asked whether the provisions of the third section of the Bengal Regulation No. III., of 1818, have been complied with in the cases of the nine British subjects deported in December, 1908, which require that every officer in whose custody any State prisoner may be placed shall, on 1st July of each year, submit a report to the Governor-General in Council on the conduct, health, and comfort of such State prisoner in order that the Governor-General in Council may determine whether the orders for his detention shall continue in force or shall be modified; and, if so, would he state what was the nature of the reports, and what was the determination come to by the Governor-General in Council?

Since replying last week to my hon. Friend the Member for East Leeds, the Secretary of State has received a telegram from the Government of India. The reports submitted show that the health of all the prisoners is satisfactory. All requests for personal interviews with relatives have been granted; books and writing materials have been freely allowed, and every attention is paid to the health and personal comfort of the prisoners. As I stated last week the general considerations guiding the policy of detention under the Regulation are not affected by these reports. That policy is at any moment open to review by the Government, as circumstances may dictate.

In view of the grave doubts which have been thrown upon the police evidence in many of the recent judgments of the High Court of Calcutta, and especially in the case of Lajpat Rai, do the Government of India not think it necessary to reconsider the evidence upon which these gentlemen were deported?

I went very fully into this matter last week, rather more fully than the question justified, and have nothing to add to the statement I then made on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Are these prisoners strictly subject to gaol regulations?

I am not able to give the hon. Member any more information than I have received from the Government of India, and which I have stated very fully.

May I ask whether the Government is still of the opinion last expressed in this House by the Prime Minister, to the effect that constant repetition of questions of this character, which have already been answered, tends to encourage sedition and hampers the efforts made by the Government of India towards its suppression?

The hon. Member is open to draw his own deductions from the statement made by the Prime Minister.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received an authentic report of the speech made at Boma, in the Congo, by the Belgian Colonial Minister on 10th May last; whether he has made it the subject of any representations to the Belgian Government in view of its claim that Belgium alone is responsible for the government of the Congo, and of the statement that that government is to be conducted on the lines established by the late Congo Free State; and whether, in view of this speech, His Majesty's Government still proposes to wait until the new year to see what the effect is to be of the visit of the Belgian Colonial Minister to the Congo?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The speech appeared to be of a complimentary nature made at a banquet on the Minister's arrival in the Congo. I do not understand it to be a considered declaration of policy on the part of the Belgian Government; it certainly cannot embody the experience of a tour in the Congo which had not begun when the speech was made, and I do not propose to depart from the decision of His Majesty's Government as already announced to the House.

Has any communication passed between His Majesty's Government and the Belgian Government in reference to this matter?

Nothing has passed in reference to this matter.

asked when further Papers will be laid upon the Table dealing with affairs of the Congo?

There will be no further Papers of interest to be laid until there has been further correspondence with the Belgian Government consequent upon the return of their Colonial Minister, as con- templated in the last Papers laid before Parliament and in my speech on the Foreign Office Vote on July 22nd.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the value of the ore in sight of the Anhui mining concession connected with the London and China Syndicate has been valued at upwards of £836,000 by a competent firm of surveyors; and that the Imperial Chinese Government, having retarded the development of this property, is now offering £50,000 to buy out the concession; and what action His Majesty's Government propose to take, either by suggesting arbitration or by pressing the Chinese Government to fufil its obligations, to ensure that the right of British subjects which have already been acknowledged by His Majesty's Ministers in China shall be duly safeguarded?

I have been informed by the London and China Syndicate that the ore in sight has been valued at upwards of £836,000, but I am not in a position to say whether this statement is accurate or not. It is the case that the Chinese Government have made an offer of £50,000 to buy out the concession. The matter is now under consideration.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is a question of the exact amount of the value of the ore, or whether it is that the rights of this company are being interfered with by the Chinese Government; and whether he does not consider it the duty of His Majesty's Government to protect the rights of British subjects in China?

It is not a question of the value of the ore, but of the rights. The rights are not quite so simple as would appear.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much the syndicate has paid for these rights?

No, Sir. That is covered by the supplementary answer I have given. The rights, when you go into the whole history of the case, are not quite so simple.

May we assume that His Majesty's Government is at present making inquiries for the purpose of protecting the rights of British subjects, if that protection is their due?

The case has been under consideration for a long time, and, in my opinion, is one that ought to be settled by a compromise, and the negotiations have not yet reached any result.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take care to inform the House what was the original sum paid by this company for this concession?

It would not be necessary to go into details of that kind if the matter was settled by agreement.

Is it not a fact that this company has already spent more money in developing the estate than the Chinese Government has offered?

I am not aware that that is a fact, and with regard to the question of rights it must be borne in mind that the Chinese Government have put forward certain contentions on their own side as to whether all the obligations of the company have been fulfilled or not, and that is a matter for discussion.

Who are the directors of this company?

The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the transference by the London County Council of the headmaster of the Portland School, Marylebone, to another school in the neighbourhood; whether the County Council attempted to close the Portland school in favour of the other to which the headmaster has been transferred; whether the proposal is now subject to the result of an inquiry promised by the Board of Education; whether, pending that inquiry, the London County Council gave the Board to understand that no change would be made in the Portland School; and whether, as that school has now no head teacher, the Education Department is satisfied that the efficiency of the school is being maintained?

The Board are aware that the headmaster of the Portland School has been transferred to the Barrett-street School. The proposal, which was sub- mitted by the London County Council, and which is to be the subject of a Public Inquiry, is not the closure but the reorganisation of the Portland School. Pending the inquiry the Council undertook that the question of reorganisation would be left in abeyance, but they have informed the Board that apart from the reorganisation they desired to transfer the headmaster. This transfer was undoubtedly contemplated in connection with the reorganisation, but I understand that the Council regard it as merely incidental and not essential to it, and as not prejudicing the issue at the Public Inquiry, though it appears to me that their action is in some respects inconvenient. Assuming that a qualified successor is appointed, my right hon. Friend does not think he is in a position to intervene.

Has there been a communication from the London County Council Education Committee about the appointment of a qualified person?

I will inquire into that matter.

asked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware of the length of time which has elapsed in the case of a number of claimants for old age pensions in Dundee before the claim has been finally adjusted; and whether he will consider the possibility, in the interests of the claimants, to have all dawns expedited, or where delay is necessary, and through no fault of claimants, that the claim, if allowed, should be paid from the date when the claim has been lodged with the local pension officer?

Owing to pressure of work and the difficulty in obtaining from claimants the necessary evidence of age, etc., there has, I find, been some delay in completing the investigation of certain claims to old age pensions in Dundee. But the hon. Member may rest assured that every effort will be made to ensure the prompt investigation of claims by pension officers. As regards the last part of the question, I may point out that there is no authority under the Act for allowing payment of pension to commence from any earlier date than the first Friday after the claim has been allowed by the Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Constable Charles Algar, recently shot at Gorleston whilst on duty, left a widow and children; if so, how many children; what pension will each of his dependents receive; and whether any public subscription has been raised for the benefit of his family?

I have made inquiry and am informed that the late P.C. Algar left a widow and four children. The widow is entitled to a pension of £15 a year, and £2 10s. for each child until it attains the age of 15. The Mayor of Yarmouth has opened a subscription for the benefit of the widow and children, and, up to the present, about £300 has been subscribed.

Can the Government afford it?

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, what annual rental was credited to his Department in respect of the recently demolished buildings in Pall Mall which were hitherto occupied by the War Office?

Some of the buildings referred to were held at one unapportioned rent with other buildings that remain standing. The exact rents received for the demolished buildings cannot therefore be given, but approximately they amounted to about £7,100 per annum.

asked the right hon. Gentleman what is the total estimated expenditure during the present financial year on the property of Inverliever; and how many acres of woodland it is proposed to plant?

The total expenditure in connection with the scheme of afforestation at Inverliever is estimated at £2,550 for this year, which includes the cost of planting about 150 acres during the present year.

asked the Postmaster-General whether his further inquiries have satisfied him that the pig-sty at Collins-town is the only available accommodation for His Majesty's post office; whether the increased rent of £8 per annum for two prize cottages conveniently situated in the village was asked by the landlord for the first two years only, in order to cover the extra outlay necessitated by the alterations required by the authorities, amounting to £12, after which the rent was to be £5 10s. per annum; whether, in the interest of everyone concerned, he will reconsider his decision; and whether he can state if the pig-sty has a chimney?

I am satisfied that the newly-appointed sub-postmistress of Collinstown did her best to provide suitable premises for the post office. So far as the temporary office is inconvenient, it is due, as I explained the other day, to the action of the landlord of the district. As regards details, I have nothing to add to what I stated in the House the other day. I do not admit the accuracy of the description either of the present premises or of the cottages belonging to Colonel Smythe.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the landlord of these particular premises in the town also owns the particular pig-sty under discussion?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the objection of the hon. and gallant Member is not to the postmaster's pig, but to his politics?

The reason why this particular office had to be opened in this particular spot is, as I have fully explained, that the landlord of the other houses declined to give an opportunity to the sub-postmistress. I am informed that these premises are not of the character described, and although they are not as good as I should desire they are the best we could obtain under the circumstances.

Is it not a fact that the landlord of one set of houses is the same landlord who owns the other set of houses?

In this particular case the gentleman who has given the sub-postmistress the offer of these premises is, fortunately, not so much under the control of the landlord as the tenants of the other premises.

Surely the Government possess powers of coercion in a case of this kind?

No, I think not.

asked the right hon. Gentleman if he will make inquiries as to whether the junior superintendent in the telegraph office, Dublin, is frequently guilty of discourteous conduct towards the staff; whether he is aware that the staff has complained both verbally and in writing of this officer's conduct; can he say what qualifications, technical or otherwise, did this officer possess when promoted to his present rank; and whether the Controller had occasion in the presence of the staff to censure this officer for his methods of supervision?

I can only repeat the answer which I gave to a similar question by my hon. Friend on 26th August, namely, that I have received no complaint on the subject.

May I point out to my right hon. Friend that the question on the Paper has not been answered. I asked if the Postmaster-General would make inquiries into the allegations in question.

I do not think it is my duty to make inquiries of this kind in reference to matters in regard to which I have received no complaints from the staff through the ordinary channel.

Is it not a fact that the ordinary channel for getting information has been closed in the case of the General Post Office, Dublin?

Certainly not. If a member of the staff desires to make the complaint he has a full opportunity of communicating with me personally. Nothing has been done to prevent this, and any member of the staff who has a complaint to make can make it.

As this is a matter of great importance, I wish to know if I am not entitled to a reply to my question? I want to know will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into this matter?

Until I have a definite complaint, I do not think it is my duty to hold a roving inquiry into allegations which, so far as I am aware, have no foundation in fact.

Has not my hon. Friend made a very definite complaint on behalf of those he represents in Parliament?

I do not think so.

As a Member of this House, I claim that when I put a question dealing with a matter of public importance I have a right to receive a courteous reply to the effect that an inquiry will be made into my allegations. I never heard of such a refusal before.

Order, order. The answer has been given, and I do not think it is discourteous. The hon. Member has got a full answer.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if the calves used in the vaccine establishment for the production of lymph are slaughtered shortly after the lymph has been extracted; and if, after such slaughtering, any steps are taken to discover any latent disease that might be in the calf, which latent disease might pass into the lymph undiscovered?

My hon. Friend asked me a similar question on 22nd June last. As I stated in reply, each calf is slaughtered as soon as practicable after its removal by the owner, and a post-mortem examination is made, at which a veterinary surgeon engaged for the purpose is present. He makes a careful examination of the carcase and of the viscera in order to ascertain whether the calf was in perfect health, and immediately afterwards sends in a certificate as to its healthiness or otherwise.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the slaughtering of the animals does not prevent the development of signs of disease which might already be in the blood?

That is a question of an argumentative character.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now give a return specifying the sub-division of the United Kingdom into valuation districts?

My right hon. Friend does not at present see his way to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury what will be the respective salaries payable to the various grades of the valuation staff to be established for the purposes of Part I. of the Finance Bill?

I do not see my way at present to make any statement on the subject referred to.

asked the right hon. Gentleman how many officials have been already appointed permanently or temporarily for the purposes of Part I. of the Finance Bill?

None, Sir.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Government property will be valued for the purposes of Part I. of the Finance Bill.

Yes, Sir.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if land used for miniature or long-range rifle ranges will be subject to the Reversion Duty, the Increment Duty, or the Undeveloped Land Duty?

The question whether such land would be subject to any of the duties specified would depend on the facts of the individual cases when duly ascertained.

Would land owned by the Government be treated differently from land owned by a private individual?

In both cases it would depend upon circumstances.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Mrs. Catherine Moriarty, of Gortatlea, county Kerry, was refused a pension by the Local Government Board as she could not procure a certificate of her age from the parish register or the Census Returns, though the Milltown pension committee allowed the pension on the production of a sworn declaration showing her to be over 70 years; and whether, seeing that there are several such cases in Kerry where no certificate can be obtained, he will direct the Local Government Board to allow the pensions claimed?

The pension officer appealed against the decision of the local committee allowing this woman a pension on the ground that evidence had not been produced to establish her age. The declaration referred to was made by the claimant's brother, who stated that he was 75 years of age and that his sister was three years younger than he. As, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, this declaration was not substantiated, they allowed the pension officer's appeal. With regard to the last part of the question, the Act requires that in cases of appeal the claimants must satisfy the Board that they have reached the statutory age.

Would not the Local Government Board in this and similar cases consent to receive separate evidence as to age, as is constantly done in this country?

Yes, I think so; but they must apparently be satisfied with the evidence. They were not satisfied with the evidence in this case. They are the judges of the evidence.

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying the declaration was not substantiated? What substantiation could a man of 75 years get of his statement that his sister was three years younger than himself?

That is the declaration, and in the opinion of the Local Government Board it was not corroborated by any other circumstances.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will refer the matter back to the Local Government Board, and point out to them that the man who made the declaration produced a certificate showing he was 75 years of age?

I have no power to refer it back.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the pension of Michael Ford, of Moneene-kiene, Drumkeerin, in the Manorhamilton district, was reduced from 5s. to 3s. per week without notice having been served on Ford; whether the appeal was on the ground of age or of means; and whether the Local Government Board have power to deal with cases that are not appealed?

I am informed by the Local Government Board that Michael Ford was originally granted a pension of 5s. a week by the pension committee. The pension officer subsequently raised a question as to Ford's right to receive any pension, and notice was duly sent to Ford. The Board ruled against the pension officer on the point he raised as to the pensioner's age, and on consideration of his means awarded him 3s. a week. As regards the last paragraph of the question, the Board know nothing of cases which do not come before them on appeal, but they hold, and have been advised, that when a claim comes before them for determination, either on appeal or question, they are bound to satisfy themselves that all the statutory conditions have been fulfilled, and are not confined to the consideration of the particular point upon which the appeal was submitted. This view has been challenged in the High Court of Justice, and the King's Bench Division being equally divided on the point raised, notice of appeal has been given. Pending the result of the appeal, the Board's procedure holds good.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the pension of Mary M'Manus, of Kilroask and East Bars, in the district of Manorhamilton, was on appeal, on the question of age, reduced from 5s. to 3s. per week; and by what authority was the said reduction made, as there was no appeal on the question of means, she being a poor woman depending solely on her family and friends for a living; and whether the Local Government Board would reconsider her claim?

I understand that the facts are as stated. As regards the authority of the Local Government Board to reduce the pension when there was no appeal on the question of means, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to his question as to the case of Michael Ford. The Board have no power to reconsider their decision, but if the applicant can give any new facts or show any alteration in her circumstances it is open to her to make a fresh claim.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Strokestown, county Roscommon, pensions committee granted a pension of 3s. a week to Patrick Fallon, which, upon appeal by the pension officer to the Local Government Board, was refused on the ground that there was no documentary proof of age, as no entry of his name could be found in the Census Returns of 1841 or 1851; whether, in the absence of such entry, other evidence available in the case, satisfactory to the pensions committee has been considered by the Local Government Board; and, if not, whether he will request that Board to consider such evidence?

The Local Government Board upheld the pension officer's appeal as they were not satisfied that the claimant had reached the statutory age. Before coming to this decision they carefully considered all the evidence submitted to them. When joining the Teachers' Pension Scheme in 1880, Fallon gave the date of his birth as 5th May, 1840.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that placards have been extensively posted throughout certain parts of Ireland to the effect that Ireland honours Madar Lal Dhingra, who was proud to lay down his life for the cause of his country; and whether the police have discovered the authors of the placards praising a murderer; and, if so, have any arrests been made?

I am informed by the police authorities that a number of such placards were found posted in various parts of Ireland, and were at once torn down by the police. The authors have not so far been discovered, nor have any arrests been made.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen one of these placards himself?

No, Sir, I have not.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has heard that these placards were posted by the organisation which prints and publishes "Grievances from Ireland"?

asked the Chief Secretary if he will state the number of evicted tenants or their representatives who have applied to the Estates Commissioners for reinstatement in their former holdings on the Kingston and other estates in the neighbourhood of Mitchels-town, and how many still remain unpro- vided for; how many uneconomic holdings existed on the Kingston and other estates in the locality sold under the Land Purchase Act of 1903; can he state the number of agricultural labourers without allotments in the neighbourhood of Mitchelstown when these estates were being sold; and whether Mr. Sydney Smith, an inspector from the Estates Commissioners, before allotting a large part of the lands of Kildrum to Thomas Robinson, a wealthy man who had offered £3,000 for the interest in a farm, inquired into and satisfied himself that his scheme for the division of the lands in question had met the claims of evicted tenants, uneconomic holders, and agricultural labourers in the district?

The Estates Commissioners have received applications from 24 persons seeking reinstatement as former tenants or the representatives of former tenants on the Kingston estate. Six of these persons have been reinstated or provided with other holdings. In fifteen cases the Commissioners decided to take no action, and the three remaining applications were not received within the time mentioned in the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907. As regards the case of Mr. Thomas Robinson, I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the question asked by the hon. Member on the 23rd instant. The Estates Commissioners are unable to furnish the other particulars asked for in the question.

Am I to understand that it is part of the policy of the Estates Commissioners to give untenanted land to persons in possession of means?

I do not think so, except in very exceptional circumstances. I think there were exceptional circumstances in this case.

Could the right hon. Gentleman state what the exceptional circumstances are?

I could not at the moment; perhaps the hon. Member will kindly put down another question.

asked the Chief Secretary what is the cause of the delay on the part of the Estates Commissioners in completing the reinstatement of Mr. Daniel O'Donoghue, of Ballycasheen, near Killarney, evicted tenant; whether Mr. D. C. Coltsmann, J.P., D.L., who is in occupation of the lands, has offered to facilitate the Commissioners in every way to carry out the reinstatement; and whether many more years will have to elapse before it is effected?

The Estates Commissioners are not prepared to pay the amount of compensation required by the present occupier of the farm in question. They have noted O'Donoghue's application for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land.

Having regard to the fact that the landlord has offered to facilitate the reinstatement of his tenant, will the right hon. Gentleman direct the Estates Commissioners to do something for one of the evicted tenants in Kerry?

I would not like to interfere with the Estates Commissioners in this duty at all. I think it would be rather inconvenient if the Government were to say what evicted tenants should be reinstated.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he can state how many extra police were drafted into Portadown on the occasion of the demonstration of the Orange Order of Black Men on Saturday, the 28th instant?

On the 17th instant 200 police from other counties were drafted into Portadown in connection with the disturbances there. This force was retained for duty on Saturday, the 28th instant, but happily there was no disorder whatever on that date, owing largely to the willing assistance given to the authorities by the leaders of both parties.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh (Mr. W. Moore) delivered a speech at a meeting of Black Men on Saturday?

The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

Is it not a fact that on the date mentioned about 5,000 or 6,000 Protestants gathered together and there was not the slightest disturbance, and also that on 12th July there were 30,000 in the neighbourhood without the slightest disturbance?

I cannot answer as to the number, but I have already said there was no disturbance.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners have purchased the estate of Captain F. G. Burke and others, Ballydugan, Loughrea, and that there are holdings on the estate exceedingly small in acreage; and whether, seeing that the tenants have frequently asked the Commissioners, within the course of the past few years, to deal with the estate so as to afford them some chance of living, and having regard to the unfortunate state of the district, he will urge upon the Commissioners to deal with this estate at once?

Proceedings have been instituted for the sale of this estate under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and it will be dealt with by the Estates Commissioners in its order of priority.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Giuseppe Cachia, who was a colour-sergeant in the King's Own Malta Militia, was at the expiration of seven years' service transferred against his wish into the Reserve; that Cachia had nothing against his conduct and holds certificates for efficiency; that his repeated requests for a statement of the reasons for his transfer have been met with refusals; and that the circumstances of his transfer have cast a reflection on him and he has suffered in consequence; and whether he will favourably consider the possibility of Cachia's re-entry into the Militia or state the reasons why he was transferred into the Reserve?

This case has already been referred to the War Office. The man's commanding officer considered that his performance of the duties of colour-sergeant were not sufficiently satisfactory to justify his retention, and this decision was upheld by the superior military authorities purely on military grounds and not on grounds of character or conduct. It must be remembered that as the Malta Militia do not draw their permanent staff from the Regular forces, exceptional local men are required, and the refusal to grant him an extension did not cast any reflection on this man. He has now completed his 12 years' engagement, and could not be readmitted into the force.

asked if there is a supply of trenching picks and shovels in store sufficient for equipping the Territorial Forces on mobilisation with the number laid down in equipment regulations; and, if not, whether it is proposed to make up the deficiency without delay?

The peace equipment of every infantry battalion of the Territorial Force includes six picks and six shovels per company, or 48 of each per battalion. These tools form part of the war equipment of the units, and are kept in store. Additional tools are to be provided by county associations on mobilisation.

asked the Prime Minister when it is expected that the Select Committee of Privileges will issue a Report to the House?

The Prime Minister has asked me to say that he is not in a position at the present moment to make any statement.

asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether the Board of Agriculture or the Department appointed the inspectors of mares to receive nominations for the present season; and will he state the number of such inspectors, their names, and full addresses, their qualifications, and what practical experience they had of either race or draught mares?

The Department appoint the judges and veterinary surgeons who select the mares for nominations under the Department's scheme for encouraging improvement in the breeds of horses. Twenty-eight judges and 24 veterinary surgeons were employed by the Department in connection with the selection of mares during the season 1909. Before making the appointments the Department satisfied themselves that the gentlemen in question were fully competent for the work to be done. I shall be glad to-investigate and deal with any complaint that may be made to the Department.

The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) is not in the right place; that in the name of the hon. Member for North Hackney (Mr. Hart-Davies) should come on Sub-section (2).

moved to leave out from Section (2) the words "The Local Government Board may authorise."

This Sub-section provides that a local authority in England or Scotland shall ask the leave of the Local Government Board to prepare a town planning scheme. In the ease of a private donor or a syndicate it would not be necessary to obtain such permission, and it seems to me there is nothing to justify this anomalous, treatment of municipal corporations. I do not seek to take out of the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board the right to veto, alter, or make changes in any town planning scheme prepared by a corporation, but I do submit it is a waste of time and rather a circuitous method of procedure that the local authorities should be required to get this permission before being even permitted to prepare a scheme. In the case of Scotland the objection is still stronger, seeing that the Local Government Board in Edinburgh has so far had nothing to do with housing and town planning, and, therefore, possesses no practical knowledge of details.

I trust that my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. It is quite true that if the Clause is passed as it stands, the Local Government Board will have in the matter of town planning schemes no control over private owners. But for some years the Local Government Board, in England, Scotland, and Ireland, has had some control over local authorities in the matter of sanctioning loans and auditing accounts, and this power has been exercised with beneficial effects to the general community. The Local Government Board has also helped local authorities by promoting Provisional Orders and Bills for schemes approximating to town planning and improvement schemes. Its inspectors have likewise conducted public inquiries into these schemes. We think that in these cases the local authority ought not to promote schemes without first acquainting the central authority of the nature of their proposals, inasmuch as a scheme may impinge upon the areas of two or three other local authorities or interfere seriously with the rights of the neighbourhood. It would be only fair to adjoining owners that someone should intervene to ensure there was a definite beginning of any scheme formulated, and this is all the more important because when a town planning scheme is promoted it is provided, under Clause 57, Subsection (2), that "A person shall not be entitled to claim compensation under this section on account of any building erected on or contract made, or other thing done with respect to land included in a scheme, after the time at which the application for authority to prepare the scheme was made, or after such other time as the Local Government Board may fix for the purpose." In connection with these schemes it is necessary, therefore, for some central authority to determine the method of procedure, and the date at which compensation shall begin, and after which it shall not be paid. In the Committee upstairs we were all agreed that for some time to come the central authority— the Local Government Board—should initiate the proceedings, but that will not prevent any local authority making its preliminary investigations and inquiries. It can make all its preparations in advance, and arrange with rival and contending interests. We think this is a very serious experiment, which has to be watched very carefully at the start, when, naturally, we shall have to have the advice and guidance of a very limited number of experts. I would, therefore, appeal to my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment, but to rest assured that all the local authorities concerned will not be deprived of all legitimate opportunities for giving preparation to a scheme which they think they ought to start at once.

I am glad that at last there is a sound of revolt from the Government Benches against the proposal that the President of the Local Government Board is to be converted into an ancient Sultan of Turkey, with powers of life and death, over all people who are living at the present moment, or likely to live in the future, in England, Scotland, or Wales. I would suggest, however, to-the hon. Member that he has not chosen a good moment in which to raise the- protest, because, so far as I can judge, the effect of leaving out these words would be absolutely futile, as all that would happen if the words are left in would be that the local authority might prepare themselves a town planning scheme if they satisfied the Board that there is a primâfacie case.

If the hon. Baronet will look at the Amendments he will see that I. have one which is consequential, to leave out the words, "if the authority satisfy the Board that there is a primâfacie case for making such a scheme."

I did not notice that Amendment on the Paper, and it does alter the case very much, and I am afraid then the present Amendment goes too far. I agree with the President of the Local Government Board that this is a very serious experiment, and unless we watch it carefully we are going to put a great burden upon owners and local authorities, and I am sorry he has undertaken these duties very light-heartedly; but I am not at all sure that I would not prefer the action of the Sultan of Turkey to leaving it entirely to the local authority to interfere with other people's property.

The only effect of my Amendment would be to allow the local authority to do what you allow the private owner to do—namely, to prepare a scheme.

Then I come back to my original point that the omission of these words does not matter; whether they are in or out the local authority will have to go to the person representing for the time being the Sultan in the Arabian Nights, and exercising power over his fellow subjects, and obtain his permission. Therefore, I do not think there is very much in the Amendment, and under these circumstances, I think my right hon. Friend is right in asking the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment, but as the hon. Gentleman seems rather animated by a desire to exercise his influence against the schemes of the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps on another occasion when there is an Amendment, which will serve a more useful purpose, I may have his support.

I do not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved, in Sub-section (2), after the word "land"' ["with reference to any land"], to insert the words "other than land acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking."

On a point of Order. I would ask your ruling, Sir, as to whether we did not decide this yesterday?

That was not in connection with town planning, but in connection with another question altogether, that of housing.

There are two points raised by the Bill; that which we decided yesterday, and I am sorry we did so decide, was a question of housing, and this has to do with town planning. The question raised by the Amendment is whether, when there is a large scheme of town planning to be carried out, land acquired under statute for the purpose of a railway, dock, canal, water or other public undertaking shall not be held to be exempt from the scheme. It must not be forgotten that where a large scheme of town planning is carried out it will be most necessary that there should be communication close to that scheme, and therefore everything should be done to encourage railways and canals and other undertakings of that sort, and not to discourage them by using their land for the purpose of the town planning scheme. Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman gave as a reason for rejecting a similar Amendment that there was a certain amount of surplus land belonging to railways which had been acquired by the railway companies but was not used for railway purposes, and he seemed to think it was not right that the surplus land should be held up and acquired for other purposes; but I would point out to him, if there is going to be a large scheme of town planning, that will mean additional work for the railways, and consequently the surplus land of the railways will be required in order to provide enlarged accommodation. Suppose there has been a small village or town, and the population has been increased by the town planning, then the railway accommodation will not be sufficient. The right hon. Gentleman is in error in supposing that the acquisition of surplus land by railways is for the purpose of holding it up, or any ill-natured purpose of that sort.

I did not suggest it.

The real reason that the surplus land is bought by the railway company is because they think that in the future, in the district in which they acquire this land, they will eventually have to use the land for the purpose of railway extension. And when they have an opportunity of buying the land at a reasonable price, though they may not require it at the moment, it is always advisable so to do, because it they wait until it is perfectly well known in the neighbourhood that they must acquire the land they will have to pay a very much larger price than if they acquire it at the time they do not actually desire to use it.

There is another point to be considered, and that is, that if the railway companies are not allowed to hold a certain amount of land in neighbourhoods where they think perhaps their business will increase, that land probably will be built upon or used for other purposes, and when they want to acquire it they have to demolish the houses, and that will cause a certain amount of hardship on the people who are dispossessed without compensation. Then this land cannot be acquired by any of the companies or corporations mentioned in the Amendment unless they have the sanction of both Houses of Parliament. Even the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) two days ago. in the discussion upon the Irish Land Bill, hoped that where land had been acquired by tenants under the Statute it would be exempted from the operations of the compulsory clauses. Where an advanced social reformer—if that is an appropriate description of people who are anxious to acquire other people's property—like the hon. Member advances a claim with regard to property the right hon. Gentleman might consider that there is something in it. I understand this exemption has been given to railway companies, canal companies, and others by the Public Health Act Amendment Act, 1907, Section (38) and also by the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, Subsection (1) of Section 30, and the Small Holdings and Allotments Act of 1908, Section 41. Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman held up for our approbation the Small Holdings and Allotments Act of 1907, and he advanced as an argument for doing certain things under this Bill that that had been done in the Act of 1907. He argued that because it was done in the Act of 1907 it was necessarily good, and it ought to be done in this Bill. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. There are provisions in the Act—which he says is such a good one, and on which apparently he has founded, so far as regards Land Clauses procedure, the procedure under his Bill—which justify the Amendment which I am moving. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember his utterances of yesterday and will be consistent, at any rate, in this one particular.

Practically this point was discussed at considerable length yesterday on several Amendments. By a decisive majority yesterday the House decided that for housing purposes land should be compulsorily acquired. If it is necessary for housing, where land is diverted entirely from the railway company, surely this procedure is doubly necessary for town planning where, in 19 cases out of 20, land will not be diverted from the railway company to the local authority for the purpose of a town planning scheme in the sense that ownership by the railway company will terminate and it will be vested in the local authority or in exchange with other private owners. On the contrary, it was generally agreed in the Grand Committee chat in all matters of town planning where both the actual railway and the stations and the depots or the surplus land of the railway comes within a town planning scheme, it would come less for expropriation than for a re-arrangement and for inclusion within the purview of the -scheme, not with the object of inflicting any injustice on the railway company or depriving them of their property, but by the development of the township the railway would be considerably benefited—by the widening of roads, the grading of roads, and the general improvement of the area. Let me give a practical instance. The Garden City Company at Letchworth was started some six or seven years ago, and came to me about four years ago to discuss certain proposals for the improvement of their estate. One of the questions was what should be the relationship of the railway to the Garden City. They had previously determined, roughly, that the Garden City, in relation to the railway close by, should have certain lands abutting on the railway where, for many years to come, houses would not be built, and the railway company had in that case what in too many cases railway companies, for lack of foresight, have had to do in London and the suburbs, to pull down houses that abutted on the narrow strip which they ought to have had wider. The Garden City people sensibly went to the railway company, who said if the Garden City is to grow to ten, twenty, or fifty thousand, ten or 20 years hence, the railway should go to a certain spot, a certain amount of surplus land on either side wide enough for all probable developments should be acquired, and the depots should be so and so, and the bridges should be so and so. I found the railway company exploiting me. They said, "We have agreed with the Garden City. We have fixed up terms without any counsel and without expert witnesses, but by the common-sense of a conference." I had money to spend on the unemployed. I was allowed to take two or three hundred men to the Garden City for the improvement of the approaches. The Garden City was benefited, the railway was not damnified, and the unemployed got work, and by the concatenation of circumstances and by common-sense all round we produced this small town planning scheme. In 19 out of 20 cases that is what would happen under this Bill, and I would appeal to the hon. Baronet not to do injustice to his clients, the railway companies, by insisting on this rather absurd proposal.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman approved of the action of this particular railway company?

Barkis being willing, I was happy to assist in this friendly function.

I asked the question because it is a railway company of which I am a director. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman approved of the proceedings of the railway company. My version of the story is not quite the same as that of the right hon. Gentleman. Unless I misunderstood him the point of the right hon. Gentleman was that the Garden City people came to the railway company and requested them to make a station, and that they offered land on both sides for development. Then there was some question as to a gradient, and the right hon. Gentleman having gone down and assisted both sides, a charming and beautiful result arose. That is not quite the story I heard in the board room.

The hon. Baronet must not be guided by all he hears in a board room. I went out to the place five or six times, and had the matter all out with the surveyor.

I am not casting any doubt on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman so far as he is concerned. I am casting doubt on the action of the Garden City. What really took place there was what might take place in other quarters unless this Amendment is accepted. What took place was this. The Great Northern Railway Company put up a station the moment they heard that the Garden City was likely to build houses at that particular part; they stopped trains, and did everything they could to encourage the development of traffic—not from philanthropic, but from business motives. The railway company asked some land from the Garden City. The Garden City people asked three or four times more for the land then they gave for it. They knew that their scheme, if not a success, was progressing, and they knew that the railway company in order to do their duty were obliged to have land. They took advantage of that, and demanded an extraordinary price for the land. What the price eventually was I do not remember, but we made the best bargain we could. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman is a strong argument in favour of my Amendment, and I hope, now that he has heard the other side of the story, he will accept it.

As a matter of principle, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is wrong to supersede —by the action of a Department—the deliberate decision of Parliament. It was pointed out yesterday that when railway, dock, and other companies get powers from Parliament to acquire land for the prosecution of public objects, it ought not to be left to a Department to say that these public objects have ceased or that other public objects which supersede them or which are greater, have arisen. If the present President of the Local Government Board were to be at his office in perpetuity, I dare say I should not very much object to this particular Clause. I think no town planning authority would really be so mad as to take lands which were necessary for the purposes of a railway company. I am perfectly certain that in 99 out of 100 cases no attempt would be made by any sagacious town planning committee to obtain land from a railway company unless that land was more or less superfluous to the railway company. I did not discover in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman any reason at all against the principle of my hon. Friend's Amend- ment. It is that powers from this House in some form or another should be obtained in order to divest railway companies of lands with which they have been entrusted by Parliament for public purposes.

I understand that it was decided yesterday that surplus lands belonging to railway companies and other corporations might be taken for the building of houses. To-day we are discussing whether a municipal or other local authority shall have power to sketch out the way in which they intend development to take place on land which is now vacant. It is not intended to rip up a railway, possibly a trunk line, for the purpose of building houses. I take it for granted that what is intended, after all, is that lands not otherwise used by a railway company should be taken if good reason can be shown for doing so. No one would suggest the pulling up of the sidings of a railway company, or the carrying out of schemes which would involve a stupid waste of energy and money. That I understand to be the position, and therefore no injury will be done to railway companies or any of the other corporations which have been mentioned.

4.0 P.M.

May I draw attention to a Sub-section which I think ought to allay the apprehension of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury). Sub-section (1) of Clause 53, which governs the whole of this part of the Bill, says: "A town planning scheme may be made in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act as respects any land which is in course of development or appears likely to be used for building purposes, with the general object of securing proper sanitary conditions, amenity, and convenience in connection with the laying out and use of the land, and of any neighbouring lands." That, of course, is a very effective and important direction to the various authorities who will be concerned in the preparation of the scheme. For instance, the local authority who will first consider the scheme—what is generally called the responsible authority—will have to prepare the scheme in accordance with the spirit of the Sub-section, and the scheme will remain before the Local Government Board, who equally will construe it and mould it or mend it in accordance with the effect of the Sub-section. Land which is close to a railway, and is really wanted for its purposes, will not become surplus land. Land of that kind can scarcely be described as land which is in course of development, or is likely to be used for building purposes, and although it may come within the scope of a general scheme, and I think very properly come within the scope of a general scheme which deals with the laying out of the whole district, yet is land which any local authority, and certainly the Local Government Board, would carefully protect in giving assent to a scheme. In giving assent to a scheme they would see that land of that kind is not in the same position as land which is obviously in process of development, and likely to be used for building purposes, and therefore such land would be specially provided for. I think that anyone who reads the Bill as a whole would not apprehend any serious danger to such land. Of course, there are cases where the land has become surplus land, where is was originally intended for the purposes of the railway, and the railway men changed their intention and left the land surplus land. In that case representations could be put before the town planning authorities as a matter of right. If the land is still wanted for the purposes of the railway it should be specially dealt with. If it is not wanted for the purpose of the railway, but may be so wanted, still special provisions would undoubtedly be made to safeguard any future necessity that the railway might contemplate in relation to that land. But I can scarcely imagine that any local authority reading the Sub-section referred to would, nevertheless, proceed to deal with the land adjacent to a railway acquired by the railway for railway purposes as though it were ordinary building land on which they would be prepared to erect, workmen's cottages.

Surplus land has been alluded to by the learned Attorney-General. As far as I can see, there is no mention of surplus land either in the Bill or in the Amendment. Although, of course, it is not very probable that a town council would take the actual track of the railway it conceivably might happen. Conceivably they might say to the railway, "You must divert your railway." Indeed, one can conceive this happening under the Town Planning Clauses, that if there was a town planning scheme for London, the London County Coucil might say to the South-Eastern Company, "Hungerford Bridge is the greatest eyesore in London. You must convert it into a stone bridge." I do not suggest that is very probable, but it is possible, and I think that the Bill ought to provide for what is possible as well as for what is probable. I think that the Attorney-General does not quite realise that one of the objections we feel under this Clause is that you are taking from corporate bodies land which they have received in accordance with Acts of Parliament, and for which they have probably paid very heavily before the Committees here, and that you are taking it by the mere administrative action of the municipality and the Local Government Board. This kind of case may arise in the future. At present the Government is proposing to drive roads through England, with 220 yards of surplus land on each side—

No; the total width is 220 yards.

That does not affect my argument at all. In any case, there is 110 yards on either side of the tract of land deliberately intended by this House to be surplus land. This question then arises: What is to be the relationship of the Local Government Board and of the Town Planning Authorities, and of the new Road Board as to the surplus of land? Will the former bodies be able to give directions and able to override an Act passed by this House saying that these roads shall be made and that the surplus land shall be left? A very dangerous principle to introduce into an office or into administration would be to enable them to override deliberately the express intention of Parliament, and although I do not think it very probable that anything very foolish will be done in the direction of railway tracks being broken up, yet I think the duty arises to safeguard those who have received a Parliamentary title.

The Attorney-General (Sir W. Robson), as I understood him, said that it was very undesirable that railway companies should by any possibility be cramped in any future development in the course of their business. He added that there was no possibility of that taking place, as they were fully protected by Sub-section (1) of Clause 53. I have no doubt that it is perfectly plain to his legal mind, but it is not clear to the lay mind. Would he therefore undertake on behalf of the Government to put down an Amendment on the Report stage to make clear in this Sub-section what is obviously the intention of the Government?

The hon. and learned Member (Sir W. Robson) really agrees with me in everything I have said. When he said that my Amendment was not necessary because of Sub-section (1) of Clause 53 I venture to say that that Sub-section makes my Amendment more than ever necessary, because the question of development would arise, and if the land was ripe for development it would be taken. Therefore the Sub-section gives no protection whatever. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that the Local Government Board would do so-and-so. How does he know what the Local Government Board are going to do? There is not a single person in this House who has any idea of what the Local Government Board in future will or will not do. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is no use saying in this House or in this Committee that the effect of a clause or an Amendment will be to have such-and-such things. The effect will be what the Law Courts choose to interpret it later on, and we shall not be able to bring forward evidence, because I understand that no expert evidence or counsel will be allowed. But even if we could bring forward evidence, no evidence that the right hon. Gentleman said so-and-so or that the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) said so-and-so would have the slightest weight when the Clause has to be considered either in a court of law or by the Local Government Board. If the hon. and learned Gentleman really thinks that certain safeguards should be put in, those safeguards should be put in in Committee. The hon. Member for Stoke says that railway companies and other companies of this description need not be alarmed, because, he says, a local authority would not dream of pulling up the tracks. How does he know what they would or would not do? Then he says that if you prove to them that the land was required for the development of the railway they would not take it. Why not put all that into the Bill? If the right hon. Gentleman will put the words of the hon. Member for Stoke and the words of the Attorney-General into the Bill I should have nothing to say, because then it would be apparent what the wishes of the Government arc. But I am not satisfied as to the intention either of the Attorney-General or the Member for Stoke or of the Local Government Board in the future, or as to what the 600 or 700 local authorities in the future will do. In this Clause we are giving very wide authority to local authorities—in my opinion very much too wide— but, at any rate, the desire of the Committee as expressed by two hon. Members of the opposite way of thinking to myself is that the Clause should have the effect they think it ought to have, and if that be so why not put in words with that object?

There is a suggestion which I think would meet the practical difficulty in this case. You are dealing with the land—not surplus land —of some people to whom Parliament has given the right to use that land. You are empowering under this Bill an Executive Department of the Government to modify the statute which has been enacted by this House. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Burns) is going to meet that problem by an Amendment which he proposes to move later on, that where land held under any public general Act is interfered with the Order for its acquisition is to lie on the Table of this House for 40 days, and an address may be presented against it. It would meet that case if the right hon. Gentleman would only follow his own precedent, and would not confine the application of this Order to cases of a public or a general Act, but would make it apply to all cases of statutory enactment where land affected has been acquired by authority of this House. Then we should ensure that the authority which has been entrusted with land by this House would not be interfered with without this House having at least an opportunity of signifying its assent or dissent.

It seems to me that this Clause is proposing that a certain plan should be made under which certain proposals of the local authority approved of by the Local Government are put down on paper. There are to be roads there, canals there, railways somewhere else, tramways on this plot, and parks here; and as I understand the Amendment it would mean that certain parts are to be left blank, because the railway has been authorised by Act of Parliament to acquire certain land. Surely the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) does not suppose that any town council would propose to erect a cottage on a railway, but what it might propose is to have cottages near the railway. You can build much more economically where you have a railway to bring the building materials as near as possible to the spot.

I would like to point out to my right hon. Friend that the land which is possessed by railway companies has often been bought at a very much higher price than really ought to have been paid, and I would ask him whether land really required for the purposes of extension for the laying down of sidings or the erection of warehouses, and which has been preserved for those purposes is not in any way to be applied to the purposes of public authorities. If under the Bill it can be shown that there are really surplus lands which might come under the purview of this Clause, excluding such as really have been bought for the purpose of extensions, I think that would meet the difficulty. I suggest that there should be inserted in the Amendment the words, "not being surplus land."

I have been appealed to by my hon. Friend behind me and hon. Members opposite to make a further concession beyond that which I have already indicated our willingness to make, and which is shown on page 24 of the White Paper, already referred to by the hon. Member for one of the Lanark divisions (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson). Beyond that Amendment it is impossible for the Government to go, and in this connection I see no reason why the Government should be pressed. I think the fears of the railway representatives who have spoken to-day are as groundless almost as those of some of their ducal competitors on another subject elsewhere. I would advise the railway representatives to remember this: Under a town planning scheme it is just of as much advantage to the railway company to act in harmony with the local authority for the future development of their organisation and of their railway property in the particular area affected as it is for them, when Parliament gives the local authorities power to acquire land for housing, not to be excluded from the general law. If hon. Members who represent the railway interests are not content with the concession we make, it is impossible for us to go further and to comply with their real requirements, namely, that all land owned by the railway companies, whether surplus or otherwise, shall be ruled to be without the purview of a town planning scheme. That cannot be done, and ought not to be done, if the essentials of a town planning scheme are to be kept in view.

I protest against the speech which we have just heard from the right hon. Gentleman. I object to any hon. Members in this House who get up to speak being referred to as "railway representatives." I myself have no connection with any railway.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has rather misconstrued my observation. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, with a frankness and a directness that always do him credit, said he represented the interests of the railway companies, and it was only in that general sense I replied. My reply was direct and courteous, and was not intended to convey what the right hon. and learned Gentleman implies, that I made a distinction in regard to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London as representing railways only. On the contrary, the hon. Baronet made his position perfectly clear, and I, as representing the public as distinct from the railway companies, had the right to reply to him, as I did, and I hope I courteously expressed my reasons.

The right hon. Gentleman was very unfortunate in expressing himself in the matter.

It is a matter of opinion.

This is a question which does not merely affect railway companies. There are public bodies, such as dock companies, water companies, canal companies, and other statutory companies, who are also affected, as the right hon. Gentleman must be aware. It is the public case we seek to meet. The President of the Local Government Board is really under a complete illusion if he supposes that he has made any concession whatever by the Amendment which he has placed upon the Paper: "Provided that where the scheme contains provisions suspending any enactment contained in a public general Act the scheme shall not come into force unless a draft thereof has been laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than forty days during the Session of Parliament, and if either of those Houses before the expiration of those forty days presents an Address to His Majesty against the proposed suspension no further proceedings shall be taken on the draft without prejudice to the making of any new scheme." My hon. Friend behind me most properly referred to it as showing that the Government are not acting in ignorance on this matter, because by the Amendment to which reference has been made they say that, when a public Act is likely to be contravened by this Section, some provision should be made by which that Act should be in no way interfered with without the intervention of this House. I submit that this shows that the House, and the House alone, ought to deal with that which has been created by its own authority. There is not the slightest objection, and no pretence of an argument has been raised at all, to show that a private Act of Parliament, which is often very much more expensive and very much more considered than a public Act, should not have the same provision applied to it. With reference to what was said by the Attorney-General, I happen to have a practical knowledge of the matter which possibly he does not possess. He imagines that in the case of a town planning community there will be no temptation on the part of the local authority to do anything hostile to a railway company. In the instance I have before my mind the railway company has at immense expense constructed a line at Hampstead. They have a very considerable quantity of land on which they intend in future to place goods-yards, warehouses and other erections. At Hampstead they have the enormous advantage of the connection which the railway gives with London, and it would be exceedingly desirable if the lands which are adjacent to the railway and are destined for future accommodation could be acquired. Under this Section that would be precisely the case where there would be the greatest temptation to a local authority to round off its town planning scheme at the expense of the railway company. The Attorney-General suggests that the local authority are quite incapable of such action, but that is not my experience.

I think there is a difference, which the right hon. Gentleman will himself see, between the case of the Garden Cities Association, of which the right hon. Gentleman is a distinguished member, and the case of the local authority, who would come under the supervision of the Government Department. In the former case, there is an element of private interest; I do not use the word in any invidious sense; but the interests of the Garden Cities Association would be under very different control, because it is a separate and private association as compared with the local authority.

I cannot agree with my hon. and learned Friend, I think the temptation would be equal in both cases. It is clearly reasonable that the powers which have been entrusted to the railway company to acquire land, which it occupies by virtue of its Parliamentary powers, should not be exposed to the interference of the local authority without being subject to the authority of Parliament, which originally granted those powers to the railway company.

I should very much like if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would make his position a little clearer than it is, and if he could restrict the matter to surplus land it would be a source of considerable comfort to many people other than railway directors. My experience in regard to this question has nothing to do with railways, and I approach it from a totally different standpoint. Those who advise me consider that the matter is not nearly so clear as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and the Attorney-General seem to think. If it could be arranged that surplus land only would be dealt with, it would be a considerable relief to many who are in no way antagonistic to the Bill.

The President of the Local Government Board in his speech referred only to future arrangements. Whether he did it advisedly or not I do not know, but I should think those who are connected with these great undertakings would probably be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman would carry out the spirit of his last speech by saying that future arrangements will not be likely to interfere with these great interests. If the future arrangements of the right hon. Gentleman are allowed to undo the action of the House in the past, and to interfere with land already set aside for specific purposes in connection with these great undertakings, such as dock companies, canal companies, water companies, and railways, then it is a preposterous position to take up. If the right hon. Gentleman is willing to confine the operation of the Clause to land that may be subsequently acquired by railway companies, canal companies, and dock companies, then the sting will be taken out of it, and all these undertakings which are carried out on behalf of the public would be entered upon with these schemes laid before them; they would know all the advantages or disadvantages that would be likely to accrue to their various under- takings, and there would be no particular harm done. What appears to me to be a particular hardship is that the right hon. Gentleman is going to make arrangements in future to deal with arrangements that have been made more or less in the past, and to set up these local authorities and the Local Government Board as the judges as to whether these pieces of land are really required in connection with these great undertakings. The local authorities and the Local Government Board are to decide the matter, and it is quite impossible to suppose they are qualified to do so. What is the Board of Trade going to say about this? Railways, for instance, are undertakings which come under the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade. We shall have a nice state of things presently. We shall have the President of the Local Government Board and the President of the Board of Trade at loggerheads over this—the President of the Board of Trade very properly and very rightly trying to secure for these great public undertakings those rights which have been accorded to them on the floor of this House, and the President of the Local Government Board egging on those local authorities to upset and break down those rights, in order to carry out all sorts of schemes.

The hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the Amendment.

May I point out that I am endeavouring to strictly confine myself to the Amendment, which deals with the undertakings to which I have referred?

The hon. Member is suggesting a possible conflict between the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board. The Board of Trade does not come in here. It is only a question of the Local Government Board authorising the local authorities, within the meaning of this part of this Bill, to prepare a town planning scheme.

My point was that the Local Government Board is proposing to interfere with these interests, which in very many ways come under the control and direction of the Board of Trade. With great respect, I thought I was justified in making some reference to possible difficulties that might arise between the two Departments. If the right hon. Gentleman will confine his proposal to future arrangements in connection with these great public companies, then I think the difficulty would be overcome.

It is a little difficult, owing to the method under which we are discussing this measure, to follow exactly what is proposed. If I read the proposals rightly, it would be possible under this scheme for a local authority under a town planning scheme to require the removal of a railway from one part of the town to another. If that is not so, no doubt the Government will explain it. Clause 56 says: "The responsible authority may at any time, after giving such notice as may be provided by a town planning scheme and in accordance with the provisions of the scheme ( a ) remove, pull down, or alter any building or other work in the area included in the scheme which is such as to contravene the scheme, or in the erection or carrying out of which any provision of the scheme has not been complied with." They may in default of their orders being carried out execute the work. Let me put a case which does not seem to be extravagant. A local authority oppose a railway Bill, and the Committee of the two Houses agree that the Bill is a desirable one, and that the railway should be in the position which is shown on the deposited plan. A few months afterwards, or a couple of years afterwards, they secure a favourable President of the Local Government Board, and the local authority go to him and propose a town planning scheme, setting out that no railway whatever shall be constructed in the particular position but in another position. That seems to me to be perfectly within the powers of the Bill. If that is confirmed, the effect of the decision of Parliament given on this particular point as to where the railway would be would be overruled. It may be said that no local authority would do such a thing or that no President of the Local Government Board would confirm it. I am not at all sure of that. I am not in the least sure about the local authority. They look at

it from their point of view. They do not look at the general point of view or the interests of communication throughout the whole country, which is what the Committee has to do. Personally, without the slightest disrespect to the present President of the Local Government Board, I have a profound distrust of all Government Departments in judicial methods, and I am sure every experience we have had in recent years of their judicial action confirms that opinion. They are not fitted for judicial decisions at all. The effect of this Bill is really to hand over a railway company, wherever a town planning scheme may be made, entirely to the jurisdiction of the President of the Local Government Board, though that undertaking has been authorised by Parliament after the most elaborate inquiry. I have no interest in the railway companies, and I confess I look at the matter from the point of view of the constitutional position. It seems to be an outrage to say that a Government Department, with or without the assent of a locality, should be entitled to set aside the decisions of Parliament without any appeal. I very much regret the Government have not seen fit to modify this portion of the scheme. I feel convinced that if we had been discussing this under normal conditions this proposal would have failed. The Government know that only three or four hours remain, and we are quite at their mercy. They have got some 20 Members in the House, and 50 or 60 more will come in and join them from the Terrace and support them, whatever may have been the arguments or the proposal. If we were discussing this under unrestricted conditions, I do not believe this would have been persisted in.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 41; Noes, 176.

moved, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "or in the neighbourhood of" [" land: within or in the neighbourhood of"].

I wish to direct the attention of the President of the Local Government Board to a sense of the importance of this proposal, because I am speaking, I may say, at the request of several of the more important of the county councils on this point. It involves a very serious matter, and there is under this part of the scheme a certain amount of overlapping between different local authorities. I am anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should understand that I am in no sense wanting to insist that local authorities should be compelled to work in their own separate areas. That would be the effect of this Amendment taken by itself; but there are a large number of consequential Amendments which, unfortunately, we shall have no opportunity of discussing, but which in another place may receive the attention they deserve. In the meantime, I am anxious that the Committee should consider this question of the overlapping of different authorities, and what will result where the territory of one local authority infringes on the territory of another. Two sets of cases will obviously arise in which this may happen. It may happen when a county local authority prepares a scheme which overlaps the territory of a burgh or urban local authority; or the converse may be the case. If the first of these cases took place I have no doubt that serious objection would be at once taken to the proposal. There are cases where that might happen, but I do not think they are very likely, although I know one or two cases in the county of Lanarkshire where that state of things might very conceivably arise. But the other case will almost certainly occur. An urban local authority will come to the Local Government Board and ask them to approve of a scheme which will allow them to take in part of the area at present administered by the county council. There are two or three considerations which should be borne in mind before the proposals of the Bill as they stand are allowed to be carried into effect. The London County Council have already had this matter under consideration, and have been careful to make provision that, whatever happens to other county authorities, what I have described shall not happen to them; because at the end of Clause 54 there is a special proviso that no other local authority is to be responsible for enforcing a scheme within the area of the London County Council except with its consent. That clears London out of the way, but the same important question will arise in connection with other authorities. Take the County Council of Lanarkshire, whose area impinges on the territory of the municipality of Glasgow. What are the possible reasons which justify a new departure of this character in the matter of local government? It may be said that the county councils at present have not powers properly to administer populous areas, or that, having powers, they do not exercise them. I do not think that either of those statements, so far as Lanarkshire is concerned, has any foundation in fact. County councils have very large powers to carry on the work of administering populous areas, and, so far as my knowledge goes, they are not slow to avail themselves of them. Even supposing both contentions were true, the remedy in Scotland would not be that proposed in the Bill. If, on the one hand, a county council neglects to use its powers, you should give the Local Government Board power to put pressure on the county council; or if, on the other hand, a county council has not the powers, fresh powers-should be given, but not, as this Bill proposes, to another and a different local authority altogether. I see a certain amount of danger in the proposal. In the first place, there is the obvious danger of friction between local authorities. Even although there are provisions in Clause 54 and elsewhere with a view to smoothing: over the friction, I still think there- is bound to be a not inconsiderable amount of difficulty and bitterness brought into the relations of the different local authorities. That is serious from the point of view of the inhabitants of the area in dispute, but there is a question much more serious. What is likely to happen when you have an area which will probably be sought to be included by an urban authority in one of these town planning schemes? Is it not absolutely certain that a county-council, before spending any large amount of money in that area, will wait to see whether the urban, authority proposes to include it in one of its schemes? The county council will not spend large sums of money in a particular area which is almost certain within a few years to be taken away from it. When an urban local authority came to this House to ask for an extension of the borough bounds, it would be an almost irresistible argument in its favour if it could show that for a number of years it had been administering that area for the purposes of this Act. Further, it is obvious that, pending the preparation of any such scheme, the inhabitants of that locality are likely to be in a very difficult position, because the urban authority will have no power to spend money on the area, and the county council will be disinclined to incur expenditure in connection with territory which before long is likely to be taken away from it. I quite recognise that you cannot expect local authorities in this matter to work in absolutely water-tight compartments; but it would be a thousand pities if for the sake of the benefits of a town planning scheme you were to have in the intervening period a paralysis of local government in the area to be affected. I suggest that at all events further provisions should be inserted in the Bill giving, the council of an area likely to be affected by a scheme greater powers to make themselves heard before the scheme is approved. I ask, in the first place, that the county council should have a statutory right to be heard before a scheme of an adjoining urban local authority is ap- proved by the Local Government Board; and, in the second place, that when a joint board is created the county council should have a statutory right to representation upon it. If those two conditions were given effect to much of the difficulty of the present proposals would be removed. While. I have every desire that the right hon. Gentleman's schemes should bear the fruit we all hope they will, I am afraid that in this particular they are likely to bring about a certain amount of bitterness between local authorities and a considerable amount of hardship and neglect in the areas affected.

5.0 P.M.

So far as this Clause and the Amendment just moved specially concern Scotland, I will leave the Lord Advocate to supplement what I have said on the general scheme. The hon. Member himself frankly admitted that he had no desire to keep local authorities promoting town planning schemes in watertight compartments. Whilst making that generous admission he also said that there would arise under this Bill a certain amount of overlapping. When a local authority promotes a town planning scheme which takes within its purview a neighbouring area without which the scheme would be impossible, a certain amount of overlapping of action and intention is inevitable, and nothing the hon. Member can suggest or we can do in this Bill will prevent it. What we have to do is to mitigate the hardship of the inevitable overlapping. What steps do we take to do that? Take the City of Glasgow. The City of Glasgow is a very enterprising and ambitious body. It has shown great energy and ability in its wonderful system of tramways, which, in my opinion, must be an adjunct of any rational town planning scheme. I believe that in that particular Glasgow has had no difficulty in coming to an arrangement with the adjoining townships, so that so far as tramways are concerned there is not much fear of friction, or overlapping, and the mutual interests of the outer townships and of the city are advantageously served by the central authority owning and working the tramways. Supposing Glasgow decides upon a town planning scheme, looking 10 or 15, probably 50 years ahead, as I trust growing cities will seriously undertake to do. Under the present Amendment we should find that Govan, Partick, and other places would be able to say, "Oh, Glasgow is impinging upon our territory; we have a right to be heard. We can defy Glasgow and prevent its expanding in this way." This is not an expansion of a city's authority and jurisdiction with the object of grabbing territory for the purpose of getting rateable value, or improving its treasury, or reducing its rates relatively at the expense of the adjoining townships. The object of the expansion is to confer an advantage upon Glasgow itself, whilst at the same time conferring a greater benefit upon the relatively undeveloped townships outside, which, for lack of a joint town planning scheme, 15 or 20 years hence, would be considerably damnified. Therefore, on the merits of the Amendment, we cannot allow large cities to be cribbed, cabined, and confined by recalcitrant local authorities, who do not take a prescient view of their growth and development; but we have a right to say to them, "No; you: can join in with the larger city, and as a joint authority you can promote a town planning scheme mutually agreeable and beneficial. You shall go to the Local Government Board of the particular country in which you are situated and make it the medium for bringing together at a public inquiry and adjusting and arbitrating upon, probably without much difficulty, the conflicting schemes of both authorities." That is particularly easy with regard to Scotland, because I understand that the county councils of Scotland enjoy analogous powers and responsibilities to those of the urban district councils in England. They can do many things both as a county council and as an urban district which an English urban district cannot do as a county council or a county council as an urban district. So that in that regard this particular part of Lanarkshire would be safeguarded. Then he said, "What about the inhabitants?" Is it safe to assume that the County Council of Lanarkshire cannot be left to safeguard the interests of the inhabitants of Lanarkshire as against this invading local authority for the invading local authority's future benefit? He will pardon me if I cannot differentiate between the inhabitants themselves and their civic representation—namely, the city of which they form a part. The other point which he raised is, "What is the safeguard?" If he looks at Sub-section (3) of Clause 54 he will see that the joint body may be responsible, and it is only right that it should be so for cities like Glasgow and London. For instance, why should not London and West Ham come to a mutual arrangement to take joint action? If that can be done this Bill will give every facility for it. I really do not apprehend the trouble which the hon. Gentleman implies. On the contrary, I believe if there is a part in the United Kingdom where town planning is more desirable than any other it is the River Clyde. If there is a part of the world where the natural beauty and what were the greatest amenities in the United Kingdom have been sacrificed to local and pettifogging claims of a parochial character it is to be found within Glasgow and within a 12 or 15 miles' radius. The hon. Member can rest assured of this: When my Department and myself had the intention of forming a town planning scheme we had in our minds and heart the great city of Glasgow, 50 per cent. of whose people are living in one or two rooms, where housing conditions are intolerable, where almost one can say of some stretches of the river, "Where every prospect did please, and where man has made it vile." To prevent a continuation of that is the object of our town planning scheme, and we consider Lanarkshire will be well protected, and that Glasgow will be able to improve its future development without any injustice being done to anybody.

There has been shown in this Debate a disposition to make this Bill as useful as possible, but there must be some limitation to its application. I must confess that I have always felt an extension beyond the district was attended with great risk. The phraseology of this term "neighbourhood" is unfortunate. I am not quite sure it is to be found in the law books. It is rather a term of conversation, one used in the Debates, and of a vague character. I think, if we are going at all beyond the boundary, it ought not to be put in this vague form. Instead of the term "neighbourhood," I think the phrase should rather be "adjacent to" or "immediately contiguous to," or Something of that kind. The word "neighbourhood" might include some district not adjoining, which might have some peculiar recommendation of its own. I think it would be a very hard case to the other district for the original district, or to term it so, to the district proposed to be added, that so vague a definition of duties and powers should be given as is described in these very vague terms. Action under this Clause and many other parts of the Bill is compulsory. That, I think, aggravates my objection. When you are to apply compulsory powers you surely ought to define in a very careful manner the area in which it is proposed to exercise those powers. These difficulties have occurred to me from the first in connection with this phraseology. I did not raise them before the Standing Committee, because we had plenty of work on hand at that time. I believe it will be a grave defect in the Bill if it is allowed to go through.

I am afraid that the Amendment, as it stands, goes beyond what some of us wish, and what, indeed, my hon. Friend desires to do. He only desires to draw attention to necessary safeguards. It is quite obvious that for large and populous centres like the big cities of this country there must be facilities for town planning over a large area, which, perhaps, will stretch into the jurisdiction of neighbouring county councils. I do not think any rural districts, as distinguished from urban parts of this country, desire to stop that planning in what may be called their territory. What we do desire is that full guarantees shall be given to county councils that nothing shall be done on the territory under their jurisdiction without their full knowledge, both ample and given in plenty of time. Further, that if they wish for it—I can quite conceive in many cases they may not wish it—they should be entitled to representation. In Sub-section (3), Clause 54, power is taken by the Local Government Board to adjudicate as to which of two authorities is to be the responsible authority. No doubt in almost every case the responsible authority will be the town authority which is making the town planning scheme. It is only right that it should be so. But I suggest to the President of the Local Government Board that if the outside authorities desire representation they should be entitled to it as a right. As the Clause is drawn it is only to be given to them if the Local Government Board so directs, or, indeed, it may be given to the composite authority. There is no guarantee that the county council will be represented. We turn to Schedule 5, and I would ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this, and ask him, when he replies, to give us some information concerning it. Under paragraph ( c )—" Objections and representations by persons affected"—"persons affected" seems to mean only private individuals, landowners, and the like who may consider themselves aggrieved. I wish to know whether an outside authority such as the county council is included in the expression "persons affected," or if they are left altogether out of the Schedule? These are the two points I desire to mention: First, as to whether an outside authority such as the county council can be held to be specified in Schedule 5? Secondly, whether the right hon. Gentleman will favourably consider the proposal to give an outside authority representation as a right, if they wish it, on any joint body that maybe constituted?

One word about the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has made in reply to me. I listened with some attention to it, and I fail to gather what are his views with regard to the two suggestions which I put forward in mitigaton of these difficulties which he himself admits are not unlikely to occur. I may say again that I do not want to press this Amendment with the object of shutting up the authorities in separate cells. But I have brought it forward because I do want to point out, what the right hon. Gentleman recognises, that there are great difficulties in the way of practical administration. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to Glasgow and neighbourhood. I do not understand him to suggest for one moment that there has been any conflict between, let me say, the Lanarkshire County Council or that of Dumbartonshire; but what I do suggest is this: that in the case of a scheme brought forward for town planning by the City of Glasgow, which goes into the area of the Lanarkshire County Council or the Dumbartonshire County Council, there shall be powers given as a right to these county councils. One is the power, if they wish it, of representation on the body which is going to be charged with the control of that particular area. The second is that they should have power as a right to be heard by the Local Government Board before the Local Government Board commits itself to a scheme by giving its approval to it. If I understand aright, it seems to me they have under Sub-section (6) a statutory right to be heard in a case of revocation or alteration of the scheme. I cannot find any passage which gives them a statutory right to be heard by the Local Government Board when the scheme is being made. I think that is probably an omission in the drafting of the Bill. Certainly they ought to have the last right, and I also think the right of statutory representation. The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything on that point in his very courteous reply.

The right hon. Gentleman, replying to my hon. Friend, took the case of Glasgow. In outlining the-scheme, he said that it would not include the Treasury. But all these schemes will be schemes for wasting considerable sums of money. I do not think they will do anything else. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that, at any rate, they will not improve the finances of the local authorities, but tend in an opposite direction. He went on to say, "Why should not London and West Ham come to terms?" I do not know why, except that under the Clauses of this Bill there will be no opportunity. London will be able to go to West Ham and say, "We have got the approval of the President of the Local Government Board, and we do not care whether you agree or not. You can take a back seat."

The county council could not say that to West Ham, because the Local Government Board would say, Before the county council attempted to put upon West Ham, or vice versâ, that a public inquiry would have to be held. The two bodies affected would be represented and heard, and the scheme promoted would be submitted to this tribunal. The idea of one body dictating in the sense indicated by the hon. Baronet is impossible.

I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman did not quite understand. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I said provided that London had got the consent of the Local Government Board they could go to West Ham and say, "Oh, we do not care what you think."

dissented.

The right hon. Gentleman has just said so. There would have to be an inquiry—

The hon. Baronet has misunderstood me. The consent of the Local Government Board to the county council in advance of West Ham being heard or represented on the point is impossible.

That depends upon who the President of the Local Government Board is going to be. You cannot tell in the least what he is going to be in the future. He might be quite an impossible person. That is not an unlikely contingency. We are legislating for the Local Government Board, not as it exists, but for the time to come. It is no answer to the argument of the hon. Member to say, "Oh, but the Local Government Board is not going to do such a thing" You cannot tell what the Local Government Board is or is not going to do. Under the Clause as it stands, it will have power to allow London to go to West Ham, and to say, "The Local Government Board has decided against you, and we are going to do something which is absolutely against your wishes or desires." The right hon. Gentleman got up and said, "It is not likely that that will occur." That is his opinion. I may as well say, in my opinion, I think it is very likely to occur. We neither of us know what may happen under the provisions of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that Glasgow was, in his opinion, a blot upon the face of the globe with regard to certain things.

No, no.

Well, I withdraw that, but he said it was badly managed.

No, no.

Not even badly managed?

What I suggested was a lack of foresight on the part of the city fathers 70 or 80 years ago owing to their not having a Bill like this to work upon.

Am I not right in saying that there is no lack of empty houses in Glasgow at present? The lack of foresight on the part of the city fathers seems to me in having built too much and not in having built too little.

The city fathers have not built. What has happened is that wrong houses have been built in wrong places.

That, again, is a matter of opinion. I really do not see how we can tell that the houses were built in wrong places or that they are wrong houses. I quite admit that the Corporation of Glasgow themselves have not built, but they have allowed other people to build. The result is exactly the same whether the houses were built by private enterprise or by public authority. I must say that these words which are proposed to be left out of the Amendment seem to me to be very dangerous and to give enormous powers to the local authority and to the Local Government Board. I really think these ought to be limited in some such sense such as is intended by my hon. Friend. Even then I think it goes a little further than I would go—at any rate, I think the power ought to be limited in some such way as to enable the other local authority to have the power of veto. I do not think one local authority should plant itself down in the middle of another area without the consent of that particular area. I do not know whether my hon. Friend intends to proceed to a Division. I think this is a very serious question. There is one possible doubt which only occurred to me just this moment, and that is that in all probability the local authorities will be at loggerheads in a few years and the scheme will be a failure. I think it is extremely likely, and if the right hon. Gentleman desires that his Bill should be a success, and does not desire to bring a hornet's nest about his ears, I suggest that he should accept this Amendment.

I think the views put forward by my hon. Friend are very sensible. I speak as a friend of this Clause, and I think my hon. Friend is quite right in saying that a serious risk was involved in the Clause as it stands at present by reason of the friction that may arise among the conflicting authorities, and you cannot do a better thing to obviate that possible friction than to do with the local authorities what every Briton likes to have done, namely, to give them a fair hearing, in the first instance, before the Local Government Board, to see whether the scheme should be authorised at all, and to give them some representation upon the resident authority in order that the invaded local authority may assure its constituents that, at any rate, nothing has been done callously or heatedly or without due representation by persons really competent to represent the matter of responsible authority. I feel quite certain that the power is absolutely necessary if you are to have a town planning scheme of an extensive character; that is, if you should have power to invade other local authorities—I do not use the words in any hostile sense—if you have power to come into the territories of other county councils. The whole merit in my view of this Bill, and I think it has very great merits, is that it enables a far-sighted view to be taken. Therefore, I think this provision is necessary, and I think, and my hon. Friend agrees with me, you allow it to be imperilled by friction with local authorities, which I have often seen in my time, and which will undoubtedly be a risk. I can hardly resist saying that the instance given of the County Council and West Ham is rather a curious instance. I remember your predecessor in the chair, Mr. Emmott, saying when an accusation was made in this House that the Prime Minister was in collusion with the Chairman of Committees, and somebody rose to Order, "It is in Order to say that the Prime Minister is in collusion with the Chairman of Committees, but it is not in Order to say that the Chairman of Committees is in collusion with the Prime Minister" Some such position is taken up by the London County Council having the right to invade West Ham if it pleases, while in no case is West Ham to invade London.

I do not propose to go over the ground of this controversy, but the hon. Member for Lanark put one or two queries which were reinforced by the right hon. Gentleman who just sat down. The right hon. Gentleman said it is undoubtedly necessary in any town planning scheme that the local authority most affected should have power to go out beyond its boundaries, but he thinks some limits should be put to their powers. It is not very easy to find phraseology defining or limiting the lines beyond which a, local authority shall not go as to its boundaries. It is not very easy to put limitations of a geographical character, or of a character involving measure upon a local authority. The general principle is not easy to lay down. All that you can do is to try and check any improper application of that power. I do not myself see how the draftsman of a measure of this kind could adopt any other words than those which have been put into the Bill giving power in general terms, but taking care that there is some check upon its exercise either involved in the principle of the Bill, or in the machinery of the Bill. I think the checks here are very adequate. First, there is the question of the period on the part of the county council. The hon. Member asked whether the word "person" includes a corporation. It is quite clear it does. The word "person" is freely used, and there is no doubt as to the powers of representation given to persons, and the word "person" does include corporation. The interpretation includes any corporate body, so any corporate body would have the power under the 5th Schedule to make objections and representations.

No, no. Power to make representations only in the case of the varying or revoking of a scheme.

I think not, The hon. Member has not quite distinguished between two sections. Varying and revoking is Clause 53, Sub-section (6), and that is not the section which refers to the 5th Schedule. The Clause referring to the 5th Schedule is 55, and that Clause gives very general power to the Local Government Board to make regulations for very general purposes, and it goes on to say provision shall be made by these regulations ( c) I miss out ( a ) and ( b ) for they are dealing with other matters mentioned in the 5th Schedule, which has nothing to do with the varying or revoking. The 5th Schedule ( c ) says, "Hearing of objections and representations by persons affected" Now reading that as interpreted by the Interpretations Act it would mean "hearing of objections and representations by bodies corporate or societies otherwise interested." So there is doubt about the power of hearing upon the making of a scheme. The case under the Clause to which the hon. Member refers, that is, Clause 53 (6), deals with the power of varying and revoking of any scheme. Another point put of which I feel the force, but which I think is thoroughly met by the provisions of the Bill, is as to the joint body where the land is in the area of more than one local authority the Local Government Board may direct who shall be the responsible authority. It may select the responsible authority from among the local authorities, and that, I think, is a wise discretion. It may also divide the powers; it may be that the county council only desires to preserve certain powers without using them thoroughly. They may say to the Local Government Board, "We do not want to delegate our members to take part in the actual management, but we do want to see certain powers carefully preserved," and the power is given to the Local Government Board to say you may give representation in its fullest sense—you may constitute the county council a part of the authority which comes into its area. I think these difficulties have been very thoroughly and usefully raised, and are met by the machinery of the Bill. And, although the Bill may have some defects, still I think, on the whole, the machinery contained in it is the best.

I am very much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the information he has given us, but I am bound to say while I would prefer that the local authority affected should have statutory representation on the body and should not have to rely upon the possibility of the Local Government Board giving that representation, I do not think, in the circumstances, that I should be right in pressing the Amendment, and will, therefore, ask leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved, in Sub-section (2), after the word "or" ["or may authorise a local authority to adopt"], to insert the words "with the consent of the local authority, and, subject to any agreement between such authority and the owners, the Board."

Under the Clause as it stands, any individual or any body can prepare a plan without consulting the Local Government Board. I think a local authority ought to give its consent to any scheme prepared by any individual or by any other authority. I think that is a fair proposition, and it is one which is certainly very generally supported in Scotland. I think that is a form of responsibility which ought to be allowed to the local authority under the Bill. The town council of Glasgow would have to go to the Scottish Local Government Board and ask consent to bring in a plan. I think that would be an absurdity. If an individual landowner or any society or corporation can draft a scheme without the consent of the central authority, it is only reasonable that the local authority should be allowed to do the same thing without having to get the consent of the Local Government Board. I know this matter was debated in Committee, but I still think that the consent of the Board ought not to be necessary in the case of a borough council any more than in the case of a private landowner or any society. I beg to move.