Sitting of 24 May 1939

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
King Edward the Seventh Welsh National Memorial Association Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Coventry Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
St. Helens Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,
Southend-on-Sea Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  STEAMSHIP "SAGRES" (DETENTION BY JAPANESE).
  Mr. De Chairasked the Prime Minister how long the steamship "Sagres" was detained by the Japanese and when she was released; whether he is aware that some of the crew were three days in Japanese prisons, and were subjected to severe maltreatment; and whether compensation is being demanded?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The steamship "Sagres" was seized on 8th April. No report of her release has been received. Some of the Chinese members of the crew were subjected to maltreatment in an unsuccessful effort to extort favourable evidence, but my Noble Friend's reports do not indicate that any of them were actually imprisoned. His Majesty's Government reserve all their rights in respect of compensation.
  Mr. De Chair: Would it not be a salutary reminder to the Japanese if we stopped some of their merchant ships passing through the Atlantic and the Mediter-
  2266
  ranean, where we have overwhelming naval superiority.
  The Prime Minister: I agree that the situation is completely unsatisfactory.

  FOREIGN POLICY.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure that the foreign policies of Powers with which we are or may be closely allied shall be co-ordinated with our own; whether His Majesty's Government are considering or will consider a more permanent, systematic means of securing this; and whether, with a view to advancing the principles of international law as a final authority, he is taking any steps to demonstrate that the alliances can and should be neither exclusive nor purely military?
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to my speech on 19th May. I think he will find that it gave a clear picture of the aims which His Majesty's Government are pursuing in the sphere of foreign policy and of the methods by which they hope to achieve them.
  Mr. Sorensen: May we take it from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that he wishes to make it clear to the world that the balance of power is not to be the criterion of British foreign policy in future?
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to my speech.
  Mr. Sorensen: Are we to adopt the custom in this House of referring to speeches made outside this House for the purpose of enlightenment?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is mistaken. That speech that I made was made inside the House.
  Mr. Vyvyan Adams: Is not each part of this question amply provided for already by the Covenant of the League of Nations?
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Are we to understand from the remarks of the Foreign Secretary in his important speech that the Government intend in spirit to return to the League of Nations?
  The Prime Minister: There is another question on the Order Paper.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA.
  Mr. V. Adamsasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a further statement about the progress of negotiations for the strategic co-operation of France, Russia, and Great Britain in resistance to aggression?
  Mr. Thorneasked the Prime Minister whether he can now say whether a tripartite agreement between England, France, and Russia has yet been settled and whether the agreement is similar to the agreement between France and Russia?
  The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Members will be good enough to await the statement which I propose to make at the end of questions.
  Mr. Neil Maclean: Will the Prime Minister explain why the word "England" has been used? I thought that word had been dropped and the words "Great Britain" substituted?
  Later—
  The Prime Minister: The House is aware that my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was able to have conversations with the French Ministers in Paris on his way to Geneva. He was also able to continue in Geneva the conversations which had been conducted with the Soviet Ambassador in London. As a result of these conversations all relevant points of view have now been made clear, and I have every reason to hope that as a result of proposals which His Majesty's Government are now in a position to make on the main questions arising, it will be found possible to reach full agreement at an early date. There still remain some further points to be cleared up, but I do not anticipate that these are likely to give rise to any serious difficulty.
  Mr. Attlee: Will it be possible to make a more definite and fuller statement before the House rises for Whitsun?
  The Prime Minister: If it is possible, of course, such a statement will be made, but, as I mentioned, there are some points which have still to be cleared up. I think probably it will be necessary to wait until after we come back, when I hope it will be possible to give a complete account of the agreement which, I trust, will by then have been reached.
  Mr. Dalton: Is it not most urgent, in view of the continuing dangers of the international situation, to make an end of these delays?
  Mr. V. Adams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this step towards this massive deterrent against aggression will give throughout the country the most widespread relief, satisfaction and hope?

  EUROPEAN SITUATION.
  Mr. Dayasked the Prime Minister whether he will give particulars of all reports made by the High Commissioner in Danzig to the Council of the League of Nations to the effect that difficulties are being placed in his way in carrying out his duties?
  The Prime Minister: The High Commissioner has reported regularly to the Committee of Three appointed by the Council to follow the situation in Danzig and the Committee has authorised the issue of communiques at the conclusion of its meetings held at Geneva during the sessions of the Council. I am not, of course, in a position to add to these communiques, but I cannot agree that the general purport of the High Commissioner's reports is as described by the hon. Member.
  Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the High Commissioner has reported any interference with postal or telephone facilities?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I cannot.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that the British Consul has been on leave for some time?
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister what arrangements he proposes to make for the representation of British interests in Bohemia and Moravia, following the withdrawal of diplomatic status from His Majesty's Legation in Prague?
  Sir Percy Harrisasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to appoint a British Consul in Prague; and whether he is in a position definitely to state that His Majesty's Government will take no action which will involve de facto or de jure recognition of German sovereignty in Bohemia and Moravia?
  The Prime Minister: On the departure of His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires from Prague on 25th May British interests will be temporarily in charge of the British Vice-Consul. The question of the future representation of His Majesty's Government in Prague and its bearing on the question of recognition is being considered, and I hope to be in a position to make a statement very shortly.
  Sir Archibald Sinclair: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of Question No. 21, and assure the House that whatever decision may be taken about the appointment of a consul, no action will be taken which might in any degree involve recognition of the German annexation of Bohemia and Moravia?
  Mr. Sandys: Before the Prime Minister replies to that supplementary question, will he make it quite clear that while the British Consul remains in Prague to carry on certain work on behalf of British interests, we shall not ask the German Government to accord him consular status, thereby implying recognition of the German annexation?
  The Prime Minister: I have said that the matter is being considered, and I hope to make a statement very shortly. I do not think that I can anticipate that statement.
  Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement on the present position in Danzig?
  The Prime Minister: According to reports received by my Noble Friend, demonstrations were made on 21st May against a Polish Customs House at Kalthof within Danzig territory on the East Prussian border. There is a conflict of evidence as to the nature and the results of these demonstrations. The Polish Commissioner General in Danzig sent representatives to investigate the affair, and in circumstances, of which the accounts also differ very widely, a Danzig citizen was killed. Formal protests have been made on both sides, but I trust that these incidents will not be permitted to lead to graver complications.
  Mr. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether the terms of the agreement made on nth November, 1927, between France and Jugoslavia were com-
  2270
  municated to the League of Nations; and whether the agreement provides for French intervention in the event of any threat to the independence of Jugoslavia?
  The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, Articles 3 and 4 of the Treaty provide respectively, and within the framework of the League of Nations, for the examination in common by the two countries of questions threatening their external security, and for the two countries to concert together on their respective action in the case of unprovoked attack.

  RENUNCIATION OF WAR TREATY.
  Mr. Dayasked the Prime Minister which States have still not acceded to the Treaty for the Renunciation of War, as signed in Paris on 27th August, 1928; and will he give particulars of the number of States who signed this Treaty that have failed to carry out their obligations?
  The Prime Minister: The situation has not changed since the reply given to the hon. Member by the then Foreign Secretary on 21st April, 1937.
  Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Great Britain considers herself bound by this Treaty?
  The Prime Minister: An affirmative answer to that question was given by my right hon. Friend on the date to which I have referred.

  SPAIN.
  Mr. Lambertasked the Prime Minister whether he has received any further assurances that the Spanish Government propose to guard the economic independence and the territorial integrity of Spain?
  The Prime Minister: The House is familiar with the assurances on this point given by General Franco before the recognition of the Spanish Government. Since that date no further assurances have been asked for or received. In the course of General Franco's speech on the Madrid parade, he is, however, reported to have stated that
  "it must be understood once and for all, and accepted in all countries, that there can be

  2271
  no question in any way of infringing our sovereignty and our political and economic liberty."
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that Italian armaments will be now withdrawn from Spain?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Strauss: Is the Prime Minister aware that the "Popolo d'Italia" recently stated that the Italian Government were not going to withdraw their armaments from Spain, and as this would be a violation of the Anglo-Italian Treaty will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into it?
  The Prime Minister: I have not seen the statement referred to.
  Mr. Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that the "Times" yesterday stated that the armaments were being left behind? Does he not realise the great difficulty of this House, when we have to accept statements—it is no fault of the right hon. Gentleman—from him which subsequently turn out to be entirely misleading?
  The Prime Minister: I give the House the best information in my possession. I cannot do more than that.

  CARGO CLEARANCES, TSINGTAO.
  Mr. Hannahasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to how many British, American and Japanese ships, respectively, carried cargoes from Tsingtao to Canada and the United States of America, during the month of March?
  Captain Alan Grahamasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the only vessels shipping cargo from Tsingtao to Europe during the month of March were three Japanese and one German; and what was the percentage of Tsingtao shipments to Europe formerly carried in British ships?
  The Prime Minister: My Noble Friend has seen unofficial reports stating that a number of Japanese steamers and one German vessel cleared from Tsingtao with direct cargo for Europe and North America during the month of March, and
  2272
  they make no mention of any such clearances by British or United States vessels. He has, however, no official confirmation of these reports. As regards the proportion of Tsingtao shipments to Europe formerly carried in British ships, the figures for 1935 and 1936 were approximately 36 per cent. and 62 per cent. The actual tonnage carried in 1936, however, showed some decrease on that of the previous year.

  GERMAN CONSUL, LIVERPOOL.
  Mr. Kirbyasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a case at Manchester Assizes on 19th May, when a man named Joseph Kelly was sentenced to ten years' penal servitude for stealing plans of the Government factory at Euxton, Lancashire; that during the trial it was established that Kelly had been in contact with, and assisted by, the German consul in Liverpool; and does he propose to take any action against the consul in the courts or demand his return to Germany?
  Mr. Thurtleasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make regarding the continued presence in this country of the German consul at Liverpool who has been proved to have been acting as an intermediary of the German secret service?
  The Prime Minister: It is still not entirely clear to what extent the German Consul in Liverpool was himself involved in this affair; but the matter is under active consideration.
  Mr. Kirby: Is it not a fact that at the Assize Court proceedings it was stated in evidence, and not refuted on behalf of the German Consul, that he had actually put this man in touch with the secret service agents in Germany and had visa'd his passport so that he might make a journey there and get into touch with the German agents?
  The Prime Minister: There is a doubt as to whether it was someone in the consulate or whether it was the consul himself.
  Mr. Thurtle: Is the Prime Minister aware that the prosecuting counsel himself said that it was the German Consul who had put the man charged in touch

  2273
  with the German secret service, and does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the safety of this country comes before the susceptibilities of the German Government?
  The Prime Minister: No question of the susceptibilities of the German Government is involved at present. The hon. Member may be right in what he said was said by the prosecuting counsel, but there is still, as I have said, some doubt as to whether the consul himself is involved or not, and we must clear up that matter.
  Mr. Kirby: May I ask the Prime Minister to pursue his investigations into this matter on account of the very definite menace to this country if this consul is doing this kind of work and is allowed to pursue it in Liverpool?
  The Prime Minister: As I have said, the matter is still under actual consideration.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Since it appears to be plain that the German consulate was used for this purpose, will the Prime Minister take up the matter with the German Government and ask for the removal of the consul who was responsible?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot say what action the Government will take. We must first find out what actually happened.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (TREATIES).
  Mr. Thorneasked the Prime Minister whether all trading and political agreements, agreed upon between nations, are reported to the Assembly of the League of Nations?
  The Prime Minister: Under Article 18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, every treaty or international engagement entered into by a member of the League must be forthwith registered with the Secretariat and shall as soon as possible be published by it. States which are not members of the League are naturally not bound by this provision.

  ANGLO-ITALIAN AGREEMENT.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Anglo-Italian Agreement to maintain the status quo in the Mediterranean, he has any
  2274
  statement to make on the recently signed German-Italian military alliance; and whether the Italian Government have at any time recently suggested the negotiation of their differences with France?
  The Prime Minister: From the published text of the agreement signed on 22nd May between the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Italy and Germany, there does not seem to be any provision that could be held to be inconsistent with Italy's obligations under the declaration of 2nd January, 1937, which was reaffirmed in the Anglo-Italian Agreement of 16th April, 1938. I am not in a position to make any statement as to what may or may not have passed between the Italian and French Governments on the subject referred to in the last part of the question.
  Mr. Henderson: Is the Prime Minister aware of the statement made by the German Foreign Secretary on the occasion of the signing of this treaty namely, that it was a reply to the democratic war inciters, and will he not again take an opportunity of making it plain that His Majesty's Government are prepared to cooperate with any country which will observe the rules of international law and justice?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that alters what I have said in my answer.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Does it not appear that this so-called German-Italian military alliance is only a euphemistic way of saying that the Italian army has been placed under German control?

  CZECHO-SLOVAKIA (ASSETS, GREAT BRITAIN).
  Mr. Sandysasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will assure the House that His Majesty's Government will not enter into any formal discussions with the German Government on the subject of the release of Czecho-Slovak assets in this country unless they are satisfied that they will not thereby be according de facto recognition to the German annexation of Czecho-Slovakia;
  (2) why Treasury officials have been permitted to enter into conversations with the German foreign office on the subject of the release of Czecho-Slovak assets in

  2275
  this country, in view of the fact that the German Government has no authority or status to negotiate in a matter solely concerning Czecho-Slovakia; and whether the Czecho-Slovak legation in London was informed or consulted before the conversations began?
  The Prime Minister: The informal conversations which have taken place did not imply de facto recognition of the new status of Bohemia and Moravia, and my hon. Friend will have appreciated from the answer which I have just given to the hon. Members for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) and South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that the question of recognition is being considered in connection with the future of the representation of His Majesty's Government in Prague. It will be understood from what I have said that there was no occasion to consult the Czecho-Slovak Legation in London in connection with the informal conversations referred to.
  Mr. Sandys: Arising out of the answer. First, may I ask whether it is not a fact that formal negotiations are contemplated, as was indicated in the Prime Minister's answer yesterday, and that there is a danger that these formal conversations will in fact imply a de facto recognition? Secondly, is it not a fact that the Czechoslovak Legation still enjoys full diplomatic status, and would it not have been normal to consult or inform them before entering into negotiations with another Government about Czech affairs?
  The Prime Minister: I have explained that the question of the de facto recognition of the new status of Bohemia and Moravia was being considered in connection with the future representation of His Majesty's Government at Prague, and not in connection with any formal discussions.
  Sir A. Sinclair: Is it not quite inconsistent with the policy of collective resistance to aggression that His Majesty's Government should be considering the question of recognising the German annexation of Bohemia and Moravia? Will the Prime Minister not give us an assurance that the Government will not recognise the German annexation?
  The Prime Minister: I have said that the matter is being considered.
  Mr. Bracken: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that "informal conversations" is only a euphemistic description of conversations between Treasury officials and the Germans regarding the property of the Czech people, the savings of 20 years, which are to be handed over to the Germans? Surely, if these are called informal conversations it is a great reflection upon England because they certainly could not be formal.
  Mr. A. Henderson: Were any representatives of the Czecho-Slovakia Bank associated with these conversations?
  The Prime Minister: Not with the informal discussions. I think they would be with formal discussions.
  Mr. Sandys: Can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that no de facto recognition will be given without this House first being consulted?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot give such an assurance.
  Mr. Attlee: Are we to understand that the Government are contemplating giving formal recognition to the annexation of Czecho-Slovakia by Germany?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I did not say that. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was in his place when I gave the earlier answer. I said that the position was being considered. The question of giving an assurance as to what we would or would not do before asking the House is another matter altogether.
  Mr. Attlee: I think this is a point upon which the House wants to be clear. Can we have an assurance that no decision will be taken in this matter until the House has had an opportunity of discussing it?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot give that assurance, and it is not usual for an assurance of that kind to be given, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The House has its own way of expressing its approval or not.
  Mr. Attlee: The Prime Minister will realise that it is not usual to have one Government forcibly seized by another.
  Mr. Sandys: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister told the House after the annexation of Czecho-Slovakia that

  2277
  the Government did not recognise the legality or the validity of this act—an announcement which was received with universal approval, may we not have an assurance that the House will be consulted before that policy is reversed?
  Mr. Benn: Are the Government still pursuing a policy of appeasement?
  Mr. Attlee: In view of the very unsatisfactory replies we have received I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment on Friday.
  Mr. Sandysasked the Prime Minister whether, before the Government consent to the release of any Czechoslovak assets in this country which are covered by the Czecho-Slovakia (Restrictions on Banking Accounts, etc.) Act, 1939, an opportunity will be afforded for consulting the opinion of the House?
  The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence).
  Mr. Sandys: In view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not answer this point yesterday, may I ask my right hon. Friend, while there can be no objection to the release of money of this kind to assist refugees or to satisfy British claims, whether we may be assured that any balance that may be left over will not be released for transfer to Germany without prior consultation with this House?
  The Prime Minister: I understand that my right hon. Friend said that if an agreement was reached, it would be laid before Parliament in the usual way. The purpose of the agreement would be to ensure that British holders of these bonds, etc., would be paid their due rates of interest. My right hon. Friend said that if an agreement was reached, it would be laid before Parliament in the usual way.
  Mr. Benn: What is meant by "in the usual way"?
  The Prime Minister: It would be laid before Parliament, which would probably have an opportunity of taking cognisance of it.
  Mr. Benn: Before it became effective?
  The Prime Minister: When the point had been reached. The position is that the Treasury are empowered under the Act to restrict balances and assets pending a satisfactory agreement being made.
  Mr. Sandys: The point of my question was to find out whether, apart from these perfectly unobjectionable releases, we could be assured that no money would be released to Germany—that is not the matter to which my right hon. Friend referred—without this House first being consulted.
  The Prime Minister: I can say this, that there is no intention of releasing money to Germany.
  Mr. Bracken: What is the point of an agreement with Germany? We are, I presume, exchanging real assets in London for promises of the German Government. Would the Prime Minister tell us whether he thinks that is a satisfactory arrangement, and whether he would not prefer to retain assets rather than to have promises?

  CIVIL AIR GUARD.
  Mr. Perkinsasked the Secretary of State for Air the total number of men under the age of 25 who have been unable to learn to fly under the Civil Air Guard scheme owing to the Civil Air Guard being full up; and the total number of women over the age of 25 at present under instruction under the Civil Air Guard scheme, or holding A licences as a result of training under this scheme?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): Applicants to join the Civil Air Guard are not required to state their age at the time of application, but only when examined for vacancies for definite enrolment. The total number of women over the age of 25 at present under instruction is 338. Of this total, 118 are in possession of pilot's licences of whom 59 have gained their licences since joining the Civil Air Guard.
  Mr. Perkins: Has there been any alteration in the scheme?
  Captain Balfour: After consultation between the Ministry and the Civil Air Guard it has been approved that as long as there are men whose age may render them suitable for entering one of the categories for service in the Royal Air Force, preference will be given to men under 40,

  2279
  but the proportion of men over 40 and women shall not together exceed 10 per cent. of the total membership of each unit. Men over 40 qualified as pilots will not be subject to restriction as to numbers.
  Miss Rathbone: Instead of limiting the number why not extend the facilities for training rather than limit the number of men and women over 25 who can be trained?
  Captain Balfour: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Order Paper.
  Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the fact that persons who, purely from patriotic motives, join the Civil Air Guard, are put to considerable expense in travelling to and from the aerodromes and, in addition to giving up their time for lectures and drills, are compelled to provide themselves with uniform, he will consider making some allowance to cover the cost of uniform?
  Captain Balfour: With the aid of a contribution from public funds the Civil Air Guard scheme provides facilities for flying instruction at reduced rates for men and women wishing to fly. While fully appreciating both the spirit that prompts these men and women to come forward for flying instruction and the value of the Civil Air Guard movement generally, I do not consider, in all the circumstances, that provision of uniform at public expense would be justified.
  Sir F. Sanderson: Is it not a fact that these men are compelled to acquire uniforms, and seeing also that they are volunteers, does not my hon. and gallant Friend consider that they are justified in expecting that the cost should be covered from the National Exchequer? Is he also aware that at the present time they have to pay between 10s. and £1 per cent. increase on their life insurance, and in view of the fact that they are now being asked to volunteer for foreign service, does he not consider that these errors should be rectified?
  Captain Balfour: Firstly, there is no compulsion on any member of the Civil Air Guard to wear a uniform; secondly, they are not being asked to volunteer for foreign service; and, thirdly, the financial
  2280
  arrangements for the Air Guard scheme were fully notified, and there should be no misunderstanding among the members that the conditions under which they can get flying training for this service at a very low cost to themselves are made largely at the Government's expense, and that the Government's contribution could not go beyond that which was agreed upon with the clubs at the inception of the scheme.
  Sir F. Sanderson: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the men have, in fact, been asked to volunteer for foreign service? If he wishes, I can give him proof that that is so.
  Captain Balfour: I should be glad to receive any information as to some misconception which may have existed in some particular unit. I can only give an assurance that there has been no request by the Commissioners that the men should be asked to volunteer for any foreign service.
  Sir W. Lindsay Everard: Are not all the members of the Civil Air Guard expected to wear uniforms? My hon. and gallant Friend said he thought they were not, but I understand that they have to do so.
  Captain Balfour: The Commissioners expressed the hope that the members would get a uniform which is provided by themselves, but there is no obligation, nor is it a condition of their training, that they must acquire it.
  Mr. Macquisten: Would it not be very uncomfortable for one man in a dozen to be without a uniform because he could not afford it?

  CIVIL AVIATION.

    NORTH ATLANTIC SERVICE.
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Secretary of State for Air the cause of the postponement of the North Atlantic air service?
    Captain Balfour: The commencement of the North Atlantic service has been postponed for a number of reasons. Engines and airscrews could not be installed in the S.30 boats by the required date owing to the necessity for improving engine cooling on the Perseus XIIc type which are installed for the first time in this type of aircraft. The operating company are now anxious, before the in-

    2281
    auguration of the service, thoroughly to test out these engines by a 400 hours' flight test, an arrangement with which my right hon. Friend is in agreement but which, it will be appreciated, must take a considerable and indeterminate time dependent upon weather and other conditions. The practical tests which have been carried out with flight-refuelling have also revealed an uneven filling of tanks and the need for alteration in the fuel-jettisoning system in the interests of safety. I regret the necessity for the postponement of the commencement of this service but my hon. Friend will no doubt appreciate the desirability of the postponement in the interests of eventual operational safety and efficiency. The previous programme of which the House was informed was necessarily provisional and must now be modified but I am hopeful that the service may commence in July.
    Mr. Perkins: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us whether the American service has started?
    Captain Balfour: The Pan-American Airways boat reached Southampton yesterday, and I am informed that it left to-day at 10.13, and is due to reach the United States on Saturday next.

    BRITISH AIRWAYS, LIMITED.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrenceasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that out of the total nominal assets of British Airways, Limited, shown as £689,138, in the latest available balance sheet, £363,587 stands to development account corresponding to no tangible assets; that the company itself and its subsidiaries have made annual losses; and what was the basis for fixing the total effective purchasing price of this company at £573,500?
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): The value of the tangible assets of British Airways at 30th September, 1938, was found to be roughly equivalent to advances by shareholders amounting to £311,000. The further sum of £262,500, which is included in the proposed purchase price, represents the amount which, after negotiation, was attributed to the value of the organisation built up by the company and the experience which it had gained, account being also taken of the fact that the company had reached a stage in its
    2282
    growth when it could reasonably expect to obtain some return for its past expenditure on development.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the excess amount is upon goodwill, and is not the goodwill, in fact, the promise of the Government to pay money to the company; and, further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that before the announcement was made a few days ago, the 5s. shares of Hillman Airways, which, in fact, own a certain amount of shares in British Airways, stood at is. 6d. and that after his announcement they rose to approximately 2s., which is, in fact, their value under the agreement?
    Sir K. Wood: As regards the first supplementary question, I stated that the amount of £262,500 was attributable to the value of the organisation built up by the company and other matters referred to in the answer. As regards the second supplementary question, the right hon. Gentleman will recall my statement with regard to his other question last week, that—and I do not think he will disagree with me—in dealing with this kind of question, the market price of the shares is not a suitable guide.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give this action its proper name? Is it not a ramp?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir.
    Sir William Davison: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend's statement is affected by the fact that "Blue Peter" has won the Derby?
    Mr. Bellenger: Were not all the factors enumerated in assessing the value of these shares taken into account by the market, and is not the market value a better indication of the real value of the shares than the Government actuaries?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I ventured to point out on the last occasion that the prices of Imperial Airways shares on the market have varied very considerably. I do not think anyone who was responsible for this transaction would desire to base the value to be paid by the Government on the actual quotations for the time being on the Stock Exchange. They vary from time to time.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    SENIOR SCHOOL, GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the local education authority of the county of Gloucester are to make arrangements in connection with the provision of a senior school serving several parishes, including Quedgeley and Hardwicke; and whether he can give them any information as to the total number of men likely to be employed by his Department in this area during the next few years?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the proposal of the Gloucestershire Education Committee to provide a senior school to meet the needs of this part of the county. As I have already informed by hon. Friend, the total number of civilians likely to be employed in the district by the Air Ministry is about 1,000.

    LAND ACQUISITION, NORFOLK.
    Sir Thomas Cookasked the Secretary of State for Air what is intended with regard to land required at Barningham Parva, Norfolk; what acreage is involved; and how many alternative sites have been considered?
    Sir K. Wood: The land to which my hon. Friend refers is under consideration by my Department for use as a landing ground. The area involved amounts to 285 acres. Eleven alternative sites have so far been considered but none has been found to be suitable.

    AERODROMES (GRASS PRESERVATION).
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will arrange for the grass taken from aerodromes to be dried or stored in order to decrease the tonnage of imported feeding-stuffs required for our livestock population?
    Sir K. Wood: Arrangements already exist under which my Department enters into contracts with firms interested in grass preservation. The firms maintain the aerodrome surface and cut and fertilise as necessary. During this year, contracts have been let in respect of 13 Royal Air Force aerodromes and further contracts will be arranged where opportunity offers and operational requirements permit.

  TRANSPORT.

    OMNIBUSES, BIRMINGHAM (CHILDREN).
    Mr. Cartlandasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that Mr. Archibald Safford, reporting on his committee of inquiry with regard to the free carriage of children on public service vehicles, suggested that the three-years age-limit should not be regarded as a universal rule, and that local circumstances might justify an exception; and whether he will reconsider his decision to impose the three-years age-limit on the Birmingham Corporation?
    The Minister of Transport (Captain Euan Wallace): Mr. Safford, who had had the advantage of hearing counsel on behalf of the Birmingham Corporation, states in paragraph 36 of his report:
    "There may be local circumstances not within my knowledge that would justify an exception. I can only say that no such circumstances were brought to my attention."
    In any case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Deritend (Sir Smedley Crooke) was informed on 8th May, I have no power to re-open an appeal which has been determined in accordance with the provisions of the Statute.
    Mr. Cartland: Surely under Section 81 of the Road Transport Act, my right hon. Friend has the right to vary any specific order? What I ask him to do is to agree to consider whether there are not circumstances which ought to make this free carriage apply to children up to the age of five.
    Captain Wallace: I am afraid that Mr. Safford said in his report that he did not think so. I shall be very glad to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend but I am advised that I have not the power to alter the decision.
    Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that the decision which was given does not affect trolley buses and tramcars, and, therefore, those districts which are served by petrol buses are now being penalised and are being unjustly treated, as compared with those districts which are served by other forms of public transport?
    Captain Wallace: Yes, Sir, I am perfectly well aware what the decision is.
    Mr. Poole: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that in the case of Birmingham, as of other large cities, the people

    2285
    most affected are those who have been pushed out of the centre of the city to live five or six miles out, and that it is a very definite hardship on working class people to have to pay for children between three and five and will he give very serious reconsideration to the whole question?
    Captain Wallace: I have said that I am prepared to discuss it with my hon. Friend, but I am advised that I have no power to reopen the case, now that the statutory procedure has been gone through and it has been decided.
    Mr. Buchanan: Has the Minister no power to go back to the gentleman who held the inquiry and ask him to reconsider his recommendation in view of the representations which have been made.
    Captain Wallace: No, I understand that I have no power to reopen the case.

    ROAD LIGHTING.
    Mr. Lyonsasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the many recommendations against the lack of proper road lighting, and the varying standards where some lighting exists, he will state what steps are now to be taken, in the interests of road safety, to effect a suitable system of road lighting throughout the country?
    Captain Wallace: The recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Street Lighting have been brought to the notice of the principal lighting authorities and the systems which have recently been installed show that regard is being had to the committee's recommendations. I have no power over the lighting of any roads, other than trunk roads, where the Minister of Transport can enter into agreements with the responsible lighting authorities. In all cases where I have made such agreements for the lighting of trunk roads my Department is careful to satisfy itself as to the adequacy of the installation proposed.
    Mr. Lyons: In view of the fact that the committee has reported that chaos is being caused and that danger arises from the fact that there are so many lighting authorities, with different powers in different areas, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to reconsider the whole question of lighting, with a view to getting some kind of uniform standard?
    Captain Wallace: That would, obviously, require legislation, but the question will be borne in mind if there is an opportunity for legislation.

    RAILWAYS (GOVERNMENT DECISION).
    Sir F. Sandersonasked the Minister of Transport whether he approves in principle of the Transport Advisory Council's Report; and, if so, whether he will take immediate steps for the preparation of the statutory scheme to carry it out?
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take on the report of the Transport Advisory Council on the railways application?
    Captain Wallace: The Government have decided to accept in principle the recommendations of the Transport Advisory Council in their report on the proposals of the main line railways; and I should like to pay tribute to the work of Sir Arthur Griffith Boscawen and his colleagues. The specific changes in the law which may be involved require careful consideration, but it is intended to introduce appropriate legislation as soon as possible next Session.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Transport on what date the recent report of the Transport Advisory Council was first made publicly available; and how the main line companies were enabled to publish a résumé of the report before the report itself was available for Members of this House?
    Captain Wallace: The report was made available to the public early on Friday morning, 19th May, and the hon. Member will appreciate that, though published by the Stationery Office, it is not a Parliamentary Paper. Copies of the report in the form in which it was agreed by the council have naturally been in the possession of all members of the council since the day it was signed. I understand that the railway companies' representatives on the council prepared a resume for the purpose of forestalling the numerous inquiries they anticipated, and they arranged to release that resume at the same time as the report itself was made available to the public.
    Mr. Ridley: Having regard to the considerable number of questions which have been asked in this House as evidence of

    2287
    the interest and anxiety of Members of the House about the terms of the report, would it not have been better had that report been made available to the House before it was available to interested parties outside the House?
    Captain Wallace: This is a matter on which a question was answered by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in another connection. This report is not a Parliamentary paper, and hon Members have to go through the procedure of applying to the Vote Office or the Stationery Office for it. I regret very much if any hon. Member thinks that the House has been treated with discourtesy, but, frankly, I do not think that any harm has been done.
    Mr. Maclean: On a point of Order. Is it not the case that a number of these reports were formerly issued as Parliamentary papers but that the right of Members of this House to get them in the Vote Office was taken away during the "Geddes Axe" period of economy, and do you not think, Mr. Speaker, it is high time that these State papers were laid before the House and treated as Parliamentary papers one again?
    Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a point of Order. It was decided a long time ago, and I should want to consider it very carefully before I made any alteration in the present practice.
    Mr. Maclean: We were told at the time that, in order to save expense, these papers would not be issued to Members who did not, it was thought, take any particular interest in them, and that we must apply to the Stationery Office for them if we wanted them. They were, therefore, still treated as Parliamentary papers, but it was decided that application would have to be made for them. Consequently, are not Members of this House entitled to receive copies of these papers, before they are issued to the general public?
    Mr. Speaker: I would have to consider that point very carefully before I gave an answer.
    Mr. Watkins: Although, as the Minister says, this report was not a Parliamentary paper, yet it was a report to the Minister of Transport, and in those circumstances
    2288
    would it not have been better that Members of this House should have had priority in seeing the terms of that report?
    Captain Wallace: As I have said, I am very sorry if any right hon. or hon. Gentleman finds himself in any way aggrieved, but it never occurred to me to issue the report otherwise than as it has been issued.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Did the railway companies communicate with the right hon. Gentleman's Department stating that it was their intention to publish a resume of the report?
    Captain Wallace: I am afraid I could not answer that question without notice.

    FACILITIES (RAYNHAM AERODROME).
    Sir T. Cookasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the inadequacy of the train service between Raynham Aerodrome and Fakenham, Norfolk; and whether he will take steps to secure that extra omnibus services are instituted to enable airmen and their families stationed at this aerodrome to travel to this neighbouring town?
    Captain Wallace: The railway company have furnished me with particulars of the train services which are available for this aerodrome, which has quite recently been opened, and have assured me that they will be very ready to provide additional facilities as soon as the traffic warrants them. As regards road transport, I have no power to compel omnibus operators to institute any particular services. If they wish to do so, their applications are considered by the Traffic Commissioners, and I have no power to interfere with the commissioners' discretion to grant licences unless an appeal against their decision is made to me under Section 81 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. I am informed that the commissioners for the area in question will very shortly consider applications by local omnibus operators for licences to run omnibus services between the points mentioned.

    EAST-WEST ROAD SCHEME (LEYTON).
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the financial difficulties that have arisen in connection with the Ruckholt Road bridge, Leyton, portion of the East-West road scheme about which advice has been tendered to him by the London and Home

    2289
    Counties Traffic Advisory Committee; and whether, in view of the inability of the county council financially to assist the Leyton council, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Captain Wallace: I am aware that the Highways Committee of the Essex County Council have refused to recommend the council to make a contribution as they consider that this part of the East-West connection should be constructed as a trunk road and the whole cost defrayed from the Road Fund. I am not in a position to entertain this suggestion.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that as he is not prepared to entertain this suggestion, it means that the development will impose very severe financial burdens on the ratepayers, both of Leyton and of Essex generally; and will he not do something to relieve the ratepayers of that burden?
    Captain Wallace: Unfortunately that does not alter the fact that Parliament laid down in the Schedule to the Trunk Roads Act what the trunk roads were to be, and I cannot put anything into that Schedule which is not there.

  CHROMIUM AND CHROME ALLOYS.
  Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether arrangements have been made to secure supplies of chromium and chrome alloys adequate for the present and expanding munition programme?
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am advised that the answer is in the affirmative.
  Mr. A. Edwards: Is it not a fact that the Government have shown much more concern about securing adequate supplies for Germany than for this country?
  Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

  MACHINE TOOLS.
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) who compose the committee or advisory section of the Machine Tool Trades Association who agreed to the importation of machine tools; why have the needs not been met in this country; why are national factories not being established to
  2290
  manufacture the machine tools; can a statement be made on the costing system that the Government proposed to the Machine Tool Trades Association; why it was disagreed to; and what is the present position;
  (2) whether he can make a statement on the consultations and negotiations that have taken place between Government representatives and the Machine Tool Manufacturers' Association; and if not, when he expects to be in a position to make such a statement?
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: Discussions regarding machine tools have been conducted with a special committee appointed by the Council of the Machine Tool Trades Association. The necessity for the importation of machine tools results not only from the large demands occasioned by the rearmament programme but from the desirability of maintaining our export connections. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, we have for some time past enjoyed a considerable overseas trade in machine tools. As regards the establishment of national factories for machine tools, I am advised that in view of the time required for constructing and equipping them, the carrying out of the programme would not be materially assisted by this means. Negotiations with the Machine Tool Trades Association are nearing their conclusion, and I hope shortly to be able to make a statement on this subject.
  Mr. Smith: Could we be given the names of the special committee which has been advising in connection with this matter?
  Mr. Morrison: I could give the information if required.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the very great success of the Admiralty factory for jigs and gauges at Sheffield, and then reconsider the question of a national machine tool factory?
  Mr. Morrison: I am by no means closing the door to the suggestion of creating a factory of this kind if required. I was merely answering the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. Smith: In view of the well-founded suspicion which exists in this trade and among all who are familiar with it, will

  2291
  the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer that point in the question which asks for the names of those who compose the advisory section or the special committee who are advisers on this matter?
  Mr. Morrison: Certainly, I will give that information if required. I thought the hon. Member really asked what committee had been conducting the matter, and I answered that it was a special committee elected by the association itself.
  Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a suspicion that the committee are responsible for advising on the importation of these machine tools and that they are personally involved in it, and, in view of that suspicion, can we be given the names of the committee?
  Mr. Morrison: Certainly, I will give the names of the committee to the hon. Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, to the House."]—and to the House. I have nothing to conceal in this matter, but in my own view the suspicions that the hon. Member has mentioned are not well founded.
  Mr. Dalton: The question asks the Chancellor of the Duchy "who compose the committee." Is not that equivalent to asking for the names to be read out to the House in answer to the question?
  Mr. Morrison: I did not read it as such. I thought the hon. Member was asking for a description of the body concerned, and I have given it.
  Mr. Dalton: Is the right hon. Gentleman not furnished, on the paper which he holds in his hands, with these names?
  Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.
  Mr. Hopkinson: Is it not a fact that at least two of the leading importers of foreign machine tools into this country are also leading members of that association?
  Mr. Morrison: In order to dispel any suggestion that these names have been concealed, I will undertake to circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Poole: On a point of Order. Can you, Mr. Speaker, tell us what remedy this House has against the inability of Government Departments to understand plain English?

  FIGHTING SERVICES (CLOTH CONTRACTS).
  Mr. Rileyasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the value of the orders placed within the past 12 months with manufacturing firms in the Colne Valley, Yorkshire, Huddersfield and Dewsbury, respectively, for cloth for Army, Navy and Air Force purposes?
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I regret that the collection of the necessary information would entail a great deal of work, which is undesirable under existing conditions of pressure.
  Mr. Riley: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether steps are being taken to see that all competent manufacturers in the area have an opportunity of tendering for this cloth?
  Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. This particular contract for cloth is always put out to open tender.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
    Mr. Annesley Somervilleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why some officers in the Navy under the age of 30 years with the rank of lieutenant receive a marriage allowance and other officers of the same age and the same duties are not allowed to receive marriage allowances?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): No payments of marriage allowance to lieutenants under 30 years of age have been authorised. I might add, however, that any warrant officers who may be promoted direct to lieutenant's rank under the scheme promulgated last March, and who are already in receipt of marriage allowance, will continue to receive it.
    Vice-Admiral Taylorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the age at which officers and men of His Majesty's Navy will receive marriage allowance is to be lowered so as to conform with that announced for the Army by the Secretary of State for War?
    Mr. Shakespeare: As stated by the Prime Minister on the introduction of the Military Training Bill, it is the intention that the qualifying age at which men of

    2293
    the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines will become eligible for payment of marriage allowance should be reduced to 20 years. The date for the introduction of this change has not yet been settled. The reduction will also apply to warrant officers.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "HUNTER" (REPAIRS).
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, when the repairs to His Majesty's Ship "Hunter," occasioned by mine explosion in 1937, were completed; and what was the date of recommissioning this ship?
    Mr. Shakespeare: The repairs to His Majesty's Ship "Hunter" were completed on 10th November, 1938. The ship recommissioned on 18th October, 1938, for trials and subsequent service.
    Mr. Bellenger: Have the costs of repairing this ship been fully discharged? Might I put it in another way? Have all the costs which have been incurred by His Majesty's Government in repairing this ship been fully met?
    Mr. Shakespeare: To the best of my knowledge, yes.
    Mr. Muff: Have claims been made for compensation in the proper quarters in regard to the costs of these repairs, and also compensation for those old seamen who were killed while doing their duty on one of His Majesty's ships?
    Mr. Shakespeare: That is not a matter for my Department. It was answered, I think, yesterday, by the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

  AUSTRALIA (NAVAL CONSTRUCTION).
  Mr. Dayasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will give particulars of the last occasion on which His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia intimated that they were considering the construction of any new ships for the Royal Australian Navy?
  Mr. Shakespeare: The Australian programme of naval construction was stated by Mr. Street, the Minister for Defence, in a speech in the House of Representa-
  2294
  tives on 6th December, 1938, to include two escort vessels, two tribal class destroyers, and 12 motor torpedo boats. He also stated that it was not the present intention of His Majesty's Government in Australia to acquire a capital ship, but expert advice was being sought with a view to providing a capital ship dock at Sydney.
  Mr. Day: Have any further approaches been made by His Majesty's Government to the Government of Australia with regard to this matter?
  Mr. Shakespeare: We are always in touch with them.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not a fact that the Commonwealth naval construction is based on the assumption that His Majesty's Government will station a capital ship at Singapore?
  Mr. Shakespeare: I think I answered that very question some time ago.

  PALESTINE (REFUGEES).
  Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a decision has now been taken as to permission to settle in Palestine the 182 refugees recently in quarantine in Haifa?
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): These illegal immigrants have been released, and deportation orders have been issued against them. The number of those who cannot eventually be deported will be deducted from the immigration quota.
  Mr. Dalton: Is any immigration quota being set up for the Arabs who have also illegally entered Palestine?
  Mr. MacDonald: As was stated in the White Paper, all illegal immigration will be prevented as far as it possibly can be.
  Sir P. Harris: What will happen to these unfortunate people who have been turned away from Palestine? Will they go drifting round the world with nowhere to stay or live?
  Mr. MacDonald: That is another question. I was asked about the 182 who had succeeded in landing in Palestine, and I have answered that question.
  Mr. Herbert Morrison: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the White

  2295
  Paper it is set out that it is Jewish immigration that will be discounted to the extent of any illegal immigration into Palestine, and that in that connection there is no mention of Arab illegal immigration?
  Mr. MacDonald: It will clearly be unfair to the Jews to deduct from their immigration quota the number of illegal Arab immigrants. The question, as I understood it, was what was to happen with regard to illegal Arab immigration, and I answered that steps would be taken to prevent it equally with steps to prevent illegal immigration of Jews.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Is Germany the only destination to which these Jews can go, and does the right hon. Gentleman intend to deport them there?

  CEYLON (CONSTITUTION).
  Mr. T. Smithasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to make a statement with regard to the suggested changes in the constitution of Ceylon?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: I have nothing at present to add to my reply to the hon. Member's question on 19th of April, except to say that the State Council debate to which I then referred is not yet concluded, and I understand it to be possible that it may continue for some time yet.
  Mr. Smith: What is causing the delay, and how is the agitation on behalf of the minority proceeding in Ceylon?
  Mr. MacDonald: The length of time taken by the debate is due to the fact that the constitutional proposals raise many individual points and they are being dealt with by the Council in a series of resolutions. I have no doubt that the point of view of the minorities is being expressed in the course of these discussions.

  MALAY STATES (DEFENCE GIFTS).
  Mr. A. Somervilleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make regarding recent gifts to His Majesty's Government from the Malay States towards the cost of Imperial Defence?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: The High Commissioner has informed me that the Rulers of the Federated Malay States, with the unanimous approval of the Federal Council, have decided to offer a gift of $4,000,000 to His Majesty's Government towards the cost of the general defence of the British Empire. He has also informed me of the decision of His Highness the Sultan and the Government of the State of Kelantan to give $100,000 for the same purpose, and of the Rajah and State Council of Perlis to give $25,000. I have asked the High Commissioners to convey to Their Highnesses the Rulers of those States and the Federal Council His Majesty's Government's warm appreciation of these generous gifts, and of this signal expression of their practical co-operation in consolidating the security of the Empire.
  Mr. Somerville: May I ask my right hon. Friend, in view of the continued generosity of the Malay States, whether he can give the total amount distributed from Malaya towards Imperial Defence.

  JAMAICA (DAIRY PRODUCE).
  Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present position of the project for the establishment of a factory for the manufacture of condensed milk in Jamaica; whether a beginning has yet been made; and what are the prospects?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: A start has been made with the erection of the factory, and it is expected that it will begin production some time in the autumn or early winter of this year. Meantime the Governor of Jamaica has taken powers to regulate imports of condensed milk with a view to sharing the market between importers and the local factory. It is hoped that the factory will provide a stimulus to the local dairying industry and that it will later be able to manufacture from supplies of local milk a large part of the Colony's requirements of condensed milk.
  Mr. Riley: Have the Government made any contribution towards this proposal?
  Mr. MacDonald: I should like notice of that question.
  Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the quantity and

  2297
  value of condensed milk, butter, cheese, bacon and eggs imported into Jamaica for the year ending 1938?
  Mr. MacDonald: As the answer contains columns of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:

  Imports of certain commodities into Jamaica, 1938.

  Quantity.

  Value.

  Cwt.

  £

  Condensed milk

  …

  8,938

  146,373

  Butter

  …

  8,540

  51,322

  Cheese

  …

  5,071

  20,961

  Bacon

  …

  2,070

  7,977

  Doz.

  Eggs

  …

  28,526

  1,196

  FERNANDO PO (BRITISH WORKERS).
  Mr. Ammonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements have been made for an officer of the Nigerian Government to visit the island of Fernando Po in order to ascertain the conditions of British subjects from Nigeria who are at work in the island; and whether any report has yet been received?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: The Spanish Government have been approached with a view to making arrangements for the visit; their concurrence has just been received. The second part of the question does not, therefore, at present arise. A report has, however, meanwhile been furnished by His Majesty's Vice-Consul at Fernando Po stating that labour conditions have improved.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take in the event of the Eleven o'clock Rule being suspended?
The Prime Minister: It is proposed to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule for the Civil Defence Bill and the Lords Amendments to the Camps Bill. Good progress was made with the Civil Defence Bill last night and we hope, with general agreement in all parts of the House, to complete it to-night.
Mr. Benn: Referring to the assurance given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, can the Prime Minister say when we shall have a copy of the Order in Council settling the allowances for the civil liabilities of the new conscripts?
The Prime Minister: I understand there is a question on the Order Paper on that point to-morrows.
Mr. Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that this is a vital matter for the conscripts, and that it is being postponed from day to day?
Mr. Speaker: A question is already on the Paper.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 121.

Division No. 150.]

AYES.

[3.50 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Cranborne, Viscount

Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

Critchley, A.

Albery, Sir Irving

Bull, B. B.

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

Burghley, Lord

Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Se'h Univ's)

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Butcher, H. W.

Cruddas, Col. B.

Assheton, R.

Cartland, J. R. H.

Davison, Sir W. H.

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

De Chair, S. S.

Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Balniel, Lord

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Barrie, Sir C. C.

Channon, H.

Donner, P. W.

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.

Beechman, N. A.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Christie, J. A.

Duggan, H. J.

Bernays, R. H.

Colfox, Major W. P.

Dunglass, Lord

Boulton, W. W.

Colville, Rt. Hon. John

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Cenant, Captain R. J. E.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Brass, Sir W.

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

Everard, Sir William Lindsay

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

Fleming, E. L.

Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

Cox, H. B. Trevor

Gledhill, G.

Gluckstein, L. H.

Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Goldie, N. B.

Macquisten, F. A.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Maitland, Sir Adam

Smithers, Sir W.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Snadden, W. McN.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Markham, S. F.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Grimston, R. V.

Medlicott, F.

Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Spens, W. P.

Hambro, A. V.

Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Hannah, I. C.

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Sutcliffe, H.

Higgs, W. F.

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Holdtworth, H.

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

Hopkinson, A.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Thomas, J. P. L.

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

Patrick, C. M.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

Peake, O.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Peat, C. U.

Titchfield, Marquess of

Hunter, T.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Touche, G. C.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Peters, Dr. S. J.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Hutchinson, G. C.

Petherick, M.

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Pilkington, R.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Keeling, E. H.

Radford, E. A.

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

Kellett, Major E. O.

Ramsbotham, H.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Warrender, Sir V.

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Wells, Sir Sydney

Lancaster, Captain C. G.

Rosbotham, Sir T.

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Levy, T.

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

Lewis, O.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

Lindsay, K. M.

Russell, Sir Alexander

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Little, J.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Lloyd, G. W.

Samuel, M. R. A.

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Lyons, A. M.

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Wragg, H.

M'Connell, Sir J.

Sandys, E. D.

Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Scott, Lord William

York, C.

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Selley, H. R.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Shakespeare, G. H.

McKie, J. H.

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.

NOES.

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Gallacher, W.

McGhee, H. G.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Gardner, B. W.

McGovern, J.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Garro Jones, G. M.

MacLaren, A.

Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)

Maclean, N.

Adamson, W. M.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Maxton J.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

Ammon, C. G.

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Muff, G.

Banfield, J. W.

Grenfell, D. R.

Naylor, T. E.

Barr, J.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Batey, J.

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Paling, W.

Bellenger, F. J.

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Parker, J.

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Groves, T. E.

Parkinson, J. A.

Benson, G.

Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

Pearson, A.

Bromfield, W.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Poole, C. C.

Buchanan, G.

Hardie, Agnes

Pritt, D. N.

Burke, W. A.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Cape, T.

Hayday, A.

Ridley, G.

Charleton, H. C.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Riley, B.

Cluse, W. S.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Collindridge, F.

Jagger, J.

Sanders, W. S.

Cove, W. G

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Sexton, T. M.

Daggar, G.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Shinwell, E.

Dalton, H.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Silverman, S. S.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Simpson, F. B.

Day, H.

Kirby, B. V.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

Dobbie, W.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Lathan, G.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Ede, J. C.

Leach, W.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

Lee, F.

Sorensen, R. W.

Edwards, Sir C. (Badwellty)

Leslie, J. R.

Stephen, C.

Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

Logan, D. G.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ghtn-le-Sp'ng)

Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Foot, D. M.

McEntee, V. La T.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

2300

2301

Thorne, W.

Walker, J.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Thurtle, E.

Watkins, F. C.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Tinker, J. J.

Watson, W. McL.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Tomlinson, G.

Welsh, J. C.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Viant, S. P.

Westwood, J.

Walkden, A. G.

White, H. Graham

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Congleton." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Congleton) Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Margate." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Margate) Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the urban district of Matlock." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Matlock) Bill [Lords.]
And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision with respect to the perpetual right of patronage of the Chapel of Saint Peter at Stockport in the County and Diocese of Chester and the sole right of nominating or presenting a Minister or Curate thereto; and for other purposes." [Saint Peter's Chapel Stockport Bill [Lords.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (CONGLETON) BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 147.]
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MARGATE) BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 148.]
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MATLOCK) BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 149.]
  SAINT PETER'S CHAPEL STOCKPORT BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CIVIL DEFENCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 23rd May].
  [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

  CIVIL DEFENCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 47.—(Evacuation of civil population.)
    3.59 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 37, line 14, after "measures," to insert:
    "including the compulsory reservation of premises and the imposition of restrictions upon transference."
    Yesterday, when in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility, I alluded to certain functions which have to be discharged by persons under this Bill which the Government, apparently, think they will be able to stiffen up by some arrangements in the nature of Defence of the Realm Act provisions. In the negotiations that have taken place between the great local authorities and the Government there has been a suggestion that the matters covered by the Amendment can be similarly provided for, but I want, on behalf of the County Councils Association especially, to urge on the Government that the problem of evacuation is one which we cannot leave until the last moment. In September last there were thousands of children who were expecting to be moved almost at any moment from London and other great cities into rural areas where arrangements had been made by reception authorities to deal with their housing, feeding and education. In fact I was informed by more than one education officer in the neighbourhood of London that the avoidance of evacuation was the greatest disappointment the children have ever suffered in the course of their lives. The education officer for Willesden told me that two boys came to see him on the Saturday morning when it was decided that no evacuation was to take place, and said, "Are you sure, Sir, that it would have worked? Don't you think we had better have a rehearsal in preparation for the time?"
    One can say that, as far as the children were concerned, owing to the way in which the matter had been brought before them, they viewed the difficulties of the situation with no misgivings at all, but
    2326
    those of us who were in the reception areas had the gravest possible misgivings as to what would happen. In Surrey, for instance, I know of cases where the police were applying at the front door for billets for troops while the officers of the rural district council were at the back door applying for billets for the children, and the husband and wife were trying to ascertain from whom they could get the better terms.
    The Minister of Health, in a private conference with local authorities, made the suggestion that the problem of the reception authorities is 10 times as great as the problem of the evacuating authorities. That is no over-estimate of the problem of the reception authorities. These children, if they ever come, will come to us at a time of great stress. They may even have been suffering from certain mischances and misadventures on the way. Certainly there would be the greatest excitement, and it is highly essential that the persons receiving them and responsible for their distribution shall be quite certain that as far as is humanly possible there will be no delay or difficulty in dealing with them.
    It is true that the Minister must feel very gratified at the response which was made by the people in the receiving areas when they were asked to say what accommodation they would provide. Those of us who knew the rural areas never had any doubt but that when the invitation was extended to them they would indicate their willingness to undertake this public duty in the spirit of performing a public duty. But, judging by the experience of last September and by something that was repeated even in March last, those of us responsible in the reception areas have our misgivings as to whether all that accommodation will in fact be available. We should regard it as the worst of disasters if we had 100 or 1,000 children allocated to a particular village or small town and we had to take them through the streets in an endeavour to put them into the houses where we thought accommodation was to be available, and then found that a day or two before someone had come out from the great town which was being evacuated and by paying a fabulous sum of money had deprived us of the opportunity of placing the children there.
    We, therefore, ask that among the powers that shall be given to us in this

    2327
    Clause shall be the compulsory reservation of premises and the imposition of restrictions upon transference. It is clear that if we are to be able to perform the very heavy and responsible duties that the Government propose to place on LS and which we accept as our share in this problem of dealing with the dispersal of the population, we must be put in a position whereby we can discharge these very onerous duties with reasonable certainty. We suggest that we should be given power to reserve the accommodation that has been voluntarily given at the moment to the Minister in response to his appeal. We were told that the Minister had produced a card which he was to have distributed in the villages and towns, so that householders could indicate that they had undertaken this particular form of service. No matter what the pay may be, I am sure we all recognise that there will be a very great amount of honorary public service performed by these people, in addition to any remuneration they may receive. I have not yet seen any of these cards in the cottage windows. It may be that they have not been distributed in South Surrey, but I am informed that none of them have been seen in any part of the country. Have they in fact been distributed? They would at any rate be some reminder to these people that they had entered into a voluntary obligation, not enforceable by law at the moment, to provide this accommodation in the event of evacuation taking place.
    But we feel that we should be put in an even stronger position than that. Quite clearly we shall not ask that at this stage we should compile a register from which people could not remove their names, but we do feel that we ought to have a register in which the names and the nature of the accommodation would be inserted, and that if a person made an arrangement for relatives in an evacuation area to come to that place they should be able to come to us and say, "We have made these arrangements and we must withdraw from the list the accommodation offered." In view of the fact that everyone is acting on the assumption that if the need arises it will arise very quickly, we should be in a position to have on any given day an exact idea of the amount of accommodation that we shall have available.
    The Minister of Health and the Lord Privy Seal know very well the importance
    2328
    that the County Councils Association and the Rural District Councils Association attach to this particular question. We are very thankful, quite apart from the effect on the nation, that our arrangements were not put to the test last September. We believe that we should then have achieved something, but we are certain that there would have been the greatest possible difficulties in carrying the thing through as we should have liked. We want to be protected against the self-evacuated person who comes out with no real need to come out and is prepared to offer sums of money that must seem to most cottagers really beyond the dreams of any avarice they have ever fostered, for accommodation temporarily. I am told that some of the lawyers in South Wales who have been having a very difficult time for years are now assured of an income for a considerable length of time in trying to clear up the exact legal position of people who started to buy houses there, and then when the international situation cleared, went away, left the deposit money and did not ask for anything further.
    We have had an indication of the circumstances that may arise and I am sure that everyone in the Committee would say that it would be a great crime if we took thousands of children out from London or South Shields or other places into the country and then were faced with the muddle that might easily arise unless we are given power to make sure that the accommodation required will be available. We have had the clearest possible evidence that two or three days before the important day some of this accommodation may disappear, and it is essential that we should be armed with sufficient powers to enable us to be quite certain that no repetition of what happened in September last will be possible, and that we shall be able to assure the evacuating authorities that the accommodation we promised the Minister would be available when the time for evacuation comes, is available.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I suggest that it would be convenient if we discuss this Amendment together with that which appears next on the Order Paper—in page 37, line 32, insert:
    "(3) The Minister may make regulations—

    (a) to secure the use of premises for the accommodation and maintenance of persons transferred from one area to another;

    2329

    (b) to prevent the transference of any persons without the authority of the Minister or his agents; and

    (c) to impose penalties for any failure to comply with the regulations."

    4.13 p.m.
    Sir Percy Harris: May I be allowed to congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) on being admitted to the seats of the mighty on the Opposition Front Bench? No one has earned that promotion better than he has, not only by hard work in this House and by diligent attendance to his duties, but also by long and devoted service in local government. His maiden speech from the Front Bench could not have been on a more appropriate subject. As ex-chairman of a county council and as a distinguished teacher he was eminently qualified to make that speech. I am glad that he has raised the point that is dealt with in the Amendment. I agree that the whole success of any well thought out scheme of evacuation depends on the smooth working in the reception areas even more than on the work done in actual evacuation. I have felt for a long time that the ultimate success of a scheme, if it is ever to be put to the test, which, heaven forbid, depends on the marriage of the area to be evacuated with the area that receives the people. The more intimate the contact that can be obtained between children, school teachers and the authorities in the areas to receive them, the more likely the machinery is to work smoothly.
    When I was on a committee presided over by the present Lord Privy Seal we came definitely to the conclusion that in the long run compulsion would be vital. We felt it was wise to exploit up to a point the voluntary idea. We knew that you were likely to get more good will if the people who were to receive offered their services of their own free will than if you had to use compulsion. I am sure that the Lord Privy Seal will confirm what I say. Nevertheless, behind the voluntary weapon must be compulsion. As a matter of fact, all my information shows that in most parts of the country people have been very willing to have the chance of doing this form of National Service in case of emergency, but, of course, conditions and circumstances vary. I confirm what has just been said by the hon. Gentleman that in some seaside towns, where people earn their
    2330
    living by letting lodgings or rooms to visitors, the instinct to get people to book their rooms in advance at high prices may be too great, and you may find when the emergency arises that in some areas very little accommodation is available.
    We stated unanimously in paragraph 60 of our report that it would be necessary to give authorities power in time of war to requisition accommodation for the billeting of refugees, and we said:
    "We need hardly say that any compulsory billeting would have to be enforced without regard to class or other distinctions."
    We put those words in, I will not say as an afterthought, but because we felt it was wise to insist upon the principle. It should be made clear that whatever their occupation or social position may be, people who have vacant rooms in the areas to be utilised should share and share alike the burden—in some cases it will be a burden—of making their rooms available to the people suffering from the perils of war. It must be made very clear that this is no small responsibility, and that it is part of the emergency of war. Once people have undertaken to place their accommodation voluntarily at the disposal of the authorities, that has to be regarded as a strictly enforceable contract. If these words are inserted to make the point clearer, they will make people realise their responsibility more, and will ease the work of carrying out the duties in reception areas.
    Reverting to what I said in my opening remarks, I think the time has now come for all the secrecy and mystery to disappear. Last September, and in the early days of this new idea, it was not possible or practicable to let school teachers and parents know where children were ultimately to go, but I see no reason why there should not now be full publicity for school teachers and even for parents to know the areas to which their children are to be evacuated. In the reverse order, I see no reason why the people who are to receive the children should not know from where the children are to come. Some opposition to the scheme has come from people who say: "We do not want to receive dirty children," but that is pure ignorance. If people who are to receive London children from the poorer districts were invited to see the children, they would observe

    2331
    what delightful and charming children they are, how well brought up, how well taught, how clean and tidy and, in most cases nowadays, how well turned-out and dressed they are. Then, instead of the scheme being looked upon with suspicion, it would have the good will of all parties concerned, and many difficulties in reception areas would disappear.
    4.21 p.m.
    Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), in what I trust will be the first of very many speeches to be made from that bench, confined himself, in commending the Amendment to us, to only one part of the proposal. The proposals are essentially two in number, first, that some provision should be made for earmarking accommodation in the reception areas; secondly, that there should be arbitrary restriction on the removing of people from one area to another. In his argument the hon. Member confined himself almost entirely to the first of those two proposals, and in regard to that he made out a strong case. I was very struck by his significant silence on the other proposal. He has come to the Committee to ask us to agree to giving the Minister power, if he thinks war is likely to break out, to prohibit the movement of any person from one locality to another.
    For example, suppose the Minister thought the international situation threatening and thought it undesirable that Labour Members at that time should make inflammatory speeches in their divisions, he could issue an order that no Labour Member then in London should return to his constituency until told to do so. No permission of this House would be needed. With regard to ordinary civilian evacuation, the Minister could prevent an individual in a threatened area from sending his own children in his own vehicle to relatives in some distant part of the country which might not be a reception area. I do not wonder that so experienced a Member thought it wiser to keep silent about that part of the proposal. If anything of the kind were to be agreed it might fairly be described as officialism run mad. It may be, and no doubt is, arguable, that in order that evacuation plans might be carried out, local authorities in reception areas should know with certainty that they had such
    2332
    and such accommodation available for the persons to be sent to them by another authority. That proposition is acceptable and arguable, but there is no need, therefore, to propose this extraordinary and indefinite power for the Minister, without consulting anybody or without a state of war being in existence, to interfere to any extent with the movement of population from one part of the country to another.
    4.24 p.m.
    Dr. Haden Guest: I support the Amendment. I must first express my astonishment at the speech which has just been made by the hon. Gentleman opposite, who has exaggerated certain words out of all possibility.
    Mr. Lewis: Not at all.
    Dr. Guest: The actual words on the Paper are:
    "imposition of restrictions upon transference."
    That is a very different thing from what the hon. Member was saying.
    Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member has not read the essential words, which are:
    "to prevent the transference of any persons without the authority of the Minister."
    Dr. Guest: That may, in certain cases, of course, be required. If the words are taken in their normal sense and not in the exaggerated way expressed by the hon. Gentleman they are perfectly reasonable. This is one of the questions of transference which was considered by the Evacuation Committee, relating to the control of unregulated transference from one area to another. It might, as a matter of fact, be control of panic and be one of the essential duties of the Minister. I am not sure whether the words proposed in the Amendment are necessary, because the actual duty might be one of those which the Minister would have to carry out.
    I am specially interested in the first part of the Amendment relating to the compulsory registration of premises because I believe it will be essential for the proper working of the evacuation proposals that the places to which people, and especially children, are going, should be definitely earmarked in advance and that there should be no possibility of those premises being used by others. In moving the Amendment my hon. Friend could not, of course, cover the whole

    2333
    ground. He spoke about people going to reception areas and offering to cottagers or residents there what would appear fabulous sums for accommodation, and so preventing accommodation being available for the children for whom it had been intended, but it will not only be wealthy people who will do that. There will be people of many classes who, because they are so diverse in character, do not come into the Government's normal arrangements. I am thinking of classes of people living in London. There are elderly people, some of them are invalids living, not exactly in retirement, but in semi-retirement, and to whom it would be a great advantage to be out of London during a time of air raids. Under the Government's plan they will have to make their own arrangements, because there will be no other for them. You may add to that class a very large number of people who will be competing for accommodation, reasonably and in the ordinary sense, with those for whom arrangements are being made by the Minister of Health.
    Those people ought to be provided for in some other way. There will be all kinds of classes outside the Government's planned scheme. The Minister will remember that in the background of the evacuation proposal is the idea that certain people should be allowed to make their own arrangements, not because it was the only fair thing to do, but because there was no means of preventing them from doing so. In a state of war you cannot possibly control every class of person leaving a town, and it would be futile to attempt to do so. It would be undesirable to attempt to do it by forcible means. The only way to deal with the situation in a reception area is by being quite sure that the accommodation required for children and other people who are dealt with as priority classes by the Minister of Health is definitely reserved. I cannot see any objection to that suggestion. There are other ways, of course, in which that result might be attained.
    There is another aspect or the matter. Take the area within 50 or 60 miles of London, to which people are going to be evacuated. The number of people arranged for can go out there in case of emergency, and everyone can settle in quite comfortably; but if there is a sudden rush of a large number of other people
    2334
    into the area, how is that to be dealt with? There will be a tendency for them to overcrowd the people who are already in the area, and to prevent this the billets for those evacuated under the Government's scheme must be definitely allocated to them and kept for them in all circumstances. I suggest that it would probably be useful in any case, as an addition to the proposal for the earmarking of billets, to have some organisation in the evacuation area for the supervising of billeting and lodging accommodation in order to see that people are not desperately overcrowded, as might easily happen.
    I am thinking of a certain little village I know, where at the present time billets have been arranged for something like 100 children. It is a country place, with large barns and so on, and it would be quite easy to get 200 or 300 other people into the area, but it would be extremely disadvantageous from the health point of view. In many cases of that kind there would be insufficient water and insufficient sanitary accommodation, and, consequently, the health conditions would be definitely below what they ought to be. I hope the Minister will give us some assurance on this point. Since the time when the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), the right hon. Gentleman who is now Lord Privy Seal, and myself sat in a room upstairs taking evidence on evacuation, I have always been particularly interested in the subject, as of course I was before, and I hope and believe that the evacuation of people from the great cities will prove to be one of the real foundations of success in our civil defence measures; but to make it really successful it must be thought out in all its details, and I suggest that the question of the compulsory earmarking of accommodation for classes of school children and others included in the present scheme of the Minister of Health ought to be made an integral part of the scheme.
    4.35 p.m.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Like other speakers, I desire to congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) on his first speech from the Front Bench. I hope, however, that his being there will not cramp his style unduly. There are two points that I want to raise. I have always been one of those who have not had any particular enthusiasm for evacua-

    2335
    tion. I think it will cause great difficulties, and whether it will increase safety is perhaps open to doubt, despite the report of the Lord Privy Seal and his two colleagues on his Committee who have spoken to-day. But everyone assumes that it is going to take place, and we have to think of it in those terms.
    Among those who are contemplating evacuation are many people who are engaged in running the general economic and industrial machine whereby we earn our living and get our food and other necessities of life. There will be a certain amount of commercial and industrial evacuation. Many people engaged in businesses of that kind are thinking it may be wise to arrange for alternative accommodation, and, quite properly, are seeking to find that accommodation now. A number of people who are in that position have communicated with me, and I have passed on some of their letters to the Minister of Health. They are rather wondering how they will stand. One particular firm, I am informed, have purchased premises, I think somewhere in Buckinghamshire, which they are now equipping as alternative premises for the control of an important business, but they have not the faintest idea whether, when the emergency comes, they will be permitted to use those premises. I am not clear whether these Amendments would make that situation better or worse. If a decision were taken to refuse industrial enterprises permission to move, that, at any rate, would be a policy, though I think it is probably wrong, but if there were a war we should still need food, and the normal economic functions would have to be carried on. In my opinion, the finest principle is "Business as usual" as far as possible. Those who criticised that principle in 1914 were very shortsighted; it was obviously necessary to preserve the working of the economic machine. These Amendments might make the situation even more difficult, and I hope the Minister will say something that will clear up the real anxieties of many of those who think they are doing their duty in making such arrangements as will enable their businesses, together with the employment they create and the public services they render, to continue.
    The hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) was not very happy in his criticism of my hon. Friend the Member
    2336
    for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), who clearly was right, having carefully read the Amendments. This Clause is a very drastic Clause. It means that, if the Minister makes an order, every road out of London would have to be lined with police or soldiers, who would say to all other people, "Thou shalt not pass." That is a power which could not be enforced in practice. To attempt to close the exits from London to all except those who have some authority from the Minister would create such a situation of riot that it could not be enforced. If I may quote my own case merely by way of example, I happen, without being one of the wealthy ones, to have a cottage by the sea, and last September I thought I would send my children to my own cottage; but, not being unduly selfish, I arranged to take four other children as well, who were school-fellows of theirs. That seemed to me to be a proper thing to do. They would count four, like any other four, but it is much more convenient that I should take four children whom I know and who are friends of my own children. There are hundreds of thousands of people of moderate means who have bungalows in the country; some separate form of shelter to-day is not by any means characteristic only of rich people. Is it to be said to these people that they shall not use their own accommodation for their own children? That is what these Amendments would involve.
    I am not concerned with this matter from a constituency point of view; Croydon, having regard to the very moderate views of its Members, might be classed as a neutral area; but from conversations I had last October with colleagues in the House who represent other areas which were then called evacuation areas, I learned that they had been overwhelmed with communications, not from persons who objected to receiving dirty children, but from elderly people who were not fit to look after children, but who had been threatened with having dumped on them numbers of other people's children; or elderly people who perhaps needed the services of one maid, and who, the moment these arrangements were announced, received notice from their maids. These are the practical problems that arise. You are going to have riots in some of these evacuation areas, not because people are selfish, but because they are going to have forced upon them

    2337
    something which terrifies them. I was speaking to an hon. Member who sits for a constituency which is always regarded as a safe Conservative seat, where there are masses of small houses, many of them occupied by a husband and wife who are both out all day. You cannot billet children in those houses; there must be supervision—
    Dr. Guest: Is that one of the areas where the hon. Member expects a riot to take place?
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Member can take it from me that the only riot that is really dangerous is a riot of quiet people. When they get angry, you can really be afraid. You need never be afraid of the people who are always rioting, but when these quiet people, who in the ordinary way do not take part in demonstrations, do not go to Hyde Park on May Day and so on, get angry, everyone has to be afraid. They can turn out any Government; they are the permanent rulers of this country. To incorporate these Amendments in the Bill would give rise to a great deal of trouble. I should like to have from the Minister of Health some indication of the policy that is to be adopted with regard to commercial premises in cases where people happen to have premises of their own in an evacuation area to which they are proposing to take their businesses in the event of emergency. I am assuming that they are going to do their duty by their own people; if they do not, they can have others billeted on them, but surely they should have the right to evacuate to their own premises. These issues are of real importance, and are worthy of grave consideration.
    4.43 p.m.
    Mr. McEntee: I also would like to congratulate the Mover of the Amendment on the way in which he moved it, and on his first appearance on the Front Bench, but I must say that I have some misgivings with regard to these Amendments. They represent, no doubt, the considered view of the County Councils Association, and they are put down, for the sake of convenience, in the names of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), who is not in his place at the moment. As regards the part stressed by the Mover, I think we shall all agree broadly with him that it is
    2338
    essential, if we are to evacuate children and certain adults to areas outside London, that accommodation should be secured for them when they reach those areas. On the occasion of the last emergency, when evacuation took place to some extent, it happened in some cases that the premises to which children and adults were expecting to move were not in fact available for them when they reached the area. That is a state of things that would be intolerable if evacuation were carried out on a large scale, as it would be in the event of war or imminent war, and that is the purpose, I take it, of the first part of these proposals. That is all right, but frankly I do not like the remainder of the proposals, and I hope that my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment will reconsider them before he asks the Committee to adopt them.
    I, personally, should object very strongly if I wished to go, as I think I should be entitled to do, because of my age and for other reasons, away from the area in which I now live and into an area that might be considered a reception area, and if I were prevented from doing so. But if I desired to do that—which in all probability I should not—I might, if the Amendments were carried, be prevented from going to an area to which I wished to go. There are people who, if they were in London during a war, would probably be a handicap rather than otherwise; and it would be an advantage to allow them to go to some quieter area some distance away. But if regulations are made to prevent the transference of any person without the authority of the Minister or his agent, an enormous staff of agents will be required by the Minister. If I want to go to visit a friend in Surrey—my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), for instance—I shall have to go to some agent of the Government to get permission to do so. I hope my hon. Friend does not wish to prevent me from going, but if he did, he would be able to do so without this Amendment. Frankly, I do not believe that the County Councils Association seriously consider that a person desiring to transfer from one area to another should be prevented from doing so unless he first asks permission. I wonder whether it would be worth while fighting against Hitler if we are going to impose conditions upon ourselves as bad

    2339
    as Hitler would impose upon us if he won. I hope the Minister will not accept that provision. But it is true that there is a real need for some regulations and some body with power to enforce those regulations, in order that children and adults who are to be evacuated shall not find that the accommodation they require is denied them because of a higher offer having been made by somebody else.
    4.47 p.m.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I indicate the Government's attitude to the Amendments. They raise two distinct points: (1) the question of reserving accommodation in the reception areas, and (2) the question of restricting the movements of unauthorised refugees. I think that, on the whole, the consensus of opinion in the Committee is that there is something to be said for the first point, but that there is uneasiness on the second point.
    Sir William Davison: What is meant by an "unauthorised" person? Is a person, not under a local authority scheme, who has made provision for his children to be removed by his own arrangements, to be prevented from having transport?
    Mr. Elliot: I am sure that if the hon. Baronet will allow me to deal with the matter he will find that point covered. I was going to say that, on both sides of the Committee, there was some uneasiness of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend; and nobody expressed it more strongly than the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee). Restrictions would mean that anybody who moved without authority from some official would be an unauthorised person. Whatever the scheme of things to which we had to look forward, it would certainly be undesirable if it involved that as any part of our war-time normal life. Both these points to which I have referred are, however, related to the general evacuation policy, inasmuch as they have an important bearing on the question of the steps which the Government intend to take to ensure the effective carrying out of the evacuation scheme which they have prepared, and their attitude towards evacuation outside the scope of that scheme.
    2340
    Before dealing with the terms of the Amendment it may be convenient to give the Committee a brief statement of the principles underlying the evacuation policy—more particularly as I have frequently been asked to make a statement of that kind. The Government policy aims at the provision of organised facilities for the evacuation of substantial numbers of people, whatever their circumstances, from the closely built-up areas of many of our great cities and industrial regions. We aim at securing the execution of this movement by a concentrated effort, before the actual outbreak of hostilities if possible. Limiting factors at once present themselves, particularly accommodation and transport, of which the latter is the more immediate. Within these limiting factors, the effort undertaken will be the maximum possible. In the choice of those to be evacuated a first priority has been given to children, and the organised movement under the Government scheme will, therefore, comprise school children, who will travel in school units with their teachers, and younger children, who will go with their mothers or some other responsible person. These classes of persons may be conveniently referred to as the "priority classes" Fortunately, "class," in this sense, has not its ordinary implications.
    I have been asked to state clearly the Government attitude on certain points. First, what is the position as regards children not attending council schools, or mothers not attending clinics, in relation to the Government scheme? The answer is, any school child and any mother, either expectant or with children under 5, in evacuable areas may be registered under the Government scheme, and will then share fully in it in every way. There is a second question: What is the position as regards children and mothers in evacuable areas not wishing to come under the Government scheme? The answer there is, Such children and mothers can, according to the family's desires, either remain at home or make personal arrangements for leaving. If they remain at home no compulsory measures regarding them will be taken. Obviously, it would be completely unjust, and, indeed, impossible, to go down to the homes of the people and begin driving the people out of them. If they make private arrangements, no discouragement whatever will be offered to such inten-

    2341
    tions; indeed, we shall give them all consideration in our power, and they will be able to take advantage, if they wish, of any transport facilities available. But it will be impossible to provide special transport services for such persons to reach their various destinations.
    I am further asked to make a statement on the position of those not falling within the priority classes. I shall do so at a later point. Meanwhile, I wish to follow up the position of the priority classes, on which there are still several points to make clear. The first point is the method of transport. It is proposed to do this mainly by rail. Timetables have been worked out. We are at present under what is called Plan 2. It is calculated that the movement of the priority classes under this plan will absorb the available railway facilities during a period of three, and in some cases four, days. We have now to consider the possibility of absorbing into these timetables the further areas and populations which I mentioned to the House last Thursday.
    Dr. Guest: Does that refer to the London area only or all evacuable areas in the country?
    Mr. Elliot: All evacuable areas. The non-London areas present tremendous problems.
    Mr. George Griffiths: I have thought, up to now, that this was a London Bill.
    Mr. Elliot: No; the hon. Member will be in error if he thinks that. The problem of the East Midlands and many other areas is not less insistent than that of London. The revised plan which I foreshadowed in the House last Thursday will, when completed, be Plan 3. Till it is completed, Plan 2 stands unchanged. The numbers involved are very large, and even the revise may envisage as many as 300,000 to 400,000 additional persons.
    The next question is that of accommodation. Here the Government intend to rely mainly, as is well known, on housing already existing in the receiving areas. The main lines were commended to us, as hon. Members know, by an all-party Committee of Members of this House, some of whom have spoken to-day, to whose work and unanimity I should like to pay tribute. Since then we have carried through a very careful local sur-
    2342
    vey. This survey disclosed a willingness on the part of householders to take children up to, and beyond, the numbers envisaged as evacuable. I cannot speak too highly of the promptitude with which this great survey was undertaken—a survey engaging 100,000 visitors and covering the houses of 16,000,000 people—or of the spirit of willingness and co-operation in which, on the whole, we have been met. Based on the results of this survey, block allocations of the priority classes have now been made to the receiving areas, and the responsible authorities have been notified of the numbers of these persons who will be dispatched to their charge.
    The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) said there should be an end of the secrecy and mystery which have surrounded the matter. So far as possible, an end has been put to that now, and the local authorities in the reception areas have been notified of the numbers of those who will come down to their areas. He also asked whether we could not, in all cases, secure that the areas from which people were coming should be informed of the exact areas to which they were going. In the case of London, that is out of the question. The mere transport difficulty is so great that it will be impossible to indicate that in advance. That will have to be left to be settled according to the exigencies of the time.
    Sir P. Harris: Would it not be possible for the schools to know where they are likely to go?
    Mr. Elliot: No; I am sorry, but, as I have said, one of the limiting factors is transport. We have gone into this very carefully with the railway companies, to whom I should like to pay a tribute for their assistance, and it is clear that they cannot go so far as the hon. Baronet desires.
    Sir W. Davison: My right hon. Friend said that a number of people who have made their own arrangements in the country for the reception of their own children should make their own arrangements for transport. The majority of these are people of not large means who have not got motor cars. Cannot they be told that on a particular day, in the event of an emergency arising, they can be taken to the nearest station to the

    2343
    village where their cottage or reservation may be, and that they can get on from there on foot or by perambulator or any other way. In most cases their only way of getting out of London or out of other big towns will be by train. They might be able to go by train, say, from London to Taunton or whatever the place may be; perhaps within 20 miles of their destination to which they would have to make their way.
    Mr. Elliot: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. H. G. Williams), envisaging the sort of movement that will take place by road, spoke of taking his own two children and four other children with him, and naturally that is the sort of movement that we should do everything to facilitate. We would regard it as a very praiseworthy thing to do. But clearly that is in a different category from the suggestion of this enormous movement. When the maximum possible movement in the shortest possible time is taking place, a movement extending over three days, it is impossible to superimpose on that movement another unorganised movement of the scale to which my hon. Friend has referred. Therefore, you must have an organised movement, and we are warned by the railways that it would not be possible for us to have a movement comprising 3,000,000 people in three days and to superimpose a movement on it which it would be impossible to forecast. The effect might be to maroon those unhappy children going by these trains in a place as much as 20 miles away from their destination and leave them to go by perambulator or in some other way to the countryside to the accommodation that had been reserved for them. I think that my hon. Friend will realise that a movement carried through all the way by private arrangement can be made, but such a movement superimposed upon this great official movement would throw both the private movement and the public movement into confusion.
    As I have said, in addition to the children there are adults. The adults can take care of themselves, but shelter is essential, and an extra degree of accommodation will have to be provided for them also.
    The Government have always made it clear, however, that, while they rely con-
    2344
    fidently on the voluntary offers which have been made, they would also ask authority, in time of emergency, for power to billet, that is to say, to invite, and in the last resort to require, a householder to provide accommodation, within the capacity of his house for those for whom in the national interest shelter was necessary. It would be unfair and unwise to require the willing horse to carry not most, but all, of the burden, and the householder who has voluntarily assumed this responsibility will always have our first and most sympathetic consideration. Subject to these considerations, there is no objection to householders in the reception areas making private arrangements to receive relatives, friends and others, provided that this does not entail any restrictions on the accommodation to be provided for the official priority classes. In these plans private arrangements have been allowed for.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: My right hon. Friend has said that people can make private arrangements provided they do not interfere with the official priority classes. If a private individual arranges to accommodate his own family and members of another family up to the limit contemplated, does it mean that the other priority classes can come and turn them out?
    Sir Irving Albery: I know of people who are arranging to have their grandchildren. Does this mean that they cannot have their grandchildren unless the priority classes have been provided for?
    Mr. Elliot: I am afraid that I have not made myself quite clear. I said that priority classes were children and mothers of whatever classes. There is no question of priority within the priority classes. The priority classes are children, mothers with young children, and expectant mothers. I hope that I have made myself clear.
    Mr. Fleming: When my right hon. Friend first spoke of the priority classes he gave the Committee the impression that these were the people who were registered in the evacuated areas. My hon. Friend has referred to people who are not to be registered and who are going to make their own arrangements.
    Mr. Elliot: I think not. I have my notes before me, and I said quite

    2345
    definitely that the priority classes would comprise school children and younger children, and that these persons should be conveniently referred to as priority classes. I may not have made myself clear, and I apologise to the Committee. I will do my best to state it again. The priority classes are school children, expectant mothers, and mothers with young children under five. I hope that that is clear. For some of these priority classes the Government take a special responsibility, namely, for those priority classes who have registered under the Government scheme to be moved. We take the special responsibility for finding accommodation for them. Does that meet the further point?
    Mr. H. G. Williams: The position is not clear at all. Let me illustrate it by my own case. Assume that my wife and two children, and four other children are to go to a cottage. My children are over five, my wife is not an expectant mother, and there are no children under five, and they are not in the priority classes. Can registered people come and say, "You get out because you do not belong to the priority class"? That is a simple question which my right hon. Friend has not cleared up.
    Mr. Elliot: That is the reason why I deprecate interruptions, because I was attempting to develop the statement as a whole. There may be some points to be developed at the end of the statement. I think that it is desirable that I should make the statement as a whole, and then clear up any points that may arise later. I was about to say that priority classes have been arranged for, but I am asked how we shall ensure that the amount of accommodation available for the priority classes is not so eaten into by unlimited private arrangements that the Government scheme becomes unworkable. That is the point which has been stressed in several parts of the Committee. I now come to the details on that point. The Amendment has probably been put down as much to obtain elucidation as to secure its incorporation in the Bill. I take it that the supporters of the Amendment wish to be assured that the accommodation shown by the survey will remain available for the priority classes and will not be swamped by advance private arrangements or swept away in a sudden indiscriminate rush of refugees at or immediately before the onset of an emer-
    2346
    gency. I think that it may be assumed that they do not intend that the public body concerned with evacuation—whether the powers are to be exercised directly by the Government or by the local authorities—should reserve accommodation in individual houses here and now, and put a bar on the letting or user of the houses between the present time and a time which, it may be hoped, will never come.
    Mr. Ede: I was very particular to say in my speech that what the County Councils' Association envisage was that nobody who made the kind of private arrangement mentioned should say to the local authority or the rural district council, "We have now accepted certain people and the accommodation which I said was available is not now available." All we want to be able to do is to keep our register up to date.
    Mr. Elliot: Clearly, the keeping up to date of a register of 16,000,000 people is a very difficult point indeed, and we shall need to examine it a little more closely, but we are agreed that we do not wish to reserve rooms here and now. I think we are agreed on that.
    Mr. Ede: The position is that there is no registration at the moment. There is a voluntary offer of accommodation on which the Minister has based his policy, but the effect of bringing in a large number of other people may be that, on the day he wants the accommodation, it will not be there. Clearly, the local authorities must be in a position to know how much accommodation they will be able to offer the Minister when he orders evacuation.
    Mr. Elliot: I have said, and I will say it again, that it is on the result of that survey that allocations have been made. I do not think that it would be reasonable to take the position at the present time as the unchangeable basis on which action in regard to an individual house in time of emergency should depend, for this also would operate unreasonably and inappropriately in individual cases. As has been said, for the unaccompanied children, the voluntary offers received from householders provide sufficient accommodation. I am confident that these householders who have generously offered to receive unaccompanied children will abide by their offer. I have undertaken to issue a card in respect of such

    2347
    services. I have copies of the card here. There is an English card and a Scottish card. I was asked by the hon. Member for South Shields how the position stood? These cards have been issued to local authorities, though I believe that they have not been sent out in all cases. They are to go out along with a letter from the mayor or chairman of the council. The cards have been prepared for these householders.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to an English and a Scottish card. Is there to be one printed in Welsh?
    Mr. Elliot: It is a general card, and I do not think that my hon. Friend will find in it anything to which a moderate Welshman can object.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Have you a Yorkshire one?
    Mr. Elliot: This is rather important. The powers mentioned which will be available for the State in an emergency will secure that whatever private arrangements may have been made will be subject to the over-riding consideration of the priority classes. Each local authority now knows the number of persons in these classes coming to its area under the Government scheme. This number will not be reduced, and it must be clearly understood that, whatever private arrangements there are in the district, room will have to be found for the stated number of persons. The instrument by which local authorities will be able where necessary to find this room will be the billeting powers. These powers would enable the local authorities to require householders to furnish specific accommodation for the priority classes, and the fact that private arrangements have been made and the persons covered by the arrangements have arrived would not be allowed to stultify these powers. I say without hesitation that tact and discretion of a very high order will have to be exercised by those directly carrying out the arrangements in order to reconcile the varying claims.
    Sir I. Albery: May I ask a question? It is impossible to understand the position unless we can get this matter cleared up. As I understand the matter, school children are in the priority classes; it is not only children under five but also School children. What the Minister does
    2348
    not seem to explain is, if school children for whom private evacuation measures have been taken arrive at a relative's home in the country, are these children in the priority class? They are school children but they are not registered. That is what we want to know.
    Mr. Elliot: We should regard them as in the priority class. I have said that great tact and discretion will be necessary. I do wish the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) would listen to me on this matter. I think I can meet his point, but it is very difficult unless he is willing to listen with an open mind to what I have to say. I am no more anxious to turn people out of the occupation of their cottage than he is. I am anxious to discharge the responsible task which has been placed upon me, to the best possible advantage of all concerned. Tact and discretion will be required to deal with the innumerable cases which it is impossible to define or to provide for in advance where the circumstances of the household, even of the willing householder, may have greatly changed since the survey took place. Many of us here have lived for years of our lives under a billeting system, and we know that given tact, discretion and goodwill such a system can be worked. Without goodwill, no system can be worked. It must be recognised that in the early days of an evacuation on the scale envisaged some degree of confusion and overcrowding is to be expected. There should, however, be no serious difficulty in securing where necessary some later redistribution of the priority classes and others who may have found their way into the district.
    I will now turn to transport, if I have satisfied my hon. Friends on the accommodation point. If I have not satisfied them it may be possible for me to clear up some points now. Otherwise, I will pass on.
    Sir W. Davison: Let us suppose that since the survey was made there has been a change in a particular household occupied by adults which had previously been allocated for refugee children. Provided they notify the local authority that their circumstances have changed, would the local authority still be able to say: "Some of your people here are adults, not coming from London but elsewhere; they are not priority classes, and you

    2349
    must get rid of them and take in some of the children for whom we have to provide."
    Mr. Elliot: The local authority would be able to take account of any change in the circumstances of the household, whether relating to adults, or children, or any other change in the circumstances of the household. All that will need to be worked out by the local authority in their billeting arrangements. Many of us, as I have said, have had experience of billeting and have acted as billeting officers. If you went to a village in France or elsewhere in order to billet so many people here or there and you came to a household where Madame said: "My husband has come back from the war; he must have a bed to sleep in, and it would be very hard if you billet people in this house," you took such things into account. All these other things which hon. Members are mentioning will have to be taken into account as billeting goes on. I plead for a fluid and not a rigid system.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: I only used my own case as an illustration, not that I am particularly concerned. I should get through some way or other. The one thing I am not clear about is this. If a person has made arrangements for his own children and to accommodate other children, will there be a statutory right for the local authority to turn out these children in favour of another lot of children? That is a simple, plain question, leaving out tact and discretion. Will anyone, who may not be discrete, have the statutory right to say: "We are going to put these children in and we are going to turn out the children you have already in"?
    Mr. Elliot: The local authority would not have a statutory right to turn out the children, but it would have a right to say that accommodation must be found for so and so. I do not think it would exercise that right.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Let me put the question to the right hon. Gentleman in another form. A house has already got what is regarded as the maximum number desirable in the circumstances. Because the accommodation is occupied by children who are not on the register, will there be a statutory right to say that that house
    2350
    which is already overcrowded is to take other children in because the ones who are in and who are causing the overcrowding are not on the priority list?
    Mr. Elliot: That will not be settled by any priority list. That raises the same point that would deter the local authority from, say, billeting a soldier, or five soldiers or ten soldiers in that house. When war breaks out the Government have power to billet soldiers up to an unlimited number in a house, as it did during the last War but, obviously, no Government, no local authority, no official would billet in an already overcrowded house. I am not now suggesting anything more than the power which already exists and which has been exercised in time of war in this country. For instance, Bedford was informed that a certain number of soldiers were going there. It would be a case of exercising that power with tact and discretion and would not be a case of turning out one set of children in favour of another set of children.
    Sir P. Harris: Would it not be possible to frame regulations requiring householders to notify the billeting authority of any change in conditions, so that the local authority would be possessed of the information, and we should not be likely to have all this trouble, which might take place?
    Mr. Elliot: That is the point of the Amendment which I was coining to. I was trying to deal with the general statutory position, which hon. Members were anxious to have cleared up. The statutory position is, that on the outbreak of war billeting powers will exist all over the country. Under those billeting powers children or adults may be billeted, and it is very desirable that we should as far as possible clear the matter up before the outbreak of hostilities and that we should be quite clear as to the position that would arise whether such regulations were passed in time of peace or were passed in time of war. The point is that the billeting power does exist and under it adults and children would be billeted. Obviously, what we want to do is to arrange the safest and best method of billeting, with the least disturbance to householders, and that is the point to which I am addressing myself.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: While the right hon. Gentleman was explaining the point of accommodation cards were passed round the Committee. I understand that those cards are to be exhibited in the windows of houses. For that purpose the card has been printed with the words "evacuation scheme" on them, so that the householder may indicate that they are taking part in the evacuation scheme. If that is not so, I cannot understand why such a substantial card was printed. If that is the purpose of the card, so that the householders may put it in the window to indicate to all interested that they are taking part in the evacuation scheme, ought not the card to indicate to what extent they are taking part, by having on it the number of children that would be billeted in the house? Then it would be much simpler for the problems which we are discussing to be dealt with.
    Mr. Elliot: That is a detail which I cannot go into now. There is great danger in over-planning. Who would put the number on the card and who would have the power to alter it? The card is a badge indicating that the householder has willingly offered to do service for the country. It is a tribute to the service of the householder and not a rigid record of billeting, which may change from time to time.
    Mr. Spens: Will my right hon. Friend answer a question of fact, in regard to which I am in some doubt? He told us on the first occasion that he had got voluntary offers of accommodation over the excess quota. He has made block allotments in reception areas. Has he made those block allotments up to the full amount of the accommodation offered, or are they inside the total amount? If they are inside, I do not think there will be any difficulty in any ordinary country village in accommodating the extra people coming in, but if he has made block allotments right up to the total amount of accommodation offered there may be difficulties.
    Mr. Elliot: It is a little difficult to answer on questions of fact, because the circumstances differ very much from area to area. In general, it is true to say that the allocation of school children is not up to the offers of voluntary accommodation made. The offers cover mainly school children, but we have to accommodate a
    2352
    certain number of adults also. In the case of adults the block allotment is made only having regard to the survey of the room accommodation available. Asking people to take adults is quite different from asking a householder to accommodate children. In regard to children a certain amount of care is expected and must be given. That is why in regard to children you have to work mostly in regard to the voluntary accommodation, whereas in the case of adults shelter will be sufficient, because presumably the adults are able to look after themselves.
    I apologise to the Committee for the time taken so far and I would beg the Committee not to lead me further astray. Now I come to transport, which brings up the question of persons not belonging to the priority classes. The second part of the Amendment provides for restriction upon transference, and this, coupled with the consequential Amendment, would enable the Minister to impose restriction on the movements of the population and make regulations prescribing penalties for failure to comply with these restrictions. It is doubtful whether such action by the Minister of Health would be effective. There would be no effective method of enforcing a prohibition on movement, short of the use of physical force. Quite apart from the Amendment, the Government possess under the ordinary law all the necessary powers for the preservation of law and order, and would in case of need exercise them without hesitation. The problem of law and order would, of course, be for the police authorities and not for the Minister of Health.
    As regards transport, those moving under the official scheme will have first call on the road and rail facilities which have been provided for them, and while that scheme is in progress the approaches to stations will be under very detailed control. If unforeseen circumstances arise the Minister, under Clause 48 of the Bill, may authorise the local authorities to requisition any vehicles necessary, subject to the consent of the Traffic Commissioners. The railway and other transport authorities, whose co-operation in this problem the Government gratefully acknowledge, will do their utmost to provide the best services for the general public that circumstances allow, but they will necessarily be much reduced. I have defined

    2353
    the attitude which the Government are adopting towards the transference of persons who are in the priority classes, outside the official scheme. I have also indicated the Government's attitude towards those in evacuable areas not belonging to the priority classes.
    It cannot be too strongly emphasised that persons in the evacuation areas not in the priority classes and who have work to do should regard it as a patriotic duty to remain at their posts until they are told to do otherwise. I do not mean only work, so-called, of national importance. It is very difficult to say what work will not be of national importance in such circumstances. The first word, therefore, would be "stand to." There are, however, persons not engaged in work and not falling within the scope of the Government evacuation plans. There is no objection to such persons transferring from large vulnerable areas, in so far as they can disperse without conflicting with the arrangements for the transport and reception of the priority classes and without injury to the morale of the nation. This last is all-essential. The Government will look to the ordinary citizen so to order his or her movements as to avoid anything likely to lead to panic. We say, especially to those at liberty to move in these early days, "Remember, when you are making your plans, the stress under which we all shall be at such a time, and consider well, if you have not moved before the onset of an emergency, to what extent you should add to the strain on road or rail transport while some 3,000,000 persons are being moved throughout Britain; persons whose lives and health are vital to the future of our race, persons moving on schedules where disturbance or even shortening of margin may well throw everything into confusion."
    When that redistribution has been carried through we shall all breathe more freely, then movements which would previously have been unwise and wrong may well become advisable. It will no doubt be asked why it is that if the Government plans are on the lines outlined above the present Bill does not go farther. The answer is that the general plan of the Bill is to confer on the Government and other bodies powers which must be exercised in peace time, while the powers necessary after the outbreak of hostilities will be held in readiness in the
    2354
    shape of Defence regulations to be promulgated if an emergency arose. In accordance with this general plan the powers for the compulsory provision or accommodation, in other words billeting powers, fall to be included in the regulations and not in the present Bill. We recognise that special considerations apply to the problem of evacuation, firstly because the intelligent and willing co-operation, not only of local authorities, but of a very large number of householders, is required to make the scheme a success and, secondly, because the actual evacuation, or a large part of it, will, if things go according to plan, come before hostilities actually begin. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment is sometimes a little harsh on those who indulge in conversations—
    Mr. Ede: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, but he has been so long away from the Amendment that I despaired of him ever getting back to it.
    Mr. Elliot: That is due to the nature of the statement I have made, and which I think the Committee desire to have. I should be prepared, since the Committee desires, to take a power in the present Bill corresponding to the requisitioning powers which are taken in Clause 48, under which it will be possible for the Minister to promulgate regulations to deal with billeting as soon as he is satisfied that an emergency is imminent. I will undertake to put down such an Amendment and give an early opportunity for discussion through the usual channels with representatives of local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for the evacuation plans in that country, authorises me to say that while there are certain differences between English and Scottish conditions, the general principles which I have indicated apply equally to Scotland. The proposed Amendment will cover Scotland and Scottish local authorities will be consulted about the regulations concurrently with their English colleagues.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "consulting local authorities"? The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) talked about county councils. I want to know whether the Minister is going to consult other local authorities, urban district councils and

    2355
    borough councils, who so far have been left out of the Bill altogether.
    Mr. Elliot: We shall, of course, consult the representatives of all local authorities, but we are specially concerned with the authorities of the reception areas with whom we must operate principally in this matter. If the hon. Member desires I will consult the representatives of other local authorities also.
    5.38 p.m.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: From the long statement we have had from the Minister of Health it seems that local authorities in the reception areas will be largely responsible for a certain quota of children from areas to be evacuated, and that these authorities, particularly the urban authorities, will be responsible for the accommodation of these children. The local authority in my constituency, which is substantially a reception area, are expected to take 17,000 children, who, most likely, will come from Birmingham and such like areas. I presume that I am interpreting the statement correctly when I say that that authority will be held responsible for finding the accommodation for these 17,000 children. All this work will be placed upon the authority and an individual living in a given street will be expected to take a certain number of children. In other words, the whole thing is to be averaged out so that the given quota shall be received in the reception area. I wonder whether the Minister has considered that the time has arrived when this problem of evacuation should not be looked upon as a static problem. The approach to this problem implies that it is a constant problem, and does not fluctuate at all. For instance, you have thousands of people leaving South Wales now; the Government are still practising the policy of transference as the only solution for the unemployment problem. Large numbers of people are leaving South Wales to seek employment; they are coming to London now. You are, therefore, permitting the problem to be aggravated. You are permitting industries to bet set up in London now, and, if an emergency occurs, the industries and the people are to be evacuated and probably evacuated to the areas from which they came, which are substantially reception areas.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Member is raising a question of
    2356
    general policy which would hardly come under the Clause or the Amendment.
    Mr. Williams: We have had a very long general statement from the Minister covering the whole policy of evacuation, and it seems to me that if he was permitted to make a statement on such general lines, I should surely be allowed to do so also.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Minister dealt with the problem of evacuation, but he did not deal with the question of migration as well, which is what the hon. Member is doing.
    Mr. Williams: The Minister certainly covered the question of transference from London to the reception areas. Without debating the general question I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has really thought out that particular aspect of the problem. There are large numbers living in areas which are called reception areas, and it seems to me a waste of time, human effort and transport to transfer them to another area and then in case of emergency to have to evacuate them to the area from which they came. There seems to have been no planning in the matter at all.
    5.42 p.m.
    Major Colfox: As soon as the survey of military accommodation took place some weeks ago the War Office, I believe, scheduled certain areas in rural districts as training areas for the reception of troops, and in some cases these training areas overlap the areas which have been scheduled for the evacuation of children. Has the Minister worked in co-operation with the War Office and taken this into account?
    Mr. Elliot: We have worked in co-operation with the War Office. We have to have regard to the movement of troops, and it is for that reason that I spoke specifically of the necessity for keeping this problem fluid rather than static.
    Mr. Ede: I want to thank the Minister for the care with which he has answered the various points, and to say that I accept the offer he has made. I am sure that the County Councils Association, and rural councils and urban district councils who are all interested in the matter of reception areas, will be very pleased to take part in the inquiries which

    2357
    he has suggested with the view of getting an agreed Clause in the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir I. Albery: I want to raise one short point. The rural district area of Dartford has under the White Paper received the Anderson shelters, presumably because the area is regarded as being sufficiently dangerous to warrant this shelter being provided. On the other hand, the area is to be used, also, as a reception area for children. That has caused a good deal of confusion, because people say that if the area is sufficiently dangerous to warrant the issue of the Anderson shelters, it is not a suitable place for the evacuation of children. There is a further point. If further children are brought into the district, will the shelters that are provided for the normal residential population there provide sufficient accommodation for those children?
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Elliot: My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) will remember that I made a statement that the position of the Lower Thames area is being re-examined with the object of providing for further evacuation, if possible. However, it is true that it is not always a fact that an area into which there ought to be dispersal is not also an area which ought to receive a certain amount of shelters. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) asked a question about the position of businesses. That matter is under examination now by a committee of permanent officials. In general, we have been able to formulate certain principles, some of which have been communicated to the businesses concerned. One of them is that movement into any neutral area is not objected to, but is permitted. Secondly, we should of course, do our utmost to see that firms which had bought premises would be allowed to occupy them. As to whether housing accommodation also could be provided in those districts, that would have to be subject to the general overriding power with regard to billeting. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams) raised a point which really concerns the location of industry, and I think that his point goes not merely beyond the Clause, but
    2358
    beyond the Bill. That question is the subject of examination by a Royal Commission, and I think the hon. Member will agree that it is impossible for me to do more than promise that I will take those matters into consideration when we are discussing our general policy towards the location of industry.

    CLAUSE 48.—(Requisition of premises and vehicles.)
    5.47 p.m.
    The Minister of Transport (Captain Euan Wallace): I beg to move, in page 38, line 33, after "authority," to insert "having any civil defence functions."
    This Amendment and the five following Amendments are interesting in themselves, but I do not think they need detain the Committee very long. The first two simply deal with the point—
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: On a point of Order. In our proceedings yesterday, it was customary on each Clause for the Minister to indicate which Amendments were to be accepted by the Government, and in view of the considerable success of that procedure yesterday, may I ask whether it would not be convenient to the Committee to repeat it to-day?
    Captain Wallace: These are Government Amendments. The first two Amendments simply make the point that the power to take possession can apply only to those local authorities which have civil defence functions. The other four Amendments deal with two points. One is that the actual duty imposed in the provision will rest upon the chairman of the Traffic Commissioners, who is also the licensing authority for goods vehicles, and not upon the Traffic Commissioners as a body. The other point is that the Amendments meet a matter that was raised in an Amendment by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Birkenhead (Colonel Sandeman Allen) and make it quite clear that the operative condition is not where the vehicle happens to be at any particular moment, but where it is actually kept. I think every hon. Member will agree that it is much better that the vehicle should be available for requisition in the area where it is kept rather than in another area where it may fortuitiously happen to be when requisitioning comes into operation.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 38, line 35, leave out "their civil defence," and insert "those."
    In line 38, after the first "the," insert "chairman of the."
    In line 39, after "is," insert "normally kept or if the vehicle is normally kept in the metropolitan traffic area, the traffic commissioner for that area."
    In line 40, after the first "the," insert "chairman of the."
    In line 40, after "commissioners," insert "or the traffic commissioner as the case may be."—[Captain Wallace.]
    5.50 p.m.
    Mr. Ross Taylor: I beg to move, in page 39, line 2, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided also that the traffic commissioners shall not consent to the taking of possession of any vehicle belonging to public utility undertakers who carry on a water, gas, or electricity undertaking and used or required for use for the purpose of their undertaking."
    The importance which the Government Attachés to the maintenance, in the event of hostile attack, of the services provided by water, gas and electricity undertakers is clearly shown by the fact that the Bill provides for grants up to one-half of the cost of taking the necessary measures to secure the functioning of these undertakings during hostile attack. Obviously, it is of equal importance that if, in the event of attack, those services are interrupted, they should be restored at the earliest possible moment. For that purpose, it is necessary that those undertakers should have at their immediate command all the vehicles necessary to take officials, workmen, plant and material to the place or places where damage has been caused. The object of the Amendment is to secure that the vehicles necessary for that purpose shall not be commandeered. I realise that the Amendment in the terms in which it appears on the Paper may not be acceptable to the Government, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able at any rate to give an assurance that in instructions to the Traffic Commissioners, via the Ministry of Transport, provision will be made to ensure that the vehicles necessary for the purposes I have indicated are reserved to the undertakings, and are not requisitioned.
    5.52 p.m.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Ross Taylor) will not press his Amendment, because I am in a position to give him an assurance, on my own behalf and on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, that the instructions to the Traffic Commissioners will make it quite clear that they are not to requisition vehicles that are necessary for the purposes of public utility undertakings.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Will that apply to passenger vehicles as well as goods vehicles?
    Sir J. Anderson: It will apply to all of them if they satisfy that condition. The provision will also apply to local authorities.
    5.53 p.m.
    Mr. Herbert Morrison: I understand that the assurance which the Minister has given is that the Traffic Commissioners will be instructed to give special consideration to public utility undertakings and not to make such arrangements as will render the vehicles of those undertakings liable to be commandeered, unless they are satisfied that those vehicles are not essential for the maintenance of necessary public services. I think it would be unfortunate if a rigid decision were taken that this class of vehicles could not be considered. I quite agree that special consideration must be given to the essential interests of public utility undertakings. I do not think that anyone on this side would dispute that.
    Sir J. Anderson: There will be administrative directions on the basis of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) has just said.
    Sir Robert Tasker: May I ask my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal what is meant by the term "public utility undertakers"? There are cases in certain Bills where private companies are designated as public utility undertakers.
    Sir J. Anderson: There is a definition of "public utility undertakers" in the Bill.
    Mr. Ede: It is in page 56 of the Bill.
    Mr. Ross Taylor: In view of the assurance that has been given by my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    5.55 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 39, line 18, to leave out Subsection (3), and to insert:
    "(3) In any case in which a local authority take possession of any premises or vehicle, or the Commissioners of Works take possession of any premises under this Section, there shall be paid by that local authority, or, if possession is taken by the Commissioners of Works, out of moneys provided by Parliament, such compensation to such persons as Parliament may hereafter determine.
    This is really a drafting Amendment. The drafting of the original Sub-section was defective, and this Amendment puts it right.
    5.56 p.m.
    Mr. Ammon: This is the most astonishing drafting Amendment I have ever seen, and it is one that may disturb the harmony which his hitherto obtained in the passage of the Bill. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think again before insisting on this Amendment being made. Under the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to transfer to the local authorities a cost which hitherto has been borne by the State; in short, he proposes that war-time expenditure should be made on the present grant basis. I am afraid that hon. Members on this side cannot agree to that in any circumstances. Although it is true that the Clause might be operated before the war broke out, the use and payment would certainly not take place until after hostilities had started. In argument and discussions on the Floor of the House, and in private negotiations, we have endeavoured to arrive at an understanding with regard to an allocation of the cost. That allocation has been agreed upon, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will admit that so far we on this side have played the game in that respect, but when an Amendment of this nature is moved by the Government, we begin to become a little doubtful about the other side.
    Another point that must be borne in mind is that, although it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to bring in an
    2362
    Amendment that might considerably add to the costs of the local authorities, it is impossible for us to bring in any Amendment that would relieve the local authorities of the additional cost. The position now is that, financial arrangements having been agreed to which would rightly have caused this expenditure to be borne by the State as a purely war-time measure, it is now sought to transfer the cost to the local authorities. That is asking a litle too much of the Committee. I speak with full authority when I say that this has roused the opposition of every local authority, whether it be a county council, a rural council or a borough council. They feel that they are being treated very unfairly with regard to this, and I feel it very deeply that the Minister should have sprung this Amendment on us and broken away from the agreement already arrived at. The Amendment would transfer the cost to the local authorities, which are already overburdened and are finding it difficult to meet the costs imposed upon them by the Civil Defence Bill. Under the Amendment, they are actually to be asked to pay for the war. It is all very well to say that they should bear the cost of civil defence, but now they are asked to pay for the war. If the right hon. Gentleman insists on proceeding with the Amendment, we shall have to resist it.
    5.59 p.m.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: There is on the Order Paper, Colonel Clifton Brown, an Amendment in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir G. Broadbridge), myself and other hon. Members, which I think ought really to be taken as an Amendment to the Amendment that is now being discussed. I do not know whether it is your intention to call it as an Amendment to the Amendment, which would involve leaving out the words:
    "as Parliament may hereafter determine,"
    and inserting the words:
    "who have an estate or interest in the premises or vehicles of which, as specified in this Section, possession is taken."
    Perhaps I may be allowed to put the point now.
    Mr. Ede: On a point of Order. I would point out that there is on the Order Paper an Amendment, in my name, which comes before that of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) and I

    2363
    should not like to be deprived of my chance by the energy of the hon. Member.
    Mr. Williams: I am not seeking to move my Amendment but only to refer to the point which it raises, in connection with the Amendment now before the Committee. If hon. Members look at the Amendment in the name of the Lord Privy Seal, and also at the wording of Sub-section (3) they will see the point. People whose premises or vehicles are seized, are entitled to compensation:
    "such compensation to such persons as Parliament may hereafter determine,"
    in the words of the Amendment. That seems a little strange. Let us be pessimistic and assume that the war will start to-morrow. On Friday, my vehicle is seized. I am entitled to compensation for it but only when Parliament has passed another Act. But the Chief Whip may say that on account of the pressure of hostilities such an Act cannot be passed this Session, and so, I do not get paid until the Greek Kalends—which may be an even more remote contingency if we have another war. Before this Bill becomes law, this question of compensation ought to be more precisely determined. As the Bill stands, there is no provision in it for compensation. Another Act of Parliament will be required before compensation can be paid. I hope the Lord Privy Seal will clear up this matter.
    6.3 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I said that this Amendment was a drafting Amendment and I was perfectly right. It carries no implication whatever. It is merely a pointer. It says, in effect, that if just before an outbreak of hostilities, property has to be requisitioned, as it may well have to be in order that the country may be put into a state of preparedness, questions of compensation which arise in that connection shall be dealt with as Parliament may determine. The reason is that we cannot provide in this Bill for the financing of a war, and it is not reasonable to proceed on the assumption that arrangements for compensation will differ according to whether the property is taken just before the emergency or just after it. This provides for the taking of property in certain contingencies just before the emergency, and the effect is that whatever compensation arrangements may
    2364
    apply in the case of property taken after the war emergency may be applied also to property taken just before the war emergency. It is essential, as a matter of drafting, I am assured on the highest legal authority, that the wording should be altered to this form which I now propose, because, as matters stand at present, when a local authority requisitions a vehicle or property, that authority becomes primarily responsible for the payment of compensation. That is not to say that any particular arrangement shall exist as regards the allocation of the burden of compensation and other war burdens, as between one public purse and another. It is therefore, as I said, purely drafting.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) about transferring the financial burden from the State to the local authorities?
    Sir J. Anderson: The position in regard to that matter is that until Parliament otherwise determines, we have to go on under the existing law. This leaves the matter open to be determined by Parliament. The wording in the Bill as it now stands—the wording of this Subsection in italics—was, by pure inadvertence, so drawn as to deal only with cases in which property is requisitioned on behalf of the Crown. It had to be extended to meet cases in which property is requisitioned on behalf of local authorities. If action were taken in anticipation of a war emergency and the war emergency never came, then Parliament would have to deal with the question of compensation. Presumably in that case Parliament would say that the same arrangement should apply as applied under the existing law. The local authority would be technically responsible for the vehicles that had been requisitioned and the payments claimed by way of compensation by the owners in that respect would attract grant under the 1937 Act. But hon. Members need not, I suggest, have any apprehensions in the matter because, as I have said, this Clause is merely a pointer. It is put in to make clear that the question of compensation has not been overlooked but that compensation is to be dealt with in the discretion of Parliament, according to whether a war emergency supervenes or not.
    Mr. Ammon: But the local authorities under this proposal will be responsible?
    Sir J. Anderson: Technically they must be if they requisition, but Parliament may alter it.
    6.7 p.m.
    Mr. H. Morrison: The Minister says that this is a drafting Amendment and it certainly is in the sense that its purpose is to make a draft on the ratepayers of the country. As it will have the effect of increasing rates, it is no doubt bound to nave the support of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams). In that sense it is a drafting Amendment but in no other, because it makes a substantial change in this provision. I do not wish to dispute the accuracy of the Minister's statement to the effect that this is the result of a blunder, but I do not like the local authorities being made the victims of such a change in the proposal as it was submitted by the Government. It is nothing new that a blunder should be made in a Government Bill. We have had a series of them in the Military Training Bill and I think it is time that the Government drafted their Bills properly and avoided these mistakes. The reason why we are so "sticky" about this matter, is that this will really be wartime expenditure. This Clause will not operate until, in the opening words:
    "it appears to him (the Minister) that in view of the imminence of an emergency involving the possibility of hostile attack it is expedient so to do."
    That means until the country is in danger of immediate war. Therefore, this is essentially a war-time Measure. Up to now, either we have acted on the basis that the cost of running a war should be a national responsibility, or we have been dealing only with precautions, clearly detached from the actual occurrence or imminence of war. It will be serious if local authorities are consenting parties to a decision whereby war expenditure, which is bound to be very large in this field of civil defence, should be, in part, a charge on the local rates. It is surely reasonable that the cost of running a war should be a national charge. It cannot be asserted that running a war is a local municipal service—not at any rate until we have wars between the municipalities themselves. The running of a war is essentially a national, and it may be, an international job.
    2366
    This proposal, for the first time, lays down in terms, that the cost of an essential war-time service is to be, in the first instance, a charge on the local rates with the ordinary and appropriate grants under the Air-Raid Precautions Act of 1937. The compensation to be paid to the owners of the vehicles is not to be in the discretion of the local authorities. That is to be settled by Parliament. I think administratively and legally it is right that Parliament should settle the compensation to be paid to owners of vehicles, but if Parliament is to settle the financial terms on which this is to be done, that increases the strength of the case for the view that Parliament should find the money with which this compensation is to be paid. I think that the draftsman or one of the officers of His Majesty's Government, seeing the logic and common sense of the argument which I am now putting, deliberately drafted that financial provision that the moneys should be provided by Parliament for the reasons which I have indicated. I think that was a very sensible thing to do. But apparently some bright person in the Treasury has dropped upon it and the Minister has been persuaded, or browbeaten, into bringing forward this so-called drafting Amendment, which is really a substantial change of principle in that it transfers part of the cost of running a war from the Exchequer to the local ratepayers. I am sorry to find the Minister in the first place so easy-going about this material and serious change, and then, when my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) points out to him the error of his ways and the injustice of his proposal, so tenacious in sticking to this monstrous proposal. If it is persisted in, I must ask my hon. Friends to divide against it.
    6.11 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman never supposed that this Bill had been so drawn as to embody a considered decision on the manner in which expenditure on Civil Defence in any future war was to be financed. Yet that is the implication of what he has just said. This Bill is drafted on the basis of peace-time finance. This Clause was put in as a matter of precaution because it was brought to the notice of the Government that it might be necessary in the public interest that certain actions to be covered by this Clause should be taken

    2367
    in anticipation of the early outbreak of war. It is a matter in which the local authorities are very closely concerned because, among the vehicles which may have to be requisitioned, are those required for fire brigade purposes which it was thought should be taken over at an early stage in order that the necessary adaptations in their structure could be made in good time. This Clause, if amended according to my proposal, would be in harmony with the Financial Resolution. The Clause as it appears in the Bill, unfortunately, is not in harmony with the Financial Resolution, and if we do not make this adjustment we shall find ourselves in a grave difficulty when we come to the Report stage. I understand that from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman it is important that nothing should be said or done which carries a final implication in regard to the financing of war expenditure. This Clause merely preserves the status quo pending a decision by Parliament. If nothing of this sort had been done, if there had been no powers corresponding to this in Clause 48 for the purposes which Clause 48 is designed to serve, the finance of the Air-Raid Precautions Act of 1937 would have been applicable automatically. This merely keeps the financial status quo, unless and until Parliament otherwise determines.
    6.14 p.m.
    Miss Wilkinson: It is rather a pity that a great civil servant, accustomed during many years of public service to weigh his words with the greatest accuracy, should have been so far infected by the curious attitude which prevails on the Treasury Bench to-day, of always trying to make words mean something different from their real meaning. The right hon. Gentleman to-day has suggested (a) that this is a mere drafting Amendment, and (b) that this is peace-time finance. My right hon. Friend has shown that whatever this Amendment is, it is not merely a drafting Amendment but involves an important principle. Nor can this finance be considered, from any point of view, as peacetime finance. This is a question of what is to be done immediately a war situation arises. It is all very well for the wealthy London boroughs or the wealthy London County Council, whose penny rate brings in something like a quarter
    2368
    of a million pounds, to start in a large way to organise at a moment of national emergency, but I must call the Minister's attention to areas such as Jarrow, where a penny rate brings in from £350 to £400 and where the borough treasurer and the town clerk live in a nightmare of exceeding their very limited budget.
    It means that at a time of crisis, when certain things ought to be done, and done rapidly, the wealthy boroughs can do them, because they can say, "We can bear them out of the rates if we have to for the time being, and settle it up with the Government afterwards," but where you are dealing with boroughs like Jarrow, with a rate of 22s. in the £ and a penny rate bringing in from £350 to £400, they dare not spend the money even to do the most essential things that may require to be done in a war emergency. It may very well be that London, with its tremendous anti-aircraft defences, could be left in this matter, but in these areas it may be necessary in the first few hours to requisition vehicles for actual fire-fighting purposes. Are you going to say to the local authorities in these areas that they must consider whether they can afford to take the measures necessary in their areas to preserve life and limb? The Minister talks about this being peacetime finance, but that is an absolutely absurd suggestion, and it is unfair for the Minister to try and explain that this is a mere drafting Amendment when it may be actually a question of organising to save human life. I therefore urge the right hon. Gentleman to leave the Clause as it stands.
    6.18 p.m.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: I do not think I got from the Minister an answer to my rather simple point. Under this Clause, as it is proposed to be amended, a local authority can take possession of anybody's vehicle, and I think they ought to have that power, but if they take possession of a car, the people from whom the vehicle is taken ought to be paid, and they are not to be paid until we have passed a further Act of Parliament. Under the Clause as it stands there is nothing to prevent the urban district council of Oxford, for example, walking into Morris Motors, Limited, and helping themselves to every completed vehicle there, and then telling Morris Motors, Limited, "We will pay you for these

    2369
    when Parliament has hereafter determined," and until that moment they will get no compensation. It is no good saying that it is war-time finance. Nobody proposes to buy shells on terms that Parliament may hereafter determine. You buy them and you pay for them on delivery. In the same way, if you take someone's vehicle or premises for a limited period, you ought to pay reasonable depreciation for that period, and you ought to do so at the time. I can visualise the premises of a motor car dealer, in which there may be half-a-dozen vehicles, for which he will have paid cash, and the whole of them being appropriated; and in return he gets nothing until another Act of Parliament has been passed. I do not think that is fair to those people whose premises or vehicles are requisitioned. I am, of course, in favour of requisitioning, which must ultimately be a public charge, but clearly the person whose vehicle is taken ought to be entitled to compensation at a reasonably early date, by which I mean as soon as the necessary book-keeping has been done, and not have to wait until another Act of Parliament is passed.
    6.20 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I am sorry that I did not give a complete answer to my hon. Friend when I spoke before. I suggest that his apprehension is not very well founded, because, on the assumption which underlies this Clause, of an emergency developing rapidly into war, the action taken by the Government and by public authorities by way of the requisitioning of vehicles or premises would go far beyond action which might be taken under this Clause, and Parliament would have to address itself at once to the principles upon which war-time compensation was to be assessed. The view of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that you cannot deal with the very difficult problems of wartime compensation piecemeal.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: But this may happen, and the war may not come afterwards. If it had happend last September, they would not have got their money until another Act of Parliament had been passed.
    Sir J. Anderson: Then the intention of the Clause is that if, happily, that should be the outcome, Parliament should be at once invited to authorise the application
    2370
    of the normal principles of peace-time compensation in the case in question.
    6.22 p.m.
    Mr. Westwood: This is one of the most amazing suggestions which has been put before the Committee. In the past, when questions of finance have been affecting local authorities, there has always been more or less negotiation for the purpose of discussing these financial problems that would fall upon local shoulders. Our complaint from this side of the Committee when the Air-Raid Precautions Bill was introduced was that the financial discussions were far too limited and that as a result of those discussions the local authorities were, even under those proposals, getting a raw deal. This is a still more raw deal than the one that was imposed on the local authorities under the 1937 Act. I presume there was some negotiation with them even before this Bill was introduced, because undoubtedly it imposes greater duties upon them, but here was the financial Clause, which dealt definitely with the authority that was to pay in case of requisitioning, and now we are told that it is a mere drafting arrangement, and an entirely new burden is to be placed on the shoulders of the local authorities without any discussion with them on the point.
    Quite frankly, with all these increasing financial burdens that are being imposed on the local authorities, even before war comes, you will have a complete breakdown of local government, and I must enter my protest against the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal that this is a mere drafting Amendment. The draft, as has already been pointed out by my right hon. Friend, will definitely amount to a "draught" that may blow the local authorities out of existence, with no possibility, without a new Act of Parliament being placed on the Statute Book, of compensation being given to them. That is not good business, either for the private individual whose car or whose premises may be commandeered or for the local authorities that may be called upon to pay for these requisitions. Undoubtedly we shall go into the Division Lobby to lodge our protest against a new Clause, because that it what this amounts to, being imported into this Bill, despite the Second Reading, which did not provide for these additional burdens being placed on local shoulders.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 125.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 73.—(Other provisions as to interpretation.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 56, line 4, after "to," insert "factory premises or."
    In line 6, after "whole," insert "of the premises or."
    In line 9, after "the," insert "premises or."—[Mr. Fleming.]
    In line 19, at the end, insert:
    "'Public air-raid shelter' includes a shelter provided by a local authority, in pursuance of an agreement made under Part II of this Act with the occupier of factory premises or the owner of a commercial building, for the use, in whole or in part, of persons living or working in the factory premises or commercial building."—[Mr. Spens.]
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 56, line 23, after "electricity," to insert "municipal transport, market."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to bring within the scope of the Bill as public utility undertakings those undertakings which are owned by municipalities for transport purposes and market purposes. I hope the Amendment can be accepted, because certain local authorities feel that a very great injustice will be done to them unless this extension of the definition of public utility undertakings is accepted by the Government.
    7.31 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I wish it were possible to respond to the appeal of the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid I cannot. The term "public utility undertaking," for the purposes of this Bill, is so defined as to embrace those undertakings which, in the public interest, must be placed in a position to carry on their activities in time of war. For that purpose negotiations have been carried on by the appropriate Departments with the various undertakings—electricity, water, gas, railways, docks—and the whole purpose of the provisions of this Bill which are concerned with public utility undertakings is to give cover to these arrangements which have been made. No arrangements have been made with regard to municipal transport or markets, and, indeed, I think it would not have been considered to be in the public interest that such arrangements should be made, because, in the case, for example, of markets, it must not be taken for granted that in time of war it would be considered desirable or

    2391
    in the public interest that a market in a congested centre of population should continue its activities. In very many cases it would be in the public interest in time of war that those activities should be decentralised. As regards municipal transport, this is on an entirely different footing from, for example, railways. It runs in competition with other forms of transport, and could not suitably be made the subject of special arrangements. For these reasons I regret that it is not possible for me to advise that the Amendment should be accepted.
    Mr. Westwood: Is it not the fact that under this Bill the London Passenger Transport Board is safeguarded; and am I to understand that it is merely because it is associated with railways that this public utility service in London is to be safeguarded, whereas the public utility service of Glasgow, with its huge municipal tramways, is not to be so safeguarded?
    Sir J. Anderson: I would not like to commit myself off-hand on that point, but I think the differentiation is this, that in the case of the property of the London Passenger Transport Board the undertaking, so far as it comes within the definition of a public utility undertaking for the purposes of this Bill, would be taken over by the Government in exactly the same way as the main line railways. In that fact is to be found the justification for any special treatment that may be given to the London Passenger Transport Board.
    Mr. Westwood: I am afraid that the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman is altogether unsatisfactory, and I propose to reserve the right of these local authorities to carry on still further negotiations with a view to getting some satisfaction. I must, therefore, advise my hon. Friends on this side to divide on the Amendment.
    7.36 p.m.
    Dr. Guest: Would it not be advisable that the Lord Privy Seal should reconsider this matter? It is not only in Scotland that there are municipal tramway services; they exist in other parts of the country, and it was only a very short time ago that the London County Council's tramway service was incorporated in the London Passenger Transport
    2392
    Board. What is the difference in service between the London Passenger Transport Board and the services in Glasgow, Lancashire or Yorkshire, as the case may be? It seems unjust and undesirable to make this discrimination, and I suggest that it would be better that the matter should be reconsidered.
    7.37 p.m.
    Sir Joseph Nall: I desire to support what the Lord Privy Seal has said. If any change is proposed, the limitation of the change to municipal transport would only raise further anomalies. Some of these undertakings are not owned by municipalities, and it would be necessary either to include or to exclude all possible forms of transport. I think the Lord Privy Seal has a perfectly good case for leaving out municipal undertakings. If he wishes to review that, he must not limit it merely to municipally owned undertakings.
    Mr. David Adams: The Amendment makes it clear that it relates to municipal transport, that is to say, transport which is owned and worked by local authorities. I certainly feel that municipal undertakings of that character, and also markets, which in many cases are a valuable source of revenue to the local authorities, are entitled to protection equally with the normal public utility concerns, and ought to be included as suggested by the Amendment.
    7.38 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I am perfectly prepared, as the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) suggests, to reconsider this matter, by which I imagine he means to give it further consideration between now and Report. Frankly, I am a little at a disadvantage, because the Minister of Transport, who is concerned mainly with these public utility problems, is not available at the moment; but at the same time I would like to say that there would be the strongest objection on grounds of principle to any differentiation between one road transport undertaking and another purely on the ground of ownership. The Amendment would limit it to municipal transport. As regards markets, it would not, as I have already indicated, be possible to accept the Amendment. In the case of all the great markets of London, our first consideration would be, not to maintain, but to disperse their activities, and it would be perfectly contrary to the policy of the Gov-

    2393
    ernment to take measures to ensure what has been described as the due functioning of the undertaking. Subject to these observations, and having regard to the handicap under which, as I have explained, I labour, I should be perfectly prepared to look at the matter again between now and Report.
    Mr. G. Griffihs: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to wholesale or retail markets, or to wholesale and retail markets?
    Sir J. Anderson: I am thinking of places like Billingsgate, Smithfield and so on.
    Mr. Griffiths: What I want to know is whether the right hon. Gentleman is referring to wholesale markets or to wholesale and retail markets. If he is not going to consider the retail markets, it is going to put some of us into a bit of a stew.
    Sir J. Anderson: That is purely a question for the Mover of the Amendment.
    7.42 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I wish the Lord Privy Seal would go a little further in trying to meet us on this matter. It is perfectly justifiable to include municipal transport as a public undertaking. Glasgow, Leeds, Birmingham, Coventry, Sheffield, all the big munition areas in this country, have municipal transport—
    Mr. Logan: And Liverpool.
    Mr. Greenwood: Liverpool is a little to the West. That will be an area of intensified activity in the event of war, and the municipal transport services there are as vital as railways, canals, inland navigation and so on. The right hon. Gentleman says that all transport is not municipal transport, that there is certain competition with local transport. That is true also of railways. But the point about municipal transport is that it is going to be one of the vital factors in continuity of production.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing on the ground of ownership or of function? If he is arguing on the ground of function, he must not limit it to municipal tramways, but must also bring in buses, whoever owns them, and tramways, whoever owns them. If he is arguing purely on the ground that they are municipal, it does
    2394
    not matter, but if he is arguing on the ground of function he must bring in all these undertakings, whoever owns them.
    Mr. Greenwood: As far as I am concerned, I should have no objection to widening the definition of public undertakings. I am primarily concerned with the question of function, but I am concerned about the very large centres of population which are now enjoying municipal transport services and which ought to be included. If, however, hon. Members opposite want other undertakings of that kind, which would be regarded as public utility undertakings, brought in, I do not think we should object. Then the right hon. Gentleman said, as regards markets, that the whole policy must be to disperse markets. He said he was thinking of Billingsgate, and it may well be that Billingsgate will have to be dispersed, though I hope its language will not be dispersed; but there are markets in other parts of the country, in the provincial towns, and you cannot in the nature of things disperse those markets. You must have local centres for the distribution of essential foodstuffs, and the market is by tradition and custom and habit, and as a matter of convenience, the appropriate method for the distribution of the necessities of life.
    I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of the disability under which he thinks he is suffering at the moment, might well have accepted the Amendment at this stage, and if, when he has had further consultation with his colleagues, he feels that it ought to be amended on Report, that would be the proper procedure. After all, on Report we are in the hands of Mr. Speaker as regards the choice of Amendments, and, although we might put down this Amendment again on Report, it might not be called. A vague undertaking such as the right hon. Gentleman has given us does not carry us very much further, and I think that in the circumstances the only course which we can follow is, as my hon. Friend has suggested, to register our view in the Division Lobby and continue the fight, if Mr. Speaker allows us to do so, on Report.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 166.

    Division No. 151.]

    AYES.

    [6.25 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Gledhill, G.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

    Peake, O.

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Perkins, W. R. D.

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

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Pilkington, R.

    Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Radford, E. A.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Hambro, A. V.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Assheton, R.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Balniel, Lord

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

    Hepworth, J.

    Rosbotham, Sir T.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Bennett, Sir E. N.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Rowlands, G.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Hopkinson, A.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Bracken, B.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)

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

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

    Salt, E. W.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Hunter, T.

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Hurd, Sir P. A.

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Bull, B. B.

    Jennings, R.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Spens, W. P.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)

    Channon, H.

    Lancaster, Captain C. G.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Chorlton, A. E. L.

    Levy, T.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Christie, J. A.

    Lewis, O.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Little, J.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

    Loftus, P. C.

    Thomas, J. P. L.

    Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Lyons, A. M.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Cranborne, Viscount

    MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Critchley, A.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    McKie, J. H.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

    Macquisten, F. A.

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

    De Chair, S. S.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Donner, P. W.

    Markham, S. F.

    Webbe, Sir W. Harold

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Moreing, A. C.

    Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirenoester)

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Emery, J. F.

    Munro, P.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    York, C.

    Fleming, E. L.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Furness, S. N.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Major Sir James Edmondson and Lieut.-Colonel Harvie Watt.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

    Banfield, J. W.

    Benson, G.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Barr, J.

    Bromfield, W.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

    Beaumont, H. (Batley)

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Ammon, C. G.

    Bellenger, F. J.

    Buchanan, G.

    Burke, W. A.

    Hollins, A.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Cape, T.

    Hopkin, D.

    Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Cluse, W. S

    Jagger, J.

    Riley, B.

    Collindridge, F.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Cove, W. G.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Sanders, W. S.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    John, W.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Daggar, G.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Shinwell, E.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Silkin, L.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Dobbie, W.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Ede, J. C.

    Lathan, G.

    Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Lawson, J. J.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

    Leach, W.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

    Lee, F.

    Stephen, C.

    Foot, D. M.

    Leonard, W.

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Logan, D. G.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Thorne, W.

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    McGovern, J.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    MacLaren, A.

    Viant, S. P.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

    Maclean, N.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Maxton, J.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Messer, F.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Groves, T. E.

    Montague, F.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Westwood, J.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N)

    White, H. Graham

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Muff, G.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Hardie, Agnes

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Paling, W.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Hayday, A.

    Pearson, A.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hicks, E. G.

    Poole, C. C.

    Mr. Mathers and Mr. Anderson.

    Hills, A. (Pontefraet)

    Price, M. P.

    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Division No. 152.]

    AYES.

    [7.45 p.m.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Groves, T. E.

    Paling, W.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

    Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

    Parker, J.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Pearson, A.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Hardie, Agnes

    Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

    Poole, C. C.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Hayday, A.

    Price, M. P.

    Barr, J.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Pritt, D. N.

    Beaumont, H. (Batley)

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Hicks, E. G.

    Ridley, G.

    Benson, G.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Riley, B.

    Bromfield, W.

    Hollins, A.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Burke, W. A.

    Hopkin, D.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Cape, T.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jagger, J.

    Shinwell, E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Silverman, S. S.

    Collindridge, F.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Simpson, F. B.

    Cove, W G.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Kirby, B. V.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Daggar, G.

    Lathan, G.

    Stewart. W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lawson, J. J.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Dobbie, W.

    Leach, W.

    Summerskilll, Dr. Edith

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Lee, F.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Ede, J. C.

    Leonard, W.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Thorne, W.

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

    Logan, D. G.

    Thurtle, E.

    Foot, D. M.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Tinker, J. J.

    Frankel, D.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Gallacher, W.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Viant, S. P.

    Gardner, B. W.

    MacLaren, A.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Maclean, N.

    Watson, W. McL.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Mathers, G.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Messer, F.

    Westwood, J.

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Milner, Major J.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Montague, F.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Muff, G.

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. John and Mr. Adamson.

    NOES.

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Donner, P. W.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Kellett, Major E. O.

    Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Se'h Univ's)

    Duggan, H. J.

    Lancaster, Captain C. G.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Levy, T.

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Lewis, O.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Emery, J. F.

    Little, J.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    Fleming, E. L.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Lyons, A. M.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Furness, S. N.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

    Gledhill, G.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

    Gluckstein, L H.

    McKie, J. H.

    Bull, B. B.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Hambro, A. V.

    Markham, S. F.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Christie, J. A.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Hepworth, J.

    Moreing, A. C.

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.).

    Conant, Captain R. J. E

    Higgs, W. F.

    Nall, Sir J.

    Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)

    Holdsworth, H.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

    Hopkinson, A.

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    Critchley, A.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

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

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Hunloke, H. P.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Hunter, T.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

    Hurd, Sir P. A.

    Ponsonby, Col. C E.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Jennings, R.

    Radford, E. A.

    2396

    2397

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Spens, W. P.

    Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Webbe, Sir W. Harold

    Remer, J. R.

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Rowlands, G.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Salt, E. W.

    Thorneycreft, G. E. P.

    York, C.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Munro.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

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

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    7.53 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move—
    Sir R. Tasker: On a point of Order. May I direct your attention, Sir Dennis, to the fact that there is an Amendment on the Paper in my name, just before the hon. Member's Amendment.
    The Chairman: I marked that not to be selected. I understood yesterday that the hon. Member did not propose to move it.
    Sir R. Tasker: No, Sir Dennis, I was withdrawing my Amendment on Clause 49.
    The Chairman: If the hon. Member Attachés importance to it, I will call it.
    7.55 p.m.
    Sir R. Tasker: I beg to move, in page 56, line 23, after "electricity," to insert "hydraulic power."
    Anyone who has been engaged in preparing Bills as long and complicated as this will not be hypercritical in discussing any Clause, or in suggesting that something may have been overlooked. I suggest that what has been overlooked is the very narrow field covered by the term "public utility." Practically, its definition is reduced to gas, electricity and water undertakings. Hon. Members may have the same view about hydraulic power companies as I had some years ago, when I thought they were almost confined to the docks and railways and a few lifts, but, in connection with the preparation of a Bill, it was brought to my notice by the fire brigade in London how very important this high pressure was in enabling them to subdue fires. This Bill is concerned very largely with subduing conflagrations. I suggest that hydraulic power companies should be included in this definition. There is one company in London alone that has no less than 180 miles of pipes already laid.
    2398
    In a recent Bill this House granted a sum of money in order to increase the area from which water might be drawn to subdue fires in the event of hostile air attacks.
    It seems to me that where you have 180 miles of pipe already laid, where it is a most useful adjunct, even at present, to fire brigades, it would be a mistake not to take advantage of this very extensive ramification of piping in the streets of London. It has another use. In 30 railway depots and in 60 post offices there is this water supply available. "Public utility" means something which affects the community. It is available to all. Water power is almost irresistible. I can think of few things more majestic than water power in a place like Niagara. In the interests of the community, we ought to take advantage of this supply.
    I ask the Minister whether he will not consider between now and the Report stage introducing those two words which will be so much to the benefit of the community. Private Bills recognise and refer to hydraulic power companies as public utility services in such Bills. The scientist knows the value of kinetic energy. Hydrants and sprinklers are installed in churches, theatres, museums. The Colonial Office, Home Office, War Office, the Admiralty and in this Palace of Westminster, all are using hydraulic power. It is therefore used for something more than opening and closing dock gates, loading and unloading ships, operating lifts and cranes. During the last War so important were the hydraulic mains regarded that special guards were posted for their protection.
    8.0 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I am the last person to seek to belittle the importance of the undertakings to which my hon. Friend has been devoting his remarks. Let me say at once that there is no question of

    2399
    denying to these undertakings their title to be regarded as public utility undertakings. The definition of a public utility undertaking in this Bill does not profess to be exhaustive. It is a definition purely for the purposes of the Bill. I have already explained in relation to an earlier Amendment why that definition has been restricted. My hon. Friend spoke as if to be included in the definition of public utility undertakings for the purposes of this Bill was a highly coveted privilege, but actually the only difference between public utility undertakings and other undertakings in this Bill is, that a public utility undertakes all the ordinary obligations of industrial undertakings, and certain obligations in addition, and, towards the discharge of these further obligations, they get a grant, which is limited to 50 per cent.
    But, leaving the technicalities and coming to the remits of the proposal of my hon. Friend, he has been elaborating to the Committee the important functions which these undertakings discharge in relation to railways, docks and fire-fighting. The argument he used is, I suggest, a very strong argument for not including these undertakings in the definition of public utility undertakings for the purposes of this Bill, because their function, as my hon. Friend has described it—and I will not join issue with him on that—is ancillary in practice to the functions of those public utility undertakings for which special provision is made in the Bill. In regard to railways and to docks, in so far as they may be dependent on hydraulic undertakings for ensuring the due functioning of the undertaking in time of war, it will be open to the dock undertaking or the railway undertaking to include in their scheme measures designed to ensure the due functioning of their hydraulic undertaking, and it would only lead to confusion if the appropriate Department sought to establish direct relations with these hydraulic undertakings over the heads of public utility undertakings, which are primarily responsible.
    In regard to fire-fighting, the Bill contains provisions designed to strengthen the resources of the fire services of this country. If any fire service considers that it is in a position to make use of the services of hydraulic power undertakings for
    2400
    the purpose of fire-fighting in time of war, there is nothing whatever to prevent that fire service from putting forward proposals in conformity with the provisions of the Bill and getting grant, in most cases at a higher rate than the normal 50 per cent. grant which is available to the public utility undertakings. Therefore, both on technical grounds and on the merits of the case, I feel that this Amendment is one which I cannot possibly advise the Committee to accept.
    Sir R. Tasker: While it is true that under the Bill the 50 per cent. grant would be given to a dock or a railway company, I understand that the Bill does not apply to the London County Council, who are responsible for fire brigades.
    Sir J. Anderson: They get the higher grant.
    Sir R. Tasker: I accept what the Lord Privy Seal has said, but what about the number of public buildings—post offices, this very building, museums and theatres? I submit that we are not making the fullest use of something which is of the utmost importance.
    Amendment negatived.
    8.6 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 56, line 24, after "undertaking," to insert "and any catchment board."
    The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal will recollect that on the Second Reading of the Bill this point was brought in front of the House by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage), and that I alluded to it on the second day of the Debate at the request of the County Councils Association, who are very seriously concerned about the position of the various inland embanked waterways of the country. The canals and inland navigations are included in this definition of public utility undertakings, but the catchment board is left out. Some of these catchment boards are responsible for very considerable lengths of embanked waterways. Any disaster that overtook the banks of these waterways would have the most serious effects on the civil population, and, as far as the district round the Wash is concerned, would, I am advised, flood very considerable areas of some of the most fertile land in the country. In fact, I believe that

    2401
    one well-placed bomb in the bank of a waterway in the area of some of these catchment boards in the neighbourhood of the Wash might reduce the production of potatoes in this country by one-half. I am told that the proportion of the potatoes consumed in this country that are grown within the area of the catchment boards of the Wash is so high that, if any substantial area there was flooded, it would have most serious results on the production of potatoes in England.
    These bodies are also seriously handicapped by the financial limitations under which they operate. They can levy a twopenny rate and no more, unless they get the consent of the various local authorities within whose areas they operate. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy were here, I have no doubt he would call to mind many questions that have been directed to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) and other Members of this House with regard to the high rates that are being levied by these catchment boards at the present time. Therefore, it is clear that these boards have at their back no financial resources on which they can call in their efforts to safeguard themselves against doing damage to their neighbours and securing the due functioning of their undertaking. The whole of the problems confronting the catchment boards in this matter are so serious that I hope the Lord Privy Seal will be able to give us some indication that, either by the acceptance of this Amendment or in some other way, he will be able to recognise the special difficulties that confront them. The task of preserving their banks is a highly technical one. They have to rely largely on their own servants to discharge it because it is not the kind of work that can be undertaken in an emergency by people who are not used to dealing with that sort of labour.
    Some of these catchment boards have had to incur very considerable expense up to the present in getting the necessary material that would enable them to deal with an emergency if it arose. Some of them have to make arrangements for this material to be available for transport over considerable distances, and they are seriously handicapped at the moment by the difficulties of not knowing precisely what their status is and what financial
    2402
    assistance they would be able to get from the Government if an emergency arose and they had to carry on with further expense. But the expense at the moment in preparation is a very heavy one. They have had to incur some of this expense, and they must contemplate incurring serious and heavy expense within the next 12 months, and the Government ought to be able to indicate some way in which they can render them assistance. Their income at the moment is, I think, in every case, more than required to meet the ordinary running expenses. They are not able to accumulate any reserves, and they are involved generally in those kinds of disputes which arise between the upland and the lowland authorities, in which the upland people want to get rid of their water to the lowland authorities, and the lowland authorities do not want to take it and do not see why they should pay for upland areas to bring it down to them. The difficulty of getting the necessary consents to increase the rates makes it almost impossible for these boards to do any more than they are doing in merely maintaining their existing works.
    I know that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the probability is they are more accurately described as local authorities for the purposes of this Bill. I believe that that is not altogether free from doubt, but, even taking the statement as being completely accurate, they still differ from other local authorities in that the utmost limit of their rate has been fixed. They cannot increase it. They have no power to levy an air-raid precautions rate. They are not like the county councls, who can include an air-raid precautions rate in the county general purposes rate, and who, although they were told they would never have to exceed a penny rate, can make it 3d. or 4d. if the finance committee can persuade the county council to pass it. The catchment board is not in that position. Therefore, calling them local authorities does not assist them very much. I hope that, if the right hon. Gentleman is going to say that the proper thing to do is not to include them here but to give them what he may regard as the higher status of a local authority, he will indicate that in some way or other he will provide them with an income that will enable them to live up to their higher estate. It is not much good increasing

    2403
    status unless one has something with which to maintain the position of that new status. I very sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will indicate that the Government recognise the importance of these boards having sufficient financial resources to deal with the problems that confront them, and will be able to indicate, if not by accepting this Amendment in some other way, how he can assist them in the discharge of the very onerous duties that the parlous conditions of our time impose upon them.
    8.15 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I should like to think that the position of the catchment boards is clearly defined. Undoubtedly there are many disadvantages in this Amendment from their point of view. Their relations with the county councils are extremely friendly; they realise that under these proposals they will be independent, whereas they are not independent now. On the other hand, there is one great disadvantage for them in that they will only get a 50 per cent. grant instead of the 75 per cent. grant they would get as they are now situated. I am astounded to hear that the London County Council will get 90 per cent. grant.
    Sir J. Anderson: That is for fire.
    Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I think this question of grant is an over-riding reason why the Amendment should not be accepted. The catchment boards rank as local authorities under the Act of 1937, and can prepare a scheme. They are not a rating authority and, therefore, they have to work under the local authority. It is a most unsatisfactory position both for the county council and the catchment board, because the catchment board in many cases cover many county council areas. A catchment board should be a local authority in the same way as a county council.
    Mention has been made of the 2d. rate. If the catchment board expenditure does not exceed a 2d. rate they can probably go to the Lord Privy Seal and get a scheme through and get through the local authority 75 Per cent. grant, but if they are above the 2d. rate that may be impossible. If they are just below a 2d. rate and if they exceed a 2d. rate with A.R.P. work,
    2404
    although they may get a 75 per cent. grant through the local authority, the whole of the sum to be paid in the scheme has to be taken into account and they cannot take into account the fact that they will receive a 75 per cent. grant, they will find it impossible to do any A.R.P. work at all. I consider that is a national danger. Take the case of East Norfolk where they are committed to an enormous expenditure on account of sea inroads. They have already a 2½d. rate. Therefore the county council may say that they can afford nothing more.
    The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has rightly mentioned the danger to this country of bombing in the Ouse Valley. There are many other areas where there is danger. There are many Lincolnshire rivers all of which are liable to this potential danger and already the catchment boards there are near and in some cases over the 2d. rate. I am afraid that the Minister or his Department have put the catchment boards in some cases in a position from which it is impossible to extricate themselves. I am glad that the hon. Member for South Shields has moved the Amendment if only to point out some of the deep feelings that have been aroused. I should like to emphasise that in regard to some of the large catchment areas like the Ouse and the Trent which deal with many county councils, this system may not work, although it may work in some other cases.
    8.19 p.m.
    Sir Joseph Lamb: I should like to oppose the Amendment, although I realise that it has been a means of bringing this important matter before the Committee. I should like to know that we are included somewhere in the Bill, so that we may have the possibility of protection against loss of property and other forms of damage. We want to know where we are, and whether we are included or not. If it is said that we are in as a local authority, I should be glad. We do, however, want to know definitely where we stand.
    8.20 p.m.
    Mr. Price: The position of the catchment board is one of some difficulty. They have a greater security and a lower grant if they are regarded as a public utility undertaking and they have a higher grant if they are under the local authorities. It is desirable that they should know where

    2405
    they are. They are in the position of being able to say how happy they would be with either, were t'other dear charmer away. At the same time, if they are classed with the local authorities in matters concerning damage to their properties and repairs there may be difficulties. In the Severn Valley, the Severn Valley Catchment Board has to deal with at least four county councils, and although the Severn Valley Catchment Board has the apparatus for handling any problems which are likely to arise in connection with drainage and damage to drainage works, there is bound to be difficulty if they have to operate under four different local authorities, or it may be five. I hope that when the Minister speaks he will tell us what the position is. I am certain the catchment boards will accept whatever may be thought desirable, provided that it is a definite decision, their liabilities are made clear, and the position in regard to the grant which they are to get is also made equally clear.
    8.22 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: If I understood the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) aright, he complained that I or my Department had got the catchment boards into a very difficult position, from which it would be almost impossible to extricate them. I thought that a little hard, because ever since the position of the catchment boards was first brought to my notice I have been concerned to try and find some means of extricating them from the difficult position in which they are by reason of their constitutional position. I do not conceive that it is any part of my function as Civil Defence Minister to overhaul constitutional arrangements governing bodies such as the catchment boards. I have done within my limitations the best I could, and I thought that I had been able, with the help of my advisers, to arrive at a solution of this problem which, although it may not be ideal, has some advantages over the solution put forward on behalf of the County Councils' Association.
    The position that I take up in this matter, on advice, is that the catchment boards are undoubtedly local authorities for the purposes of the Act of 1937. What follows is that, if a catchment board can get a scheme through dealing with the matters of urgent importance that
    2406
    have been referred to in the course of this discussion, the expenditure involved will attract grant at a rate round about 75 per cent. on the average, whereas if the Amendment put forward on behalf of the County Councils' Association were accepted, the best that could happen would be that the expenditure would attract a 50 per cent. grant. The fundamental difficulty that has been brought out, that the catchment board as the precepting authority is subject to a statutory limit of a 2d. rate, is left untouched. According to the view which I am advised is the correct view—and I give that view for the purpose of complying with the request put forward by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) that they should be told exactly where they stand—catchment boards are local authorities for the purposes of the Act of 1937. I am so advised, and I believe it to be the case.
    What are we going to do to get over the difficulty to which I have just referred? There are catchment boards which are not spending up to the full 2d. rate. If these catchment boards produce a scheme which is approved, the expenditure which is then apportioned and sought to be recovered from the various local authorities by precept will attract the appropriate grant. But some of the most important catchment boards are not in that happy position. There is nothing, however, to prevent a catchment board which is spending up to a 2d. rate or beyond it from formulating a scheme, and there is nothing to prevent the scheme going through except the opposition of the constituent local authorities. If the county councils are prepared to meet the expenditure, the scheme can go through, but I understand that some county councils are not too keen, and we have to face the fact that there is a conflict of interests. There is, therefore, a need for promoting a community of interests in1 this matter. That is where the difficulty arises.
    The obvious solution would be to put down an Amendment proposing to deal specially with approved expenditure of this kind and allow it to be recovered as a supplement to the maximum amount which under the ordinary law can be charged. I do not know why no hon. Member interested in this matter has thought fit to resort to that solution. I can only suppose the answer is that it

    2407
    will be highly controversial, but that is the obvious solution. In default of any such solution, all I can do is to sympathise with the case which has been put and to offer the good offices of my Department. We have been successful, certainly in one case, in getting the various local authorities concerned—the case of the Grand Union Canal and the Paddington, Hammersmith, and Middlesex authorities—to undertake a scheme. We were able to get that scheme through, and I am prepared to do everything I can to assist in getting any good scheme through by calling a conference of the local authorities concerned. That I fear is all I can offer in this matter. Whether, when a county council or a borough council stands out unreasonably and thereby constitutes an obstacle to the carrying into effect of a scheme which might result in the saving not only of life but of valuable property also, that would bring into operation the default provisions of this Bill is a matter on which I should not like to express an opinion at the moment. But I think we should be in a position to negotiate with the authorities concerned, and I will certainly do everything I can to further the objects which have been put so forcibly by hon. Members.
    Sir J. Lamb: A catchment board is not in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is advised that they would be a local authority. In that case I think they should be mentioned somewhere in the Bill. But what I want to know is whether they would have to act through the local authorities, the borough councils or the county councils, or would be looked upon as a local authority.
    Sir J. Anderson: The answer to that is that a catchment board is a local authority within the meaning of Section 12 of the Air-Raid Precautions Act, 1937, and within the limits of its precepting power, it has not to consult anybody. The necessity for consultation would arise when it came to passing on the cost. If its precepting authority has been exceeded it would be necessary to get the consent of the various local authorities to the additional expenditure involved. If there is any doubt in regard to the legal position I can only seek the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, and subject to my being advised clearly that the posi-
    2408
    tion is as I have indicated, it will be quite wrong to put a provision in the Bill which would be superfluous.
    Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: The point is that catchment boards are not grant-earning authorities under the Act, and for that reason, while they can put up a scheme even if they have not got up to a 2d. rate, they would have to obtain the consent of the local authorities concerned to the scheme, and could get only 75 per cent. grant through the local authorities.
    Sir J. Anderson: That is quite true.
    Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Above a 2d. rate they have to get the consent of the various local authorities. I am glad that the point has been cleared up. We should have been only too glad to suggest the Amendment indicated by the Lord Privy Seal, but it was not possible to do so under the terms of the Money Resolution. In the circumstances we do not think the Amendment is quite as good as the existing practice.
    Mr. Ede: This was the only way in which we could get this matter before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has made a suggestion which I am sure catchment boards and local authorities will be very willing to accept; that he should arrange conferences and take some part in them. As one who has had experience of such conferences I should like to tell the right hon. Gentleman that much the most eloquent talker is money. When one has agreed on a scheme the question then arises how it is to be done. The right hon. Gentleman gave us an example of the Grand Union Canal, Paddington, Kensington and Middlesex. After all, Middlesex is the second richest county in England, and Paddington, while not among the richer London boroughs, is very much in the upper house. Kensington, I believe, is also very high at the moment in the rateable value per head of the population. But Middlesex, Surrey, East Sussex, and counties like that, can do things which Norfolk, Lincolnshire, Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire, the Soke of Peterborough and the Isle of Ely cannot look at for a moment, and those are just the counties which are involved in this problem. Their county rates are very high at the present time. Their highway rates, public assistance rates, and education rates are very high indeed. They have also to

    2409
    shoulder very heavy burdens with regard to ordinary air-raid precautions work. In some of those counties, they are faced with the problem that if a breach were made in those banks, the greater part of the county would be under water. I regret that the Minister has not been able to go farther than he has done to-night, and I can only hope that when he and his advisers go to the conferences, they will go with a receptive mind to listen to the arguments that are put forward, and an open hand to deal with the problems that confront them. Because I hope that the practical experience of these conferences will be a great education to the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    8.36 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 56, line 31, at the end, to add:
    "(2) Any premises occupied, or persons employed, by public utility undertakers who carry on a railway undertaking, shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be occupied or employed for the purposes of their railway undertaking, unless the occupation or employment is wholly or mainly for the purposes of some harbour, dock or canal undertaking carried on by those undertakers."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to clear up an ambiguity in regard to the position of the London Passenger Transport Board. The undertaking of the board consists of railways, omnibuses, tramways and trolley vehicles, while the undertakings of the railway companies include, besides railways, docks and canals, all of which are dealt with separately in Part V of the Bill, road transport, stations and hotels. It is contemplated that in the event of war the Minister of Transport will take possession of these undertakings and they will thus stand in a special relationship to the Government, as I explained a short time ago on an Amendment that was moved with regard to public utility undertakings. As the Bill stands, it is not clear that those parts of the board's and the companies' undertakings which are not undertakings of a nature specifically within the definition in Clause 73 are to be treated as public utility undertakings, so that it might be found that parts of the board's or companies' premises and some of their employés would have to be dealt with or protected under Parts II and III of the Bill and others under Part V. That would
    2410
    be inconvenient, particularly as certain premises and certain personnel are common to different parts of the undertaking. Moreover, it is necessary to ensure that none of the premises of the board or companies should be designated as shelters under Clause 2 without the consent of the appropriate Department, the Ministry of Transport, which will at that time be in possession of the premises in question.
    The effect of the Amendment will be, first, that, for the purpose of the designation of the premises as air-raid shelters, all premises of the board and railway companies, irrespective of the particular activities of the undertaking for which the premises are used, will have the protection afforded by that particular Clause of the Bill—protection which consists in the necessity of obtaining the prior consent of the Department—and secondly, that, for the purpose of air-raid precautions taken by the undertakers, the whole of the board's staff will be deemed to be railway staff, and the staff of the railway companies other than those of dock, harbour and canal undertakings will be deemed to be railway staff. This Amendment is really necessary to clear up an ambiguity and a possible source of confusion in the Bill as drawn.
    Mr. H. Morrison: I think I am reasonably clear as to the purpose of the Amendment as regards the property of the undertakings, although the wording is not easy to follow; but I am not quite clear as to what is the purpose of the reference to the persons employed, and what it is proposed to do in that respect.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: Can the Minister say whether the railway staff is of special significance in a time of emergency?
    Sir J. Anderson: I think I can clear up the point regarding the personnel. There is an obligation to provide shelter for staff and to train staff. That obligation arises under Part V in the case of public utility undertakings and under Part II or Part III in the case of undertakings that are not public utility undertakings. There is thus a danger of overlapping and confusion. The effect of the Amendment, as far as personnel is concerned, is to make the whole staff the staff of the public utility undertaking, so that action will be taken under one Clause only of the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 49.—(Special provisions as to supply of water for extinguishing fires.)
    6.35 p.m.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 39, line 34, to leave out "supply of."
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): We propose to accept all the Amendments on the Paper to this Clause, with the exception of that standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Withington (Mr. Fleming).
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 39, line 35, leave out "a reservoir," and insert "water contained in. a reservoir or other works."—[Mr. R. C. Morrison.]
    In line 35, leave out "water," and insert "public utility."—[Mr. Ross Taylor.]
    In page 40, line 16, leave out "and," and insert:
    "or preparatory measures are then being taken for the carrying out thereof and (in each case)."—[Sir J. Anderson.]
    6.37 p.m.
    Mr. Fleming: I beg to move, in page 41, line 26, to leave out from "apply," to the end of line 28.
    This deals with the paragraph concerning the taking of the subsoil where the surface is not also purchased. As the Clause stands, wherever the surface land is taken for the purpose of water supply, payment has to be made for surface land, but where the subsoil only is taken, no payment is made. In cases where the subsoil is taken it would mean that if the owner of the surface wanted to put up certain additions to his buildings, he would have no subsoil for his foundation, and on that ground I suggest that the owner should be paid for his loss of rights in the same way as the owner of the surface.
    6.38 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: My hon. Friend is trying to amend Sub-section (7) which applies the water proposals which are the subject matter of the Clause to the provisions of the old Clause 7 dealing with underground works. That Clause has been withdrawn and a new Clause 7 is to be considered. It will, therefore, be necessary on Report to get rid of this Sub-section (7) as it now stands and to

    2375
    apply to these water schemes the relevant parts of the new Clause 7.
    Mr. Fleming: In view of that assurance that this matter will be dealt with in the new Clause 7, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    6.40 p.m.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 41, line 28, at the end, to add:
    "(8) The Minister shall not approve any scheme under this Section unless it contains such provisions as he considers necessary for preventing—

    (a) the contamination of any water supplied by water undertakers; and

    (b) the use for domestic purposes of any water conveyed in any main or pipe laid under the scheme."

    This Amendment is designed to guard against the double risks of contamination of water and the use for domestic purposes of water which may be excellent for extinguishing fires, but would be unsuitable for any other purpose.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: We think this Amendment is a good one, and we accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Ammon: I would like to know whether the proposed new Clause 7 will have any effect on this Clause?
    Sir J. Anderson: We propose on Report to bring up whatever Amendments may be necessary to bring this Clause into line with Clause 7 in its new form.

    CLAUSE 50.—(Power of Minister of Transport to acquire plant and materials for repair of roads and bridges.)
    6.41 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 41, line 31, after "hold," to insert:
    "or make arrangements for the acquisition and holding on his behalf of."
    This Amendment brings the Clause into line with Clause 51. The modesty of the late Minister of Transport made it impossible for him to ask for so many powers as the Minister of Health has asked for, and that infirmity seems to have been carried on to an unexpected
    2376
    degree by the present Minister of Transport, but we should be sorry to see him suffering from any such disability.
    Amendment agreed to.
    6.42 p.m.
    Captain Wallace: I beg to move, in page 41, line 38, after "to," to insert "use or".
    The object of this Amendment is to enable some use to be made of the stocks of materials which we are accumulating before the emergency. There are, for instance, certain cases where we are improving trunk or other roads where temporary bridges have to be put up, and it will be useful to use some of the materials for the temporary bridges, subject to the proviso that enough of it will have to be ready for its primary purpose.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 52.—(Power of local authorities to appropriate lands and buildings for purposes of their civil defence functions.)
    6.44 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 42, line 16, after "functions," to insert:
    "or any public utility undertaking to which section twenty-eight of this Act applies."
    The series of Amendments standing in my name to this Clause is related to one point. It arises out of the operation of Clauses 27 and 28. Under Clause 27 a public utility undertaking have to prepare a report stating what measures they are taking or propose to take to secure the due functioning of the undertaking in the event of hostile attack. Under Clause 28, when the appropriate Department receive the report, they may issue a notice requiring the public utility undertaking to carry out the various schemes they have prepared for the functioning of the undertaking. That puts them in the same position as the local authority under this Clause, but the public utility undertaking have not the advantage in preparing their scheme and carrying out the notice which the local authority has in paragraph (b), Sub-section (1) of Clause 52. They are still hampered by the restrictive covenants and other things that may possibly be used to prevent them from carrying out the

    2377
    necessary works to enable them to comply with the notice served by the Minister. This has been the subject of prolonged negotiations between the Minister and certain parties whom I represent, and although I am not convinced that I have found the appropriate form of words I think the suggestion embodied in this series of Amendments would enable public utility undertakers to carry through with reasonable certainty the preparations for the various schemes they now have in hand, and I hope that the Minister may find it possible to accept the principle enshrined in the Amendments.
    6.46 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: The hon. Member said that this matter has been under discussion for some time and, as he knows, I have always personally been in sympathy with the object he has in view, and, with the reservation that it may be desirable to look at the wording again before Report stage, I shall be prepared here and now to accept this Amendment and the consequential Amendments.
    6.47 p.m.
    Mr. David Adams: Personally I am not very happy about this Amendment. It seems to me that we are moving very rapidly in a direction which is contrary to the customary one, that is to say, that local authorities should not have their powers superseded by any public utility undertaking. To confer upon public utility concerns powers which have been specially given to local authorities appears to be an extravagant departure. I should be very much happier if the authority which this Amendment would confer upon public utility concerns were to be subject to the consent of the local authorities concerned. In that way the public interest might be adequately safeguarded, for it is to our local authorities that we must look to see that the interests of the community are carefully preserved. To confer upon a public utility concern, or a dock or harbour authority, rights to do that which ought to be the responsibility of the community is a very dangerous departure.
    6.49 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: In all these matters it is a question of compromising between the preservation of the normal peace-time safeguards such as one finds in planning schemes and local bye-laws and the necessity for making without delay adequate preparations for the contingency of war.
    2378
    In saying that I was prepared to accept this Amendment I had regard to the manner in which, since the matter was first mooted in Committee, the proposal has been restricted and hedged round. As the hon. Member who moved the Amendment explained, it is all subject to the appropriate Department having served a notice on the public utility undertakings. In those circumstances it seems reasonably safe to accept the Amendment.
    6.50 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. D. Adams) and I have sat in partnership through so many nights of Debate in this House that I regret that he should discover that I have so soon fallen from my high estate. He and I have so often indulged in comments on Members who were standing at this Box that I appreciate the spirit in which his remarks are offered to me, and I assure him that I reciprocate them in the spirit in which remarks which used to be passed back to us were made. The public are safeguarded by Subsections (2) and (3) of this Clause. The powers can be exercised only with the approval of the Minister, and at any time he can give the necessary directions that the normal state of affairs shall be resumed.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 42, line 19, after "authority," insert "or public utility undertaking."—[Mr. Ede.]
    6.51 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 42, line 20, after "functions," to insert:
    "and
    (b) any local authority (as defined in the Act of 1937) may permit any other local authority having any civil defence functions to use, for the purpose of discharging any of those functions, any lands or buildings belonging to or under the control of the first-mentioned authority,
    and the provisions of this Sub-section shall have effect."
    This provision is desired in order to get over what might otherwise be a legal difficulty where one local authority has property within the area of another, and is perfectly willing that it should be used for civil defence purposes, but might not have the legal power to give consent in the absence of this provision.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 42, line 20, after "functions," insert:
    "or taking measures specified in the notice served under Sub-section one of Section twenty-eight of this Act as the case may be."—[Mr. Ede.]
    In line 25, leave out "power," and insert "powers."
    In line 30, after "authority," insert "or, as the case may be, the local authorities."—[Sir J. Anderson.]
    In line 30, after "authority" insert "or public utility undertaking."—[Mr. Ede.]
    In line 33, after "authority," insert "or local authorities."—[Sir J. Anderson.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 53 and 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 55.—(Property in equipment, appliances and material provided by the Crown or local authorities.)
    6.55 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 43, line 26, to leave out from the beginning, to "charge," in line 32, and to insert:
    "The property in any equipment, appliances or material provided on behalf of His Majesty under the Act of 1937 free of."
    I venture with some trepidation to describe this as a drafting Amendment. The Act of 1937 contained provisions with regard to what were called gifts, and it was contemplated that regulations should be made modifying the conditions under which gifts could be received and dealt with in connection with air-raid precautions. No such regulations have ever been made. No use has ever been made of that particular provision. We are now distributing equipment in large quantities, and we are providing in this Bill that such equipment shall remain the property of the Crown. In these circumstances it is a desirable simplification to get rid of the provisions with regard to gifts in the Act of 1937.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 43, line 33, leave out "Section," and insert "Sub-section."
    In line 35, at the end, insert:
    "In paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section eleven of the Act of 1937 the word 'gifts' is hereby repealed."—[Sir J. Anderson.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 56.—(Compensation in the event of injury to persons engaged in air-raid precautions activities.)
    Mrs. Hardie: I beg to move, in page 44, line 37, at the end, to insert:
    "(4) Before making, revoking, or varying any scheme under the powers of this Section, the Treasury shall consult with associations representing various classes of local authorities exercising functions under the Act of 1937 or this Act."
    6.57 p.m.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): The hon. Lady has formally moved this Amendment, and I am not quite clear what she may have in mind in doing so. The suggestion in the Amendment is that local authorities should be consulted before the scheme of compensation is made. I think that on reflection she will consider that it is not entirely appropriate that they should be consulted under Statute, because, when all is said and done, the compensation scheme will be framed by the Treasury and the cost of it will be borne on the Votes. There is no charge upon the local authorities in this matter, and therefore I do not think it would be appropriate to accept the Amendment, but I am prepared to go so far as to say that when the scheme is in draft we shall be prepared to let the associations see it and consider any observations which they may have to offer upon it.
    Sir I. Albery: Is Parliament to see it?
    Captain Crookshank: There is another Amendment on that point which, I understand, is not being called. Perhaps I may answer the question without being out of order by pointing out that last night the Lord Privy Seal said that an Amendment dealing with the various regulations to be adopted would be inserted in the Bill by which they would be brought before the attention of Parliament, and that this matter is thereby covered.
    The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert): The whole of that statement as well as the question which led to it was thoroughly disorderly, if I may say so, but I hope it is satisfactory to the Committee. But we must not continue the discussion.
    Mr. Ede: I hope that I may be both orderly and satisfactory—for the time being, at any rate. This Clause is mainly concerned with people who are being trained or exercised in a voluntary capacity in services conducted by local authorities, and, therefore, it is very desirable that local authorities should be able to see the proposals. That is all we desire, because the local authorities will most likely have to explain them to these volunteers, for whom, naturally, they feel some responsibility. However, we accept the assurance that has been given by the Minister.
    Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 58.—(Power to transfer functions of defaulting authority.)
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    7.1 p.m.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I think the Committee will agree that the Minister must insist upon duties imposed upon local authorities being properly carried out. I am perfectly ready to consider the case, where the case is proved, of taking functions from one authority and handing them over to another which is more likely to carry through the work. I have the greatest admiration for the efficiency and the enthusiasm of county councils in Scotland, but it is a very serious proposal to suggest taking from the small burghs certain powers which are theirs. Subsection (1) (a) says:
    "If the defaulting authority are the council of a county district."
    and on page 63, in the case of Scotland, a county district means a small burgh. Small burghs hold a peculiar position of independence, and they cherish and cling to that independence with a grimness which it would be difficult perhaps for other than Scottish Members to understand. I am certain that they will look with considerable suspicion at a
    2382
    Clause which suggests in any circumstances that their power shall be transferred to the county council. The Clause sets out that that transfer can only take place after the holding of a local inquiry. Who is to order the local inquiry? How is it to be constituted? Who are to be the judges of whether the local authority has failed or not? It would be helpful if we could have the clearest statement on that matter because, suppose the inquiry found that a certain small burgh had failed in the performance of a vital function, the Minister has then to adopt one of two courses, either to hand over the function to the county council or to take it over himself. I suppose a third possibility would be that he could oblige the local authority to carry out the function. What are the circumstances that my right hon. Friend has in mind? What sort of functions does he anticipate may not be carried out by a small burgh. In what sort of case will he hand over the functions to the county council and in what sort of case will he take over the functions himself? In what sort of circumstances will he take neither of these courses but force the local authority to carry them out?
    There is a very important further consideration to be taken into account. If a small burgh loses its right to perform certain duties and they are handed over to the county council, the small burgh remains liable for the cost of performing the duty. Is it to sit by and see great sums spent without having the slightest opportunity of saying "Halt"? I want an answer to that question. These seem to me to be serious fears in the minds of the small burghs. In drafting the Clause were the small burghs consulted? Have they examined and approved it? Have we any reason to assume that they are not anxious? My information, such as it is, is that they are suspicious. I know that the small burghs are as anxious to play their patriotic part as any others and I am satisfied that the county councils, if ever they are required to do it, will carry out additional duties with great satisfaction, but the small burgh is a centuries old institution. It has powers and rights, some of them conferred upon them by the King himself in by-gone days, which they are determined to hang on to in all circumstances and it would cause a first-class row if these functions which they hold dear were in any circumstances

    2383
    to be transferred. I invite my right hon. Friend to make the fullest statement that he can to satisfy the Committee.
    7.7 p.m.
    Mr. Elliot: This is a reserve power only intended to be used in very exceptional circumstances. It is true that the Clause was not drawn up with the consent of the small burghs, or indeed of any burghs, and it is also true that, if this very exceptional power were exercised, the superseding authority would have the power to spend money not at the discretion of the smaller authorities. That is inherent in such a power. The Minister would hold the inquiry. He would have to be satisfied. We are dealing with conditions approximating to conditions of war, and the Committee must keep that in mind. I beg my hon. Friend to accept our assurance that we regard these as reserve functions only. We put this in because we must have a safety net to ensure that if for any reason any authority, a small or even a large burgh, were not carrying out such functions as it is the desire of Parliament that it should perform, there should be machinery by which such functions should be carried out. To go into detail at this moment might exacerbate feeling and lead to the detailing of a number of circumstances which I am sure will never arise. It ought not to be regarded as anything but an emergency power of the most exceptional character, and to define exceptional circumstances which in all probability will never arise will, I suggest, not facilitate our progress. I hope my hon. Friend will not press the point further.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: Can the Minister say that throughtout the country at present there is no local authority which is in any way wilfully taking such action as would make it necessary for this Clause to be applied?
    Mr. Elliot: Certainly, I know of no case in which it would be necessary.
    Mr. McLean Watson: I understood the Minister to say that it is not only small burghs that might be dealt with but large burghs as well, whose powers might be handed over to the county council.
    Mr. Elliot: Any local authority, even a county council. It is a reserve power for the purpose of ensuring that in fact the
    2384
    will of the National Executive should prevail. It is only in exceptional cases that the National Executive will take over functions which have been entrusted to the local executives.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: Would it be fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman does not anticipate ever having to use this power?
    Mr. Elliot: I say so in the most unqualified terms. Local authorities are only too anxious to perform the duties entrusted to them.
    Mr. David Adams: Is it not a fact that the Minister already has a power of mandamus?
    Mr. Elliot: I have considerable default powers under many other Acts.

    CLAUSE 59 (Determination of claims to compensation and increases of rent).
    Amendments made:
    In page 47, line 8, after "or," insert:
    "what is the net ascertained cost of works for the purposes of the provisions of Part III of this Act relating to factory premises occupied on short leases or."—[Mr. Fleming.]
    In line 11, after "increases," insert "and decreases."—[Mr. Spens.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 60 to 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 66.—(Exemption of certain works from building by-laws etc.)
    Amendment made: In page 50, line 33, after "excavations" insert:
    "or the reconstruction of or alterations to any such buildings."—[Mr. Westwood.]
    7.14 p.m.
    Mr. Ross Taylor: I beg to move, in page 51, line 1, after "advice," to insert:
    "or requirement or with the concurrence or approval."
    The Clause provides that statutory restrictions shall not apply to works which have been executed by any person on the advice of a Government Department. In some cases persons have to execute works not on the advice but with the concurrence or at the requirement of a Government Department, and the object of the Amend-

    2385
    ment is to extend the exemption to work executed with the concurrence or approval of the appropriate Government Department.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. Elliot: This Amendment is put forward to a Sub-section relating to works which the Minister has power to exempt, by regulations, from any requirements or restrictions relating to the submission of plans and specifications, and it applies in respect of air-raid shelters provided in accordance with the advice of the appropriate authority and also in respect of works of local authorities. This exemption is conferred by Sub-section (1) of the Clause on works executed by or in accordance with advice given by a local authority or a Government Department. The case put by my hon. Friend can be met by regulations made under Sub-section (2). It is pushing the Clause a little too far to ask that the proposed words be inserted.
    Mr. Ross Taylor: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    7.16 p.m.
    Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 51, line 5, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that the factory inspector or the mines inspector, as the case may be, shall send to the local authority a copy of any report submitted by the occupier of any factory premises or the owner of any mine together with a copy of any report submitted by him to such occupier or owner.
    Where, on receipt of any such report, it appears to the local authority that such works may—

    (i) adversely affect sewers, pipes, cables, mains provided by such local authority; or

    (ii) affect the stability of the premises in which such works are to be executed or of property adjoining thereto,

    the local authority may require plans of such works to be submitted to them for approval."
    I hope that I shall have as much success with this Amendment as I had with my last and I shall not trouble the Committee with a speech if I can have some indication from the Minister that it is likely to be accepted.
    Mr. Elliot: I do not think I can hold out the same hope to the hon. Gentleman on this occasion. I think the Amendment is not needed in the Bill as it stands and, secondly, that the Amendment would
    2386
    actually delay matters. We appreciate the anxiety of local authorities in these matters, but our desire, with which I am sure the hon. Member sympathises, is to secure that shelters shall be put up as early as possible and that all possible excuses for delay should be removed. I do not think it is necessary for the local authority to receive a copy of any report as suggested. Arrangements can be made by the Minister, for instance, for the local authority to be told when an air-raid shelter is going to be constructed underground in such and such premises. I can give the Committee an assurance and my hon. Friend also—if I may so call him—that every possible step will be taken in administration with regard to this matter.
    Mr. Westwood: I wish that the words on the Paper could have been accepted, because I think they would have made the administration more simple. I trust there will be that close relationship between local authority and central authority, and between employers and those who are responsible for the administration, which will make for friendly relationship and speed in dealing with this problem, and I am willing to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 67 to 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 71.—(Variation and revocation of orders.)
    7.20 p.m.
    Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, in page 52, line 30, at the end, to add:
    "and any notice served under Part III, Part IV or Part VI of this Act, may be withdrawn by a subsequent notice served on the same person and in the same manner.
    (2) Any Order in Council or Regulation made under this Act, any Order made under Part III of this Act (except an Order relating to specified factory premises), or under the provisions of this Act providing for the requisition of premises and vehicles or relating to local authorities in London and any scheme made by the Treasury under this Act shall, as soon as may be after it is made, be laid before Parliament.
    (3) If either House of Parliament within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which any such Order in Council, Regulation, Order, or scheme as aforesaid is laid before it, resolves that the Order in Council, Regulation, Order, or scheme be

    2387
    annulled, it shall thereupon become void, without prejudice, however, to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new Order in Council, Regulation, Order, or scheme.
    In reckoning any such period of forty days as aforesaid no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
    (4) Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, shall not apply to any Order in Council, Order, or scheme made under this Act."
    This is a machinery Amendment. As drafted, the Bill does not provide for the withdrawal of notices even if they turn out to be wrong. Obviously there should be express power of withdrawal.
    7.21 p.m.
    Mr. Fleming: This matter was raised yesterday upon the discussion of Clause 24 standing part of the Bill, and the Lord Privy Seal gave an assurance that whatever Regulations were made they would be published in draft. I would ask now whether those draft Regulations will be governed by the terms of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, which is mentioned in Sub-section (4) of the Amendment. Will the draft of the Regulations made under Sub-section (2) of the Amendment be subject to the Rules Publication Act? I was not quite clear whether the assurances given by my right hon. Friend intended simply that the draft should be laid before Parliament. Sub-section (4) of the Amendment excludes the Rules Publication Act, 1893, from applying to any Order in Council, etc., but it does not exclude it from a Regulation. That is the point that we were discussing, and I would definitely ask my right hon. Friend whether the Regulations referred to in Sub-section (2) will be governed by the Rules Publication Act, 1893.
    7.22 p.m.
    Mr. Elliot: The Sub-section does not say anything about the publication of rules. I understand that my hon. Friend is asking for some specific assurance on the matter, in pursuance of an undertaking given yesterday by the Lord Privy Seal. Would it be possible for him to accept an assurance that we shall look further into the point? I am sure that the matter is covered by the undertaking which was given. It would be undesirable for me to give an assurance as such.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 72.—(Definitions of "factory", "factory premises", "mine" and "commercial building" and interpretation of references to persons working and, persons employed.)
    7.24 p.m.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I beg to move, in page 52, line 39, at the end, to insert:
    "(c) the said expression does not include any factory in use for the purpose of the employment or training of blind persons, where the Minister has approved a scheme for the evacuation of such persons in event of emergency and where in event of such emergency taking place such persons are evacuated."
    Mr. Elliot: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Amendment is unnecessary. If it is reported to the factory inspector that such factory premises are to be evacuated he is not likely to serve them with a notice under Clause 13, and even if he did there is a right of appeal under Clause 14 that it is not reasonable to require the provision of any air-raid shelter in the premises.
    Miss Horsbrugh: In view of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    7.25 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 53, line 16, after "that," to insert:
    "(a) no mine shall be included in any factory premises except in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (4) of this Section;
    (b)"
    This is the first of a series of Amendments to deal with a relatively small point. As the Bill was originally drawn, a mine employing, say, 1,000 persons, might be under a company which held, contiguous to the mine, a small brickworks employing 51 persons. The whole establishment would be treated as factory premises and as coming under the factory inspector and not the mines inspector. As a departmental arrangement that was considered unsatisfactory. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that, where a factory and a mine are run in conjunction with each other, the greater shall dominate the whole. If the factory premises employ a larger number of

    2389
    people than the mine, the establishment would be treated as a factory, and vice versa.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 53, line 30, after the second "in," insert "or about."
    In line 31, at the end insert "by virtue of the next following Sub-section."
    In line 32, at the end, insert:
    "(4) Where any factory premises are contiguous to a mine and are occupied by the owner of the mine, then—

    (a) if the number of persons working in or about the mine exceeds the number of persons working in the factory comprised in the factory premises, the factory premises shall be deemed to form part of the mine for the purposes of this Act;

    (b) if the number of persons working in the factory exceeds the number of persons working in or about the mine, the mine shall be deemed to form part of the factory premises for the purposes of this Act."—[Sir J. Anderson.]

    7.26 p.m.
    Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 54, line 6, at the end, to insert:
    "And provided that a commercial building shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed not to include any part of that building which is separate and distinct from the remainder of the building and which is used exclusively for residential purposes."
    This Amendment is to deal with the position of a building which includes a commercial building and a large block of residential flats. As the Bill was drafted the whole of the premises were under the obligations imposed on a commercial building. The purpose of the Amendment is that the residential part of the building shall be regarded as structurally separate and distinct, and as not included in the definition of a commercial building for the purpose of this Measure.
    Sir J. Anderson: I am prepared to advise the Committee to accept the Amendment, although we may have to look at the wording again. The subject-matter of the Amendment is rather complicated, but the view of the Government is that an Amendment on these lines is desirable.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 74.—(Application to Scotland.)
    8.42 p.m.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I beg to move, in page 56, line 41, to leave out "not exercise," and to insert "before exercising."
    This Amendment should be read with the Amendment which immediately follows, and the purpose of the two Amendments, read together, is as follows. Under Part II of the Bill, which deals with the designation of shelters, in Scotland the local authority in a small burgh is the small burgh itself and not the county council as is the case in England. Obviously, it is essential that there should be a measure of co-ordination between the county council and the small burgh which would be exercising the functions under Part II of the Bill. As the Clause is drafted, provision is made for the small burgh to exercise its functions only with the consent of the county council. As a result of representations and discussions based upon the type of questions to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) referred a little earlier in the Debate, a compromise has been reached by substituting for the consent of the county council a provision that there should be consultation. I think that will meet the type of difficulty to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: This is an Amendment which, as the representative of a good many small burghs, I welcome with great pleasure.
    8.44 p.m.
    Mr. Westwood: Having some little knowledge of local administration in Scotland, I must say that this Amendment goes in the right direction, in that it will bring about that close action which is necessary at this time in regard to small burghs, and in county burghs, as I presume it will be necessary to have consultations with them. I assume that similar consultations may be necessary with the large burghs if we are to get the full benefits that ought to accrue as a result of consultations.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 56, line 42, leave out "otherwise than with the consent of," and insert "consult with."
    In page 57, line 30, leave out paragraph (f).—[The Lord Advocate.]
    The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 58, line 5, at the end, to insert:
    "'easement' means servitude; 'sell' includes feu."
    These are customary adaptations of English technical terms.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 59, line 27, at the end, to insert "or of the common law."
    This is the first of several Amendments all of which find their justification in this fact. In Scotland, the Dean of Guild court, which is the authority over building regulations and matters of that kind, in some instances derives its authority from the common law, apart altogether from express statutory enactments or bylaws. The Dean of Guild Court is, I should say, a feature of burghal administration.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 59, line 40, leave out "conform to," and insert "comply with."
    In page 62, line 25, at the end, insert:
    "(13) In Section forty-six, Sub-section (2) shall be omitted."—[The Lord Advocate.]
    The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 62, line 38, at the end, to insert:
    "and for paragraph (b) of Sub-section (7) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:
    (b) notwithstanding anything in Subsection (9) of Section thirteen of the Act of 1937, the provisions therein referred to of paragraph 4 of Part II of the Third Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1932, shall not apply."
    The sole purpose and effect of this Amendment is to avoid an unnecessary piece of legislation by reference.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 62, line 41, after "substituted," insert "respectively."—[The Lord Advocate.]
    The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 63, line 27, to leave out from "functions," to the end of line 4, page 64, and to insert:
    "(b) where by an Order under this Section the Minister has transferred to himself any functions of a defaulting authority any expenses incurred by him in discharging those

    2413
    functions 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 by him as a debt due to the Crown; and that authority shall have the like power of raising the money required as they have of raising money for defraying expenses incurred directly by them;
    (c) any Order made by the Minister under this Section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order made by the Minister, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under the Order, and when any Order is so revoked, the Minister may either by the revoking Order or by a supplementary Order make such provision as appears to him desirable with respect to the transfer, vesting, and discharge of any property, debts, or liabilities acquired or incurred by the county council or by him in discharging any of the functions to which the Order so revoked related."
    Once again the purpose of this Amendment is to set out at length certain provisions which previously had been incorporated by reference to another Statute.
    8.47 p.m.
    Mr. Westwood: I think it right that in all Measures of this kind there should be a defaulting Clause and I have no objection to a Clause which gives power to the central authority to take action in the event of a local authority failing to do its duty for the purpose of defending, it may be, the lives of the people in its area. But there is a point on which I wish for further explanation. Powers are being taken here by the central authority to charge the local authority for expenditure incurred by the central authority in carrying out duties which ought to have been carried out by the local authority. There is no definite provision, however, for the payment of the grants which would otherwise have been earned by the defaulting local authority, against which is being charged the full cost of the carrying out of these duties by the central authority. I say, frankly, that an authority which does not do its duty cannot complain too much if it is fined for that default, but the burden may be too severe for the local ratepayers who will have to suffer for this lack of action on the part of their elected representatives. I would like it to be made clear that even if the work has to be done by the central authority, and the cost charged against the defaulting local authority, consideration will be given to the grants which would have been earned
    2414
    by the local authority if it had carried out its statutory duty.
    8.50 p.m.
    The Lord Advocate: The point raised by the hon. Member should have been raised on Clause 58 and not as a separate Scottish point, on the Scottish application of the Measure, but I do not press that technical objection. I am bound to point out, however, that under Clause 58 (6) and under the corresponding Scottish provision in Clause 74 which I now propose to amend slightly, it is part of the deliberate policy of the Bill that a defaulting authority should not have expenditure for work carried out on its behalf treated as ranking for grant. That has been passed by the Committee as regards England in Clause 58, and all that is proposed in the Amendment is that similar provision should be made for Scotland. I think it was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health when we were discussing Clause 58 that the powers under that Clause were purely reserve and emergency powers and that there was no reason to anticipate that it would ever be necessary to put them into operation. My right hon. Friend further stated in plain terms that he was unaware of any case at present which would render necessary the exercise of such powers. I must be perfectly definite, however, in saying that is is not by inadvertence, but of set purpose that a defaulting authority is being treated as not entitled to grant if its work has to be done by somebody else.
    8.52 p.m.
    Mr. Westwood: Having listened carefully to the explanation given by the Minister of Health on Clause 58, I still think that an injustice may be done under this provision to local ratepayers, who are not to blame for the inaction of their local authority, if it has defaulted in the circumstances contemplated. I do not intend to press this matter to a Division. I have already indicated my view that a local authority ought to be fined for not doing its duty, but at the same time justice ought to be applied, not only to the local authority itself, but to the ratepayers of its area, and the burden imposed under this provision may be far too heavy for the local ratepayers to bear. All I ask is that between now and the Report stage some further consideration should be given to this point with a view to avoiding unnecessary hardship to the ratepayers. It

    2415
    was made clear by the Minister of Health, that although this defaulting provision is contained in many Acts of Parliament, it has never yet been found necessary to use it. That is not because it ought not to have been used, because I have in mind many cases in which such a provision ought to have been applied by the central authority in the interests of good administration, where authorities were defaulting in their statutory duties. In this case, in the interests of the safety of people living in the areas of these local authorities, it ought to be even more speedily exercised, but I still maintain that a grievous hardship may be imposed on the ratepayers unless some provision is made for allowing some form of grant in respect of what the authority would have received, had it carried out its duties properly. I hope that in the interests of already overburdened ratepayers in many parts of Scotland, further consideration will be given to the matter.
    8.55 p.m.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The technique to be adopted in the case of a local authority defaulting in its functions is the holding of a local inquiry by the Minister, which means in effect by the Department. That means that the Department will decide whether or not the local authority has defaulted, and upon the decision of the Department the local authority will lose its functions and will be penalised. That is a very serious proposal to make, and I think my right hon. and learned Friend might do well to reflect upon it between now and the Report stage.
    Mr. Logan: I am a little hazy on this question, and I should like to know where we stand. Who is the authority that is mentioned here? Is it to be the council? There is a question as between the ratepayers and the council. Which is the authority?
    Mr. Watson: I should like—
    Mr. Logan: On a point of Order. I want an answer to my question.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think, perhaps, the hon. Member might wait until the Minister replies.
    8.57 p.m.
    Mr. Watson: When the Minister of Health was dealing with the earlier Clause, I was concerned about this defaulting provision and the power that a certain local
    2416
    authority would exercise over another because of this defaulting. I would not have intervened now, however, if it had not been for what I consider the rather remarkable doctrine laid down for our country with regard to the responsibility of the ratepayers. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) appealed to the Lord Advocate to reconsider the matter in order to safeguard the local ratepayers where a local authority has defaulted. I think the local ratepayers, if they are conscious of their duties, have opportunities of bringing their views to the notice of their representatives on the local authority, and if the ratepayers have not taken the avenues open to them to bring pressure to bear on their representatives, I do not see how any more responsibility rests upon the councillors than upon the ratepayers. The ratepayers are in a position, as well as their representatives on the council, to know whether or not those representatives are defaulting, and I must confess that I was rather surprised at the appeal that was made by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk to reconsider this matter in the interests of these poor overburdened ratepayers. I think the responsibility has as much right to rest on the ratepayers as on the members of the town council. I think there should be a fair distribution of the responsibility.
    I believe we are discussing something that is absolutely unnecessary, because I do not think any local authority will default to such an extent as to cause another local authority to come in and take these powers out of their hands. I believe that each local authority will do its duty without any defaulting at all, and that these provisions are merely precautionary. I was surprised at the suggestion that a burgh might have to have its powers taken over by a county council. If there is any default at all, I believe that we shall have a county council being placed under the charge of some large burgh, and that that is the direction in which things will go if there is any defaulting under this Bill. However, if the Lord Advocate is prepared to listen to the appeal of my hon. Friend, I am prepared to wait and see what the right hon. and learned Gentleman brings forward in the shape of an Amendment to meet the point.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. David Adams: There is only one point that I would like to raise. I quite

    2417
    agree that in the case of defaulting local authorities the Minister or another authority should have power to proceed with these works, but it seems to me unreasonable that if such works are carried out, the local authority should lose the benefit of grant. That seems to me not to be just. Every scheme that is carried out ought to bear the grant that would attach to it, whether it is carried out by the Minister or by another local authority. The case is, we hope, very remote and will possibly never occur, but it seems to me that to penalise the ratepayers still further by loss of grant is unjust and that the grant ought to be added in any case, no matter who carries out the work.
    9.1 p.m.
    The Lord Advocate: I find myself in some little difficulty in replying to the questions put to me, because, with all respect to you, Colonel Clifton Brown, I cannot see how the question of the grant to the defaulting authority arises on the Amendment before us.
    Mr. Adams: The Minister referred to it.
    The Lord Advocate: If I may, in answer to the questions put, I would point out, in the first place, that if one looks back to Clause 58, one will see that the only local authorities whose functions can be transferred under the default power to the county council are the council of a county district in England or a small burgh in Scotland. In the case of large burghs in Scotland, in answer, I think, to the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) and the corresponding authority in England, the transfer is to the Minister himself, so that the fear expressed from certain quarters that there would be wholesale transfers to county councils is not well founded. The second observation that I would make is that this question, if it has any merits, as to which I am not in a position to speak, is a question which is common to both Scotland and England, and one which arises properly for consideration on Clause 58. I approach the matter, as I am bound to do at this stage of the Bill, upon the footing that this Committee has passed Clause 58 and has declared that for England Clause 58 is to be the rule that is to apply, and, that being so, the only question to which I have to address my mind is whether any other rule ought to
    2418
    apply in Scotland and whether any case can be made out for differentiation on the two sides of the Border. To that question I can see only one answer, namely, that if the defaulting authority is not to be allowed to have the benefit of grant in England, I cannot see why the defaulting authority in Scotland should be treated in any other way.
    On the wider question, I would venture to agree, and I would adopt the argument of the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) when he pointed out with considerable force that this Clause, if it operates, will operate only in the most extreme circumstances, when there has been some really flagrant neglect on the part of a local authority to carry out its duty. I cannot imagine such neglect resulting in the exercise by the Minister of the default powers until that neglect had lasted for such a long time that the ratepayers had been led to demand some action.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 64, line 22, leave out from the second "section," to "shall," in line 24.
    In line 31, leave out "and paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2) shall not apply."
    In line 36, leave out from "sixty-six," to "dean," in line 38, and insert:
    "any reference to requirements or restrictions imposed by or under any enactment as to the matters specified in that Section shall include a reference to any requirement imposed by or under any enactment, or by virtue of the common law as to the presentation of a petition to a."
    In page 65, line 6, leave out "local authority," and insert "county or town council."
    In line 9, leave out "authority," and insert "council."
    In line 10, leave out "local authority," and insert "county or town council."—[The Lord Advocate.]
    The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 65, line 18, at the end, to insert:
    "(24) Where by virtue of the Rating Exemptions (Scotland) Act, 1874, or of the corresponding provisions of any local Act, any exemption from payment of local rates is enjoyed in respect of any lands and heritages such exemption shall not cease by reason only of their being used for any of the purposes of the Act of 1937 or of this Act, if such use is granted gratuitously or subject only to a

    2419
    reasonable payment in respect of cleaning, heating, lighting, or other services, and no profit is derived from such payment."
    The purpose of this Amendment is one which, I think, will commend itself to the Committee in that it will encourage the free use for A.R.P. purposes of religious halls and similar buildings. The obstacle which at present exists to such free use is a rule of Scots law, depending on a decision interpreting the Act of 1874, to the effect that the exemption from rating enjoyed by such halls is lost if they are used for purposes other than religious purposes. It does not depend on the receipt of money or the making of profit, but on the nature of the use. Accordingly, in the Amendment it is proposed to preserve the exemption from liability to rating if a hall is used for A.R.P. purposes and its use is granted gratuitously or in return for a payment to cover out of pocket expenses.
    9.9 p.m.
    Mr. Westwood: This is a vast improvement on things as they are at present. I know of churches which have been willing to give their church halls for A.R.P. purposes, but they have had to withdraw their offer because they found that if they made a reasonable charge for cleaning, lighting, and so on, it would bring them within the law as to rating. It is, therefore, impossible for them to give the assistance they desire to give. This Amendment will help as in connection with A.R.P. work in Scotland.
    9.10 p.m.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is this Amendment drafted widely enough to include the use of halls for the social and recreational activities of A.R.P. volunteers? Recreational organisations are being set up throughout the country for A.R.P. volunteers, and the first thing they look for is a suitable building in which to hold their social gatherings.
    The Lord Advocate: This new Subsection is deliberately linked up with the Rating Exemptions (Scotland) Act, 1874, which applies only to Scotland. The law in England differs from the law in Scotland in this respect. I cannot, therefore, commit myself to an answer so far as England is concerned. This Amendment is definitely adapted to meet Scottish requirements.
    Mr. Morrison: In Scotland, as in England, there are being set up social organisations for A.R.P. volunteers to enable them to meet together for social purposes. The Lord Privy Seal's Department is giving great encouragement to that movement. In the event of church halls in Scotland being required for whist drives, social gatherings, re-unions of volunteers, and so on, will the Sub-section be wide enough to enable them to be let for that purpose?
    The Lord Advocate: The Sub-section allows the halls to be used for any of the purposes of the Act of 1937 and of this Bill. I cannot recall any provision in either Measure which deals with whist drives and such purposes, but I have no doubt that they will be given a wide interpretation. I am not, however, prepared to commit myself.
    Mr. Morrison: I suggest that as the demand for church halls will be greater for social and recreational purposes than for any other purposes in connection with A.R.P., perhaps the Government will consider before the Report stage whether this provision is wide enough for that purpose.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    POSTPONED CLAUSE 7.—(Underground shelters.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    9.14 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I desire to make a suggestion as to procedure which I hope may suit the convenience of the Committee. The Committee may remember that when we reached Clause 7 I made a suggestion, which was accepted, that the consideration of the Clause should be postponed in view of the fact that the Government desired to consider whether a clause could be framed to supplement the provisions already in the Clause to deal with the case where underground air-raid shelters or air-raid works might be provided in such a way as to involve the disturbance and reinstatement of the surface of the site concerned. The pro-

    2421
    visions of Clause 7 as drafted were limited to the case where the surface was left undisturbed except so far as might be necessary to provide shafts or exits and entrances. A revised draft Clause covering the ground of the existing Clause 7, and a further clause dealing with the additional matter to which I have just referred, are to be found on the Order Paper. One is a clause for dealing with:
    "Powers of local authorities to construct underground shelters and other premises required for civil defence purposes."
    The other is concerned with:
    "Powers of local authorities to construct underground car-parks suitable for use as air-raid shelters."
    Those two Clauses, which are interconnected, cover all the ground I mentioned when I suggested originally the postponement of consideration of Clause 7, and they go somewhat further, because they provide also for the construction of works under existing highways. In the process of redrafting, certain Amendments that have already appeared on the Paper in relation to the original Clause 7 have been picked up. The new Clauses cover a considerable field and deal with matters of very great importance which raise a certain number of controversial issues, and what I would suggest to the Committee is that, if they think fit, the existing Clause 7 should be formally negatived, the new Clauses should be formally moved into the Bill, so that when the Bill passes from Committee they may appear in their proper place, and that on the Report Stage, but not before, all the issues that may arise on those Clauses should be thoroughly dealt with.
    9.18 p.m.
    Mr. Greenwood: Clause 7 is one on which there has been a good deal of difficulty. I am of the opinion myself that, subject to understandings which have been reached through the usual channels, the Clause as it is now drafted should be formally negatived and the two new Clauses formally accepted, on the understanding that on Report stage we shall be enabled to have a pretty full Debate on the issues which are covered. If that be so, of course we shall be glad to accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
    Mr. Ammon: There is one point which I raised earlier with the Lord Privy Seal which I should like to mention. He appreciates that in Sub-section (7) of
    2422
    Clause 49 the same point arises, and I presume that will be dealt with similarly.
    Sir J. Anderson: On Report.
    Mr. Fleming: I was going to raise the same point as regards Sub-section (7) of Clause 49 and to ask whether that will come in with the new Clauses.
    Sir J. Anderson: I suggest that that should be dealt with on the Report stage after the new Clauses have been dealt with.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: May I ask whether you are a party to this arrangement, Colonel Clifton Brown? Some of us may have Amendments to put forward on the Report stage, when discussion is very much more limited, and I should like to know whether the arrangement made through the usual channels has received your blessing.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I must make my position clear. I am entirely in the hands of the Committee. If anybody objects to this proceeding the Chair will have to call the Amendments which are upon the Paper, but personally I think the sensible course would be to take the line which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.
    Sir J. Anderson: I think it should be understood that when the new Clauses are reached they will be formally recommitted. That will be the intention of the Government.
    Mr. Woods: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication of when the Report stage will be taken?
    Mr. David Adams: Shall we be able to put down any Amendments we have in mind?
    The Deputy-Chairman: There will be no restriction whatever upon that, but whether they will be selected or not is another matter.
    Mr. Fleming: We were given an assurance about certain Amendments that when the new Clauses were reached we should be given an opportunity of discussing them, and on that assurance we withdrew the Amendments in certain cases.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member puts me into a position of some difficulty. In Committee I am not in a position to give an assurance that a particular

    2423
    matter will be discussed on the Report stage, but I can only indicate that I think it will be extremely likely.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Consultation with joint committees under Act of 1937.)
    Where, by virtue of an order made under Sub-section (2) of Section four of the Act of 1937 the functions of a council in preparing and submitting air-raid precautions schemes or under any air-raid precautions scheme for the time being in force are, as respects the area specified in the order, exercised by a joint committee, the council shall, before exercising in that area any function under Parts II, III, IV or VIII of this Act, consult with the joint committee.—[Sir J. Anderson.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    9.22 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This is purely a machinery Clause to deal with a case where a number of authorities form a joint committee under Section 4 (2) of the Act of 1937 for the purpose of preparing and submitting their air-raid precautions scheme. There are very few such cases, but the authorities concerned have asked for a provision in the terms of this Clause, and the terms have been agreed with the authorities concerned. The object, as is plain on the face of the Clause, is to ensure that a joint committee which is responsible for preparing an air-raid precautions scheme shall be consulted by the constituent authorities before they exercise functions under Parts II, III, IV or VIII of the present Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Contributions in respect of works commenced before the passing of this Act.)
    (1) Where any person having any estate or interest in factory premises or a commercial building or any part thereof has, before the passing of this Act, commenced works for the purpose of providing air-raid shelter of an approved type for all or any of the persons wording or living in the premises or building, he may make a claim to the tribunal by which claims for compensation and increases and decreases of rent are determined under this Act for the payment of contributions by all or any of the persons hereinafter mentioned towards the expenses incurred in providing the shelter, and the said tribunal may order the payment of such contributions by such of the said persons as it considers just.
    (2) The persons liable to make contributions under the preceding Sub-section are persons having an estate in fee simple or a lease-hold interest in the factory premises or commercial building, or any part thereof, being an estate or interest in existence at the passing of this Act or at the date of the completion of the works, whichever is the later, and not being an estate or interest in reversion expectant on a lease the unexpired term of which is ten years or more.
    (3) The said tribunal in determining a claim under this Section—

    (a) may set aside or vary the terms of any agreement entered into before the passing of this Act to such extent as may be necessary to give effect to his determination;

    (b) may order that the contributions (if any) shall take the form of increases or decreases of rent, or of lump sum or periodical payments, and, if they take the form of payments, may order that they shall be charged on the interests of the persons liable therefor.

    (4) In this Section, references to the expenses incurred by any person in providing air-raid shelter shall include references to—

    (a) any sum which he is lable to pay as compensation for interference with the use of any part of the factory premises or commercial building during the execution of the works, or for the impairment of the value of any such part by reason of the execution of the works;

    (b) if the works are executed in a part of the premises or building occupied by him or impair the value of a part in which he has an estate or interest, such sum as may be just in respect of the interference with the use of that part or, as the case may be, the impairment of its value.

    (5) The provisions of this Act relating to the determination of claims for compensation and increases and decreases of rent shall apply in relation to the determination of claims for contributions under this Section.—[Sir J. Anderson.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause has been drafted for the purpose of giving effect to a promise I made on, I think, the first day in Committee, when we were discussing a series of Amendments moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Withington (Mr. Fleming) with the object of dealing with the position that might arise where, in the case of a commercial building, shelter work had been started before the passing of this Bill. For that purpose it is unnecessary to make any provision with regard to the Exchequer subsidy, because the Bill already provides for the payment of Exchequer subsidy in the case of shelters provided before the Bill

    2425
    passes into law, but where provision is required is in regard to the adjustment of relations and the distribution of expenditure between the various parties concerned, that is to say, between the owner and the various tenants or occupiers.
    The Bill, as drawn, provides certain safeguards with the object of ensuring that those upon whom expenditure may fall as the result of action taken under the Bill shall have a reasonable opportunity of protecting their interests. Those safeguards take the form of a requirement that notice should be served, with a provision for appeal. It is, obviously, a matter of very considerable difficulty to provide that such procedure should be given retrospective effect. What we have sought to do in this Clause is to bring the whole matter in its widest aspects before an appropriate authority—we have chosen the Official Arbitrator—who may go into the merits of the case and, having done so, and having ascertained the views of those concerned, may make such apportionment of the cost as he considers in all the circumstances to be equitable. We empower any person who has an estate or interest in the premises in which shelter is provided to apply for an apportionment to be made. That would cover the case of a tenant who has proceeded because the owner had been unwilling to accept what is generally recognised as his moral obligation in regard to the provision of shelter.
    Sub-section (1) also has reference to shelter for all or any of the persons working on the premises. It is put in that form because it seems necessary to deal with cases where someone might have wished to make a start by providing a limited amount of shelter without any definite idea as to the obligation that might be imposed under the Bill. Subsection (3) provides that the arbitrator may set aside or vary the terms of any agreement entered into before the passing of the Bill to such an extent as may be necessary to give effect to his determination. These are admittedly somewhat sweeping and even drastic powers, but this seemed to me and my advisers the only practical method of giving effect to what was clearly the general desire of the Committee that those who had taken action in anticipation of the passing of the Bill, in accordance with the desire of the Government, should not thereby
    2426
    be debarred from securing an equitable apportionment of the financial burden involved.
    Mr. Lewis: I understand that the Clause is governed by the sentence at the beginning of Clause 9:
    "This part of this Act…shall apply only in relation to areas specified in that behalf in an Order made by the Minister."
    There is nothing in the Clause to show that that is so.
    Sir J. Anderson: That is a question that arises apart from this Clause. I undertook at an earlier stage to introduce on Report an Amendment, not confined to the case of a commercial building but dealing also with the case of a factory building, to meet that particular case. I undertook by an Amendment on Clause 10 to deal with two points. One was the case of a shelter provided in a non-specified area, and the other the case of a shelter which had been provided in anticipation, before the employers' code had been issued, which though not exactly conforming to the code of approved shelter, was reasonably equivalent to that standard. That will be dealt with by an Amendment on Report. [Interruption.] It is not "factories and commercial buildings," but "factory premises or a commercial building." "Factory premises" has a special meaning under the interpretation Clause. The only difficulty which arises is in the case of a commercial building, where the owner is made responsible for the provision of shelter and has to apportion the cost among the occupiers. In the case of a mine or a factory in the ordinary sense, it is the occupier on whom the responsibility is placed, and none of these complication arise.
    Mr. Spens: The only point that I have on the Clause is that it is governed by the sentence:
    "for the purpose of providing air-raid shelter of an approved type."
    Sir J. Anderson: Here we have reproduced the words that exist in an earlier Clause, which would be defective if they were not interpreted by an Amendment, which I have promised to submit, on Report, to Clause 10.
    9.23 p.m.
    Dr. Guest: I am strongly in favour of getting the Bill through as early as possible for public reasons, but the Clause is such an extraordinarily complicated legal

    2427
    document that I feel I should like to have the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on its legal aspect. It deals with a large number of complicated matters—compensation, increases and decreases of rent—and gives power to set aside and vary the terms of any agreement. I should like to be assured that it does not introduce a new complexity instead of simplifying matters.
    Sir J. Anderson: I can give the hon. Member the assurance that, while it is wide in its scope, it really, in effect, leaves all the questions that arise to the determination of the Official Arbitrator. It does not introduce any new complication.
    9.24 p.m.
    Mr. Fleming: There is one difficulty as regards Sub-section (2). This is a question of the owner recovering from his tenants the expense to which he has been put in providing certain shelters. He is limited to 10 years. The case I have in mind is where there is a freeholder who has let on a lease of, say, 99 years and then there is a sub-lease of, say, three years and the sub-lessee is in occupation and he has, say, three years to run. He has the responsibility of providing the shelter. The owner can look to the sub-lessee for the recovery of his outgoings in the form of rent, but he has only a period of three years in which to recover them. That covers three-tenths of his expenses. The Sub-section says:
    "not being an estate or interest in reversion expectant on a lease the unexpired term of which is 10 years or more."
    That means that the owner is limited to three years in which to recover his expenses. Does it mean that for that period of three years he can recover the whole of his expenditure, or must he look to the lessee when the sub-lessee's term is finished, for the remaining seven-tenths? This may sound a complicated question, but the point is, who is to bear the burden eventually of the cost of these air-raid precautions?
    9.36 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: The answer is that the intention is that the Official Arbitrator should so proceed as to put the parties as far as practicable in the same position as if the work had been carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Bill after the Bill had passed into law,
    2428
    care being taken, everyone acting reasonably and taking due care at every stage, to ensure that persons on whom obligations were being put, or who might be required to contribute to the cost of the works, were given the fullest opportunity of protecting their interests. That will be the function of the arbitrator and that is the purpose that we have endeavoured to achieve in this Clause. Drafting has not been a simple matter in this case.
    9.37.p.m.
    Mr. David Adams: I should like to ask about the tribunal which is, I understand, to consist of an official arbitrator. We do not know the official arbitrator in the North of England. We have never met him or heard of him. Is he to act alone, to have advisers, or to be supported in any particular way? He has a very important function for one individual; may I inquire whether his position is to be like the umpire under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and against whose decision there is no appeal? Is there any appeal against the decisions of this tribunal which is to consist of one individual only?
    9.38.p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I would point out to the Committee that there is already in Clause 59, which deals with compensation, a reference to the Official Arbitrators appointed for the purpose of acquisition of land under the Assessment of Compensation Act, 1919. These functionaries are fairly well known. Their jurisdiction extends throughout England and Wales—I am not sure of the position in regard to Scotland. I understand that the position is different there, and that will be a matter for the Scottish application Clause. Unless I am mistaken, the official arbitrators are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, the President of the Surveyors' Institute and the President of the Law Society, acting together. These gentlemen make the panel of the official arbitrators.
    Mr. David Adams: And there is no appeal against their decision?
    Sir J. Anderson: Except by case stated on a point of law.
    Mr. Westwood: I understand that on the Report stage the necessary adaptation will be made in regard to the position in Scotland?
    Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Loans by local authorities to owners of dwelling-houses.)
    (1) The local authority may advance money to the owner of any premises comprising a dwelling-house in an area specified by the Minister in an order made under Part III of this Act (not being premises the occupier of which has been provided free of charge, on behalf of His Majesty, with materials for an air-raid shelter) for the purpose of enabling the owner to provide in the premises an air raid shelter of a permanent character.
    (2) Every such advance shall be repaid with interest within such period not exceeding 10 years from the date of the advance as may be agreed, and the rate of interest shall be such a rate as may be agreed, not being a rate less than one-quarter per cent. in excess of the rate of interest which, one month before the date on which the terms of the advance are settled, was the rate fixed by the Treasury under Section one of the Public Works Loans Act, 1897, in respect of loans to local authorities advanced out of the Local Loans Fund for the purposes of Part V of the Housing Act, 1936.
    (3) Any amount due to a local authority by way of repayment of an advance made by them under this Section may be recovered summarily as a civil debt, and shall be a charge on the premises in respect of which the advance was made, and the local authority shall, for the purpose of enforcing any such charge, have the same powers and remedies under the Law of Property Act, 1925, and otherwise as they would have if they were mortgagees by deed having powers of sale and lease and of appointing a receiver.
    (4) The Public Works Loans Commissioners may, if they think fit, make loans in the manner provided by the Public Works Loans Act, 1875, to any local authority for the purpose of enabling the authority to make advances under this Section, and the enactments relating to loans made by the said Commissioners shall apply (so far as applicable) to loans made by virtue of this Subsection as they apply to loans made under Section nine of the said Act.
    (5) In this Section the expression "owner" in relation to any premises, means the person in whom the fee simple is vested, and includes also, a lessee of the premises under a lease, the unexpired term of which exceeds three years.—[Sir J. Anderson.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    9.39 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause is put forward to deal with a class of case with which I think we all have considerable sympathy. It con-
    2430
    cerns those people who are in such a position that they cannot be the recipients of free shelters and should have the acquisition of shelters at their own cost made as easy for them as possible. The course taken in drafting the proposed new Clause has been to authorise local authorities to make a provision, not for the installation of the shelters, because they are given no powers at all and no duties in that connection, but for the supply of shelters or materials for shelters on terms which involve repayment, subject to a reasonable rate of interest, over a period not exceeding 10 years, the outstanding loan for that period to be secured on the property. This is a somewhat novel provision, but obviously from a public point of view it is of very great importance that those citizens who are considered to be above the level at which free provision should be made at the cost of the State should have it made as easy as possible to provide themselves with shelters.
    9.41 p.m.
    Mr. Ammon: I presume that the new Clause should be read in conjunction with Clause 67, which reads:
    "Nothing in any covenant or agreement requiring any person to keep specified premises in, or to restore specified premises to, a particular condition shall authorise or compel any person to interfere with any works executed on those premises under this Act, or subject him to any liability of tie does not do so."
    I presume that the Minister will issue a code to owners and to local authorities describing the proper types of shelters. Otherwise, there will be all sorts of variations, and local authorities will be put into difficulties. It is understood that the new Clause will apply only to shelters conforming to the code which, I presume, the Lord Privy Seal is to issue.
    9.43 p.m.
    Sir I. Albery: My hon. Friend the Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Boulton) and I have placed upon the Paper a proposed new Clause to deal with this matter. I raised the question on the Second Reading of the Bill and I am grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for putting down his new Clause, but I feel that it only partly solves the difficulty. I am particularly concerned because the proposed new Clause does not cover a considerable number of cases. All the people who have bought reasonably-priced houses on hire purchase will probably be covered as owners, but,

    2431
    on the other hand, there appears to be a section of the population which may be occupying houses upon a yearly tenancy and which may be entirely left out of these provisions. When we come to the section of the population who are probably better off and who have houses on a leasehold basis, we see that they are provided for. It will be generally agreed that houses let on lease for 7, 14 or 21 years are usually occupied by people with better means and resources than are houses taken on a yearly tenancy. The latter class is entirely omitted from the new Clause.
    There is one other point. In the new Clause put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Sheffield and myself, which is probably very inadequately drafted, because the matter is a complicated one and not easy to deal with unless one is learned in the law and accustomed to this kind of drafting, we did provide that the burden of providing these shelters with the assistance of the local authorities by way of loan was equitably distributed between the actual owner of the house and the tenant for the time being. My right hon. Friend's Clause, as far as I understand it, throws the burden to a far greater extent on the person who would usually be regarded as the tenant than upon the owner. Take the case of the man who has an unexpired lease of, say, four years. It seems to me that under this Clause he would be entitled to obtain loan assistance for putting up a shelter, but at the end of his lease the shelter would become the property of the landlord, who had made no contribution towards the expense of putting it up. Perhaps, when my right hon. Friend replies, he will deal with that point.
    9.47 p.m.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: Could the right hon. Gentleman be a little more specific in regard to this Clause, particularly as to the phrase:
    "for the purpose of enabling the owner to provide in the premises an air-raid shelter of a permanent character."
    Does that mean one of the garden shelters which are being issued now, or one of the new brick and cement shelters that will be issued presently; and will the local authorities be given any elasticity as to the amount of the loan? In many cases the opportunity may be taken, and I do not
    2432
    see why it should not, by owners who have acquired small houses from the local authority under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, to make an improvement to the house by building an underground garage. In view of the fact that they themselves are going to pay for it, I do not see any reason why a loan should not be allowed for the provision of such an underground garage, which may at the same time be a useful air-raid shelter. Is it the intention to give the local authorities sufficient elasticity in applying these words to cover a case of that kind? Further, I would like to ask whether there is any intention to ask the local authorities to limit themselves to a certain figure, or whether it is proposed to allow them to make grants up to an unspecified amount?
    9.49 p.m.
    Mr. Duncan: Sub-section (4) of the Clause provides that:
    "The Public Works Loans Commissioners may, if they think fit, make loans in the manner provided by the Public Works Loans Act, 1875, to any local authority for the purpose of enabling the authority to make advances under this Section."
    In Clause 69 the definition of a local authority as regards London includes not only the London County Council, but
    "the common council of the City, the council of any metropolitan borough, the district surveyor, and the respective overseers of the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple."
    Is it contemplated that each one of these authorities should have the right to apply to the Public Works Loans Commissioners for loans for these purposes? I am not quite sure how far it is statutory, but it is the practice of smaller local authorities to work through the London County Council, who either draw money themselves from the Public Works Loans Commissioners or issue stock to the public. I should have thought that, as a matter of administrative convenience, it would have been easier that the money should all be raised through one channel, and that all these small authorities should have the right to go to the Public Works Loans Commissioners for what may in some cases be comparatively small sums. Would my right hon. Friend look into this point and see if anything can be done to make the intention clear, so that the local authorities in London may know to what authority they should go?
    9.52 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: This is a somewhat complicated matter, and I must apologise to the Committee if I seem to be somewhat imperfectly equipped to deal with every aspect that has been raised, but there are certain points with which I can deal fairly adequately. First of all, there is the point raised by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) as regards the nature of the shelters for which it is contemplated that local authorities might advance money. The Clause has been drawn rather widely to give scope for administration. It refers to
    "an air-raid shelter of a permanent character."
    The reason for that is that, if money is to be advanced and is to be recoverable over a period of 10 years, you must have some security, and a shelter which is not permanent does not provide a very satisfactory security. It is not contemplated that the portable steel shelters should be covered by this provision. It may be possible to arrange, when these steel shelters can be put on the market, for ordinary hire-purchase terms, but we are dealing here with shelters of a permanent character, and are thinking primarily of the standard type of concrete or brick shelter specified in the handbook which has been recently issued. These shelters, when installed, become a permanent part of the premises, and would provide security for the outstanding portion of the advance.
    Nothing has been put into the Clause of a limiting character which would prevent a local authority from deciding what sort of shelter, provided that it is of a permanent character, should be covered by any arrangements it chooses to make, though no doubt, in the course of the administration of the Clause, advice would be given to local authorities and a certain control would be exercised through the power to grant loans for this purpose. All the authorities which are specified in Clause 69 can borrow from the Public Works Loans Board, though obviously not all of them would wish to undertake the task of making loans for the purposes of this Clause.
    As regards the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery), who has put down a new Clause covering very much the same ground as is covered by this Clause, we were forced,
    2434
    on examination, to the conclusion that his Clause, for a variety of reasons, would not be found wholly satisfactory. In particular, we found, when we came to consider the position, that for practical reasons it was necessary to limit the scope of the Clause to the case of a tenant or leaseholder with an unexpired interest of more than three years. It is quite obvious that you cannot fairly ask a local authority, dealing with public funds, to advance money to a person who may be on the point of giving up his tenancy. We thought three years a suitable period to fix. It may well be that, in the light of views expressed by hon. Members on this Clause, my advisers and I may want to look at the Clause again before it comes up on Report, but if the Committee take the view that this is a purpose which should be provided for in the Bill, I would suggest that they should allow the Clause, as drafted, to be incorporated in the Bill.
    Mr. Ammon: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to issue a code to the owners of property?
    Sir J. Anderson: I thought I had dealt with that. I meant to deal with it when I said that we did not specify any type of shelter provided that it was a permanent shelter, but that what we had in mind was a brick or concrete shelter of the kind laid down in the handbook.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: It seems to me that in the multitude of small owner-occupier houses this will be looked upon as an opportunity to make garages under the houses, and these will be useful shelters.
    Sir J. Anderson: I thought I had dealt with this when I said that we had not sought to impose hard and fast rules as to the type of shelter, but the matter may have to be dealt with administratively, and advice given to the local authorities.
    9.57 p.m.
    Mr. H. Morrison: On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) there is this aspect. If this can be tied up with a code it has the disadvantage that if the owner of the building complies with the code he will have a prima facie claim on the local authorities. But if there is no code the building surveyors might have to be called in, and this might cause a good deal of work for the local authority, and, what might perhaps be more serious,

    2435
    delay for the owner. If the matter can, after consultation with the local authorities, be settled by a code, it will save a lot of trouble, and, if I may say so in confidence, it may save letting some of our professional people loose on all these owners of small property.
    Sir J. Anderson: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the suggestion.
    9.58 p.m.
    Mr. Westwood: In looking into this Clause before the Report stage, will the Lord Privy Seal take into consideration one of the difficulties which is created by the injustices of our present rating system? You are going to assist the proprietor to build a permanent shelter by giving him a loan under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts. The principle is good, but many people will have difficulties in carrying this through. The local authorities have the right to come along, where the shelter is built solely and wholly for shelter purposes, and to increase the valuation. I understand there are difficulties, even in connection with temporary shelters, where local authorities, merely because a garden rake or roller is kept in the shelter, are increasing the valuation, and making it more difficult for people to make use of these temporary shelters, and in some cases are frightening people from taking advantage of these free shelters. If it is possible to avoid penalising a man for trying to build some permanent shelter in connection with his property, it should be done.
    10.2 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I gladly promise to look into the matter. I have already had occasion to look into the question in connection with the Act dealing with rating and valuation which was passed last year. The intention of that Act was quite clear, that where an air-raid shelter was used solely as such, it should not be assessed for rating purposes; but I know that in some cases a suggestion has been made that the protection given by that Act is not available when the shelter is used for some subsidiary purpose. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has on more than one occasion dealt with that question in the House, but I will certainly look into it.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Powers of local authorities to construct underground shelters and other premises required for civil defence purposes.)
    (1) Subject to the provisions of this Section, the local authority may enter on any land, after giving not less than 28 days' notice in writing to the occupier and every person having the fee simple or a lease of the land or any part thereof, and there construct—

    (a) an underground air-raid shelter or other underground premises required by the authority for use in the event of hostile attack in carrying out any of their civil defence functions;

    (b) entrances to, and shafts and other necessary works for ventilating, draining, lighting and heating the shelter or premises.

    (2) Where the local authority propose to construct the underground shelter, or premises in any protected square or in any allotment, common or open space, the following provisions shall apply:

    (a) the authority shall, in addition to giving any notice required by the preceding Sub-section, publish by advertisement in a newspaper circulating in the area of the authority a notice describing the nature of their proposals and specifying the land to which they relate, and naming the place where plans illustrative of their proposals may be inspected at all reasonable hours by any person free of charge;

    (b) if, within 28 days after the publication of the notice, any notice of objection to the proposals is served on the local authority by any person affected thereby, the authority shall refer the notice of objection to the Minister for his consideration and shall not proceed with the proposals unless the Minister, after holding, if he thinks fit, an inquiry, has approved them either with or without modification.

    (3) The local authority may, in the exercise of their powers under this Section, construct a shelter or other premises under any highway:
    Provided that, in the case of a highway for the maintenance of which a highway authority is responsible, the local authority shall not exercise those powers without the consent of the highway authority (if it is a different authority) and shall not be required to serve any notices on persons having an estate or interest in the subsoil of the highway.
    (4) Any shelter or premises constructed by the local authority under this Section, together with the entrances to the shelter or premises and any shafts or other works executed in connection with the shelter or premises, shall, on completion, vest in the authority.
    (5) The local authority shall pay to any person having an estate or interest in any land in which works are constructed under this Section such compensation, if any, in respect of any damage thereby caused to him as may be just.
    (6) The powers conferred on local authorities by this Section shall not be exercisable with respect to any land occupied by public utility undertakings for the purposes of their undertaking.
    (7) In this Section the expression "protected square" has the meaning assigned to it by Section two of the London Squares Preservation Act, 1931, and the expressions "allotment," "common," and "open space," have the same meanings as in Part II of the Third Schedule to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932.—[Sir J. Anderson.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    It has been agreed that this Clause and the following Clause should be formally incorporated in the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Powers of local authorities to construct underground car-parks suitable for use as air-raid shelters.)
    (1) A local authority who have power under Section sixty-eight of the Public Health Act, 1925, or under Section twenty of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, to provide parking places may, for the purpose of providing underground parking places suitable also for use as air-raid shelters, exercise the like powers as are exercisable by local authorities under the last preceding Section for the purposes therein mentioned, subject, however, to the following provisions of this Section.
    (2) Any such local authority as aforesaid who are not the local authority for the purposes of Part II of this Act and are not exercising functions under that Part by virtue of a delegation shall not make any proposal for the exercise of the said powers for the purpose of providing such an underground parking place as aforesaid, without the approval of the local authority for the purposes of Part II of this Act.
    (3) Where a local authority propose to exercise the said powers for the purpose of constructing such an underground parking place, they shall, in addition to giving notice to the persons to whom they are required to give notice by Sub-section (1) of the last preceding Section,—

    (a) give notice in writing to the Minister and the Minister of Transport;

    (b) publish by advertisement in a newspaper circulating in the area of the authority a notice describing the nature of their proposals and specifying the land to which they relate and naming the place where plans illustrative of their proposals may be inspected at all reasonable hours by any person free of charge.

    (4) If, within twenty-eight days after the publication of the notice, any notice of objection to the proposals is served on the local authority by any person affected thereby, the authority shall refer the notice of objection to the Minister of Transport for his consideration, and shall not proceed with the proposals unless the Minister of Transport, after holding, if he thinks fit, an inquiry, has approved the proposals either with or without modification.
    (5) The local authority shall not, whether or not any such objection or modification, as aforesaid has been made, proceed with any proposals under this Section unless the Minister, after satisfying himself that the underground parking place proposed to be provided will be suitable for use as an air raid shelter, and after considering the needs of the locality, the situation and the capacity of the shelter and any other matters appearing to him to be relevant, has approved the proposals.
    (6) Sub-section two of the last preceding Section shall not apply in any case where the powers conferred by that Section are exercised by virtue of and in accordance with this Section.
    (7) So much of the expenses of a local authority providing a parking place by virtue of this Section as is solely attributable to the rendering of the parking place suitable for use as an air-raid shelter, being expenses incurred with the approval of the Minister, shall be deemed to be expenditure for the purpose of making provision for the protection of persons and property from injury or damage in the event of hostile attack from the air for the purposes of the provisions of the Act of 1937 relating to the approval of expenditure of councils and the payment of grants out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect thereof."—[Sir J. Anderson.]
    Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Enlargement of scope of town planning schemes.)
    There shall be included among the general objects for which a scheme may be made under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, the object of rendering the whole or any part of the area to which the scheme applies less vulnerable to air-raids, and that Act shall have effect accordingly as if the said object were included among the objects enumerated in Section one thereof.—[Mr. Elliot.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I think this Clause is self-explanatory.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Reports to be sent to county councils.)
    A copy of every report made and notice served in accordance with the provisions of

    2439
    Parts III, V, and VI of this Act, other than a report or notice under Section eighteen, shall be sent immediately to the council of the administrative county in which the premises to which the report or notice relates are situated.—[Mr. Ede.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    10.4 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    In the words of the Minister, I think this Clause is self-explanatory; but it may be as well if I say a few words in support of it. There is the keenest desire on the part of the local authorities that the ordinary citizen who may have to receive notices should not be worried by a multiplication of visits by, first, Government officials, and then by officials of the county council or the local authority. It is clear that, if that is to be avoided, there must be some arrangement for the interchange of reports between the authorities, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurance on this matter.
    10.6 p.m.
    Mr. Elliot: I think I can give the hon. Member the assurance for which he asks, and I hope that in virtue of that he will not find it necessary to proceed with the new Clause. There is no objection as far as we are concerned to county councils being furnished with all the information as regards Part III and also Part V. I do not think that they need have actual reports. In the case of Part VI, I do not think it necessary to send them reports, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the assurance I have given and will not find it necessary to proceed with his new Clause.
    Mr. Ede: In view of the explanation given by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Delegation of functions.)
    The Minister may, by agreement with the council of any county, county borough, or county district, delegate to the council all or any of his functions under Sections thirty-five and thirty-six of this Act, and, where such functions are so delegated, the council shall act as agents for the Minister in the discharge of those functions and the Minister shall repay to the council the cost of their so acting.—[Mr. Ede.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This is another matter in which the Minister might be assisted if, in certain cases, this work is done by the authority.
    10.7 p.m.
    Mr. Elliot: The suggestion is that the Minister might delegate some of the functions under Sections 35 and 36 of the Act. We think that, in dealing with the industrial processes which involve flame and glare, as we have the collaboration of the Iron and Steel Federation and the Coke-ovens Association, it is perhaps better that we should work under the factory inspectors rather than under the local authorities. In working under the factory inspectors we get uniformity. I am very anxious to meet the hon. Member as far as possible, and there are several proposals which he is to bring forward upon which I hope to meet him, but I hope he will not be disappointed in our not being able to meet him on this occasion. Clause 36 deals with camouflage, which is a highly technical subject, and I think it would be a pity to entrust that to the lay officials of the local authorities. As I have said, we desire to meet the hon. Member and hope to do so on other Clauses, and I hope that he will not find it necessary to press this Clause.
    Mr. Ede: I recognise the great experience of the Government in camouflage, and for that reason I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    10.9 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I wish to ask leave to move the Clause standing in my name in an amended form, and I believe that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I am allowed to do so.
    The Chairman: I cannot allow the hon. Member at this stage to move the Clause in another form. The hon. Member must wait until we have disposed of the other Clauses.
    Mr. Ede: I regret that my worst suspicions have been confirmed by you, Sir Dennis. However, I understand that the Minister is willing, if I move the Clause in the form in which it appears on the Paper so as to avoid all complications, to make a statement with regard to it. This, I think, will expedite the business of the

    2441
    Committee. Therefore, with your permission, Sir Dennis, and with that of the Committee, I will move the Clause in the form in which it appears on the Paper.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Execution of works by owner of dwellinghouse.)
    The owner of any dwellinghouse may execute any works for the purpose of providing shelter of an approved type in the dwellinghouse or the curtilage thereof notwithstanding any limitation of his interest in the dwellinghouse or any agreement or restrictive covenant to the contrary.—[Mr. Ede.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    Mr. Elliot: We are prepared to accept this proposal in principle and to bring up a new Clause on the Report stage to deal with it. That will probably solve the present difficulties and perhaps the hon. Member will not find it necessary to press the new Clause which he has now formally moved.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to factory premises occupied under short leases.)
    (1) The provisions of this Section shall have effect where the occupier of factory premises who is not the owner of the whole of the premises incurs expenses in executing works in pursuance of a notice served by or on him under the preceding provisions of Part III of this Act, being a notice which or, as the case may be, a copy of which, has been duly served on all the persons on whom the occupier is required to serve it by the said provisions, and not being a notice can celled on appeal.
    (2) On the termination, within the period of ten years immediately following the date of the completion of the works, of any tenancy of the whole or any part of the premises, being a tenancy in existence at that date, the interest expectant on the termination of the tenancy shall, unless it is other wise agreed in connection with the works or after the completion thereof, be charged in favour of the outgoing tenant with a sum which bears to the net ascertained cost of the works, the proportion which so much of the said period as is unexpired at the termination of the tenancy bears to the whole of the period.
    (3) In this Section, the expression "the net ascertained cost of the works," means such sum as may, within the six months next following the completion of the works, be agreed by all persons entitled to interests which may become subject to such a charge as aforesaid, or as may be decided in pro-
    2442
    ceedings commenced within the said six months, to be the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in executing the works, as reduced by any grant out of moneys provided by Parliament towards those expenses:
    Provided that in relation to a tenancy not extending to the whole of the premises, the said expression shall be construed as if for the reference to the amount of the said expenses reduced as aforesaid, there were substituted a reference to an amount bearing to that amount (as so reduced) the same proportion that the annual value, at the date of the completion of the works, of the premises comprised in the tenancy bears to the annual value at that date of the whole of the premises.
    (4) Any charge created by this Section on any interest in factory premises shall have priority over all other incumbrances on that interest, except charges created or arising under any enactment authorising a charge for the recovery of expenses incurred by a local authority and charges created under any enactment authorising advances of public money; and any charge created under this Section may be registered under Section ten of the Land Charges Act, 1925, as a land charge of Class A and the person in whose favour the charge is created shall, for the purpose of enforcing it, have the same powers and remedies under the Law of Property Act, 1925, and otherwise, as he would have if he were a mortgagee by deed having powers of sale and lease, and of appointing a receiver.
    (5) The provisions of this Section shall have effect in relation to any tenancy notwithstanding any term thereof requiring the tenant to pay outgoings or any similar term.—[Mr. Sandys.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    Any hon. Member who cares to read this very long Clause will, I think, find that it is self-explanatory.
    Mr. Elliot: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend that it is self-explanatory, and, what is more, it is consequential. With that combination of arguments, I will do no more than say that it really arises out of the series of Amendments moved at an earlier stage, and I think it puts them in a very business-like fashion.
    10.13 p.m.
    Mr. H. Morrison: This may be legislation according to new methods, but it really is not satisfactory. I do not know, and I do not think that half a dozen Members of the Committee know what the Clause is about. It really is not dignified legislative procedure for an hon. Member to move the Second Reading of a Clause and say nothing about it. It

    2443
    is pretty clear that he said nothing because he was not in a position to say anything. The Minister says a few words which sound better and that he understands it, but I am not sure. I really think that, on the whole, it would be more in conformity with the responsibility of Parliament if the Committee were given some information, so that we may have an inkling of what we are doing.
    10.14 p.m.
    Mr. Elliot: I respond to the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman. The general scheme is that if an occupier contracts out of a tenancy lease within 10 years, he recovers from the owner a sum of the same proportion of the ascertained costs of the work as the period between the expiry of the tenancy and 10 years bears to 10 years. I fully sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in his desire that we should legislate in a dignified form and know what we are doing. Let me give him an example. If a tenancy runs for three years after completion of the work, the tenant recovers seven-tenths of the cost from the owner. I do not think that it is very complicated and it follows the series of Amendments moved earlier on. I do not want to pull wool over the eyes of the Committee. It is not a very complicated proposal, and I hope the Committee will accept it.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Morrison: I am sure the Committee will congratulate the Minister on his rapid grasp of the purpose of the new Clause, and thank him for his explanation. I can only say that we hope the new Clause is all right, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) is associated with it. Having great confidence in the public spirit of the Minister of Health, we hope that the Clause is in accordance with the public interest.
    Sir Irving Albery: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will, on Report, consider inserting a similar provision covering local authorities when they have only a short lease.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
    10.16 p.m.
    Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 42, at the end, to add:
    2444
    "(6) Where the occupier of factory premises has become liable to pay any sums to the local authority (for the purposes of Part II of this Act) under an agreement for the provision by that authority of a public air-raid shelter for the use, in whole or in part, of persons working or living in the premises, Sub-sections (2) to (5) of this Section shall apply as if those sums were expenses incurred in executing works in pursuance of a notice duly served by the occupier under the preceding provisions of Part III of this Act (not being a notice cancelled on appeal), and as if the date of the conclusion of the agreement were the date of the completion of the works."
    This Amendment is consequential and deals with the position of a factory where shelter accommodation could not be provided. As the previous provision has been accepted, there ought to be no difficulty in accepting this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Agreements under Part II between local authority and occupiers or owners of factory premises and commercial buildings.)
    (1) The local authority may, if a representation is made to it by a factory inspector that air-raid shelter cannot reasonably be provided in factory premises for the persons working or living therein, agree with the occupier of the premises to provide, on such terms as to payments by the occupier to the local authority as may be specified in the agreement, a public air-raid shelter which will be available for use, in whole or in part, by those persons.
    (2) Sub-section (1) of this Section shall apply in relation to commercial buildings as it applies in relation to factory premises—

    (a) with the substitution for references to the occupier of references to the owner; and

    (b) with the substitution for the reference to a factory inspector of a reference to a local authority for the purposes of Part III of this Act, or, if that local authority is identical with the authority providing the shelter, with the omission of the reference to the representation of a factory inspector.—[Mr. Sandys.]

    Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Compulsory hiring of land.)
    (1) The council of any county or county borough, the common council of the city of London, and the council of any metropolitan borough or county district may hire compulsorily any land to which this Section applies for any of the purposes of the Act of 1937 or of this Act by means of an order made by the council and confirmed by the Minister, and the provisions of Sections one hundred

    2445
    and sixty-one, one hundred and sixty-two one hundred and seventy-four, and one hundred and seventy-five of the Local Government Act, 1933, and of paragraphs (a) and (c) of Section one hundred and seventy-nine of that Act shall apply with respect to any such order with such modifications as may be specified in the order and as if for the references to purchase and to a local authority there were substituted references, respectively, to hiring and to any such council as aforesaid.
    (2) Section fifty-three of this Act shall with any necessary modifications apply to an order under this Section as it applies to an order under Section five of the Act of 1937.
    (3) The Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, shall apply to the determination of the amount of rent or compensation payable in respect of land authorised to be hired compulsorily under this Section.
    (4) Land to which this Section applies is unoccupied land and land in the occupation of a tenant whose tenancy thereof will expire or can be determined by his landlord within a period of three years after the making of an order for the compulsory hiring of that land pursuant to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of this Section.—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    10.18 p.m.
    Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This is an extension in a certain direction of powers which exist in other parts of the Bill. The Committee will know that powers already exist in the Bill for the compulsory purchase of land, which includes buildings, for the purposes of Civil Defence. There are occasions when it is more expedient that the local authority should hire land, including buildings, rather than purchase them. That often is the cheaper procedure, and economy is very desirable in the administration of this Bill not only in the interests of the local authority but also in the interests of the State, which finds a substantial proportion of the air-raid precautions expenditure. Therefore it appears to us that it would be expedient that we should have the power to acquire instead of purchasing. Moreover, there is the possibility, we all hope, that the existing tension in international affairs will be lessened. If it were the case within a reasonably short time that the European situation cleared up, and there was reasonable security among the nations of Europe, it would be a pity of a local authority were the actual possessor of property which was no longer wanted. From the point of view of economy, we
    2446
    should have this power of compulsory hiring.
    There have been certain cases in my own experience. The London County Council are acquiring very considerable property in connection with additional fire station accommodation for the auxiliary fire services. One of the difficulties has been that we have no compulsory powers to purchase or to hire, and the consequence is that the acquisition of property for auxiliary fire services has been much slower than would otherwise have been the case. In Eltham we wished to acquire property, but the owner was unwilling to let. In Westminster the property was vacant, but the rent asked was unreasonable, and alternative accommodation had to be secured. There are other cases like that where the public interest has been damaged. I imagine that there would not be a terrible number of occasions where we should actually have to utilise these compulsory powers, but they would facilitate negotiations and enable us to get occupation earlier. The Committee are anxious that local authorities should be able to move with speed in completing their civil defence preparations, and this would be a facility which would help us in that direction, and would be an economy in the expenditure of the State and local authorities. I trust that the new Clause will commend itself to the Committee and to the right hon. Gentleman.
    10.22 p.m.
    Mr. Elliot: I think the Committee should have had a little more information on this proposal. We recognise the cogency of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, but he will agree that it is a little difficult to introduce war time legislation in a peace time Bill. There are no precedents for compulsory hiring, and the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the question of compensation is a difficult matter. The right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the London County Council have actually specific instances where a building was empty but the owner would not let. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will accept this, that he and his advisers should meet the officials of the Department of the Lord Privy Seal and the Ministry of Health and give them specific cases with evidence; then I should be willing to undertake to consider the matter sympathetically. If he can under-

    2447
    take to give me chapter and verse, I will undertake to consider them with a completely open mind. I cannot go further than that to-night. This is a drastic power, and opens the door to a lot of awkward cases about compensation.
    10.25 p.m.
    Mr. H. Morrison: I did not speak at length, because it seemed to me to be elementary that the local authorities ought to obtain that power. There is, of course, a provision in the Clause for the necessary appeals and arbitrations which are common to this type of legislation. I cited some instances where difficulties have arisen. There are, in fact, two precedents for the principle of this Clause outside war legislation. There are the precedents of the Smallholdings and Allotments Act, 1908, and the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, one before the War and the other after the War. I cannot see that there would be hardship to the owner in his being under an obligation to let vacant property, unless he could show that the property was required for re-development, or that there was a reasonable prospect of his being able to dispose of his entire interest, or that the letting of the property on reasonable terms was a necessity of good estate management. If proper powers were obtained, it is probable that they would need to be put into practice quite infrequently, since they would be used as a negotiating influence in the course of the discussions, and the knowledge that there were statutory powers be hind the local authority would help. The right hon. Gentleman has asked that the officers of the London County Council should discuss concrete instances with the officers of his Department. I was under the impression that that had been done—
    Mr. Elliot: There has been some discussion.
    Mr. Morrison: I will give the Committee some instances. I have already given that of Eltham, where a property was vacant, the owner was unwilling to let, and we had to purchase the property. That meant that we had to spend a substantial capital sum of which the Government had to find 60 per cent. I want to save the Government money, and to save the money of the council. I think that is
    2448
    meritorious. That property was unoccupied. In Westminster, there was a vacant property, the rent was unreasonable, and alternative accommodation was secured. In another case in Westminster, the owner was unwilling to let, and alternative accommodation was secured. In Bishopsgate, the property was vacant, the rent was unreasonable, and alternative accommodation is being sought. In Homerton, business premises were occupied by the owner, he would not let, and in any case the price asked was unreasonable. In Knightsbridge, the price was unreasonable. In New Cross, in the case of two vacant properties, the owners were unwilling to let but would sell—and they do tend to get sticky when a public authority is concerned: In Hackney, we required a property for the emergency ambulance service; the rent was unreasonable, and we could not proceed. In Wandsworth, the property was occupied partly for business by the owner, who would not let, but would sell. In Stoke Newington, the rent was unreasonable. In Plumstead, the rent was unreasonable.
    Every one of those instances meant delay, and our auxiliary fire people are complaining that the accommodation is not available for them. The complaint is reasonable. As long as we have not these powers, there will be delays. The Committee need not fear that the council would wish to be inconsiderate towards the interests of people who are occupiers; and even if we did, there are in the Clause checks that could be exercised by the State. I should have preferred the Clause to have been inserted, and then, if the right hon. Gentleman, on the Report stage, thought that some Amendment was needed, I am sure we could settle any Amendment amicably. This power is of great importance in the interests of speed and in the interests of the finances of the State and the local authorities. I know that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to be helpful and friendly in these matters; therefore, will he accept the Clause on the understanding that it will be examined and that, if necessary, appropriate Amendments will be brought forward on the Report stage?
    Mr. Elliot: I do not wish to chaffer with the right hon. Gentleman and I am prepared to accept the proposal which he has put forward, if it can be shown that it will make for expedition.
    10.30 p.m.
    Sir I. Albery: I feel that the cases cited by the right hon. Gentleman are not very impressive. Much depends upon the nature of the letting, in cases where it is sought to compel people to let premises. For instance, there are people who own property and who have borrowed money upon it. If the premises are unoccupied or unlet, that is probably due to the fact that the owner wishes to sell and is not, financially, in a position to let. Further, the right hon. Gentleman has not said whether the offer was to take the premises for seven years, 14 years or 21 years, or whether it was to be an annual letting with three months' notice. All these factors have to be considered, and I do not think that the fact that, in a number of instances, owners of premises have not desired to let, but have been willing to sell, is in itself conclusive evidence that there is any real obstruction.
    10.32 p.m.
    Sir J. Lamb: I hope the Minister will be careful before he accepts this new principle.
    Mr. David Adams: On a point of Order. Has not the Minister accepted the proposed new Clause?
    The Chairman: I do not know why that should stop the Debate.
    Sir J. Lamb: I hope the Minister will not accept it because I think it very dangerous to start a new idea, that where a man is willing to sell, we should say to him, "No, we do not want to buy and to accept all responsibilities for the future; we prefer to take a letting and leave you with the responsibility." Suppose a man is compelled to let premises of which he is in occupation, he will then require other premises in which to carry on his business. He is compelled to acquire another building for his own purposes and when the time comes for returning the property to him he may not require it. There are many cases in which considerable hardship will be caused to individuals who are compelled to relinquish temporarily property which they are using for business purposes. The right hon. Gentleman said that in several cases the premises were vacant. These cases are probably in a different category. He said that the owners were not willing to let at a reasonable price. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman's idea of a reason-
    2450
    able price and the other party's idea of a reasonable price were not the same. If it was a case of acquiring the premises compulsorily, there would be an opportunity for both seller and purchaser to go to arbitration and to have the purchase made on a valuation, but it is very difficult to fix a reasonable price in the case of a tenancy, when you are leaving on the lessor liabilities which may make it difficult for him to repossess himself of the property later.
    Mr. McCorquodale: I support the new Clause in reference to the Knightsbridge example which the right hon. Gentleman gave. I have been informed that, in the interests of the auxiliary fire services, some such Clause as this is urgently necessary in that case.
    Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: This proposal refers to Clause 53. I would point out that that Clause authorises the compulsory purchase of land, but not the compulsory hiring of land. Speaking of the country as distinct from the town and of land instead of premises, I wondered why the Government did not take power to hire land for these purposes. In many cases owners of land are more anxious to let our land temporarily than to have it purchased, which might very likely spoil the whole property. I think some Amendment of Clause 53 should be made, so that local authorities should be able to have the right of hiring as well as of purchasing. I hope the Minister will be very careful in this matter and will not always consider these things from the town point of view, because there is a country point of view as well, which may be very much affected by these Defence provisions, and I think the country point of view is in favour of the compulsory hiring rather than of the compulsory purchasing of land.
    10.36 p.m.
    Major Milner: It ought to be made clear that this new Clause applies only to land and unoccupied land and to land in the occupation of a tenant, the tenancy of which will expire within three years. Therefore, the remarks of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) do not apply. This is not a case of a man carrying on business in premises and having to be moved out of them and to buy other premises. It is a question of unoccupied land. Probably in the neighbourhood of

    2451
    large towns there is land which landlords own and which, in the course of time, will increase in value. All these factors would be taken into account by the assessor who would determine the amount of rent appropriate, and it seems to me to be both in the public interest and probably in the interest of the landowner himself that there should be a hiring of that land rather than a selling, and, therefore, an absolute disposal, of it. In any event the valuer would have the right to take all the factors into consideration in determining the appropriate rent. It seems to me that it could apply only to a comparatively limited number of cases, and on all these grounds I think it is a very desirable Clause.
    Sir J. Lamb: Is the hon. and gallant Member right? Does this apply to land only?
    10.38 p.m.
    Mr. Elliot: I think it would apply not only to land but to premises as well. I was greatly moved by the general argument brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, first of all as to economy. It is undesirable that local authorities should undertake considerable capital expenditure, attracting grants from the Government, for purposes which could be properly dealt with by a relatively short hiring. Secondly, I think there is great force in the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New-bury (Major-General Brown) that very often a man would prefer to have his property rented for a time rather than to have it altogether removed from his possession. It is a purely business transaction, and on both grounds I think it worth while considering this Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. McCorquodale) also argued in favour of the Clause and cited a particular case. I understand the uneasiness of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery), but I think that on balance I still adhere to the opinion which I formed earlier when I commended the Clause to the Committee. I think it should be included in the Bill now on the clear understanding, of course, that Amendments will be considered that will need to be incorporated in the Clause on the Report stage. I think it might be well that a time limit to this drastic power should be given. Furthermore, I think it desirable that the consent of the
    2452
    Minister should be more specifically introduced. But, taking it by and large, I think it is a pity that the powers of local authorities which were intended for permanent peace purposes should not be in any way modified when, as here, we are considering using them for temporary purposes and war purposes. I therefore hope the Committee will see its way to include the Clause, realising that it will probably need further Amendment, but realising also how much easier it is to amend a Clause in the Bill than to begin bringing forward Amendments on the Report stage, when we cannot study them in relation to the structure of the Bill as a whole.
    Sir I. Albery: Do we understand from that that my right hon. Friend will himself move Amendments, because on the Report stage it becomes an important matter?
    Mr. Elliot: Certainly, I shall be ready to consult with Members of the House as to the Amendments which might be put down, and I shall be prepared to take the responsibility of moving Amendments as the result of these consultations.
    Mr. H. Morrison: The London County Council with a Socialist majority are often accused of wanting to socialise everything and getting everything under the Council. Here is a case where I am seeking the power, not for the Council to own, but for it to rent from a private individual. The proposal should, therefore, commend itself to hon. Members opposite.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    The Chairman: Does the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) desire to move his new Clause—(Construction of shelters on hire purchase)?
    Sir I. Albery: In view of the fact that a Clause has already been added to the Bill largely covering this matter, and that it will be further dealt with on the Report stage, I do not desire to move the new Clause.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Public air-raid shelters in narrow streets.)
    (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Highways Act, 1835, a local authority may, with the approval of the Minister, provide public air-raid shelters in any highway of a width of twenty feet or less within the

    2453
    area of the local authority subject to the provision of any such shelter not interfering with the functions of any public utility undertaking, unless previous written consent, so to interfere, is given to the local authority.
    (2) A local authority may affix to the property abutting on the highway any fixture, fitting, or part of a public air-raid shelter as in the opinion of the local authority is necessary to enable an effective shelter to be provided.
    (3) Where a local authority intends to provide air-raid shelters under the powers conferred by this Section seven days' notice of such intention shall be served on every owner, lessee, and occupier (except tenants for a month or less period than a month), of any building abutting upon the part of the highway in which it is intended to erect such shelter but not beyond the points where such part of the highway is intersected by any other highway.
    (4) Any such owner, lessee, or occupier of any premises as aforesaid injuriously affected by the exercise of the powers conferred by this Section, shall be entitled to compensation therefor of such amount as he shall agree with the local authority or, failing agreement, to be determined under Section fifty-nine of this Act.—[Mr. Logan.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    10.42 p.m.
    Mr. Logan: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    We have a difficulty in Liverpool in discussing this problem because we have not the powers which we seek to get by this new Clause. It is necessary in a congested area that these powers should be in the hands of a local authority. In ordinary circumstances we would have to apply to quarter sessions in order to close a street, but in order to meet an emergency we want the power to be vested in the local authority. This Clause will give us the power we require.
    10.43 p.m.
    Mr. Kirby: The situation in the overcrowded districts of large cities is a difficult one for the local authorities. The type of shelter which has been provided for use in gardens is unsuitable because in the congested areas there are no gardens, and very often no back yards, basements or cellars. It, therefore, becomes necessary, if we are to protect the people, to build shelters above ground. One of the things we wish to do is to provide such shelters in the narrow streets in which there is not much traffic. We find that we have no power to close the streets in order to prepare for the erection of shelters unless we go through a lengthy court procedure under the Highways Act, 1835. We bring this new
    2454
    Clause before the Committee in order to do away with that unnecessarily lengthy legal delay. This applies not only to Liverpool but to all local authorities situated in similar circumstances. I would point out that notice must be given to owners, lessees and occupiers, and provision is made for the payment of compensation in case of loss or damage. That being so, I think it should be acceptable to the Minister and the Committee.
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. Elliot: This is an interesting proposal and it calls for sympathetic examination. The problems referred to by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) and the hon. Member for the Everton Division (Mr. Kirby) are not unknown in my own city of Glasgow, and anything we can do to facilitate the erection of shelters in big towns ought to be undertaken. At the same time I think it would be a pity if the Committee were to insert the Clause here and now, because there are points which require further consideration. A 20-foot street is mentioned, for instance, and the question of access arises, and I am not certain whether full provision has been made for that case. I think also there are a certain number of gaps in Sub-section (3). I make the offer to the hon. Members that I will accept the Clause in principle if they can see their way to withdraw it now, and we will arrange for a new Clause to be brought up at a later stage to give effect to what they have in mind. I think that is a fair offer, and if they can accept it I shall certainly take all steps to carry through the undertaking.
    10.46 p.m.
    Mr. Logan: We were fully aware when we brought forward this Clause that it was of a highly technical nature and that there would be some difficulty over questions of drafting. I am willing, and I am sure my colleague will be, to accept the offer. We are only anxious to do the best we can for Liverpool and other cities and boroughs in the like position. I beg leave to withdraw the Clause.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    FIRST SCHEDULE.
    10.47 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): I beg to move, in page 69, line 40, at the end, to insert:

    2455
    "(b) for the purposes of any such agreement as is referred to in Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (4) of the said Section seven, the amount of any payment to be made by the Central Electricity Board to the owners of a selected station, or to the Board by the owners of a selected station."
    This is little more than a drafting Amendment, because it is consequential upon paragraph (a) in the Schedule. The electricity supplied by the Board to selected stations is paid for in two ways, (1) according to a formula under Section (7) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1926, or (2), by agreement. Paragraph (a) covers point (1) and this new paragraph covers point (2).
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Modifications of Lands Clauses Acts.)
    10.49 p.m.
    Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, in page 70, line 37, to leave out "ninety," and to insert "twenty-eight."
    Under the Schedule as it stands 90 days' notice is required to be given before entry can be made upon land to take possession of it and we propose to substitute 28 days. The period of 90 days is not too long where there is no urgency, but I think it is inappropriate when we are dealing with matters of such urgency as we are concerned with in this Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Second Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered on Monday, 5th June, and to be printed. [Bill 150.]

  CAMPS BILL.
  Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Elliot.]
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

  CAMPS BILL.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Exemption from building restrictions.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 10, after "that" insert:
    2456
    "(a) before giving his approval under this Sub-section, the Minister shall notify the planning authority, if any, for the area in which the land is situate, of the application for his approval and take into consideration any representations which may be made to him by that authority, within fourteen days after the receipt by them of such notification; and
    (b)".
    10.51 p.m.
    Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    These Amendments are the result of strong pressure in another place, where it was pointed out that the planning authorities had taken a good deal of pride in carrying out their task and that it was undesirable that they should even appear to be overridden or by-passed by the Corporation.
    Mr. Benn: On a point of Order. Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is quoting from the Debates in another place?
    Mr. Elliot: Certainly not.
    An Hon. Member: What is he doing?
    Mr. Elliot: I am giving the gist of the arguments put forward in another place where it was suggested that the Corporation, which is after all a private company, should not be used to override democratically elected institutions. I had an idea that that was the sort of argument which would appeal to my right hon. Friend, if I may call him so on this occasion. I have certainly heard him advance arguments of that kind himself.
    Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that it is not the practice to make quotations from the Debates in another place.
    Mr. Elliot: I am so well aware of that that I was not quoting them. I think the House will be aware, too, that I have taken steps to safeguard the position, because we had arranged for informal consultations and for the appointment of a highly qualified architect, and even town-planners, to the corporation. But it was felt in another place that that did not completely satisfy their opinion. In deference to expressions of opinions here, the corporation has appointed a very distinguished planner to its board, and that has met with general approval throughout the country, especially among those who

    2457
    thought, perhaps, that we were likely to short-circuit the proceedings in regard to town-planning.
    I do not think that we can resist the strongly expressed views of those who see danger in this matter. We shall take steps immediately the Bill is passed to submit particulars of the sites which have been provisionally selected to the town-planning authorities, who will be allowed 14 days in which to make any representations they may desire. In view of the strong interest which this House has in planning generally, I think I can reasonably ask that it should agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    10.56 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I am sure that the House will have listened with interest to the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman of the reasons why we should accept the Amendment, but I would ask what is the exact significance of the words, "if any," after the words "planning authority"? As I understood the situation I thought that every part of the country was covered by some planning authority responsible for the planning of the area. No one can object to taking the views of those authorities most of which will be rural district councils. I do not know whether any rural district council in the country meets as frequently as every 14 days. My experience of rural councils is that they rarely meet more frequently than once a month and I should be surprised if, in the type of area in which these camps will be situated, rural councils will meet within the 14 days to make up their minds, and let the Minister know their observations on the matter. If the Minister is going to consult them, the consultation should enable the authority itself and not merely the chairman, or possibly the clerk, of the council to send his views back to the Minister representing them as the views of the local authority.
    When the Bill was before the House, Members on all sides were exceedingly anxious that nothing should be done by the provision of these camps which would in any way destroy the amenities of the countryside or interfere with the activities of the planning authorities. Therefore, on this side, we do not object to any safeguard which the Minister proposes to introduce, provided it is reasonable. I am exceedingly anxious that if the view of
    2458
    the local planning authority is required we should be certain that we get that view and not some mere formal note that will be sent in the majority of cases only by the chairman of the town planning authority. In many parts of the country the Minister's proposal may mean calling people from very considerable distances to a meeting, and I am sure they will not view with favour the idea of meeting merely to give consideration to one letter from the Minister on one point. It is not as it was in the old days when rural councils and guardians were one and the same people, generally meeting on the same day and with sufficient business to bring them together. Now they are not in that position, and I hope that the Minister will not impose upon them the duty of holding a meeting merely for the purpose of discussing one communication.
    Mr. Elliot: If I may speak again by the leave of the House, I should like to say that in fact there are places where there is no town planning authority, and that this provision will apply to a certain number of small areas in England and to a larger number in Scotland, and also to certain areas in Wales; but it is unlikely that many camps will be placed on Welsh sites where there is no planning authority.
    As to the position of the small local authorities, and whether they would be likely to meet and make representations within the 14 days allowed for laying those representations officially before me, the authorities in all these cases will be well aware that it is proposed to establish a camp in their area, and, if they feel strongly on the subject, it would be possible to hold a special meeting. The House will remember that in the Edale case, where there was a good deal of public interest, the rural district council did meet again. I think these authorities will appreciate having a period of 14 days in which to make official representations. I do not think the provision is entirely otiose, because they will know that camps are being planned in their areas. Their planning officer will already have been consulted informally, but a body which feels strongly on the subject will not merely allow its views to go forward from its planning officer. It will call a meeting and forward its representations to me, which I shall certainly be very ready to receive and to consider.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (COAL MINE REFUSE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Colville.]
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (COAL MINE REFUSE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE I.—(Coal mine refuse liable to spontaneous combustion to be deemed a nuisance.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 8, leave out from "mine," to "shall," in line 9, and insert:
    "in respect of which there is reasonable cause to believe that spontaneous combustion is likely to occur."
    11.3 p.m.
    Mr. Mathers: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    May I say generally that these Amendments were made under compromise conditions in another place, and they will leave the Bill a useful and workable Measure? It is my intention, as promoter
    2460
    of the Bill, with the consent of my hon. Friends, to accept the Amendments.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): May I add that the Government's attitude towards these three Amendments is favourable?
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS ACT (1926) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  11.4 p.m.
  Mr. Westwood: Having received a provisional promise that a Departmental Committee will be set up for the purpose of inquiring into and reporting upon the necessary Amendments to the Act, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Bill.
  Order for Second Reading discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

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

  JUGOSLAVIA.
  JUGOSLAVIA.
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  SPAIN (MADRID VICTORY MARCH).
  SPAIN (MADRID VICTORY MARCH).
LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  EUROPEAN SITUATION.
  EUROPEAN SITUATION.
  PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION.
  PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION.
  WAR RISKS (COMPENSATION).
  WAR RISKS (COMPENSATION).
  INCOME TAX AND SURTAX.
  INCOME TAX AND SURTAX.
  REFUGEES.
  REFUGEES.
TRANSPORT.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS, SCOTLAND.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS, SCOTLAND.
  TRUNK ROADS, MONMOUTHSHIRE AND GLAMORGANSHIRE
  TRUNK ROADS, MONMOUTHSHIRE AND GLAMORGANSHIRE
  WESTERN AVENUE EXTENSION SCHEME.
  WESTERN AVENUE EXTENSION SCHEME.
  BURMA—CHINA ROAD.
  BURMA—CHINA ROAD.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  LANCASHIRE COTTON CORPORATION (BARTER SCHEME).
  LANCASHIRE COTTON CORPORATION (BARTER SCHEME).
  SUBSIDISED FOREIGN GOODS (IMPORTS).
  SUBSIDISED FOREIGN GOODS (IMPORTS).
  SHIPBUILDING, GREENOCK.
  SHIPBUILDING, GREENOCK.
  GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (EXCHANGE OF MATERIALS).
  GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (EXCHANGE OF MATERIALS).
  POOR PERSONS' DEFENCE.
  POOR PERSONS' DEFENCE.
ROYAL NAVY.
  WARRANT OFFICERS (COMMISSIONS).
  WARRANT OFFICERS (COMMISSIONS).
  SPECIAL RESERVE (MILITARY TRAINING BILL).
  SPECIAL RESERVE (MILITARY TRAINING BILL).
  RATINGS (COMMISSIONS).
  RATINGS (COMMISSIONS).
  VOLUNTEER RESERVE (TRAINING).
  VOLUNTEER RESERVE (TRAINING).
  RECRUITS, 20 TO 21 YEARS OF AGE.
  RECRUITS, 20 TO 21 YEARS OF AGE.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  REARMAMENT PROGRAMME.
  REARMAMENT PROGRAMME.
  WARREN CEMENT WORKS, HARTLEPOOL (CLOSING).
  WARREN CEMENT WORKS, HARTLEPOOL (CLOSING).
  PONTYPOOL, BLAENAVON AND PONTNEWYDD.
  PONTYPOOL, BLAENAVON AND PONTNEWYDD.
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE, TOTTENHAM.
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE, TOTTENHAM.
  MILITARY TRAINING BILL (COURTS OF REFEREES EXPENSES).
  MILITARY TRAINING BILL (COURTS OF REFEREES EXPENSES).
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (DISABILITY PENSIONS).
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (DISABILITY PENSIONS).
  SIERRA LEONE.
  SIERRA LEONE.
  GOLD COAST.
  GOLD COAST.
  TRINIDAD (COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE).
  TRINIDAD (COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE).
  CYPRUS (IRRIGATION).
  CYPRUS (IRRIGATION).
  KENYA.
  KENYA.
  ST. JAMES'S PARK, LONDON.
  ST. JAMES'S PARK, LONDON.
  SLATE INDUSTRY (GOVERNMENT CONTRACT BUILDINGS).
  SLATE INDUSTRY (GOVERNMENT CONTRACT BUILDINGS).
  CIVIL DEFENCE (SANDBAGS).
  CIVIL DEFENCE (SANDBAGS).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (NATIONAL FACTORIES).
  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (NATIONAL FACTORIES).
  EXPERIMENT AND RESEARCH.
  EXPERIMENT AND RESEARCH.
  CIVIL AIR GUARD.
  CIVIL AIR GUARD.
  VOLUNTEER RESERVE BADGES.
  VOLUNTEER RESERVE BADGES.
BRITISH ARMY.
  MILITIAMEN (DEPENDANTS, PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).
  MILITIAMEN (DEPENDANTS, PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).
  HORSES AND MULES.
  HORSES AND MULES.
  AGRICULTURE (MUTTON AND LAMB PRODUCTION).
  AGRICULTURE (MUTTON AND LAMB PRODUCTION).
  COAL INDUSTRY (OIL EXTRACTION).
  COAL INDUSTRY (OIL EXTRACTION).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
WALSALL CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
SAINT PETER'S CHAPEL, STOCKPORT, BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the modification of the law relating to the administration of justice in Scotland in the event of the outbreak or imminence of war, and for purposes connected therewith; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Maugham.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

WATER UNDERTAKINGS BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT BRIDPORT: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate with amendments certain enactments relating to water undertakings; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Bridport.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (NORTH LINDSEY WATER BOARD) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WEMBLEY) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BACUP) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (CONGLETON) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MARGATE) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MATLOCK) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Calling out of Reserve and Auxiliary Forces.
(5) Section thirteen of the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, and the proviso to subsection (1) of Section seventeen of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, and subsection (2) of the said Section seventeen shall not apply in the event of the calling out of members of the Reserve or Auxiliary Forces in pursuance of an Order in Council made under this section.
3.10 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: I beg to move the omission of the subsection referred to in the Amendment, in order that one may have, I hope, a statement from the Government which will clarify the position. I understand, of course, that a subsection of this kind is essential to the general purpose of the Bill. It could not operate without it. But as this subsection stands I suggest that it goes much too far. Under the provisions proposed to be set aside for this purpose it is provided that where men are called out Parliament shall assemble within ten days, and that is one of the provisions which will be needed if this Bill is carried in its present form. It is clear that in order to achieve the purposes for which this Bill is designed, and with which I am in cordial agreement, it must be open to the Government to call up these men in a brief businesslike way, as is proposed, and to that I have no objection. But it is necessary that, as soon as may be thereafter, Parliament should be acquainted with the reasons for this action.
If this subsection is passed in its present form the whole of the Forces might be called up, and it might be, for instance, at the beginning of the Long Vacation, and no explanation would be furnished to Parliament, unless Parliament is otherwise called together in connection with the emergency, until a new Session opens. It might be three or six months before Parliament would be consulted, or even officially informed. I suggest that that is wrong, and I do not really think it is the Government's intention either. I do not suggest that this Government would designedly do a thing of that kind, but it is open to any future Government to take action of that kind and neglect to inform Parliament. I have abstained from putting down any Amendment on the Paper so as not to delay the proceedings, but an Amendment could be moved on the next stage, though I hope it will not be necessary. It was perfectly evident to me as an old Parliamentarian that when the matter was raised in another place the Minister had not been well briefed, and was not well aware of what the implications of this provision are. I hope, therefore, that having had that notice, the Government will give us some explicit statement about this provision,

155
and, if need be, insert some Amendment to say that neither they nor some future Government will be able to take undue advantage of these conditions.
Amendment moved—
Leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Addison.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): The object of the Amendment is to omit subsection (5), which provides that the provisions of certain sections of the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, and the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, should be excluded. On the Second Reading I reminded your Lordships that the real reason for the introduction of the measure at all was to try to alter the very antique methods of procedure which exist under the present law. My noble friend will observe that in the Preamble to the Bill we definitely state that "a situation has arisen." We are not adopting the old procedure of saying that imminent national danger or a great emergency has arisen; we are putting in the words that "a situation has arisen," so that Parliament may be perfectly aware of the intentions of the Bill as a whole. The noble Lord will realise that the Bill remains in force for a period of three years or less. If we accepted the Amendment we should really be reconstituting the very procedure which we now desire to abolish for a period of three years.
Under Clause 1 (4) any Order in Council authorising the calling-up of the Reserves and the Auxiliary forces has to be "laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made." It would, therefore, be quite possible for the Opposition, either in this House or in another place, to table a Motion of Censure if such Order in Council was issued in unwarrantable circumstances. The Order in Council, when made, must be published, and the noble Lord will have a perfect opportunity of observing what we propose to do when that Order has been made public. But he will remember that, both in this House and in another place, a statement has been made setting out quite clearly the sections of the various Auxiliary and Reserve Forces that we propose to call up, and if the noble Lord had had any objection to that procedure no doubt he would have voiced it at the proper time.
LORD ADDISON: I have not suggested any objection to what the Government
156
propose to do; it is the powers of the Executive in doing it that I am questioning. The noble Lord has referred to the words of the Preamble "Whereas a situation has arisen." Suppose the present situation is dissipated and we got into more normal times, this measure would still remain on the Statute Book, and it would be open for any Government, any day, to say that "a situation had arisen."
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): The Act only runs for three years.
LORD ADDISON: I know, but of course this Government will be gone long before that. The case I am considering is when Parliament will not be sitting. Suppose that this occasion arose when all your Lordships had gone away to shoot grouse after August 12, and Parliament did not sit again for some months, then a considerable interval might elapse. My contention is that there is no need to inform Parliament of the action the Government have taken within any time after that action has been taken, whereas the Statutes which are being done away with pro tem. would require Parliament to be informed within ten days. Perhaps ten days is too short a time—I am not saying it is not. It might be a month or two months; but I do say the Government ought to provide that action taken under the powers here provided shall be reported to Parliament within a reasonable period. Anyhow, I hope that the noble Earl will think it over. It is a substantial point and, with great respect, he has not replied to it.
EARL STANHOPE: I think the noble Lord is under some misapprehension. The larger part of this Bill is for the purpose of enabling us to call up a part, and possibly quite a small part, of the Reserves, and in that situation I think the noble Lord himself would not wish to call Parliament together. It would probably he quite a minor matter—some improvement in some particular part of one of His Majesty's Forces—and I think nobody in Parliament would desire that it should be called together for that purpose. If on the other hand the whole of the Reserves were called out, I cannot myself visualise a situation which would be such that Parliament would not have to be called together. Obviously it would be a situation which might even be

157
critical. I cannot visualise either this or any other Government, however little worthy it might be of the noble Lord's complete trust, not calling Parliament together in such a situation.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Reinstatement in civil employment]:
3.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: On the Second Reading of this Bill I gave notice that I would raise a point on Clause 2 (4), and there is a similar provision in the other Bill that we shall be considering to-day. The point I have in mind is this. As I mentioned on Second Reading, it is necessary to have some vigilance with regard to Bills such as this, for fear that clauses may be slipped in giving powers to Ministers to make regulations, and that within those regulations it may be legal to provide that the Minister himself shall decide whether an offence has been committed or not. There have been several such laws passed in recent years which have given rise to considerable animadversion afterwards. I am encouraged to think that in this case there is no such danger, but these last words of subsection (4), "with or without modifications," might possibly give a loophole. I have not put any Amend-merit down to deal with this point because I have very little doubt the Government will be able to give us a satisfactory assurance. I merely wish to raise the question of which I gave notice on the Second Reading.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I understand this matter concerns the Minister of Labour, and it is the intention of my right honourable friend to make provision to restrain employers from terminating the employment of the individuals who may be called upon to undergo this compulsory military training. The regulations which the Minister will make are, I understand, not yet completed, and I am not therefore in a position to give any indication to the noble Viscount of what they will be, but they will certainly cover the case of the employer who endeavours to throw his employee out of work immediately before being called up to perform the service which he is required to do under the terms of the Military Training Bill.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I am afraid the noble Earl has not quite met my point. I am not disputing the desirability of these regulations or the necessity for preventing evasion of the terms of the Bill when it is an Act. My point is simply this: Will the Minister have power to insert in the regulations a provision that it is for him, or someone acting on his behalf, to decide whether or not the offence has been committed without the matter going through a Court of Law? It is the question of the relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary. I presume they will have to go to a Court of Law because the words in the subsection include the expression "found guilty." A person to be found guilty must be brought before a Court of Law and not merely before an administrative tribunal, but the doubt arises because of the last words of the subsection, "with or without modifications." May the Minister make such modification as would oust the jurisdiction of the Court and enable these matters to be settled by administrative action?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I can give this assurance to the noble Viscount, that in another place my right honourable friend the Attorney-General informed a member of that House that there was precedent for this, and he gave an assurance at the same time that in no case would a penalty of more than £50 be imposed.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Still the noble Earl has not met the point. It is not a question of what the penalty will be, but whether the Minister is to decide the case or whether it is to be decided on evidence in a Court of Law.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This question is new to me, and I have not had an opportunity of considering it. I must say that for my part, speaking for myself, I take the view which the noble Lord suggested—namely, that the words "found guilty" do point directly to the operation of some legal tribunal.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I am quite satisfied with that, but when I raised the matter on Second Reading the noble Earl, Lord Munster, said it would be looked into before the Committee stage. I hope that before we reach the next stage the Lord Chancellor will be able to make

159
quite sure of this matter, and then if he is quite satisfied, I shall be quite satisfied.
On Question, Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

MILITARY TRAINING BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Classes of persons liable to be registered and called up for military training.
(3) The Minister, if satisfied that there is good cause for so doing; may permit any person to be registered in the Military Training Register before he attains the age of twenty years, or may permit any person registered in that Register, on application made by him within the prescribed period after being so registered, to postpone his liability to be called up for military training, and in the latter case, the period of one year for which he is liable to be so called up shall begin with the date to which his liability is postponed instead of the date on which he was so registered; and where application for such permission is made to the Minister on grounds of hardship, the Minister shall, unless he grants the permission, refer the application to a Military Training (Hardship) Committee constituted under Part I of the Schedule to this Act.
(4) An applicant for such permission as aforesaid who is aggrieved by the determination of a Military Training (Hardship) Committee, and the Minister, if he considers it necessary, may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the umpire or any deputy umpire appointed by His Majesty for the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, whose decision shall be final; and the umpire or any deputy umpire shall, when hearing any such appeal, sit with two assessors appointed by the Minister:
Provided that if the determination of the Committee with respect to any application was unanimous, the applicant shall not be entitled to appeal to the umpire or any deputy umpire except with the leave of the Committee.
3.25 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, in subsection (3), after "registered," where that word
160
last occurs, to insert "or may permit any person so registered to be exempt from his liability to be called up for military training." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. As this Bill stands, it requires every male of the specified age to become enrolled in the manner provided in the Bill. There are no exemptions whatever—that is to say, it applies to every young man. After a man has applied to be put on the Register and has been so put on the Register, if it is felt to be undesirable that he should be on the Register, the case will be put up to the Military Training (Hardship) Committee to consider and, it may be, to postpone the calling up of the man in question. I am putting aside for the moment the question of conscientious objectors, which is dealt with under special provisions of the Bill. The point I wish to make in putting this option before the authorities is this, that we should not repeat the ghastly mistake we made in the last War by calling up a lot of young men who are much better contributing to the defence of the country where they are than by learning to "form threes," as it is now.
In a machine engineer's shop, a large proportion of the men in the toolroom will be apprentices, nearly finishing their apprenticeship. The drawing office in every big works is largely staffed by the same class of young men. I consulted a very eminent engineer on this matter, and he said: "So far as that stands at present, if all these young fellows had to go up, it would half empty our tool-room." That would be absurd. The work of big works depend on the gauge-makers; some of them more precious than rubies. Here is a man, finishing his apprenticeship to be a gaugemaker and working with the highly skilled degree of execution which gaugemakers must have. He is going to be compelled to enrol, and it may be hereafter, if a case of hardship is alleged, his enlistment will be postponed. A lot of these young fellows are keen as mustard and would not allege any hardship. Many of them want to go in and join up, just as they did in 1914. The result then was that afterwards we had to comb the Services in France to get back again a number of highly skilled men who had joined up. Often when we went to units abroad and tried to find, we will say, a gaugemaker

161
we would be told: "Well he has done very well in his unit, and is very much liked by the sergeant-major, and he has been made a corporal." When we got hold of the young man we found that he was no longer a gaugemaker; he was probably a pork butcher or something of that sort. The young men were willing to be anything rather than be combed out.
That happened all over the place, and anybody who went to France on our numerous expeditions will know that what I am saying is an understatement of the fact. That will happen again. If we are considering the best way, as I am sure we are, of defending our country against possible attack, these young fellows ought not to be sent to form threes, they ought to be kept where they are. I can quite understand the Government saying: "Well, the schedule of reserved occupations is too wide." I think that is a good case; very likely it is, but it will be perfectly possible in consultation with the industries concerned to draw up a short list of these young men who ought not to be taken from their jobs because they are contributing already to the national defence where they are. Under this Bill they would be taken willy-nilly and that would be a first-class blunder. Therefore I suggest that it shall be open to the Minister, if satisfied, to permit any persons so registered to be exempt from liability to be called up.
That is the sensible thing to do. Otherwise the young man will have to be called up; then a case will have to be instituted by someone or other, perhaps his employer, that it is a matter of hardship, and the case will have to go to the Hardships Committee. Weeks and even months may be occupied in that process. That is not the way to do it. The sensible thing to do is to say: "This young man is in the classification where he is better employed in the defence of the country," and the Minister should have the power to make an exemption. Those are the reasons why I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, after ("registered") insert ("or may permit any person so registered to be exempt from his liability to be called up for military training").—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I fully appreciate the weight of the Amendment which has been moved by my noble
162
friend, but I think that it is entirely contrary to the intention of the Bill that power should be given to the Minister to exempt persons permanently from military training. My noble friend has said that it is intended under this Bill to deal with cases of hardship by temporary postponement or anticipation. It is the belief of the Government that any advantage which might accrue from such an Amendment as the noble Lord has moved would be more than offset by the strife and dissatisfaction which would ensue as the result of relieving one class from compulsory training. With regard to the highly skilled workers to whom my noble friend refers, I understand that the War Office have got vacancies for skilled tradesmen of that kind in connection with this training, and that they will take technical workmen of this type into the Royal Ordnance Corps, the Engineers, and the Signallers, so that they will not be reduced to the admittedly ridiculous position of forming threes when they are highly skilled engineers. Of course I cannot forecast or guarantee to my noble friend whether all will find vacancies, but we hope a considerable number will, and the Ministry of Labour is or will shortly be finding out the occupations of all people registered in order to identify those who could be trained to take part in such a technical service.
LORD MANCROFT: I think we ought to come more closely to this point than we have by the answer of my noble friend Lord Birkenhead. We want to get more specifically to the point of what is likely to be the position in the event of war. I had some experience of matters of this kind during the last War, and although I have not refreshed my memory two things have passed through my mind while I sat here listening to the debate. Armstrong's people used to come to my room in the War Office in the early days of the War and say: "We want some of our skilled men back. Will you get them back for us from the Army? We want certain special men who do special work." While the War Office was trying to get these men back there were actually outside Armstrong's works at Elswick recruiting sergeants trying to get other men out of the works.
Another case that recurs to me was this. We were then very short of rifles. We had the greatest trouble to produce

163
enough rifles. Some of the men who had very high technical skill in the aligning of rifle barrels had gone into the Army from the works at Enfield and were irreplaceable. They had volunteered. We had to get these men back. Much delay and difficulty arose. The analogy between the position then and that of the present circumstances may not be a good one, but I suggest that certainly where we know that men are making special munitions for the Government those men ought to be exempted by name. They ought to be specifically scheduled in, for example, such works as Armstrongs, Vickers, Woolwich and Enfield, and men from such places should not be taken on any account however great their eagerness may be to go and fight. I therefore think there is substance in what the noble Lord, Lord Addison, has said, and it ought to be considered. I say that from my experience in the War Office during the early months of the War 25 years ago.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Is there not some confusion of thought here? This Bill is one that deals, with military training and surely the circumstances will be different when we come to war. I cannot think that so very many of these boys at the age of twenty will be so highly skilled as the noble Lord, Lord Addison, suggests, but is there any reason why they should not do their military training now? In the event of war they could, if necessary, be promptly withdrawn from the Army and sent back to their proper jobs. Surely they need not be exempt from doing military training now.
LORD ADDISON: With respect to the noble Earl he is speaking outside the point. What I say is literally true. A good many of these young men of twenty and twenty-one will be in the fifth year of their apprenticeship, just finishing their apprenticeship, and the majority of them are first-rate fellows at their jobs. I do not mind what expedient the Government adopt. It may be a useful alternative, for example, to make men in scheduled trades who are highly skilled and necessary for the production of munitions serve in the Territorials instead of taking them away for six months. That might be a good way of dealing with the difficulty. All I am suggesting to the Government when defending my procedure in the Amendment is that they should have
164
power to do this. As it is under the Bill as it stands they have no power.
The line of defence of the noble Earl who spoke for the Government is the line of least resistance. He says there would be less trouble and bother by ignoring the schedule of occupations altogether and calling these apprentices up than there would be if we began to pick and choose. I respectfully suggest to him that he has been seriously misinformed. There will be infinite bother the first week this is operated, and some of the people who will make the biggest bother will be those who are giving the best output for the Air Ministry. There is no doubt at all about it. I do hope the Government will not be obstinate. It is an entirely sensible Amendment and I hope the noble Earl will, at any rate, ask his colleagues to think over the matter between now and Report stage. If I had any chance of support in the Division Lobby I should divide on this, but I know I am in a hopeless position. I can only put forward a reasonable case—but it is right.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is not the noble Lord forgetting that this is only the last year of apprenticeship? There is ample power in the Bill which will enable him to finish his apprenticeship.
LORD ADDISON: With great respect, that is not so. The case will not come to notice. There is no means of knowing.
LORD MANCROFT: There is also a technical or physical objection. Take the case of the manufacture of rifles, where the greatest skill of eye and hand is required. If you put into the Army a young man in the last year, even, of his apprenticeship and he is away six months, it may take another year for him to recover his delicacy of skill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.42 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved to leave out the proviso in subsection (4). The noble Lord said: I am sorry to be responsible for so many Amendments, but this is another that is equally reasonable. If noble Lords will look at the Bill they will see that in these cases it is provided that
"if the determination of the Committee with respect to any application was unanimous, the applicant shall not be entitled to appeal to the umpire or any deputy umpire except with the leave of the Committee."

165
If your Lordships turn to Clause 3, subsection (5) you will see on page 7 of the Bill provisions relating to conscientious objectors in which there is quite a different procedure. That procedure is the same kind, more or less, as we had in the last War. There it is provided that an applicant for registration as a conscientious objector who is aggrieved by the order of a local tribunal may, within the prescribed time, appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. He does not require to get anybody's permission. He has the right of appeal. When it is this other type of hardship that is being considered, I suggest that it is quite unfair to those concerned—they may be employers in just as many cases as they are men—who wish to have a case put before the umpire, that they should not be entitled to appeal to the umpire. I can see no justification whatever for requiring that before these people can appeal they should receive the consent of the Committee which has turned down their case. It seems to me entirely unreasonable.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, leave out lines 27 to 31.—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The effect of this Amendment would be that any applicant whose case had been dealt with by a Military Training (Hardship) Committee would fie entitled, if aggrieved, to appeal to the umpire. My noble friend has put his case in such a way as to suggest that this Amendment is consequential upon the Government Amendment now included in Clause 3, page 6, line 39, which provides an unrestricted appeal on conscientious objection from the local tribunals to the Appellate Tribunal. The two cases are however quite dissimilar. The conscientious objection tribunals are few in number, the cases will be limited in number, and the issue that is being tried is not one on which local knowledge is of importance. The Military Training (Hardship) Committees, on the other hand, are dealing with the issue of hardship and for proper adjudication on this issue local knowledge clearly is desirable; and there is no reason to suppose that the umpire, sitting in London, would be in a position to arrive at a better decision than the Hardship Committee with its knowledge of local circumstances. We are well aware that there is need for provision for appeal irk order that uniformity
166
may be introduced on matters of principle and that appeal is provided for under the clause as at present drafted which enables the applicant to appeal if the Committee were not unanimous in their decision, or if they gave leave to appeal.
Your Lordships are of course aware that there may be cases in which the Committee will be unanimous in rejecting a man's case, but there may be certain particular circumstances or matters of principle involved which will enable them to say that the man may appeal. The need for uniformity is also safeguarded by the Minister's unrestricted right of appeal; and if it is said that the Minister should not have an unrestricted right of appeal when the applicant has only a restricted right, I should perhaps point out that the Minister is not in any sense a prosecutor in these cases, but an impartial administrator and that his right of appeal may be exercised in the applicant's favour as well as against him. No doubt there will be very large numbers of applications for anticipation and postponement and if every applicant could appeal from an unfavourable decision from the Hardship Committee to the umpire it might well be that the umpire would be faced with a volume of work with which he could not cope. Most of it would consist of cases which had no point of principle involved in them, and would be automatically disallowed. One must not overlook also in this imperfect world the possibility of certain individuals with no good cause for postponement seeking to put off their liability by unnecessary and hopeless appeals.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The first Amendment standing in my name is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 4, leave out ("Subject to the following provisions of this Act").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: There is another drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 17, leave out ("subject to the following provisions of this Act").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Exemption of certain classes of persons.
2.—(1) No person shall be liable to be registered in the Military Training Register, or to be called up for military training under this Act, who—
(c) has, before the twenty-seventh day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, been entered or enlisted in any of His Majesty's Reserve and Auxiliary Forces or been appointed to be an officer of any of those forces; or
3.48 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, in subsection (1) (c), to leave out "twenty-seventh day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine," and insert "passing of this Act." The noble Lord said: It is a somewhat hopeless enterprise upon which I am engaged, but again I am in charge of a reasonable Amendment. The Bill provides that a man shall not be liable to be called up who, before April 27, 1939, had been entered or enlisted in any of His Majesty's Reserve and Auxiliary Forces. There was a notice in the newspapers to that effect, but it broke down the following day. It has already become a law more observed in the breach because a large number of men enlisted in the Territorials the following day and it was agreed, quite sensibly, that their enlistment should stand and their service proceed. I suggest that, instead of putting into the Bill some arbitrary date, this provision should come into force as soon as this Bill becomes an Act. Then everybody would know where they were and we should regularise the breaches of the law which were condoned, quite properly, by His Majesty's Government on April 27 and 28. Anyhow, it would be a sensible procedure and in accordance with practically every existing Act of the kind, as far as I know. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 22, leave out from ("the") to ("been") in line 23, and insert ("passing of this Act").—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment seeks to let any man join the Auxiliary Forces of the Crown up to the date of the passing of the Bill instead of up to and including April 26, which was the day announced in the Prime Minister's statement regarding the introduction of compulsory military training.
168
It is the considered policy of the Government not to exempt persons who volunteered their services after the day of the Prime Minister's statement. Beyond that, I do not think I can say anything which would alter the opinions of the noble Lord; but naturally he will observe that, if we accepted his Amendment and changed the date in the Bill to that of the passing of the Act, we should have a large number of individuals coming into the Territorial Army who would then avoid having to perform their compulsory training. As this is a matter of policy, His Majesty's Government are not prepared to change it in any way whatever.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The Amendment in my name is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 26, after ("force") insert ("or been appointed to be an officer thereof").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Conscientious objectors.
(12) The regulations made under this Act regulating the procedure of such tribunals as aforesaid shall make provision for the Appellate Tribunal to sit in two divisions, of which one shall sit for Scotland, and shall empower the tribunals to take evidence on oath, and shall make provision as to the representation of parties to proceedings before the tribunals which shall include the right to appear either in person or by counsel or a solicitor or by a representative of any trade union to which they belong.
3.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 34, leave out ("on") and insert ("in").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, at the end of subsection (12), to insert "or by a friend." The noble Lord said: This Amendment brings the proposed procedure into line with the procedure which was adopted during the last War and worked quite easily. This clause relates to procedure affecting conscientious objectors. It was found during the last War that a great many conscientious objectors

169
belonged to some sect or group which objected to military service. For instance, I remember that the Christadelphians refused to employ lawyers. They must have saved a lot of money, and perhaps not many of us have had the fortitude to copy their example! However, they were quite sincere in doing so. They would not employ a solicitor, and probably many of them would not belong to a trade union, in which case the applicant would have no way of presenting his case except presenting it himself. A large number of applicants would be quite poor and entirely unfamiliar with the proceedings of the court, and would not know how to set about it. It worked quite peaceably during the War, as far as I know, with a great number of people when a responsible friend was allowed to present their case for them to the tribunal. I am moving in this Amendment that they should have the right to appear either in person, by counsel or solicitor, by a representative of a trade union or by a friend. I hope the Government will accept at least this very humane Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 44, at end insert ("or by a friend").—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I fully appreciate the force of this Amendment, and I think that some provision of the kind is very necessary. In point of fact the Amendment itself is unnecessary, as the clause as at present drafted enables regulations to be made by the Minister which will admit the friend of an applicant on these occasions. The Bill was, in fact, amended in the House of Commons on the Report stage precisely for this purpose. It had previously said that the regulations might provide for the applicant to appear either in person or by counsel or solicitor or by a representative of any trade union to which he belonged, and that is the form in which the noble Lord objected to it.
LORD ADDISON: I do not object to it; I want to add to it.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I understand, but it was represented in the House of Commons that these words might be held to rule out the possibility of an applicant bringing a friend to represent him. Consequently, upon Report stage the words were amended to read
170
as they do at present—namely, that the regulations
"shall make provision as to the representation of parties to proceedings before the tribunals which shall include "—
those are the important words—
"the right to appear either in person or by counsel or a solicitor or by a representative of any trade union to which they belong."
This form of words is not exclusive, and leaves it open to provide for the appearance of a friend, and the regulations will so make provision for the friend. I hope this assurance will be sufficient for the noble Lord.
LORD ADDISON: Whether the noble and learned Lord Chancellor would support that reading of the Bill I wonder! This is an instruction to the Minister on what the regulations are to contain, and not an instruction to put in something which is not mentioned. However, if the noble Earl will give me his assurance on behalf of the Government that the regulations will include the provision for a person to be represented by a friend, then, so far as I am concerned, I will thank him and be content. Could I have that specific assurance?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I shall be very pleased to give my noble friend the assurance for which he asks.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I may say that I have some little inclination to favour the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite. It may be that my noble friend below me interprets the text rightly and that there would be a power under the clause as it stands to include a friend as representative. But I think it is very remarkable that a large number of other kinds of representatives should be named and this general friend left out. I should have thought that most tribunals would have interpreted it as exclusive. At any rate, if there is any doubt I think the Government should put it right. If they cannot do it now, perhaps they would do it at the next stage of the Bill.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: In support of what the noble Marquess has said, I may say that it has been my experience—a very limited experience, admittedly—of definitions of this nature that if you name a certain number of people who may be interested, as in this case, you at least tend to limit the class. There seems to me no earthly reason why the

171
friend should not be added in the Bill, rather than merely specifying that he may be added by regulation.
LORD RAGLAN: Is there not this other objection, that you are making members of a trade union a privileged class? If you belong to a trade union, you are entitled to be represented for nothing; if you do not belong to a trade union, you have to pay a solicitor.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I think your Lordships know, I am always in favour of making Acts of Parliament as lucid and certain in their meaning as possible. It is not always possible, but I think in this case it is. I must say frankly that I think it would be an advantage in the interests of certainty and clarity if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted. In saying that, I know that I am supported by the feeling of many noble Lords. There may, however, be a question whether the words of the Amendment are exactly satisfactory, and perhaps the noble Lord will allow His Majesty's Government to put down the appropriate words to carry out this intention.
LORD ADDISON: I thank the noble and learned Lord very much, and beg leave to withdrawn the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Calling up persons for military training.
(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, every person upon whom a military training notice is served shall be deemed—
(7) Where, immediately before the time when a person is deemed to have been enlisted by virtue of subsection (2) of this section, he is a member of any of His Majesty's Reserve and Auxiliary Forces, his service in that force shall be deemed to have been duly terminated at that time.
4.0 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) The provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, with any necessary modifications shall, by regulations to be made by the Minister, be made applicable to any
172
person called up for military training under this Act who sustains an injury in the course of his military duties."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises another very important matter, which I think perhaps may have been overlooked. These young men will be called up for military training for six months. Then the Bill provides that, except for good cause shown, they are to be reinstated in their employ, and there are penalties upon the employer if he fails to reinstate them. So the whole scheme of the Bill is that these young men receive this term of military training as a sort of interruption of their ordinary industry. They do not become Regular soldiers in the accepted sense. In the course of his ordinary industry if a man sustains an injury he is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act in that event; and we are all, of course, familiar with the methods of working of that Act. At this particular period in his life this young man is taken out with the idea of being put back again in the same position at the end of his period of training. But suppose that during the six months he is knocked down by a lorry in the course of his work in the Army, then he is only entitled to receive the ordinary compensation which would be payable under the military laws, which is very much less than he would be getting if he were receiving the benefits of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
In the case of a man intending to remain in the Army he will, of course, spend his time there and thereafter draw his pay or annuity, whatever it is; but these young men are in an entirely different category, and I suggest that it is not reasonable that they should be deprived of the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Act during this compulsory interruption of their ordinary work. A very trifling premium would provide that the benefits of the Act should continue. But it might be that a young fellow taken from his work might receive injury which would incapacitate him for life from resuming his ordinary work. If he had the benefit of the Workmen's Compensation Act he would be compensated accordingly, but if he were to receive only the compensation which applied to the Auxiliary and Territorial Forces he would be in a very different position. I think it is only right that if, during the interrup-

173
tion of his ordinary occupation, he should sustain an injury, he should be entitled to the same compensation as he would have been entitled to if he had remained in his ordinary occupation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 16, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Lord's advice on the subject of the Workmen's Compensation Act is somewhat different from mine, because I am informed that by Section 33 of the Act of 1925 it is specifically stated that it does not apply to personnel in the military service of the Crown. All these young men who will come up to perform their military duty while in the Militia Service are eligible for awards under the Service Regulations if they get injured or hurt in any such way as the noble Lord suggested. Indeed, I am advised that these militiamen will be eligible for the benefits of the normal disability peace code, which is applicable to all military forces in time of peace, and taking the Service Regulations as a whole they are, I understand, a great deal more advantageous than the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925. I hope therefore the noble Lord will observe that these men are covered by the Service Regulations, and that in the event of damage to themselves either through accident or illness they will be compensated by the State.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Can the noble Earl give us one assurance? It is one thing to be eligible, but that is not to say that you will receive. You may receive an ex gratia payment at the discretion of the Secretary of State for War, who will be very likely desirous of exercising that discretion in a liberal way, or it may be at the discretion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in Service matters takes a far less liberal view than a Service Minister is inclined to do. I speak with some sympathy in this matter, because for years I have fought what I had hoped in the end was a winning battle to get reasonable rates for members of the Auxiliary Forces under the Treasury Regulations. It may well be that the maximum ex gratia payment which the Secretary of State, with the authority of the Treasury, is allowed to give to a serving soldier of the Auxiliary or Territorial Forces is as
174
good as the legal compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but I do not think your Lordships would want to part with this matter without something more than an assurance—without a firm statement that if a man in the course of his peace-time service meets with an injury which would give him a right to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, he will have just as firm a right to compensation under the Military Regulations. It ought not to be left as a matter of discretion. In this matter, as in all matters, the State ought to be a model employer, and it ought to give the maximum compensation which an ordinary employer has to give in the case of an accident. I should like, and I am sure your Lordships would wish, to have a firm assurance that the soldier will get it as a right and not merely as a matter of discretion, which can be exercised or not at will.
EARL HOWE: I do not want to traverse anything which the noble Viscount has said, but I want to utter a note of warning. I think we should not put the new Militia Force in a preferential position as compared with the Regular Forces.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: There is this difference between the two, that the man who enlists in the existing forces does so of his own free will, and he accepts the conditions laid down for the Army or other similiar Services. These militiamen are enlisted compulsorily, and therefore it is not right to subject them to any worse conditions than they would have had if they had remained in civil employment. There appear to be two differences between the rights of compensation under the Military Regulations and those which would accrue under the Workmen's Compensation Act. One is the question whether there is a right to compensation, or whether it depends upon the discretion of the Secretary of State or other Minister. The other is whether the amount of the award is equal in the two cases. Lord Munster has stated that, taken as a whole, the disability payments are as generous under the Military Regulations as under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but that does not necessarily mean that in every particular case where a man suffers an accident in peace time owing to his compulsory service in the Militia, he will be treated as generously—or as

175
adequately I would say—as under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Both these points deserve fuller consideration.
EARL STANHOPE: I do not think I could give the assurance that my noble friend asked for, for this reason. He knows very well that these cases vary with each individual and with each case, and therefore it is almost impossible to say that the cases which arise under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the particular cases that might arise in one of the Services are strictly comparable. I had to fight these cases years ago when I was Civil Lord of the Admiralty, and I found that when I was able to make a clear case I succeeded in getting out of the Treasury compensation which certainly was quite as good as the individual would have got under the Workmen's Compensation Act. That is certainly the intention of the Government with regard to this Bill, and I do not think I could say more than that because, as I say, I do not think it is possible to give an absolute pledge as to how cases would be dealt with, because they differ so much one from the other.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I appreciate my noble friend's difficulty; on the other hand we are still left in a difficulty. How much the man gets is one thing, and whether he is to get it as of right is another. In 99 cases out of 100 it is perfectly plain that the accident a man meets with is, to use the legal parlance, one arising out of and in the course of his employment. Where it is a doubtful case as to whether this accident arises out of and in the course of his employment, it is a matter for the County Court Judge in the case of workmen's compensation and for the Secretary of State or the Treasury in the case of a serving soldier. The assurance that I would like my noble friend to give is that where, in the opinion of the War Office, it is plainly established that a man met with an accident in the course of his employment and arising out of his employment, he will as a matter of course receive that compensation.
LORD RUSHCLIFFE: It is quite clear that there is a good deal to be said both for and against this Amendment, but I suggest that it raises a question of Privilege, inasmuch as it imposes a charge on the Exchequer. Of course it
176
may be that the Commons would waive their right.
LORD ADDISON: The case is not fully met by the assurance the noble Earl has given, because the whole intention of the Government is that the position of the man should not be worsened by compulsory enlistment. In this case I am advised by men who spend their lives in dealing with these cases—members of different trade unions—that the man's position will be materially worsened, though not perhaps where he gets a good ex gratia payment. But in the case of workmen's compensation, a man has a right and knows more or less the kind of compensation to which he will be entitled. Under the Act to which the noble Earl referred the circumstances are entirely different. That is an Act which relates to men undergoing long service in His Majesty's Forces, not to men compulsorily enlisted for a short time, and it was never designed for that purpose. I hope, therefore, that, though these words may not be the right words, the Government will at all events promise reconsideration of the matter, and see whether they cannot meet the substance of the case at a later stage of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say a word on this point partly because I spent many weary hours here and elsewhere in considering workmen's compensation cases? I must tell your Lordships, with great respect to Lord Addison, that I doubt very much whether he has contemplated what regulations could properly be made under this Amendment, if it were not a matter of Privilege, to make the clauses properly applicable to the cases which he has in mind. An ordinary workman is in a quite different position from a person who is a soldier serving the Crown, whether he happens to be a person training under this Bill when it becomes an Act, or whether he is in the Regular Forces. A workman who suffers some injury is generally employed at a week's notice, and he has no right to his wages after he has ceased to be able to discharge his duties and perform the work for which he was engaged. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act he can get something for so many weeks, and there are most elaborate provisions—and elaborate as they are, much more elaborate decisions of the Courts—

177
which determine what he is to be entitled to.
If you take a soldier, whether enlisted under this Act or a Regular soldier, he does not cease to be the servant of the Crown and entitled to his pay and allowances because he has unfortunately sprained his ankle or broken his arm. He will continue, at any rate to the end of his employment, to be entitled to his wages. If you are considering more serious forms of injury, with some considerable experience I doubt very much whether it would always, or nearly always, be to his advantage to come under the Workmen's Compensation Act and whether he would not be better off under the present system applicable to people who are serving the Crown. The whole matter requires, I venture to think, most careful consideration, in order that it may be possible for the persons concerned to ascertain whether this clause, or anything like this clause, is appropriate for the purpose which the noble Lord has in mind. Accordingly, having regard to these facts—namely, that I believe the provision to be unworkable, and that such a provision might have very serious reactions on the Forces of the Crown—I would certainly recommend your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
I will only add that your Lordships must know—we all know—that this Bill was introduced under circumstances of great pressure and to fill a very urgent need in the circumstances of the world, and I do not suppose any of the draftsmen concerned with this measure would pretend that it was perfect or that it was incapable of amendment. The position, however, is that at present every Amendment of any substance might prevent this Bill from being passed this side of the Recess, and I would urgently suggest that Amendments which are of a highly controversial nature, as this one would be, should not be pressed now. During the three years of this Act, when it is passed, there will be other opportunities of amendment, and I have no doubt myself that more Amendments will be found necessary in the course of the next year. But at the present moment: I suggest it would be very much better that this particular Amendment should be left for some later date.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "following provisions of this" and insert "provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of the the last foregoing." The noble Earl said: The first Amendment standing in my name on this clause is consequential on the second which aims at dividing Clause 5 into two clauses. Perhaps, therefore, I might formally move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 17, leave out ("following provisions of this") and insert ("provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of the last foregoing").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.21 p.m.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, at the end of subsection (7), to insert "unless he is a serving Territorial, in which case he shall retain during his Militia service his Territorial rank and status and his service in that force shall be considered as continuous." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment as a member of a Territorial Force Association and as one who served for some years in that Force. Under the Bill as at present drafted the serving Territorial on being called up has his service terminated. I do not see any provision in the Bill at present to facilitate, in such a case, the man rejoining the Territorial unit he was in before when the end of his Militia training is reached, nor does it appear that he will gain any advantage through his Militia service. The obligations of the Territorial Force seem to be quite as exacting if not more exacting than those of any force he might be required to join at the termination of his compulsory service. Therefore, as far as I can see, and in the opinion of others who are more in touch with serving Territorials at the moment than I am, there is a very grave risk that the flow of recruits to the Territorial Army will be greatly affected by this measure. I therefore urge very strongly that if the Government desire, as they do desire, that the Territorial Army should continue as an integral and efficient part of the Defence Forces of the Crown, arrangements should be made for continuity of service in the same unit.
There is also a very important point about the effect on the Territorial efficiency and long service medals. A man should be able to know he can go back to the same unit with the same

179
rank and seniority as he held before. Where men serving in the Territorial Force have taken the trouble to become efficient and have attained non-commissioned rank, advantage should be taken of the knowledge and training acquired. It is not very encouraging to undertake this compulsory training, lose your rank and stripes, and perhaps serve alongside men you formerly used to command. Of course I recognise there are administrative difficulties on that point. The important point is the return to the same unit. The Secretary of State in another place intimated that the Territorial noncommissioned officer could normally expect to return to his place in the Territorial Army in the same rank as he previously held. I should be grateful if the noble Earl who will reply will tell us how, seeing his engagement has been terminated, he will be able to do this, and whether, on re-engagement, he will not have to start again at the lowest rank and lose his seniority, however rapidly thereafter he may be promoted. I feel it would be more satisfactory if there were some definite words in the Bill regarding this possibility of returning to the same unit, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 28, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Addington.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I understand the intention of the Amendment of my noble friend is to ensure that a Territorial Force soldier, when he comes up on six months' training, shall retain his Territorial status and rank, and that his service in the Militia shall be regarded as a continuous part of his Territorial engagement. My noble friend will observe that a case such as this can only arise in relation to a Territorial who has served in the Force on or after April 27. It would be impossible for a Territorial soldier to retain his status in the Territorial Army concurrently with his status as a militiaman. I understand it is a well-known principle of Military Law that a man cannot be serving on two engagements at the same time, and it is for this reason that provision is made in subsection (7) of Clause 5 for the termination of any earlier engagement which is current when a man is deemed to have enlisted as a militiaman. Further, he could not retain in the Militia any non-commissioned rank he may have attained in the
180
Territorial Army. As I mentioned in my speech on the Second Reading, it is the considered policy of the Government that all militiamen shall be treated on an equality.
As regards the Territorial efficiency medal, that question is being examined now, and I am not in a position to give the noble Lord any definite reply to his inquiry. I can, however, say this, that it is the intention of my right honourable friend that on an individual's return to the Territorial Army, he will be reinstated into his former rank if his Militia training has proved satisfactory to his commanding officer at that time. The noble Lord will recognise, as I have said before, that it is two years before a case of this sort can come up, and that will give us ample opportunity to re-examine a position which might conceivably arise such as the noble Lord has outlined. I hope on the assurance I have given regarding reinstatement to the Territorial Army from the Militia, my noble friend will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Do I understand that when a young corporal in the Territorial Army within the age is enlisted as a militiaman, he will there-upon be reduced to the rank of private? That may be inevitable, though I must say, I have a very great feeling of compassion for the corporal who is treated in that way. The time comes when he has passed through his recruit training as a militiaman and he is to be encouraged under part of the scheme of the Government to rejoin the Territorial Army. Are we to understand that when he rejoins he will reassume his stripes as a corporal? Is that to be an absolute pledge of the Government, subject of course to good behaviour?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Subject to good behaviour and subject to the satisfaction of his commanding officer commanding the battalion he has been serving in for six months, I can guarantee that to the noble Marquess.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: There should not be many Territorials who by the age of twenty have reached any very advanced non-commissioned rank.
EARL HOWE: May I ask the noble Earl whether it is quite clear that a man who has been serving in the Reserve Forces and is called up for his Militia

181
training or compulsory service, at the end of that time is to be discharged and allowed to go back to his former unit? Most of the units work with some sort of establishment. Supposing the unit is full up at the conclusion of his Militia service, will be still be entitled to go back to it, or what will happen?
THE EARL OF RADNOR: May I ask whether it would not be possible to impose on Territorial units, in a case like this, a similar obligation to that which is being imposed on employers, to reinstate Territorials who have been called up in the position in which they were before?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I should like to consider that point and give the noble Earl a reply during the Report stage to-morrow.
EARL HOWE: Does that apply also to the point I raised?
LORD ADDINGTON: It would be an enormous advantage from the point of view of recruiting, if we got as clear a statement as possible as to the intentions of the Government and as to what the regulations are going to be. It is true that the Territorials would actually be called up two years from now. The question of the recruiting for the Territorial Force will start this autumn, and it is important that some very clear statements and some definite regulation should be issued in order to facilitate the obtaining of recruits. I think the question of seconding should also be considered. Officers and men are at present seconded for various courses and for the Staff College, so that a Territorial could be seconded from his unit and join up automatically at the end of his training. I should like to ask whether regulations of that kind can be further considered. I do not wish to delay the matter, but I think the points I have mentioned are important and should be considered.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
That clause 5 be divided into two clauses, the first to consist of subsection (1) and subsections (8) to (12) inclusive and the second to consist of subsections (2) to (7) inclusive.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Reinstatement in civil employment.
6.—(1) It shall be the duty of any employer by whom a person called up for training to which this section applies was employed when he was so called up, to reinstate him in his employment at the termination of that training in an ocupation and under conditions not less favourable to him than those which would have been applicable to him had he not been called up, and if he fails to do so, the employer shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds; and the court by which any employer is found guilty of an offence under this subsection may order him to pay to the person whom he has failed to reinstate a sum not exceeding an amount equal to twelve weeks' remuneration at the rate at which his remuneration was last payable to him by the employer:
(5) If the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary to restrain employers from terminating the employment of their employees by reason of any duties or liabilities which they are or may become liable to perform or discharge by virtue of the provisions of this Act, or to make provision for the prevention of evasion of the provisions of this section, he may make regulations for those purposes, and such regulations may make provision for the punishment of breaches of the regulations, and may in particular apply with respect to persons found guilty of such breaches any of the provisions of this section relating to persons found guilty of offences under this section, with or without modifications.
4.35 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, in subsection (1), after "applies," to insert "(or conditionally registered in the Register of Conscientious Objectors, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection (7) of Section three of this Act)." The noble Lord said: Under the Bill as it stands a man will be reinstated in his employment after he has served his term under the provisions of this clause. If your Lordships will observe the words of it you will see that there is a class which is omitted from the benefit intended to be bestowed. The words are "It shall be the duty of any employer by whom a person called up for training to which this section applies." Who are the people to whom this section applies? They are the people who are called up for training and who undergo training, but if you refer back to the bottom of page 7 of the Bill you will see that there is another class. There is a class of those who are conditionally registered for the period of one year on condition that during that year they shall comply with the requirements of the next subsection.

183
Then, if you look at the next subsection, which is subsection (8) on page 8, you will see that that relates to people who are held to have a conscientious objection and who are given non-military work to do.
The whole class of those who are on the Register but who on grounds of their conscientious objection are exempted from military service as such are given non-combatant service. They are not included in the reinstatement provisions of Clause 6. The reinstatement provisions of Clause 6, as I understand them, only provide for those who serve in the ordinary way. They do not relate to those who have not undergone the military training because, under the provisions of the earlier clause, they are being put into the special category of those who are on the Register but who are exempted from military service on conscientious grounds. Yet they are taken away from their employment just in the same way as any other persons. I think it is the intention of the Government that a person who is on conscientious grounds, after proper inquiry, placed in his special class shall not be prejudiced on that account in his subsequent employment. I am quite sure that is the intention of the Government and it is only right that it should be so. But I suggest that if the Bill stands as it now is, this man has no right to reinstatement, and in order to secure that those who are conditionally registered as set out in paragraph (b) of Clause 3 (7) at the bottom of page 7 should also be entitled to reinstatement in their employment just the same as those who are on the ordinary Register, which I feel sure was intended, I move the Amendment that stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 33, after ("applies") insert the said words.—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The effect of the Amendment would be to impose upon employers the same liability to reinstate conscientious objectors who have done six months' civilian training under Clause 3, subsection (8), as is imposed upon them to reinstate militiamen who have done six months' training. I am very well aware that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment has great experience of this matter, and I say to him very respectfully that we consider
184
that the obligation to reinstatement which is imposed upon employers by this Bill is a very heavy obligation and it is only one which it is possible to impose if public opinion, and of course public opinion of employers, is in favour of proper provision for reinstatement. I think it is a fact that while employers generally will be willing and anxious to reinstate the militiamen, and will be further in favour of the compulsory provisions of this Bill in so far as they relate to militiamen, the same cannot be said with any confidence in relation to conscientious objectors, and I think that to attempt to force employers against their will to reinstate conscientious objectors would be to create a state of general discontent which might very well imperil the reinstatement provision as a whole. There is one other point which I would put to the noble Lord, and that is that if the provisions were extended to conscientious objectors it might very well further embitter the feelings with which they are probably wrongly regarded in time of war. I may add that this Amendment was moved in the House of Commons and was resisted upon the ground that it was understood and accepted that employers might be compelled by legal compulsion to reinstate militiamen but that the position was quite different in the case of conscientious objectors.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
4.39 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) Any person whose employer has failed to reinstate him in accordance with the provisions of this section, may submit his complaint to a Military Training (Hardship) Committee, and if the Committee are satisfied that the complaint is well-founded they shall advise the Minister accordingly, whose duty it shall be to institute proceedings against the employer."
The noble Lord said: The question I want your Lordships to ask yourselves at this point is what is a man going to do who has not been reinstated in accordance with the provisions of the Bill and as it is intended? In the clause to which the noble Earl has just been referring the men are entitled to reinstatement. So far as I can see, if a man is not reinstated what he can do somehow or another is to satisfy the Minister about it or take action in the Courts. How he is going to satisfy the Minister I do not quite know. There is no machinery for enabling

185
him to satisfy the Minister. He can, of course, write letters or get a Member to put questions in the House of Commons, and generally make himself as troublesome as he can, but there is no means of enabling him to satisfy the Minister that he is entitled to reinstatement and has not been reinstated. I suggest that that is putting a man in an impossible position, an entirely unfair position. If he belongs to a powerful union, his union will champion his cause for him and I do not expect there will be any difficulty in such cases. Difficulties will not arise with big responsible employers accustomed every day to deal in conference with employees and their unions. The trouble will occur in small cases where there are one or two or perhaps three men employed with no union to defend a man or state his case. The man himself will not know how to set about it. He probably knows nothing about consulting lawyers and in many cases will have no money to enable him to do that. There should be some machinery provided whereby a man can establish his case. That is what my Amendment seeks to do.
We have set up in an earlier part of the Bill bodies called Military Training (Hardship) Committees which will consist, I believe, of experienced referees and others accustomed to advise the Ministry of Labour in industrial matters. One of those Committees is just the kind of body to which a man ought to have access if he wants to establish a case that he is entitled to reinstatement and has not been reinstated. It seems to me that the Hardship Committee, having already experience of all this group of problems, is the body to deal with such cases. If the Committee find that a man has a case no doubt it will report to the Minister and action may be taken. Then subsection (5) of Clause 6 will mean something. As it stands I suggest that it does not mean anything, because I do not see how the Minister is ever going to be satisfied. In order to provide means for satisfying the Minister or otherwise, I suggest that these claims for reinstatement should be considered by a body experienced already in dealing with that class of case and that it should report to the Minister its findings.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 24, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I can quite understand the motive of the noble Lord in moving this Amendment, but we do not think there is any reason for interposing the Military Training (Hardship) Committee in these proceedings The Hardship Committees are appointed under Clause 1 (3) of the Bill to deal with a specific matter—namely, applications for anticipation and postponement of liability for military training in cases where hardship is alleged. We think it is unnecessary to bring these Committees into the administration of the reinstatement clause and indeed to do so would probably only cause a delay in the proceedings. The Minister will be prepared to institute proceedings in proper cases against defaulting employers on application at the Ministry of Labour. If the present Amendment were accepted it would mean that the Minister would never take proceedings unless and until a Hardship Committee had reported, which would only cause delay. It is also always possible for the employee, possibly with the assistance of his trade union, to take proceedings against the employer.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I, on the question of the construction of the Bill, say a word or two which I think will probably remove some of the doubts entertained by the noble Lord, Lord Addison. In Clause 6 (1) certain rights are given to a person called up for training who is not reinstated. He would be entitled at once, on the employer refusing to take him back without any reason, to apply to the ordinary petty sessional court to enforce a penalty and to obtain also a sum equal to twelve weeks' remuneration at the rate at which his remuneration was last payable by the employer. His right to do that is not conditional at all. He can do it, subject to his having a case, at once. The effect of this Amendment would be that he could not take any such steps unless, as I understand the Amendment, he went to the Military Training (Hardship) Committee and induced them to say that the complaint was well-founded, and then the Committee would advise the Minister to institute proceedings.
I cannot think that that is really the object of the noble Lord. He has referred to subsection (5) as if that subsection had something to do with the man's rights under subsection (1). I can assure your

187
Lordships that in my confident opinion that is not a right view of the Bill. As I have said to your Lordships, this Bill was drafted rather hurriedly and it was thought that the provisions in the first four subsections might not cover all the cases of injustice which might possibly be suffered by a refusal to reinstate a man in his old employment. It was for that reason thought necessary to insert subsection (5), to enable the Minister to make regulations by which the net might be tightened and it might be made more difficult for an employer who desired to evade his duties to do so. It is only for that purpose. That subsection is intended simply and solely for the purpose of making regulations to tighten the net. Subsection (1) is quite apart from that. A man who has a grievance is not in the least bound to satisfy the Minister of anything whatever. It is true that if he requires assistance in bringing an action he would have to apply, as the noble Earl who has just spoken from these Benches has explained, to the Ministry of Labour for assistance, but he has a right to go straight away and enforce his claim. I venture to think that probably the noble Lord will come to the conclusion that in these circumstances the Amendment need not be pressed.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: It might be a convenience for the militiaman on discharge to be issued with one of those little buff books which those of us who have been soldiers remember so well. That will show him very clearly what he ought to do and to whom he should apply in case he has any difficulty. It is merely a matter for regulation, but it would make matters a little clearer for him. In fact even the form might be included rather than put on him the onus of going to petty sessions or even consulting his trade union about it.
LORD ADDISON: I confess, of course, to being influenced by the advice given by the noble and learned Lord; but while the form of the Amendment is, I think, open to some objection on the technical grounds which he alleges, that does not do away with the good grounds for an Amendment of this kind. The fact is that the men who will be suffering in the cases I am describing will not as a rule have a powerful union to support them. The
188
provisions will relate to the thousands of men in a one-man business or employing a few people, or to a man who is not in a union at all. I am sure the noble and learned Lord Chancellor will agree that such a man would be very apprehensive about taking a case even to the petty sessions. Anything relating to the law appals him; he wants something simple and something he can understand.
EARL STANHOPE: A penny-halfpenny letter to the Ministry of Labour.
LORD ADDISON: That is what I was coming to. I have great regard for the machinery of the Ministry of Labour: it is entitled to, and I think receives, great public respect. If the noble and learned Lord Chancellor will tell me that he will put in the regulations something that will instruct these men that in the case of a grievance or a non-reinstatement they can go to a Ministry of Labour Exchange and receive advice on what they ought to do about it, or how to set about getting their wrongs attended to, and get a buff form or some other coloured form to tell them what to do about it, I am perfectly content. But I think that something ought to be undertaken to put these men in this large class of cases—it will be a considerable class—in the way of obtaining their rights as intended by the Government under the Bill. If the noble Lord will give us some such pledge as that, I shall be more than content.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I must say I think the noble Lord opposite is rather hard to please. The Government have done their best to please him, and have always shown in these debates an acute sense of the necessity of seeing that nobody is ill-treated under the provisions of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord Chancellor has pointed out that the Bill was made in a great hurry.
LORD ADDISON: That is very true!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In fact, it was not necessary to point that out; it was quite evident on the face of it. But he also said most candidly that there would have to be regulations, and indeed he foreshadowed even an amending Bill as a possibility. But my noble friend opposite who spoke above the Gangway said just now that he thought that probably some little handbook might be composed in which the rights and remedies of

189
the militiaman might be set out. Those are all matters for regulation, and the Government have shown that they are most willing to issue regulations to get over the little difficulties which hasty drafting may have involved. I am sure the noble Lord ought to be satisfied with that.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
4.54 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: If I wanted a justification for this Amendment, it would be found in the speech of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor a few minutes ago. He said that the Bill had been hastily drafted, and so did the noble Marquess who has just spoken. I am sure they are right, and anybody who reads this subsection will need no further convincing. Quite frankly, I have not the faintest idea what it means. It is, I think, supposed to relate to cases where men are dismissed after the announcement of the Act and before they are called upon to register. I understand that there have been quite a number of cases of that kind by certain unworthy persons, where, therefore, the duty of reinstatement will not apply. I understand it was to do something—I am not quite sure what—with regard to that class of case that this subsection was designed. If I had any party of voters in the House I should have divided on the substance of the last Amendment, because I am quite sure that the case ought to be met. I think the noble Marquess was very sanguine. I did not detect that we got the pledge that he wants and that I want. I do not think the noble Earl gave us a pledge.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: "Reasonable regulations." You may be quite sure.
LORD ADDISON: I am very glad to hear those terms from the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, and accept them as a pledge. But if the subsection is to remain in the Bill, I move the Amendment standing in my name in order to elicit some statement of what it means, what is going to be done about it, and its object. It begins by saying, "If the Minister is satisfied "—that is, the Minister of Labour. I do not know how he is going to be satisfied or who is going to satisfy him. Anyhow, it is to restrain employers from terminating the
190
employment by reason of certain things. I want to know what he is going to do, what he has in mind, how he is going to be satisfied, and who is going to satisfy him. That is all. I really will not be exacting, as the noble Marquess alleges. I think we are entitled to have some notion of what he is going to put in these regulations, and what the Government are going to do or aim at doing. It is on that account, in the hope of eliciting some statement on those lines, that I put down the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 14, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I quite appreciate that in a Bill hastily dratted, as this has been, it is necessary for the Minister to have power to make regulations which cover the previous four subsections of this clause. There may be, and probably are, gaps in these four subsections, and you will need, or may need, some general powers in order to make them function. But it also seems to me that this subsection creates, first of all, an entirely new offence. If the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary to restrain employers from terminating the employment, then he may make regulations, and such regulations may make provision for punishment. I do not know if it is quite proper that the Minister should be able to create a new offence, with punishment attached, by regulations which, if I understand aright, must be laid before Parliament and are the subject of negative procedure: they have to be laid for forty sitting days, or something of that sort. These regulations might be made at the beginning of the Summer Recess, during which time nothing can be done by Parliament and it cannot object to the regulations, and people may be fined or even imprisoned on account of the regulations put forward by the Minister under this Bill. I do not know whether the noble Lord would be prepared to answer that question as well.
EARL STANHOPE: I am rather surprised at my noble friend for thinking that the Government are anxious to go behind the back of Parliament on every occasion and wait until just before a long Recess in order to produce their regulations. I can assure him there is nothing of that kind in our minds.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: It might happen.
EARL STANHOPE: Well, it might, but we cannot deal with all the possibilities which might occur on this or any other Bill. We have to deal with what I think the late Lord Haldane called "the reasonable probabilities." The real difficulty about this is that it is difficult to put in an Act of Parliament all the various cases which might occur. We therefore prefer to keep it as flexible as possible, by putting these matters under regulations. If those regulations do not go quite far enough the Minister will have -power to amend the regulations and make them stronger if necessary. I think noble Lords opposite will recognise many ways in which the employer who desires not to play the game may escape the provisions of this measure. The employer might, for instance, dismiss a man a week before the date on which he is to be called up, or it may be made difficult for young men of about eighteen to get employment because of their likelihood of being called up. Such matters can be met by regulations. What is more difficult is the case of the employer who takes a young man back again, and complies with the Act in that way, and then a week or a fortnight later dismisses him upon some paltry complaint. That is what we want to deal with in our regulations, which cannot be dealt with in an Act of Parliament. That is the whole essence of the matter, and I hope that the Committee will realise that we are trying to be reasonable about this, and to meet a very difficult question in the only way which we think is adequate to meet it.
LORD RAGLAN: You are putting a very heavy burden on the courts of summary jurisdiction already, and if they have got to interpret these Acts of Parliament in the light of regulations their position may become almost impossible.
EARL STANHOPE: I hope the noble Lord is entirely wrong. My hope and belief is that the number of employers who are not going to play the game is extraordinarily few.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I would like to raise a point on the general question of reinstatement which I think is of considerable interest and difficulty. With the general principle of compelling em-
192
ployers to reinstate those of their employees who have been called up I am in entire agreement, but I find it rather difficult to see how, in a great number of cases, it is going to work satisfactorily in practice. Lord Addison, in moving a previous Amendment, mentioned that probably the person who is going to be an offender is the small employer, and undoubtedly that is so, because he will have a very much greater difficulty. I am thinking more particularly of the small employer who employs from one to three hired men, and more particularly still those in country districts, such as the small shopkeeper or blacksmith, or the small farmer who employs boys perhaps straight from school or very soon after. When the time comes that those boys have to be called up, and the employer has to replace them with somebody else, that somebody else will know that he has only got the job for six months, because his predecessor has to be reinstated. In those circumstances the small employer will find it difficult to get somebody to take on the job for that short time. Equally he will have to dismiss that person at the end of six months in order to reinstate the man who has gone away.
My own conclusion is that the difficulty first of all of getting individuals to take the place of those who have gone away for six months, and also the dangers inherent in a £50 fine and three months' sentence for failure to reinstate, will be such as to compel employers in these categories of small employers to employ nobody but those who are over conscription age. The difficulty which seems to attach to the small employers will inevitably react upon the employee. These small employers will find it necessary in their own interest only to employ those who have passed the conscription age, and that will leave us with the scope for employment between the school-leaving age and the Militia age very much reduced in those smaller employments. So far as the country districts are concerned, if my surmise is correct, it will still further accelerate the drift from the country to the town. I say nothing about the larger employers. They have plenty to come and go on, and will have no difficulty, but I would like to know from the Government whether they have considered this particular difficulty which I have men-

193
tioned. not only from the point of view of the small employers but from the point of view of the social results which seem likely to follow.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: I would like to support what my noble friend has said, and more particularly with regard to the small agricultural employer. In the case of the large industries there is no difficulty, because there is always a flood of workers going in and out, but when you get these small people in the country, and particularly the farmers, it is going to be a problem. I would like to suggest for the consideration of the Government whether anything in the nature of a small local pool could be arranged, either at the district council office or elsewhere, by which the men coming back from their Militia service, if they could not be found employment by their original employers, should be given employment of a similar nature by some other employer. The onus of course would have to lie upon the original employer, but it seems to me there would always be a certain number of vacancies. The men coming back will do so more or less at the same time and in the same volume as other men are going to be called up for their service. There will, or ought to be, just the same number of vacancies, and if some system of pool were devised it would be easier to say that if a man could not go back to Farmer A he could go to Farmer B, who was just losing a man, and could there perform the same services as for his original employer.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I only want to ask the Government this question. Supposing that a young man is shortly going to be called up for military service, and it is the intention of the employer not to retain those services, at what point is it possible for the employer to give that young man notice without committing a breach of the Act?
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I would like to add to what has been said about the difficulties of agriculture in this country, a word as to the difficulties in Scotland. They are there accentuated, because the agricultural servant in Scotland is employed on a yearly engagement, and if a man approaches the time of life when he may be called upon for military services in the Militia, if he happens to be a married man
194
it will be extremely difficult for him to get employment of any kind, because either the farmer will have to employ him and keep the cottage for the wife and get no benefit from the man's labour for six months, or he will deprive himself of the employment of the man altogether. The result, I think, will inevitably be what Lord Radnor has suggested—that men of that age will find it extremely difficult to get employment of any kind. It is important from that point of view that the Government should if possible accept the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, and adopt some method of that kind for meeting this difficulty.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I fully understand the point raised by the noble Earl behind me and other noble Lords, and I think that we must accept this as one of the evil consequences of compulsory service. I have no doubt that the Ministry of Labour will consider very sympathetically such proposals as have been put forward by my noble friend opposite for a pool of unemployed, though I think that the men would have to be jacks-of-all-trade. But no doubt that could be worked out, and I am quite sure the Ministry of Labour will be sympathetic either to that or other ideas of that kind. The Government at the moment have not any immediate scheme for dealing with the question which the noble Viscount raised.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am sorry that the noble Earl should give so determined an answer to me. It seems that those who have been responsible for the Bill have not had time properly to consider these details. I do not know whether he has any knowledge of what is done in other countries, where perhaps this problem may have been more acute than it is here.
EARL STANHOPE: I can assure my noble friend that the Government have given a very great deal of consideration to this matter. I was hoping to get some guidance from him as to how the difficulty should be met. Frankly I do not see a way out at present. I think the difficulty is common to all countries which have compulsory military training, and somehow, after a time, these things seem to settle down and to sort themselves out without regulation from the Government. I do not see any great difficulty in this country, because the complaint is

195
made that it is by no means easy to find fully qualified men to stay on the land. I cannot see farmers saying that because a young fellow has to go and take six months' training he will not employ that man at all, or will not engage him up to the age of twenty. I think he will take him whenever he can get him. The same applies to Scotland. There we recognise there is a great difficulty, where men are taken on for twelve months. If we are going to take them in the armed forces for six months, what is going to happen about the other six? I admit we have not found a solution of that question, but I think it will be solved, because farmers will be so anxious to get this labour that they will manage in the best way they can, and so help the Government and themselves.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I agree that there is no way out of the difficulty at the present time, but of course if the Bill had been conceived on a different basis, and an attempt had been made to reproduce some features of the compulsory service during the War, these difficulties would have been faced; I do not know whether they would have been satisfactorily dealt with, but they would have been faced. I do not think it is possible to do that at the present moment, but during the War those who had good reasons could go before the tribunals and ask for exemption. That is only permitted under this Bill in the case of conscientious objectors. But there was no such limitation in the old days, when anybody who had a very hard case was heard, and, if he proved his case, was exempted. The particular case that Lord Radnor has put was dealt with over and over again—the man who was shown to be necessary on a particular small farm. He was exempted in great numbers. I do not mean to say that the system worked without difficulty, but it did work, and I feel quite certain that as time goes on some such arrangement will have to be made. If, which God forbid! it should be necessary to use these troops ultimately for fighting purposes, with perhaps a long-term war lasting two or three years, something of course would have to be done to meet all these difficulties. I have great sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, but I do not think it is possible to put that in the Bill at the present time. This is an
196
emergency Bill, and has to be treated as such.
EARL STANHOPE: May I remind the noble Marquess that it is not quite the same situation as in the War? We are only dealing with men who are twenty to twenty-one years old, and therefore we are not dealing with the case of the skilled herdsman and shepherd who is perhaps the linch-pin of the whole farming business.
On Question, Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 12 agreed to.
5.18 p.m.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: An Amendment has been handed in by the noble Lord, Lord Addison, to the new clause which is now to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Munster, after Clause 12. It is to leave out in the noble Earl's Amendment the words "as soon as may be after serving the sentence imposed upon him" in subsection (1), and to insert "and the remainder of the term of imprisonment to which he had been sentenced shall be remitted."
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following new clause:
Discharge of prisoners claiming to be conscientious objectors.
".(1)—If any person undergoing a term of imprisonment of six months or any greater punishment imposed on him by a Court-Martial in respect of an offence committed while he was undergoing a special course of training which he was required to undergo by virtue of subsection (2) of Section five of this Act, claims that the offence was committed by reason of his conscientiously objecting to undergoing military training or to obeying any order in respect of which the offence was committed, then he may apply in the prescribed manner to have his case considered by the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Part II of the Schedule to this Act, and that tribunal shall, whether or not it finds that the offence for which he was sentenced was committed by reason of such a conscientious objection as aforesaid, have power to recommend to the Secretary of State that he be discharged from the Army Reserve as soon as may be after serving the sentence imposed upon him, but if the tribunal finds that the said offence was not committed by reason of such a conscientious objection it may order him to undergo immediately after his discharge from the Army Reserve the like training and subject to the like conditions as if he had been a person ordered to comply with the requirements of subsection (8) of Section three of this Act so however, that the period for which he is requited to undergo such training shall be specified in the order

197
and shall not exceed six months from the date of his discharge from the Army Reserve.
(2) If any person ordered under this section to undergo such training as aforesaid fails to comply with the order, or while undergoing such training is discharged therefrom for serious and wilful misconduct, he shall be guilty of an offence and be liable on conviction thereof by a court of summary jurisdiction to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding two years.
(3) Upon receiving from the Appellate Tribunal a recommendation made under this section that a person be discharged from the Army Reserve, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to arrange for his discharge accordingly."
The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to implement a pledge which was given in another place by the Secretary of State for War, dealing with conscientious objectors who may be called up for military service, and in relation to a repetition of what was known in the Great War as the cat-and-mouse treatment. I had hoped that the Amendment which I now move would meet the points which were raised by the noble Lord opposite. Perhaps I might quite briefly explain the purpose of this new clause. When a tribunal is satisfied that a man is a conscientious objector who would object in principle to doing any military training, even of a noncombatant character, the tribunal will presumably not force him to be registered on the Military Training Register at all. Cases, however, might occur in which a man placed on the Military Training Register will either refuse to obey his calling up notice, or else, having obeyed it, will then refuse to carry out an order to do certain work given to him by the competent military authorities. In the former of these two cases, he will be liable to be tried either by Court-Martial or a court of summary jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Reserve Forces Act for absenting himself without leave.
In the ordinary course, he would be reported to the police as an absentee and left to be dealt with by a court of summary jurisdiction. He would after that be handed over to the military authorities in custody, and if thereafter he refused to obey a military order he would be in precisely the same position as a man who had joined up of his own volition and had refused to obey a military order. He is liable on conviction by a Court-Martial to a term of imprisonment up to two years. If the sentence is six
198
months or more, your Lordships will observe that the new clause provides that the man, if his refusal to obey was on the ground of conscience, may apply to have his case considered by the Appellate Tribunal, who may recommend to the Secretary of State that he be discharged from the Army after he has served his sentence whether the man's plea of conscience is admitted or not. If the Tribunal does not admit the plea of conscience, it may order the man, on completing his military sentence, to undergo civilian training for a period not exceeding six months. I hope I have explained the clause sufficiently to the noble Lord to enable him to withdraw the two proposed new clauses standing in his name.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 12, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD ADDISON: I want in the first place to thank the noble Lord for his new clause and for the substantial measure in which he has met the points intended to be raised by the two proposed new clauses standing in my name. On that ground I would like to express my appreciation and say I do not propose to move these two new clauses. But there is a serious defect in his clause to which I would call attention. If the Committee will look at the new clause, it will see that cases will go to the Appellate Tribunal, and there are two classes of case. In the one case, the tribunal will find that there was a conscientious objection and that the man, on the ground of conscience, had declined to obey the order in respect of which he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. In the other case, they are not satisfied it was conscience. As to that class of case, the Amendment to the Amendment which I am moving does not propose to make any alteration; but in the case where the tribunal has found that the offence was committed by reason of conscientious objection, I suggest that it is very unjust that the man should thereafter, when the court has found that it was conscience which was actuating him, be compelled to undergo the remainder of a sentence to which the court, by its very verdict, considers he ought not to have been sentenced.
Therefore I suggest that in these cases where the tribunal finds a man is really conscientious, and on that account should

199
be struck off the Register altogether, it is quite inequitable that he should continue to serve the term of imprisonment to which, according to the verdict of the court, he ought not to have been sentenced. What would happen if my Amendment was approved? It would make no difficulty in the administration of the clause, nor would it make any difficulty on the point raised by the Lord Chancellor about adding a new clause to the Bill at this late stage. I therefore propose, if it is in order to do so at this stage, the Amendment to the Amendment of which I have given notice—namely, that the words in subsection (1), lines 17 and 18, "as soon as may be after serving the sentence imposed upon him," be left out, and the following words inserted, "and the remainder of the term of imprisonment to which he had been sentenced shall be remitted." That is to say, he does not have to wait until he has finished his sentence but can be immediately put on the Register of Conscientious Objectors. That would mean that the remainder of the term of imprisonment to which he has been sentenced will be remitted. I beg to move in that form, and I hope the noble Earl will accept the Amendment as clearly just.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Lines 17 and 18, leave out ("as soon as may be after serving the sentence imposed upon him") and insert ("and the remainder of the term of imprisonment to which he had been sentenced shall be remitted").—(Lord Addison.)
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: May I ask one question on this new clause? The noble Earl who moved did not explain why it should be limited to cases where a man has been sentenced to imprisonment of six months or any greater punishment. Supposing in a precisely similar case a smaller penalty is imposed—say of one month—why should this clause not operate in such a case?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: As I understand the manuscript Amendment which the noble Lord has suddenly sprung upon us—
LORD ADDISON: With great respect to the noble Earl, I put it in as soon as ever I could, and it appeared on the Paper last night.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I will not labour that point, but it is the first I had seen of the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved, dealing with a somewhat difficult question. As far as I am able to understand it, the effect would be to enable the Appellate Tribunal to remit the remainder of a sentence of imprisonment inflicted on a man by a Court-Martial. In the first place the sentence has been passed for disobeying a military order, and the Court-Martial is concerned with the maintenance of military discipline. The fact that there may have been grounds of conscience for the disobedience does not in any way affect the seriousness of the offence from the point of view of discipline, and as far as I can see there is really no need for any remission whatever. In the second place, it would be improper to make a sentence of a Court-Martial subject to review by a civilian tribunal. It has been the essence of the Government's Amendment that it does not impair the powers of the military courts, and care has been taken in drafting this Amendment to observe this principle. I hope therefore the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD ADDISON: I am sorry to have to express my profound dissatisfaction with the reply of the noble Earl. It does not meet the point at all. This is not a case of maintaining military discipline. We all recognise that that has got to be maintained. In the case to which my Amendment relates, a man is found to have acted from conscientious motives, and he will be put out of the Army altogether as soon as his sentence is served because the tribunal has found he acted from conscientious motives. The contention I am advancing is that, the tribunal having found the man acted from conscientious motives, it is clearly inequitable that he should continue in prison for an unnamed period after the court has come to that conclusion. He ought to be removed from prison straight away and taken out of the Army altogether, as they intend he should. It is not a casual finding—it is the finding of the court that the man acted from conscientious motives. It is quite wrong that he should continue to be in prison after that verdict has been arrived at, and, if necessary, I shall divide the House on this if only one other person will vote for me.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know what decision His Majesty's

201
Government will come to on this Amendment, but I think, if I may say so, that the noble Lord opposite uses rather exaggerated language. He says, in effect: "Here is a man in regard to whom after he has been in prison it is found that his conscientious objection existed at a time prior to his sentence, and that if that had been realised by the original tribunal he would not have been sent to prison at all; therefore he ought now to be discharged." That may be so. I feel the full force of the noble Lord's argument, but the finding that a person is imprisoned unjustly does not happen only in these cases; it happens very often in our experience in civil life. Then, of course, you go to the Home Secretary and get the matter put right by the power of the Prerogative. That would be used in this case. I do not know what particular Minister he would go to. It is clear the man should not be kept in prison after he is found to be unjustly there. That would certainly be set right in the ordinary working of our system. It would be set right in ordinary civil life, and it would be set right here.
Supposing a man were convicted by a court of an offence in civil life and put in prison, and it was discovered when the sentence was being served that the grounds upon which the conviction had taken place were not really sustainable, of course he would be released from prison immediately by order of the Home Secretary. I do not see why the same sort of principle should not be employed here. I do not know who the relevant Minister would be, whether he would be the Home Secretary, but that is a detail. It seems to me that it would be an administrative act which would follow naturally from the situation the noble Lord suggested. I think he puts the case much too high.
LORD RAGLAN: There is this point which I think ought to be considered. A person supposed to have conscientious objections might want to go into the Militia for the sole purpose of upsetting discipline there. In that case I think he might very properly be sent to prison and kept in prison.
LORD ADDISON: May I point out to the noble Lord that we are dealing here with a person who has been tried by a court and with a verdict that has been given by that court. I would not want
202
to defend a mere obnoxious person. This is a case where a man has satisfied the court that he acted from conscientious motives and that he ought to be discharged from the Army and put upon the Register of Conscientious Objectors. It is quite outrageous to suggest, after a court has come to that conclusion, that His Majesty's Government should deliberately ignore that decision and that the person should still continue in prison. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), if I may say so with respect, has not read the clause. If what he wants were the clause I should not have moved this Amendment; but the clause provides exactly the opposite. It provides that after the man has been found to be innocent by the court he is still to continue in prison. That is wrong; it must be.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Surely this is a matter which in practice is dealt with by the Secretary of State for War continually? You constantly find—and I have had experience of this not infrequently myself—after a Court-Martial sentence has been duly promulgated, that something comes to light subsequently which shows that the Prerogative, the right of clemency, should be exercised, and the man should be released or his sentence reduced. It is a function which the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air exercise continuously, and exercise with the greatest care, and, in proper cases, with the greatest promptitude. It is quite inconceivable that if, in fact, under the procedure laid down in this Bill, it is found that a perfectly genuine mistake has been made by the Military Tribunal, the Secretary of State for War would not set it right immediately and order a man to be released. With great respect I suggest that it would be utterly wrong to produce a new appellate tribunal which would be a sort of appeal court from a Court-Martial, and would set aside the decisions of Courts-Martial. That is really what the noble Lord is proposing.
LORD ADDISON: No.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If the noble Lord is not proposing that, then I am perfectly certain that what he wishes will be simply met by the regular procedure under which the Secretary of State of a Military Department proceeds—namely,

203
that when it is found that the decision of a Court-Martial ought to be varied or set aside by reason of facts which come to light subsequently, then the Secretary of State will do that. Thus the noble Lord's case is entirely met.
LORD ADDISON: I am sorry indeed to be so troublesome, but the noble Viscount, with great respect, has not read the clause. He cannot have done so. The Secretary of State would not be able to do it if we pass this clause in its present form. The man has to continue in prison until he has served the remainder of his sentence, and it is not open to the Secretary of State to let him out. He might have been sentenced to two years or three years, and he might perhaps have to remain in prison eighteen months after the sentence was first imposed, and if this clause remains in its present form the Secretary of State is prohibited from doing what the noble Viscount suggested he would do.
LORD CRANWORTH: I find it very difficult to understand these two points of view, but surely it does say so here—"as soon as may be after serving the sentence imposed upon him," which indicates to the ordinary lay person that nothing happens until he has completed the sentence that has been imposed upon him. I must confess it would appear to the ordinary person to cut out the possibility of that being done which would certainly be done in the ordinary course of events, which is the course that has just been mentioned. I find it very difficult to think this has not crept in by a mistake.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord opposite has accused one of your Lordships of not having read the clause, but, speaking for myself, with great deference to him, I am in some doubt whether he has himself, and the reason is this. With great respect I do not think that he has appreciated the real meaning of the little words in this Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Munster. The man in question has already had two opportunities of relying upon his conscience, and has been, we will assume, twice turned down. He then begins to serve under the conditions in a special course of training, and while there, to take a simple case, he refuses to obey
204
an order, and is sentenced to imprisonment for a term of six months or more. Now we come to the words: stating that he may then apply to have his case considered by the Appellate Tribunal mentioned in the Schedule,
"and that tribunal shall,"—
these are the words that I think the noble Lord has not appreciated—
"whether or not it finds that the offence for which he was sentenced was committed by reason of such a conscientious objection as aforesaid,"
have power to do something. I am going in a minute to remind your Lordships what he can do.
But the tribunal of appeal is told quite distinctly: "We do not want you to find one way or the other that this man has conscientious objections; it may be that they are not really conscientious, and that he is simply a person of such an obstinate frame of mind"—a person whom we have all met in the course of our lives—"that, having been ordered to do a special course of training he says, 'I won't.' possibly with an epithet." It is under those circumstances that the tribunal has power to do something. What is it the tribunal has power to do? No power to do anything by itself at all. It has power to recommend the Secretary of State to do something. The Secretary of State then exercises his discretion and says: "Having regard to the facts of this man, and what I have been told about him by the Appellate Tribunal, we do not want him in the Army. When he has served his sentence he may go out, and he will be discharged altogether and will have no subsequent duties for the subsequent two years." That is what the clause means. What happens, supposing he is successful before the tribunal and the tribunal makes this recommendation to the Secretary of State, is that the Secretary of State simply makes an order: "When you go out you need not come back, we do not want to see you again."
What happens as regards sentence? This clause is not intended to deal with sentence in the least. I fully accept what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said with reference to the Secretary of State for War. I do not conceive, and I tell your Lordships that I do not believe it is so, that this clause which empowers the Secretary of State to act upon a certain recommendation, in any way affects the

205
rest of his powers as Secretary of State for War. I am convinced myself that if he came to the conclusion that two tribunals have made an error here, that the unfortunate person in question was one of those people who really and truly have conscientious objections, and that therefore, although two tribunals had decided against him, he never ought to have been taken on, the Secretary of State would have complete power to say: "I will remit the rest of the sentence because it is one of my powers as Secretary of State for War." I believe that is a complete answer to the noble Lord and I hope, therefore, he will be satisfied. If he is not satisfied, I am perfectly willing to say that before to-morrow I will undertake to consult other people on the question and see if they have any doubt as to my statement of the legal position being correct. If it is incorrect something can be done to put the matter right.
LORD ADDISON: I cannot, of course, enter into a legal argument with the noble and learned Lord, but I am not satisfied at all. The court may have found that the man was a bona fide conscientious objector. The fact that other tribunals have made a mistake has nothing to do with it. The point is that the court may or may not find that he is a conscientious person acting conscientiously. I am only talking of those occasions on which they do so find. In those cases I suggest, notwithstanding what the noble and learned Lord says as to the powers of the Secretary of State for War, that if we pass this clause as it stands it would provide that the Secretary of State may discharge him from the Army Reserve as soon as may be after serving a sentence. I suggest that the Secretary of State in these cases ought to be entitled to discharge him straight away, and that the man should not continue in prison.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord wants the man to be discharged from prison, and he can be.
LORD ADDISON: I want him to be let out of prison because it is found he ought not to have been sent there. I am not satisfied a little bit. As this clause stands it may mean that a man whom the tribunal thinks innocent will continue to be imprisoned. I accept the assurance of the noble and learned Lord that he will
206
look into the matter and that if that is so he will have it altered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord must not misunderstand me. I am not saying if the noble Lord is dealing with a case where the tribunal has found that the man has a conscientious objection, I am going to alter the clause or suggest its alteration. All I said is that if I find, after consideration, that the Secretary of State cannot remit the sentence because of something in the clause as it stands, then I will see that something is done, but I am satisfied for the moment that he can and that he will do it in proper cases.
LORD ADDISON: With that definite assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed new clause, by leave, withdrawn.
5.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I raised the question whether if this procedure is right when a sentence has been passed of six months imprisonment or longer, it would not be equally right, the whole of the other circumstances being the same, if the sentence was for a shorter period. I do not know whether it would be convenient to have that answered now or whether the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would prefer that it should remain over until to-morrow.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the answer is that if a man is undergoing a term of, say, fourteen days C.B.—which I think is a punishment people have heard of in connection with military offences—it would be idle to give him leave to go through all the machinery of this clause, because it would be impracticable to get a decision of the tribunal before he had served his sentence. In that case I venture to think that the whole of this machinery would be too much for a trivial effect. It may be if he is undergoing a less term some other step will have to be taken with regard to him, but I think the clause really is only intended to provide machinery for a case in which an application to the Appellate Tribunal, mentioned in Part II of the Schedule, would be the adequate machinery for dealing with such a case. I repeat that you have to remember that the man has twice been decided against. If he cannot obey a short

207
term order that he shall do something when the law of the land is that he is required to do it, I do not think if some slight penalty is imposed he has cause to complain. In the case of a serious offence, and a serious term of imprisonment, this clause in my belief affords him all the proper relief to which he is entitled.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The sentence which he is serving is not the matter which has been brought before the Appellate Tribunal. He is not appealing to be released from prison or detention when he has been sentenced to fourteen days. The purpose of this appeal is to secure his discharge from the Army. The actual length of the sentence does not therefore arise. I can understand when a person before beginning training had appealed according to the procedure under the Act to be exempted as a conscientious objector and been rejected, and on appeal had been rejected again, it might be said: "The matter is settled. Once you are in the Army, you must do as you are told." That is not what the Act will say under the new clause now being proposed by the Government themselves. They say that in spite of all this there is still to be a recourse to the Appellate Tribunal, which may give discharge—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In what case?
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: In the case where he has been sentenced for a military offence and claims that he has refused to obey for conscientious reasons. Very well; then the Government say: "We lay down that in such a case the matter should be reviewed again"; and if it is found that that is so, or that the man is so contumacious that he is not worth having as a soldier, then a recommendation may be made to the Secretary of State to discharge him from the Army altogether, and he will thereupon be discharged. But there is this strange provision, that this shall only apply if a Court-Martial sentences a man to six months or more. In such a case the Court-Martial, wishing to avoid all this procedure, would obviously sentence the man only to four months or five months. There may be some reason for this provision, but I do not know what it is. At first sight it does not seem to be reasonable in itself. I would ask the
208
Government why a sentence of six months should open up all this procedure and a sentence of four months should not do so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Some people seem to have conscientious objections on the brain, and seem to think that conscientious objectors ought to be treated with far more care and far more lenience than any other offenders against any law whatever.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: That is not my view.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It seems to me that this is the case of the noble Viscount. Here is a man who says that he has conscientious objections against military service. He has been before two tribunals who have found that they were not genuine objections, and he has therefore become a militiaman for six months. He is given a perfectly proper order by his military superior, or something of that sort, which he declines to obey. I venture to think, if the sentence is severe, the reason for the clause which is now before your Lordships is good. If he suffers some quite minor penalty, that is his own fault. I cannot see why, under those circumstances, a man who has been held not to have true conscientious objections and who from mere obstinacy does something of this kind should not have to suffer some quite minor penalty, if I may say so, in order that discipline may be maintained. For those reasons I think the clause before your Lordships is quite sufficient for the Government to move for the benefit of these contumacious people.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The noble and learned Lord has given a most effective answer against the clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not at all. I say that if the penalty involved is serious it may be considered; but has the noble Viscount no appreciation of the difference between a light penalty against which there can be no appeal, and a serious one in regard to which justice requires that something should be done?
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I say that in this case the question of principle is not affected by the length of the sentence. What the Lord Chancellor is now arguing is that if a man commits some sort of crime in order to show his conscientious objection—commits some grave act of

209
violence for which he must be sentenced to six months—then he can go to the Appellate Tribunal and perhaps be discharged from the Army. If he makes his protest in a milder form, for which it would not be possible to sentence him for more than fourteen days, one month or two months, then he is to have no appeal. Frankly I must say that the answer given by the noble and learned Lord is wholly unconvincing. My own motive in this matter is not in the least that which he has attributed to me. I have not been concerned with the case of the conscientious objector. I am only anxious that we should have sensible legislation.
LORD RAGLAN: Surely it is obvious that, if a man prefers six months' imprisonment to six months' training, he can have it that way if he likes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13:
Regulations and Orders.
13.—(1) The Minister may make regulations regulating any matter of procedure under this Act.
5.56 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, in subsection (1), after "make," to insert "draft." The noble Lord said: I am sure that the noble and learned Lord Chancellor would support this Amendment, which is to provide that the regulations made under the Bill shall be draft regulations. As the Bill stands, Clause 13 says that:
"The Minister may make regulations regulating any matter of procedure under this Act."
These regulations have then to lie on the Table of the House, and so on. If the debates which we have had on Amendments which have gone before show anything to the concurrence of all sides, it is that this Bill was hastily drafted and that Amendments may be required very soon. I think that is certainly true: both statements are undoubtedly correct. That means, therefore, that the regulations, especially those relating to the exceedingly difficult case which will be dealt with under subsection (5) of Clause 6, that of failure to reinstate, which I am sure will be exceedingly difficult for the Minister of Labour to devise, should in the formative stage of this legislation clearly not be in their final form when they are put
210
before Parliament. They should be draft regulations and subject, as the subsequent Amendment in my name, which is of course consequential, provides, to alteration by Parliament.
I remember that in the early days of the Act setting up the Unemployment Assistance Board it was provided that the regulations should be submitted and they should not be altered—not even by a single comma. The country was put to very great inconvenience in consequence: the whole of the regulations had to be redrawn, and for some considerable time, several months, nobody knew where he was and the operations of the Unemployment Assistance Board were in entire suspense. That was all because Parliament had no power to amend the regulations. All that I am suggesting here is that, in view of the character of the Bill and of the discussion we have already had to-day, the regulations that are made under the Bill should be draft regulations and consequently subject to amendment or alteration by Parliament.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 22, after ("make") insert ("draft").—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Subsections (2) and (3) as they stand provide that the Minister may make regulations which shall come into force at once, but as a protection they must be laid before each House so that Parliament may have an opportunity for a period of forty days of Session of considering the regulations, and if either House resolves that they should be annulled, they become void for the future. The main objection to this Amendment is that it is vitally necessary that the Register of men liable to be called up for military training should be made immediately after the passing of the Bill—that is to say, should be made within a week. Before the Register can be made it is necessary, as your Lordships know, to make statutory regulations under Clause 1. To lay the regulations in draft before Parliament, as proposed by this Amendment, would involve a delay which would be very difficult to contemplate.
LORD ADDISON: May I ask the noble Earl whether the Government will accept an Amendment on the Report stage excluding the word "draft" from application to Clause 1 but leaving it applicable to other proceedings?
EARL STANHOPE: A young fellow might be discharged in order that his employer might escape liability to reinstate.
LORD ADDISON: Regulations dealing with these exceedingly varying questions ought to be subject to discussion, and the question of reinstatement is one of the most difficult in the whole Bill.
EARL STANHOPE: I quite agree, but the point is that we want to stop the gap, and for the few employers who are not playing the game the Government want to have regulations available at once, even if they are not in the best form. While you have only draft regulations, you have nothing on which you can take action.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule:

SCHEDULE.

  PART II.
  The Appellate Tribunal.
  The chairman shall be a person who is or has been a barrister, member of the Faculty of Advocates or solicitor of not less than ten years standing nominated in the case of the division for England by the Lord Chancellor and in the case of the division for Scotland by the Lord President of the Court of Session.
  LORD SNELL LORD SNELL moved, in the final paragraph of the Schedule, to omit the words "who is or has been a barrister, member of the Faculty of Advocates or solicitor of not less than ten years standing." The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to consider the question as to whether it is necessary that a trained lawyer, a barrister or a solicitor, should be the person to preside over this Appellate Tribunal. It is in every way desirable that the chairman of these tribunals should be a person of informed and balanced mind, but he need not of necessity be a trained lawyer, and so far as I know it might be difficult to find a sufficient number of trained lawyers to undertake these duties. For myself I would, of course, prefer a trained lawyer as a chairman, than that the chairman should be a person of narrow and prejudiced mind. If the Lord Chancellor will forgive me, there are quite a number
  212
  of people who in regard to conscientious objectors have a minimum of knowledge of the workings of the human conscience. As between the two I should prefer a lawyer. Yet, on the other hand, I do not believe you need to restrict this to lawyers, because I believe there are quite a number of people of balanced and impartial mind who would do the work equally well. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 26, line 8, leave out from ("person") to ("nominated") in line 10.—(Lord Snell.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am happy to say, on behalf of the Government, that this Amendment is agreed to. I would mention that my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury proposed something of the sort when we were discussing this matter before, and I considered very carefully the question whether any such Amendment was desirable, both as regards local tribunals and as regards the Appellate Tribunals. I ascertained that a great many persons thought that in the local tribunals it was desirable there should be a lawyer, and accordingly the clause stands as drawn. The chairman of such a tribunal must be a County Court Judge in the case of England, or a Sheriff or Sheriff-Substitute in Scotland, and on the whole I think the feeling of another place, so far as I have been able to gather it, is favourable to that being left unaltered.
  With regard to the Appellate Tribunal, on consideration I am in favour of the view that the persons to be nominated as chairmen of those tribunals should not necessarily be lawyers. The question that will arise before those tribunals is of course not one of law at all, but one of common sense and appreciation, if I may use that much abused word, of psychology. On the whole I can imagine many people, some of them I may say members of this House, who would be better chairmen of that tribunal than any lawyer whose services can be obtained at the present time. The Amendment does not rule out a lawyer, or somebody who has acted as a High Court Judge, if he can be obtained, but it leaves to the Lord Chancellor in England, and the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, a perfectly free hand in nominating the best persons available in the two countries for carrying out the

  213
  responsible duties in question. I would only add this, that as the clause originally stood it might be thought to contain a hidden slight on County Court Judges, because it might be thought that County Court Judges and their tribunal—namely, the local tribunal—were going to be overruled by barristers and solicitors of not less than ten years standing, by no means superior in rank or dignity to the chairman of a local tribunal. That apparent slight is removed, incidentally, by the Amendment, and I hope your Lordships will accept it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope your Lordships will allow me to express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, and also to the noble Lord opposite, for having adopted a suggestion which found its place in some of my observations the other day on the Second Reading. I do feel that the issues submitted to the Appellate Tribunal are not capable of legal definition, and therefore it is wise that the discretion of the Lord Chancellor should be completely unfettered. He may, of course, be able to appoint a first-rate Judge of the type who will not be too much of a legalist, but if not he should be able to appoint a first-rate layman in his place. Of course the argument used applies in a minor degree to the local tribunal, but I am too grateful to the noble and learned Lord to find any fault because he has not extended logically the concession to the lower tribunal. But there no doubt might be difficulty in finding enough competent laymen as chairmen of the lower
  214
  tribunals. At the same time I hope that perhaps before the Third Reading of the Bill the Government might even reconsider that point. Let me just repeat that I do not suggest that they should never appoint a County Court Judge, but that it should be open to them not to appoint a County Court Judge; they should have that discretion. I do not want to be exigeant as the Frenchmen say in trying to drive a hard bargain, but I ask them to consider whether they would not be happier if there was a complete discretion as to who the chairman should be.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

PEERS AND THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee:

M. Salisbury,

M. Crewe,

E. Radnor,

L. Bp. Winchester,

L. Snell.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past six o'clock.