amount of duty on imported typewriters and parts received during the (month of May, 1932, was £1,600.
    Mr. LYONS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any idea of the percentage of Import Duties received in respect of machines entering from Canada?
    Major ELLIOT: I am afraid I should require notice of that question.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Were a large number of typewriters placed in bond?
    Major ELLIOT: I should require notice of that question.
    Mr. CAPORNasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that cane used for the manufacture of baskets, furniture, and other articles is now subject to Import Duty at the same rate, namely, 20 per cent., as the baskets, furniture, etc., manufactured therefrom; and whether, in view of the fact that cane cannot be grown here or within the Empire, he will represent to the Tariff Committee that they should consider whether in the national interest the said duties require revision?
    Major ELLIOT: I am aware that a duty of 20 per cent. ad valorem is charged on certain cane used for basket and furniture making. I understand that representations on the subject have already
    2004
    been made to the Import Duties Advisory Committee on behalf of the trade concerned and are now under consideration.

    CANADA AND GERMANY (TRADE AGREEMENT).
    Mr. LYONSasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will now make a statement upon the recent trading agreement between Canada and Germany, and give its terms and its effect upon this country?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have no information on the subject other than that which has appeared in the Press.
    Mr. LYONS: In view of the seriousness of what that agreement might mean at the present time, will my right hon. Friend take steps to stop the circulation of any statement suggesting such an agreement before the Ottawa Conference?
    Mr. THOMAS: It is not for me to take any steps to stop a treaty entered into between a Dominion and another country. It is for me to see what application the treaty may have to our interests, and that I am doing.
    Mr. LYONS: May we have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the reports about this matter are entirely unfounded?
    Mr. THOMAS: I do not know whether they are unfounded or not. If the hon. Gentleman will convey any information to me I will have it inquired into. I have only seen, as I have said a Press statement, and, if I merely inquired into every Press statement. I should never be finished.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is not that one more instance of the great importance of the Ottawa Conference?
    Mr. THOMAS: Certainly.

    GERMANY (BRITISH COAL QUOTA).
    Mr. MITCHESONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that Germany has not fulfilled undertakings which she gave regarding British coal imports and that referring this matter to arbitration will entail delay and continued loss to the British coal industry, he will immediately utilise the machinery at his disposal for

    2005
    dealing with such matters by imposing retaliatory duties under the Import Duties Act?
    Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have nothing at present to add to the reply given to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) on Tuesday last.

    SHIP REPAIRS.
    Mr. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to the number of British ships sent to foreign shipyards for repairs; and whether he will consider the advisability of making representations in British shipowners urging the need for repairs to be done in British ports, in view of the high percentage of unemployed boilermakers and ship-repairers?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): As the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth (Mr. West Russell) was informed on the 23rd February, the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. As regards the second part, British shipowners are, I am sure, fully alive to the desirability, wherever this may be economically possible, of having their repair work done at home, and I understand that in recent months the tendency to have ship repairs carried out here has increased to a marked extent.
    Mr. DICKIE: With a view to seeing whether it is possible to assist this very hard hit industry, will the Parliamentary Secretary institute inquiries in two directions, firstly, as to the extent to which foreign countries compel their shipowners to have their repairs executed in the yards of their own nationals, and, secondly, as to the extent—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's question is too long.
    Mr. DICKIE: Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is a fair question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is much too long as a supplementary.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the tendency of British ships being sent to foreign ports to be repaired is on the upgrade or the downgrade?
    Mr. DICKIE: Will the Parliamentary Secretary inquire to what extent it would help this hard hit industry if trade union restrictions in regard to overtime were removed?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will certainly obtain for my hon. Friend any information which he may desire and which may be in our possession. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), the tendency to have ships repaired abroad is diminishing.

    TOMATOES (PRICES).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade the wholesale prices of English, Jersey, Dutch, and Canary tomatoes for the weeks ending 27th June, 1931, and 25th June, 1932?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will, if I may, circulate these prices in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the prices:
    According to the Agricultural Market Report the average wholesale prices in London of British, Channel Islands, and Dutch tomatoes for the weeks ended 24th June, 1931, and 22nd June, 1932, were as follows:

    —

    Week ended

    24th June, 1931.

    22nd June,1932.

    British—

    …

    pence per lb.

    1st quality

    …

    6½

    10

    2nd quality

    …

    4½

    7½

    Channel Islands—

    1st quality

    …

    6

    10

    2nd quality

    …

    5½

    9

    Dutch—

    1st quality

    …

    5

    8½

    2nd quality

    …

    (not quoted)

    7½

    The supply of Canary tomatoes is seasonal, and usually ceases from mid-June until mid-October. The average price for the week ended 10th June, 1931, was 3d. to 4d. per lb., and for the week ended 8th June, 1932, 4d to 5d per lb.

  SWIMMING BATHS (ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY).
  Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to

  2007
  the demand made by the Excise authorities for Entertainments Duty to be paid in respect of admission to the swimming baths at Blackpool; whether such tax is demanded in respect of all swimming baths throughout the country; and, if so, since what date, and on what grounds, such charge has been made?
  Major ELLIOT: Entertainments Duty is not charged in respect of payments made by bathers for admission to swimming baths either at Blackpool or elsewhere. Duty is charged, however, on payments for admission by spectators, unless such persons are in attendance upon bathers. Payments not exceeding 6d. were not chargeable with duty from 1924 until 9th November last, but since that date duty has been chargeable on payments exceeding 2d. in accordance with the provisions of the second Finance Act of 1931. The grounds on which the charge is made are that the payments are payments for admission to an entertainment, which is defined in the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, as including "any exhibition, performance, amusement, game or sport to which persons are admitted for payment."
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Do they charge anything for watching the bathers in the Serpentine?

  AGRICULTURE.

    MUSK RATS.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give any further information as to the presence of musk rats in Surrey and as to the steps which have been taken to exterminate them?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): Since I replied to the question put to me by my hon. Friend on 20th June on this matter, no further musk rats have been seen in this neighbourhood, although a careful watch has been kept in the locality. This would seem to indicate that this infestation is, fortunately, not of a serious character.

    IMPORTED POTATOES.
    Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that 90 tons of foreign potatoes were dumped by barge on 16th June on a dust shoot at Wennington; will he inquire
    2008
    as to whether these have been taken away by the inhabitants; and, in view of the local fear that the Colorado beetle may thus be introduced into the district, will he make inquiries to see whether there is any risk of infection of any sort to existing potato crops?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware of the dumping referred to and on inquiry I find that some of the potatoes were taken away from the dump by the inhabitants. Steps have been taken to ensure that the remainder of the potatoes will be so treated as to guard against the risk of the conveyance of infection to potato crops in the district. I am satisfied that there is no risk of the introduction of the Colorado beetle through the medium of these potatoes.

    SMALLHOLDINGS.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Agriculture how many of the smallholdings provided under the Land Settlement Act, 1919, have since been abandoned and disposed of; and what has been the average loss incurred on each holding and the maximum loss in any one case?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Separate figures are not available relating to holdings provided under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919. During the period 31st December, 1926, to 31st December, 1931, the total area of land acquired by councils for smallholdings prior to the passing of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926, and still retained by them, declined by 16,083 acres, and the number of tenants by 1,841. This decrease is mainly due to holdings being sold to the tenants, and to councils' leases expiring and not being renewed. In the latter case the smallholdings do not necessarily disappear. It is not possible to give further details without circularising all the councils concerned and I do not see my way to do this.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Agriculture whether any of the smallholdings provided under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926, have been abandoned on account of the holders proving unsuitable or failing to fulfil the terms of their agreements; and what has been the loss involved in each case where such holdings have been disposed of?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware of any case where land acquired under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926, has been given up for the reasons stated, though there have no doubt been changes of tenancy owing to the unsuitability of individual tenants. Any such changes are not notified to my Department, the holdings being provided and managed by county councils or councils of county boroughs.

    HARVEST (IRISH LABOURERS).
    Mr. THOMAS COOKasked the Minister of Agricuture if he is aware that a number of Irishmen are offering themselves for employment in Norfolk, to the detriment of local agricultural labourers; and whether he will take steps to see that preference is given to local wage earners?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that a certain number of Irish workers are being employed by farmers in Norfolk for seasonal work. Every effort has been made by my Department in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour and with the full co-operation of the National Farmers' Union, to call the attention of farmers to the facilities offered by the Employment Exchanges for the supply from their registers of any seasonal labour required.
    Mr. MAXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiry why farmers, in spite of his efforts, are still prepared to use Irish labour?

    CATTLE DISEASE.
    Lord SCONEasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state the areas in which the disease of cattle known as nervous syndrome is prevalent; and what steps are being taken to ascertain the cause, nature, and cure of this disease?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I presume that the Noble Lord refers to the disease of dairy cows to which reference has been made recently in the Press. Attention has been directed to its existence in the districts around Lechlade and in Berkshire, but it is common in many parts of the country and abroad. As regards the second part of the question, this disease condition formed the subject of a question by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on 21st June, and I would refer the Noble Lord to the reply given thereto, of which I am sending him a copy.

    HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS ACT.
    Mr. PALMERasked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give any information regarding the standard of wages paid in industries affected by the Horticultural Products Act, and if the increased prices received for the products have been reflected in increased wages paid in the industries?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Workers employed in England and Wales in the production of the commodities set out in the Schedule of the Horticultural Products Act are entitled to be paid wages at not less than the minimum rates prescribed in Orders made under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act. I am, however, unable to say what are the standard wages actually paid. In reply to the last part of the hon. Member's question, the information which reaches me indicates that the effect of the Act of last year has been to stimulate considerably horticultural production and, therefore, employment in Great Britain.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is it true to say that the piece prices received for the productions have been reflected in increased wages and not in the increase of the labour?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: All I can say is that these wages are under proper regulation and can be adjusted.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is it not a fact that large numbers of workers in this industry were being dismissed every day until the duties were imposed?

    PATRINGTON FARM SETTLEMENT.
    Mr. SAVERY (for Major CARVER)asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the five farms comprising the Patrington farm settlement are now all let to farmers by the Commissioners of Crown Lands; if not, whether the Crown is farming any of them itself; and what is the amount of any accumulated loss in the accounts of this settlement since 31st March, 1926, when it amounted to £100,457?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The final loss on the Patrington Farm Settlement up to 5th April, 1927, when the Ministry's lease was surrendered to the Commissioners of Crown Lands, was, excluding net capital loss on property handed back to

    2011
    the Commissioners, £121,574. Of the five farms surrendered fay the Ministry to the Commissioners, three have been let and the remaining two have been since the date mentioned, and are still, farmed by the Crown. Subject to final examination of the accounts for 1932 the loss on the working of these two farms from 5th April, 1927, to 31st March, 1932, amounted to £21,039.

  RUSSIA.
  Mr. COCKSasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the trade depression, he will approach the Soviet Government with a view to arranging for the visit of a British economic mission to Russia for the purpose of studying the work of industrial reconstruction proceeding in that country, and for the visit of a Soviet economic mission to this country for the purpose of giving information to the British people on the subject of national planning and reconstruction?
  The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir.
  Mr. COCKS: Is it not worth while ascertaining the facts about this great social experiment?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot sec that the study of an industrial system based on industrial conscription has anything to teach this country.

  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

    TIMBER.
    Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that in any negotiations with the Dominions and Colonies at Ottawa with reference to imports of timber, including soft woods, into this country, due regard will be had to developing and maintaining the production of our home-grown timber; and whether the producers and users of homegrown timber will have equal representation with timber merchants on the delegation going to Ottawa?
    Mr. BALDWIN: As regards the first part of the question, the interests to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers will certainly be kept in mind. As re-
    2012
    gards the second part, it is, I think, for the producers and users of home-grown timber to decide themselves, in consultation with the Industrial Advisers who will accompany the United Kingdom delegation, whether they should be specially represented at Ottawa.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the representatives of the timber merchants who are going over are largely interested in the Russian and Scandinavian trade and that their interests must be antagonistic to Dominion and Home trade, and that the Forestry Commissioners wish to put their point of view on behalf of British producers and British users of homegrown timber?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, sir, that is the case I believe, and it is all the more reason why those who are directly interested in the home timber trade and the forms of timber referred to in the question should take the steps which I suggest.

    PREFRRENTIAL TARIFFS.
    Major PROCTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Government has formulated a definite Colonial trade policy for submission to the Ottawa Conference; and if he is prepared to make a statement before the Recess?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Robert Hamilton): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has already said, in his answer of the 27th April to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald), of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy, that he has been in consultation with all the Colonial Governments and with representatives in this country of the various Colonial trade interests. As a result of these discussions a number of proposals have already been submitted to the Dominion Governments regarding the grant of preference to the Colonial Empire, and at the same time the Dominion Governments have been invited to state what adjustments of Colonial Customs tariffs would be of real value to them.

  KENYA (NATIVE RESERVES).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies

  2013
  whether any conclusion has yet been reached as to native rights in land or royalties in those parts of the reserves in Kenya which are being prospected for gold?
  Sir R. HAMILTON: The position has been explained in the replies returned to the question asked by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Joel) on the 18th of February, of which I am sending the right hon. and gallant Member a copy, and to his own question of the 24th February. I can add nothing to those answers.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the matter still under consideration and have any conclusions been arrived at yet?
  Sir R. HAMILTON: As I stated in the answer to a former question of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Joel), the Government are safeguarding the interests of the natives to the fullest extent.

  ZAMBESI BRIDGE.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (how many natives are now employed on the Zambesi bridge and approaches; and what steps are being taken by his Department to supervise the recruiting and employment of such natives and to safeguard their health?
  Sir R. HAMILTON: The welfare of natives employed on the Zambesi bridge and approaches is superintended by the supervisor of labour, who is a medical officer seconded from the Nyasaland Government service. Monthly reports are received from him and scrutinised by the administrative and medical staff of the Colonial Office. The supervisor's report for the month ended 30th April returned 2,929 natives employed. Their recruitment is supervised by the Portuguese authorities, but many of the natives apply for work in person.

  IRISH FREE STATE (LAND ANNUITIES).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the present position with regard to the payment of the Irish land annuities?
  Mr. THOMAS: No payment in respect of the land annuities has been received from the Irish Free State Government to
  2014
  date. I shall submit to the House on Monday next proposals for dealing with the situation.

  HYDE PARK (MOTOR COACHES).
  Sir BASIL PETOasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that motor coaches now use Hyde Park; whether these vehicles are allowed there and, particularly, whether they are allowed to park in the vicinity of the Achilles statue; and if he will state what, if any, new regulations with regard to traffic in the park have been made in this connection?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby - Gore): Motor coaches carrying sightseers are allowed to enter Hyde Park on payment of a fee, but they are not allowed to park. There has been no recent alteration in the regulations for these coaches. The only coaches allowed to park near the Achilles statue are those coming to the park to carry bandsmen with their instruments to the bandstand.

  SCOTLAND

    FORESTRY COMMISSIONERS TRANSACTIONS.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether the Forestry Commissioners have acquired sheep grazings and also arable lands in Scotland on condition that the subjects are to be used for afforestation purposes only, or whether the Government propose to create holdings under the Small Landholders Acts on the grazing and other lands so acquired by the Commissioners?
    Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): The Forestry Commissioners have acquired sheep grazings and arable lands in Scotland. The grazings are used partly for afforestation and partly for sheep. Arable land has been used for the formation of 298 forest workers' holdings. The Commissioners cannot create holdings under the Small Landowners Acts, but areas suitable for this purpose are offered to and sometimes accepted by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye as representing

    2015
    the Forestry Commissioners the number of sheep of all classes on lands in Scotland acquired for afforestation; the total sum paid by the State for sheep taken over in Scotland by the Forestry Commissioners; the total amount realised by the Commissioners from all sales of such sheep stock; and the approximate value of the sheep stock still unsold?
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: The Forestry Commissioners have taken over 26,756 sheep in Scotland for £88,171. £47,828 has been realised from sales of sheep and the approximate value of the sheep stock in hand is £21,000. On land owned and let to tenants by the Commissioners there are approximately 25,000 sheep.
    Sir JAMES DUNCAN MILLAR: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman state the loss to the taxpayer arising from those transactions?
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: No, Sir. I should require notice of that question.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, with regard to the acquisition by the Forestry Commissioners of part of the lands of Kirk-ton, Balquidder, Perthshire, for afforestation purposes, and the purchase of ewe hoggs from the outgoing tenant of the farm of Kirkton at £4 6s. per head, which subsequently realised in the market only 27s. 3d. per head, whether he can state the total loss involved in that matter and how much of the loss is borne by the Government?
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: The Forestry Commissioners took no part in the transaction and of course incurred no loss.
    Mr. RHYS: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether ewe hoggs should be rendered in English as sheep or pigs?

    EDUCATIONAL CURRICULUM.
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the names of those responsible for drawing up the Scottish educational curriculum and how often they meet to consider whether that curriculum is in need of alteration?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The general instructions as to the curriculum which are contained in the Codes and
    2016
    Circulars issued from time to time as occasion requires, are based upon recommendations from the official advisers of the Department. The Secretary of State for Scotland in his capacity as Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland is responsible for these instructions. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

    GAELIC.
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of schools in which Gaelic is being taught; and what steps he is taking to increase the number of such schools?
    Mr. SKELTON: In the year 1930–31 Gaelic was taught in 293 schools. Section 6 (1) (a) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, requires education authorities to make adequate provision for teaching Gaelic in Gaelic-speaking areas, and Article 16 (vi) of the Day School Code provides that in such areas the schemes of work should make reasonable provision for the instruction of Gaelic-speaking children in their native tongue. The Department receive regular reports from His Majesty's Inspectors of Schools upon the steps taken by education authorities to comply with these requirements, and papers in Gaelic are set at the annual Leaving Certificate Examination. The number of schools in which Gaelic is taught has risen steadily during recent years.
    Mr. HICKS: Can the hon. Member explain why?
    Mr. SKELTON: Because I think, generally speaking, education authorities are well alert to the desirability of keeping alive this language.
    Sir W. WAYLAND: May I ask why money should be expended upon the propagation of dead languages like Gaelic and Celtic?
    Mr. SKELTON: May I say to my hon. Friend that each part of his proposition is incorrect. In the first place, the Gaelic language is not dead, and in the second place its teaching does not involve extra expenditure, but only the selection in schools where it is necessary of bi-lingual teachers.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. Member aware that there are two professors of Gaelic in the Paris University, one a Greek scholar, who says that Gaelic is the finer language of the two?

  HIGH COURT JUDGES
  Mr. CAPORNasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware of the hardship caused to many persons by the delay in the trial of cases in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice; and whether the Government will take the necessary action by the appointment of more judges or otherwise to ensure that all cases in this division have a reasonable chance of being tried during the law term following that during which they are entered for trial?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): There are 18 judges in the King's Bench Division, the full number allowed under the existing Statute, and every possible effort is made to avoid any delay in the trial of actions. I do not think that legislation authorising the appointment of more judges involving an additional outlay of public money would be in accordance with the general desire of the House. I shall be happy to receive any other suggestions which my hon. and learned Friend can make to secure his object.
  Sir P. HARRIS: Could not the delay be avoided by the judges sitting on Saturdays?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That suggestion has often been considered, but it has not been found advisable in the interests of litigants.
  Mr. CAPORN: Does the Attorney-General not consider that the object set out in the question is a desirable one?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Most desirable.

  PALESTINE (MOSLEM SUPREME COUNCIL).
  Major PROCTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the office of president of the Moslem Supreme (Shari's) council in Palestine is to be excluded from the electoral test at the forthcoming election for the Moslem Supreme Council; and, if so, will he state the reason?
  Sir R. HAMILTON: The High Commissioner for Palestine is at present in consultation with representative Moslems On the question of the amendment of the
  2018
  Supreme Council Electoral Regulations with a view to facilitating the election of a new council. Until the result of these discussions is known I am unable to say whether the office of president will be affected.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    TERRITORIAL ARMY (CAMPS).
    Mr. STOURTONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if, in view of the detrimental effect on recruiting for the Territorial Army caused by the abandonment of camp training for 1932, he will give an assurance that it is the policy of the Government to see that the usual 14 days' training is arranged for next year?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): There is no change in the policy which I announced in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir R. Blaker) on 24th November last, when I stated that there is no intention of suspending annual camps in 1933.

    CLOTHING FACTORY, PIMLICO.
    Mr. HICKSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Army Clothing Factory, Pimlico, has now been closed down; if so, will he state the number of employés who have been discharged and the number who have been found employment; and whether any have transferred to Didcot?
    Mr. COOPER: This establishment has not yet been closed down. The number of workers discharged from the factory since the beginning of December, 1931, is 392. I understand that the number of workers placed in employment by the Ministry of Labour is 57, and that 56 others have passed from that Department's registers into employment. None of the employés have yet been transferred to Didcot.
    Brigadier-General NATION: Can the hon. Member say what the total saving per annum is expected to be from this reduction?
    Mr. COOPER: I have given the figure frequently in reply to questions, but I cannot remember it at the moment.

  INDIA (OFFICERS' TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that the rate of travelling allowance for officers in the Indian political service has been reduced and that the reduced rate has been made retrospective for six months, with the result that officers have been called upon to refund considerable sums; and as, having regard to the cuts in pay of these officers, this has caused hardship to many of them, will he take steps to ensure that the retrospective part of the order is not enforced?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): It is within the competence of the Government of India to fix rates of travelling allowance for officers serving in India. I have no information as to the reduction in the rates for officers of the Indian Political Department referred to by my hon. Friend, but I am making inquiry and will inform him of the result.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not very unfair to make a claim like this retrospective?
  Sir S. HOARE: I have said that I am making inquiries.

  CHINA.

    BOXER INDEMNITY.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the £11,000,000 of British money, which under the Boxer Indemnity Agreement was to become an endowment available for educational purposes in China, is being expended as promised, in view of the fact that the Government of China has ignored the request made by the Board of Trustees that documents entitling them to the interest or amortisation as specified in the agreement should be given to them?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): My information is that the money is being expended in a proper manner both by the Board of Trustees in China and by the London Purchasing Commission, but I understand that, beyond the issue of certain regulations by the Chinese Ministry of Railways, adequate arrange-
    2020
    ments have not yet been elaborated between the Chinese Government and the Board of Trustees for ensuring that the sums so expended will produce a revenue available for educational purposes.
    Mr. MANDER: Will the hon. Member take care to see that the Chinese Government carry out their obligations to this country in this matter?
    Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member will appreciate that it is primarily a matter for the Board of Trustees of the Chinese Government and not for His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. MANDER: Were not certain promises made to this House when the Bill was passing as to the way in which the money would be spent?
    Mr. EDEN: I will do my best to see that the promises made are kept.

    MARITIME CUSTOMS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the policy of the Government to maintain the agreement with regard to the independence of the Manchuria Customs of 1907: and what steps are being taken to that end in view of the present action of Japan?
    Mr. EDEN: My hon. Friend is presumably referring to the Sino-Japanese Agreement regarding the Chinese Maritime Customs Office at Dairen. His Majesty's Government have expressed to the Japanese Government the hope that they will not countenance any departure from it which might impair the foreign interests involved in the Customs service or complicate a solution of the Manchurian dispute.
    Mr. MANDER: In this case will the hon. Member keep the Japanese Government up to their international obligations?

  STEAMSHIP "BRITISH SOVEREIGN" (ARRESTS, ALGIERS).
  Vice-Admiral TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstances attending the recent arrest in Algiers of the second and fourth engineer officers of the steamship "British Sovereign"; and whether

  2021
  representations have been made to the French authorities protesting against the treatment received by these officers?
  Mr. EDEN: My attention has been drawn to this matter and I am asking His Majesty's Consul-General at Algiers for a report. On its receipt I will consider whether any action is called for.
  Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Can the hon. Member say whether steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of the really abominable treatment meted out to our nationals, which cannot be justified in any circumstances?
  Mr. EDEN: I must first ascertain the facts.

  FRENCH FOREIGN LEGION (BRITISH SUBJECT'S DEATH).
  Mr. LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that a youth named John Lambton, who had joined the Foreign Legion before he was 18 years of age and whose parents live at Chester-le-Street, Durham, was reported as killed while on sentry duty in Fez; that the only communication the parents have had on the matter has been from the British Consul, but that there has been no word from the French authorities as to the manner of death or place of burial; and whether he will take steps to ascertain the facts about this youth's death, place of burial, and personal belongings left, or any pension or posthumous decoration to which-his parents may be entitled?
  Mr. EDEN: I have received no information regarding this case, but I am calling for a report on it from the British Vice-Consul at Fez.

  RECEIPT STAMPS.
  Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE (for Mr. SALT)asked the Postmaster-General if, in the accounts of his Department, any sum is assessed as revenue received from the sale of stamps which are used for the purpose of acknowledging the receipts of payments of £2 and upwards; and, if so, what amount representing this source of revenue is paid annually to the Inland Revenue?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Graham White): Yes,
  2022
  Sir; the annual payment by the Post Office to the Inland Revenue on this account is at present about £2,300,000.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (ADMIRALTY).
  Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE (for Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-D0YLE)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what will be the approximate maximum saving during the current financial year resulting from the reorganisation of the secretary's and accountant's departments at the Admiralty?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): The maximum saving on the provision in the Estimates resulting from this reorganisation cannot as yet be accurately estimated, but is not likely to fall short of £8,000 during the current financial year.

  LAUSANNE CONFERENCE.
  Mr. LANSBURY(by Private Notice) asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is in a position to give the House the latest information as to what results have been reached at Lausanne?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I will give the House the latest information that I have. It was announced last night at Lausanne that the heads of the Delegations of the six inviting Powers had decided yesterday, at the suggestion of the President of the Conference, to set up a Bureau composed of the President and one representative of each Delegation of the inviting Powers to examine the present position on the subject of reparations in the light of the preliminary exploration that had already been carried out at Lausanne. The Bureau met at once, and eat until an early hour this morning. It resumed its deliberations at 10.30 this morning to continue its work, and a message received from the Prime Minister at noon said that it was still sitting.
  A second decision taken by these six inviting Powers yesterday afternoon was that their Ministers of Commerce or the Latters' representatives should meet together to consider certain questions connected with the second part of the work of the Lausanne Conference, namely:" The measures necessary to solve the

  2023
  other economic and financial difficulties which are responsible for and may prolong the present world crisis," in preparation for the wider Conference which will consider these questions in the near future. A first meeting was held last might, at which agreement was reached on the subjects under discussion. The meeting was resumed at noon to-day for the purpose of agreeing upon their report.
  Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider publishing an official statement should any decisions be arrived at over the week-end, so that the public may have definite information on the decisions which may be taken?
  Mr. BALDWIN: This is the latest news I have been able to get, and, if any further news comes through before the House rises to-morrow, I will see that it is communicated. I will take the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman into consideration.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council the business for next week, and, if possible, when the House will adjourn for the Summer Recess?
Mr. BALDWIN: I expect that I shall adjourn before the House. The business for next week is:
Monday: Committee stage of a Ways and Means Resolution relating to the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Bill, and a Motion to approve the Hops Marketing Scheme, made under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931.
I may say that the Ways and Means Resolution will be on the Order Paper to-morrow, and it will give the House all the information that they will require for the Debate on Monday.
Tuesday: Supply, Committee [18th allotted day]. Vote for the Department of Mines; Ways and Means Resolution [4th July], Report stage; Motion to approve No. 2 Order made under the Import Duties Act, 1932.
Wednesday: Supply, Committee [19th allotted day].
If there is time other Orders will be taken.
2024
The Vote to be considered on Wednesday and the business for Thursday and Friday will be announced later.
Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand that there will be no other White Paper or Memorandum or any other document issued on the Irish Free State matter?
Mr. BALDWIN: That is so.
Mr. LANSBURY: It may perhaps have slipped the memory of the Lord President of the Council, but there was a paper issued and signed by the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) and a representative of the Irish Free State dealing with annuities. I do not know whether this is still available.
Mr. BALDWIN: I think that has been published already. It is another paper.
Mr. MAXTON: It is already in the Vote Office. With reference to the proposed legislation, I should imagine that the House would require some calculations, some statement, as to how the Government arrive at the sums which they are proposing in the Financial Resolution.
Mr. BALDWIN: I think that matter will be made quite clear. The House will have available as much—perhaps more—information in the Financial Resolution in regard to this matter as they have on any other Bill.
Mr. LANSBURY: I understand that on Monday and Tuesday the House is to consider the Ways and Means Resolution?
Mr. BALDWIN: Yes.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask when the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to tell us when the other stages of the Bill will be considered, when the Bill founded on the Ways and Means Resolution will be brought in?
Mr. BALDWIN: The Bill will be printed the moment the Resolution has been reported, and I will give the right hon. Gentleman and the House the information they desire at the earliest moment possible. The House must recognise that, if we are to rise as we hope before too long, there is some little difficulty in adjusting all the remaining business, but we will do our best to meet the convenience of the House.
Mr. BUCHANAN: It must be remembered that to-morrow, Friday, is a short

2025
day, and some hon. Members who have engagements during the week-end may have to leave before they get a copy of the Financial Resolution, and, therefore, may not be able to table Amendments. Could the right hon. Gentleman arrange that the Resolution is available for hon. Members to-night, so as to enable hon. Members to put down Amendments.
Mr. BALDWIN: I always try to do what I can to meet the convenience of
Members, but I am afraid that I cannot promise that.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
The House divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 34.

Division No. 269.]

AYES.

[3.48 p.m.

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

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Lees-Jones, John

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Erskine, Lard (Weston-super-Mare)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Albery, Irving James

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

Levy, Thomas

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

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Lewis, Oswald

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Liddall, Walter S.

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Aske, Sir Robert William

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Llewellyn-Jones. Frederick

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

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Atholl, Duchess of

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Mabane, William

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

Gibson, Charles Granville

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

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Barton. Capt. Basil Kelsey

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

McKeag, William

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

Glossop, C. W. H.

McKie, John Hamilton

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

McLean, Major Alan

Bernays, Robert

Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Goff, Sir Park

Macmillan, Maurice Harold

Blindell, James

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon James I.

Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

Gower, Sir Robert

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Magnay, Thomas

Broadbent, Colonel John

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Graves, Marjorie

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

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

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hales, Harold K.

Martin, Thomas B.

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

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

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

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Hanley, Dennis A.

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Castlereagh, Viscount

Harbord, Arthur

Millar, Sir James Duncan

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Harris, Sir Percy

Mills, Major J. D. Forest)

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

Hartland, George A.

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

Chalmers, John Rutherford

Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Mitcheson, G. G.

Chotzner, Alfred James

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale

Clayton, Dr. George C.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Hepworth, Joseph

Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Morgan, Robert H.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Colville, John

Holdsworth, Herbert

Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)

Conant, R. J. E.

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Moss, Captain H. J.

Cook, Thomas A.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Cooke, Douglas

Hornby, Frank

Munro, Patrick

Cooper, A. Duff

Horsbrugh, Florence

Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.

Copeland, Ida

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Nathan, Major H. L.

Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

Cranborne, Viscount

Hurd, Sir Percy

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

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

Crooke, J. Smedley

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

Nunn, William

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

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

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

Curry, A. C.

Janner, Barnett

Palmer, Francis Noel

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

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Peake, Captain Osbert

Davison, Sir William Henry

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Pearson, William G.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Peters, Or. Sidney John

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Ker, J. Campbell

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Kerr, Hamilton W.

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

Dickie, John P.

Kimball, Lawrence

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

Donner, P. W.

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Duggan, Hubert John

Knebworth, Viscount

Procter, Major Henry Adam

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

Knight, Holford

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

Dunglass, Lord

Knox, Sir Alfred

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

Eastwood, John Francis

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Ramsden, E.

Eden, Robert Anthony

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Rankin, Robert

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Law, Sir Alfred

Ratcliffe, Arthur

Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Leckie, J. A.

Rea, Walter Russell

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Reid, David D, (County Down)

Remer, John R.

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

Spears, Brigadier-Genera) Edward L.

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

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Robinson, John Roland

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

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Rosbotham, S. T.

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Wayland, Sir William A.

Ross, Ronald D.

Stones, James

Weymouth, Viscount

Runge, Norah Cecil

Storey, Samuel

White, Henry Graham

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

Stourton, Hon. John J.

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Salmon, Major Isidore

Strauss, Edward A.

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Savery, Samuel Servington

Sugden, sir Wilfrid Hart

Womersley, Walter James

Scone, Lord

Summersby, Charles H.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Selley, Harry R.

Sutcliffe, Harold

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Band)

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Tate, Mavis Constance

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

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

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

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Austin Hudson.

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

NOES.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Grundy, Thomas W.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Batey, Joseph

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Hicks, Ernest George

Parkinson. John Allen

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

Hirst, George Henry

Price, Gabriel

Buchanan, George

Jenkins, Sir William

Thorne, William James

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

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

Tinker, John Joseph

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Dagger, George

Kirkwood, David

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Edwards, Charles

Lawson, John James

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Logan, David Gilbert

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

Lunn, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

Question put, and agreed to.

MESSAGE PROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
London County Council (Money) Bill, without Amendment.
Birkenhead Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Leven Burgh Extension."—[Leven Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].]

LEVEN BURGH EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]
Read the First time; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

RATING AND VALUATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow.

BILLS REPORTED.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ELHAM VALLEY WATER AND HERTS AND ESSEX WATER) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HAILSHAM WATER) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HENLEY-ON-THAMES WATER) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HERTFORD) BILL [Lords]
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  BOURNEMOUTH, POOLE, AND CHRISTCHUBCH ELECTRICITY BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

EAST INDIA REVENUES (CONTRI BUTION TOWARDS COST OF WAR).
The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I beg to move,
"Whereas, by Resolutions passed on the 16th September and 26th November, 1914, respectively, this House consented to the charge upon Indian revenues, subject to certain conditions, of the ordinary pay and other ordinary charges of British and Indian troops despatched out of India for service in the Great War, as well as the ordinary charges of any vessels belonging to the Government of India that might be employed in those expeditions:
And whereas, by a Resolution passed on the 14th March, 1917, this House consented to a contribution of £100,000,000 charged upon the revenues of India towards the expenses of the War:
And whereas the Government of India, desirous of affording further assistance to His Majesty's Government, provisionally and subject to the consent of this House met out of the revenues of India in 1918–19, with the concurrence of their Legislative Council, further extraordinary charges in respect of the Indian troops employed in the War to the extent of £13,600,000:
And whereas the Government of India are desirous of bearing finally such further extraordinary charges.
That this House consents that the extraordinary charges of £13,600,000 aforesaid shall be borne by Indian revenues."
This looks a very formidable Resolution. I can, however, assure the House that it is nothing more than an account-keeping transaction. It does not raise any big constitutional issue; it merely regularises an account-keeping transaction which many of us would have hoped might have been regularised a good many years ago. I will explain how this transaction arose, and, secondly, why it is only now that we are regularising it. The constitutional position with the revenues of India is that no part of those revenues can be appropriated without the approval of the Secretary of State in Council. Secondly, no charge can fall upon Indian revenues for the use of Indian troops outside India without the express approval by resolution of this House. That is the constitutional position.
4.0 p.m.
Let me come to the historical events that have led up to this Resolution, During the War India made very substantial and generous contributions to the War effort of the Empire. In the first
2036
year of the War India agreed to meet the expenses of the Indian units that were serving outside India, so far as the normal expenditure of those units went. So far as the additional expenditure went, that is to say the War expenditure outside the normal upkeep of the units, that expenditure in 1914 still fell upon the Imperial Exchequer. Then, as the need of further help increased during the War, India generously responded, on more occasions than one. In 1917 India made a free gift of no less than £100,000,000 to the Imperial Exchequer for the needs of the War. Again in the following year India undertook to carry a series of additional war expenses over and above the normal expenses that it had undertaken to meet in 1914, and it was estimated in 1918 that this additional gift from India would probably amount to no less than a further £45,000,000, over and above the,£100,000,000 of the original free gift; but when this additional gift approximating £45,000,000 was promised certain conditions were attached. It was a gift the extent of which obviously depended upon the length of the War, and when it was made, it was not known that the War was going to end in quite a few months. Again, India, rightly, made other reservations, namely, that if the economic situation made it impossible for India to meet the full amount, there must be an opportunity for reconsideration, and, further, if there was serious trouble on the frontier, and particularly a war with Afghanistan, that again was a condition that would have to be taken into account.
In actual practice all those three contingencies eventuated. The War ended almost at once, we were unfortunately involved in another war with Afghanistan, and India was further faced with a very serious economic situation. But at the time when the War ended a sum of £13,600,000 had already been paid by the Government of India towards the gift that had been estimated at £45,000,000. At the end of the War, therefore, £13,600,000 had been paid, as the Government of India thought, on account of the larger gift of £45,000,000 that had been promised. But at that time there was a whole series of counterclaims made by various Departments here, particularly the War Office, against the Government of India.

2037
The result was that whilst the Government of India regarded the payment of £13,600,000 as a first instalment of the free gift of £45,000,000, the Departments here regarded it as the first instalment of the debts that were due to London, and for the last 12 or 13 years there has been a very complicated negotiation—I would almost say controversy—going on between the British Departments in Whitehall and the India Office and the Government of India; and on that account, whilst this £13,600,000 had actually been paid, it was not possible to come to this House for final ratification of the transaction, owing to the fact that there were big issues between the Departments still unsettled. I am glad to say to-day that these obstacles have now been removed. In the first place, the rival claims of a general character between the Departments in Whitehall and the Government of India have been settled by adopting, as I would say, the very sensible arrangement of a clean slate. Each side, seeing that there was not much in it between the two, have washed their claims out.
But there was another complication, in addition to the general claims, that also delayed the ratification of this transaction. In addition to the general wartime negotiations between the various Departments, there was the very difficult question of what is called the capitation grant,, that is to say, the amount that India pays for the training of the British troops which form a part of the Indian garrison. That question has raised a very long controversy between the War Office and the Air Ministry, on the one hand, and the Government of India on the other. The War Office and the Air Ministry have taken the view that India was paying too little for the training of the British troops serving in India. India, on the other hand, took the view that it was not paying too little and that there were counter-claims against Great Britain, and that in the view of Indians, India was taking too large a share of Imperial defence.
It has now been agreed by the Government of India and my Council that these conflicting claims and others of a similar nature should be referred to an independent tribunal for investigation. The tribunal will be judicial in character and will consist of two members nominated by each party and a chairman.
2038
We are fortunate in having secured, as its chairman,, Sir Robert Garran, for many years Solicitor-General to the Commonwealth Government of Australia. It is expected that the tribunal will meet in November. Its proceedings will, as must necessarily be the case, be confidential, and it will be advisory. It is, however, confidently hoped that in the light of its advice a settlement that will commend itself in all quarters as just and honourable may be reached on the vexed questions referred to it. That is to say, we hope we have now removed the second obstacle in the way of the ratification of the transaction about which I am speaking. It is, therefore,, now possible for the House finally to pass this Resolution and authorise the expenditure that has already been made and, once and for all, put an end to a transaction that has been dragging on for many more years than we should have hoped.
For the foregoing reasons, I move that this House consent to the treatment, as a final charge against Indian revenues, of the gift of £13,600,000 provisionally made by the Government of India in 1918–19. This sum takes no account of additional amounts for which India has accepted liability in order to secure the settlement, but as against these may reasonably be set certain sums accruing to Indian revenues in connection with the War.
Mr. ATTLEE: I think the right hon. Gentleman may be congratulated on having described to us a rather complicated financial problem in a very few words. One has, of course, met this question, or parts of it, before. Indeed, the whole question of the financial relationships of this country and India is one which obviously will have to be reconsidered before very long. As I understand it, this is not a matter at the present time of asking India to pay anything, but is in fact an auditing transaction merely, to set India right, because this House is charged with the duty of seeing that the revenues of India are not expended for other than Indian purposes. We on this side of the House agree that this is a fair settlement, and I think it is highly desirable that a settlement should be come to at this juncture. I do not want to go into the matter at any length, but I think one should recall the very great services of India during

2039
the Great War and the very great generosity of her contributions, both in money and in men.
I confess that I have never been altogether happy at the voluntary contributions made to the War by parts of the Empire that have not got self-government. It is quite true that these gifts were approved at the time in India. They were approved in 1920 by the Legislative Council, on which certain Indians sat, but in fact these transactions took place before there was anything like self-government in India. It is more or less a matter of the past, but it was considered that the Indian Legislature was sufficiently representative of the Indian people to make a gift of £100,000,000 to assist the cause of the British Empire during the War, and I think that should be borne in mind by those who sometimes deny the right of Indians to speak for India.
There are two other points that I should like to make. I am glad that the capitation grant question is being referred to what amounts to arbitration, because that is a matter which has hung on too long, and should be got out of the way. While I am glad that this matter should be got out of the way, it does not really, as, of course, the right hon. Gentleman knows, end the question of the liability of this country and of India for the defence of India. When I served on the Indian Statutory Commission we had to consider that matter at some length. I am bound to say that I have always considered that on the whole India has been rather too much charged with her own defence, as compared with other units of the British Empire other than this country, and at the time when the whole question of our relationships with the Indian Government is being considered, there is urgent need that the whole question of Imperial defence responsibilities should be discussed.
It is my view that while, as a result of history and so on, this country has always borne the lion's share of the defence of the British Empire, India has borne a very large share of her own, and sometimes India has had to bear defence expenses that were caused not directly in her interests but occasioned because she was a member of the British Empire, and a vulnerable part of the Empire. I would, therefore, say that while we
2040
approve this Resolution, we hope the Government will, at an early date, take into consideration the whole question of the financial side of Imperial defence. I think they will have to do it when they are trying to deal with the new Constitution for India, and I hope they will take that further, and consider the whole matter from the point of view of all the units of the British Empire. For our part, we consider that the setting off of these various claims which have hung on for so long is satisfactory, that India has been fairly treated, and that, therefore, this Resolution ought to be approved.
Earl WINTERTON: I do not wish to delay these proceedings, after the very pleasant speech to which we have just listened from the Front Opposition Bench and the very clear and succinct account given by the Secretary of State for India of this matter. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) has mentioned, as he was entitled to do, certain other matters which I do not think directly arise on this occasion, though no doubt they will have to be discussed in the future. These are matters touching a very high question of policy which have been discussed by people in this country for the last 100 years, namely, the relationship between the Government of India and the Government of this country. I was glad that the hon. Member referred, as also did the Secretary of State, to India's contribution during the War. No one in any quarter of the House would wish to belittle that contribution. I believe that, for example, in some parts of the Punjab, the contribution in men to the fighting forces was greater than in any other part of the Empire where voluntary service existed, and I am told on good authority it was greater even than the contribution in some places where there was compulsory service. That is apart from the contributions by other provinces and by the Indian States in men and money and the individual contributions which were made.
Still the fact remains—if I may say so, not in opposition to anything which the hon. Gentleman opposite said, but by way of comment upon his remark that India's position is not that of a self-governing Dominion—that without belittling that contribution, India's participation in the War was no greater than her position as the greatest unit of the Empire in size and population

2041
demanded, and no less than her own need to keep her borders inviolate, entailed. Some Provinces, for reasons which are not in the least dishonourable but are nevertheless conclusive, were not able to make any contribution to the actual man-power in the trenches. Therefore, there was more reason for India as a whole to pay in money as well as in men. This, to my mind, is an essentially fair settlement, and I am glad that the Government have brought it forward for the approval of the House. In regard to the history of the settlement, it would be improper for me or anyone else who has held office and is familiar with the circumstances, to relate in detail what happened. It is true, however, that there has been a long and stubborn controversy which has been finally and satisfactorily settled by this compromise.
It is useful to point out, on this occasion, to those—there are many outside this House and there were some inside the House in former Parliaments—who believe that the India Office, and the Secretary of State and the Council, are mere appanages of His Majesty's Government, that no ambassador or foreign minister could have represented any country's case more strongly than India's case was represented by Lord Birkenhead and the other Secretaries of State concerned. The settlement reflects credit on the successive Secretaries of State and the members of the successive Governments who agreed to it. It has been endorsed by more than one Cabinet and by more than one Government of India. Only time has prevented it being brought forward earlier. I am glad that it has been brought forward now, and I should like to think that it would be passed in this House, as I have every reason to believe it will be, without any opposition.
Resolved:
"Whereas, by Resolutions passed on the 16th September and 26th November, 1914, respectively, this House consented to the charge upon Indian revenues, subject to certain conditions, of the ordinary pay and other ordinary charges of British and Indian troops despatched out of India for service in the Great War, as well as the ordinary charges of any vessels belonging to the Government of India that might be employed in those expeditions:
And whereas, by a Resolution passed on the 14th March, 1917, this House consented
2042
to a contribution of £100,000,000 charged upon the revenues of India towards the expenses of the War:
And whereas the Government of India, desirous of affording further assistance to His Majesty's Government, provisionally and subject to the consent of this House met out of the revenues of India in 1918–19, with the concurrence of their Legislative Council, further extraordinary charges in respect of the Indian troops employed in the War to the extent of £13,600,000:
And whereas the Government of India are desirous of bearing finally such further extraordinary charges.
That this House consents that the extraordinary charges of £13,600,000 aforesaid shall be borne by Indian revenues."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 (Grants for public works) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Certain debts not to be reckoned as assets of local loans fund.)
    Mr. LEWIS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, to leave out the words "and Part II."
    The two other Amendments which appear on the Paper are consequential upon this Amendment. If hon. Members examine the Schedule to the Bill they will find that Part II is concerned with loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners under the Agricultural Credits Act of 1923 and the object of the Amendment is to gives the Financial Secretary to the Treasury an opportunity of affording the Committee some further information concerning the losses referred to in that part of the Schedule. I would be glad if he would deal particularly with the loss incurred in the first case. That is the case of a loan of £2,895 in favour of Mr. Baber and Mrs. Aitkens, of which no less than £2,000 has to be written off. On page 3, of the Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill, will be found certain rather remarkable facts regarding this case, and I should like the Financial Secretary to deal with this case under three separate heads.

    2043
    In the first place, we are told that the farm in question was valued twice by the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue. In December, 1924, it was valued at £3,860. At the beginning of 1931 it was valued at about £850, plus a small amount in respect of tenant rights. Are we to understand that in the opinion of the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue the value of farms in this country at the end of 1930, was rather less than one-quarter of their value six years previously? If that be not the general position taken up by the Valuation Department then, in this case, there must be some special circumstances accounting for the remarkable difference between these two valuations. If such special circumstances exist, perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell us briefly what they are? The second point to which I direct the attention of the Financial Secretary is this. On the strength of the first valuation a sum of £2,895 was advanced. It would be interesting to know what became of all that money. If it was spent on improving the farm, that makes the difference between these two valuations even more remarkable than appears on the face of it. The third question which I would put to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is, What are the circumstances in which that mortgage was foreclosed? We are told in the Financial Memorandum:
    "Owing to the failure of the borrowers to cultivate and manage the farm in a proper and husbandlike manner in accordance with their covenant the Board were compelled to take possession."
    That seems a very remarkable and unfortunate state of affairs. When this matter was raised on the Second Reading of the Bill the Financial Secretary said that this money was lent on character. No doubt the character of persons to whom money is lent, is always taken into consideration by the lender of the money, but one would imagine that in a case such as this other considerations would be taken into account—for example, whether the person who sought to borrow the money could show that they were competent and practical farmers who would be likely to make good use of the money. Will the Financial Secretary tell us whether the authorities had any reason to suppose that these persons were competent practical farmers, apart from being people of good
    2044
    character? There is only one other remark which I wish to make on this Amendment. On the occasion of the Second Reading I mentioned some of these points and the Financial Secretary referred to them in his reply. He opened by saying:
    "The criticisms of particular items in the Schedule are more appropriate for the Committee stage of the Bill."
    I took that merely to be another way of saying that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not then any answers to the questions raised, but that he could inform himself upon them if they were raised again on the Committee stage. He went on to make a remarkable statement. Referring to my remarks, he said:
    "I would only say now that his criticisms are four years too late; no advances whatever have been made since 1928 under the Agricultural Credits Act, all these powers having expired long ago. Consequently, I do not think it would he desirable for the House again to hold inquests upon these past loans."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June, 1932; col. 1427, Vol. 267.]
    That seems a curious argument. This money has been lost. The Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue which bears the principal responsibility because it was on its valuation that the money was lent, is still in existence. For aught I know to the contrary, all the gentlemen concerned in this transaction on the Government side are still in Government employ, and I fail to see the reasonableness of the argument that because powers under a particular Act have lapsed, therefore it does not in the least matter how much money has been lost under those powers while they were in operation. It is said that large majorities tend to make Ministers autocratic. I should not have thought that anyone, so urbane and reasonable as the Financial Secretary would so soon have assumed that autocratic air. I assure him that the back benchers in this Parliament are quite capable of selecting for themselves those subjects on which they desire information. For my own part, where it is evident that a large sum has been lost and where the facts put before us do not, by any stretch of the imagination, explain how the money has been lost, that, in my judgment is a proper subject for inquiry by this Committee. I hope that the Financial Secretary having had full notice that these questions would be raised, will be able to give us the information for which I have asked.
    4.30 p.m.
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I will, if I may, support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis). We have in the last three years repeatedly seen these Bills brought in regarding losses that have been made in respect of mortgages which could not have been granted earlier than 1923, and were probably granted in 1924 and later. The Financial Secretary has told us that the Act expired in 1928, and therefore the loans, which amounted to £2,000,000 or £3,000,000, could not cover a period longer than from 1924–28. We have not finished with these losses, there must be a very considerable number of mortgages still outstanding, and I fear that the next two or three years will make this plain, as other Public Works Loans Bills come before the House. I think we misunderstood the Financial Secretary's remark that we must not look for inquests on these losses, which are now dead by about four years. What he meant must have been that the mischief was done and no good could be done now by digging up the trouble, and that we must be content to face the loss. We are all human and we all make mistakes, but I do not think we ought to let these losses pass. I add my protest to what has been said by my hon. Friend, and I think the Financial Secretary should overhaul the system by which the valuations were made. I have no fault to find with the valuers. They do their best, but it is evident that they were not fit for the job.
    Valuers for Inland Revenue make the valuation as high as possible, so that the State may take as much taxation as possible, but when you lend money you make the valuation as low as possible. The mentality is quite different. The valuer's point of view is how low can he put the valuation so as to prevent his employer losing money in case anything goes wrong. That is not what has been done here. The valuer has put on these properties a value which they were not worth. I go further. The Financial Secretary has said that this is only a small loss, but if an insurance company had been lending £2,000,000 or £3,000,000, and within three or four years had found losses at the rate we are now making these losses, I am certain the insurance company would be unable to meet its
    2046
    engagements. That is not the way to do business. I think it would not be a bad thing if we had before the Public Accounts Committee—and here I am speaking only for myself—the methods by which these valuations have been carried out, to see if we can learn something for the future, especially as one of the Ministers introduced not many days ago a new Bill which I believe will empower certain Departments to advance new money on agricultural property. If I am right in that, before we go any further, and in order that we may not have these losses under the new Act, I think the whole system by which these valuations are made should be overhauled. I do not want to press the Financial Secretary too much, but I should like to lend a little force to what has been said by my hon. Friend.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): I think this is an appropriate moment at which the accounts should be reviewed, My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) seemed to be making a very fine-drawn point in stating that when the Minister said that the appropriate time for the examination of the details was on the Clauses and not on Second Reading, that meant that the Minister would inform himself between Second Reading and Committee stage. I make no apology for that. That is the purpose of having an interval between Second Reading and Committee stage. There is nothing to apologise for in having said that, these questions having been raised in general terms on Second Reading, we should proceed to examine them in more detail in Committee. I make no apology for having informed myself more fully between Second Reading and the Committee stage on the arguments which he brought forward and his request for information.
    Although he did not give me warning that he was about to raise these specific points, yet I took pains to inform myself on all the points which had been raised on the Second Reading of the Bill, both by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and by the hon. Member for Colchester. He raised a few specific-criticisms to which I hope to be able to give answers. He desired to refer particularly to the case of Aitkens. The Committee will see that the name is given as Mr. George Baber and Mrs. Elizabeth

    2047
    Mabel Ida Aitkens. Both these persons are called Aitkens. They are husband and wife, the surname having been put in for the second of the two names, as is customary in these documents. I was asked, firstly, as to the difference in the valuations that had been made, the first valuation of £3,600 and the second of £800, and what were the special circumstances which accounted for that; secondly, was the money spent on the farm; and, thirdly, why was it subsequently found that this property had not been cultivated in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. The property mortgaged was owned by the wife and farmed by her husband, and they were both conjointly made liable for the covenant.
    The Board was advised when the loan was contracted that the farm was in a fair state of cultivation, the ditches and fences in fair order, and from local inquiries that were made it was found that it was considered in the district that Mr. Aitkens was a hard-working man and understood his business, and that Mrs. Aitkens was a keen business woman. Payments were made punctually until October, 1930, when the Board were in-formed that the borrowers could not make any further payment owing to the low price of corn, and the gap between the valuations arose because, owing to the lack of necessary means, the borrowers ceased to cultivate the farm. The Board, therefore, were faced with the necessity of getting back the property for cultivation, or disposing of it for what it would fetch in its uncultivated state. Hon. Members will realise at once that that, with the drop in prices, would account very completely for the difference in valuation between £3,600 and £800. The money had been spent on the farm, but owing to the great agricultural slump and to the ill-fortune of the cultivators, the money was lost. I do not think we may take a fall of that extent as typical of the general decline in the value of landed property in Great Britain, but I should say that this exceptional case does illustrate the enormous collapse in agricultural values in recent years, to prices which it would have been impossible for any valuers to anticipate.
    Mr. DENMAN: In certain districts.
    Major ELLIOT: Yes, in certain districts. I think that deals with the main points raised by the hon. Member for Colchester in regard to the property.
    Mr. LEWIS: There is only the other point, with regard to the character of the people.
    Major ELLIOT: As I have said, we made inquiries locally, and the Board were informed that the man's local reputation was that of a hard-working man who understood his business, and that his wife was a keen business woman. Some mistakes are bound to be made when loans are granted, but, even so, there are many instances, of keen business men and hard-working women joined together in the management of farms who, for all that, have gone under owing to the exceptional circumstances of the last few years. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) took exception to one or two remarks of mine and charged me with an autocratic manner—I think a little unjustly. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) was willing to make more allowance for me. What I meant in saying that the criticisms were four years too late was this: The Public Works Loans Board itself, without this House having drawn their attention to the risks of these transactions, was dubious about the sums that they were being asked to advance; and that the lessons which these losses teach had been learnt by them as long ago as 1928, when these loans were discontinued. I meant not that it is too late for us to make criticisms. The hon. Member for Farnham bears a slight official responsibility for certain advances, which were in fact made during his term of office, and for the moment I am guiltless in that matter.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I am quite willing to accept my share of the responsibility. I do not blame my right hon. Friend or the valuer. I think we were wrong in employing that type of valuer.
    Major ELLIOT: We now come to the fact whether the valuations were wrong, and I think it would be totally wrong for the Committee to accept that impression. The sums lent reach some £4,750,000, the amounts here under review, of which only a fraction has been lost, to under £300,000, and the actual losses here being discussed to under £13,000. I specifically

    2049
    asked the Public Works Loans Board, who, as I have said, had uneasiness as to the character of these investments, if they could give any statement as to the accuracy of the valuation which had been made, and they say they would like to put on record that the assistance they have received from the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue, both as regards valuation and the detailed information as to local conditions placed at their disposal, has been of great value. Hon. Members may say that in spite of that, losses have been made, but still that is a testimony from a body of men who are the keenest business men that it is possible for any Chancellor to select as his advisers—business men of a firm, rigid type of financial purity which has from time to time drawn upon them the criticism of hon. Members in other quarters of the House.
    What is it, then, that has been at fault here? I think the fault has been that it was impossible to foresee the catastrophic fall in prices. Yet in the future more than in the past I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham will agree, we shall have to invest more in this country and perhaps less oversea. If we do that we shall undoubtedly make losses. If we invest oversea or at home, a percentage of wastage will be sure to occur. In the past we have applied a more rigid standard to investments made at home, and they have been scrutinised more closely than investments abroad. Tens and scores of millions of pounds have been invested abroad and lost with little comment. If £l,000, £2,000 or £3,000 is lost at home, the whole weight and power of the House of Commons is fixed on the loss. The people who have made the losses are pilloried and their names are paraded about to be printed and condemned in the local papers. If we are to restore prosperity at home we must extend to our own home producers some of the leniency which we have extended to oversea producers in previous years. Let us beware of unduly harrying those who make losses among our own producers, because we have in the past, on the whole, as investors, received far better treatment from our people at home than we have received from people to whom we have lent money oversea.
    Mr. ATTLEE: At one time I thought that I should have to challenge the hon.
    2050
    Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel), because I gathered from the tone of his speech that somehow or other the Financial Secretary had been very remiss in this matter. It was not until the hon. Gentleman gracefully donned the white sheet himself that I realised that these transactions had to some extent taken place while he was in charge. I had intended to ask what the Financial Secretary ought to have done, or what he had left undone that he ought to have done. I gathered that he ought to have been more active, and that he had allowed the matter to run on too long, but I gather now that this is a very small loss indeed when we consider the magnitude of the transactions and the trend of agricultural prices. It would be useful if anyone who has had the experience would state the number of failures that there have been among tenants generally during this time of crisis, as compared with the number of failures in the instances where advances have been made on mortgage. It seems to me that this work has been done very carefully. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Farnham and others would have welcomed the situation as it is exposed in this Bill, because it only represents what Sir Josiah Stamp calls "these healthy bankruptcies." The capitalist system cannot go on without them—
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I went a little further than that. The Legislature has to make the public feel perfectly certain that it is safe in the hands of the Revenue authorities; and it does not do for the public to see the Revenue valuer so much at fault, so much out of correctitude in valuations as is the case here. Suppose that later on these valuations were used for probate, and it was found that they were all wrong and that a great deal of loss had been made. The people who were paying duties upon these valuations would feel that they had not had the treatment to which they were entitled. I am not blaming anybody, but it does not do to have valuations so far removed from what are actualities in view of the fact that Death Duties bear very hardly on the people who have to pay them. The one thing that we must do in imposing taxation is to make the people who are paying the taxation feel that they are paying on valuations which are very nearly correct.
    Mr. ATTLEE: At this time in the world's history it is difficult to bring out valuations correctly after a period of years. Values fluctuate and the whole thing gets upset. I only wish that all prophecies as to values which I have received turned out correctly. When I am advised to do something, it usually turns out that I lose, although I have had the very best advice, and most of us have had the same experience. I know that some of my constituents always take the best advice in making investments just before the flat-racing season, but more often than not they seem to have more losses than winnings. The hon. Member for Farnham is expecting too much when he expects that valuations of agricultural land made six, seven or eight years ago would not be falsified when we have had such a heavy fall in world prices. The extent of these losses shows that the valuations have been done extremely carefully and well, and, considering world conditions, the State has got off very lightly.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clauses 3 (Remission of arrears of principal and interest in respect of Eye-mouth Harbour loan); 4 (Remission of balance of principal and interest in respect of certain local loans) and 5 (Short Title), ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  BRITISH MUSEUM BILL. [LORDS.]
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS (MORT GAGES) BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee.
[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 (Application of Act) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS (MORT GAGES) BILL [Lords].

  CLAUSE 2.—(Validity of provision in mortgage for repayment of loan by instalments.)
  The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:
  In page 1, line 20, to leave out the word "Notwithstanding," and to insert instead thereof the words, "Subject to."—[Mr. Lewis. ]
  The CHAIRMAN: I think that this Amendment is not in order as it amounts to a direct negative of the Clause.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. LEWIS: I shall be glad if at this stage we can have some further explanation of the need for the provision in this Bill which takes away from the farmer the right which is enjoyed by all other persons who borrow money on mortgage. There is among agriculturists a good deal of uncertainty as to why this special provision should be made in their case. As hon. Members know, it is the universal rule that a person who mortgages his property cannot be prevented from redeeming it for an unreasonable time if he is willing and able to do so. I believe I am right in saying that it is a working rule in the courts that a period of from seven to 10 years may be held to be. for this purpose, an unreasonable period. A man who borrows money on terms making it repayable over a great number of years may come in time to regret that the period fixed was so long. He may acquire funds from some unexpected source, for example, under a will, or there may be some great change, such as we have witnessed, in the value of money, which may mean that if he could redeem his property he could borrow again on much more favourable terms. It is for these reasons that the courts have always refused to allow a man so to bind himself that he cannot redeem his property, if able and willing to do so, until after an unreasonable time has elapsed. By this Clause this privilege is to be expressly taken away from farmers borrowing money from the corporation which was created under the original Act, and I think we are entitled to some explanation as to why that is regarded as necessary.
  It might be urged that if no such provision were made the whole contract might

  2053
  be invalidated, and that the corporation would be unable to recover from year to year the sums agreed to be paid by way of return of capital and interest. If that be the only reason I would submit that some countervailing provision should have been put in the Bill, so that the borrower, though deprived of the protection afforded to other similar borrowers by the courts of equity, would get the compensation of a special Clause which would enable him, on giving a certain number of years' notice, and being willing to pay the proper amount, to redeem his property. On the face of it, and from the very short explanation we had on Second Reading, I cannot gather what further reason there may be for this provision and I think we should be told why it is necessary to take away from farmers borrowing from this corporation this right which has been granted by the Courts to all other persons.
  Sir JOHN RUTHERFORD: Before the Solicitor-General replies, may I make a further point with regard to this Clause, as one who has advised clients in regard to these mortgages and who is himself also a mortgagor under the original Act? Where I had the original form of mortgage put before me, I saw that it contained a proviso, which is, in substance, this suggested Clause, saying that the mortgage could not be paid off, except with the permission of the Board, before the stated time. I have advised clients that that provision in the mortgage was invalid. It may be that farmers have taken up these loans disregarding what it states in the mortgage, just as one disregards the ordinary provision for redemption in a mortgage, not taking it literally but more as an expression of intention and there might be an injustice if this Clause were to apply to mortgages already in existence. Would it not be more equitable to limit it in its application to mortgages which are made in future? That is a point upon which I should like the Solicitor-General to reply.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): The point which was made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) really goes to the whole root of this Bill. When the Act of 1928 was passed this House sanctioned the setting up of a company for the purposes, as the Act itself showed, of making long-term advances for the benefit of the agricul-
  2054
  tural community. It was of the essence of the scheme that it should be a long-term scheme, and, as the Act itself shows, it was with a view to securing that the loans by such a company should be made on terms most favourable to borrowers; and I suppose nobody will dispute that the farming community have, in fact, derived great benefits from it. But the finance of the scheme was based, as the Act itself said, upon this being a long-term scheme, and not changeable at the will of the mortgagor—because he has come into a legacy, as the hon. Member for Colchester suggested—into a short-term scheme should it happen to suit him and be disadvantageous to the company.
  I am afraid that I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Edge-hill (Sir J. Rutherford) that people have been under any genuine misapprehension as to the nature of the scheme in the meantime. The whole idea was to set up machinery for long-term credits, which would only be changeable by the mutual consent of both parties, and not at the will of only one. That was what it was thought the Act of 1928 had achieved; but although there has never been any decision on the point—I am not able to find any actual, reported case—I understand that doubts have been expressed as to whether, if the matter were challenged, the ordinary rule, which was stated quite accurately by the hon. Member for Colchester, might not apply. It is to remove those doubts, and to restore what was the plain intention of the Act, that it has been necessary to bring forward this Bill. I cannot accept the suggestion that there is any hardship in making it retrospective. Therefore, I hope the House will reject the suggestion that there should be any amendment of the Clause.
  Clauses 3 (Provisions as to mortgages where land is held in trust) and 4 (Short title), ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

SOLICITORS BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee.
[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 (The Law Society to act as registrar of Solicitors), 2 (The registrar

2055
to keep the roll of Solicitors), 3 (Admission and enrolment of Solicitors), 4 (Constitution of Disciplinary Committee), 5 (Powers of Committee), and 6 (Procedure of Committee) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SOLICITORS BILL [Lords].

  Clause 7.—(Filing, effect and notice of orders made by the Committee.)
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Dr. Peters)—
  In page 4, line 4, at end to insert the words
  "Provided that no such notice shall be so inserted if a notice of appeal shall have been given against any order so made or pending the decision of any application to the High Court."—
  is out of order.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Dr. PETERS: I quite realised that the foregoing Amendment, and probably two other Amendments which I have put down, might be ruled out of order, but I put them down to call attention to what has happened to this Bill in another place. We find that in dealing with the Solicitors Act, 1843, another place have enlarged the extent of the existing law, and I understand that is not in order. In the first part of Section 31 of the Act of 1843 there is a reference to taking proceedings by way of writ or process, and it goes on to refer to "or matters in bankruptcy." The second part or limb of that Section does not refer at all to any matter in bankruptcy. What have they done in another place? If we refer to Clause 53 of the present Bill we find they get over that difficulty by inserting the words:
  "Any such action or matter."
  The word "matter" there obviously referring to a matter in bankruptcy. I suggest that that sort of thing is not what we in this House should approve.
  The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member kindly explain to me what he is dealing with? The Clause I called was Clause 7.
  Dr. PETERS: What I was dealing with was the principle of ruling out of order such suggestions as have been placed on the Order Paper when we find in the Bill itself, in Section 53, that it has been done in another place.
  The CHAIRMAN: Because an Amendment to Clause 7 has been ruled out of order the hon. Member cannot on Clause 7 discuss the conduct of another place in regard to another Clause altogether.
  Clauses 8 (Appeal against orders of Committee), 9 (Procedure upon applications to the High Court), 10 (Power of registrar to draw up orders), 11 (Orders of High Court to be produced to registrar), 12 (Limitation of time for certain applications to strike names off the roll), and 13 (Power to replace name of Solicitor on roll) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 14 to 25 and Clauses 26 to 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 32.—(Conditions of admission to final examination.)
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 13, line 33, to leave out the words "no person shall," and to insert instead thereof the words:
  "a person articled to a solicitor after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, shall not."
  It might seem to be rather absurd to substitute the one form of words for the other but, as it happens, there is a point of substance. This, of course, is a consolidating Bill, and we have to be very careful not to amend the law in any way that would affect adversely any person who would not otherwise be affected. As a matter of fact, in the Statute which was intended to be reproduced by this Clause, the words originally framed provided that a person articled to a Solicitor after the 31st of December, 1922, shall not be admitted to the final examination without attending a Law School. It was thought, as a matter of draftsmanship, to be tidier to put the Clause into the form in which it appears on the Paper, and to put the provision with regard to the date of the articles in a Proviso which appears on the next page; but the result, unfortunately, has been to affect barristers of five years' standing who, under Clause 34, are entitled to become solicitors, after fulfilling the proper conditions, without being articled to a solicitor. If, therefore, the wording were left in its present form, a barrister of five years' standing would be liable to

  2057
  have to attend a solicitors' law school for a year before being admitted as a solicitor. [Interruption.] That definitely would be an amendment of the law which, monstrous or not as the hon. Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) says, would not be in order on this Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 27, to leave out from the word "term," to the end of the Sub-section.—[The Solicitor-General.]
  Clauses 33 to 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 53.—(Solicitors not to commence or defend actions whilst in prison.)
  Dr. PETERS: I beg to move, in page 25, line 13, to leave out the words "confined in prison," and to insert instead thereof the words "a prisoner in any prison."
  These words which I propose should be inserted would follow the old Statute, and I feel sure that they will be acceptable to the Committee.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am prepared to advise the Committee to accept this Amendment. I do not think there is any very great substance in the change of words, but it is true that the wording in Clause 53 of the Bill, while I think reproducing the sense of the old Statute, does depart from the wording. The hon. Member's wording is a return to the wording of the former Statute, and I am prepared to accept it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper:
  In page 25, line 27, at the end, to add the words:
  "(3) Provided that notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section nothing herein shall prevent a solicitor from continuing his practice as a solicitor or employing a duly qualified person to do so, pending an appeal from his conviction and/or sentence, or from prosecuting personally or through such other person his appeal."—[Dr. Peters.]
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Dr. Peters) is out of order.
  Clauses 54 to 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  First, Second, Third and Fourth Schedules agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Solicitor-General.]
  Dr. PETERS: Perhaps I may now be in order in pointing out to the House what has happened in bringing this Bill before it. The Section, to which I referred in the Committee stage, of the old Act of 1843, has certainly not been reproduced in Clause 53 of the Bill. While there is the principle that in a Consolidation Bill you must not introduce anything fresh, you may correct obvious errors. Undoubtedly here there has been an extension of the law. I am not complaining, because years ago when the old Act of 1843 was passed, there obviously must have been an omission, and it is quite right that there should be in the Bill the words that we now have, referring to matters in bankruptcy, as well as to other suits and acts. I would like to point out that when we are dealing with the consolidation of a number of Statutes as here, it should be within our province to go into these matters very carefully in Committee stage, and to rectify anything that apparently is wrong. These Amendments which stand in my name on the Order Paper, and to which reference has been made, deal quite clearly with points that ought to have been covered in legislation dealing with solicitors. There is one Clause at which hon. Members have probably looked, and they will have seen that where there is some allegation against the solicitor he can be called to order by the committee of the Law Society, and if any proceedings are to be taken in the High Court notice is to be served by the applicant or complainant upon the Registrar of the Law Society, but there is no provision for any notice to be served upon the solicitor concerned.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I am afraid that he is again out of order. On the Third Reading we can only discuss what is in the Bill, but he is now not only discussing

  2059
  something which is not in the Bill but something which would not be within the scope of the Bill, and which would not permit of the Bill going through as a consolidation Bill, as his proposal is to improve the law.
  Dr. PETERS: I realise the difficulty of my position, but I wanted to make a point on the question of procedure on a Consolidation Bill. I bow to your Ruling, and I hope that the Solicitor-General at an early date will bring in an amending Bill so as to provide for the points which I have raised and which, as a matter of procedure, are following in actual practice. When detailing in a Bill a certain procedure, it seems rather ridiculous to leave those things out of the Bill.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is quite obvious that the hon. Member cannot now discuss what the rules of procedure ought to be with regard to consolidation Bills. The whole theory and practice of consolidation Bills would be entirely put an end to and all consolidating Bills would be absolutely stopped for ever, if what the hon. Member is now advocating were permitted in this procedure.
  Dr. PETERS: With all respect, let me say that the point I was making was not exactly that, but was a plea to the Solicitor-General that he might in the near future bring in a Bill to put right those things to which I have called attention, and for which there is undoubtedly urgent need.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I assure the hon. Member that his representations shall have due consideration. In the meantime, as a necessary preliminary to the consideration of those matters, I hope that we shall have the Third Reading of this Bill. Unless we get that, and consolidate the law, as things are at present it will not be possible even to consider an amendment of the law.
  Mr. LAWSON: As one who was a Member of the Joint Committee that examined this Bill, I recall that I wondered when I was appointed and found myself a member of the Committee, why an hon. Member who was lacking in legal knowledge was placed on the Committee. I soon found out, because when I got there I found that I had one of the best qualifications, and
  2060
  that was that I had my trade union ticket as a miner in my pocket. I can only say that, so far as it was possible for a layman like myself to judge, the learned gentlemen with whom I sat were scrupulously careful to avoid changing in any way the spirit of the law, thus preserving the first fundamental principle of a consolidation Bill.
  5.30 p.m.
  I am very pleased to see the facility with which the Bill has gone through, but it seems strange that in a matter like this consolidation can be readily obtained, while in the case of the law relating to some very grave matters, affecting great masses of the people of this country, no time can be found for its consolidation or its consideration. The Government have given promises that there would be a Bill to consolidate the law relating to Unemployment Insurance, but, although they are agreed as to the necessity for its consolidation, they have always failed to find time for it. I am sure the House will be interested to know that I, as. a good trade unionist, found myself in harmony with the gentlemen sitting round me who were concerned with the protection of their minimum wages. I only wish that the trade unionists of this country, and particularly the miners, could have as good rules with regard to their business as the lawyers will obtain by the passing of this Bill.

CARRIAGE BY AIR BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee.
[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CARRIAGE BY AIR BILL [Lords].

  CLAUSE 1.—(Provisions of Convention to have force of law.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. TINKER: I want to ask a question of which I gave notice on Friday, but to which the right hon. Gentleman could not reply then, because he had exhausted his right to speak in the Debate. My question is this: If the House agree to this Bill, how long will it be before it comes into use? Shall we

  2061
  have to wait for all the other Powers to ratify the Convention, or, if a certain number of them ratify it, will those who have done so then go on with the Bill? Unless we have some definite understanding, it may be a long time before any good comes from the Bill, but, if those Powers who have ratified the Convention can put it into use, some benefit will accrue immediately.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The Convention requires that it should be ratified by at least five of the principal sovereign States. Four sovereign States have already ratified it, and we also are prepared to do so now, so that there is every reason to hope that it will be put into operation with the least possible delay.
  Clauses 2 (Provisions as to actions against High Contracting Parties who undertake carriage by air), 3 (Application of this Act to colonies, protectorates, etc.), 4 (Provision for applying Act to carriage by air which is not international), 5 (Provisions as to Orders in Council) and 6 (Short title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  First and Second Schedules agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL
Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. O. Stanley.]
Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL

  CLAUSE 1.—(Juvenile courts.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 22, at the end, insert:
  "A charge made jointly against a child or young person and a person who has attained the age of seventeen years shall, for the purposes of this Section, not be treated as a charge against a child or young person."
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The object of this Amendment, which is almost to be described as a drafting Amendment, i.3 to ensure beyond any doubt that, where a joint charge is made against a child or young person, who would normally come before the juvenile court, and an adult, that joint charge shall not be heard in the juvenile court, but in the adult court. The principle was agreed to without any discussion in the House, but it was felt that these words had better be inserted, in order to make certain that that principle over-rides any contrary instruction that there may be in this part of the Bill.
  Quesion, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the same Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 6, leave out from the word "apply," to the word "where," in line 9.
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment is consequential upon the one which has just been agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In line 31, leave out from the word "shall" to the end of Sub-section (4), and insert:
  "sit either in a different building or room from that in which sittings of courts other than juvenile courts are held, or on different days or at different times from those on or at which sittings of such other courts are held."
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 5, to leave out the words "or at different times."
  Perhaps it may be convenient to the House if I discuss at the same time another Amendment which I shall have to move to the Lords Amendment. The House no doubt will remember that one of the new provisions made in the Bill was with regard to the sittings of juvenile courts. As the Bill was originally introduced, it proposed that it should no longer be possible to hold a juvenile court in either a building mainly or exclusively used as a police station or for the hold-

  2063
  ing of courts not being juvenile courts, or a room ordinarily used for the holding of courts not being juvenile courts; but the Bill as it was introduced allowed for the making of an application to the Secretary of State in any case where it was felt that this new provision would be an undue burden on the local authority in the present difficult times, and the Secretary of State was given power to approve the use of an ordinary court or room in a building usually used for the purpose of an adult court.
  I think there was general agreement in the House with the principle of that new provision. It was felt that it was a bad thing to associate too closely the adult and the juvenile courts, not only from the point of view of bringing the juveniles awaiting trial in contact with adults also awaiting trial, but, what was felt to be even more important, from the point of view of the parents, whose sympathies it is desirable to enlist in any treatment that is going to be provided for their children, and who would be more likely to respond if they were not haled before the ordinary police court, with all its associations, but were taken to a different room and a different atmosphere. At the same time, we recognise that, in view of the fact that in many districts, particularly country districts, the present practice is for the juvenile court to sit either in the ordinary adult court or in the magistrates' room in the adult court-house, a number of applications would have had to be made, and in a number of cases we should have had to grant permission for the continuance of the old practice. This Amendment restores the provision that juvenile courts may sit either in a different building or a different room from that in which courts other than juvenile courts are held, or on different days or at different times from the sittings of such other courts. The effect will be that they can sit in a different room at any time on any day, or, if the same room be used, at a different time or on a different day from when that room is used for the holding of an ordinary adult court.
  In some ways it is retrogressive to ask the House, as I shall do, to agree to this Amendment, but, from information which has reached us since the Bill was first discussed, we have realised that at the present moment it would not be possible,
  2064
  in the case of a large number of courts, to comply strictly with the provisions of the Bill as it was introduced, that applications would have to be made for permission to contravene this provision, and that we should have to grant such permission. It is a bad thing, however, to pass something in an Act of Parliament and then to grant so many exemptions that it becomes practically a dead letter.
  But there is one point in the Lords Amendment to which it is impossible to ask the House to agree. It is impossible to ask the House to agree that the juvenile court may sit in the same room as an ordinary adult court, provided only that it is at a different time, because that would allow of a continuance of the present practice which I think is very deleterious, under which a court sits 'as an adult court, and then, by simply putting up a notice outside the door, turns itself immediately into a juvenile court in the same room. The Amendment which I now move to the Lords Amendment would mean that the ordinary adult courtroom could only be used for a juvenile court if it were so used on a different day. Hon. Members will realise that this provision entails no expense. It does not mean that a different room will have to be found, or hired, or built. If it means anything, it can only mean some inconvenience to magistrates in not being able to dispose of both the adult and the juvenile business on the same day. I think the House will agree, however, that such slight inconvenience as it may cause will be well repaid by the resulting partial separation, at any rate, of juvenile and adult courts.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: So far as I understand this very complicated method of dealing with Amendments from the other House, the hon. Gentleman appears to me to be agreeing with one part of the Lords Amendment and disagreeing with another. I do not think that there is sufficient difference on the first issue to warrant delaying the Bill, and, with regard to holding juvenile courts on different days from adult courts, I am glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am satisfied, from the evidence on this matter to which I listened for a long time, that he is perfectly right in his statement, and, rather than delay the Bill, I should be

  2065
  willing to accept, reluctantly in respect of the first point, the suggestion, that is now made.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not like this Amendment. We discussed it at great length upstairs and practically the whole Committee thought we should have kept the young children apart altogether from criminals and from the criminal court. The Government brought this Bill in because they considered that the methods of the past were not in keeping with our humane ideas to-day. Time and again it was brought out that Members had attended these courts and found young children who were practically innocent being brought into contact with court officials, police, etc., and we thought this was an opportunity to ensure that young children should no longer be treated in the barbarous fashion in which they are treated to-day in being brought before criminal courts, with all that that means. I think, as a Member of the House for over 10 years, that if the Lords are going to amend our Bills they ought to come here and hear what we have to say about it. They have no right to sit high and dry in another place and deal with subjects that they know absolutely nothing about.
  We are dealing here with the poorest section of the working class, and young children at that. Members on all sides of the House have taken a keen interest in the Bill, and, after we have argued with one another and come to some sort of agreement on a Bill that the Undersecretary has piloted through with great credit to himself, Members of another place who know nothing about it say, "We will not allow this to go in. We are the Lords." I hope, if it is within your power, Sir, that you will let the Lords know that, if they are going to amend our Bills, it is their duty to send representatives to this House to hear what we have to say. The time when the Lords can do what they like is far past. They are not going to mutilate our Bills in this fashion. The Undersecretary says we are not able to have special court houses for children, as originally intended, owing to our straitened circumstances. Are any of the Lords hard up? Are any of them going without their breakfast? Are any of them on the means test? Not one. Yet an atmosphere has been created that the country is poverty-stricken, and every
  2066
  thing that we do has to be tainted with that disease—even doing justice to little children.
  I do not believe that is a justification for their turning down this part of the Bill. The Under-Secretary says they discovered, in getting into contact with certain districts, that the conditions were of such a character that they would not have been able to comply with the law. That is all right, but I have known laws passed when it was known quite well that the workers could not comply with them. The House will support the Under-Secretary, and the most that I can do is to ask him to let it be known throughout the length and the breadth of the land what was the idea that pervaded the Committee, that children should not be brought into contact with criminal courts.
  Mr. BATEY: I want to join with ray hon. Friend in regretting that the Under-Secretary is accepting any part of this Amendment. It is a wise step to delete these words, thus making it possible to use a court for adult cases and then to go on to consider juvenile cases, but still at this stage he should not have been prepared to accept any part of the Lords Amendment. It might be costly to ask for a different building in which to try juveniles, but I see nothing to prevent them being tried in a different room in the same building. One has acted as a magistrate in a good many of these cases and, if it is not possible to try juveniles in the magistrates' room, there is always some other room, even if it is the magistrates' clerk's room. I am strongly opposed to juveniles being tried in an adult court, even on a different day, and I regret very much that the Under-Secretary has given way.
  Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made in Lords Amendment: In line 6, leave out the words "or at."—[Mr. Stanley.]

  CLAUSE 7.—(Provisions with respect to remands and bail.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 32, leave out Sub-section (1) and insert:

  2067
  "(1) When a juvenile court have remanded a child or young person for information to be obtained with respect to him, any juvenile court acting for the same petty sessional division or place—

  (a) may in his absence extend the period for which he is remanded, so, however, that he appears before a court or a justice at least once in every twenty-one days;

  (b) when the required information has been obtained may deal with him finally;

  and where the court by whom he was originally remanded have recorded a finding that he is guilty of an offence charged against him, it shall not be necessary for any court who subsequently deal with him under this subsection to hear evidence as to the commission of that offence except in so far as they may consider that such evidence will assist them in determining the manner in which he should be dealt with."
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  6.0 p.m.
  The difference which this Amendment makes in the Sub-section as we passed it in this House is that whereas before, after the remand, the young offender had to come back to the court as originally constituted, it will now be possible for him to come back to a court otherwise constituted. The hon. Member for West-houghten (Mr. Rhys Davies) will remember that it was a subject which we discussed in Committee, and I held then, as I still hold, that theoretically it is right that the court which hears the evidence and finds the evidence proved should also be the court which finally determines the decision and the sentence. It is rather theoretical, because the new court before which the young offender appears for decision can, of course, go over the evidence again. Still, theoretically, I think that the decision which we took in Committee was right. Technically, however, it has been pointed out to us that extraordinary difficulties will arise in rural areas in always having exactly the same court constituted., and that possibly the adherence to theoretical perfection may mean intolerable delay in the remanding of the young person before you can constitute exactly the same court, which will then be in a position to finish the case.
  In those circumstances I think that we had better abandon theoretical perfection and accept the Amendment. [Interruption.] The new court before it actually
  2068
  came to its decision could ask for certain evidence over again or could have statements made. It would not, of course, restore the position that they would be exactly the same people who heard all the evidence when the case was first tried. It has a practical advantage and may lead to boys being kept in remand for a longer period, and as the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, I move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

  Clause 9.—(Powers of Juvenile Court in respect of children and young persons needing care or protection.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 38, at the end, insert:
  "or
  (d) who, being a female, is a member of the same household as a female in respect of whom an offence under the Punishment of Incest Act, 1908, has been committed by a member of that household."
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  At present the power under this Clause to bring young persons before a juvenile court when they are in need of care or protection only extends to circumstances where incest has been committed in respect of a young person and where another young person or child in the same household can be brought before the court. The effect of the Lords Amendment is to extend that protection and to make it possible now to bring a child or young person before the juvenile court if the offence has been committed against any female in the house, whether she is a young person or not. It is clearly right that the age of the person against whom the offence has been committed does not make any difference to the danger which may face other children or persons in the household, and, that being so, I hope that the House will agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 9, line 42, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 15.—(Amendments as to summary trial of children for indictable offences.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 5, at the end, insert:
  "and when the child is a male, to adjudge the child to be, as soon as practicable, privately whipped with not more than six strokes op a birch rod by a constable, in the presence of an inspector or other officer of police of higher rank than a constable, and also in the presence, if he desires to be present, of the parent or guardian of the child."
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The Amendment is to restore in the Bill the provision for the whipping of boys under 14 which we took out of the original Bill. It might be useful if I mention to hon. Members the course of the discussions on that provision while the House were considering the original Bill. When I moved the Second Heading it was discussed by several hon. Members during the course of the Debate, and yet, as the House will remember, the Second Reading was passed without a Division. Subsequently in Committee an Amendment in more or less these terms was moved by an hon. Member. We had a long discussion on the point, my memory being that practically every one taking part in the discussion was on the same side, and in the end the Amendment was negatived without a Division. When the Bill came back to this House for the Report stage, no Amendment was put upon the Paper to remove these provisions, and finally the Bill, with the powers to whip removed, passed the Third Reading, again without a Division.
  Hon. Members will realise that these provisions were not only fully discussed by the House and by the Committee, but at no single stage were they even challenged, let alone defeated in this House. In the circumstances, apart from any other consideration, I think that it would be proper for this House not to allow a decision which they had come to so unanimously and after such careful consideration to be rejected without a protest. I cannot help feeling that nearly all the opposition. to the abolition of these general powers to the whipping by magistrates of boys under 14 years arose from a failure to distinguish between the different types of whipping and their
  2070
  different effects. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), who I know will support me on this occasion, will support me for a different reason. He disagrees with whipping in any circumstances for any offence, no matter by whom administered. Those are not my views.
  I believe that in certain circumstances for certain purposes whipping can still be an effective deterrent and punishment, but I am convinced that for the purpose for which this kind of whipping is imposed, and the circumstances in which it is administered, it is neither effective nor a deterrent. Hon. Members will realise that here you have a boy not receiving corporal punishment either from a parent or from a schoolmaster or from somebody whom he can trust and Whom he knows and to whom he has a feeling that he owes a certain obligation. Here it is administered by a policeman. That in itself, I think, makes a difference. But far more important is the fact that if the child is whipped in his home or in his school he feels it is all part of the game. It is part of the discipline he expects. There is nothing shameful in it. There is nothing frightening in it, although there may be occasions when it is painful.
  It is not like what you get where whipping is administered by order of the court by a policeman. Here, not only do you get a feeling of resentment in the boy but, what is very often worse, a feeling of resentment in the parent, who, though he might be prepared to whip the child much harder himself, does not like to see him whipped in court by a policeman. You have, therefore, a child who has committed an offence, and who therefore ought to find in his home reprobation, and his parents angry with him, but you find instead that they sympathise with him and look upon him as a martyr. Therefore, a feeling that he has committed a wrong which ought to be kept alive by his home discipline, disappears in a sort of halo.
  The mischievous boy, who, we are always told, is the boy best adapted to this form of punishment, I venture to say, is very often the worst adapted, because such a boy has usually committed rather petty offences out of a feeling of adventure and wants to show off before his companions. He wants to show the gang with whom he runs that he is a brave

  2071
  adventurous fellow. The effect, very often, of police court whipping is to make him a hero among his fellows. There is nothing romantic about being sent to an approved school, or even to be put upon probation. You cannot make a hero of someone like that, especially if he is taken away for two years. But you can make a hero of one who has stood his whipping bravely, and that, very often, is the case.
  The most important thing of all is this: Hon. Members may think that I am opposing this whipping because we think whipping is often too severe a punishment for the type of case. I am not sure that that is always the case. I think that the whipping is often not severe enough. What hon. Members fail sometimes to appreciate is that you cannot combine whipping and any other punishment. You cannot whip a boy and put him on probation. You cannot whip a boy and send him to an approved school. The whipping that you can administer, whatever the offence may be, is a final and complete termination of the offence. I suggest that the punishment of whipping, painful as it may be at times, is not suitable for checking the offence for which it may be administered. It is often decided not so much by careful consideration of the type of offence and what is necessary to bring the boy back to the proper path. Whipping is cheap and quick, and whereas you can whip a boy at little expense, you can only keep him in an approved school at the expense of a local authority.
  Although I know that it would be out of order to quote from the Debate on this subject in another place, which has resulted in this Measure, I think that I should so far be in order as to say that their opposition was largely influenced by a case to which reference was made. I should clearly be in order in referring to the case which many of us heard of outside when it was published in the papers. It was a case somewhere in East London where a gang of boys were tried for mutilating a flock of sheep. I think that there were 12 boys who mutilated in a most horrible fashion something like 20 sheep, and it was suggested in another place, and received with acclamation, that that was a proper case for whipping. I should disagree with that entirely. It
  2072
  seems to me that a boy when young may very likely pull the wings off a fly, and in later days tie a tin can to the tail of a dog in a spirit of mischief but when he gets to 12 or 14 years of age and he commits an act of mutilation in a horrible manner, there is something radically wrong with him and it does not seem to me that to that kind of psychology or that kind of person whipping is going to do any good. To whip boys of that kind and turn them loose again on society is to do nothing whatsoever to cure the root evil which caused the offence, and is likely to stimulate the commission of such an offence again. A boy like that needs a course of treatment. He requires removal from his influences. He wants to be sent to the hard, commonsesne, clean atmosphere of a school. Because whipping while it remains is an easy and cheap alternative to what I believe is the proper kind of treatment, one feels that it is not safe just to leave whipping to drop into desuetude, which it is already doing, but that we should take this final step and put it outside the power of all magistrates to do what nearly every magistrate in his own court has abandoned, that is to inflict corporal punishment.
  I personally and my Department do not stand with the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) as the opponents of corporal punishment, in every circumstance and all circumstances. It is not merely on sentimental grounds that we take our present attitude. Under Home Office rules corporal punishment on proper occasions is still administered, but I do think that there is all the difference in the world between whipping a boy by his parents or his schoolmaster and whipping by a policeman at the order of the court. I hope that the House will join with us in disagreeing with the Lords in this Amendment, and that they will once more remove the power of whipping from the Bill.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am sure that I am voicing the feelings of nearly every Member when I congratulate the Government on their attitude. [Hon. Members: "No!"] Without criticising what members in another place have done, I would say that they have forgotten two or three fundamental facts in relation to whipping. The first fact is, that the courts are gradually declining to order boys to

  2073
  be whipped. The number of boys ordered to be whipped is decreasing anually, and in a few years time I should imagine that whipping will disappear automatically, because magistrates do not want to order whipping. The other argument that is paramount in my mind is that we may have a backward bench of magistrates who may order a boy to be whipped in one town for an offence that is less serious than an offence for which a boy has been put on probation or sent to an approved school in another town. Therefore, it is possible that the law in those circumstances will be administered in an unequal fashion.
  The Under-Secretary says that we are not entitled to quote what has been said in another place. I saw in the Press that one member in the other place had stated—and I want to contradict it, because the statement was incorrect—that the committee which inquired into the treatment of young offenders were unanimously in favour of maintaining the power of the court to order whipping. That member of the other House obviously had not a copy of the report before him. The committee reported in March, 1927. This is what the minority report said:
  "We are not satisfied that whipping ordered by a court of law serves a useful purpose. We cannot therefore agree with the recommendation of the Committee on this point."
  Two members of the committee and myself signed the minority report. The majority report was rather half-hearted in favour of maintaining the whipping of boys. Even their Lordships do not want to whip little girls. It is interesting to note the exact words of their Amendment:
  "and when the child is a male, to adjudge the child to be, as soon as practicable privately whipped with not more than six strokes of a birch rod by a constable, in the presence of an inspector or other officer of police of higher rank than a constable, and also in the presence, if he desires to be present of the parent or guardian of the child."
  I hope that some historian will pick out those words when he writes the history of the other place. The majority of the committee in their report said:
  "We deprecate strongly any indiscriminate use of whipping. There should be a medical examination in all cases, and the parent or guardian should have the right to be present. The court should consider the
  2074
  character of the offender rather than the nature of the offence. Subject to these safe-guards, the court should be able to order whipping in respect of any serious offence committed by a boy under 17. Whipping should not be associated with any other form of treatment."
  There were 12 members of the Committee and even the majority were rather halfhearted in recommending that whipping should be ordered by the courts. Three members of the Committee were against that recommendation. This is not a party Bill. There are no political differences in regard to it. From the evidence that we received on the Committee referred to it was obvious that magistrates were discarding the power they possessed and decreasing every year the number of children ordered to be whipped. I read in a newspaper the other day that a bench of magistrates had ordered a child of eight to be whipped. What nonsense to order a child of eight to be whipped by a police officer, in the year 1932 in this country, where we boast, and rightly so, that we are rather intelligent people. I have been told on more than one occasion that the police officer told off to whip children dislikes the task so much that the whipping is only done as a sham. I do not blame the police officer who is ordered to whip a child of eight years that he does not undertake the task with severity. I congratulate the Government on declining to agree to the Amendment.
  Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: The Front Benches seem to be in agreement on this matter. We have heard from the hon. Member opposite that everybody in the House is likely to agree with him. I suppose that I shall be one against the whole House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I regret the disappearance of whipping, at any rate as an alternative punishment for certain types of boys who commit certain types of offences. There are various things said about corporal punishment. There is a well-known old story about Professor Mahaffy and his great rival, Professor Traill of Trinity College, Dublin. They were discussing the question of corporal punishment and Professor Mahaffy said: "I do not believe in corporal punishment. I was once whipped for telling the truth." "Well," said Professor Traill, "it effectually cured you."
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has used certain arguments and it

  2075
  seemed to me that some of them were mutually destructive. He said that it would not be consonant with the dignity if the House to accept the Amendment, seeing that the Committee upstairs was practically unanimous in condemnation of the use of the rod, as decided by the magistrates, and that the punishment would be too frightening and might cause resentment. Later on he said that whipping might possibly be too light a punishment. He cannot have it both ways. I have had some experience of boys and I always found that there are certain types of boys and certain types of offences in regard to which it is very much better to give the boys a good whipping, and say: "Now go away and do not do that again." The best and common sense way would be for the magistrate to take the boy into his private room and administer a whipping. It is said that the whipping should be administered in public, in court.
  Mr. STANLEY: Nobody said that.
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: I understood so. I think the hon. Member opposite said it.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: No.
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: Then I apologise. The punishment would be administered in private. The Under-Secretary said that whipping might make a boy a hero. I do not agree with him. It would be much more likely to make him a hero if he was condemned to have some other sort of punishment. Even if I am alone in the House in expressing the opinion, I regret very much that the Under-Secretary has not seen fit to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I, too, regret the Government's decision, but I do so from a rather different standpoint. The situation at the moment is that crimes of violence among young people are, apparently, on the increase. It has been suggested to me that the power to order a whipping is very often known to these young people and that when they go before the court for the first time the fact that the magistrate has the power to order them to be whipped, and that he can tell them he has that power, acts extremely well upon a certain type of young person. It has been represented to me by some magistrates of experience that, while they would be ex-
  2076
  tremely slow to order any punishment in the shape of whipping, they find that the fact that they can use this threat is one which assists them in the carrying out of their duties.
  6.30 p.m.
  Punishment by whipping is one which should be ordered with very great reluctance by any court, but I cannot help feeling that there are some types of young person to whom that form of punishment is perhaps most advantageous and most effectual. Those of us who have spent years in the administration or in assisting in the administration of the law know that some years ago there was a great recrudescence of crimes of violence, and it was only because certain judges decided that they would see whether they could make the only possible appeal to a bully, namely, by ordering him to be flogged, that the Garrotters Bill was passed and crimes of violence were very largely put down. The retention of these powers would be a good thing for the administration of justice and a good thing in the interests of these young people. The fact that the existing power is used less and less shows that it is being used with great discrimination and I hope with great reluctance, by those who have the power to order it. It is not because I have any particular theory about punishing young people or dealing with various types of offenders, but because I believe that this additional power, kept as it were in reserve, may in some instances do good that I regret the decision which has been reached by the Government to disagree with the Amendment.
  Miss HORSBRUGH: I feel some diffidence in rising to support the Government because in another place it has been decided that girls should not be whipped. We have got so far. One of the main reasons why we should do away with the whipping of young offenders is that it has been proved to be a failure. The hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) spoke of the increase in crimes of violence. We shall have an increase in crimes of violence unless we train the young and punish them in the right way. If we continue this cheap and quick, and as I think useless punishment, of whipping we may watch the growth in this country of the very type of young men who may commit

  2077
  crimes of violence later on. Hon. Members who have read lately in the Press the life history of some criminals must have been struck with the number of cases in which, when they were quite young boys and were first brought into the court, they received the punishment of whipping. No one who considers this subject carefully can think that a boy who has committed some offence will consider it a greater punishment to get six strokes with the birch than to be put on probation or sent to an approved school.
  In punishing young offenders we have to look particularly to the training for the future. When they are young we get the chance to train them, and I do not think that we are taking that chance if we merely whip them and send them away. The great advantage of this Bill is that it gives young people who may commit some offence early in life a chance of leading a better life; it does not bring them into contact with the courts. It is not much use quoting figures and statistics but I believe that the majority of hon. Members will agree that whipping has been a failure in preventing crime. It is not sentimental or soft-hearted persons who want to abolish whipping. Some hon. Members during the Committee stage thought that I was not only a very hard-hearted woman but a woman who was so hard hearted that they were sorry to see me as a Member of the House of Commons. It is not because of sentiment or a soft heart that I am putting forward this view. It may be that it is because of the hardness of my heart, because I do not consider the punishment is sufficient; that it is out of date, and not the best way of treating the young people of this country. It has been said that whipping is being used much less than formerly; and, therefore, what does it matter? Perhaps in the very cases where it has been used it has been used on the wrong people. It may be ordered in cases where it is the worst form of punishment and, therefore, I hope the House will support the Under-Secretary in giving us a better standard of punishment for young people and a better chance to train them for the future.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Under-Secretary of State can rely on my supporting him in this matter, and I hope the House will support him also. I was rather taken aback by the speech of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville). This
  2078
  is a subject upon which I should be very much guided by the hon. Member, who has such a sage experience in the handling of boys. He is a schoolmaster, and after a lifetime of experience he comes to this House and says that he is in favour of whipping. I know many schoolmasters who would not support his view. I think that he made out a very poor case. The hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) is a King's Counsel and from his experience in the courts I should have expected him to put forward a more humane outlook on life, so far as young offenders are concerned. I want to register my most emphatic protest against this Amendment of the Lords. If ever there was a case for the abolition of the House of Lords this is it. Here are men who are set apart, supposed to be men with analytical minds, with judicial minds, not ordinary men, but men who are able to give unbiased decisions for the benefit of the common weal. The House of Commons is democratically elected to give expression to the will of the people. The House of Lords is not democratically elected. It is responsible to nobody but themselves. If they were dealing with their own sons or their own daughters I would not care; but they are dealing with the sons and daughters of my class, the working classes. None of the Lords would like to see their sons of eight years of age being birched. [Interruption.] Would you like to see your son being birched?
  Mrs. COPELAND: Yes, if he deserved it.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Then you are saying what is not true. I have more respect for you than to think that. No man would hand over his child to another man to be birched—and to a man who is paid for the job. You are going back to the days of slavery when they tied men to the whipping post and whipped them. The Lords think they are living in that age yet. There are some people who would whip not only boys but men and women who dare to differ from them. That is not general to the House. There has never been so intolerant a House of Commons as the House to-day. This House is more intolerant than it was when I came here 10 years ago; and here we have the evidence of it in this Amendment.
  Here is a Bill which a young Tory piloted through Committee, the Under-

  2079
  Secretary of State. He gave us concessions and made speeches showing that it was a subject to which he had given some thought and that he had got away from the trammels which evidently are still afflicting the Lords. After all we have done, after all that the House has done, the Lords decide that a little boy of eight years of age is to be birched. Think of it, Mr. Speaker! Some poor little chap, who has never had a dog's chance in life, who has lived a life of poverty, who has never had a good feed, never known what it was to lie in a good bed, brought up under the most appalling conditions, the victim of this cruel system, which condemns thousands of children to live in the slums in our great industrial centres; and the Lords say that he is to be whipped by a constable, a man paid for doing the job. To show that they do not know what they are doing, they say that the parents may see their child whipped. What type of mind do they possess? What type of men are they? A low bestial mind. Think of a mother standing and looking at her own flesh and blood being whipped, under the Union Jack, in this land of liberty, this Christian land.
  Where is all the Christian sentiment behind this? Where is this "love one another as I have loved you"? Is there any love there? Yet we are told we are not to have any sentiment. Is there any father here, I wonder? I am a father, and I have never whipped any of my boys, and they will compare favourably with the best in Britain- But I know that if I had been whipped when I was a boy I would have resented it. I know how it would have sunk into my being, and how. I would have hated it, hated the system that degraded me in that fashion. The less a boy feels he is being degraded the better. It is not merely a question of physical punishment. I could always stand any amount of physical punishment and can stand it yet. But I know that working-class boys have keener feelings than simply physical feelings; something deeper, something nobler inside them than that which would be indicated by simply resenting strokes of a birch-rod on their backs. It is the idea in the matter that counts. The Lords realise quite well to-day that they cannot crush -the working classes as they used to be able to do in bygone days. This Amend-
  2080
  ment is evidence of that. They would like now to be able to whip the offending members of the working class who dares to assert his right as a man, because the lord considers himself a superior person, although I have never met that superior person yet.
  What do we find with those who have taken pains about this business? What does Sir William Clarke Hall say? He found that in 1915 and 1916, at Old Street, 99 boys were birched and that 35 who had been birched were re-charged later. This percentage of convictions was higher than for any other method of treatment. Then let us turn to the report of the Board of Education on the juvenile courts in four towns, which shows that 25 per cent. of the boys birched were re-charged within a month. On 21st January last the Recorder of Leeds, after having heard a joint charge against three boys and some adults, sentenced the three boys to a birching. On 12th February the same three boys were charged again with another similar offence committed after the previous sentence. Probation officers are practically unanimous in condemning birching. They find that it renders their task more difficult. Many of the worst boys for whom whipping is often advocated have been thrashed again and again by parents, and they regard a court whipping as a joke. It is a most unequal punishment. It means nothing to some boys, but it is a torture and a humiliation to others. Dr. Cyril Burt—you should read his book—while admitting that there may be a few cases and a few offences for which corporal punishment may prove a useful deterrent—he refers to cases of cruelty and wanton destructiveness of the kind quoted by Lord Atkin in his speech of 9th June—says:
  "The infliction of pain is a negative and desperate form of discipline to be applied only as a last and exceptional resort. Once the boy has been flogged the psychologist finds it is hard for him to regain his confidence, and reawaken his self-respect. When all is said, in 99 cases out of 100 corporal punishment, however inflicted, is likely to make the recipient not more amenable to discipline but more defiant. Courts have no means of knowing beforehand whether the boy is one of the 99 on whom it will have disastrous affects, and now that the punishment is almost abandoned the courts which still exercise the powers of birching are the very courts which make little inquiry or discrimination."

  2081
  If this matter comes to a division I hope that Members before they Vote for birching will have due regard to those authorities which I have quoted. In this Bill we have got an extension of one year, from seven to eight, as the age before which a child cannot be brought before the court. We have also got concessions as far as habitual criminals are concerned. We have not got all we should have liked, and for myself I wanted to see it improved still further. But there was one outstanding matter which I thought we were going to eliminate entirely, and that was the birching of working-class boys. Others have taken exceptions to my stating that, but it is the working-class boys who are to be birched by the policeman, and I would ask the House just to have in their mind's eye the poor chance these boys have had. The Under-Secretary of State has made provisions whereby those boys will be treated to-day in a more intelligent and humane fashion. You have to remember in speaking of bad boys, that time and time again in this country the bad boy has become a great man, and you have to be careful that you do not make a mistake. All the evidence I have been able to get is against whipping and in favour of treating the boy in a more humane manner. The Under-Secretary in this matter can depend upon me supporting him against the House of Lords.
  Mr. LAWSON: I wish to add my congratulations to those which have come from various parts of the House to the Under-Secretary on the decision that the Government should disagree with this Amendment. As one who heard his speech on the Second Reading I thought his analysis of the various types of cases dealt with, and his arguments against whipping, were so cogent and expressed so well the sense of this House, that after this Bill left us I thought we would hear no more about whipping in these circumstances. I think the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) altogether missed the point of the Under-Secretary, for both in his Second Reading speech and to-night he made a very definite distinction between a father punishing his child or the master punishing a child and a child being whipped by a policeman under order of a court. Of course there are all kinds of opinions about punishment in general. I come of a fairly sound stock and I knew what
  2082
  discipline was, and I even got all I deserved and some more. I remember being what my parents called "walloped," and it was the best part of my education. But this is the case of boys being whipped by a constable by order of a court, and it is in a different category altogether. I do not think that the views expressed by the hon. Member for Windsor or by others have met that position, and it seems to me it has not been met in the other House.
  7.0 p.m.
  What is the real position? The court can order whipping for a first offence, and for almost any type of offence. I ask the House to bear in mind that the case mentioned in the other House was that of boys who had mutilated some sheep and that for an offence of that kind it was said that these boys should be sentenced to six strokes of the rod. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman quite rightly said that that type of offence is not one for whipping at all. I have in mind a case in which three boys, one ten years of age and two 11 years of age, of proved and unchallenged good character were, for a first offence, sent by a juvenile court to receive six strokes of the birch from a constable. The Noble Lords used this case of sheep mutilation in support of their position and to justify whipping. The magistrate in another part of the country for a. first offence sentenced boys who had stolen some essence of ginger beer to be birched. I ask the House to note the fact that although public opinion expressed itself there was no means of making a real protest against it. The whole of the north of England was against the sentence, and newspapers of all political colours protested against it. It could not be raised here, and once the sentence was carried out there was no means of making a real protest against it; and yet these boys have it against them that they have been whipped in a cell by a constable.
  I submit it is time we ended that kind of punishment and took that power away from the magistrates. It is quite true that magistrates do not sentence juveniles to be birched very often, but there is distinct proof, in the particular case I have mentioned, that sometimes it can be used very unwisely. I therefore think the Government are to be congratulated

  2083
  on standing against the continuance of this power in the hands of the magistrates. It is not a test of discipline or a question of namby-pamby treatment; it is a test of common sense. As one who does not undervalue discipline I should say in this case that members of the other House are half a century too late and too old to give adequate consideration to this problem.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDER-SON: I am very glad that the Undersecretary has asked the House to disagree with this particular Amendment, because I am certain that the sentence of whipping by juvenile courts is neither a punishment nor a deterrent. Unlike the hon. and learned Member who sits on my right, I am not acquainted with the everyday administration of justice, but I have had a good deal to do with the work both of the Home Office schools and Borstal institutions, and the one difficulty which faces both institutions is that they do not receive lads for training as soon as they ought to. Courts of summary jurisdiction are continually giving sentences either of whipping or putting lads on probation, so that when they eventually come for training they are very often past training. If anything can be done to take away a power like this from the juvenile courts, I am perfectly certain it would be a good thing and it might encourage the courts to send lads for proper training earlier than they would otherwise do.
  Mr. RAIKES: Unlike the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), I have in my time enjoyed the pleasure of being whipped. I cannot say that whipping did me any harm, and indeed it probably did me good. I think the hon. Member is a little bit unfair on the Lords in the observations he has made, because after all almost all of them in their own time have been whipped, and if they prescribe the remedy which they enjoyed themselves they are at least consistent. I agree with the hon. Member that a constable did not whip them, but they were whipped by somebody who whipped considerably harder than the constable. My only reason for rising is that I feel there are two kinds of cases for which whipping still is or may be a deterrent. I quite agree that it is far
  2084
  better, as far as possible, to allow parents to deal with their children and to whip them if necessary, but you get the case of a spoilt boy whose parents will not do anything to keep him in order. He may not be a vicious or bad boy, but he gets into trouble and a "hiding" at home early on might very well put him right. You do not want to take him away and send him to an industrial school, and he is just the type that should be whipped before he develops worse tendencies. You have cases of cruelty, and there I differ with the Under-Secretary, because I believe that where you have got in a young boy a vicious tendency towards cruelty to animals in some cases much the best way to stop him is to make him feel it through his own hide. Our courts are on the whole intelligent courts and are not anxious to whip children. They are careful and they do it very little. Surely they might be allowed to have just this little bit of power of using their own discretion to deal with exceptional cases by means of exceptional measures?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The remarks which fell a short while ago from the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) prompt me to detain the House for a few minutes before it comes to a decision. If I understood his argument aright it was that magistrates now possessed in the power of whipping a very valuable weapon to hold in reserve and to exercise only sparingly. That struck me as a specious, attractive and somewhat plausible argument, but it seems to me that there is far greater danger in that power than benefit, because it has the result of inducing magistrates to inflict less effective penalties, such as whipping is, when they ought to use other penalties. As has been pointed out, cases which should come to approved schools or Borstal institutions, are in fact dealt with by the penalty of whipping, which is easy and prompt, but are not thereby so effectively dealt with. They are cases in which the wrong remedy is used. I am in disagreement with the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville), though I know he has had certain disciplinary experience in this matter, but I am not quite sure whether his scholastic duties ever empowered him to inflict penalties.

  2085
  Perhaps I may quote what Dr. Johnson said about 150 years ago:
  "Sir, There is now less flogging in our great schools than formerly, but less is learned. What the boys no longer get at one end they lose at the other."
  That leads me to my final point. In discussing this, is it not a fact that those who advocate the retention of this penalty mix up and confuse the infliction of whipping by parents and school-masters with whipping by the courts? It seems to me that the two are entirely distinct, and if they are not separated in our minds we shall certainly come to a confusion of thought. I hope the House will keep these two things in distinct categories, so that we do not confuse what may be salutary as a correction in the case of a parent or schoolmaster with the infliction of a similar penalty by a constable on the direction of a court of law.
  Mrs. WARD: The Under-Secretary has asked the House to reject this Amendment, not because so much whipping in itself is wrong. I do not agree with those who brag that they have never been whipped or that whipping should not be allowed. I believe a good sound whipping occasionally does every child good, and that we ought not to be too namby-pamby about this idea of whipping. We can be rather too lenient with a naughty child and I think whipping occasionally a very good thing. The hon. Member for South East Essex (Mr. Raikes) said he enjoyed his whipping and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirk-wood) said he had never had a whipping. It is obvious that neither of these hon. Members was of the type that needed whipping. One enjoyed it and the other never had it. There has been a great deal of talk about whipping for the right type of child, but the weakness I see in giving powers to magistrates to inflict whipping is that there is no definition of what is the right type of child.
  As a mother I am of opinion that no one is capable of deciding whether whipping is going to do a child good except those who live with it and know its temperament. After all, punishment ought to do two things. It should prevent a child from repeating the naughty thing it had already done, and at the same time it should not spoil the child in its future life.
  2086
  One holds a very responsible position in inflicting punishment on any young person. The great thing is to see to it that nothing which you do will prevent that child from growing into a useful citizen. There has been a great deal of talk by the hon. Member for Dumbarton about bad boys but I believe that no amount of whipping will cure bad boys. Bad boys are born bad and I do not think that you can cure them. Therefore I agree with the Under-Secretary when he says that whipping can do no good to boys who are cruel to sheep, for instance, and that they ought to be sent to some institution. There is a great deal of difference between badness and mischief and many children commit crimes not from any sense of evil but from a sense of adventure. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary has asked the House to resist the Lords Amendment because I believe that to give the power of whipping to a public body who have no real understanding of the child's temperament is not only barbaric but very brutal.
  Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I wish to congratulate the Under-Secretary to the Home Office on resisting the Amendment from another place. It is difficult to comprehend how intelligent men and women can think that flogging will do any good, even to those who are designated "bad boys." The problem is entirely one of psychology and flogging is an easy method of dealing with it. It is the method which disposes of the matter somehow, within a few moments, instead of facing the causes which produce characteristics in the boy or, for that matter, in the girl, which are unsocial or antisocial. If we had better recreational facilities, particularly in our large cities, boys and girls could be kept off the streets. We have, of course, approved schools but we ought to have schools under the charge of eminent psychologists. The name of Mr. Cyril Burt has been mentioned and I should like every Member of the House to read his work, "The Young Delinquent." It is the work of one who is, perhaps, the most eminent practical psychologist in Britain and if hon. Members studied it, I think those who are in favour of the Lords Amendment would take a different point of view. Biology has not been taught in our schools and in connection with that subject there are many sub-sciences that

  2087
  ought to be explained to and understood by our young people. Atavism is a fact and the line of demarcation between the genius and the idiot is so thin that it is a problem for the psychologist. To support flogging is just doing a lazy man's job. It needs no thought. A brute can do it and somehow, sometimes, in certain circumstances, much of the brute comes to the surface even in those who may be termed refined people.
  It is certainly not manly or womanly to beat a child. I speak as a father and I have never had occasion to hurt my children. They have been given freedom to move as grown-ups. They have been treated by my wife and by me as if they were intelligent people living in an intellectual world, where they can participate in discussions which are suitable to them. I believe that by listening to what we have to say, when we are talking of sensible things, it is possible for children to arrive at an understanding of the meaning of responsibility and proper conduct. I trust that the House will accept what the Under-Secretary has said, not only to-day but in his really brilliant speech on the Second Reading. He has met very fully all that has been said about the different types of children. I hope that magistrates will not at any time have these floggings, and I trust that in the future, perhaps in amending Measures on this subject, we shall be able to discuss other courses, other types of schools, other methods of dealing with the delinquent child. Meanwhile, poverty has much to do with the problem. Bad environment has much to do with it. Much of what we are is the result of environment, and, if we can produce the environment which will tend to a higher standard of culture, if we can permit the child to have better recreational facilities and teach it to do things upon right lines, I am inclined to believe that we shall have fewer and fewer bad boys and bad girls.
  Mr. HALES: I have been wondering, Mr. Speaker, if you have in your possession a Book of Holy Writ in which I could find a quotation about sparing the rod and spoiling the child. I think it was Solomon who uttered those words and I ask has humanity altered very much since those words were spoken? The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Mrs. Ward) said it was difficult to find the type
  2088
  of child who deserved flogging. My father discovered it half a century ago. He found that I was of the type which required flogging and he proved conclusively that the flogging was necessary—and see what a success has resulted from the procedure. In my early days, whatever mischief happened in our house, I was always accused of it, and morning after morning I was turned over and had that administered to me which I often did not deserve. I well remember my tenth birthday. I used to keep on sleeping or pretending to sleep as long as possible every morning, because I knew that directly I got up I was to be thrashed. On that particular morning they woke me up and to my unutterable relief I found that it was for the purpose of giving me a birthday present.
  It has been said by some members of the medical profession that wickedness is not a subject for chastisement but for mental treatment, and it is suggested that by some mental operation, by removing something from the brain, it is possible to turn even a man like myself into a respectable member of society. There may be a great deal in that theory, and I have no doubt that further research will enable us to see more clearly how to deal with malefactors and children of the unruly age or children of any age who appear to need correction. The parent and the child look at this matter from very different points of view. They see it in a totally different perspective. With my own offspring I have tried both ways. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams) said that he never had occasion to chastise his children. I am afraid that I cannot hold myself up to his level. I am afraid that I have found it necessary to do so, to my own great discomfort, though when my own father told me, "This hurts me more than you," I never believed him.
  On one occasion, however, I thought I would try other measures of correction. In the case of a boy aged about nine, who was in the habit of helping himself out of the sugar basin in the absence of his mother, I warned him three or four times that if he did it again I would give him mustard to eat. He did it again and then I put some mustard on a piece of ham and made him eat it. To my great surprise he asked for more. I did not know how to deal with him after that. When a boy develops a liking for

  2089
  mustard it is difficult to know what to do with him. But I think it would be a hardship on this generation if they were denied the privilege of thrashing their children just as they were thrashed by their parents. I think we have a right to retain that privilege. No matter how civilisation progresses we must apply the rod or we shall certainly spoil the child, and it will be many generations before we can dispense with that method of correction.
  At a further stage in life it is only the fear of personal punishment that deters certain types of men from ill deeds. Take the garrotting cases in Manchester in the old days. The cat-o'-nine-tails was the one measure which stamped out that nefarious practice, and in these days of "smash-and-grab" raids and attacks upon defenceless women and children, which are becoming such a menace, I would put up both hands for the reintroduction of the cat-o'-nine-tails for the punishment of men convicted of offences of that description. As I have said, it is doubtful which method is best adapted to the child, but there is one point to which I would like to refer. Up to the present we have spoken only of boys as if this problem did not concern girls at all. There are many girls worse than boys and although there are some honourable ladies present, I would say that I have heard of girls riding on donkeys and sticking pins in the donkeys in order to see what the effect would be. I think that is a wicked business and I think that sometimes a good slapping for a girl under the age of 12 will certainly do her good and may help to make her into a good wife and mother in the future.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. JANNER: I do not know whether I should have risen but for the fact that while I was listening to the remarks of the hon. Member who has just sat down, I wondered whether he himself might be a magistrate either to-day or at some future date, and if he and people who hold similar views to his became magistrates, with jurisdiction in the juvenile courts, I wondered what would be the fate of a child who was brought before them for correction. It is because of the fact that human ideas with regard to questions of correction differ so widely that it is not safe to put in the hands of any set of magistrates, no matter what other abilities they may have, discretion
  2090
  in this matter. I do not say that my hon. Friend opposite is vicious in his views, but merely that he holds the wrong view on this matter, and I think the major portion of the House will have been similarly influenced by the speeches of those who are opposed to the Motion moved by the Under-Secretary of State.
  Two things should be very carefully considered in dealing with this question, and the first is that whipping is not so much a question of pain. Hon. Members have been bringing forward illustrations of the flogging of vicious criminals, but we are not dealing here with the question of flogging in the sense that it creates an impression of such extreme pain that that person will not do the same thing again. We are dealing here with whipping a child, and that whipping is forgotten, the physical pain is forgotten, as some of those hon. Members who have spoken have forgotten their various whippings, but the danger lies in the very important effect that the whipping may have on the mentality of the child. The danger lies in the fact that when a child is whipped by an officer of a court—and, after all, the intention of the Bill is to deal with the psychological effect upon the child—it may mean that that will remain in his memory till the very last day of his life, and if it does, it would be of such an injurious nature in the case of some children that it would bring continual mental torture in its wake. In many instances it would not only not have the effect of bringing the child into better ways, but it might make that child feel that, after all, it was not worth while to reform, as the worst that could happen had happened to him; and he would continue in his old ways.
  Mr. HALES: What about Solomon?
  Mr. JANNER: I am in a position to disagree with Solomon, because I am almost in the direct line of descent, but I do not disagree with Solomon to this extent. I have no recollection that at the time of King Solomon juvenile courts had been instituted, nor indeed that this method of birching had been suggested for dealing with children as it is suggested here. To be perfectly serious, however, you have to face this important issue: Is it not better even, to put it at the very worst possible, that 12 children who deserve whipping should escape that penalty than that one child's life should

  2091
  be ruined by the fact that it was wrongly whipped? In these circumstances, I say that the Committee should accept the opinion that has been put forward by the Under-Secretary of State in all its fullness, definitely and finally.
  It is not that the Lords have intended to exercise, as one hon. Member would have us believe, a great and mighty power over the child of the working class. I am not convinced that the child of the working class is meant, when juvenile courts are being considered, any more than the child of any other class. I do not believe that the child of the working class is any more vicious and comes any more frequently, proportionately speaking, before the juvenile courts than the child of any other class. It is nonsense and monstrous to introduce these things into this question. The child as a whole is being considered, and indeed, if it is a question of inflicting pain, the child who had been more used to buffeting and knocking about would not feel the pain so much if that pain were inflicted as the child who had not been so brought up, but it is the mentality of the child, whatever its class, that we are concerned with; and I hope that those who have opposed the Motion of the Under-Secretary of State will not press their opposition to a division, but will accept the view which is obviously paramount here and will realise that the intention of the Under-Secretary of State is an exceedingly good one and should be supported as fully as possible.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I came hurrying down from the Committee Room upstairs in order to support the Government in carrying this Amendment from the Lords, but I was amazed to find that the National Government proposed to ask the House to reject the Lords Amendment. I could not believe that a National Government could reject such a sensible Amendment. I could not imagine that so virile a thing as a National Government, representing Great Britain, the most virile of nationalities could say that a properly constituted court should be forbidden any discretion to give six smacks with the birch to a very naughty boy. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] Somebody says "Nonsense," but it is nonsense for him to say so. [Interruption.] I am sure the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), who
  2092
  interrupts, would give any naughty boy a smack in a minute, because he is or the same robust constitution as I am myself.
  We have heard of the unfair privilege of the rich and the well-to-do, but there is not a person who has ever been to any of the richer seminaries of this country who has not been thoroughly well birched, and I think I heard the Under-Secretary of State himself, on a former occasion, say that he had derived great benefit from having been whipped. He did not say so himself, but we believe that he would not be the very excellent fellow that he is if he had not been well birched. I greatly object to the idea of class distinction of any kind, but if you could say that there is one class of the community which is perhaps better than any other class, less snobbish and a better style of person, I would pick out the naval officer. I have always been told, when I have asked people connected with the Navy why the naval officer as a class was so efficient, so unassuming, non snobbish, and so acceptable to all classes of society, that the reason was that practically every day of his life as a midshipman he had been well birched. There you are, and why should you withdraw this discretionary power from a court? I think that as a rule magistrates are reasonable people, and if they were trying to exceed their jurisdiction, I have no doubt that some court of appeal could put them right.
  Mr. JANNER: I do not know how my hon. Friend proposes that a court of appeal should be able to withdraw the whippings that had been given to a boy already.
  Sir W. DAVISON: If a court of magistrates was in the habit of ordering whipping unjustly, I feel sure that the attention of some appeal court or the Home Office would be drawn to it, so that that a miscarriage of justice would be stopped; and I think that interruption was not very material. My recollection goes back to a month or two ago, when there was a most deplorable case of boys killing sheep and calves by beating them with iron bars—a most horrible case of brutality—and we know that there are cases of brutality of that kind. Do you mean to tell me that boys who do such an act as that should not be whipped? I am glad to say it is not common, though, mind you, young boys of all classes are perhaps the cruelest thing in creation. [An HON.

  2093
  MEMBER: "And girls."] We are not concerned with girls on this Amendment, and if we were, we should have to call in our lady Members to deal with the matter. We are only concerned now with the male sex, and many boys, as we know, are very cruel.
  Most of the magistrates are very much like ourselves, and can be trusted to exercise their jurisdiction fairly, and it is monstrous to say that boys like that should not have up to six strokes with the birch-rod. We have recently seen in the papers how certain boys from Eton got very excited at a cricket match at Winchester, and did certain damage to a railway carriage on their way back to Eton, breaking windows and so on. There has been no talk of any injustice, and every one of those boys has been soundly birched, and has received a good many more than six strokes with the birch. There is no outcry throughout the country about this terrible abuse of authority. [Interruption.] I do not care who administers the birch, and I venture to say that anyone who has seen the birch administered in a public school will say that it is much more thoroughly done by a headmaster than by most other people.
  Do let us get back to the facts of the case. Where you have a cruel boy, it is not only kinder, but better, that he should receive not more, according to the Lords Amendment, than six strokes with the birch-rod, and I say that it is a reflection on the magistrates of this country if you cannot trust them to give a sentence of up to six strokes with the birch-rod to a boy who has been cruel and has been guilty of acts such as smashing animals' heads with an iron bar. This House, I am afraid, has become so namby-pamby that the public will feel it is not fit any longer to govern the country, and if anyone will go with me, I shall go into the Lobby in support of this very sensible proposal of the House of Lords.
  Mr. TINKER: I want to speak in opposition to the last speaker, for several reasons. First of all, he said he Was amazed that we had attempted to alter the Lords decision, but when the Bill went up to the Lords it included the Clause to stop any birching at all, and the Lords have overruled the Commons in this matter. If only on that ground, I should be strongly opposed to anything that the Lords recommended to this House.
  Sir W. DAVISON: I am not so touchy as that.
  Mr. TINKER: Probably not, because generally the Lords are of the hon. Member's way of thinking, but whatever the Lords do, I always think it is against the policy that we on these benches advocate. Secondly, I think that as we advance in civilisation, the kind of thing that might have been appropriate and fitting in times gone by is no longer required, and a child can be far better dealt with nowadays without the use of force. Any child who has been to school knows very well that the administration of the cane or the birch leaves a very bad impression on the mind, and a teacher does far more good with a child at school by persuasion than by using the cane. In this case also far more good would be done by eliminating altogether the use of the birch. I am pleased that I am able to go with the National Government on this Amendment. When I read the Debate in the Lords when they decided to insert this Amendment, I wondered whether the Government would be firm and stand against it. I am glad that the Under-Secretary has done this and that he is so progressive as to stand by what the Commons have already decided.
  Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I am surprised at the line of argument of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. He supports the Government because another place has reversed our decision. I hope the hon. Member will keep that in mind when we are dealing with later Amendments. I regret the decision of the Government because in some cases benches will be forced because of the circumstances to inflict punishment of another kind. If we withdraw from the court the power of inflicting in appropriate cases some form of physical punishment, the alternative is that some of the young people will be sent to some place of detention. The worst thing that can be done is to send anybody to gaol or a place of detention for the first time.
  Mr. STANLEY: We are talking about children under 14, who cannot be sent to gaol or to any equivalent.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: They can be sent to a place of detention where they are brought under a system of control where they lose their freedom. Give it any fancy name you like.
  Mr. STANLEY: When I was at a public school, and for three terms a year lost my liberty, would the hon. Member say that I was in gaol?
  Mr. WILLIAMS: The deprivation of liberty in school is not the same as deprivation of liberty in a place where people are put because they have offended against the community and are subject to a degree of restraint which is not true of the ordinary school. We hear this vague sentimentality about punishment of the body, and yet people are willing to inflict a much more dreadful punishment to the mind. This is a misguided form of sentimentality, and probably if we decide to-day to disagree with this Amendment many people will become criminals who would have been saved if there had been a little bit of appropriate punishment at the right moment.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 14, line 11, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 21.—(Principles to be observed by courts in dealing with children and young persons.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 7, at the end, insert:

  NEW CLAUSE A.—("Conviction" and "sentence" not to be used in relation to juveniles dealt with summarily.)
  The words "conviction" and "sentence" shall cease to be used in relation to children and young persons dealt with summarily and any reference in any enactment to a person convicted, a conviction or a sentence shall, in the case of a child or young person, be construed as including a reference to a person found guilty of an offence, a finding of guilt or an order made upon such a finding, as the case may be:
  Provided that for the purposes of paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section ten of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914 (which relates to the power to send youthful delinquents to Borstal Institutions) a finding that a person is guilty of an offence shall not have the effect of a conviction if he is dealt with for that offence under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907.
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Hon. Members who were on the Committee on the Bill will remember that we
  2096
  discussed at some length the question of convictions in juvenile courts. It was a matter with which I had a considerable amount to do when I was engaged in the preparation of the Bill. Representations were made to me from a good many quarters connected with work of this kind that convictions should disappear. I had a prejudice, which may be an old-fashioned one, against putting into a Bill something which does not mean anything. The Clause with which we are now asked to agree, and which was a Clause I was originally ask to put in the Bill, means absolutely nothing. I had made the offer, if it were felt, as it was in some quarters, that these words are perhaps too reminiscent of the ordinary criminal courts, and that merely for the conduct of proceedings some other words should be substituted for them, to see that in the regulations that are to be issued in connection with this Bill that point should be dealt with. I refused at the time to put into a Bill for which I was responsible words which meant nothing and had no executive effect, but which might have the danger of inducing courts, which are loath to believe that Parliament passes meaningless Clauses, to find some meaning in them.
  Hon. Members will find that in this Clause, which has been introduced in the other place, every care has been taken to ensure that it shall mean nothing, and the language in the latter part of the Clause makes it certain that, although these words are never to be used again, the words to be used instead of them shall have exactly the same meaning in reference to any Act of Parliament which has ever been passed. I do not mind now. The responsibility for introducing meaningless words in an Act of Parliament is not mine any longer. It comes from another place, where prejudice against verbiage is not as great as it is here. As such care has been taken to make certain that it means nothing and therefore can do no harm to anybody, and under a quite pathetic idea that it will please a number of people who think that it does mean something, I advise the House to agree with the Lords in this Amendment.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am glad that I am able to agree with the other place on this issue. Boys who have been sentenced and convicted in their child-

  2097
  hood for trivial offences often find later on that they cannot secure admission into the Dominions or foreign countries, and I am informed that these convictions and sentences have prevented boys later on in life joining either the Navy or the Air Force, although, strangely enough, they can join the Army. I believe that there is much more in this new Clause than the Under-Secretary thinks, and for once in my life I think that their Lordships are a little more advanced than the Commons. This new Clause is very much on the lines that we ourselves moved in Committee upstairs.
  Mr. STANLEY: The Clause which the hon. Member moved in Committee would have meant something, although it was something bad.
  Mr. DAVIES: I am evidently more intelligent than the people in the other place. We have more in this new Clause than the hon. Gentleman believes, and I am glad that he is accepting it.
  Mr. LOGAN: I am glad to be able to find myself in agreement with the suggestion of the Lords. I was personally interested in this particular proposal, and I was fully convinced that the safeguards which the Under-Secretary promised would cover the point I raised, but this new Clause covers what I wanted and removes an injustice.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 19, line 8, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 27.—(Contents of approved school orders.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 19, at the end, insert:
  "Provided that in the case of a child or young person not resident in England, the order stall, instead of naming a local authority state that he was resident outside England."
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move,, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  8.0 p.m.
  This is the first of a number of Amendments which are scattered over the Paper to deal with the situation of a Scottish boy resident in Scotland who crosses the Boarder, commits an offence, is brought before an English Court, and is con-
  2098
  sidered suitable to be sent to an approved school. The difficulty at the moment is that Scotland will have a Bill of its own, and it will be impossible to apply this Bill to that country. When an errant Scottish boy crosses the Border he should be sent back to be put into an approved school. Although Scotsmen when they cross the Border seem reluctant to return to their native land, I feel sure that no Scotsman would like a Scottish boy to be left in an English approved school although it may mean something on the local rates when the boy is returned to his native country.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 28, line 11, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 34.—(Contributions by local authorities in respect of persons sent to approved schools.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 28, leave out lines 12 to 15, and insert:
  "Notice of any appeal under this Subsection shall be given to the other local authority concerned, if any, and to the clerk of the court, and the clerk of the court shall give to the parties to the appeal fourteen days' notice of the date fixed by the court for the hearing thereof."
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is only an Amendment of procedure, which will lead to simplification. It will give the clerk of the court power to notify the parties concerned, and may in certain circumstances save time and expense.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 28, line 34, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 37.—(Provision of remand homes by councils of counties and county boroughs.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 26, after the word "homes," insert:
  "Provided that where a place or places of detention have been provided under the principal Act which are suitable for use as remand homes and so long as such place or places are adequately maintained they shall be deemed to be remand homes and there shall be no obligation on any council to provide further or additional accommodation in pursuance of this Section."
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  I think the whole conception on which this Amendment was moved was erroneous, and certainly the Amendment itself is framed in such a way as to show that the real position as regards places of detention and remand homes was not appreciated. There has been up to now an obligation upon the police authorities to provide and maintain places of detention under this Bill and now a similar obligation is placed upon local authorities to provide remand homes. The fear in the other place is that in some way or other this is going to cause more expense. It does nothing of the kind. A remand home and a place of detention are for exactly the same purpose though called by different names. They are going to be maintained by different authorities, but the standard of efficiency which the Home Office requires of a place of detention is no less and no greater than the standard which the Statute and the Home Office will require of remand homes. In any case the fears of another place were quite unnecessary, and any Amendment was really unnecessary, but the particular Amendment which they have made, and with which I am asking this House to disagree, is in any case impossible, because it presupposes that every place which up to now has been used as a place of detention will, when this Measure comes into operation, be available to be used as a remand home. That overlooks the fact that up to now places of detention have been the responsibility of the police authorities.
  Remand homes will be the responsibility of the local authorities, and it may well be that the police authorities may not be willing to transfer places now used as places of detention to the local authorities, because they may have some alternative use for it. Whether or not that is ever likely to happen in practice I do not know, but the local authority, the county council, for instance, will have no authority to demand that the place hitherto under the control of the police authority shall be transferred to them. That is why it is impossible to accept this Amendment, because hon. Members will see that if it were possible to say that a certain building which the police autority have hitherto maintained as a
  2100
  place of detention, but which they refuse to transfer to the local authority, is still kept in being for some quite different purpose, it could still be deemed to be a remand home, and no further provision would have to be made for a remand home in that district. For these two reasons, first, that I think the fears expressed in another place were quite groundless, because no new obligation is put on local authorities as a whole, the obligation only being transferred from one authority to another, and because the particular Amendment is in form quite impracticable I ask the House to disagree with it.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 31, line 43, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 43.—(Provision of approved schools by local authorities.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 21, at the end, insert:
  "Provided that, before giving Ms approval, the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that the proposed expenditure is reasonable and, where it is proposed to purchase, build or establish a new school, that there is a deficiency of approved school accommodation which cannot properly be remedied in any other way."
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  I think I ought to offer a word of explanation on this Amendment, although I am asking this House to agree with it. Under the old Act, which is renewed in this Bill, the obligation of providing approved school accommodation or, as it used to be called, industrial and reformatory school accommodation, is imposed on the local authorities. Now, for the first time, although this obligation has been in existence for many years, it was thought necessary to put in a provision that before an approved school is built the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that it is wanted and that there is not an empty approved school next door which would suit just as well. That might give rise to the idea that it has been the practice to build approved schools that were not wanted and for the Home Office to encourage local autho-

  2101
  rities in. so doing. Of course, there never has been any question that that was so. The obligation which is on local authorities at the moment is only to provide accommodation where it is needed.
  We should never attempt to urge local authorities to build accommodation if it were not needed, and, as hon. Members know, the whole tendency in past years has been not to build more schools, but to close existing ones. Still, in the other place it was felt that in dealing with matters of this kind one cannot be too cautious, and that a time might come when a local authority, in what would seem to be a fit of mania, would want to build an approved school which nobody required, and that a Home Secretary, catching the disease, would apparently encourage them to do so. I have no hesitation in accepting the words of the Amendment, which only carry out what has been the practice of the Home Office for many years, but I should not like the House to think that it was another place which suggested to us for the first time that when before we consent to approved school accommodation being provided, we ought first to find out whether it is wanted.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I should very much object to the acceptance of this Amendment if I thought the words meant anything. Any Member of this House who might sit in the Home Office at any future time and had to decide whether or not a new school were required in a certain place could drive a carriage and pair through the whole of this new Clause. It states that the Secretary of State, before giving his approval, is to satisfy himself that the proposed expenditure is reasonable. One Secretary of State would regard the expenditure of £2,000 as reasonable, and another Secretary of State might regard £5,000 as reasonable for exactly the same object. This Amendment seems to be more of a hint to the Government to economise than a piece of legislation. I am rather astonished that their Lordships should take the trouble to draft it, because it is more in the nature of a letter than a legal enactment.

  CLAUSE 44.—(Power to send, children and young persons from Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and Channel Islands to approved schools in Great Britain.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 28, after the second word "in" insert "Scotland or."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Stanley.]
  Mr. KIRKW00D: Perhaps the Undersecretary of State for Scotland will tell us what is meant by inserting this reference to Scotland.
  Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps I ought to reply to that question. This is a consequential Amendment, which will enable us to transfer to Scotland Scots boys who have been sent to approved schools in England, a course with which the hon. Member will, I am sure, agree.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 34, line 41, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 47.—(Control over homes.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 37, line 2, after the word "State" insert:
  "cause a summons to be served upon the person in charge of the institution, and upon such other persons as the court may direct, and upon the hearing of the summons may, if they think fit."
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This deals with the procedure in the case of voluntary homes. Where it is necessary to bring the board of management before the court, we felt that it would be sufficient if the manager, and as many other persons as the court might direct, should be seen, and not, as at the moment, to serve a series of summonses upon every single person who happens to be on the management board. It will be open to the court subsequently at any time, if they want to bring the other managers of the school before them, to do so.

  CLAUSE 48.—(Restrictions on employment of children.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 37, line 42, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 2, in page 38.
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Clause 48 of the Bill, which deals with employment, lays it down as a specific rule that no child under the age of 12 years shall be employed. It then continues with a proviso that by-laws made under the next succeeding Clause may authorise the employment of children under the age of 12 years by their parents or guardians. It is that proviso which has been cut out by the Amendment that we are now discussing. I propose to restore the proviso to the Bill, with the addition of the words, "in light agricultural or horticultural work." It has been thought wise in another place to remove the permission for the employment of children by parents or guardians altogether. This Amendment would restore it, with the limitation that it is to be employment only in light agricultural or horticultural work.
  I think there was misconception, in some minds at any rate, when this matter was being discussed in another place, as it was clearly considered that the Bill gave power to parents to authorise their children to be employed by somebody else, as, of course, has never been the case. The effect of accepting the Lords Amendment and of cutting out altogether employment of children under 12 by their parents, would stop what I believe is a thing which nobody desires, to stop, and that is fruit picking, hop picking and the ordinary light work around the farm. If a father and mother are going out vegetable picking in the season, they might just as well take their children under 12. No one could possibly object that it is work of a character which is injurious to them. Probably it is very healthy. No one, for instance, could suggest that, during the holidays, children who live on a farm should not be employed in light agricultural work about that farm. We have sanctioned a number of by-laws authorising the employment of children under 12 by their parents. There are very few areas, and, except in two or three cases, they are confined to employment in these light agricultural or horticultural occupations.
  The effect of the House accepting my proposal would be that, in a few areas, where by-laws have been passed allowing employment in other occupations—in some cases in shops and in other cases in dairy
  2104
  or newspaper work—those by-laws will, of course be ultra vires, when this Bill passes. With that limitation, and leaving employment in the garden or the field free, although under by-laws authorising that and sanctioned by the Secretary of State, I hope that the House will accept the Amendment which I have moved.
  Mr. RHYS DAV1ES: This is the first point which we have reached in our deliberations to-day upon which I am afraid that I shall have to agree with the Lords and to disagree profoundly with the present Government. I am not quite clear whether I sum up the situation rightly. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to inform and help me to understand the position. I believe that if the decision of the other place to remove these words from the Bill were adopted, it would mean in effect that no child under 12 in this country could be employed, even by its parents or guardians. Let us make clear the point that we have made several times in discussion on this Bill, namely, that employment within the meaning of this Bill is employment for profit. That is understood. I am sure I am right there. The definition of employment, I have always understood, meant employment for profit or gain, because nobody is going to argue that any piece of legislation at any time can prevent parents sending a child of seven years of age to fetch something from a shop. Consequently, employment within the meaning of this Bill is employment in a place that is owned by the parents or guardians run for profit. If I am right, therefore, in assuming that that is so, their Lordships are very much in advance of this Government, because it would mean—
  Mr. STANLEY: I am sorry to have to interrupt. If the hon. Member looks at Clause 58, in the definitions he will see that, for the purpose of this part of the Bill, a person who assists in a trade or occupation carried on for profit, shall be deemed to be employed, notwithstanding that he receives no reward for his labour. In other words, if a child goes out into its parent's garden and picks peas that are going to be sold, although he gets nothing for his labour that child is employed within the meaning of the Bill.
  Mr. DAVIES: I meant the same thing. What I meant was that when a parent

  2105
  or guardian employs a child, even though the child receives no wages, provided that the business of the parent or guardian is carried on for profit then the child is employed. I think that is the definition that is in the Bill. Let us see exactly what is likely to happen. The other place has declared in effect that it stands for this principle: That no child under 12 years of age, in this country, after the passing of this Measure, shall be employed within the meaning of the word "employment" by anybody, even by its parents or guardians. I think that that is a magnificent step forward in connection with the employment of children. The hon. Gentleman comes down and says that, whilst he disagrees entirely with their Lordships, he is going to soften the blow by a compromise. He says, in effect, "We will not allow children to be employed by their parents or guardians in future, and thus far we have been convinced by their Lordships; but we will allow the employment of such children to horticultural or agricultural operations."
  Mr. STANLEY: Light.
  Mr. DAVIES: It must be light, otherwise they could not do it. I hope that
  I have summed up the situation rightly. I must say I am very sorry that the Government have not been able to accept the Lords Amendment, because, for once in a way, their Lordships have made a great advance on the present Government. I do not know why they reached that decision; that is their own business; but for my part—[Interruption.] I think they must have read my speeches. I understand that they are entitled to read our speeches there, although we are not entitled to read their speeches here. Consequently, we cannot be convinced by anything that they say, but there is a possibility of their being convinced by what we say. I am sorry that, on a Bill which is otherwise non-controversial, we must disagree with the attitude of the Government, and, unless we hear arguments very much more powerful than have been put by the hon. Gentleman, I am afraid that we shall be compelled to vote, for once, in favour of the House of Lords.
  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 156; Noes, 28.

  Division No. 270.]

  AYES.

  [8.27 p.m.

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

  Gledhill, Gilbert

  McLean, Major Alan

  Albery, Irving James

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

  Alexander. Sir William

  Goff, Sir Park

  Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

  Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Magnay, Thomas

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

  Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

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

  Banks, sir Reginald Mitchell

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

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

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Hales, Harold K.

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Hanbury, Cecil

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Brocklebank C. E. R.

  Hanley, Dennis A.

  Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

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

  Harbord, Arthur

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Harris, Sir Percy

  Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Morgan, Robert H.

  Burghley, Lord

  Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

  Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)

  Cadogan, Hon. Edward

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Nail, Sir Joseph

  Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

  Holdsworth, Herbert

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

  Nunn, William

  Chalmers, John Rutherford

  Hornby, Frank

  O'Donovan, Dr. William James

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

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

  Pearson, William G.

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Peat, Charles U.

  Craven-Ellis, William

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

  Penny, Sir George

  Crooke, J. Smedley

  Janner, Barnett

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

  Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

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

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Ker, J. Campbell

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

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

  Kirkpatrick, William M.

  Procter, Major Henry Adam

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Law, Sir Alfred

  Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

  Denville, Alfred

  Leckie, J. A.

  Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

  Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

  Levy, Thomas

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

  Dickie, John P.

  Lewis, Oswald

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Drewe, Cedric

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Duggan, Hubert John

  Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

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

  Lyons, Abraham Montagu

  Remer, John R.

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

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Reynolds. Col. Sir James Philip

  Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

  Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

  Robinson, John Roland

  Rosbotham, S. T.

  Slater, John

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Rothschild, James A. de

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J,

  White, Henry Graham

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

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

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Storey, Samuel

  Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

  Stourton, Hon. John J.

  Womersley, Waiter James

  Scone, Lord

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

  Selley, Harry R.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Worthington, Dr. John V.

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Tate, Mavis Constance

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

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Thorp, Linton Theodore

  Sir Victor Warrender and Lieut.-

  Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

  NOES.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Milner, Major James

  Batey, Joseph

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Jennings, Roland

  Price, Gabriel

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

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Buchanan, George

  Kirkwood, David

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Dagger, George

  Lawson, John James

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Leonard, William

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Logan, David Gilbert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Greenwood Rt. Hon. Arthur

  Lunn, William

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. John.

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 38, line 2, at the end, to insert the words "in light agricultural or horticultural work."
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I want to make it clear that we are agreeing with the words which the hon. Gentleman is now proposing to insert, not because we agree with the whole proposal, but because this Amendment makes the position more acceptable to us than it was formerly.

  CLAUSE 49.—(Power of local authority to make by-laws with respect to employment of children.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 39, line 13, at the end, insert:

  NEW CLAUSE B.—(Power of local authority to make by-laws with respect to employment of juvenile persons.)
  (1) Subject to the provisions of this Section, a local authority may make by-laws with respect to the employment of persons under the age of eighteen years, but not being children.
  (2) By-laws so made may distinguish between persons of different ages and sexes, and different localities, trade, occupations and circumstances, and may contain provisions for prescribing—

  (i) the number of hours in each day or in each week for which and the times of day at which they may be employed;

  (ii) the intervals to be allowed to them for meals and rest;

  (iii) the holidays or half-holidays to be allowed to them;

  2108

  (iv) any other conditions to be observed in relation to their employment.

  (3) Nothing in this Section shall empower a local authority to make by-laws with respect to—

  (a) employment in or about the delivery, collection, or transport of goods except in the capacity of van boy, errand boy or messenger;

  (b) employment in or in connection with factories, workshops, mines, quarries, shops, or offices, not being employment in any capacity as aforesaid;

  (c) employment in the building or engineering trades, not being employment in any such capacity as aforesaid;

  (d) employment in agriculture;

  (e) employment in domestic service except as non-resident daily servant;

  (f) employment in any ship, as denned in Section four of the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act, 1920;

  provided that this Section shall not come into operation until a Resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament.
  Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 33, to leave out from the word "ship" to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words:
  "or boat registered in the United Kingdom as a British ship or in any British fishing boat entered in the Fishing Boat Register."
  Both in Committee and on Report this subject received a great deal of discussion and consideration. The Government took the attitude that, although at the moment it was impossible to carry out proposals of this kind, yet they were fully in sympathy with them and pro-

  2109
  posed, as soon as the industrial situation improved, to implement their promise and the Committee, and the House subsequently, had sufficient faith in the genuineness of the Government's promise to accept the rejection of a similar Clause although many of those who went into the Lobby in favour of its rejection were in favour of the principle of it and wished to see it carried out at the earliest possible moment consonant with the national welfare. It is no good disguising the fact that I have been put in an extremely difficult position by the action of the Noble Lord who moved this new Clause and by its acceptance in the other House. I regret, of course, that they were not prepared to accept the pledge which was given in this House and which was repeated in the other and have seen fit not only to move this new Clause but to make the position even more difficult by adding the rider to it. This new Clause is wholly bad. It has no redeeming merits whatever. To start with, when we were discussing the matter on Report, in many quarters of the House which were favourable to the proposal itself doubts were expressed as to whether the local authority was the right body to carry out these duties, and from other quarters it was said very strongly that we had already gone too far in the direction of placing obligations of this kind upon local authorities and that the time would come when, if we were going to do things of this kind, the central Government which ordered it must take the responsibility of carrying it out.
  I promised at the time that the interval that would have to elapse before the industrial situation improved and the Government was able to implement its pledge would be used by me in examining alternative methods to see if we could not carry out the pledge, when the time came,, in a way that would be acceptable to the whole House. I was in the course of making arrangements for what I believe is the only way to get these proposals on a proper footing, and that is to meet personally the trades chiefly concerned with these various unregulated employments, and I hoped, by means of personal consultation with them, to devise some method which would enable me to present to the House something that was agreed to by the employers, which was not objectionable to Members of the House and which all parties could join in sup-
  2110
  porting. My position has been made infinitely more difficult by the passage of this Clause. I have not doubt Members are already getting communication from various trading organisations which feel that in some way or other faith has been broken with them. They refer to a statement which I made, and to which I adhere, that I want this thing to be done, when it is done, with the consent and not in the teeth of the employers concerned. I shall have some hesitation in approaching them and probably some difficulty in dealing with them when they feel that the case has been judged over their heads and that there is not much good in discussing something that is already on the Statute Book. For that reason I feel that the Clause is actually a hindrance in the way of ever getting the thing that the Clause expresses done.
  But there is an even more serious objection. The Clause sets out the machinery for dealing with unregulated employments. It goes on to say that this machinery can be brought into operation by a simple Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. The similar Clause was defeated in this House and was never inserted in the Bill. Therefore at no stage has there been any opportunity for Amendment or criticism. It would mean that the whole of this machinery could be brought into operation by a simple Resolution without those in this House who happen to disagree with it ever having had a single opportunity of putting down one Amendment to one of its provisions. Whether hon. Members support these proposals or not, they will all agree that it is not fair to the opponents of a Measure of such importance as this that they should be deprived of legitimate opportunities for Parliamentary discussion. As far as the merits of the Clause are concerned I should be asking the House not to amend it but to reject it, because I feel that it is of no assistance. In fact, to the supporters of the proposal, if anything, it is going rather to hamper them in their work, whereas it may seem to those who are opposed to it that the proposal is in some way a breach of faith and a deprivation of their natural Parliamentary rights.
  On the other hand, I have to consider the very difficult position in which it would put many supporters of the Government, who want to see this thing done as soon as they can who have loyally,

  2111
  under great difficulty, accepted the assurance that I gave, if we have a quarrel with the House of Lords over a thing of this kind. The outside public does not follow the little niceties of politics. Even organised bodies, such as Chambers of Trade, which have been circularising Members of Parliament do not realise the significance of the rider that is tied to the end of the Clause. It will be represented in the country as a struggle between the House of Lords, which wants to be progressive and to help these poor people, and the House of Commons, which is so reactionary that it will not assist them. That seems to me a position in which it is very hard to put a great number of supporters of the Government who have been very loyal
  It is necessary, before I ask the House to pass the two Amendments which I am going to propose and then to agree with the new Clause, that I should make a perfectly clear statement of the intention of the Government. Of course, the fact that our pledge should be disregarded, that over our heads this Clause has been passed, would, if we were standing upon points of punctilio, have relieved us of the pledge we had given. We should be under no necessity now as a matter of honour to carry out the pledge we gave to the House that we would, as soon as the industrial situation improved, carry out the proposal. After all, when we are dealing with these young persons and with matters of great moment to them, no Government is going to stand on punctilio. It would go on with equal sincerity to try to bring it to the appropriate stage at the appropriate time. I must warn the House that the presence of this Clause upon the Statute Book does not commit us for one moment to the acceptance of this particular machinery to deal with the problem when the time comes. There was a strong feeling in the House against this local by-law method. I am at liberty, even if the Clause is passed, to pursue my inquiries and, if necessary and advisable, to ask the House, when the time comes, to adopt some quite new machinery. In no circumstances, even if this goes on to the Statute Book with a rider attached to it, amended by an Amendment which makes it necessary that the Resolution which brings the Clause into force shall be moved by the Government, for that
  2112
  is, in fact, what it means, should it be open to any back bench Member at any hour of the night and on any day of the Session suddenly to get up and move its amendment.
  I would make it clear that even if it goes on to the Statute Book this Government have no intention of moving the method provided by this Clause, which is to say, by passing this Clause into law by a simple Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. We feel that it would be most unfair. It would be depriving those who were in opposition or who had a desire for friendly criticism or amendment of the Clause, of their ordinary Parliamentary rights. So that when the time comes and we are ready to introduce legislation to deal with this problem, even if the legislation we finally decide upon takes the exact form found in this Clause, it is the intention of the Government to introduce that legislation in the ordinary way and allow it to pass through all the ordinary stages of Parliamentary procedure, and give to friends and foes alike the ordinary opportunity for Parliamentary criticism and debate. The position in which we find ourselves is inevitable. On the whole I think that the solution which I am proposing to the House is the best. I believe that it will reassure those who feel that they are being deprived of their rights. It will, at any rate, make some gesture. Though it does not in any way strengthen the declaration we have already made, it will avoid what I think would be very unfortunate, a dispute with the noble Lords on this question, which would only be misunderstood by people outside.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I sympathise very much indeed with the position of the Under-Secretary. Really the situation has been very difficult for him. I will state the attitude of my hon. Friends and myself towards this problem. It has to be remembered that the new Clause deals only with approximately 400,000 young persons, between 14 and 18 years of age, in employment in the unregulated trades. It has nothing to do with young persons employed in factories and workshops. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the new Clause he will see that it proposes to do something on the one hand, and then, on the other hand, it makes sure that it is not done at all. Members who sat on the Committee upstairs will remember what we would have liked to do. We said that

  2113
  the only way to settle the problem was to set up a maximum 48-hours week for those young people. We were defeated by the Government. They would have none of it. I am certain now that it would have been very much better if we had adopted a maximum 48-hours week in respect of those young persons. The weakness of the new Clause is obvious. It says, in effect, that the local authority may make by-laws. Let us ask ourselves how many local authorities would make such by-laws, and, if they did so, how many hours would be set forth as the maximum for those young persons.
  Hon. Gentlemen will realise how very weak the Clause really is. It throws upon local authorities a duty which ought to devolve upon Parliament. The hon. Gentleman must have in mind, in this connection, the report of the Select Committee on Shop Assistants, which deals with part of this problem. We shall continually be pressing the Government to do something in the light of that report, and at that stage the whole of the problem dealing with the 400,000 young persons engaged in unregulated trades can be dealt with. Finally, we say of the Clause that, in spite of all its weaknesses and the fact that it may not do very much, it has one thing in its favour. It sets forth in legal enactment the idea that local authorities ought to take the initiative to regulate the employment of those young persons between 14 and 18 years of age. It comes to this, that if the local authorities do not carry out the duties suggested in the new Clause it will be their own fault, and nobody can do otherwise than accept their decision. We support the Clause, not because we think that it will do very much, but as a small beginning in the right direction.
  Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The Minister has made a very long statement on the subject of the Clause, and the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. R. Davies) has again dealt with the main subject of the Clause. I think that that is generally for the convenience of the House, but I must safeguard the position of the Chair and point out that if we take a discussion on the Lords Amendment on this Amendment, we cannot have a second discussion on the Question "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Mr. MANDER: We certainly seem to have got into an extra-ordinary position with regard to this Clause. Any merits which it had—and it had certain strictly limited merits—have been completely done away with by the reservation which the hon. Member the Under-Secretary has had to make, which in effect washes out the whole Clause. He made it clear, as far as the Government are concerned, that they have no intention of taking the one action which would give it the force of law. I do not complain of what they are doing. In the circumstances it may be the best result. I have always been one of those who, through thick and thin, have stood by the hon. Gentleman and thought that the policy he was pursuing was, on the whole, the best in trying to get the desired results. In these altered circumstances, in the little rebuff which the Government have had in this Clause, whatever form it takes in the Bill, is he prepared, in spite of this, to go on, and are the Government prepared to go on just as firmly in their negotiations with the different parties interested and bring forward the necessary legislation dealing with the matter in a much wider and bolder way Are they prepared to do that as if the little episode had not taken place at all? I want a definite assurance from my hon. Friend, and if he can give it I shall be satisfied.
  Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: The Undersecretary has met what I thank is an unparalleled Parliamentary situation with his usual agility and his usual air of sweet reason, but the attitude which the Government propose to adopt places a great many of their most ardent supporters in a position of very considerable difficulty. We had a prolonged Debate on the Report stage of the Clause as it was then proposed, and I pointed out a number of difficulties that must arise. I also said that a great many of us desired that this question of blind alley occupation should be dealt with adequately and in a national way, which was possible, in order to ensure that we should have some uniformity throughout the country. After Chat prolonged Debate and after certain pledges had been given by the Home Secretary, added to by the Under-Secretary, the House thought fit to reject the Amendment. I made an appeal to the Noble Lady who moved the Amendment, pointing out that she was placing those who believed in this

  2115
  proposal, in principle, in a position of great difficulty, because we should have to vote against an Amendment when we were in favour of its principle. We had to survive that difficulty and we did so, and now we have been placed in another.
  We are now placed in a situation in which this, apparently, is to happen. We are to be invited to pass legislation which is to take its place on the Statute Book of this Realm and we are to be told at the same time that it means nothing, is never going to be enforced and that nothing is to be done about it. I do not care what Government is in office, I protest against this House being dealt with in such a manner. I believe that if the Government's pledge, which I accepted before and which I am ready and willing to accept now, were given again the fear that the people in the constituencies will not understand what the National Government are doing and will, apparently, be minded to support another place instead of supporting the National Government, would not be worthy of our consideration. To add to the legislation that we are passing something which stultifies that legislation and to have at the same time a pledge from a responsible Member of the Government that no attempt at all will be made to implement that legislation and to make it effective, is merely to place those of us who come here with a desire to grapple with the problems of the country in a position of considerable difficulty and even to place us in a position of complete nonentity. Such a proposal I should think has rarely if ever been submitted to this House. I believe that if the Government made a plain statement on this matter with the same courage that it shows when it refuses to act about some things we desire them to act about, there would be no misunderstanding in the country and no misunderstanding in the constituencies.
  9.0 p.m.
  When this matter was raised on the Report stage we had another example of Front Bench agility. This time it came from the Home Secretary on the 12th May. In page 265, col. 2150 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he explained why it was that the Government felt that they could not deal with the matter in this Bill and at this time. He pointed out that the Measure was introduced as a non-controversial Measure. So far as I am
  2116
  concerned this topic is not a matter of controversy. I was interested to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that, apparently, it was a matter that might be a topic of controversy. He went on to say that:
  "The Bill went through Second Reading with universal approval. No opposition was raised on this ground."
  That is, on the ground that this topic was going to be dealt with.
  "Suppose we now say, Very well, now that we have got through the Second Reading, in Committee or on the Report stage we will put in this controversial matter, would that be dealing fairly with the House or with the interests outside that had objected to this provision? "
  I am not much concerned with interests outside, but I am pointing out what the right hon. Gentleman said as the reason for the attitude which the Government then adopted:
  "I think the provision is a good one, but there are others who object. Suppose some hon. Member, of a suspicious nature, had risen on Second Reading and said, 'There are some hon. Members who desire to have in the Bill a Clause to which we object. The Government have introduced this Measure without that Clause, and have said this is going to be a non-controversial Bill. If I allow the Second Reading to go through without opposition, of course you will not afterwards come forward and say, "We are very sorry, but we find it necessary to introduce this controversial Clause." 'If any such assurance had been asked for, a representative of the Government would have given that assurance. We could not at one and the same time say, 'This is a non-controversial Bill, pass it on that basis, but later on, after it has passed through one or two stages without being obstructed, we may—'"
  An hon. Member asked whether that was a hypothetical question or was that assurance given. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
  "No, there was not an hon. Member who would have thought it possible."
  The hon. Member then said: "It is hypothetical," and the right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "Quite. No such assurance was given, because no such request was made."
  The matter was dealt with at very considerable length, and a full explanation was given. A little later in the Debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary again referred to it. He said:
  "In moving the Second Reading I gave the reasons why we had omitted it, and it was in those circumstances that those who are not particularly interested in the rest of

  2117
  the Bill and who would have been violently opposed to such a provisions as this, took none of the steps which are open to the Opposition to any particular proposal and did not oppose the Second Reading."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1932; cols. 2150–2151, 2195, Vol. 265.]
  I want to make it plain to the House that I am not one of those who was opposed in principle to this proposal and I cannot help feeling that as we were warned on that occasion by the right hon. Gentleman that some opposition had been lulled to sleep by virtue of the form that the Bill took, we as private Members ought not now, although we may believe in this particular proposal, as a principle, to take any part in committing what I believe would be a breach of faith with those persons whose opposition was lulled to sleep on the basis that this was non-controversial and that this controversial thing to them would not be included. Speaking for myself, I suggest to the Government that to invite us now, in face of what two representatives of the Government said on the Report stage, to go back on all that and accept a Clause which was riddled with criticism at the time, and has been riddled by the most powerful criticism of the Undersecretary of State in the course of the last few moments, to ask us to do this practically without debate and without any real opportunity of welding this legislation into something like a useful shape, is to invite us to stultify ourselves and the whole proceedings of this House.
  I regret extremely the attitude which the Government have adopted. They are straining the loyalty of people who have been brought here with a desire to support them to the last degree in everything they do, and I ask them to consider whether it is not possible, instead of passing legislation with a stay of execution upon it in order to prevent the Lords being misunderstood in the constituencies, to take the obvious and proper course, to disagree with the Amendment and consider the introduction of legislation which would be acceptable to all and which would really grapple with a problem which this House ought to have grappled with long ago.
  Mr. DENMAN: The Under-Secretary of State will no doubt have realised that the speech he made in moving that we disagree with the Lords in this Amend-
  2118
  ment was controversial and has invited a good deal of debate. I only want to add one word because I think the quicker we get on with this matter the better. I join in the protest against the procedure of accepting something put in by the other House on the understanding that it is not to be operative. The attitude of the Government in relation to this Clause has been something of a strain on those who value the constitution. What right have the Government to say to the people outside that they introduced the Bill on certain conditions and that they would not tolerate an amendment of a certain kind. That Amendment happens to have been made, and they now say that this House and the other place are not entitled to make this Amendment because of some understanding with people outside. If that is the attitude of the Government towards the constitution—
  Mr. STANLEY: There was no understanding; and I made the position quite plain to the House.
  Mr. DENMAN: The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Groom-Johnson) quoted from the Home Secretary to the effect that there was an understanding—I do not mind whether it was inside the House or outside—that the Bill was to be in such a form that a certain Amendment was not to be allowed. I protest against the theory that this question (has not been adequately discussed. It has been before the House for the greater part of 20 years. It first came up in a Home Office Bill in 1913, and to say that it has not been adequately discussed in that time is an exaggeration of language. Actually, this particular Clause was discussed in Committee at undue length, for which I was partly responsible, and those who attended the Debate in the Lords heard one of the most interesting discussions on the Bill. It was the deliberate decision of the House of Lords. In those circumstances to accept it and say that we accept it only on the condition that it shall in no circumstances be put into operation seems to me to be a violation of the working of the two Houses. Having said that let me close on a less controversial note. Surely the whole House is agreed on one great simple fact—namely, that here is an old and crying evil, substantial in amount, with which we all want to deal. We all want the

  2119
  same thing; we want the best possible method of dealing with it. Let us accept the proposal and the Government's continued pledge that they will do their best to find the best possible way of dealing with it, and all unite in a common endeavour to get rid of this old and intolerable evil.
  Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: I join in the protest against the Government's proposal to agree with the Lords Amendment, subject to it being altered in the way the Government desire. I supported the Clause brought up on Report stage because I thought something should be done and because it called for immediate action. When this Bill gets to another place the Clause is altered, and the words are added—
  "provided that this Section shall not come into operation until a Resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament."
  That means that this new Clause is purely an academic resolution, and nothing more. It is a complete farce with these words at the end. The Government's suggested Amendment is merely another method of continuing in the same path. I would rather they took the only proper course, and that is to disagree with a Clause which is a farce.
  Mr. LYONS: I desire to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Bridgewater (Mr. Croom-Johnson). I yield to none in my desire to protect young people in their employment. The possibility of the over-employment of young persons has aroused the interest of a good many people for many years, and those of us who desire to safeguard the conditions under which these young people are employed feel that it is the duty of this House to grapple with the realities of the case and not put forward anything which leaves the situation just as it is. The Government ought not to put on the Statute Book something which seems only a sham. As supporters of the National Government in all its undertakings, we feel that if there is to be legislation to remedy what is said to be an existing abuse of the employment of young persons, then the remedy should come by legislation of this House. Speaking for myself, I feel strongly that to put on the Statute Book a Clause of this nature, with a rider at the end, which makes it
  2120
  completely inoperative, is to put an end to all attempts to deal with the problem. There is no intention, according to the Under-Secretary of State, to put into operation the machinery of this Clause which is designed for the protection of persons against over-employment. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir. W. Greaves-Lord) that if there is something that wants to be remedied let us pass legislation and remedy it.
  I think I am right in saying that this Clause was discussed in this House for some six hours. Every possible angle was reviewed, and after a very long and careful investigation it was rejected. I do not like to think that this bad Clause should now be accepted by this House merely to prevent some misapprehension by the country as to our position with another place. Our duty is to deal with the position as it is, to pass a Measure Clause by Clause which will be effective, and above all, while we desire to safe-guard the interests of the young person in employment, not to put any harassing restraint on trade which would bring about the very evil which we are trying to prevent, namely, the depression of industries throughout the country. One can conceive a local authority, if it had the power to pass these regulations, making a set of laws directly at variance with those of a neighbouring authority, and the young person would be at a complete loss to know how he stood. Particularly as it is intended only as a sham, and in no way to deal with the position, I hope the hon. Member representing the Home Office will not try to get behind the decision of this House, when it was proposed some time ago by a private Member and refused by the House. I hope this Clause will be either withdrawn or rejected in the interests of the work of the National Government and of this particular object.
  Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made to Lords Amendment: In line 36, leave out from the beginning, to the end of the Amendment, and insert the words:

  2121
  "(4) An order of the Secretary of State appointing a date for this section to come into operation shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament, and the Secretary of State shall not make the order until the draft has been approved by resolutions passed in the same session of Parliament by both houses of Parliament."—[Mr. Stanley.]
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 61, line 30, agreed to.
  The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move, "That further Consideration of the Lords Amendments be now adjourned."
  My purpose in doing so is to enable the Government, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to make a statement of much importance.
  Lords Amendments to be further considered upon Monday next.

FIVE PER CENT. WAR LOAN (CONVERSION).

  ME. CHAMBERLAIN'S STATEMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The Adjournment of the House has been moved in order that I may, with hon. Members' permission, announce the Government's plan for the conversion of the War Loan. I offer my apologies for interrupting the normal business of the House, but I have no option. The House has the right to be the first to hear an announcement of this character, and the hour of the evening at which such an announcement must be made is precisely determined for me by a consideration, on the one hand, of the hours of business in America, and, on the other hand, of the minimum time which must be at the disposal of the Press to enable them to make the scheme known and understood in the country upon the following day.
  Talk of conversion, has been in the air a long time, and naturally so, for it has been growing increasingly obvious that the War Loan at 5 per cent. was out of relation to the yield of other Government securities, and, moreover, that the maintenance of that old War-time rate attaching to so vast a body of stock and hanging like a cloud over the capital
  2122
  market was a source of depression and a hindrance to the expansion of trade. Nevertheless the choice of a proper moment at which to launch so vast an undertaking is one which demands most careful and anxious consideration, and the final decision to make this announcement to-night was only arrived at after a number of alternatives had been examined and rejected.
  I may, perhaps, give the House some of the reasons which have convinced me of the necessity for prompt action. In the first place economy is an urgent matter, and this scheme, effecting so great a reduction in our interest charges, is an essential element in any economy proposals. In the second place I anticipate that from a general reduction in the level of interest charges great benefits should flow to industry, which will be enabled more easily to obtain such capital as it needs and to secure that capital on better terms. There is a great consensus of opinion that the continued existence of a vast body of British Government stock yielding a 5 per cent. return is an artificial obstacle to a fall in interest rates to a lower level at which they would otherwise naturally stand.
  Thirdly, we are in the fortunate position that the relative merits of British Government securities, by comparison with all other investments, British and foreign, have never been more amply recognised by the world at large than at this moment. That, as the House will realise, is a vital factor in the success of such an operation.
  9.30 p.m.
  Fourthly, while we are in a position to secure immediately such important results as I have indicated, I do not consider that further delay would be justified either by the prospect of small additional savings or by any hope that the operation would become any easier with the lapse of time.
  The final and the strongest argument for immediate action is to be found in the spirit of the country. After a long period of depression we have recovered our freedom in monetary matters. We have balanced our Budget in the face of the most formidable difficulties, and we have shown the strongest resistance of any country to the general troubles affecting world trade. I am convinced

  2123
  that the country is in the mood for great enterprises, and is both able and determined to carry them through to a successful conclusion.
  Before I come to the particulars of the scheme there is one personal matter to which I should like to make reference. It is well known that my predecessor, Lord Snowden, had hoped to undertake this operation last year, had conditions been favourable, and in the Finance Bill introduced by the first National Government in September last he embodied a series of Clauses preparing the way. Lord Snowden was deprived of the satisfaction of carrying his plans into effect, but I propose to avail myself in every detail of the procedure provided in the Finance Act of last year, which has rendered my task easier and introduced conditions more favourable than would otherwise have been possible.
  In a few moments' time a special edition of the "London Gazette" will be published. It will contain a notice intimating that the Government intend to repay the War Loan in cash on the 1st December next to those holders who decide to apply for repayment within three months from this date, but the notice will also intimate that holders of the Loan are invited to continue in the Loan on altered conditions.
  It is my confident hope that the great mass of the holders will respond to this invitation. I am arranging for copies of documents to be available to hon. Members in the Vote Office immediately on the conclusion of my statement, and, for this reason, I shall for the moment omit minor alterations, and shall confine myself to a statement of the principal changes in the terms of the continued Loan. The dividend of the 1st December next must be paid at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum, the rate payable under the original prospectus, until the notice to repay becomes effective. Thereafter, beginning with the dividend payable on 1stt June, 1933, the rate of interest will be 3½ per cent. per annum. Up to the 1st December, 1952, five years later than the latest date for the repayment of the Loan under the original prospectus, the Government forgo all right to redeem the Loan. After that date the Government reserve to themselves the right to
  2124
  repay the Loan, at any time, either in a single operation or by instalments. The existing arrangement under which the interest is paid without deduction of Income Tax at the source—a special privilege which has proved itself a great convenience to an enormous number of small holders—will continue unchanged.
  I am bound by the terms of the prospectus of the 5 per cent. War Loan to give at least three months' notice to redeem, but in an operation of this immense magnitude it is very desirable that we should know as quickly as possible where we stand, and that we should have ample time to concert such remaining measures as may be necessary. For this reason, but also because we recognise that the inevitable reduction in the rate of interest may, when it first comes, be seriously felt in a number of cases, we offer a cash bonus at the rate of £l for every £100 of stock to all those holders who not later than 31st July, assent to the offer to continue in the Loan: this cash bonus which in the case of the ordinary investor will not be liable to Income Tax, will be paid to each holder within 14 days from the date of receipt of his effective assent.
  The House will desire to know what saving would be effected by this scheme. The saving in interest charge at which we aim by this conversion scheme is in the region of £30,000,000 per annum. In the nature of things none of the saving can be realised in this financial year, the current expenditure of which will be unaffected by this operation. But the whole of the saving will be realised in the year 1933. It must, however, be remembered that the reduction of interest carries with it a reduction in the yield of Income Tax and Surtax and, taking this into account, the net budgetary saving may be put at about £23,000,000 per annum.
  There are nearly 3,000,000 people who hold War Loan. Many of these have, I expect, but little experience in construing a complicated prospectus, and they will therefore be glad to receive a simple statement of the aims and policy which underlie this operation. For these reasons, I have thought it right to arrange that, when the prospectus and other relative documents are sent, as they will be, to every holder, a letter over my signature should also be enclosed, explaining the nature of the scheme and the purpose behind it. I am making copies of this letter available to hon.

  2125
  Members in the Vote Office as soon as my statement is concluded.
  The letter will go, as I have said, to all holders, great and small. Large investors to whom a conversion operation is a familiar process may well find in parts of it phrases more simple and less technical than is customary on these occasions. I feel no doubt that, remembering the immensely wide circulation the message will have, they will appreciate my object and will not regard the letter as superfluous
  I am sure that anyone who may be contemplating the issue of new capital in the market in the early future will forebear from coming forward for a few weeks while this great operation is proceeding and that the authorities in the City of London will co-operate in this necessary object. I should add that the sale of Savings Certificates will be temporarily suspended as from this evening, but, as we have of course no intention of abandoning that valuable method of borrowing, a new certificate, details of which will appear in the Press to-morrow, will be placed on sale after a short interval.
  I will mention one other matter which may be of some interest. My preparations have been proceeding for many weeks, but the essential need for secrecy in preparation has prevented me from printing any of the many millions of forms which I require. With the willing co-operation and assistance of the Bank of England, the Government propose to attempt the gigantic task of printing 15,000,000 forms and despatching them by post in nearly 3,000,000 envelopes within a space of 24 hours from now. These letters will not, of course, reach all the holders to whom they are addressed on Saturday morning, for the holders live in all parts of the country—and indeed of the world—but they will all be on their way by to-morrow night. In this way we shall cover all the holdings at the Bank of England and the Post Office. In addition, upwards of 500,000 letters containing supplementary notices in special cases will, we hope, be posted early on Saturday. I do not undertake that we can completely fulfil this almost superhuman programme, but we shall spare no effort, and I am sure that our endeavour to present our scheme with the least delay and in the most intelligible form will be widely appreciated.
  2126
  For the response we must trust, and I am certain we shall not trust in vain, to the good sense and patriotism of the 3,000,000 holders to whom we shall appeal.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the House will not expect any discussion on the statement which has just been made, but I am sure also, that you and my fellow Members will allow me to say one or two things on this occasion. First, may I say a personal word to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? On behalf of myself and my friends I congratulate him on being in good health and able to come back and to make this statement to-night. We heard that he had been ill; we are very glad to see him, and we hope that his health is as good as the clearness of his speech would lead us to imagine. With regard to the statement itself, I only want to say on behalf of my friends that we welcome it most heartily. Everyone knows our view on this subject, and we are delighted that, at long last, an effort is to be made to put this enormous debt on a better footing. Although we have tremendous differences of opinion with the noble Lord in another place and with the right hon. Gentleman, we congratulate them both on having had a part in bringing this scheme to fruition. We all agree that the step which the right hon. Gentleman is taking is the very best form of economy. It is one of those steps which we think would enable us to have a better understanding with regard to the conditions of life throughout the length and breadth of the land. We also think that everyone: of the stockholders ought to be- only too willing to fall in with the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, and we hope that his appeal to their patriotism will result in accomplishing that which he has set out to do.
  Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that my relationship with the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be held to debar me from offering a few observations,, as a previous holder of that office. I join very heartily in the congratulations which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has felt able on this occasion to offer to my right hon. Friend and his colleague. I desire only to add that I think that the statement which the Chancellor has just made was as wise in the steps which he outlined as it was lucid

  2127
  in its exposition, and that I am confident that he will meet with the response from the country which he has a right to expect.
  Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I am sure that all sections of the House desire to congratulate the Chancellor on what I think is one of the most momentous statements made in this House since the War, for we have listened to-night to the complete vindication of British credit in the eyes of the world and, what is more, to the complete vindication of the National Government, for there was no charge made more seriously than that while cuts were being made, the interest on the War Loan was not being reduced. I am sure that all sections of the House desire to congratulate the Chancellor and hope that his words may find a response in the
  2128
  minds of all investors, and that every investor may convert at the lowered rate of interest.
  We have during the last nine months witnessed a most remarkable scene. Some nine months ago we saw British credit ebbing. We witness to-night the rise of British credit by nearly 25 per cent., and I am sure that I echo what is in the mind of every hon. Member when I say that we hope that the Chancellor, having dealt with the War Loan, will deal with the Supply services, so that the Income Taxpayer in the coming year may see his rate reduced and, what is more, the rate of employment increased in this country.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twelve minutes before Ten o'clock.

  EDUCATION (SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE).
  EDUCATION (SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE).
  MERTHYR TYDVIL (FINANCE).
  MERTHYR TYDVIL (FINANCE).
  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE SERVICE).
  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE SERVICE).
  MAGISTRACY (HARWORTH).
  MAGISTRACY (HARWORTH).
  AGRICULTURE (STATISTICS).
  AGRICULTURE (STATISTICS).
  BREAD.
  BREAD.
  BIRTH REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES.
  BIRTH REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (FILLING OF VACANT POSTS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (FILLING OF VACANT POSTS).
  SHOPS (HOURS OF CLOSING) ACT.
  SHOPS (HOURS OF CLOSING) ACT.
  IMPORT DUTIES ACT (POTATOES).
  IMPORT DUTIES ACT (POTATOES).
  CIVIL SERVICE (RECRUITMENT).
  CIVIL SERVICE (RECRUITMENT).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed.
LEVEN BURGH EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
RIGHTS OF WAY BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order): The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.
Clause 17:
Power to make orders for preservation of certain buildings.
17.—(1) Where a resolution to prepare or adopt a scheme has taken affect, 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 which, or any part of which, is situate within the area to which the resolution applies may at any time make an order with respect to any building of special architectural or historic interest within that area and within the county borough or district directing that without their consent the building, if it is a dwelling-house, shall not
356
be demolished and shall not be altered with a view to use otherwise than as a dwelling-house, or, if it is not a dwelling-house, shall neither be altered nor demolished, and may at any time vary or revoke an order so made by them.
(2) Subject as hereinafter provided no such order, and no variation or revocation of such an order, shall take effect unless and until the order, variation, or revocation, as the case may be, has been approved, with or without modifications, by the Minister, and the Minister before approving it shall consider any representations made to him by the owner of the building, or by any local government electors of the county borough or district, and shall consult with the Commissioners of Works:
Provided that if it appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Commissioners of Works, that the order should take effect immediately, he may make a declaration to that effect, and in that case the order shall come into operation so soon as a copy of the order and of the declaration is served on the owner of the building, but shall cease to have effect at the expiration of two months from the date of the declaration unless it has been previously approved by the Minister under this subsection.
(3) Where the owner of a building with respect to which an order made under this section is in force has applied to the council to vary or revoke the order, or to consent, in the case of a building which is a dwelling,-house, to its demolition, or to its alteration with a view to use otherwise than as a dwelling-house, and in the case of a building other than a dwelling-house, either to its alteration or to its demolition, he may, if he is aggrieved by their refusal to vary or revoke the order, or to grant their consent, or by any terms imposed by them as a condition of their consent, appeal to the Minister within twenty-eight days after the council have notified to him their decision.
On any appeal under this subsection, the decision of the Minister shall be final and conclusive, but before giving his decision he shall consult with the Commissioners of Works.
(4) Nothing in an order made under this section shall be construed as requiring the consent of the council to the taking of proper measures for the protection, preservation, or maintenance of a building.
(5) Where an order has been made under this section, the coming into operation of a scheme for the area within which the building is situated shall not, unless the scheme so provides, operate as a revocation of the order.
(6) Nothing in this section shall—

(i) empower a council to make an order—

(a) with respect to any ecclesiastical building which is for the time being used for ecclesiastical purposes; or

357

(b) with respect to any building to which a scheme or order made under any enactments for the time being in force with respect to ancient monuments applies; or

(c) with respect to any building for the time being included in a list of monuments published by the Commissioners of Works, under any such enactments as aforesaid.

(ii) affect any powers of the Commissioners of Works under any such enactment as aforesaid.

(7) A building shall not, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be a dwelling-house by reason only that the building or some part thereof is occupied as a dwelling-house by a person employed as the caretaker thereof or by members of his family.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "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 noble Viscount said: This and the next two Amendments are really drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 25, leave out from ("effect") to the second ("the") in line 28.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: On these Amendments may I ask the noble Viscount a question? As I see it the effect of his Amendments would be that both a county council and a district council could make a scheme for the same building. That may be all right; possibly the noble Viscount will be able to explain how that would work. But it does seem without an explanation to be bad management to allow two separate bodies to make a scheme for the same historic building. I cannot see in the rest of the clause any provision whereby the Minister can say to one or the other: "You must not make a scheme because the first one is doing it."
VISCOUNT GAGE: I think the words "county council" were put in in another place in answer to a request that the Government should give the county council some authority in the matter; that in every case where a scheme was made the county council should have concurrent powers with the district council. It is true that both authorities would in this case have the power to make an order, and the question of which should
358
have the priority would be decided by the Minister when the owner appealed. That is the explanation.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Does that quite meet the point? When the owner appeals against the order being made, it still leaves it that both can make an order and send it up to the Minister. It then rests with the Minister to decide which of the two orders shall go on. At this time when we want to avoid expense it does seem an unnecessary expense to leave it to both bodies to make a scheme and then afterwards, when both have incurred certain expense—not great expense—to say that one shall not go on. Provision should be made that if there is an intention to make a scheme the Minister should decide which of them is to do it previously to any scheme being put through.
VISCOUNT GAGE: If there is a difficulty of the sort mentioned by the noble Lord I will look into it.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I thank the noble Viscount. It will be done before Report?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My next two Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 23, line 31, after ("applies") insert ("or, as respects a building in such a county district, the council of the county comprising that district,")
Page 23, line 33, leave out ("county borough or district") and insert ("district of that council").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD CRAN WORTH LORD CRAN WORTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "if it is a dwelling-house, shall not be demolished and shall not be altered with a view to use otherwise than as a dwelling-house, or, if it is not a dwelling-house." The noble Lord said: The associations on whose behalf I have the honour to move this Amendment have considered this Bill for weeks and months, and of course also this clause. We are ready to admit that in this clause there are undoubted points that are worth preserving because we have seen, as many of your Lordships have seen, cases where beautiful buildings have heedlessly and needlessly been demolished and even in some cases have

359
been sent abroad brick by brick to another country. Many of us feel that the destruction of such a work of beauty is as bad as entering the National Gallery and destroying a beautiful picture. But as the clause stands now, we feel that it is capable of, and would undoubtedly inflict, intolerable hardship upon many men.
In our opinion the clause as it stands is tainted by the malevolence towards property-owning people with which the whole of the last Bill was saturated and which the Government and the Minister in charge and his Committee have done so much to remove. If your Lordships will read my Amendments carefully you will see that this Amendment and the succeeding one are really all one and the effect is to make the subsection, as altered by myself and the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, run like this:
"Where a resolution to prepare or adopt a scheme has taken effect or the council of any county borough or county district which, or any part of which, is situate within the area to Which the resolution applies or, as respects a building in such a county district, the council of the county comprising that district may at any time make an order with respect to any building of special architectural or historic interest within that area and within the district of that council directing that without their consent the building shall not be demolished, and may at any time vary or revoke an order so made by them."
It leaves this clause prohibiting in certain cases demolishment, but it takes away the alteration of buildings, whether dwelling-houses or not.
It seems to me that as the clause stands now it would definitely and most injuriously affect certain people. We will take, for instance, a man with a house who, owing to the crippling effect of taxation and the Death Duties, does not know how to turn and wishes to start a private school. Under this Bill, if the house is scheduled he will be unable to make such alterations as will be necessary for that purpose, such as demolishing compartments, putting in internal heating, and so forth, and thereby he would be deprived of the means of making a living. Again, he might wish to set up an antique shop; and we know there are many cases in which beautiful ruins are used for certain purposes, such as a cottage for a caretaker, which are useful and have no effect upon the exterior whatever. The
360
owner will be doing no harm and merely providing his family with a living, owing to the necessity forced upon him by taxation, and to prevent him from doing that would be intolerably hard. I sincerely hope that the Government can see their way to accept this Amendment. I and my friends would like to see the good effect of the clause remain, but if this Amendment cannot be accepted we shall be forced to accept an Amendment which comes later.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, lines 34 and 35, leave out from ("building") to ("shall") in line 37.—(Lord Cranworth.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My noble friend has proposed a very substantial modification of this clause, because I think it is quite obvious that a great deal can be done in the direction of demolishing buildings under the guise of alteration, but my right hon. friend the Minister is always anxious to meet, if he can do so, the views put forward by representatives of the great landowners' associations, for we do recognise that on the willing co-operation of the landowners much of the success of town planning will depend. I think there is a great deal in what the noble Lord has said, and I therefore feel that I should accept this Amendment. But I have no doubt this House will recognise that in accepting the Amendment, which confines the powers of the authorities to demolishing, we are accepting a very considerable modification of the clause, and I might even go so far as to say an illogical amendment of it, because, as I have said, you can do a great deal in the direction of demolishment under the guise of alteration. On the other hand, this is a new power given to the local authorities, and perhaps we ought not to give them too much power at a time. We therefore propose to limit their power to preventing demolition, and see how that works.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I confess that I am rather sorry the Government have accepted this Amendment, because, as Lord Gage has just said, by alteration you can practically change the appearance of a building altogether. Why is this clause put in at all, and put in, I hope, with the joyful concurrence of practically everybody in this country? It is in order that historic buildings in this

361
country may be preserved. If the Amendment is accepted you have one great advantage, as I read it, that no one in future will be able to sell an historic building stone by stone, for exportation to another country. That is an advance, but not a very substantial advance, because I do not think such things occur very often.
I go further. I think it is a pity that when the Minister of Health and the Office of Works working in conjunction—and no Government office has done such good work as the Office of Works in the preservation of our ancient buildings in the last ten years, and no individual society either—it is going rather far to say that it should be possible by alteration to change the whole character of a building. If the Government accept the Amendment nothing more can be said, but I shall be surprised if in another place rather strong dissent is not expressed from this Amendment. I know the Minister, who is a man of taste and desires to maintain the historic character of our buildings, has this matter very much at heart, and if the Government do accept this Amendment is it not possible, between now and the Report stage, that some different words may be introduced to allow reasonable alterations to be made, and yet not such drastic alterations as could be done under this Amendment? Practically the whole facade of a building could be quite changed and the building made not worth preserving at all.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I should like to support the noble Lord. There is a strong case for the Amendment. No one with any fairness can deny that; but if the Amendment is accepted as it is, and nothing is put in the place of the words left out this will mean that small houses which are not scheduled as ancient monuments can be completely changed. I am told that in different parts of the country small and beautiful houses have not been demolished, but their characters have been entirely changed by their being converted into shops, and this clause, I think, was intended to avoid that kind of thing. I hope that the Government will consider whether something can be done to avoid this danger.
LORD CRANWORTH: I understood the Government had accepted the Amend-
362
ment, and I thought that that finished the matter. But I would like to point out to your Lordships and to Lord Gage that this clause still means that the landowner is going to make a very definite sacrifice—not all landowners, but some of them—and we are making that sacrifice to help the Bill. I am very sorry that there is any suggestion that our sacrifice is not sufficient.
EARL PEEL: I did not have the opportunity of hearing the mover develop his case, but I am afraid that this Amendment, if it is left as it is, will really affect the other words "shall neither be altered nor demolished," because if the clause stands with those words I am not very clear whether it will have any effect at all. I am very anxious, like Lord Mount Temple, to have all these houses as far as possible preserved. I am not very sure whether there is great value in giving the local authorities power over them. The Office of Works is, I think, the most beneficent office in the Government. It has a very highly trained staff, and also a very highly trained body of mechanics who are capable of dealing with these buildings and keeping them in repair. But if the local authorities are to deal with them and they can only order that a building shall not be demolished, then apparently all that the owner can do is, under subsection (4), to take measures for the preservation or maintenance of the building, and I do not think it would be preserved at all. For ex hypothesi the owner is an unwilling owner, and is not likely to spend money on a building if he wants to demolish it. The local authority cannot spend money upon it, and the result will be that it will gradually tumble down until it is hardly worth while keeping the order in existence. I urge in the interests of ancient buildings that the Government should look carefully into this clause again and devise something more effective to carry out what I believe to be a beneficent purpose.
VISCOUNT GAGE: We seem to have gone a bit beyond the Amendment, and I think that I will reserve anything further that I have to say till after the speech of my noble friend Lord Banbury, who proposes to omit the clause. Perhaps some of the points which Lord Peel has mentioned have escaped the Government's notice, and we will cer-

363
tainly look into them, but for the time being we accept the Amendment of Lord Cranworth.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Is that statement a qualification of the previous acceptance of the Amendment?
VISCOUNT GAGE: No, it is an addendum.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRANWORTH: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 38, leave out ("neither be altered nor") and insert ("not be").—(Lord Cranworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (2), after "owner" to insert "or occupier." The noble Lord said: This is a very small Amendment and I cannot but think that the Government will agree with me that the occupier of a historic building, who might have a very long lease, should also be consulted in the matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 7, after ("owner") insert ("or occupier").—(Lord Cranworth.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: I think this point is really covered by an Amendment which we propose to move on the next line, requiring the Minister before approving the order to consider representations made by any other person. I think that Amendment would cover the occupier.
LORD CRANWORTH: I am quite satisfied with that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "local government electors of the county borough or district," and to insert "other person." The noble Viscount said: This is the Amendment I referred to. There are certain objections to the words in the Bill, and we thought it simpler to replace them by "other person."
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 8, leave out from ("any") to ("and") in line 9, and insert ("other person").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRANWORTH: The next three Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 24, line 16, after ("owner") insert ("and occupier")
Page 24, line 24, leave out from ("consent") to ("house") in line 25.
Page 24, line 25, leave out from ("demolition") to the first ("he") in line 28.—(Lord Cranworth.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL GREY EARL GREY moved, in subsection (6) (I) (a), to leave out "is for the time being" and to insert "has not permanently ceased to be." The noble Earl said: When I read this part of the clause I confess I did not exactly understand how to construe the words "which is for the time being," although I am told that those are words taken from the Ancient Monuments Act. I asked the Legal Board of the Church Assembly whether they are satisfied with those words, and they asked me to put down this Amendment. I confess that there is no difference in the intention of the Amendment and the intention of the wording of the Bill, but I submit that the words in the Amendment are clearer in their meaning than the words "is for the time being."
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 6 leave out ("is for the time being") and insert ("has not permanently ceased to be").—(Earl Grey.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: This Amendment has only recently been circulated, but I am informed that the wording of the Bill as printed was approved by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the noble Earl has already mentioned that the wording of the Bill follows the wording of the Ancient Monuments Act—"any ecclesiastical building which is for the time being used for ecclesiastical purposes." It was thought undesirable to have two different wordings covering much the same point in the Ancient Monuments Act and in this Bill.
EARL GREY: The Legal Board of the Church Assembly of which Sir Stanford Downing, the permanent head of the Ecclesiastical Commission, is a member, thought differently, and drafted this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The two Amendments in any name which we have now reached are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 25, line 9, leave out ("enactments") and insert ("enactment").
Page 25, line 25, leave out ("enactments") and insert ("enactment").— (Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved to leave out subsection (7). The noble Lord said: This is consequential on the Amendment accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 18 leave out subsection (7).—(Lord Cranwarth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 17. The noble Lord said: I rise to move the deletion of this clause. My recollection is that there was something of a similar nature introduced in the Bill of 1925, which afterwards became an Act, and that it was left out either by your Lordships' House or by another place—I rather think by your Lordships' wish. The clause has been improved to a certain extent by the Amendments which the Government have accepted, but it still remains, in my opinion, a bad and unfortunate clause to have introduced at the present moment. It practically enacts that an owner who has an historic building may be ordered by the local authority not to demolish or alter that building. It may be that a building is not of much use to the owner, and, I do not mind admitting, it may be that the owner is offered a considerable sum if he will allow the building to be demolished and removed, we will say, to America. Why not? We had yesterday a debate in this House about economy, and we were told by the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal that anything which would make the working classes believe that the other classes were not doing all they could in the direction of economy would be fatal to any reduction of taxation. Now we are going to say that, when a person can secure for himself a little money by selling a certain building he must not do so because certain artistic people, who do not own the building and who will not receive any benefit from the sale, but who like to be generous with other people's money, would like to preserve at the expense of somebody else what they choose to call the beauty of the countryside. I am glad my
366
noble friend Lord Peel, who has much greater influence than I have, has taken the question up, and I hope, if the Government refuse to accept the proposal to leave out the clauses that we shall divide the House upon it.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 17.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: I might perhaps start by saying that my noble friend's memory has for once played him false, because I think this is the first time there has been any intention of inserting a clause of this sort in a Town Planning Bill.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I hope it will be the last.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I quite admit that this clause has had to be drafted with a certain amount of latitude to cover the various eases in which action might be called for on the part of the local authorities. I admit that it might be possible to imagine examples where the local authority, the Minister and the First Commissioner of Works, all acting in conjunction, might make pointless and ridiculous orders, but the question I would like to submit with all respect is whether in fact it would be likely that three responsible authorities would make such orders. It is very difficult to imagine, even in the most unfavourable combination of circumstances, that either a local authority or a Minister or a First Commissioner of Works would wish to make an order the effect of which would be to leave a house tumbling down. That is only in reference to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Peel. I admit it would be possible to make such a ridiculous decision, but I deny that there is any likelihood of one being made, and I submit that, whether the decision is foolish or not, the owner would in no wise suffer financially, because he would be protected under Clause 18 (1) (a), where it is laid down that he can claim compensation in respect of all orders under Clause 17.
The real intention of the clause is an intention which I hope will commend itself to the majority of your Lordships' sentiments. It is intended to check what my noble friend Lord Banbury described as the exporting of old houses abroad. I would point out that there is nothing

367
at present to prevent an owner selling the birthplace perhaps of some of our national poets or some fine example of English architecture and sending it abroad, and there is nothing to prevent a man who is not an owner buying a property of this description for the purpose of exporting it. It may be argued from a certain point of view that old houses are a form of property like any other form of property, and that there ought to be no restrictions on their removal. I submit with all respect that the historic buildings of England are unique, and are a great national asset, particularly in these days of what is called the "Come to Britain movement," and that it would be very false economy to allow such unique national possessions to be dissipated. I do not know whether my noble friend has taken any strong exception to the principle of the Ancient Monuments Act, because this is really only an extension of that principle.
The safeguards for owners provided in this clause and in subsection (1) of Clause 18 are sufficient to ensure that owners do not suffer, and the main safeguard against the making of orders which would have undesirable or absurd results would be that it would be to no one's advantage whatever to make such orders. On the other hand, by operating as a kind of extension of the existing law concerning ancient monuments, we may save some of the historic houses of England, which cannot be touched under the Ancient Monuments Act. I think some apprehensions have been expressed about the position in regard to compensation when an owner is prevented from exporting his house. I think the clause would operate in this way in regard to compensation. If an owner wished to sell his house for exportation abroad and was prevented by the local authority from doing so, he would be required to prove that the offer to buy was a genuine one. Then he could claim compensation under Clause 18 (1). Of course, he could not obtain the full value of the building, because he would remain in possession of it and could sell it to someone else provided the building remained on the site, but I think there is no doubt whatever that he could claim reasonable compensation.
EARL PEEL: I should like to say in reference to this Amendment that my
368
noble friend Lord Banbury cannot claim me exactly as a. colleague because, I think, I differ from all the observations he made.
LORD BANBURY OF SOU THAM: Never mind. If you vote with me that will be all right.
EARL PEEL: I am not sure that I shall. The point of view that I want to put forward is that I think it will be very difficult for these local authorities, many of them very small local authorities, to deal with this matter. As your Lordships know very well, the question of preserving ancient buildings and ancient monuments is one which needs expert knowledge and it is quite impossible to expect that local authorities will either have, or be able to go to the expense of obtaining, competent advice on this subject. I am aware that this is not to be done without consultation with the Office of Works, and I think that is a very wise and prudent provision. What will happen in practice, I suppose, is that the Minister or Office of Works will send one of their highly-skilled inspectors down to inspect the building or monument to see whether it is worth preserving or not. They will take the responsibility. The best that can be said for the clause is that it gives a certain amount of interest to the local authorities in monuments in their district, but although I am not in favour of centralisation in many matters I think that when æsthetic questions of this kind have to be dealt with, it would be better, if you are going to extend the powers of any authority, to extend the powers of the Office of Works.
At the present moment, as your Lordships know and as my noble friend the Marquess of Londonderry knows very well, a preservation order made by the Office of Works lasts eighteen months and the Office of Works can—and do in many cases—take over these buildings and look after them. In the present impoverished state of many landowners there are a great many historic buildings all over the country which are being looked after—not restored, but preserved—by the Office of Works. At the present moment, however, the Office of Works does not deal with the whole field. The Office of Works cannot, for instance, deal with inhabited buildings. If power of this kind is to be given, I should like to see it put into the most competent hands.

369
What I would suggest is that in order to give an interest to local authorities, they should have power to make representations to the Office of Works in reference to any building which they consider of any importance in their areas and which they think ought to be preserved. To have a division of authority between the Office of Works and the local authorities in this respect would not be of very great value in my opinion.
There is one point with regard to demolition which my noble friend seems to have misunderstood. I think that merely to insert a clause prohibiting demolition without giving any power to take over the building or any power to spend money on its upkeep, would be rather futile. After all, why is an order prohibiting demolition made? It can only be because it is thought that the owner desires to demolish the building. Ex hypotltesi that is the only reason for making such an order. What happens then? Who is to spend money on keeping up the building? The local authority cannot, the owner will not, because he wants to demolish the building. So it seems to me that the building will go to dissolution, because however powerful an order may he it will not be able to arrest time or decay, or to arrest the affects of wind or moisture. Is it not better, therefore, that the matter should be left in the hands of the Office of Works—which already has powers which are usefully exercised in this respect—and not give powers to local authorities which I think can be of no value at all? If you wish—and you may rightly wish—to enlist the interest of the local authorities let the stimulus come from them, but let control be in the hands of a centralised body able to command the best capacity in the country in regard to these matters of antiquarian interest, and having the power not only to make orders but to make those orders effective.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Without saying that I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Banbury has said in moving this Amendment, I am a little frightened of Clause 17 as it stands at present. It has been said—I think it was said by the right rev. Prelate on the Second Reading of the Bill—that one thing we have to do is to preserve the heritage of our country for our children. We ought to be rather careful when using words of that kind that we know
370

exactly what we mean. Are we to preserve the heritage that our children want or are we to preserve the heritage that we think the children ought to want? There may be a difference between the two. Although you have this Clause 17 in the Bill I can find nothing in the Bill which provides anything for the upkeep of these buildings. Suppose a building is in the state of being very nearly a. ruin. What is to be done? Is there anything in the Bill to make the owner keep it up? If not, what heritage is going to be left except a pile of stones? The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill is good enough to suggest that anyhow the owner would be compensated under Clause 18. That, of course, only means an added amount of expense under the Bill, and when we come to later clauses we may have to say something about expense. This clause, however, is going to add expense to a certain extent.
What is the careful owner to do who has a building which he is not allowed to demolish, which he cannot use, and which he has no money to keep up? It would ill-become your Lordships' House to make a suggestion of the kind, but the only thing that I can think of is that he would have to have a fire as quickly as possible and get rid of it. I do not find anything in the Bill to prevent him doing that. Having no use for the building, having no money to keep it up and not being allowed to pull it down, his cheapest way out of the difficulty would be to have a fire. I frankly confess that I do not like Clause 17. I would not go so far as the noble Lord who moved the Amendment and I would not vote with him for leaving it out entirely, but I do suggest that the Government might think about it a little more before the next stage and possibly make some alteration in it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope your Lordships will accept the arrangement which has now been come to between my noble friend the Earl of Radnor and his colleagues and the Government as to Clause 17. The compromise seems one that we might very properly support. I agree with my noble friend Lord Peel that local authorities are not very competent for any purpose of this kind. I have some knowledge of ancient monuments in the possession of private individuals and I do not think

371
that the local authorities in whose areas those monuments are situated are competent to pronounce an opinion on their value and artistic merit and on what ought to be done with those monuments. The most objectionable features of this clause, in so far as it gave the local authority power of interference, have been eliminated by the Amendments already accepted, and practically all that is left is the provision that a local authority may interfere if an owner proposes to demolish his ancient monument. The question of alteration is excluded. I have no sympathy at all with owners who want to demolish ancient monuments and I shall do nothing to try to protect them.
The local authority is not a very adequate body to interfere but that is a matter of perfect indifference as far as my noble friends behind me and I are concerned. The arrangement seems a perfectly fair compromise, favourable from the point of view from which I regard it, and I hope that it will be accepted. It is very important that the Amendments which my noble friends have persuaded the Government to insert in the Bill should be maintained. We must not take away from an owner the incentive to do his best for the ancient monuments in his possession. Most of us who have ancient monuments value them intensely and are prepared to spend money on them if we have got any money left. But, if a very ignorant local authority was perpetually interfering with us, we would say: "Let the thing go rip. We will not spend another halfpenny on it." That would be most unfortunate and therefore I am very glad that the Amendments have been accepted. I agree with my noble friend that the proper people to concern themselves with these ancient buildings are not the local authority but the central authority, but this gives a local interest. As the clause now stands, no harm will be done and I hope the compromise will be accepted.
LORD CRANWORTH: I hope that the clause will do good as it is now amended and I personally hope that no further Government Department will be dragged into this matter, because my experience is that when they are it always costs somebody money.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My noble friend Lord Peel was good enough
372
to say that he did not agree with anything I ever said—
EARL PEEL: No, not with anything you ever said, but with what you are saying now.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My remarks were certainly ad rem to the word "demolish" if, as I understand, the word "alter" is left out. This only refers now to an owner demolishing a building and my remarks were perfectly in order as regards that. If an owner has a building which he is unable to repair because he has not got any money, what is going to happen to him? If this clause is left out, he may be able to obtain a considerable sum of money for it—as far as I am concerned it leaves me cold whether it is from an American or anybody else. He is to be deprived of that because it is said that this ancient building ought to be left. The only result is that the American will not get the building, the owner will not get any money, and the building will disappear. That really cannot be intended but, as I gather that my noble friend Lord Peel thinks that the clause had better be left in and as he is a little doubtful as to his course of action, although his name is down to reject the clause, I do not propose to divide the Committee, but I shall not withdraw.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18:
Provisions as to compensation for injurious affection, etc.
(2) In awarding any compensation payable in respect of property injuriously affected by the coming into operation of any provision contained in a scheme, account shall be taken of any additional injurious affection of the property by reason that since the commencement of the 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 such an application made since that date.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In order to save the next Amendment, I will put the first Amendment in the form to leave out "since the commencement of."
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "since the commencement of the Act."

373
The noble Lord said: My Amendments here deal with compensation on matters which have arisen before the commencement of the Act. On the last occasion the Lord Chancellor gave an assurance that a similar Amendment to Clause 6 was unnecessary. I understand from him that this Amendment is also unnecessary and, if that is so, I shall withdraw.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 22, leave out ("since the commencement of the Act").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): I give the noble Lord the same assurance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 23, leave out ("the") and insert ("this").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I understand from my noble friend in charge of the Bill that he is prepared to bring forward an Amendment on Report dealing with this question of abortive expenditure, and I do not therefore move my Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I owe some explanation to the noble Lord on his Amendment. The Amendment in the form in which he has drafted it is impossible but what we propose to do is to insert a provision that if, since the commencement of the Act, an application for permission to develop has been granted subject to conditions by the Minister on appeal, on the ground of a proposed provision in the scheme and if necessary expenditure has been incurred on works to comply with the conditions, then, if such a provision is not in fact inserted in the scheme and the provision would be one in respect of which a right to claim compensation could have been made, the Minister shall secure the insertion in the scheme of a right to claim compensation in respect of the abortive expenditure. Those may not be the final words but that is the sense of it.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19:
Power of Minister to exclude compensation in certain classes of cases.
19.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a scheme may provide, either gen-
374
erally or as respects all property except such as may be specified for the purpose in the scheme, that no compensation shall be payable under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of the last preceding section in respect of the injurious affection of property by the coming into operation of any provision of the scheme which—
(2) The Minister shall not approve the insertion in a scheme of a provision excluding compensation under the last preceding subsection or himself insert in a scheme such a provision—

(i) unless he is satisfied that, having regard to the objects of the scheme, the provision in respect of which compensation is to be excluded is proper and reasonable;

(iii) if the provision …

(c) prohibits or restricts as respect any land so reserved the winning by surface working of minerals, which, or the right to win which, had before the material date been acquired by some person for the purpose of winning them.

(v) if the provision in respect of which compensation is to be excluded is such a provision as is mentioned in paragraph (k) of the said subsection, and, so far as concerns any particular land, unless he is satisfied, if representations are made to him as respects that land, that it will be practicable notwithstanding the provision to erect thereon such a building or buildings which are suitable, having regard to the other provisions of the scheme governing the development of that land.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), before "paragraph (a),"to insert "so much of." The noble Lord said: Subsection (1) of Clause 19 refers to paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Clause 18, and that paragraph in turn refers to Clause 17. The reason for this Amendment and the next two Amendments is to make it clear that the reference to Clause 17 has no bearing on Clause 19 because the orders in Clause 17 are no part, so far as I can see, of any scheme that is brought forward. Therefore the reference to the whole of subsection (1) paragraph (a) of Clause 18 is not entirely relevant to Clause 19. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 33, after ("under") insert ("so much of").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: We have looked carefully into this point and consider that the Amendment is really unnecessary because it is expressly stated already in

375
Clause 19 that the clause relates only to injurious affection of property by the coming into operation of any provision of the scheme. I hope the noble Lord is satisfied.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am prepared, in the circumstances, to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1) (c), to leave out "or the materials to be used in buildings." The noble Lord said: This is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 41, leave out from ("buildings") to ("or") in line 42.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH, who had an Amendment down to leave out paragraph (k) of subsection (1), said: This is connected with an Amendment standing in my name dealing with page 29, line 32, and I will not move it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, at the end of subsection (2) (i), to insert "and expedient having regard to the local circumstances." The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 10, at end insert ("and expedient having regard to the local circumstances").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE had given Notice to move, at the end of subsection (2) (i), to insert:
"and that in the case of land already built upon the provision in its application to the redevelopment of such land is not more restrictive than the provisions of existing statutes and by-laws in force in the area."
The noble Lord said: This is a very difficult Bill and I am sure we feel sympathy with the noble Viscount in charge of it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Might I assist my noble friend? I have had communications in the interest of saving time. We agree with the objects of the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord and the next two Amendments standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. We entirely think they are proper objects and the only point is which is the best form of words.
376
We rather think ours is, but we see the advantage in some respects of theirs. If your Lordships will allow these to be withdrawn we hope to be able to meet your view between this and the Report stage.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I shall be happy to accept that suggestion and will not move now.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: After that intimation I will not move to insert new paragraphs in subsection (2).
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, at the end of subsection (2) (iii) (c), to insert "or had before that date devolved upon any person desirous of winning them." The noble Earl said: The reason for putting this Amendment down is to get some definition of the word "acquired," whether it covers inheritance or not. I shall be grateful if the Lord Chancellor can give an answer.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 17, at end insert ("or had before that date devolved upon any person desirous of winning them").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On the meaning of the word I do not think it covers what the noble Earl wants, but I accept the Amendment. It might be better to leave out the whole of the subsection on Report, but I accept the Amendment now.
LORD DYNEVOR: I am not sure I understood how much the noble and learned Lord means to leave out on Report. I should like to stop at "surface working of minerals." It seems to me that in the words in the Bill there is a limitation and there is also a limitation in the noble Earl's Amendment. There are a great number of minerals in this country that have to be worked from the surface. The time may not be quite ripe for working the whole of the area; meanwhile a scheme would come and hold up the minerals, in respect of many of which Death Duties have already been paid.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I accept the Amendment and we will consider the other point and deal with it on Report.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (2) (v), to leave out all words after the

377
second "land" and insert "that the area of the land of the owner fronting the street or proposed street will not be diminished to such an extent by the fixing of the building line as to render it less suitable for the erection of buildings in conformity with the provisions of the scheme." The noble Lord said: I formally move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 32, leave out from the second ("that") to the end of line 37 and insert the said words.—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Exclusion or limitation of compensation in certain other cases]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 23, leave out ("made").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved to add to the clause:
"( ) Nothing in this section shall deprive any person of compensation in respect of injury caused by the coming into operation of any provision contained in a scheme made under this Act on the ground that that provision could have been validly, inserted in a scheme made under a local Act repealed by this Act and that if the same had been inserted in such scheme either no compensation in respect of injury caused by the coining into operation of that provision or compensation in respect thereof less than that payable under this Act would have been payable."
The noble Lord said: I think there were one or two cases under previous Acts where greater compensation was allowed after negotiations, and where it is so it would seem desirable that that compensation should not be diminished. In another place this proposal was moved, and the Attorney-General, I understand, said that he would look into it, but when they came to the Report stage, when it was to be considered, owing to the guillotine or the kangaroo, or some other peculiar thing which exists there, he never had an opportunity of so doing. I therefore ask the noble Viscount whether this Amendment is really necessary, or whether the object of it is covered. It may be that there are no such cases in existence.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 2, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Cranworth.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: I rather gathered that the noble Lord's purpose was to safeguard individuals from, being deprived of compensation, under the pretext that they could not be paid compensation under a local Act, but it does not really affect my argument, because the circumstances which the noble Lord fears could not arise. No such schemes are in existence to-day. I am informed that the cases in which he thinks individuals may suffer could in fact not arise, because they do not exist.
LORD CRANWORTH: If the noble Lord gives me the assurance, which I take it is in response to a request from another place, I am thankful to him, and will beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Are we quite sure the Government have looked into this point really diligently? It seems to me impossible that with nineteen local Acts in operation—Acts which have been on the Statute Book for years—there should not be a substantial number of cases in which it had been agreed that a certain scale of compensation should be paid to the landowner. Surely these local Acts have not been lying dormant? Might I respectfully ask the noble Viscount if between now and the Report stage he will look into the matter and be quite sure that there are no cases where compensation has been agreed upon?
VISCOUNT GAGE: I would point out that in the first place, no schemes under these Acts have in fact come into operation nor, if, as we hope, the present Bill finds its way on to the Statute Book in the course of the next few days, will they. Secondly—and this is a more important point—subsection (3) does not apply to any local Act which will be repealed by the Bill, for this reason, that such an Act will have disappeared from the Statute Book long before a scheme under the Bill can possibly come into operation. The subsection only applies to some Act in force immediately before a scheme under the Bill comes into operation and, as I have said, none of the local Acts which the noble Lord has in mind can possibly be in force at that date. I will give this undertaking that if the wording of the Bill does not fulfil that intention or there is any

379
possibility of doubt about the matter we will endeavour to make it clear that the words "any other Act" in that subsection mean any other Act in force at the date when the scheme comes into operation which has been repealed by the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21:
Recovery of betterment from owners of property increased in value.
21.—(1) Where by the coming into operation of any provision contained in a scheme, or by the execution by a responsible authority of any work under a scheme, any property is increased in value, the responsible authority, if within twelve months after the date on which the provision came into operation or such longer period as may be specified in the scheme, or within twelve months after the completion of the work, as the case may be, they make a claim in that behalf, may, subject to the provisions of this Act, recover from the person whose property is so increased in value an amount not exceeding seventy-five per cent. of the amount of that increase:
Provided that, except where the person against whom the claim is made has claimed from the responsible authority by way of compensation under this Act in connection with the scheme and in respect of any injurious affection other than injurious affection immediately suffered an amount not less than the amount claimed by the responsible authority under this section and the claim for compensation has been allowed in an amount not less than the amount claimed by the responsible authority as aforesaid, or is outstanding that person may at any time within twenty-eight days after service on him of the claim give notice in writing to the responsible authority requiring them to defer the claim, and in that event the claim shall be withdrawn.
(2) Where a notice has been given in respect of any property under the last preceding subsection the responsible authority shall be entitled to make a fresh claim against the person who gave the notice—

(a) on the taking effect at any time within fourteen years from the date of service of the said notice of a disposition of the property;

(b) on the taking place at any time within the said period of fourteen years of a change in the use of the property;

(c) in the case of property which was at the date of the original claim used for the purposes of any business or industry, and in respect of which there has not within the period of five years next after the date of the service of the notice been made any claim under paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection, at any time within a period of twelve months after the expiration of the said period of five years:

Provided that no claim shall be made—
(i) under paragraph (b) of this subsection in the case of property used at the date of the original claim as arable, meadow or pasture ground, or as market gardens, nursery grounds, orchards or allotments, or for a plantation or a wood or for the growth of saleable underwood, or as allotment gardens within the meaning of the Allotments Act, 1922, or (being land which exceeds one quarter of an acre) for the purpose of poultry farming, if the new use of the property is a use for one or more of those purposes; and
(5) In assessing the amount of any sum payable under this section in respect of any property account shall be taken—
(b) of any gift of land, or money, or any concession made by any person against whom the claim under this section in respect of the property is made or his predecessors in title with a view to facilitating the making or carrying into effect of the scheme.
(6) Any sum recoverable under this section may be paid either immediately or by such instalments spread over a period not exceeding thirty years as may be agreed or determined under this Act, and where payment is made by instalments interest at such rate as may from time to time be fixed by the Treasury shall be chargeable on the aggregate amount of the instalments for the time being outstanding.
(7) A person who gives a notice under subsection (1) of this section shall, within one month after the date on which any such disposition as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section takes effect or any such change of use as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of the said subsection (2) takes place, give written notice thereof to the responsible authority and shall, within one month after receiving from the responsible authority a demand in that behalf (which demand shall be made within two months after the giving of the notice), furnish to the authority such particulars as they may reasonably require for the purposes of this section:
(11) In this section the expression "disposition" means a disposition by way of sale (including a sale in consideration of a rentcharge or other periodical payment) or by way of lease or tenancy agreement for a period of not less than three years, and references to the person who gives a notice under subsection (1) of this section shall, where a devolution of the property to which the notice relates has occurred since the notice was given, be construed as references to the person on whom the property to which the notice relates last devolved before the date on which a disposition takes effect or a change of use takes place.
VISOUNT HEREFORD VISOUNT HEREFORD moved, in subsection (1) after "by" ["by a responsible authority"] to insert "and at the sole expense of." The noble

381
Viscount said: This Amendment is designed to protect the owner from a betterment charge in respect of an increase in value due to his own expenditure on improvements. In Standing Committee A the Minister promised that if on consideration he felt such a protection was needed he would provide for it on Report. The Minister has not done anything on Report, and we may presume he did not think it necessary. Therefore those on behalf of whom I speak would be better satisfied if this Amendment were carried, so that the danger we fear would be obviated.
Amendment moved—
Page 32 line 5, after ("by") insert ("and at the sole expense of").—(Viscount Hereford.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: I do not think it is possible to accept the Amendment proposed by my noble friend, because I do not think the wording entirely limits his intention to what I believe it to be. Under his Amendment betterment could be claimed in cases where a road had been entirely constructed by a particular local authority, and not where it had been constructed partly by a local authority and partly by a grant from the Road Fund. If any other authority contributed towards the expense that would again do away with the power to claim betterment. What I think the noble Lord intends to do is to ensure that betterment shall not be levied on works to which the owner had himself contributed, but I am informed that that is secured, because no arbitrator would award betterment in respect of such work. The Government propose to accept in a modified form an Amendment by Lord Phillimore to subsection 5 (b) of this clause, and I think that would meet my noble friend's case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "fifty per cent." for "seventy-five per cent." The noble Lord said: This Amendment will, I trust, be accepted by the noble Viscount because it seems to me it is remarkably difficult to justify the figure of 75 per cent. In the Bill of 1925 the figure was 50 and I should like to ask whether in those various Acts which have been passed that figure has not been found to work satisfactorily. In the Bill of 1931 this figure stood at 100 per cent. and to show the spirit in which that 100 per cent. was put
382
in it was actually a fact that the unfortunate owner was to be charged 100 per cent. and was to be asked to pay that money whether he got it or not—an almost incredible proviso. As I understand it this figure of 75 is a compromise between 100 and 50, but I do not think your Lordships are confirmed in any compromise in this matter. The point at issue is whether 50 per cent. does achieve all the effect that is justified—whether it has proved in the years it has been in existence not to have worked properly. If it has I venture to suggest that 50 is the figure that should stand.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 14, leave out ("seventy-five") and insert ("fifty").—(Lord Cranworth.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: May I say one word about this Amendment which also stands in my name? I cannot logically see any reason for any division at all. I should have thought that 25 per cent. would have been better than 50 per cent., but, not being greedy, I put down 50 in this Amendment, which stands in my name as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, as a reasonable compromise. As there is no possible logical argument that is convincing why either one or the other should get the whole or none at all, it seemed to me, to use a common expression, that a fifty-fifty arrangement was the best compromise we could get.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I should like to draw attention to two matters which really have a considerable bearing on this question of whether 75 or 50 per cent. should be recoverable. For the first time in this Bill two great acts of justice are done. If a. scheme injuriously affects a landowner he should in all legitimate cases receive compensation. That has never been in any other Act. The next point is that he does not have to pay under this Bill till he receives the advantage. In all other Acts—in the Lloyd George taxes and in previous Acts—whether he got the increment or not he had to pay. If, under this Bill, you get justice done in those two respects I think the 75 per cent. is not unreasonable.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I hope that the noble Viscount will accept this Amendment, because I prefer it to the one standing in my name and that

383
of the noble Viscount, Lord Hereford. Our Amendment is in the nature of a further compromise.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: The noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, is utterly wrong when he says this will be the first Act that gives compensation. If you look at Section 10 of the Act of 1925 you will find that there was full compensation given in respect of any property which was injuriously affected.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: But you had to pay whether you got it or not.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: No.
VISCOUNT GAGE: We have accepted a great number of Amendments this afternoon, and I suggest that this is one which the noble Lords who introduced it might further consider. Lord Cranworth, I think, introduced it because he is against a compromise, but Lord Halsbury supported it on the ground that he was in favour of a fair compromise. However that may be, it is perfectly true that this is not a matter which can be proved one way or the other. It is really a matter of opinion. The question is how much it is fair to ask from an owner in respect of improvements to his property which have been made entirely at the expense of the general community. We have been reminded that so far the figure has been 50 per cent. but for the first time landowners are placed by this Bill in a more equitable position than they have hitherto been in because, I think for the first time, owners are allowed to postpone paying betterment until they have actually realised it, until it is, so to speak, in their pockets. Another concession to them is that no claim in regard to betterment can be made after the lapse of fourteen years. I think there is only one case where betterment has actually been collected in cash form. The principal value of betterment is for negotiation purposes. I sug-
gest that an owner, protected as he is under this Bill, is much better off with the 75 per cent., plus his new safeguards, than he was with the 50 per cent. without them, and I suggest that we should leave the Bill as it stands.
LORD CRANWORTH: My question was whether the present state of things has not worked well. I take it from the fact that the noble Viscount said that there was only one case in which 50 per cent. has been collected that he meant it had worked remarkably well. Therefore why alter it?
VISCOUNT GAGE: We are putting the owner in a much better position. We think that something should be done for the authorities.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The noble Viscount takes credit to the Government because under this Bill the landowners are given a certain measure of justice. I do not think they are entitled to take any credit for an extremely belated and partial act of justice. I would also point out on this question of betterment that the Act as a whole is designed to preserve the amenities of the countryside—amenities which in the past have been created by the landowners, very often at considerable expense to themselves, and from which the public have derived benefit. The landowners have received no compensation in the past from the public. This proposal of 50 per cent. is perhaps a compromise. The 75 per cent. proposed in the Bill is possibly a compromise within a compromise for all we know. I hope the noble Viscount will consider whether he cannot accede to this Amendment, and go back to the terms of the 1925 Act.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 27.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Plymouth, E.

Addington, L.

Stanhope, E.

Arnold, L.

Argyll, D.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Somerset, D.

Darling, L.

Wellington, D.

Burnham, V.

Ebbisham, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Salisbury, M.

Hailsham, V.

Gainford, L.

Hood, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

De La Warr, E.

Ullswater, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Denbigh, E.

Heneage, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Winchester, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L.

Marks, L.

Phillimore, L.

Stanmore, L.

Marley, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Marshall of Chipstead, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Rhayader, L.

Mount Temple, L.

Rochester, L.

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

Moyne, L.

Saltoun, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Cranworth, L. [Teller.]

Dynevor, L.

Bradford, E.

Radnor, E.

Doverdale, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Forester, L.

Grey, E.

Hereford, V.

Greenway, L.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Askwith, L.

Sinclair, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Strachie, L.

Midleton, E.

Bayford, L.

Wharton, L.

Clinton, L.

Wynford, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT HEREFORD VISCOUNT HEREFORD moved, in subsection (1), immediately before the proviso, to insert, "unless the land has been in the same ownership for the previous ten years, when the amount shall not exceed fifty per cent. of that increase." The noble Viscount said: Although the Government have not thought fit to accept the Amendment of my noble friend, I hope they may be induced to accept my more moderate one which I beg now to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 14, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Hereford.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am afraid we do not see any logical basis for this Amendment. I think what is right in one case is right in another, without respect to who owns the property. I am afraid we must resist this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved to omit the proviso in subsection (1) and insert:
"Provided that the person against whom the claim is made may at any time within twenty-eight days after the service on him of the claim give notice in writing to the responsible authority requiring them to defer the claim and in that event the claim shall be withdrawn except in any case in which such person shall prior to the receipt by him of the claim have himself claimed from the said authority by way of compensation under this Act in connection with the scheme and in respect of any injurious affection not immediately suffered an amount not less than the amount claimed by the said authority against him under this section and such claim for compensation shall have been allowed in an amount not less than the amount claimed by the responsible authority as aforesaid or shall be outstand-
386
ing in which case it shall not be obligatory upon the responsible authority to withdraw the said claim made by them."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I now move is, in fact, a drafting Amendment—that is to say, it is intended to have exactly the same effect as the clause. If the noble Viscount tells me it does not have that effect then I shall at once withdraw it. Though it is a drafting Amendment it is, I think, rather important, because when this particular clause was drawn up it was, I am informed—the noble Viscount will correct me if I am wrong—as a result of representations made to the effect that the original clause did not meet the full intention of the Bill, and the clause was rather hurriedly drawn up, or so I understand. If your Lordships will read it you will, I think, agree with me that it seems to be remarkably difficult of comprehension. I think the Amendment is important in this way, that if the substituted proviso is clearer than the words in the Bill we ought to put it in, as this is a charter of the property owners, who are affected by this Bill and stand or fall by it. It seems to me most important, therefore, that this particular part of the Bill should be as clear as drafting can make it. The Amendment I move has been very carefully considered, and we think it is an improvement. If we leave in words that are difficult of comprehension it will mean that when the Bill becomes an Act it will be a great benefit to the lawyers, whereas if my Amendment is put in the lawyers will perhaps lose some valuable time, but the property owners will save a considerable sum of money. Therefore, hoping your Lordships and the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill have more sympathy with property owners

387
than with the legal profession, I trust you will accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, leave out lines 15 to 28 and insert the said proviso.—(Lord Cranworth.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: We were very anxious to hear the reason put forward by my noble friend for his preference for his Amendment to the clause as drafted. If he will allow the present clause to remain until Report stage we will consider the wording of his Amendment in connection with what he has said, and if we find that his wording is indeed better we will accept it.
LORD CRANWORTH: I thank the noble Viscount very much. That entirely meets my point, and I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (2) (a), to leave out "fourteen" and insert "seven". The noble Lord said: I have found it rather difficult to understand why fourteen years was inserted. It seems to me that the effect of it must be that a good many people will be frightened, possibly unnecessarily frightened, by the operation of this 75 per cent., and will hang up pieces of land in various places for a period of fourteen years throughout all these schemes. I think that a great many schemes must quite clearly be injuriously affected by that. I should have thought that the object of this subsection is fully attained if "seven" is substituted for "fourteen". I think that if anyone for seven years definitely uses the land for a certain purpose it must be fairly clear he did not mean in any way to rob the public but meant to carry on his business in the way he was accustomed to. I suggest that this will benefit and help the scheme rather than hurt it, and if that be the noble Viscount's view perhaps he will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 33, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("seven").—(Lord Cranworth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Clause 21, as your Lordships are aware, enables an owner to defer a claim for betterment until it has been realised. A claim can only be made if the realisation occurs within fourteen years. The Amendment would substitute "seven" for "four-
388
teen". Theoretically there ought to be no limit of time, but permit a lawyer to sympathise with a property owner and to say that fourteen years is a real compromise which I would suggest to him should stand. It was originally suggested by those whose ideas of betterment perhaps go too far that there should be no limit of time, but it was felt that that would hang up a claim over the property indefinitely. Then there was suggested a period of twenty-one years, but after a good deal of discussion it was thought that fourteen years was a favourable and proper compromise between those who said there ought to be no limit of time and those who thought, as the noble Lord thinks, that the time should be seven years. We do not fear any suggestion that may be put forward that this is in any way tying up property or tying up a scheme. The provision that betterment cannot be levied until it is realised in some form is the great protection to landowners. This fourteen years is a very reasonable compromise between those who wanted a very short time and those who thought there should be no time limit. I would ask the noble Earl to accept this compromise which in another place was accepted, even in the famous Standing Committee A, where I believe a similar Amendment was moved and negatived without a Division.
LORD CRANWORTH: I am a great believer in and admirer of the blessed word compromise, but I thought we had hardly got to compromise at this stage. The compromise I would like the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to consider would be ten years. However, 'as there seems no likelihood of that being accepted I do not feel that I can press the matter to a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to leave out paragraph (c) of subsection (2). The noble Lord said: If my noble friend Lord Cranworth had asked me why the period of fourteen years was chosen I could have told him. It is because it will take at least fourteen years for the Ministry to understand their Bill. If he had taken a very long breath indeed and had read subsection (2) of Clause 21 he might understand why I am in considerable difficulty in interpreting paragraph (c). I am anxious to obtain from the noble

389
Viscount in charge of the Bill an assurance that when the Minister is dealing with a business or industry he has not got in his mind, and the Bill has not got in its wording, any threat that the profits of a well-managed business will be attacked in order to recover the alleged betterment due to the action of a local authority. I find the wording extremely unclear on this point. If, as I assume—or as I would like to assume—it is only the land value which is to be assessed for betterment, and if the wording were quite clear on that point, I should be happier. I would urge that in the case of a business it is of extreme importance that the management should know where they stand as to future liabilities. Is it not possible to introduce into this clause words which will have the effect of assessing the value to be obtained by the local authority by way of betterment at an earlier stage than at the expiration of the five years contemplated?
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 39, leave out paragraph (c).—(Lord Phillimore.)
LORD CRANWORTH: I agree with my noble friend Lord Phillimore that this particular paragraph is extremely obscure. So far as I can see, as the clause stands now, it is a case of legislation which is discriminatory against the shopkeeper or industrialist as opposed to the landlord. If the answer to Lord Phillimore's question regarding the profits of the shopkeeper is that they will not be taken into effect, one can only presume that betterment in this case is going to be levied on the landlord, who very frequently will not actually derive an increased rent in spite of the fact that his tenant may be getting increased business as the result of the operation of a scheme. I think it is extremely obscure and I think it would be well if the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill would explain it before we go any further.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I think perhaps I had better endeavour to give an explanation of the whole position. We start with the assumption that the principle of betterment is admitted. Then we say that we do not think it is fair that the owner should be charged this betterment until he has realised it and put it in his pocket. We give the owner accordingly the right to postpone payment until he has realised it. In the case of multiple
390
shops or garages directed by a central organisation, the probability is that cases where there is a disposition of the property within the fourteen years (which governs the whole question) will be very rare, and cases where there is a change of user will he very rare. Everybody will appreciate that normally unless there is a disposition or change of user value cannot be claimed. Therefore in these particular cases we say that it is fair that the calculation should be based on the value which is realised, that the calculation should be on the increased profits of the business. Actually the calculation of the increased value will be made with the help of the profits, so to speak. The amount of extra profits will constitute, as it were, the yard stick by which the measure of the increased site value will be made. Unless we make some provision of this sort owners of these multiple shops or garages would be put in a far better position than the owners of other property because they would escape altogether. We think that five years from the date when a scheme is made would be a suitable moment to ascertain whether any additional value has accrued that could be attributed to the scheme. The intention of the clause is simply to put the owners of these particular forms of property on an equality with other owners.
LORD BAYFORD: Will this betterment be levied on the increase of the site value alone or on the increase of the site plus the building? I understand the noble Viscount to say that the betterment would be on the increased value of the business, but I understood it to be on the increased value of the site, which is quite a different thing.
VISCOUNT GAGE: As I take it, the particular type of building and business combined would be treated exactly the same as any other form of property but, for the purposes of this assessment, the question of the extra profits will be taken into account as a measure instead of the increased value which in the case of a long lease will accrue from the scheme. We are endeavouring to put all classes of property on the same basis. It is not intended to treat these businesses in any different way to any other form of property.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Does the noble Lord mean this? A man is

391
engaged in business and by his industry and hard work increases the value of the business. Will his assessment be put up?
VISCOUNT GAGE: Only so far as the scheme has increased the value of the property.
LORD BAYFORD: The noble Viscount has not answered my question. Is the property he speaks of the site or the building erected on the site? On which is betterment paid?
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am not at all satisfied at present with the answer I have got. Neither has much light been thrown on this obscure provision. The noble Viscount said that change of use governed the whole consideration. As far as this paragraph is concerned I see no words relating to change of use. It is quite true that in paragraphs (a) and (b) there are such words, but the subsection says:
"Where a notice has been given in respect of any property … the responsible authority shall be entitled to make a fresh claim against the person who gave the notice … in the case of property which was at the date of the original claim used for the purpose of any business … and in respect of which there has not within the period of five years … been made any claim."
If one reads that straight through, there are no words whatever relating to change of use. The second point on which I am not satisfied is that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill did distinctly say that the profits of this business would be taken into consideration in assessing the degree of betterment obtained. That is a principle to which I take the strongest objection. Thirdly, I take strong objection to this. We are imagining a single particular instance such as a multiple shop or a garage and applying the arguments of the Government entirely to such an instance. But we all know that, whatever we may have in mind, we are likely to have the words related in actual fact to instances of extreme variety and complexity. It is a mistake to assume that this paragraph will only apply to multiple shops or garages. Unless I get a satisfactory answer, I shall have to go to a Division.
EARL GREY: Suppose you have two businesses side by side and in five years one increases its profits very much and the other has the reverse experience: how can you prove that the increase is
392
due to the increment? I do not see how you can possibly decide betterment by the profits of a business.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. Betterment will not be levied on the profits. As to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, as to whether betterment is levied on the site and building or site only, the answer is that it is levied on the site and building. This question of profits really does not arise. I do not think that I ever said that betterment would be levied on profits, but, if I ever said that, I must ask your Lordships' pardon. The noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, referred to a change of user. Again I am afraid that I did not make myself clear. I only referred to it in its application to paragraphs (a) and (b). I said that in those two cases the change of user was the governing consideration because it was in change of user that the additional value was reflected. There is no possibility of such a calculation being possible in the case of these businesses where there is no change. This is the device we have adopted to put on the owners of these businesses a similar liability to that on the owners of other forms of property.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: If it is not intended to include profits, surely some words could be put in on Report to make that clear. Otherwise the Law Courts will be full of cases on that point. I suggest that the noble Lord should consider that matter between now and Report.
VISCOUNT GAGE: That is a fair suggestion. If the intention is not clear, it ought to be made clear.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: If it is not intended to include profits, surely paragraphs (a) and (b) would cover the point without the change of user?
VISCOUNT GAGE: No, we do not expect any change of user here. The same company goes on, the name is continued, and it does not matter what happens to the manager or the employees, the ownership of the property goes on. There is no change in disposition and user. The garage is the same but the scheme brings it a very much larger volume of business.
THE EARL of RADNOR: I do not know that we have had a very clear answer as

393
to whether it is the owner or the occupier who will pay. I can imagine many cases of long leases where the owner will not receive any benefit from increased profits. The whole clause is obviously unfair. In many cases it undoubtedly bears the imprint of discriminatory legislation and will hit these small men very hard indeed. The Government ought to accept the Amendment.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I agree that the whole clause is very badly drawn. If we are to believe the noble Viscount, it would deal with property which was, at the date of the coming into operation of the scheme, the property of a corporation, a limited liability or some such body as that denoting persons who do not die. There is in the wording particular reference to business or industry. I suggest it would be better if the Government could accept my Amendment, and produce on report a clause more nearly carrying cut their real intentions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am inclined to suggest that that would be the wiser course. It is not that I want to break any lance with the Government over the policy intended in this clause, but it is evidently so obscure that I do not believe there is a single member of the House, except the noble and learned Viscount in charge of the Bill and the Lord Chancellor, who really understands it. In the circumstances perhaps it would be wiser to leave it out and for the Government draftsman to draft a. new clause which would lie clear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I quite agree that nobody here wishes to assess betterment on profit, but on the other hand you do want to get at the man who, having made profits, perhaps would be paying an enhanced rental unless the lease went on for some time. That is the case we want to hit. We none of us want to hit profits at all, but we do want to hit the man who, being in an advantageous site, makes large profits and would he paying an increased rental should it be possible for the landlord every year to alter the rent. This is an extremely complicated Bill and it is very difficult, at the moment, to give adequate reasons, but I am sure we all want to do the right thing, and I would suggest that this should remain. If we cannot persuade the noble Lord we will not trouble him and we will let it go, but I should
394
think it unwise to let this go out now if by so doing we failed to get at the man we all desire to get at. I would appeal to the noble Lord to let this go through now and perhaps I might see him in the meantime. The point is that there is no desire to tax profits; the only person we want to get at is the one I have indicated.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I gladly accept the suggestion of the noble and learned Viscount.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, in proviso (i) in subsection (2), after "claim," to insert "as a park or garden or." The noble Lord said: "Garden" was in the Bill originally and I cannot understand why it is taken out. I think there must be some mistake. Surely it would be hard that a man who, when his surroundings are being built up, makes his garden into a market garden so as to supply people in the neighbourhood and earn a living in that way, should not come within the operation of this paragraph. I think "park" should also be in. It is always difficult to decide whether a park is a park or a meadow or a field, and the question is constantly giving rise to litigation. But on equitable grounds I attach more importance to "garden" than "park' I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 9, after ("claim") insert ("as a park or garden or").—(Lord Cranworth.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: Perhaps I might deal with this Amendment and the one following at the same time because I think they are both based on a misapprehension of the intention of the clause. Except in certain cases which do not for the moment arise we propose to give the owner the right to demand postponement of betterment claims. Further on, in subsection (4), it is stated that:
"the responsible authority may recover a suns net exceeding 75 per cent. of the amount by which the property has for the purposes of its new use been increased in value."
In order to strengthen the position of the owners as regards agricultural land there is an express statement that if the change of user is from one agricultural use to another no question of betterment should be raised. That is to guard against the possibility of betterment being claimed in

395

a case where a man transfers from mixed farming to market gardening. If we take the case given by the noble Lord of "park" or "garden," provided it is only used for agricultural purposes or purposes which are not building it would be excluded, but I think he will agree that if it should be used for building purposes it is only fair that betterment should be claimed against it in the ordinary way. As long as the park or garden is used for agricultural purposes there is no question of any betterment charge.
LORD CRANWORTH: I am glad to get that assurance, but I cannot see it in the Bill. If the noble Viscount gives me the assurance with full authority that where a man changes his garden and makes it a market garden, thereby making it somewhat more profitable, there is no question of betterment, there is no need for my Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in proviso (i) in subsection (2), after "farming," to insert "or for charitable purposes or wholly or mainly for the purpose of public religious worship or as a churchyard or burial ground or mainly or exclusively for the purposes of open-air games or recreation or as a private aerodrome licensed under the Air Navigation Act, 1920." The noble Earl said: This is somewhat on the same lines as the other Amendment. It is really to make an addition to the list of changes between which there can be no claim for betterment. The clause as a whole gives the right to a claim for betterment on a change of user, and it does not state that there has got to be an actual enjoyment of the betterment. There may be a change from an allotment ground to a church, and there may be a considerable claim for betterment, which betterment is not enjoyed by the church concerned but is there all the same. As your Lordships are aware, there are a number of other cases. Take the letting of a house. If in the goodness of one's heart one lets a house at below its value, one is not so assessed under Schedule A. They merely tell you you are a fool for doing so. That may be the case under this clause, and that is why we wish to see a certain extension in the user under which no claim can be made.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 17, after ("farming") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: Surely this question will come under the particular phrase "for purposes of the new use"? I would suggest to the noble Earl that if land is converted and used for charitable purposes, or for the purposes of religious public worship, or for churchyards or graveyards, it can hardly be shown that it has increased in value for the purpose of any of those uses, because none of these things can be described as paying propositions, except perhaps a crematorium run on profitable lines, in which case I do not see why betterment should not be claimed against it. I do not see the object either of including aerodromes, unless the noble Earl wishes to encourage private aviation, and in that event I would suggest that this is not the place to do it. As he has limited the case to private aerodromes, I think it is doubtful whether such things have any value, except agricultural, and therefore they will be protected. I think the noble Earl has no cause for alarm in this matter.
LORD CRANWORTH: I am very glad to hear the noble Lord's argument, and I hope he will be open to reason in this matter. I would ask him whether if, on further consideration, I find myself unable to agree with his conclusions, he will not object to my bringing the matter up again.
VISCOUNT GAGE: Certainly not.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I would suggest that if this matter is covered, and I am not certain it is, there can be no harm in accepting the Amendment. It does not alter the intention of the Bill.
VISCOUNT GAGE: There is always an objection to making a particular exception when it is really unnecessary.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (5) (b), after "by," to insert, "or work carried out by or at the expense in whole or in part of." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to provide that where an owner has himself contributed to the increased value of the property, by work carried out at his own expense, this expenditure

397
should be taken into account before betterment is assessed. My next Amendment is much to the same effect. I think I caught from the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill a murmur to the effect that he was prepared to meet me on this clause, and therefore I will not say any more until I have heard from him.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 11, after ("by") insert ("or work carried out by, or at the expense in whole or in part of").—(Lord Phillimore.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: We are prepared to accept this Amendment if it is drafted in this form "or any works executed under arrangement with the local authority." If he will accept that modification, I am prepared to put it down on the Report stage.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I would like to ask whether in making that offer the noble Viscount contends that works not carried out by arrangement with the local authority would ipso facto be taken into account by the arbitrator?
VISCOUNT GAGE: That is our contention, that the arbitrator would take into account any works which the owner executed at his own expense.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: If that is so, why not accept the Amendment, which says in effect what the noble Viscount has just said? Lord Phillimore's Amendment, as I understand it, says that where the work has been carried out at the expense, in whole or in part, of the owner, he shall not be taxed betterment on the money he has expended.
VISCOUNT GAGE: It is considered undesirable to give special instructions of that sort to an arbitrator, because they indicate the sort of line on which the arbitrator anyhow would act. Our contention is that it is undesirable to put in words which might convey to an arbitrator that he should not take into account works undertaken by the owner.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Surely the answer to that is that in the Agriculture Acts the arbitrator is specially told to take into account, in arriving at tenant right, works carried out by the tenant.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I would urge the Government to accept this Amendment, which only carries out their expressed intention as indicated by Lord
398
Gage. There are numerous Acts in which arbitrators and valuers are instructed to do certain things and not to do others. Then why cannot this be put into this Bill?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): I would rather suggest to my noble friend that he should accept Lord Gage's offer. I confess I have no opinion as to the merits of the two alternative forms, because I have not considered them. The Ministry of Health, who probably know this Bill almost as well as Lord Phillimore, and that is saying a good deal, feel that there would he great objection to inserting this Amendment as it now stands. If, however, words are put down on Report and he is not satisfied, Lord Phillimore can put down his own words on Report. Meanwhile the matter can be considered with a view to ascertaining which is the best form. In the event of there being no real difference, then, with the assistance of the Ministry of Health, it will be possible to arrive at a decision. The Government are willing to accept the Amendment with a slight modification, but they are not willing to take the risk of accepting an Amendment which, on the whole, they do not feel to be desirable. Probably the shortest way in the interest of time, which we are all anxious about, would be to adopt that course.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. But after all when we come to Report I shall probably be told that the time is valuable then also.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I hope by that time the matter will be adjusted.
LORD PHILLIMORE: The two points really are so totally distinct. What Lord Gage has offered me is that where the local authority has agreed in advance then such works shall be taken into account. What I am talking about is the case of works in respect of which the local authority has not agreed in advance but which the owner, for his own purposes if you like, has undertaken and thereby increased the value of his property. It is such a very definite thing that I feel a little doubt about accepting the noble and learned Viscount's suggestion that I shall withdraw my Amendment in favour of some such compromise as is indicated by my noble friend Lord Gage. But if

399
the noble Viscount will undertake to look into the whole clause in order to meet this point I will most gladly withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes, that is the best.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (6), after "rate," to insert "not being greater than one half per cent. above Bank rate for the time being or than four per cent., whichever shall be the less." The noble Lord said: This is a small Amendment which seems to me to be dictated by caution and common sense. I do not at all like the words "such rate as may from time to time be fixed by the Treasury." We think that that is dangerous. The Treasury themselves charge four per cent. on Death Duties, and it would seem quite unreasonable that they should ask these unfortunate payers of betterment to pay any greater rate of interest in this particular case.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 20, after ("rate") insert the said words.—(Lord Cranworth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The effect of this Amendment would be to limit the powers of the Treasury in fixing the rate of interest payable on instalments. I quite agree that in some cases when you are dealing with certain bodies it may be a wise thing to tie them down to a certain limit, but with regard to the Treasury who, after all, are the guardians of the public purse—
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Ought to be but aint!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord says, "Ought to be but aint." Well, opinions might differ on that. Let me tell him that if he were the head of a Department, as I am, he would soon find what the powers of the Treasury are. We have consulted with the Treasury about this matter, and they very much object—and, after all, they are people of very great consequence—to being made responsible for fixing the rate of interest unless they are given full discretion. The subsection as it stands is quite in common form. It has precedents in Housing Acts and elsewhere, and we do not see why there should be any exception in this particular case. I think we shall agree, in spite of the
400
plaisanterie of Lord Banbury, that, after all, we can trust the Treasury in this matter, and they take a very strong view about this. Personally I am somewhat in sympathy with the noble Lord's view, but I am speaking really on behalf of the Treasury, and not only do they look with very great disfavour upon this, but they say it will be introducing a precedent to which they very much object. Having regard to the position which the Treasury hold in our economical system, I am afraid this is a matter on which, whatever my personal inclinations were, I should not be able to agree with the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The noble and learned Viscount quoted the Housing Act. Under the provisions of that Act there is nothing to do with betterment, and this clause applies to betterment. Therefore there is no analogy between the two.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I think it is only natural that the Treasury would not like any restrictions on their power, but I can see no reason why they should not have them imposed on them. After all, the Treasury is not entirely supreme. Parliament is supreme over the Treasury.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly.
LORD CRANWORTH: I confess I have heard no argument in reply to my Amendment that has any weight with me. I dare say this is one of those matters which it is no use forcing any further, because I should not get any further. Therefore, though I am not in the least convinced, I beg to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 33 leave out ("within") and insert ("not later than the expiration of").—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (11), to leave out "or tenancy agreement." The noble Lord said: This is a very modest Amendment. It seems to me that this period of a lease for three years rendering a man subject to betterment is contrary to the whole of the present spirit of this Bill, because, as I

401
understand the present spirit of the Bill, it is that a man shall not pay betterment until such time as he realises that betterment. Take a man who lets a building for three years at some slightly increased rent, say £50 a year, and at the end of three years he has obtained£150. He will then be told, according to this subsection, that his property has increased by that sum, and that he must now pay £100. That is contrary to the whole spirit which has now been introduced into this Bill, and I think that by increasing the three years to seven, as I propose to do by the next Amendment, I am still making a very modest proposal, because even in seven years the owner will not really have reaped the full benefit.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 35, leave out ("or tenancy agreement").—(Lord Cranworth.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: This is another question of the drafting of the Bill, and perhaps I may consider it in connection with the next Amendment to increase the period to seven years, to which the noble Lord has just referred. I think the two go together. What the Bill says is that if a property is let on a lease which covers anything under a three years' term the lease shall not be regarded as a disposition of the property. I think there would be some good ground for questioning whether it was right to exclude leases for any period from the term "disposition." It might be argued that an owner would make as much profit by letting his ground for successive periods of two years as he would by letting for successive periods of three years, but we have always endeavoured to meet the views of the landowners as far as we could, and I believe this period was inserted in the first place to meet the owners' representatives, or at least to go some way towards meeting them.
If the noble Lord is to claim that we shall extend this concession to a lease of seven years it would be equivalent to saying no lease of any kind, however profitable and however much it might reflect the added value which is due to the scheme, should be taken into consideration in. estimating betterment, because nothing would be easier for the owner than to arrange to let the lease out for periods of six years instead of seven, and as the claim for betterment lapses after
402
a period of fourteen years the whole object of the paragraph would completely disappear. I submit we have already gone to illogical lengths in this matter in order to meet the wishes of owners, and that if we go any further the whole subsection will be really quite useless. I think there is some misapprehension on the part of the noble Lord. I hope I am not doing him an injustice in saying that, but the whole question of whether or not there has been a disposition of the property depends on the length of the lease. If you lease for successive short periods of under three years then to some extent you get out of paying betterment. Perhaps the noble Lord does not realise that.
LORD CRANWORTH: If the clause really means that the landlord can go on letting for a period of three years and not paying betterment, then in my judgment it is a remarkably bad clause. My intention is that betterment shall not be paid until in either one or more periods the total comes to seven years. I do not want a man to get out of paying altogether. What I want to do is to keep the spirit that has been introduced into this Bill, that betterment shall not he payable until that betterment has accrued.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I will consider what the noble Lord says but I am not empowered to accept his Amendment. All the considerations he has put forward will, however, be considered.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Would it not be possible in the circumstances for the noble Viscount to consider an alteration of the expression "disposition" to the effect that it means "disposition or dispositions by way of a sale for a period of not less than seven years," in order to make it possible to have tenancies so that the owner of the land shall after seven years have increased profits out of which to pay betterment?
VISCOUNT GAGE: I will consider that suggestion. It is the first time, I think, it has been made.
LORD CRANWORTH: I hope the noble Viscount will note that in this particular matter our aim is to strengthen the Bill as against the owner, not the reverse. If he realises that I feel certain he will be able to see his way to meet me. I take it that is an understanding?
VISCOUNT GAGE: I cannot give a pledge but I will consider the matter with a view to taking into account the points which have been made by the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Making of claims for compensation or betterment]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 7, leave out ("section") and insert ("Act").—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD DYNEVOR: Will the noble Viscount give us a definite statement that this only is drafting because he leaves out the word "section" and inserts "Act." Act is of course, a much wider word than section.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am informed that another clause, Clause 6, subsection (6), provides a period within which compensation must be claimed and consequently the opening words of Clause 22, subsection (2), are subject to the provisions of this Act.
LORD DYNEVOR: I am quite satisfied.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next Amendment is drafting. I can explain it, if necessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 36, leave out ("for him").—(Viscount Gage.)
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23:
Determination of claims and recovery amounts due.
(2) The arbitrator or other person charged with the duty of determining any such question as aforesaid—
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The Amendments in my name are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 38, line 13, leave out first ("has") and insert ("have")
Page 38, leave out ("is") and insert ("are")
404
Page 38, line 13, leave out second ("has'') and insert ("have")
Page 38, line 14, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
"(iv) Shall have regard to the degree to which the increase in the value of the property is due to the owner's expenditure thereon."
The noble Lord said: The clause begins by saying that any question arising under this Act as to the right of a claimant to recover compensation, or the right of an authority to recover any amount in respect of an increase in the value of any property, shall in certain circumstances go to arbitration. Then it gives certain directions to the arbitrator and says he has to consider certain things and have regard to certain undertakings. Then paragraph (ii) says that if the question arises after the coming into operation of a supplementary scheme, he shall "take into account any amount which the responsible authority has paid or is liable to pay." Paragraph (iii) says that if any contribution has been made by an authority under the provisions of the Bill relating to interim development orders, he shall take this into account, too. I also want to say that if the owner has, owing to his exertions increased the value of the property, the arbitrator shall also, besides paying attention to any contribution that has been made by an authority under the provisions of this Act, have regard to the degree to which the increase in the value of the property is due to the owner's expenditure thereon. It seems to be a simple act of justice and I hope my noble friend will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 21, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Banbury of Southern.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: I think this is the same kind of point as that raised previously by my noble friend Lord Phillimore. I feel sure my noble friend knows much more about arbitrators than I do but I would submit this point for his consideration. What the arbitrator is required to do by the Bill is to estimate the increased value of property which is due to the scheme. That would automatically oblige him to deduct from the assessment any increase in value which

405
was due to anything the owner had done to improve the value of his own property. I would further suggest that if you do put in words of this kind you rather imply that the arbitrator should not take into consideration other factors which are neither due to the owner's efforts nor to the scheme—namely, the increase in value which automatically comes from the general growth of a district. The noble Lord's Amendment is unnecessary and in fact rather dangerous, and I would suggest that on reflection he might withdraw it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am sorry that I do not agree with the noble Viscount. If subsection (2) was not in the Bill, if there were no directions given to the arbitrator at all as to what he should have regard to, but merely the provision in subsection (1), then I think the noble Viscount would be right. But the clause gives the arbitrator directions. Subsection (2) says he is to have regard to certain things and paragraph (iii) of that subsection says:
"If any contribution has been made by an authority under the provisions of this Act relating to interim development orders, [he] shall take into account that contribution."
All I want to do is to ensure that he shall also take into account any similar contribution made by the owner. That seems to be perfectly fair and it cannot do any harm. As directions are already given to the arbitrator I think this other direction ought to be given.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I really think my noble friend Lord Banbury is under a misapprehension. The only money which can be recovered from the owner of property is betterment which comes to him as the result of a scheme. His Amendment seeks to deal with increased value which comes owing to the action of the owner. That would be automatically excluded from betterment. Therefore his Amendment is quite unnecessary.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Why give any directions to the arbitrator at all? The clause reads in this way:
"(1) Any question arising under this Act as to—

(i) the right of a claimant to recover compensation; or

(ii) the right of an authority to recover any amount in respect of an increase in the value of any property; or

406

(iii) the amount and manner of payment …"

shall be referred to an arbitrator. Then directions are given to the arbitrator to have regard to certain things, and I consider the clause ought also to give directions with regard to the increase in value which has been caused by the spending of the money of the owner. It cannot do any harm.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It can.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: How?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will tell you. The position is that betterment can be claimed only in respect of the provisions in a scheme or the execution of work under a scheme. The insertion of these words would make it extremely dangerous for owners. They might have to pay very much more, and for this reason. If you make a suggestion that it may be possible to levy betterment in respect of an increase in value which is due to something other than the provisions of a scheme or the execution of work under that scheme, the unfortunate thing would be that the owner would have to pay betterment although it was not duo to anything in the scheme but to something he had done himself. It is really the opposite of what the noble Lord wishes to attain. If the noble Lord wishes the owner to pay more betterment let him stick to this Amendment, but if he wishes the owner only to pay betterment caused by the provisions of a scheme he will not press it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: In those circumstances I will withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25:
Acquisition of land to which scheme applies.
25.—(1) The responsible authority may purchase by agreement any land to which a scheme applies which they require for the purposes of the scheme as if those purposes were purposes of the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1926, and, where the responsible authority are not a local authority for the purposes of those Acts, as if they were such an authority, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words, they may purchase such land—
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Amendment standing in my name is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 16, after ("scheme") insert ("whether made under this Act or under any Act repealed by this Act").—(Viscount Gage.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert in subsection (1):
"Provided that they shall not be authorised to purchase compulsorily any land abutting on a new street or on an existing street as proposed to be widened under the scheme for the purpose of securing the development or redevelopment of such land, but nothing in this section shall prejudice or affect the operation of the Public Health Acts."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is designed to limit powers for compulsory purchase in the same way as they are limited in local Acts applying the 1925 Act to built-up areas. The Derby Corporation Act and the Birmingham Corporation Act both contain this proviso. It is said that this Bill follows many Private Acts and the two which I have quoted seem very good precedents to follow. The danger is that local authorities may be tempted to speculate in land under the guise of buying land for street widening. For these reasons I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 7, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On the face of it, especially having regard to the last remark of the noble Viscount, this is a very attractive proposition, but when it is examined a little more closely I do not think it will carry out what the noble Viscount really wishes to be carried out. What is the object of the Amendment? The object is to limit the power to acquire frontage land which is given by Clause 25 so that it can be acquired only by agreement. The powers of compulsory acquisition available under the Public Health Acts are saved by the Amendment. The point before your Lordships is: Ought they to have compulsory powers or is it sufficient to leave it that the land can only be acquired by agreement? I quite sympathise with the noble Viscount's fears. He says this provision may lead to a very large amount of acquisition of land by local authorities. We do not anticipate that, but of course
408
we may be wrong and the noble Viscount may be right, so there is nothing much in that particular argument. But the matter will not rest in the unfettered discretion of local authorities for two reasons. In the first place, they will be able to acquire land compulsorily only by an order which is not valid unless it is confirmed by the Minister. There is that central control over local expenditure. Secondly, and perhaps this is even more important, for any large acquisition of land, whether by agreement or whether compulsorily, the local authority would require a loan. There again there is control by the central authority. They would have to get the sanction of the Minister before they could get a loan in order to buy the land. The provision is in line with the general law. The Public Health Acts enable the local authority to acquire frontage and adjoining land where a road improvement is carried out. There are ample safeguards here.
Let me come now to the merits. It is often very desirable that, authorities should have this power. Why? Because where a road is being widened, for instance, odd bits of land may be left which are insufficient for redevelopment. That would be grossly wasteful. Those bits of land could not be acquired unless they had these powers. In addition, there is need for a legitimate measure of control in order to prevent undesirable forms of development such as ribbon development along existing as well as newly constructed highways. I may say that that is required, not only in the interests of the highway authorities in order to secure the full traffic value of the highway, but also for the better protection of owners whose property is liable to suffer unfair depreciation as the result of uncontrolled frontage development. This procedure is under the existing Town Planning Act and has always been so. It really would not be wise, if frontage lands can be compulsorily acquired under the Public Health Acts, that it should not be possible to acquire them under planning powers, because the very object of the planning powers is to secure sensible and economic development as a whole. That is the whole case and I suggest to the noble Viscount that his fear is not likely to be realised. I agree that it may be, but, on the other hand, there are the safeguards I have

409
indicated. These powers will prevent wasteful development and it seems rather hard that town planning, which is so important, should not have these powers to finish off its work.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The Lord Chancellor said that under the 1925 Act the same sort of clause appears. Then I do not understand why these two clauses were put into these two Private Acts since 1925. Still, my noble friend has been so persuasive that I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment and the two following Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 40, line 20, after ("of") insert ("Part III of")
Page 40, line 25, after ("scheme") insert ("whether made under this Act or under any Act repealed by this Act")
Page 40, line 33, after ("scheme") insert ("whether made under this Act or under any Act repealed by this Act").—(Viscount Gage.)
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Acquisition of land for open spaces and playing fields in area covered by planning scheme]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Amendment to this clause is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 39, after ("scheme") insert ("whether made under this Act or under any Act repealed by this Act").—(Viscount Gage.)
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Limitation of street work charges]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Amendments to this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 41, line 16, after the last ("the") insert ("execution of")
Page 41, line 17, leave out ("executed")
Page 41, line 19, leave out ("for the time being").—(Viscount Gage.)
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Contributions by local authorities towards expenses of, or in connection with, schemes]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Amendment to this clause is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 11, after ("scheme") insert ("whether made under this Act or under any Act repealed by this Act").(Viscount Gage.)
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 [Contributions by statutory undertakers towards expenses of, or in connection with, schemes]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 25, after ("scheme") insert ("whether made under this Act or under any Act repealed by this Act").—(Viscount Gage.)
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Power of public departments to make agreements in connection with schemes]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Amendment standing in my name is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 37, after ("scheme") insert ("whether made under this Act or under any Act repealed by this Act").—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD MOYNE LORD MOYNE moved to add to the clause:
"(3) Where, at any time after a resolution to prepare or adopt a scheme has taken effect, any land or buildings situate within the area to which the resolution applies is or are under the control of a public Department or is or are in their occupation or is or are vested in them for public purposes or for the public service and any charge in the existing use of such land or buildings is proposed to be made, the appropriate public Department shall, before authorising such change of user, consult with the Minister of Health."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to deal with the Crown exemption from town-planning schemes and is designed to secure that public Departments should not over-ride these schemes without due consideration. The Crown must necessarily remain free from

411
the full effect of town-planning schemes. There will obviously be cases where, in the public interest, public Departments should be allowed to transgress the strict letter of town-planning schemes. It may specially arise with the Defence Departments in matters of strategical or defensive importance. If the subject is to submit to sacrifices, heavy sacrifices in some cases, of pre-existing rights owing to the limitations of the schemes, it does not seem reasonable that the Crown should be in a position to destroy the object of the schemes without absolute public necessity.
There has been a case recently which is exciting a great amount of apprehension in a part of the County of London. The Middlesex Territorial Association have entered into negotiations to buy a very valuable piece of land for the purpose of a drill hall at Hampstead. This particular area is subject to very severe town-planning restrictions because the local community have for many years past attached very great importance to the amenities of Hampstead Heath. The freeholders there have gladly accepted these limitations and in this district no private owner is allowed to build more than two houses to each acre of land. There is very great feeling in Hampstead at an authority from outside the County of London choosing, under the expected protection of the Air Ministry, to break in on the Hampstead town-planning scheme. There is certainly no strategical reason for putting a drill hall in this particular place. I do not for one moment assume that the Air Ministry is going to sanction this scheme. In view of the appeals which we have had from the Government for public and private economy, I cannot believe that the Minister for Air will sanction the purchase of land at about £5,000 an acre in about the most valuable part of the outer ring of London for a purpose which could be equally well served by far cheaper land close by. I feel sure that the noble Marquess (Lord Londonderry) will go into the scheme and will examine it from all these points of view—economy and the actual necessity on grounds of defence. This scheme is exciting very great local uneasiness and I hope that the Government will agree that, in a case like this, it is only fair that public authorities should not over-ride town-planning schemes without the fullest necessity.
The method that I suggest is that there should be consultation between the public Department concerned that is proposing to over-ride the scheme and the Ministry of Health as the experts on these matters. It certainly would not be in any way derogatory to the position of these nonexpert Departments that they should consult the Minister of Health, seeing that there is a precedent in Clause 42 where the Ministry of Health itself, the expert Department, in matters which may affect the interests of architecture or archaeology are to consult the Office of Works. In view of this precedent and in view of the heavy financial sacrifices which private persons have voluntarily assumed for the purpose of town-planning schemes, I do beg the Government on public grounds to give this security against unnecessary interference.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 16, at end, insert the said subsection (3).—(Lord Moyne.)
LORD ASKWITH: My name is also attached to the Amendment and I wish to support it. It might be said that this is only a matter of procedure, but it is a matter of procedure of great importance. Although Government Departments generally do consult, one knows of many instances where they have not done so. If there is this invitation in the Bill that they should consult the Minister of Health it will be of great advantage in the future.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR.: It is a little unfortunate that the Amendment should have come up at this particular moment for the noble Lord has quoted an example in Hampstead which obviously has a great deal to do with the Air Ministry and the War Office and unfortunately the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, who is Minister for Air, and the noble and learned Viscount, who is Minister for War, are both at a meeting of the Cabinet at which I also ought to be present. I am, therefore, rather at the disadvantage that I cannot argue with the noble Lord on the details of his case. I accept every word of what he has said. I am told that even now arrangements are being made to put the matter on a proper footing, but I cannot say more because I do not know.
May I come to the general consideration because I am sure the noble Lord would not desire to argue from the par-

413
titular to the general? It may be that his instance is a good one of a very hard case which ought somehow to be remedied, but you cannot argue from one instance to the general consideration. I will tell the noble Lord the position. This Clause 33 deals with land in the occupation of public Departments and in effect it provides that a Department may make agreement with the planning authority for securing that the Department's land is developed in conformity with a scheme. On the face of it that seems all right. I can follow the suggestion that where land is in the occupation of a public Department the Department must consult the Minister, (1), if any change in the user of the land is proposed before the passing of a resolution to prepare a scheme; and (2), if the Department proposes to acquire land for public purposes after the passing of such a resolution.
LORD MOYNE: I think the noble and learned Viscount is reading from the original Amendment which has been withdrawn. On the Order Paper to-day there is a smaller Amendment which limits the operation of this proposal to cases where the scheme has already been adopted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The rest of my argument will proceed upon that basis. I agree with Lord Askwith that there is no doubt that the public Departments do consult one another, and it would seem that that is a very wise thing to do; but to compel them to consult one another and to put it in an Act of Parliament that they shall do, when as a matter of fact we know they do, is another matter. The Town Planning Act of 1925 made no reference to the Crown and consequently not only was Crown land not bound by the Act, but there was no machinery for consultation and agreement between Departments and planning authorities. That was obviously something that ought to have been remedied and it was partly remedied. By Section 12 of the Crown Lands Act, 1927, provision was made for consultation and agreement in the case of land in the occupation of the Commissioners of Crown Lands.
When this Town Planning Bill came before the various Departments there was long negotiation between all of them. In the Law Courts I should not be allowed to give hearsay evidence, but the noble
414
and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has told me that his Department took a great part in these negotiations. They were difficult negotiations; they were negotiations between all the Departments and this clause represents a compromise arrived at between all the Departments and the Treasury. The clause was very fully discussed between the Ministry of Health and the Treasury and the effect of it is to extend Section 12 of the Crown Lands Act, 1927, to all public Departments. It is the considered view of the Government—and may I add it is the considered view of all those who are in charge of Departments because this is the result of the pooling of their brains?—that this represents a long step in advance and for practical purposes it goes as far as can be reasonably expected.
Public Departments, and in particular the Departments responsible for the defence of the country, would strongly and not unreasonably object to having imposed on them a legal obligation to consult the Minister of Health before taking action in the cases referred to in the Amendment. The noble Lord need not have the slightest doubt that consultation will take place, but the Departments responsible for the defence of the country desire to resist a Parliamentary obligation which they think is not in the interest of the Defence Services, and the Government cannot possibly accept it. Those are the general considerations and I would beg the noble Lord in the circumstances, when we have agreement on a very difficult question, to let the matter rest where it is on this compromise.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: The noble and learned Viscount has stated that it would be unthinkable or inadvisable to compel one Government Department to consult with another. Might I draw his attention to Clause 17, which is entitled "Power to make orders for preservation of certain buildings"? There you will see that the Minister of Health shall consult with the First Commissioner of Works. Again if he turns to Clause 42, which is headed "Consultation of Commissioners of Works as to schemes affecting certain buildings," there he will find that the Minister shall, before approving the scheme, consult the Commissioners of Works. I do not say this invalidates the argument of the noble and learned Viscount but it does show that

415
in his own Bill he contemplates what he now condemns.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Acquisition of land for purpose of garden cities]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I beg to move the Amendment standing my name, which is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 12, leave out ("its") and insert ("their").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36:
Power of Minister to require preparation or adoption of scheme, and to require execution of scheme.
36.—(1) If the Minister is satisfied after the holding of a local inquiry that a scheme ought to be prepared by any authority as respects any land, he may by order require the authority to prepare a scheme and to take such other steps as may be necessary for bringing it into operation, and the order of the Minister shall have the same effect as a resolution to prepare a scheme for the area to which the order relates passed by the authority and approved by the Minister.
(2) If the authority fail to prepare a scheme to the satisfaction of the Minister within such time as may be specified in the order, or to take any other steps which they are required by this Act, or by regulations made thereunder, or by order of the Minister thereunder, to take, the Minister may himself act in the place and at the expense of the authority, or in the case of the council of a rural district, or the council of an urban district which for the time being contains, according to the latest published return of the Registrar-General, a population of less than twenty thousand, may, if he thinks fit, and after consultation with the council of the county in which the district is situate empower that council so to act.
(3) If the Minister is satisfied after the holding of a local inquiry that any authority have failed to adopt any scheme proposed by owners of land in a case where a scheme ought to be adopted, he may order the authority to adopt the scheme proposed, or if he thinks fit, may himself approve the proposed scheme with or without modifications, and a scheme so approved by him shall he deemed to have been adopted by the authority and approved by the Minister.
(4) If the Minister is satisfied after the holding of a local inquiry that a responsible authority have failed to enforce effectively the observance of a scheme which has come into operation or any provisions thereof,
416
or to execute any works or do any things which under the scheme or this Act the authority are required to execute or do, the Minister may by order, Which shall be enforceable by mandamus, require the authority to do all things necessary for remedying their default and for carrying into execution the scheme or, if he thinks fit, he may himself act in the place and at the expense of the authority or in the case of a rural district or such an urban district as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, may, if he thinks fit, and after consultation with the council of the county in which the district is situate empower that council so to act.
(5) The Minister shall furnish a copy of the report made to him by the person who holds a local inquiry directed by this section to every authority concerned and, on payment of such fee as may be fixed by the Minister, to any person interested.
(6) Any expenses incurred by the Minister in exercising under this section any powers of any authority shall be paid, in the first instance, out of moneys provided by Parliament, but the amount of those expenses as certified by the Minister shall, on demand, be paid by the authority to the Minister and shall be recoverable as a debt due to the Crown.
(7) The payment of any such expenses as aforesaid shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister, be a purpose for which an authority may borrow money in accordance with the provisions of this Act or of the scheme under which the authority is constituted.
(8) Where an order is made by the Minister under subsection (2) or subsection (4) of this section empowering a county council to act in the place of the council of a rural or urban district, the order may apply any of the provisions of Section sixty-three of the Local Government Act, 1894, with such modifications and adaptations as appear necessary or expedient.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE, who had on the Paper two Amendments, to leave out subsection (1) and subsection (2) respectively, said: This clause deals with the power of the Minister to deal with a laggard or recalcitrant authority. We all know, at any rate in this House, that we have a great horror of over-bureaucratic treatment, but I feel on further consideration, and in the light of the concessions which have been made during the course of the passage of this Bill, that it would be asking too much of the Government to ask them to accept this Amendment, and that it would imperil the Bill as a whole if I were to insist upon these Amendments. I therefore propose, so far as I am concerned, not to move my Amendments.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Amendment to this clause is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 27, leave out ("thereof") and insert ("of such a scheme (whether being a scheme made under this Act or being a scheme made under any Act repealed by this Act)").—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to leave out Clause 36. The noble Lord said: This clause, which I am moving to leave out, is a mandatory clause, and the reason for my Amendment is to be found in what the Minister said when moving the Second Reading of the Bill. He said:
"This is a local Bill and not a centralising Bill. It is not a Bill of compulsion but one of permission. It is simply to put powers which the people want into their hands to use as and when they desire to use them. It is not a Bill to force action down the throats of the local authorities."
That seems a very contradictory statement in the light of what appears in the marginal note to this clause, namely: "Power of Minister to require preparation or adoption of scheme and to require execution of scheme." That seems, on the face of it, to be entirely contradictory of what the Minister said in another place, and if one examines the clause one finds that it has actually eight subsections and covers nearly two pages of the Bill.
Under subsection (1) the Minister may order the authority to prepare a scheme. That is certainly very mandatory. There does not seem to be much local option about that. Then subsection (2) says that if the Minister is not, satisfied with the scheme prepared the Minister himself may take action at the expense of the local authority. We are always being told that the Government are very anxious not to encourage expense with regard to local rates as well as Imperial taxes; yet here the Minister is allowed to act himself and at the expense of the local authority, to make them do something they do not want to do, or he may empower the county council to act, so as to coerce the local authority. I am a member of a county council, but I do not think that they are anxious to bully local authorities where the local authorities do not wish to carry out a scheme and the Minister insists upon it. Then subsection (3) says that if the authority fails to adopt a scheme proposed by the
418
landowners the Minister may enforce that scheme against the wishes of the local authority. I thought the whole object was to give powers to the local authorities, but apparently an owner may come down and force the local authority to do something that they do not wish to do.
Then by subsection (4) if the Minister considers that the authority have failed to enforce effectively the observance of a scheme he may have a mandamus at the expense of the authority. This is the second time that it is proposed that the local authority, if the Minister disagrees with them, may be fined by the expense of a mandamus or by the empowering of the county council to act for the local authority. I think it is very unfair to put it into the Bill that where the Minister does not wish to make himself unpopular he may force the county council to do what will make them unpopular. Under subsection (7) it is actually proposed that the local authorities may be empowered to borrow in order to pay the expenses which they have been put to under the authority of the Minister because they refused to put the scheme in force. That seems to be a, most objectionable part of the Bill because it contemplates heavy expense on the part of the local authorities. I beg to move that Clause 36 be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 36.—(Lord Strachie.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE, OF THAME: I hope your Lordships will not follow the advice of Lord Strachie because if subsection (5) is left out it will rob me of a very valuable argument on Clause 38, and I hope that when we come to that clause my noble friend in charge of the Bill will have sufficient gratitude to accept my Amendment.
LORD DYNEVOR: This clause is the one which coerces local authorities. I would suggest to my noble friend that it might be better if he concentrated his energy to getting rid of Clause 52 rather than of Clause 36. What does this clause do? It is suggested the local authority will not move so the Minister then orders a scheme and the local authority still refuses to move. The Minister then may act by himself and charge the expenses to the local authority or he may ask the county council to move, if it is a question of a district council or small urban

419
authority. What happens if the authority refuses to pay the Minister's expenses? I believe the Minister can recover them as a debt, but I am not sure that he will not have very great difficulty in getting the money. I think we can safely leave it to him and the local authority to fight it out between them. I think if you are going to have a Town Planning Bill at all you must give the Minister some power and this is a clause which enables him to coerce or ginger or shove along the local authorities if they are not anxious to have a scheme. Without these powers the Bill would be perfectly useless.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I wish to support Lord Strachie. I think this clause is most objectionable. Yesterday with the connivance of the Government this House paid lip loyalty to economy. This clause enables the Minister to cast a great deal of expense upon the local authority. What is the use of having these local authorities with enlarged powers if you are not going to trust them? On the Local Government Bill of a previous Government one of the great arguments, especially as regards Scotland, where the alterations were much greater than in the English Bill as to the constitution of the local authorities, was that there would be more liberty for these larger bodies. It seems to me that you are going by this clause to give great powers to the Minister and to cause great expense against the wishes of the local authorities and probably of the ratepayers. I think it is a very wrong power to put in this Bill. It is not as if even at the present time, in spite of the economy cry, the Departments were economical. Even up till quite recently Departments have been trying to force local authorities to spend money unnecessarily, and it seems to me that if we pass this clause we should simply be supporting that attitude of Government Departments, whether in London or Edinburgh.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I am sorry that in many ways Lord Phillimore did not move his Amendments, because I rather prefer his Amendments, which would have omitted the first two subsections, to this Amendment, which would omit the whole clause. There is something to be said for the remaining subsections, but under subsections (1) and (2) the Minister is given absolute authority to
420
act himself instead of the local authority. It has been said that you cannot run a country unless you leave to Ministers of the Crown who are responsible to Parliament final residual powers to see that the will of Parliament as expressed in Acts of Parliament is carried out, and that this is the minimum power which is necessary here. That was the explanation given by the Minister in another place of what he meant by a permissive Act. It is giving him absolute power to act by himself if he is not content with the way in which the local authority is acting. I do not think that is a power that your Lordships ought to give to a Minister. You have no real power to challenge any decision he makes, and you are leaving it in the Minister's hands alone, and not in the hands of the local authority. For that reason I shall support the Amendment.
LORD LOVAT: By the Berating Act the local authorities were increased very much in size. In Scotland, for instance, the county, not the district, is the rating authority and the authority responsible for carrying out the whole of local government. You would have thought that His Majesty's Government would be more inclined to leave greater power to the local authorities now that their units are larger, but in all recent legislation the very fact that you have handed over local government to bigger bodies seems to increase the distrust of the central Government for local authorities. It strikes me as entirely illogical. When the Derating Act was passed it was said that one of the aims of the Act was to take things out of the hands of small local groups and put them into the hands of larger bodies so that matters should be considered from a larger point of view. But this legislation particularly and much other legislation as well is in the direction of not trusting the man on the spot.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My noble friend Lord Dynevor suggested that we should do better to concentrate on removing Clause 52 rather than this, but if we did—and I hope we shall get Clause 52 deleted—we shall as a necessary consequence in our own interest have to get Clause 36 deleted also, because, unless we do, the Minister can act under Clause 36 and achieve exactly the same result as would be achieved under Clause 52. There is also another

421
reason, which is that the local authority are surely the people best able to judge whether development in their own area is going on in the way which is most suitable, rather than somebody in London who has no local knowledge and cannot acquire it in the course of the two or three days of a local inquiry.
LORD BALFOUR OF BUBLEIGH: I hope your Lordships will not agree to this Amendment. I think there is some misconception about it. Your Lordships are in favour of the principle of town planning, but it does seem to me that this clause is necessary to meet the case where, for example, you might have a small authority, say a rural district council, which is obstructing by refusing to come into a much bigger scheme. It may be a perfectly good scheme, and I think you must give the Minister power to intervene in a case of that kind. I am bound to say some of your Lordships are unduly apprehensive of the powers of the Minister. I think it is quite necessary to have powers of this kind.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I think I shall not be under-stating the case if I say that, were this clause left out, instead of advancing town-planning legislation we should be going back some way. This is what is called the default clause, which empowers the Minister to take action where local authorities have flagrantly and grossly neglected their duties. Such a power has existed in town-planning legislation since 1909, and if we look at other Acts we shall see that this provision empowering the Minister so to act is an old one, and has been constantly reaffirmed by Parliament. It occurs, for instance, in the Public Health Act, 1875, and in the Local Government Act, 1929, this default power was again reaffirmed by Parliament. I quite admit that if the Minister did use this power in frequent cases and without due justification he might impose a considerable burden on local authorities, but I am quite sure that your Lordships will agree that Ministers do not exercise such default powers without due cause. I think you will also agree that there is no likelihood of any Minister using these powers in an irresponsible manner. I think there is a good argument for say-
422
ing that compulsion ought to be applied as little as possible in permissive Acts, but I do not think we can put the default clause into that category. I very much hope that your Lordships will not in this case take away a power which has existed for the last twenty years, which has been exercised in a perfectly unobjectionable manner, and in regard to which I do not believe that anyone has reason to think that it will be exercised less discreetly in the future. We attach great importance to the retention of this clause, and I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I think the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, does this Bill an injustice. He cannot have had in mind Clauses 3 and 4. There most careful provision is made that where two or more authorities are interested in a scheme they should be asked to act as a joint local authority, and the particular fear that the noble Lord felt cannot arise. The authors of the Bill have been most careful to provide against it.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Before this discussion closes, perhaps I might be allowed to express the view of the Opposition on this matter. We maintain that the Minister should bring pressure to bear on recalcitrant authorities. To take a specific instance of the damage that would be done if this clause were deleted, I would draw your Lordships' attention to subsection (3). Under subsection (3) the Ministry is entitled to override a single local authority which is hanging up a project prepared and agreed upon by a group of local authorities. This in. bound to be of practical importance, because in all regional planning a number of local authorities are represented, and if there is one reactionary and stagnant authority which objects to the whole scheme, unless the Ministry can step in and interfere a project which would be of the greatest benefit to the particular locality would be defeated. It is, therefore, in agreement with the general principle behind this clause that the Opposition would oppose the Amendment that has been moved.
On Question, Whether Clause 36 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 30.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Mersey, V.

Heneage, L.

Ullswater, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Reading, M.

Mount Temple, L.

Salisbury, M.

Addington, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Phillimore, L.

Denbigh, E.

Bayford, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Biddulph, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Danesfort, L.

Redesdale, L.

Plymouth, E.

Darling, L.

Rhayader, L.

Stanhope, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gainford, L.

Snell, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Hampton, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hanworth, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Hereford, V.

Hawke, L.

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

Hood, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Iddesleigh, E.

Greville, L,

Bedford, D.

Midleton, E.

Jessel, L.

Somerset, D.

Morton, E.

Lawrence, L.

Wellington, D.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Lovat, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Linlithgow, M.

Radnor, E.

Moyne, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Bradford, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Remnant, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) [Teller.]

Clinton, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Cranworth, L.

Teynham, L.

Grey, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wharton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Forester, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38:
Local inquiries.
38.—(1) For the purposes of the execution of his powers and duties under this Act, the Minister may cause to he held such local inquiries as are directed by this Act and such other local inquiries as he may think fit, and the costs incurred in relation to any such local inquiry shall be paid by the authorities and persons concerned in the inquiry, or by such of them and in such proportions as the Minister may direct, and the Minister may certify the amount of the costs incurred, and any sum so certified and directed by the Minister to be paid by any authority or person shall be a debt to the Crown from such authority or person.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (1), after "fit," to insert "and the report of the person holding such inquiry shall at the request of any person represented at the inquiry be open to inspection by him." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I put down on behalf of the Central Landowners Association. I notice that there are other Amendments exactly on the same lines as my own, and I suppose for the convenience of the House we shall probably take our decision upon them. My
424
intention is to go to a Division upon my Amendment. What does Clause 38 do? Subsection (5) of Clause 36 requires the Minister to furnish a copy of the report of an inquiry to every authority concerned. I cannot see why under Clause 38 there should be a different procedure. Why should not the Minister in the same way have to furnish a report of what his inspectors have told him in regard to this matter? The inquiry is held in public, the Press are there, and the whole thing is thrashed out in public. I suppose some comments are made by the inspector. I know that in some cases they are made, and the whole of the evidence is published, so that the local authorities affected and the public have the whole question before them, but they are not to be allowed to know what are the grounds upon which the inspector comes to his decision and makes his recommendations to the Minister.
Why should this report be secret? It is not to be secret in the case of Clause 36, but it is to be secret in the case of Clause 38. What did the Minister say on this question, I think on June 6 last? He said they all knew that they would be depriving the Minister of his power to get a confidential report from the inspector who was holding the inquiry and really would be depriving him of a large

425
part of his responsibility and authority. That was said another place when there was a, good deal of opposition to the proposal that the report should not be published and that the local authorities should not have the benefit of knowing exactly what was the advice that was given and upon what grounds the Minister made his decision. It seems curious the Minister should say that this would really deprive him of a large part of his responsibility and authority. Surely the responsibility and the authority of a Minister do not rest upon the secrecy of the report of an inspector? Of course it may be more convenient for the Minister if he is going to give a decision against the local authority not to have to justify his reasons but merely to rest it on his own ipse dixit.
The Minister said something else which struck me as rather extraordinary. He said that a Minister ought not to be tied down to do what his inspector tells him. Why should a Minister be tied down by his inspector's report? He would certainly use his own judgment. It seems to me that there are strong reasons why the report should be made public in order that we may have the Minister dealing with the matter on his own judgment and authority and able to justify himself, if necessary, by his inspector's report, or, if he goes against the inspector's report, to enable people to see why he went against it. When we come to a much more important question, the imposition of Import Duties, we find that the reports of the Tariff Advisory Committee are to be published. Surely if the President of the Board of Trade has to take full responsibility and has to justify himself whether he does or does not impose duties on certain articles, if he is able to exercise his authority and give reasons for accepting or rejecting proposed ditties, there is no reason why the Minister in this particular case should not have to publish these reports?
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 5, after ("fit") insert ("and the report of the person holding such inquiry shall at the request of any person represented at the inquiry be open to inspection by him").—(Lord Strachie.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Perhaps it would be convenient to have a general discussion on this matter. I have on the Paper what may be called a rival Amendment. The Government appointed
426
a Committee on Ministers' powers, doubtless with preconceived ideas. They are like the lady who goes to her best friend for advice. If the advice given is according to her preconceived ideas she will take it but if not the friendship is broken. This Amendment is based on the recommendation of the Committee on Ministers' Powers, that the report of the inspector should be published. It goes further than my noble friend's Amendment, but not quite so far as the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Bayford has put on the Paper. It is a sort of halfway house, and for that reason alone it may be preferable. Publication was resisted by the Minister in Committee and on Report in the other House on the ground that the inspector should not be under any such inhibitions as would result if he had to state things in such a form as to make it possible to present them to the public. I do not propose that they should he presented to the public, but simply to the interested parties. The Minister conceded publication where he himself supersedes the responsible authority under Clause 36 (5), and this Amendment simply applies this new subsection to all inquiries in the same words.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Strachie, said he could not understand why if the report was published it should tie the Minister's hands. It obviously must tie the Minister's hands if the inspector reports in favour of the local authority and the Minister, having read all the evidence, thinks the inspector is wrong. It will be very difficult for him to go against his inspector's report if it has been published, because everybody will say: "You had a local inquiry, the inspector who heard the evidence recommends a certain course, and you who were not there go against him." It seems to me that if you publish the report it makes it very difficult for the Minister ever to go against the recommendations of his paid officials. Surely a Minister is entitled to receive confidential reports from those whom he asks to do work for him? The ideal, no doubt, would be for the Minister to hold all inquiries himself. Of course he cannot do that. Therefore I submit that he is entitled to get a clear, unbiased and really truthful presentation of the case from the inspector which he will not be

427
able to get if the report is published. In a report which is for the eye of the Minister alone and for the eye of the chief civil servant in the Department many things can be said which ought to be said but which cannot be said in public, which would be perhaps, not libellous but unprovable by the Minister, although he knows that what the inspector says is true.
What harm does it do to the local authority if the report is not published? They have every opportunity of presenting their case at the public inquiry. They can bring forward all the witnesses they like and they can ask the inspector to take all the evidence they wish to bring forward. All that evidence is before the public. There is no question, I understand, of holding the inquiry in private. It is to be held in public. I do beg your Lordships not to tie the hands of the Minister so that he is not to be allowed to receive a confidential report from one of his permanent officials whom he trusts. If you do pass the Amendment it will have no effect in practice because all that would happen would be that the Minister would tell the inspector to send in a sketchy formal report and see him in his room next morning when they could talk the matter over freely and the Minister could be informed of the real facts. All you would do would be to increase the burdens of the inspecting officer and the Minister.
LORD DYNEVOR: I have a similar Amendment on the Paper and perhaps it would be convenient for me to speak now as I understand we are having a general discussion on principle. To my mind the Minister ought to furnish a copy of the report to every authority concerned. I do not know why the Minister wants to have this secret diplomacy. Every person interested in the report ought to be able to obtain a copy on paying a fee. I cannot help thinking that the Minister may be rather alarmed lest some adverse comments should be made on the report if it is published. I suggest that we should have everything above board and that everybody interested ought to know what is in the report which has been furnished to the Minister.
LORD BAYFORD: I have an Amendment on the same subject but I should be ready to accept either of the other
428
Amendments on the Paper. The difference in the case of my Amendment is that I do insist on absolute publication. The other Amendments merely go so far as to say that those who are interested parties to the inquiry shall have an opportunity of seeing the report and the result of the inquiry. My noble friend Lord Mount Temple has stated that these inquiries may be. so confidential that it is not in the public interest that the Minister should divulge the report that comes to him from his official. He even goes further and says that the official may report one thing but the Minister may decide another, which seems to me to make it all the more necessary that the report should be published. What, after all, is there that is so very secret? What is there that the Minister should be afraid or ashamed of publishing? What reason is there that he should be afraid of letting the interested parties know the details of the inquiries which his official has made? The unkindest cut of all comes in the fact that apparently the interested parties have to pay for this inquiry and yet they cannot even see the result or the reasons on which that result was arrived at. That is a travesty of British justice. I am told that the same sort of thing has occurred in many cases. That may be so but in those particular cases there may be good reasons for it. I cannot see any reason for secrecy whatever in this particular case. There is nothing mysterious about it, nothing that should be kept secret in the public interest. The whole thing should be open and above board and for that reason I support this Amendment.
LORD HANWORTH: I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. It goes far deeper than any of those who have supported it realise. The objection to it is far different from any that the supporters of the Amendment have suggested. It is not a question of its being contrary to British justice; it is not a question of the Minister being afraid or ashamed; it is not a question of hush hush or of preventing the true facts coming out. The point is one which covers a good many matters of importance in the public service. What is of importance is that the Minister should get a complete report, a fearless report, a report which he can act upon, a report which gives him details and which will be confidential in this sense. There are

429
persons who are interested and who will give diverse opinions. A will say one thing and B will say another. Is that report to be available, not merely at the discretion of the Minister? That is the point. If the Minister afterwards likes to publish the report and there is no harm in it, well and good, but these Amendments provide that the Minister must give the report.
None of those who have supported the Amendment have thought for a moment of this point. A says one thing and B takes a different view. They are both from the same locality. If the Minister is compelled to produce the report, then A knows what B has said and B knows what A has said. Might not that conduce to uneasiness and to the discomfiture of those who have made their report? That is the point. It, is because we want to find out what are the true views. Those views may be discordant and you want to have that information given under what is the seal of confidence. I venture to speak somewhat strongly on this point because it is one that constantly crops up. It cropped up when I was a Law Officer and wanted to get reports and information in circumstances in which those who give the information need not be afraid of the consequences that will follow their information or their revelations. It cropped up the other day in a case that came before your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity. A man went down to make an inquiry in relation to some industrial assurance. He said: "I am going to hold this inquiry in public. I will have no nonsense but will hear and probe all this matter to the full. I will have witnesses before me who will tell the truth and I will have full revelations of everything." What was the result? He got people who made charges which were unfounded, who made charges against the conduct of what had been done, who gave information which had to be sifted and considered for the purpose of the report, but which placed those who had to answer them in a position of peril and put them in a, position that they ought not to be placed in.
In this case, if the inspector goes down to make an inquiry and to get a report, if he is sure that his report must be produced to any person who is interested,
430
to any person who has been represented at the inquiry, will it be possible for him to make a report in as full and candid a manner as would be possible if he reports upon the materials before him under the seal of confidence? I beg your Lordships not to be led away by the phrases, misleading in this connection, of British justice or that somebody may be ashamed of the report. It is not in the interests of the Minister or the inspector that this is done. It is for the purpose of getting real information under the seal of confidence, which will enable the inspector to report quite fearlessly and candidly what he thinks and without fear of having that report made use of in the locality to the disadvantage of those who have given the information to the inspector. On these grounds I hope your Lordships will reject the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: There are one or two passages I would like to read from the Report of the Committee on Ministers' Powers:
"The inspector fixes a hearing in the locality, when an opportunity is given to all interested parties to put their views and their evidence before him and the witnesses called on either side may be and often are cross-examined by the other side."
Now comes the important sentence:
"In addition the inspector gathers information from other sources."
Those other sources are not subject to cross-examination. They may be quite incorrect. Those people may take the inspector in. The report continues:
"It has been alleged that the inspector does not always act judicially, but that he supplements his formal inquiry by personal investigation, and that it is improper that any decision should be based on such information."
I am sure the Lord Chancellor agrees with that in his heart of hearts.
"In the case of a public local inquiry held as preliminary to a judicial decision, it is in our opinion essential that the forms and methods appropriate to judicial proceedings should be strictly observed."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I venture to think there has been come misapprehension with regard to the nature of the inspector and his reports. The curious thing about the debate has been that I find myself in agreement with nearly everything that has been said about British justice and secrecy, but I suggest to your Lordships that the particular question we are now discussing

431
has nothing to do with British justice. The Donoughmore Report, published a few weeks ago, made a distinction between several sorts of reports. You can have a report which is in the nature of a judicial decision and nobody could object to that report being disclosed. Of course it ought to be disclosed. You may have a report which is in the nature of a quasi-judicial decision. Opinions may differ about that, but my personal opinion is that that also ought to be disclosed, and the Donoughmore Committee recommended that where the report was either judicial or quasi-judicial it ought to be disclosed.
But there is another sort of report which I suggest is the kind which we are now discussing and which is really administrative. It comes to this in effect—the Minister wishes to inform himself upon certain local conditions and he sends down an inspector to see and to hear witnesses and, if you like, to gather information—though I personally object to that. His report is not a judicial or quasi-judicial document. It is a piece of advice to the Minister which the Minister must take into consideration when forming his conclusions. Is there a single one of your Lordships who, having sent some one to make inquiries for the purpose of advising you on a certain matter, would think when that advice came that it ought to be published? It is a confidential document. The House will not be wise to pass this Amendment. You will not only be doing considerable harm, but throwing the law of England to a certain extent out of gear.
Do your Lordships realise what a report is? I expect most of you do. I have one here which I will hand to anyone who wishes to see it, though I am not at liberty to tell you in respect of what district it is. That report is of a most confidential character. I am not good at arithmetic, but it contains over 60,000 words, and that is only half the total amount of documents, because I understand there was attached a considerable number of maps, sections, and road elevations without which you would not understand the report if you read it. That is the sort of report. What happens? The Minister takes it into consideration, but he does not read it all himself. He does not "get it up" himself, but he has people to do it for him and then he says to them: "What do you
432
think of it?" The result is that this report is no more judicial or quasi-judicial than any advice which your Lordships might get from an estate agent as to what you should do in a certain set of circumstances.
May I, because the matter is of such importance constitutionally, tell your Lordships the procedure.? I am informed that after the report is received—this document of 60,000 words—the recommendations of the inspector are by no means adopted as a matter of course. I see in the report I have before me that there are one hundred recommendations. After the report is received the recommendations of the inspector are by no means adopted as a matter of course. The matters are thrashed out in the Department, in conference with the inspector in important cases, with the wealth of information and experience which is available in the Department. Private interests in this way are far more assuredly safeguarded and, incidentally, the fact that there is general satisfaction is indicated by the very few complaints which are received.
LORD BAYFORD: Is there such a report as is referred to in the clause—namely, a report of which the expenses are paid by the people who are being enquired about?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly. Now, if I may, I want to make an appeal to the House. In spite of what I have been saying I see a great deal in the arguments which have been put on the other side, but the position is that this Departmental practice wants thorough overhauling and as a consequence of the Donoughmore Report we are going to have it thoroughly overhauled. I would suggest that your Lordships should do now precisely what you did on Tuesday in regard to the affirmative and negative Resolutions. Let us for the moment reject this Amendment. That can do no harm because there are no schemes likely to come about for some considerable time. On the other hand, we do not want to create a precedent unless we are sure we are doing the right thing. I think it will be necessary to consider—and I think you will before the end of the year—the general policy regarding all these reports. Without committing myself with regard to the future it seems to me there is no halfway house between trusting the

433
Minister with adequate checks and a system under which you make the man whom you send down and who is the judge, so to speak, decide the case. I do not say that is a good plan, but between the two alternatives it is difficult to imagine a halfway house.
Let me sum up. Do not let us here set a precedent that we may have cause to regret. Do as you did the other night and say that this shall stand and we will examine the whole of this subject. There is not a single Act like this in which the report is not said to be confidential. No other Act proposes what the Amendment proposes. It may be necessary to schedule the Acts in future, and to say in these Acts the report shall be disclosed, and in these other Acts the report shall not be disclosed. I ask your Lordships not to come to a decision which I am sure you may have cause to regret later on.
LORD STRACHIE: I only intervene for one moment because I think the noble Lord, the Master of the Rolls, is entirely mistaken. These inquiries are entirely public, and the Press are present, and the only thing which is secret is the report of the inspector. Of course if the whole inquiry was secret I could understand it being said that the report should be treated as secret, but if the whole inquiry is public the report should be made public. I could not follow the Lord Chancellor in his argument. I could not see that it really took away from the principle that a Minister ought to be entirely responsible. We ought to know the grounds on which he makes his decision. I must stick to my Amendment and take a Division upon it.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: My Lords, there being no second Teller for the Contents the Question is resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived accordingly.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Appeals to Quarter Sessions]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 28, leave out ("has") and insert ("have").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [For the protection of Statutory undertakers]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, has just approached me and told me that I am in error in my first Amendment to substitute "are" for "is" and that being so I do not propose to move it. But I move the second.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 9, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 42 to 45 agreed to.
Clause 46:
Provision as to the preservation of trees.
46.—(1) The provisions to be inserted in a scheme with respect to securing amenity and the protection of existing amenities may include provisions for the preservation of trees, whether standing alone or in groups or in woodlands.
(2) Where any provisions for the preservation of trees in woodlands are included in a scheme, the scheme must also contain provisions enabling the responsible authority to consent, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as they think proper to impose, to the cutting of trees and other forestry operations in a woodland which is in use, and is intended to be continued in use, for the production of timber.
(3) A person aggrieved by the refusal of a responsible authority to give their consent to any such operations as aforesaid, or by any conditions imposed by the responsible authority, may within twenty-eight days from the date on which he received notice of the decision of the authority, or such longer period as the Forestry Commissioners may allow, appeal to the Forestry Commissioners, and the Forestry Commissioners shall allow the appeal, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as they think proper to impose, if they are satisfied that the proposed operations are in accordance with the practice of good forestry.
The decision of the Forestry Commissioners on an appeal under this subsection shall be final and conclusive and shall have effect as if it were a decision of the authority.
(4) In this section the expression "timber" includes all forest products.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to leave out Clause 46. The noble Lord said: The object of this clause is to include provisions for the preservation of trees or groups of trees or woodlands in schemes

435
for securing the amenity of any district. So far as trees and groups of trees are concerned I take no very great objection to the clause. Most of that class of timber would probably be included under the heading of park trees or avenues, possibly fine roadside trees, and trees forming some group of landscape importance—a class of trees which generally one would desire to keep perhaps for the reason that they are much more valuable to the estate standing than if they were cut down. But we come to quite a different category when we deal with commercial woodlands. They were planted by their owners for their own purposes, and the owners should be free to deal with them as they please. It would be very unfair to penalise the owner, because his action in planting has really improved the amenity of the district. The woodlands are of importance to the district certainly, but they are of much greater importance to the owner himself.
Consider the position of an owner who has been unfortunate enough to have his woodlands included in a scheme. He can under this clause take no part in the management of his woodlands. He can neither clean, nor thin, nor prune, nor fell without the consent of the responsible authority. The responsible authority may decline to give consent, and he would then have to appeal to the Forestry Commission. That would be a, very valuable safeguard. The Forestry Commission, I am quite certain, would decide exceedingly fairly, but they can only decide on the ground of whether the felling or treatment of the timber is, in the terms of the Bill, an operation "in accordance with the practice of good forestry." But they have no powers, they are not competent to decide whether in the owner's interest and for his own purposes he ought not to be allowed to fell and obtain the value of his timber. There are very few inducements to-day for any owner of land to plant trees. The costs are very high and the profits, which may or may not accrue, at all events are a long time deferred; and the main inducement for planting is to enable an owner to accumulate capital which may serve the purpose of his successor in paying Death Duties, If that inducement is taken away it will, in my opinion, be the most serious discouragement to planting which you could have. For that reason I claim that your Lordships should not allow the
436
owner of commercial woodlands to be put under the control of an authority and prevented from employing those woodlands in the way which it is necessary for him to do. I do not take any objection to this clause so far as the amenity timber is concerned, and if the Government desires to pass such portion of it as deals with the amenity timber and if they would leave to the owner full freedom to deal with his commercial woodlands, I should raise no further objection.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 46.—(Lord Clinton.)
LORD LOVAT: I would like to support the noble Lord in his Amendment and also to associate myself with his view that if commercial timber were excluded the clause might be passed. With the best intentions the local authorities and the supporters of the preservation of rural amenities do not always see the same way. I remember very well that at a deputation at which the noble Lord who proposed this Amendment was present, a suggestion was made to the Forestry Commission that a certain area called Devil's Jump should not be planted. It was only after we had examined the witnesses that we found that seven out of fourteen who had come on the deputation, at the time when the area had been originally clear felled had deputised to the authority in charge in an exactly contrary spirit. I remember another occasion when the local authorities resented certain action taken by the Forestry Commission. The case was raised in this House. Having gone three times down to examine the place, we found that the petition was concerned with only twelve trees out of 12,100,000. Therefore I do not think that the local authorities are always good judges. It would be the final blow to forestry in Great Britain if no commercial timber were safe from any Minister who desired to take it entirely out of the hands of the owner and put it under a scheme which would prevent its being used for the purpose for which, after all, most planters do plant their land—namely, in order to have something which can be cut at the time when Death Duties fall to be paid. For this reason I personally shall not fail as a Teller if the noble Lord divides the House.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I hope that the Government will accept this

437
Amendment. We have had speeches from two noble Lords of great authority, and there is certainly no one in this country who has done so much to get land planted and the forests brought to a profitable state for the good of the country and for the good of the nation as those two noble Lords. I should be very sorry for any one who was asked to say what operations were "in accordance with the practice of good forestry." Certainly you could not get the information from any of the professors of forestry in the Universities, for they have had very little practical experience. The whole clause amounts to saying: "We do not want another tree planted in this country."
VISCOUNT GAGE: I do not think the noble Duke need have reminded us of the authority of the two noble Lords who addressed us. It is well known to the Government. As far as I understand the misgivings of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, they are chiefly concerned with the security of commercial woodland. He is not satisfied that if an owner wants to cut down timber in a woodland which is preserved—to cut it down, for example, for Death Duties—that he will be ever able to do so, or will be entitled to be fully compensated if he cannot do so; and, further, that financial necessity may make it necessary in some cases for an owner to realise the value of the timber before it is fully grown. We quite appreciate the points made by the noble Lord and we have no desire to do anything which is not fair to owners. I may say that there have already been some consultations between the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, and the Government upon this matter, and, as I think he said that upon the general object of preserving the amenity timber he would support us, perhaps we may be able to come to some mutually satisfactory agreement if we can allow this matter to stand over till Report.
There is a suggestion which has been put forward that the best way to meet the noble Lord's point would probably be something on these lines, that we should provide that if an owner at any time wants to cut timber and preserve woodland he shall give notice to the responsible authority, and they may decide that the timber shall not be cut down, and that then he may forthwith
438
claim compensation for his loss. I do not know if I can go further into the matter.
LORD CLINTONI do not think the noble Viscount need go further on those lines, but if he wishes to proceed no doubt your Lordships will be glad to hear him.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I do not know if the noble Lord really wishes me to outline any further one of the proposals made by the Government?
LORD CLINTON: If the noble Lord is asking me what I think, so long as the owner is under the control of the local authority, as I think he is under the proposal he has read, we should still raise a strong objection.
VISCOUNT GAGE: Several schemes, I understand, have been put forward for consideration, and I suggest that one of them might possibly meet the noble Lord satisfactorily. I suggest that unless the noble Lord can put forward some alternative on his own account we should leave the clause as it stands and agree mutually on a satisfactory alternative on the Report stage.
LORD CLINTON: So far as I am concerned I am perfectly willing to come to an agreement with the noble Viscount provided two things happen, which I hope I have made clear—that our commercial woodlands are not to be placed under any control of a local authority, but that the owner is to be allowed to deal with them in his ordinary forest practice as he pleases. If that is put into the clause, so far as I am concerned that part of it dealing with amenity matters may remain, or anything which the noble Lord can put in which will encourage and not discourage forestry operations may be put in.
LORD CRANWORTH: Would it not be better that the Amendment of my noble friend should be accepted now? There seems general agreement. I should think that that was the more satisfactory way.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am in rather a difficult position, because negotiations have reached a certain point, and the noble Lord is asking me to take away a clause which has had a very full debate in another place in favour of something

439
which has not so far been put into specific terms.
LORD CLINTON: I think the noble Viscount might go a little further in informing the Committee of certain things which I know are in his mind with regard to a possible compromise rather than throw out the clause straight away. I think the Committee might have an opportunity of judging the matter.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Could not we possibly pass subsection (1) and subsection (4) on the top of page 52, which deal with amenities, and omit the rest? Would that meet with approval?
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: As my name appears to the Amendment perhaps I may be allowed to say a word. If I understand his view, I should be prepared to accept the compromise of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, but I am not at all satisfied that the compromise as described by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill has a strong likeness to that of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton. I think the Committee would be well advised at this stage to strike out the clause, because I do not see that the omission of the clause at this stage will in any way interfere with the arrangement which I hope will be made between now and Report.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: May I make a suggestion? I gather that discussions have gone a considerable way between the Ministry and my noble friend Lord Clinton, and nobody who has sat in this House can fail to appreciate the fact that Lord Clinton is always reasonable and anxious to meet any fair suggestion. We have not got a clause in a form which we can bring forward for discussion at this moment. We cannot, I think, accept the clean omission of the clause, and what I would therefore propose would be, if your Lordships saw fit, that we should accept the Amendment for the moment to allow the clause to be deleted, reserving to ourselves the right to bring up a clause in an altered form on Report. I am quite sure that none of my noble friends who are anxious for this Amendment or something similar to it will be more extravagant in their demands by reason of the fact that we are doing it in that way rather than in another way.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Powers with respect to advertisements]:
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, after subsection (7), to insert:
"(8) Save as provided by this section, a scheme shall not contain any provision prohibiting or controlling the erection or use of structures for the purpose of advertising:
Provided that the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not render unlawful the insertion in a scheme of a provision which prohibits the erection on any land or buildings generally, or under which buildings generally could be removed from any land, if that provision is required for a purpose other than the prevention of inquiry to amenity by advertisements or hoardings."
The noble Viscount said: this Amendment has been agreed to with the advertising people concerned. It is a pendant to the advertising clause, and is intended to make it clear, so far as planning schemes are concerned, that advertisements shall be controlled by the method laid down.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 19, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49:
Expenses of, and borrowing by, local authorities.
49.—(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (7) of Section thirty-six of this Act, any expenses incurred by a local authority or a county council under this Act shall be defrayed, 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 the case of a county council, as expenses for general county purposes or as expenses for special county purposes chargeable upon such part of the county as the county council may determine, and, in the case of the council of a county borough or county district, as expenses of the council under the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1926:
Provided that a county council, before determining that any such expenses incurred by them under so much of Section thirty of this Act as authorises them to contribute towards the expenses incurred by any authority in connection with the carrying into execution of a scheme shall be defrayed as expenses for general county purposes, shall serve notice on every other local authority in the administrative county who have passed a resolution which has taken effect under Section six of this Act or any similar enactment repealed by this Act. Any such local authority aggrieved by the determination of the county council may appeal to the Minister, and tie decision of the Minister on an appeal under this proviso shall be final and conclusive, and shall have effect as if it were the decision of the county council:
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 consequential 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 de frayed 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.
(2) A local authority or a county council may borrow for the purposes of this Act—

(a) in the case of the common council of the city of London under the City of London Sewers Acts, 1848 to 1897.

(b) in the case of the London County Council, under and in accordance with the London County Council (Finance Consolidation) Act, 1912, as amended by any subsequent enactment; and

(c) in the case of any other county council, under and in accordance with Section sixty-nine of the Local Government Act, 1888, as amended by any subsequent enactment; and

(d) in the case of the council of a county borough or county district, as for the purposes of the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1926.

VISCOUNT GAGE: The first Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 1, leave out ("(7)") and insert ("(8)").—(Viscount Gaye.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The EARL OF HALSBURY The EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in subsection (1), to insert:
"Provided that no county council or council of a county borough or county district shall under the powers of this Act expend or contribute for the purposes of a scheme or order thereunder any greater sum in any one year before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty, than an amount which would be produced by a rate of one penny in the pound on the rateable hereditaments in so much of their respective county, county borough or county district as is comprised in the area to which the scheme applies."
The noble Earl said: The Amendment which stands in my name is a somewhat important one. Yesterday and yesterday-week your Lordships were considering economy, and it would be—I use the word quite frankly—the veriest hypocrisy to speak as your Lordships did on those occasions and not take the trouble to see whether you are doing anything in fact to implement the various pious
442
hopes that were thrown out. If you look at Clause 25 of this Bill you will find that there is a power compulsorily to acquire land. Clause 35 gives power to acquire land for garden cities and planning garden cities, and another clause gives compensation, and the compensation must be real compensation. It is plain, therefore, that sooner or later, this Bill is going to cost a very great deal. There is nothing at all in the Bill at the present time to put any check upon the amount of money that may be spent. There is an absolutely free hand for the local authority and the Minister. As your Lordships know, the Minister has been given a very free hand without any real control from Parliament. Surely we ought to put in some provision as to how much ought to be allowed to be spent, some limitation of the amount within a certain time.
The Amendment standing in my name proposes that for a certain number of years not more than a certain amount shall be spent under this Bill. I put it in my Amendment as an amount which would be produced by the rate of one penny in the pound on the rateable hereditaments. It may be said that there will be some compensation set off against betterment. We heard from the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that so far there has been only one claim with regard to betterment. That is true and there have been only two with regard to compensation, so we do not know with regard to either how they will end. I suggest to your Lordships that we ought not to pass the Bill at all unless there is contained in it some limitation of spending powers.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 12, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure that everybody agrees with the general statement made by the noble Earl. It was put, I think, somewhat metaphorically by somebody yesterday that we are all out for economy, and there is no doubt about that, but at the same time I would remind the noble Earl that there is such a thing as wise spending, and although economy is very good in the abstract there may be spending which will bring you in such a return that it is well worth laying out the money. Your return may be a hundredfold. If the noble Earl will allow me to say so the

443
only criticism I would like to offer on his speech is that he rather left out of consideration the contra account. I would suggest to him, coming to practical things, that it is probable that many of these schemes will cost very much less than the penny rate which he proposes.
Will he permit me to give one or two examples? First of all, the cost of preparing a scheme may be very small. There was an instance given on Second Reading. For an area which was partly industrial of 11,000 acres in a county borough and neighbouring districts the cost was equivalent to less than one-tenth of a penny in the pound spread over the whole of the districts for five years. The noble Earl may say to me: "Then why do you not accept the Amendment? If in one case the rate will be only one-tenth of a penny, how will a penny rate hurt you?" I think the noble Earl on reflection will appreciate this consideration. It is a very unfortunate thing to prescribe a maximum, because you will always find that if you prescribe a maximum that is the amount which people will spend. If the noble Earl says that a penny rate may be spent it will tempt people to say that they are entitled to spend up to that amount and therefore they will spend it.
The next consideration I would put to him is that you do not really want a mechanical check of this character. I should have thought, subject to the noble Earl's better opinion, that in the present state of public opinion he might well rest content feeling sure that local authorities are not likely at the present time to incur any serious expenditure. May I ask the noble Earl to take into consideration also that a limit in terms of rates, though it can serve as a mechanical check, is now less appropriate than ever because of the measures of derating and the block grant? This is especially so in the case of rural areas where rateable value has fallen very low and the yield of a penny rate is very small because of the complete derating of agricultural land, the loss being made up in other ways.
May I give the noble Earl some figures in an endeavour to allay his apprehensions? Taking the five years ending in 1930 the average annual expenditure out of revenue on town planning has been about £85,000 for the whole of England and Wales. It may be said, however, that the expenditure for compensation
444
and the acquisition of land may be large. Experience up to the present time does not support that view. As I have already pointed out the average annual expenditure for five years has been only £85,000, and the average annual expenditure during the same period out of loans has been only £400. So the position is that the amount which has been spent up to now is within very reasonable proportions. There is also this further consideration that planning schemes for built-up areas will take time to prepare. Authorities will have to do much preliminary work, not costly, but requiring time.
I should have thought it would be well not to put this check at the present moment on local authorities having regard to the state of public opinion. It would simply prevent many authorities getting on with schemes which we want to have ready in time for the expected revival of trade. The schemes themselves do not usually provide for the carrying out of work. The work will as a rule be carried out when the time is ripe under the powers of the general law. What practical good, therefore, would be done by the Amendment? I suggest to your Lordships that if you put in this limit of a penny rate you will induce people to spend up to the full amount when without it probably they would not spend anything like that for the next five years. Much therefore as I sympathise with the noble Earl, I think, first, he has not taken into consideration the contra account, and, secondly, that if you do have a mechanical limit people will go up to that limit. I suggest therefore that it would be wiser not to impose this mechanical check.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount a question? In the example which he gave of a cost of one-tenth of a penny was anything taken into consideration for compensation and the acquisition of land?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have not got the answer to that. I think the answer is no, but I will make inquiries.
The EARL OF HALSBURY: I may in answer to the noble and learned Viscount say first of all that I prefer a mechanical check to no check. Secondly, as I understand it, the noble and learned Viscount says that at the present moment

445
and for the next five years we shall not be spending very much because we shall not be given the really big building operations. If that is so, what is the objection to limiting the sum to a penny in the pound? Preparation does not cost very much. It is when you begin to acquire your land and pay compensation that the money is going to be spent and when
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It would probably be convenient now to postpone our deliberations until a quarter past nine. I hope that some of your Lordships may find it convenient to come back fairly punctually at that time as there are some important Amendments to be disposed of.
[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:
"Provided that the powers of borrowing under this section shall not be exercisable until the expiration of three years after the commencement of this Act or such date thereafter as may be determined by Resolution of each House of Parliament, except for the purpose of acquiring land for the provision of public open spaces."
The noble Earl said: I beg leave to move this Amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, who greatly regrets that he is unable to be present to-night and who has by no means lost interest in his Amendment. The Amendment provides that no local authority shall be
446
we want the check. In the first five years they will not spend very much but when they begin to spend some limit ought to be applied.
On Question, Whether the said proviso shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 30.

CONTENTS.

Wellington, D.

Morton, E.

Biddulph, L.

Radnor, E.

Dynevor, L.

Doncaster, E.(D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Strachie, L.

Midleton, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Marks, L.

Hailsham, V.

Marley, L.

Somerset, D.

Mount Temple, L.

Addington, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Linlithgow, M.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Phillimore, L.

Clinton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Grey, E.

Cranworth, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Remnant, L.

Lucan, K. [Teller.]

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Snell, L.

Plymouth, E.

Heneage, L.

Stanmore, L.

Stanhope, E.

Jessel, L.

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

allowed to borrow for the purposes of this Bid for three years after its passage, or such longer time as Parliament may decide. But an exception is made in favour of schemes for the acquisition of open spaces which may often be a matter of great urgency. The Amendment is of a studiously moderate character and I think of very great importance.
Last night we were informed of the figure for the aggregate local debt of England and Wales. The sum was £1,158,000,000. The noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal asked us to deduct from that a large sum in respect of debt secured by trading or profit-making services and we were asked to make further large reduction in respect of debts secured by housing. I find some difficulty in following the argument which sought to make the debt on housing a profit-making one. If we make those reductions to the full extent we are left with a local debt of £338,000,000. That sum is not evenly spread over the country. There are some honourable and economical local authorities. I believe the County of London is one and there are a certain number of others. But there

447
is a large number of local authorities whose use of their powers of borrowing is what might almost be called reckless.
I would venture to give in a graphic form the figures for one large local authority in the North of England. I will mention the name if challenged to do so. The local debt of this authority in the year 1930 amounted to £60 per head of the population and of that rather more than half was non-productive debt. In 1913 the comparable figure was only £17, so that in seventeen years the debt of that authority was about quadrupled. That position is a very serious one indeed, but I am far from blaming the local authorities themselves for the situation which obtains. It is a constant complaint by members of local authorities that their economies are discouraged and their expenditure encouraged by Whitehall, and I have heard members of local authorities say that a very large share indeed, particularly of the non-productive debt, is due to the direct action of the Government, to the temptations which Parliament in its wisdom has seen fit to lay in their paths. In the present circumstances I need hardly stress the importance of not adding to those temptations, and it might well be a good thing if some clause such as this were added to every Bill which you pass during the present crisis. Let us make a beginning, and a good beginning, with this Bill. I believe that my noble friend Lord Askwith has raised a very important and very urgent matter in this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 11, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: This Amendment follows very closely after the Amendment which I moved. I gave your Lordships some broad views as to why some check ought to be put on this expenditure, and with regard to economic questions. It would of course be entirely wrong that I should inflict those arguments on your Lordships again, but for the reasons which I gave when moving my Amendment I entirely agree with and hope to support this Amendment, which I trust your Lordships will accept.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I hardly think the noble Lord who placed this Amendment on the Paper could have
448
left it in better hands than those of the noble Earl who moved it in his place. The debate upon economy, which concluded last evening in your Lordships' House, echoed a public demand for economy in public expenditure, and the urgent need that the central Government, the National Government, should by precept and example do all in its power to encourage local authorities towards retrenchment. It is bad enough that local authorities should be wasteful in schemes adopted of their own motion. It is worse that local authorities are cajoled, or bribed as the noble Earl suggested, by the central Government, by the instrument of grants in aid and so forth; but it is surely worst of all that there should be any risk that. the Minister of the Crown, or the Department of State, should say to a local authority: Whether you like it or whether you do not like it, you shall adopt this scheme, and we insist that you shall undertake the cost of that scheme, and we recognise that you will have to borrow capital sums in order to carry out such scheme.
I may say that I for one am glad that Lord Askwith, in framing his Amendment, was careful to omit from the prohibition against borrowing for three years, borrowing for the purpose of securing to the public open spaces where schemes are being undertaken. I think that is a wise exception, because it seems to me impossible to over-stress the value to the public of such open spaces, whether upon the ground of amenity or of health. And plainly there may be schemes and occasions when the acquisition of such open spaces would not be within the financial resources of local authorities out of revenue, and schemes in which a failure to secure such open spaces in the initial stages of the scheme might lead to those open spaces being built over and being lost to the public for good. In view of the extremely anxious nature of our financial position, I think it well that Parliament should at any rate for a period of time—and I think three years is a prudent period—curb the enthusiasm of local authorities for adding to the debt of the ratepayers in their areas, and I do not think that this embargo against borrowing for only three years need in any way prevent the adoption of reasonable schemes of town planning nor their proper carrying out when adopted.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Before the debate is continued further I would ask your Lordships' leave to move that the House shall resume in order that I may make in this House a statement of great importance which is being made in another place at this moment and which I desire your Lordships to hear at the same time as it is being heard elsewhere. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed accordingly.

CONVERSION OF THE WAR LOAN.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I apologise for intervening in this debate, but I think when you hear the statement which I have to make your Lordships will realise that it is proper that it should be made at the earliest moment. At this moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making a statement in another place in the terms which I propose to reproduce in the exact language which I understand he is to use. Mr. Chamberlain is saying to the House of Commons:
"I offer my apologies for interrupting the normal business of the House, but I have no option. The House has the right to be the first to hear an announcement of this character, and the hour in the evening at which such an announcement must be made is precisely determined for me by a consideration on the one hand of the hours of business in America and on the other hand of the minimum time which must be at the disposal of the Press to enable them to make the scheme known and understood in the country upon the following day.
Talk of conversion has been in the air a long time, and naturally so, for it has been growing increasingly obvious that the War Loan at 5 per cent. was out of relation with the yield of other Government securities and, moreover, that the maintenance of that old war-time rate, attaching to so vast a body of stock, and hanging like a cloud over the capital market, was a source of depression and a hindrance to the expansion of trade. Nevertheless, the choice of the proper moment at which to launch so vast an undertaking is one
450
which demands most careful and anxious consideration and the final decision to make this announcement to-night was only arrived at after a number of alternatives had been examined and rejected.
I may perhaps give the House some of the reasons which have convinced me of the necessity for prompt action. In the first place, economy is an urgent matter, and this scheme affecting so great a reduction in our interest charge is an essential element in any economy proposals. In the second place, I anticipate that from a general reduction in the level of interest charges great benefits should flow to industry, which will be enabled more easily to obtain such capital as it needs, and to secure that capital on better terms. There is a great consensus of opinion that the continued existence of a vast body of British Government stock yielding a 5 per cent. return is an artificial obstacle to a fall in interest rates to a lower level at which they would otherwise naturally stand. Thirdly, we are in the fortunate position that the relative merits of British Government securities by comparison with all other investments, British and foreign, have never been more amply recognised by the world at large than at this moment. That, as the House will realise, is a vital factor in the success of such an operation. Fourthly, while we are in a position to secure such important results as I have indicated immediately, I do not consider that further delay would be justified either by the prospect of small additional savings or by any hope that the operation would become any easier with the lapse of time.
The final and the strongest argument for immediate action is to be found in the spirit of the country. After a, long period of depression we have recovered our freedom in monetary matters. We have balanced our Budget in the face of the most formidable difficulties, and we have shown the strongest resistance of any country to the general troubles affecting world trade. I am convinced that the country is in the mood for great enterprises and is both able and determined to carry them through to a successful conclusion.

451
Before I come to the particulars of the scheme there is one personal matter to which I should like to make reference. It is well known that my predecessor, Lord Snowden, had hoped to undertake this operation last year had conditions been favourable, and in the Finance Bill introduced by the first National Government in September last he embodied a series of clauses preparing the way. Lord Snowden was deprived of the satisfaction of carrying his plans into effect, but I propose to avail myself in every detail of the procedure provided in the Finance Act of last year, which has rendered my task easier and introduced conditions more favourable than would otherwise have been possible.
In a few moments' time a special edition of the London Gazette will be published. It will contain a notice intimating that the Government intend to repay the War Loan in cash on the 1st December next to those holders who decide to apply for repayment within three months from this date. But the notice will also intimate that holders of the Loan are invited to continue in the Loan on altered conditions, and it is my confident hope that the great mass of the holders will respond to this invitation. I am arranging for copies of documents to be available to hon. members in the Vote Office immediately on the conclusion of my statement, and, for this reason, I shall for the moment omit minor alterations, and shall confine myself to a statement of the principal changes in the terms of the continued Loan. The dividend of the 1st December next must be paid at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum, the rate payable under the original prospectus, until the notice to repay becomes effective. Thereafter, beginning with the dividend payable on the 1st June, 1933, the rate of interest will be 3½ percent. per annum. Up to the 1st December, 1952, five years later than the latest date for repayment of the loan under the original prospectus, the Government forego all right to redeem the Loan. After that date the Government reserve to themselves the right to repay the Loan, at any time, either in a single operation or by instalments. The existing arrangement under which the interest is paid with-
452
out deduction of Income Tax at the source—a special privilege which has proved itself a great convenience to an enormous number of small holders—will continue unchanged.
I am bound by the terms of the prospectus of the 5 per cent. War Loan to give at least three months' notice to redeem, but in an operation of this immense magnitude it is very desirable that we should know as quickly as possible where we stand, and that we should have ample time to concert such remaining measures as may be necessary. For this reason, but also because we recognise that the inevitable reduction in the rate of interest may, when it first comes, be seriously felt in a number of cases, we offer a cash bonus at the rate of £1 for every £100 of stock to all those holders who, not later than the 31st July, assent to the offer to continue in the Loan; this cash bonus, which in the case of the ordinary investor will not be liable to Income Tax, will be paid to each holder within 14 days from the date of receipt of his effective assent. The saving in interest charge at which we aim by this conversion scheme is in the region of £30 millions per annum. In the nature of things none of the saving can be realised in this financial year, the current expenditure of which will be unaffected by this operation. But the whole of the saving will be realised in the year 1933. It must, however, be remembered that the reduction of interest carries with it a reduction in the yield of Income Tax and Surtax and, taking this into account, the net budgetary saving may be put at about £23 millions per annum.
There are nearly 3,000,000 people who hold War Loan. Many of these have, I expect, but little experience in construing a complicated prospectus, and they will, therefore, be glad to receive a simple statement of the aims and policy which underlie this operation. For these reasons I have thought it right to arrange that, when the prospectus and other relative documents are sent, as they will be, to every holder, a letter over my signature should also be enclosed, explaining the nature of the scheme and the purpose behind it. I am making copies of this letter available to hon. members in the Vote Office as soon as my statement is con-

453
cluded. The letter will go, as I have said, to all holders, great and small. Large investors, to whom a conversion operation is a familiar process, may well find in parts of it phrases more simple and less technical than is customary on these occasions. I feel sure that, remembering the immensely wide circulation the message will have, they will appreciate my object and will not regard the letter as superfluous.
I am sure that anyone who may be contemplating the issue of new capital in the market in the early future will forbear from coming forward for a few weeks while this great operation is proceeding, and that the authorities in the City of London will co-operate in this necessary object. I should add that the sale of Savings Certificates will be temporarily suspended as from this evening, but as we have, of course, no intention of abandoning that valuable method of borrowing, a new certificate, details of which will appear in the Press to-morrow, will be placed on sale after a short interval.
I will mention one other matter which may be of some interest. My preparations have been proceeding for many weeks, but the essential need for secrecy in preparation has prevented me from printing any of the many millions of forms which I require. With the willing co-operation and assistance of the Bank of England, the Government propose to attempt the gigantic task of printing fifteen million forms and despatching them by post in nearly three million envelopes within a space of twenty-four hours from now. These letters will not, of course, reach all the holders to whom they are addressed on Saturday morning, for the holders live in all parts of the country—and indeed of the world—but they will all be on their way by to-morrow night. In this way we shall cover all the holdings at the Bank of England and the Post Office. In addition, upwards of half a million letters containing supplementary notices in special cases will, we hope, be posted early on Saturday. I do not undertake that we can completely fulfil this almost superhuman programme, but we shall spare no effort, and I am sure that our endeavour to present our scheme with the least delay and in the most intelligible form will be appreciated.
454
For the response we must trust, and I am certain we shall not trust in vain, to the good sense and patriotism of the three million holders to whom we shall appeal."
Your Lordships will not desire, of course, to debate that statement. I do not think that there is likely to be any debate in another place. I feel sure your Lordships will forgive me for intruding, perhaps a little irregularly, into our present discussions, because I felt it was only right that in this House, where matters of economy have been discussed and have bulked very largely in the last few days, the same announcement should be made and at the same time as that, made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, it is obviously impossible that so important a statement should be debated now. I only rise to thank the Leader of the House for giving your Lordships as early an opportunity as possible of hearing this very important statement.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do again resolve itself into committee on the Town and Country Planning Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
The EARL OF ONSLOW The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.
LORD CRANWORTH: After the statement we have just heard it does not appear to me out of Order to support the Amendment moved with regard to economy. Some seven hours have recently been expended by your Lordships in talking about economy. The country is a little tired of hearing economy talked about and not seeing it practised. It appears to be somewhat deplorable that twice as many members of your Lordships' House are prepared to come here to talk about economy as are prepared to come here to practice it. In the Second Reading debate on this Bill I listened with admiration to more than one noble Peer commending this Bill on the ground of economy to your Lordships with great eloquence and high-souled feeling. There are some of

455
us, whose soul is not so high and whose eloquence is certainly a great deal less and who have yet given a good many years to public service, who do not believe that we shall ever see economy where publicly-elected bodies administer public funds. It is not possible for this reason, that elected bodies as a whole owe their election to the sums they give or promise out of public funds to the people who have elected them. That seems to me to render economy in the public service extremely hard. Your Lordships' House is one of the few places, perhaps the only place, where a position is not owed to promises of public money. It might be suggested that that is the chief reason for your Lordships' existence and a not unimportant one. I hope that on this question you will remember that economy does not consist entirely in words, but occasionally in deeds.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am painfully aware that I possess neither the high soul nor the gift of eloquence which have been referred to. I regret to find myself differing from noble Lords, but I rise to beg your Lordships not to accept the Amendment. A great deal you have heard of the economy to be effected by the Amendment is beside the point. If it was intended to accept this Amendment I think the straightforward course would have been to throw out the Bill on Second Reading, because this is really a wrecking Amendment. It will postpone the great bulk of the action under the Bill for three years or more. We really did pass the Second Reading because we wished that something should be done effectively about town planning. We have all heard of the cases where failure adequately to town plan has involved enormously increased expenditure afterwards—on roads, sewers and public services. The figures which have been given about debt by the noble Earl who maved the Amendment are also beside the point. It is because I believe that when your Lordships passed the Second Reading you did not intend to be put out of court by a side wind that I beg you to refuse the Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I think I may perhaps save time by intervening now. The debate has travelled over rather wide ground. I thought most of the general considerations were debated on the matter on which we divided just before dinner. I would point out that this
456

Amendment would lead to the position that the powers which authorities have now under existing Town Planning Acts would cease to be available because they would be repealed by the Bill. For most purposes local authorities would have power with the sanction of the Minister still to borrow under General Acts and in particular under the Public Health Acts, and to force them to borrow under those Acts and not under this might result in waste, as more advantageous terms might be obtainable under this Bill. I think something like 7,000,000 acres of England are covered by town-planning schemes in one stage or another of completion and during the five years ended March 31, 1930, the annual expenditure out of loans raised under the Town Planning Acts was less than £400. As to the statement that this Bill will compel local authorities to spend money, except for Clause 52, I should like to point out, any power of compulsion which there is in this Bill can only be exercised under the default clause, Clause 36, and there would be no question of that being exercised for the next three years. I hope I shall be excused from mentioning the general consideration of economy and extravagance in local authorities, but I just wanted to point out those facts in connection with this particular Amendment, and we cannot really accept it on those special grounds.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: If I rightly understood the noble Viscount, he told us that if this Amendment were agreed to local authorities would be able to borrow under other Acts for the purpose of this Act. I do not think that that is possible, but apart from that, in reply to Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who said that this was a wrecking Amendment, I do not think it is a wrecking Amendment in any way at all. It will check the exuberance of local authorities. I think we were told by the Lord Chancellor, or the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, on the previous Amendment, that there was not any likelihood of expenditure on the ordinary working of a scheme above a penny rate, but there are powers in the Bill, as we were told by Lord Halsbury, for the purchase of land, and it is a check as to that which I understand is placed on local authorities by this Amendment. Personally it seems to me an extremely moderate Amendment, and one which should be in every way accept-

457
able to the Government, because the Lord Chancellor mentioned those words "wise spending." We have heard a good deal about wise spending from the Government in the past few weeks, but we have experienced in the past few years a great deal of unwise spending by local authorities, and my own personal experience is that the power to spend unwisely has been used far more than the power to spend wisely. I hope the Government will see their way to accept this extremely moderate Amendment. Their objection to the previous Amendment was that it was a mechanical check. This is not a mechanical check, but it is undoubtedly a check upon unwise expenditure not connected with the actual machinery of a scheme.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: The noble Earl who has just spoken says this is a moderate Amendment. It seems to me that if this Amendment is carried, I do not say the Bill will be killed but it will be very seriously mutilated. Noble Lords who support the Amendment have done so on the ground of economy. Nobody pretends that such a Bill as this can be put into operation without spending some money, but we who support the Bill whole-heartedly contend that at no distant date that expenditure will be amply repaid, and in the future there will be a very great diminution in expenditure because activities will be regulated, extravagances will be eliminated and law and order will prevail where now chaos prevails. It is quite right for any noble Lord who objects to this Bill to vote for this Amendment, but I do not see how any noble Lord who agrees with the principle of town planning could possibly vote for it because it puts off in practice the operation of the Bill for three years.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I do not know whether Lord Radnor or Lord Gage was right but if it be true, as Lord Radnor says, that an authority could not borrow under the Public Health Acts, then I must appeal to the movers of this Amendment to leave room for the cases where already public authorities are obliged to do this, that and the other under existing schemes. After all, the 1925 Act has been going for some years and ever since it started schemes have been put on foot. Those schemes involve negotiations with landowners many of which have been committed to paper, and even in some cases
458
entered into as legal agreements, but others are merely verbal arrangements, and if you are going to withdraw the powers of the local authorities to borrow for purposes of town planning then you may put them in many cases in the position of having to repudiate bargains under the 1925 Act which they have already made. I would therefore suggest that the Amendment might be altered in such a way as to leave borrowing available in respect of such schemes as have been initiated under the 1925 Act to cover existing liabilities.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I am perfectly certain that I can promise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Askwith that he will consider most carefully and sympathetically any Amendment that is necessary to safeguard schemes made under the 1925 Act. If indeed those Amendments are necessary it would be perfectly easy to deal with the matter on Report, and I am sure he will do so. As for the contention of Lord Gage that the Amendment is ineffective, since powers exist to borrow what local authorities want under General Acts, that again is a matter which we shall be most happy to deal with on Report.
VISCOUNT GAGE: It will be impossible to deal with such matters on Report.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Why?
VISCOUNT GAGE: Because you cannot deal with the Public Health Acts on Report.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I must apologise to the noble Viscount because I did not understand that they were under the Public Healtlh Acts, and that argument is a perfectly valid and proper one. But I must answer Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who suggested that the Amendment was designed to kill the Bill. I am fairly certain that my noble friend has no such idea, nor have I either. As for the suggestion that this prohibition of borrowing is going to postpone the bulk of action under the Bill, is it really the case that the bulk of action under the Bill is going to be undertaken on borrowed money? Because, if that is so, I feel it to be a distinctly alarming possibility, in view of the figures I have already given of local indebtedness. While I very much regret that the Amendment is not as complete and perfect as it should be, my

459
noble friends feel so strongly on the matter that I really must put your Lordships to the trouble of dividing.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: May I ask why the necessary modification should not be put in on the Report stage? The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill said you cannot in this Bill bring in the Public Health Acts. You can. You can put in any amending section you like on Report, and on Third Reading too if you like, and you can incorporate the necessary amount of those Acts, or put in sections of your own to do exactly what you want.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not want to engage in an altercation or discussion wih my noble friend Lord Halsbury. I think there are great difficulties in inserting in this Bill the limiting powers of borrowing of another Act of Parliament. I do not want to intervene for more than a few moments, because the matter has been fully debated. I would appeal to your Lordships not to accept the Amendment, and not allow yourselves to be led astray by the specious cry of economy which is used. When anybody wants an Amendment nowadays, they say: "This is an economy." In fact, it will cost more money rather than less. It will make the people take the more expensive way instead of taking the cheaper way of doing what is required. My noble friend Lord Iddesleigh has said this Amendment is not intended to kill the Bill. Of course I accept that entirely from him, but those who have had charge of the Bill throughout its passage in another place are quite confident that its effect will be to destroy the utility of the Bill, and if it is not intended to kill the Bill it is at least a coincidence that those who have shown least enthusiasm for the merits of the Bill are those who seem most in favour of this Amendment. I do hope that your Lordships will not, especially at this moment when I had hoped His Majesty's Government had gained some credit for their enthusiasm in the cause of economy, proceed to pass an Amendment which is said to be an economical one but which in fact is not.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 [Special provisions as to Administrative County of London]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I beg to move the Amendments in my name, which are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 56, line 24, leave out ("which") and insert ("whom")
Page 56, line 25, leave out ("is") and insert ("are")
Page 57, line 2, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, after subsection (4), to insert:
"(5) The provisions of Section seventeen of this Act shall apply in relation to any building of special architectural or historic interest which is situated within the City of London as if that city were a county borough and as if the Common Council of the City of London were the council of that borough, and those provisions shall apply in relation to any such building which is situate within the County of London as if that County were a county borough and as if the London County Council were the council of that borough."
The noble Viscount said: This is really consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 43, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 [Compensation to officers]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Amendment in this clause in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 40, leave out ("as") and insert ("an").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52:
Duty of certain councils to prepare schemes.
52. The council of every county borough or urban district containing a population according to the census taken in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-one of more than twenty thousand shall before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, or such later date before the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, as the Minister may in any case allow, prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme in respect of all land within their district in respect of which a scheme might have been so prepared and submitted under Section one of the Town Planning Act, 1925, if this Act had not been passed, and containing provisions with respect to such scatters as may be prescribed.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to substitute "may" for "shall". The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which is put down in two forms by myself, and the second form is supported by a large number of other Peers. My Amendment is rather letting the Government down in the easiest possible way by not rejecting the whole of their clause, but simply saying "may" instead of "shall". I base myself mainly upon the statement made by the Minister of Health in another place upon the Second Reading of this Bill. He said:
"It is a Bill simply to put powers which the people want into their hands to use as, and only where, they desire to use them. It is not a Bill to force down the throats of the local authorities."
I think my Amendment exactly carries out the statement made by the Minister of Health in another place. All it does is to give a permission whether they bring forward these things or not.
The clause as it stands is mandatory, and nine months after the passing of this Bill it would be necessary for local authorities to deal with this matter. On the other hand, if my Amendment is carried or accepted by the Government, as I hope it may be, then it will be simply optional on the part of the authorities whether they shall put this clause into effect or not. That does not seem to be an unreasonable thing. Instead of having these mandatory powers—I should think that there were already sufficient mandatory powers in the Bill—the Minister might be willing to assent to this. I think it is interesting to remember that when this Bill was before a Standing Committee in another place this clause only remained in the Bill because the Chairman of the Standing Committee by his casting vote supported the Government. The reason for that was, as old members of the House of Commons will be well aware, that the Chairman of a Standing Committee always votes for the Government if it is necessary for him to give a casting vote. It seems to me that that is a very strong argument, not for striking out the clause, but for leaving it optional so that the local authorities may deside whether or not to put it into force.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 39, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Lord Strachie.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: We look on this Amendment as equivalent, if it were
462
carried, to leaving out the clause. Your Lordships are aware that an authority with a population of over 20,000 can at any time make a scheme except in the rare cases where it may not be covered under Clause 6 (2). I really think such a condition would be almost impossible. Therefore we look on this Amendment as exactly equivalent to the next Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE of THAME: I look on this as an extremely reasonable Amendment. Your Lordships will observe that the population of these towns of 20,000 and over is to be taken from the census of 1921. I believe it is an undisputed fact that many of these towns since then have fallen much below 20,000 owing to various industrial catastrophes. Therefore if you leave it for the authorities to decide they will know whether the population has decreased by many thousands, in which case it does not seem to me to be reasonable that they should be forced to carry this out.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I cannot quite agree with the noble Viscount in charge of this Bill that this Amendment is exactly the same as the next. I agree that it has exactly the same effect, but I think it is neater and more tactful than the one I ventured to put down. If your Lordships will consider for a moment, surely you will agree that it is a very reasonable thing that it should not be absolutely cast-iron that this has got to be done within a certain time. I do not want to weary your Lordships—I am not going to say at this time of night, because that is not the right atmosphere—after long and very careful consideration of this Bill by going into matters which have been gone into before, but may I point out that this originated in 1919? A similar section was put into the Act of that year, and a certain date was put in. Then in the 1925 Act there was the same section, but they had to push on the date. Then came the Act of 1929. The same section was put in, but the date was pushed a bit further. Now the date in the 1929 Act is retained, although it is perfectly obvious that it cannot be the real date. Would it not be better for your Lordships to accept the Amendment and say that the local authority "may" instead of making it "shall" at a cast-iron date?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: With great respect, the noble Lord's history is wrong. It so happened that it was at my instance that your Lordships agreed to put it in in the 1929 Act. The noble Lord says it was "shall" then. My recollection is that it was "may" in 1929. Mr. Neville Chamberlain was Minister of Health then and it was at my instance that your Lordships agreed to put in the date in 1929. There is nothing new about this; it is simply retaining the provisions in the existing Act.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: It was "shall" in that Act.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It was altered and made "shall" at my instance and it was the only Amendment that your Lordships accepted. Therefore, this provision is reproducing the provisions of the 1929 Act. As a matter of fact, 75 per cent. of the authorities referred to in this clause are already producing schemes. If the noble Earl, who prefers this neater and more tactful way of despatching the Bill—he has told your Lordships that he is trying to wreck the Bill, though he never made much concealment of it—had his way, it would only affect 25 per cent. of the authorities. If ever an Amendment was torpedoed, this one is, and I hope your Lordships will blow it out of the water.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The question of 25 per cent. and 75 per cent. hardly applies here because this is a much wider Bill than the previous Act. Let me give two cases from my own experience. In one place they deferred a town-planning scheme for a considerable time on the ground that they could not afford the expense. In another place, which comes under the 20,000 provision, they have not complied with their statutory obligation of producing a town-planning scheme because they said they could not afford it. In these days it is very hard to impose on a comparatively small community of the size of 20,000 persons the expenditure entailed by a measure like this. There is a further argument against compulsory schemes. It is that, where a local authority is entirely satisfied with the development in their area, they should not be compelled to go to the expensive procedure of a town and country planning scheme. Where they can come to an agreement with the local landowners and are assured that the development in their
464
area is satisfactory, there seems no adequate reason for incurring the unnecessary expenditure of going through all the rigmarole of Ministerial acceptance and public inquiries to get what is agreed by everybody to be working perfectly smoothly without Parliamentary procedure. I hope the noble Viscount will feel that this compulsory procedure is entirely unnecessary in the circumstances.
LORD LOVAT: I would appeal to the Government to accede to this very reasonable Amendment. I have no right to speak for Scotland except as one of the members of the County Councils' Association, but one of the matters which makes the County Councils' Association in Scotland more prejudiced against this Bill than anything else is this insistence upon uniformity in everything. There is no doubt that your average official lives in Whitehall and regards every part of the country as exactly the same; he has only one rule, which must be applied right throughout whatever happens. In these days, when the permanent official is getting more and more powerful, partly from the amount of work thrown on the public Departments, this desire for uniformity is becoming more and more universal. In much of our recent legislation the method of the carrot and the stick is applied. In this case you have the stick without the carrot, the intervening animal in all cases being the local authority. The Amendment should be seriously considered because undoubtedly there is a very large number of small local authorities who do not wish to add to their herd of officials. We have seen inspection grow—biennially for one thing, triennially for another—and it all adds to the number of officials and means more correspondence and expense. I think that a Government which has so pledged itself in words to economy should certainly accept this reasonable Amendment, which would give great satisfaction to many small local authorities.
LORD DYNEVOR: On the Second Reading I expressed disapproval of Clause 52. Why should places with a population of 20,000 be compelled by a. specified date to make a scheme? I think I heard the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, express a hope that he would not hear many of us talk much more about economy, but I cannot

465
avoid talking about economy especially when there is a clause like Clause 52. These large towns may want to practise economy. Their rates may be extremely high at present. They may not want to be compelled to bring in a scheme by a specified time. And I know that the Government has circularised local authorities asking them to cut down. I am a member of my county council and we have received requests from Government Departments to curtail expenditure as much as possible.
It will be said that the provisions of this clause were in the Town Planning Act, 1925, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has reminded us that they were in the Act of 1929. But it is no argument to say that you are always to keep going past legislation. You may find that such legislation is not always up-to-date. Has not the House of Commons just passed a. Bill to repeal an old Act of Parliament which tells people how they are to observe the Sabbath? We might use the same argument about the old Town Planning Acts. I say: Let the large towns come under Clause 36 and then they can carry out their negotiations with the Minister and fight him as much as they like.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I was not preparing to consider a comparison between the Town Planning Acts and Sunday Observance Acts. Town planning has not been in existence as long as those Acts. All we say is that if this Bill were an amending Bill only, this clause would never have appeared at all and unless your Lordships had raised the subject in a separate way I imagine the debate would never have taken place. In the circumstances there seems to be no case for the omission of the clause.
LORD STRACHIE: I fear the noble Viscount does not appreciate the difference between my Amendment and the drastic one of throwing out the clause—a difference between saying that the duty should not be put on these local authorities at all and leaving them an option to prepare schemes if they like. The noble Viscount seems to think it makes not the least difference. To my mind it makes a great difference. All I am suggesting is that the local authorities ought to have the option whether or not they will put the clause into force.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I think we appreciate the difference really. All I say is that power is given under Clauses 1 to 6 to county councils to prepare schemes, and if you repeat in this clause that they may make schemes you are repeating something already in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 [Transitional provisions]:
LORD PHILLIMORE: Since I put down my Amendment to subsection (2) my attention has been called to the final paragraph of that subsection, where I see that a certain amount of elasticity is given in dealing with whether a scheme is conducted under the Act of 1925 or the new Act, and in these circumstances I do not move.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54:
Interpretation.
"The material date" means, in relation to any provision contained in a scheme, other than a supplementary scheme or a varying scheme, the date on which the resolution to prepare or adopt the scheme took effect or such later date as may be fixed by the scheme, either generally or for the purposes of any particular provision thereof, and in relation to any provision contained in a supplementary scheme or a varying scheme or a supplementary order means the date on which the scheme or order came into Operation, or such later date as may be fixed by the scheme or order, either generally or for the purposes of any particular provision thereof:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in the definition of "the material date," to leave out "resolution to prepare or adopt the scheme took effect or such later date as may be fixed by the scheme, either generally or for the purposes of any particular provision thereof," and insert "Minister gives his approval to the preliminary statement of the scheme." The noble Viscount said: The material date is now the taking effect of the resolution, after which no owner can develop unless he obtains an interim development order, and the examination of the document prepared by the Ministry showing the progress of all schemes discloses that very few of a large total have yet reached the stage of final approval by the Minister. This means that development is being impeded in all the areas to which this long list of resolutions applies. This

467
Amendment advances the material date to the date of approval of the preliminary statement by the Minister. If town planning is to be made practicable in its application to built-up areas a responsible authority ought to have a preliminary statement ready before it passes a resolution. This Amendment will go some way to ensure this.
The effect of the Amendment is to advance the material date on which the dead hand falls to the date on which the Minister gives his approval to the preliminary statement of the scheme. In a document prepared by the Ministry of Health the progress of all town-planning schemes throughout the country from the date of the resolution to prepare the scheme to the date of final approval of the scheme is set forth. And an analysis shows that the number of resolutions to prepare schemes amounts to between 1,150 and 1,200. Of these only 362 preliminary statements have been submitted to the Minister of Health for approval, and of these 362 only 34 reached the final stage of approval by the Minister. In Ruislip a town-planning scheme took fifteen years from the passing of the resolution to the final approval of the scheme—from 1915 to 1930. In Leeds a town-planning resolution was passed in May, 1913, and the scheme was not finally approved until October, 1921. If you subtract 34 from 1,150 it leaves 1,116 areas which have been sterilised by the passing of the town-planning resolution, with the prospect in many cases of the scheme never reaching final approval. Failure of progress is obviously due to the responsible authority not knowing its own mind by the preparation of a preliminary statement before passing the resolution. Clearly the dead hand should not fall until the Minister has approved a preliminary statement.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 34, leave out from the second ("the") to ("and") in line 38 and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD DYNEVOR: I think this is a very important Amendment. The material date under the Bill is when the resolution by the local authority to prepare or adopt a scheme takes place. It may be years before the local authority does anything more, it may be years before the Minister gives his assent; and when he
468

does so it may not be the same scheme as was put forward by the local authorities. Meanwhile every land developer would proceed at his peril, and if he did anything which was outside the provisions of the scheme as approved by the Minister he would be liable and would possibly be put to very great expense. Probably the land-developer would sit still. The land would be sterilised and unemployment in the building trade would be increased. Why not be quite straightforward and say that directly a scheme has been approved by the Minister in its preliminary form everybody must obey it? Then they will know where they are. Until the Minister can make up his mind as to what scheme he wants, then let everyone go on developing his land under the existing by-laws of the local authority.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The object of this Amendment is, I quite understand, to give the owners a still further protection against the possibility of arbitrary action on the part of a local authority. It is obviously impossible to accept the Amendment proposed, firstly, because the preliminary statement is really an optional stage in the procedure, and it is thought, in order to expedite town-planning in the future, the preliminary statement may, with increasing frequency, be omitted from the procedure of preparing a scheme. I think the suggestion of the noble Viscount would also be open to this very strong objection, that if it was once known there was to be a period between the date when the preparation of the scheme was started and the date when the control was actually exercised, people who wished to do things they ought not to do would obviously take advantage of that period knowing they could not be prevented from doing so.
I think I can give a good illustration. Take the case of land subject to flooding. Anybody who reads this Bill will see that under it a scheme may provide for prohibition of building on land which is subject to flooding on the ground that it will afterwards put the local authority to undue expense in providing services. I think that is a provision which has been accepted by your Lordships' House with perfect satisfaction. But if you announce that you are about to control such land, and if you do not actually reserve powers to exercise control, from the moment you

469
announce your intention some person might seize the opportunity to do the very thing you wish to prevent, because after he has started his plans the safeguards regarding existing buildings would come into operation. I am a little disappointed that my noble friend Lord Dynevor did not give us any credit for the extra safeguards we have put into this Bill with regard to the interim period. The owners are far better protected during the interim period than they have ever been before. I wish to point out that under paragraph (4) of the Fourth Schedule approved schemes must be submitted within three years. That reduces very substantially this long period which my noble friend Viscount Bertie has been complaining about in regard to the owner's application for permission to build.
LORD DYNEVOR: You only quote the time of the local authority, three years. There is no time-limit within which the Minister must give approval.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am, not quite sure exactly how long the Minister is given, but. I do not think there is any doubt the Minister will exercise his decision in a reasonable time. By no stretch of imagination could the time be extended from three to fifteen years by the Minister.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Supposing there were a lot of applications there might not be time to attend to them.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I think we must give the Minister some credit. He does not get much. I was pointing out that if the owner does not receive a decision in answer to an application for a development order within two months the application is deemed to have been granted, so that the owner gets that advantage. A very important thing is that if the applicant suffers injurious effect by reason of an interim decision he
can obtain compensation when the scheme is complete, except in cases where he would not have obtained compensation under the scheme. I think that is an intelligible exception. For the first time the applicant, if he can prove that he has suffered injury by reason of this interim order, can claim compensation to which before he was never entitled. I should like also to point out that in hard cases an authority can make a grant during the interim period. I really think that the owner has been put in so good a position that the noble Viscount ought to be grateful. Under the regulations of the Fourth Schedule the procedure is to be tightened up considerably.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am not sure that my noble friend Viscount Bertie quite appreciates the effect of his Amendment. If he will turn back to Clause 10, which deals with the interim development of land, he will see that subsection (1) reads:
"The Minister shall make a general order with respect to the interim development of land within the areas to which resolutions to prepare or adopt a scheme apply …."
You start off at the point of having passed your resolution. If you are going to take your date for all these purposes from your preliminary statement, I am not at all sure that you are not going to interfere with a very valuable protection afforded by Clause 10 under the interim development order. It is common practice that an interim development order is made out in all cases to cover this halfway period. As I say, if you are going to start off with the preliminary statement everything else will have to start from that same point, in which case I think you will lose more than you will gain.
On Question, Whether, the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 6.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Addington, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Alvingham, L.

Somerset, D.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Wellington, D.

Plymouth, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Radnor, E.

Biddulph, L.

Salisbury, M.

Stanhope, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Grey, E.

Cranworth, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Hailsham, V.

Hampton, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Mount Temple, L.

Redesdale, L.

Heneage, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jessel, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Rochester, L.

Lovat, L.

Phillimore, L.

Stanmore, L.

Marks, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Marley, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Linlithgow, M.

Morton, E.

Dynevor, L. [Teller.]

Strachie, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

VISCOUNT GAGE: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 30, leave out ("any such building as aforesaid") and insert ("a previous building").—(Viscount Gage.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert:
"'Change of use' means—

(i) Structural alteration of the building;

(ii) A different use thereafter."

The noble Viscount said: A responsible authority can recover a betterment on a change taking place in the use of property, but this phrase is not defined in the Bill and property owners find the position difficult to understand. Consider the case of a building in which a butcher leaves and the shop is taken by a baker. Is that a change of use? I think it might be more satisfactory if "change of use" was defined in the Bill and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 28, at end insert the said definition.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am informed that with this definition the Bill would be more obscure than without it. I will consider the question of the exact meaning of these words and should it be found necessary to give a more accurate definition I will consider doing so, but I can give no pledge on the matter.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for saying that he will look into the matter and I beg to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55 [Repeals]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: Seven of my Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 64, line 35, leave out from ("locality") to ("are") in line 37.
Page 64, line 39, leave out ("any resolution passed or")
Page 65, line 2, leave out ("but") and and insert ("and").
Page 65, line 2, leave out ("resolution").
Page 65, line 4, after ("be") insert ("enforced and carried into effect as if this Act had not been passed but may be")
line 5, after ("repealed") insert ("or")
leave out ("or enforced").—(Viscount Gage.)
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to add to subsection (1):
"(d) The provisions of a local Act, in so far as they effect a transfer of functions exerciseable under the Town Planning Act, 1925, from one authority to another or regulate the manner in which any such functions are to be exercised where such a transfer has been so effected, shall be excepted from tile repeal by this section of the provisions of local Acts."
The noble Viscount said: This is not exactly a drafting Amendment. It is designed to safeguard the case where boundaries have been altered.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 24, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Gage.)
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
LORD HENEAGE LORD HENEAGE moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 55:
Saving as to the Sandhills in the Parts of
Lindsey Lincolnshire.
".Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of any Act of the present Session to provide amongst other purposes for regulating certain lands in the Parts of Lindsey Lincolnshire known as the Sandhills."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this new clause which I understand will be accepted.
VISCOUNT GAGE: This is an agreed clause.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 55, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Heneage.)
Clause 56.
Application to Scotland.
56.—(1) This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the adaptations and modifications specified in the Sixth Schedule to this Act
(2) A copy of this Act as applying to Scotland by virtue of the provisions of the last preceding subsection, but with this section and the said Sixth Schedule omitted therefrom, shall be prepared and certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments as if it were a separate Act which had received the Royal Assent on the same day as this Act and shall be deposited with the Rolls of Parliament, and thereupon this Act shall cease to apply to Scotland and the Act as certified as aforesaid shall take effect as a separate Act of the present session and may be cited as the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1932, and may be printed as a separate Act by the Printers to His Majesty as a chapter of the statutes of the session distinguished by the number next following the number of the chapter assigned to this Act.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW moved to omit the clause. The noble Marquess said: At this late hour I do not propose to repeat the grounds on which on Second Reading I voiced the complaint of Scotland about the treatment that country has received under this Bill. I gave good reasons, I still think, for claiming that Scottish Bills in another place should go before a Scottish Committee. It is quite clear to all of us that no one Bill could at one and the same stage of its progress through either House of Parliament be committed to two separate Committees, which is the same thing as saying that any Bill applying both to England and Scotland, and in which the special method of procedure which is embodied in this Bill, as regards its application to Scotland, finds a place, could go before a Scottish Committee in another place. It could only go before the one Committee, and that inevitably the main Committee. I hope very much that that is not going to mean that Bills so important to Scotland, and dealing with a subject which varies so much as between the two countries as does this
474
Bill, will not be put before the Scottish Committee in another place.
That, I think, would be deplorable. I myself remain very strongly of opinion that this Bill by its nature is one which ought to have been put before Parliament, as regards its application to Scotland, in a separate Bill from the first, so that, Scottish members in another place and your Lordships' House might have a chance of looking into the Bill from a purely Scottish angle. In any case I think it would have been a courtesy to have the Bill printed embodying the Sixth Schedule as it stands, so as to simplify the work of Scottish members in Committee. That is a matter of which the Government might care to take note. It is a matter which would have been appreciated not only by Scottish members but by Scotland as a whole. In any case I deeply regret that Scottish opinion has been ignored by a course of procedure designed to save Parliamentary time, which has, I am convinced, deprived Scottish members and Scottish local authorities of the opportunity of making adequate criticism of the measure and of bringing proper influence to bear on the shaping of its terms. I shall listen to observations from the Front Bench before I ask your Lorships, if the Government resist my Amendment, to divide upon it. I have had some indication that some measure of encouragement might be given to us, and I was greatly obliged to the Lord Chancellor for the courteous way in which he was able, privately, to offer me some degree of solace.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 56.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
THE EARL OF KINNOUL: Do I understand that the noble Marquess approves of the principle of the Bill as regards Scotland?
THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE: Your Lordships will recollect that last week the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, called attention to the pernicious and growing habit of legislation by adaptation; that is to say, in other words, the tacking to an essentially English Bill of a short clause and a schedule applying the Bill to Scotland. This is a far more glaring case of tacking than the Bill we were debating last week, the Children and Young Persons Bill. This Bill affects

475
local government, land tenure, conveyancing, valuation, and rating, all of which systems in Scotland are extremely different from the systems in England, and it has been extremely difficult for members of this House from Scotland, in plodding through these Amendments, to understand what effect they would have on the Bill as applied to Scotland. In another place when this Bill was under discussion what happened? It was remitted to a Grand Committee of sixty-six members of whom only five were Scottish members, and of those five not one, I think, represented the Association of County Councils of Scotland or the Convention of Burghs. My noble friend Lord Crawford, on the Second Reading, said that the need for town planning in Scotland was even greater than it was in England. That, I think, is perfectly true, but it is a strong reason why there should be a separate and independent Bill for Scotland.
Your Lordships know that at present there is a Party in Scotland which calls itself the Nationalist Party. That is a Home Rule Party. It does not cut much ice at the present time. The candidates usually forfeit their deposits. But if it comes to be thought that Scottish interests are being neglected at Westminster and that Scotland is merely an appendage to England in the matter of legislation, then that Party will increase by leaps and bounds to the great embarrassment of the older Parties. Individual county councils as well as the Association of County Councils in Scotland have passed resolutions craving that this Bill may be withdrawn as applied to Scotland and a new and independent Bill be introduced for Scotland, and I must say that in twenty-five years experience as a member of the Association of County Councils of Scotland I have never known the Association so unanimous about anything. This Bill if it passes will not come into force until April, 1933. There will be ample time during the autumn and winter months to introduce and pass a separate Bill for Scotland. I therefore ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill if he cannot accept the Amendment to strike out the clause and give us a promise that without undue delay a Bill for Scotland will be introduced.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I might put it arithmetically, with nearly
476
99 per cent. of what noble Lords have said I find myself in complete agreement, and I am very glad indeed that they have raised this point, because I think it is an important point in the interests of Scotland. I thought I gathered, however, that the noble Lords did not challenge so much the Bill as applying to Scotland as the procedure under which the Bill has been applied to Scotland. I need not explain that to the noble Lords, because it was explained very lucidly by the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House in connection with the Children and Young Persons Bill. What he there pointed out was that we had, as we have here, provided that the Bill shall apply to Scotland subject to the adaptations and modifications specified in the Sixth Schedule. Then there is a clause saying that for the convenience of Scottish lawyers certain steps shall be taken so as to make a copy of the Act as applied to Scotland. In coming to that method of procedure we were not acting upon any English idea to deprive our Scottish friends of any opportunity of discussing the Bill. We had the express approval, as Lord Hailsham pointed out, of two or three responsible Scottish authorities. The Faculty of Advocates expressed their view that it would be a convenience to the profession and an improvement on any former system. The Glasgow Faculty of Procurators said the same thing, and the Association of the Clerks of the Peace in Scotland also said the same thing.
But in spite of what those learned bodies have said I have a great deal of sympathy with what both the noble Lords have said, and I think it would be an unfortunate precedent if this were always observed, and therefore what I propose to do is this. I propose to read a statement in the form of an undertaking which I am quite sure will satisfy your Lordships. What we propose to do is this. While the Government are in favour of securing, wherever it is practicable, that legislation affecting Scotland should pass through the Scottish Grand Committee, they are satisfied that, if the legislative proposals of the present Session regarding children and young persons and town and country planning had been embodied in separate Bills for England and Scotland, it is certain that these proposals could not have reached the Statute Book during the present Session. The Scottish

477
Grand Committee could not have dealt within the limits of a single Session with two Scottish Bills dealing with the subjects mentioned, in addition to the other Bills which came before it—as it was, the two Bills were dealt with by different Committees sitting at the same time—and it would have been impossible to find time in the House of Commons to pass four Bills—two English and two Scottish, dealing with these subjects. Even if that is so, I quite see what noble Lords say regarding the inconvenience of this practice.
When legislation for both countries on substantially the same lines is proposed, although it cannot be carried out in identical terms owing to differences in the two countries in matters of law, administration, local government and even nomenclature, and although differences in circumstances may even involve slight differences in substance as well as in form, it would obviously involve waste of Parliamentary time to debate and pass the same proposals (subject only to modification in matters of detail) twice. But I give this undertaking, that when there are material differences on grounds of policy between the proposals for the two countries, or when the application of the similar proposals involves complex and extensive adaptation or the provision or utilisation of different machinery, it is certainly the desire and intention of the Government that there should be separate legislation for Scotland and ample opportunity for full discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee.
That is the procedure which ought to take place in the future. I am sorry it has not taken place on the present occasion, but I do not think any harm has been done, and I think it would be unfortunate, if noble Lords will allow me to say so, in the interests of Scotland if this Bill were not accepted under those conditions. We will say that it is not, a precedent, but where there are real differences there should be separate legislation. As I do not gather that your Lordships wish to hang up the Bill and as I gather that you want most of it to apply to Scotland, I trust that will be a satisfactory explanation.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I am very glad to have heard the explanation of the Lord Chancellor. I do not say that it satisfies us but we poor Scots-
478
men are humble people who are accustomed to be done by everybody and, as your Lordships know, we are always put off until a late hour when there is no one here. There is a good deal of feeling in Scotland among lawyers that they will not be able to understand the Bill, but it will soon be known whether that is a real grievance or not. I hope the assurances of the luminaries on the Government Bench will turn out to be correct. Of course there is also great feeling in Scotland against the Bill altogether. A great many people think that Scotland, with a dwindling population, is not ready for it. However, I suppose we shall have to submit to the inevitable. We always take it very mildly and meekly. We mast still make a protest and hope it will not occur again although I am quite certain it will.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.
Matters to be dealt with by Schemes.
1. Streets, roads and other ways, and stopping up or diversion of existing highways including churchways.
2. Buildings, structures, and erections.
3. Open spaces, private and public.
EARL GREY EARL GREY moved to insert:
"4. The reservation of sites for places of religious worship or for residents' houses or burial places in connection therewith and preservation of sites held for any of these purposes."
The noble Earl said:This Amendment has a twofold object. The first is to secure in all schemes involving housing development on a large scale that opportunities shall be given to the representatives of all denominations to secure suitable sites to build places of worship, and the second to ensure that where the authorities of these denominations by foresight have secured such sites beforehand they shall not be lost to these denominations by reason of the fact that a townplanning scheme is introduced. Under the Places of 'Worship Sites Acts, 1873 and 1882, and the Settled Land Act, 1925, evidence of the provision of such sites is recognised as a purpose to be facilitated on public grounds. The in-

479
sertion of this Amendment here would have the effect of making negotiations easier.
Private owners are generally very generous in the way they meet applications for such sites, but it is not always the case when denominations have to deal with local authorities. It is not always the fault of local authorities that that is so. If you take the case of the Becontree estate, there a large population was removed out of London, churches were left high and dry and the efforts of various denominations to secure sites to serve the same population in this new area were intensified by the very high price charged to them by the local authority. In another case at Middlesbrough, only two months ago, where a local authority had agreed to sell a site to a religious denomination for what was considered to be a reasonable sum, it was overruled by the Ministry of Health on the ground that it was housing money that was involved and therefore the local authority had no power to charge anything except the full commercial value. If that is the law, it will have an unfortunate effect, if it is applied so strictly as that. Certainly, from my own experience as a director of Hampstead Garden suburb for the last twenty years, I know that we are convinced that property in the immediate neighbourhood of a church does not deteriorate but actually appreciates. Therefore, if a site is given at something below the full commercial value, the local authority would get it back in betterment on the surrounding sites.
In addition to that, I would remind the noble Lords that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are property owners on a very large scale in the neighbourhood of London. They are frequently approached by local authorities and asked whether they would sell sites for the provision of houses for the working classes. I am advised that, in the words of Sir Stanford Downing, it is the normal practice of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners always to treat such requests as requests which should be agreed to on grounds of public policy, and such ground is always transferred to the local authority at substantial reductions from the full value. Quite recently the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have been seriously criticised for events quite outside their control in relation to housing
480
property in Paddington, and it is only right that it should be realised that whenever it is in their control the Ecclesiastical Commissioners always give facilities such as the best class of private landlord also agrees to give. It is in the hope that these words may be inserted that I move this Amendment so that this object will be borne in mind in the preparation of such schemes. The words are taken from the Public Worship Sites Act and are not new to the legislation. They apply equally to any denomination.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 6, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Grey.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: The noble Earl only circulated this Amendment this morning. He has accompanied his Amendment with a speech which has traversed rather a wide field. My instructions are that this Amendment is really quite unnecessary for it is the duty of the planning authority to see that suitable provision is made in the scheme for enabling various requirements of the area to be adequately met, including accommodation for places of worship and burial grounds. Usually the zoning for a new suburb would enable buildings such as churches to be erected without the consent of the authority. In other areas the permission of the authorities subject to a right of appeal would be required. In regard to burial accommodation there are several places where proposals include the reservation of sites which are really an extension of an existing churchyard. The objection to an Amendment of this sort is that if it is accepted other interests might put forward similar claims—for instance, schools or public halls and even public-houses and that in fact has been moved on another clause by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, and negatived.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount says that if the words are admitted it would make a serious precedent and that the Government might be asked to provide for schools and, I think he said, public-houses. Surely my noble friend does not put churches on the same basis as public-houses? I am sure my noble friend does not mean that. He must see that churches or other places of worship are part of the necessities of life to any population. Such is the case, I am glad to say, in our country. No

481
neighbourhood is considered by any authority as completely equipped unless there are schools and places of worship. It might easily be that without some words such as my noble friend proposes that requirement might be forgotten by some local authorities. The Government will remember that the local authorities are not all very important ones. There are some very small ones and not all are gifted with full knowledge of what ought to be done.
I know that my noble friend who has conducted this Bill with great patience and skill—and we are very grateful to him—says this Amendment only appeared on the Paper this morning. That does constitute a reason why the Government may hesitate for a moment, but I am quite sure that if my noble friend will consult his advisers he will find that places of worship have always been on a different footing from any other equipment in our legislation. The Places of Worship Sites Act was referred to. That is an old friend of mine and it is only an example of how differently legislation is treated on this subject from that on any other subject. I think the Government ought just to consider whether there ought not to be some words in the clause so that the absolute requirements of the population should be looked to. Everything I have said as to places of worship applies to burial grounds. Everybody will see the absolute necessity of proper provision for burial grounds. The noble Viscount read some words about the duty of the local authority to consider certain obligations. I do not know what he was quoting—whether it was an opinion of advisers of the Government or some regulations which have been issued. If they were regulations perhaps that would go some distance to meet my noble friend. But I hope that between this and the next stage the Government will pay some attention to this question and see that places of worship are on a different footing from any other form of equipment necessary to the prosperity of a growing locality.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I will certainly consider what the noble Marquess has said. It was with no intention of disrespect that I linked together the ecclesiastical authorities and public-houses, but it has already been done in this debate by Lord Banbury.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I do not want to be pernickety about this, but the noble Viscount said the Amendment had really been covered by the Second Schedule. I would like to know where in the Second Schedule it is covered.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I only said that the list of things that ought to be done included in the Second Schedule was not exhaustive; that it merely showed a number of essential things that ought to be so treated.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Government will consider this matter?
VISCOUNT GAGE: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule:

THIRD SCHEDULE.

  PART II.
  Restrictions on Acquisition of Land.
  4. (iv) For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule the expression "common" includes any land subject to be enclosed under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, and any town or village green; the expression "open space" means any land laid out as a public garden, or used for the purposes of public recreation, and any disused burial ground; and the expression "allotment" means any allotment set out as a fuel allotment, or a field garden allotment, under an Inclosure Act; and for the purposes of paragraph 2 of this Part of this Schedule the expression "highway" shall not include a bridge to which the Bridges Act, 1929, applies, or any of the bridges referred to in Section eleven of that Act, or the approaches to any such bridge, or the road carried by any such bridge and approaches.
  LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: I do not wish to move the two first Amendments to this Schedule standing in my name, but I wish to move the third Amendment, which is to leave out from paragraph 4 (iv) of Part II the words "to which the Bridges Act, 1929, applies, or any of the bridges referred to in Section eleven of that Act" and to insert "by which a highway is carried over or under any railway, canal or navigable waterway." I understand that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill is prepared to accept the Amendment, and so I will not detain the House.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 76, line 21, leave out from ("bridge") to the first ("or") in line 23 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)
  VISCOUNT GAGE:Amendment accepted.
  Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Fourth Schedule [Matters in relation to which regulations shall be made and effect to be secured thereby]:
  VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Mine are drafting Amendments.
  VISCOUNT GAGE: Accepted.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 78, line 38, leave out second ("is") and insert ("are").
  Page 78, line 40, leave out ("which") and insert ("whom")
  Page 78, line 41, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
  Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Fifth Schedule, agreed to.
  Sixth Schedule [Adaptations and modifications of this Act in its application to Scotland]:
  VISCOUNT GAGE: These are all drafting Amendments.
  THE LORD CHAIRMAN: With the leave of the House I will put them en bloc.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 81, line 32, leave out ("forty-four") and insert ("forty-nine").
  Page 83, leave out lines 6 to 18, and insert:
  ("S. 17.—In subsection (1) for the words 'the council of any county borough or county district' there shall be substituted the words 'the local authority of any district,' the words 'or, as respects a building in such a county district, the council of the county comprising that district' shall be omitted, and for the words 'of that council' there shall be substituted the words 'of the local authority'; and in subsections (3), (4) and (6) for the word 'council' wherever it occurs there shall be substituted the words 'local authority'").
  Page 84, line 6, at end insert:
  ("S. 27.—In subsection (1) for the words 'declaring the street to be a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large' there shall be substituted the words 'taking over the road or street as a highway maintainable at the public expense'; and in subsection (2) the words 'and providing proper means of lighting therefor' shall be omitted").
  Page 84, line 16, after ("scheme") insert ("whether made under this Act or any Act repealed by this Act.")
  Page 84, line 16, at end insert:
  ("S. 32.—For the words from 'in such manner to the end of the section there shall be substituted the words either in the repayment of debt or for any other purpose for which capital money may be properly applied'").—(Viscount Gage.)
  Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

  PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL. [H.L.]
  Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
  LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, at this late hour your Lordships will not desire me to go into a very long dissertation on these Amendments, and in moving that the Commons Amendments be considered I would say that although on paper they have a formidable appearance they are almost entirely of a drafting character. I made a calculation this morning and I discovered that out of seventy-nine Amendments no fewer than fifty-six might be described as of a drafting nature. I see my noble friend Lord Marks in his place, and I think I have. his word for it that the Bill as it came back from the House of Commons is a better Bill than it was when it left this House. I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Templemore.)
  LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, you have had the Commons Amendments, and if you desire information I have information on all of them, which I should be happy to give; otherwise I will take the Amendments en bloc, and I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Templemore.)

  MALTA CONSTITUTION BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a(according to Order).
  Clause 1 [Amendment as to Reserved Matters]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there are certain Amendments which look rather formidable, but they only refer to one matter. The original intention of His Majesty's Government was to provide in the Bill that under the new system the Judges should hold office during His Majesty's pleasure. This provision, it was proposed, should apply to the existing Judges as well as to those appointed in future. The object in view was to assimilate the tenure of judicial office in Malta to that which now prevails throughout the Colonies generally. Your Lordships will recollect that there has been considerable unrest in Malta, and since the introduction of the Bill representations have been received from the Maltese Judges which make it clear that they have felt some uneasiness with regard to the contemplated change. They have represented that the tenure "during good behaviour" is considered constitutionally to be higher than the tenure "during pleasure," and that the former tenure has always been that upon which the Judges in Malta have held office since the island became a British Possession.
  His Majesty's Government have no wish to cause any apprehension in the mind of the Judges on this important point, and they are, therefore, prepared to amend the Bill so as to allay any doubts which may have arisen. They desire to make it clear, however, that, under the tenure of "pleasure" and the proceedure laid down by the Secretary of State, they consider that the same independence would have been secured to the Judges as under the tenure of "good behaviour" and it has never been their intention in the slightest degree to detract from the security of that tenure. All that they wish to do is to make quite sure that the present Judges during their tenure of office can only be removed for misconduct, and that any future Judge during his tenure can only be removed for the same reason. All the Amendments deal with this point. I beg to move the first Amendment on the Paper.
  Amendment moved—
  Clause 1, page 2, line 8, after ("remuneration") insert ("tenure of office").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Clause 2 [Amendment as to reserved matters]:
  Amendment moved—
  Clause 2, page 2, line 41, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
  ("(4) A Judge of the said Courts shall vacate his office on his attaining the age of sixty-five years, and may be removed from his office by the Governor of Malta in the name of and on behalf of His Majesty on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Second Schedule [Amendments of Malta Constitution Letters Patent Incorporating Provisions of Act]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Amendments in the Second Schedule are merely drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Second Schedule, page 7, line 10, leave out ("& (2)") and insert ("(2) and (4)").
  page 8, line 38, after ("office") insert ("and removal")
  page 9, line 8, after ("whatsoever") insert ("commenced")
  page 9, line 41, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
  ("(4) A Judge of the said Courts shall vacate his office on his attaining the age of sixty-five years, and may be removed from his office by the Governor in Our name and on Our behalf on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  EXTRADITION BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at half-past eleven o'clock.

  HOUSE OF LORDS.
  [From Minutes of June 30.]
  The LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

  Marriages Provisional Order (No. 2),

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Fire Brigade Provisional Order.

  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

  WOKINGHAM DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  Reported, without amendment.
  MID SOUTHERN UTILITY BILL.
  SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
  TRENT NAVIGATION BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WATFORD) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.