Wednesday, 22nd July, 1925.

The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for to-day), put off to Tuesday next.

Moved, That the order made on the 2nd day of April last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 30th of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2^a .—( The Earl of Donoughmore.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2^a accordingly.

Read 3^a , with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

Read 3^a , with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 1^a .—( viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)

On Question, Bill read 1^a , and to be printed.

Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Guisborough, in the North Riding of the County of York, which was presented on the lath day of June, 1925, be approved.—( Viscount Gage.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Read 3^a (according to Order), and passed.

Moved, That the order made on the 2nd day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 30th of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2^a .—( Viscount Gage.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2^a accordingly.

Bill committed for Tuesday next.

House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

Let me remind your Lordships of the problem which confronted us in this housing question a year ago. In the year 1919 local authorities were asked by the Ministry of Health to state how many houses were required to make good the existing deficiency. The returns showed that something like 1,000,000 houses were required in Great Britain. To that number there must also be added 100,000 houses required each year to meet the ordinary loss of houses through age and the accommodation required through the pulling down of slum districts. The measure was intended to meet this need by providing for 2,500,000 houses in fifteen years, starting with the building of 90,000 houses in the year 1925 and gradually rising until the figure aimed at was 225,000 houses in the year 1934 and each year of the remaining years of the fifteen year period. It was recognised that this gigantic programme could not be undertaken unless the amount of labour was largely increased A report of the National Building Committee showed that there had been a very serious decrease in the number of skilled craftsmen available. In 1913 there were 429,000 craftsmen, but this number had fallen in 1924 to 367,000. There were 11,750 fewer bricklayers, 16,600 fewer masons and 4,000 fewer plasterers, and to build 225,000 houses in a year would mean a very large increase in the number of skilled craftsmen. The National Building Committee went on to make recommendations, to which I shall have to refer later, showing how this deficiency might be met.

I first of all ask how many houses have been built under the various State-aided measures and how many houses have been built during the last year. So far as I know, we shall have a satisfactory report as to the number of houses which have actually been built. I noticed in The Times a few days ago an article in which it was stated:—

"Good progress in actual building is being made and in the first five months of this year over 35,000 houses were actually completed, in spite of the bad weather. During the present season much more rapid progress is being made."

It is possible that we may be told that between 90,000 and 100,000 houses may be completed this year. That would be a very satisfactory statement so far as it goes. There is no doubt that the Minister of Health has been working with the greatest energy in an attempt to solve this problem, and, if I may say so without impertinence, I feel that it is a national asset that the Minister of Health is a man who combines such enthusiasm with great practical knowledge of the problem.

There are two comments which I should like to make upon the present rate of building. The first is that so far it has not appreciably reduced the overcrowding in various parts of our great towns. Hero and there, no doubt, a family has been moved out from the overcrowded districts, but so far it has been from the nature of the ease impossible to reduce to any large extent the overcrowding which is so prevalent in many of our great towns. The second comment that I make is much more fundamental. While the number of 90,000 houses is thoroughly satisfactory for the year 1925, the real question is whether there is such a supply of labour as to increase very largely the number of houses to be built in the ensuing years. If we go on building at the rate of 90,000 or even 100,000 houses a year we shall never solve the housing problem. At the end of this century the problem will still remain unsolved, for we shall be only meeting the ordinary wastage in houses without building sufficient houses to deal with the gigantic slum problems which await us.

I notice that the Secretary for Scotland, a day or two ago, stated that the position in Scotland was still very serious. He said:—

"Whereas the estimate of the Scottish Royal Commission on Housing in 1917 the deficiency on the existing standard of housing was 121,430, that of the central Department at the end of 1924 was 150,000, and at the conclusion of six years, notwithstanding the strenuous efforts by Government Departments and local authorities, the situation is getting worse."

The real crux of the situation, therefore, is whether provision is being made for an increased supply of labour so that houses may be built in ever-increasing numbers during the ensuing years until they reach the figure of 225,000 in 1934. It is here that I have serious misgivings. From the inquiries that I have been able to make I find that work is already hindered through the shortage of labour and that apparently there are very small prospects of any large increase in the number of skilled craftsmen available.

Take, for instance, the case of London. In 1919 the London County Council resolved to build 29,000 within five years. By the end of last year it had built 9,000 houses. The reason given for the deficiency was the shortage of labour. In July of last year their housing committee recommended that 12,600 houses should be built annually for ten years. Progress towards this result has been very slow. In one district that I know well I was told last year, not officially but on very good authority, that by the end of this year there would be 1,000 houses in position and occupied. I enquired a few days ago and I was told that probably there would be 500 houses ready at the end of the year. The difficulty is not a difficulty either of material or of money, but of labour. The London Housing League, which has been drawing attention to the importance of the labour situation, stated that 6,930 craftsmen would be required for the building of 8,600 houses, but that in February of this year, on the London County Council building estates, there were only 933 skilled craftsmen. That number has been raised this month, I believe, to 1,650, but 1,650 men working continuously making no allowance for any stoppage could succeed in building only 4,000 houses instead of the 12,000 that are required.

Only yesterday the housing committee reported to the London County Council that progress towards the completion of the large building programme already authorised by the Council was hindered by the scarcity of skilled labour, and I am told that in provincial towns the difficulty is just the same. Building schemes have been held up through lack of labour, and in some large towns there is very little prospect of gaining any substantial increase in the number of skilled craftsmen during the next few years. The same is true in the country districts. I noticed a letter in The Times a few days ago from an architect, who wrote:—

"In the last month I have had three refusals by building contractors to tender for work on the ground that they were quite unable to obtain the necessary labour."

What methods are suggested to meet this deficiency? The National Building Committee made two suggestions. They rejected, rightly or wrongly—personally I am sorry that they did so—proposals For dilution, but they then suggested that it might be possible to supply the deficiency partly by transferring to the housing branch of the trade those who were engaged in other parts of it. They did not lay very much emphasis on this and they spoke with a certain amount of hesitation about it, but they did indicate that a certain amount of labour for housing might be obtained in this way.

I am anxious to ask the noble Lord who will reply whether everything that is possible in this direction has been done. Is it possible, for instance, to control still further the erection of buildings which might be regarded as unnecessary? A large number of business premises, cinemas, banks, and so on, have been erected and are being erected at the present time. Would it be at all possible to divert some of the labour from these works to the more pressing work required in housing? I am not recommending this and I am not supporting it; I am only asking a question about it. This may possibly be a sentimental solution of the problem, which would cause additional unemployment in various directions while it would not help those whom it was intended to help.

The other proposal that was made by this Committee was much more important. They suggested that the number of apprentices should be very largely increased in the ratio of one to every three craftsmen and that in this way a large number of trained men might be prepared to carry on the enlarged building scheme. This proposal was quite essential to the whole success of the scheme. The noble and learned Viscount who moved the Second Reading of the Housing Bill last year, said:—

"The trade unions have satisfied us that there is a very large supply of labour which is capable of being brought to the aid of these building operations. They have agreed to enlarge the age at which apprentices may be taken and they have agreed to look for apprentices in an active fashion."

In the actual report they were most emphatic on this. They said:—

"The National Federation of Building Trade Employers and the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives, however, have recognised the necessity for using all possible influence to ensure an adequate number of apprentices being taken by employers, and they recently appointed a National Joint Apprenticeship Committee to examine the situation and propose measures for its amelioration."

Now I am anxious to know if it is possible to state how many apprentices have been taken on under the scheme, how many apprentices have actually been registered during these last few months.

I know that at various places apprentice committees have been formed and that in some places they are doing excellent work. In others, however, I am told, these committees exist simply in name and practically no apprentices have been enrolled. In London this proposal has not so far been carried out. The chairman of the housing committee of the London County Council said the scheme to secure additional skilled labour by an extension of the apprenticeship system is still in an embryonic condition as regards the London area, and I believe it is so elsewhere. It is difficult to know where the fault lies. Sometimes I am told that it is due to the parents, who do not care for their children to enter into the building trade. I am told, however, by the headmasters of schools and those connected with work in our clubs that there are a large number of boys who would gladly be apprenticed to the building trade. If I ask employers, I am told that the fault is due to the men, who are afraid of unemployment and therefore do not encourage the scheme. If I ask the men, I am told that the fault is really due to the big employers, who find it too much trouble to take apprentices and who prefer to have skilled workmen.

The point I want to make is that the whole success of our building programme depends upon securing a sufficient number of apprentices who can be trained into skilled workmen. Unless we gain these additional skilled craftsmen this scheme will never carry out what it was intended to do, and at the end of a few years we shall find that the housing problem is still as far from solution as it is at the present time. I know that we may be told that it is very early to judge as to the success of the housing programme, and that it is very early to judge as to whether there will be a sufficient supply of labour available; but I would point out that every year's delay causes the continuance of almost intolerable suffering.

I hesitate to quote actual cases of hardships because it might very easily be thought that I was exaggerating or making a simple appeal to sentiment. A few days ago this House was profoundly Moved as it listened to cases of real hardship among loyalists in Ireland. I believe this House would be not less moved if it realised the hardships that were being endured year after year by people living within a few hundred yards of this House. Let me give only three illustrations, taken out of a large number of cases sent to me by trained and experienced observers. One is the case of a father and mother and five children all living and sleeping in one small room. The walls are verminous and all the children very sickly and suffering from rickets. The next is the case of a father and mother and six children in two small rooms. The walls are verminous, the boards of the floor in holes. The next is the case of a family of six in one room—the husband and wife, a girl of eleven and boys of thirteen, fifteen and seventeen all sleeping and living in one room.

The question I raise this afternoon is a matter of very great importance, and more important now than it was before the Great War, for reasons which I will refer to later. In raising it I need not say that I have no desire to embarrass the Government. I desire to help them—and I raise it for another reason. In his speech just now the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, said that he thought it was a good thing that matters relating to local government and the like should be debated frequently in this House. I agree, and I think that matters concerning the Forces of the Crown should be debated at frequent intervals in your Lordships' House. After these few preliminary observations I will pass at once to the point I wish to make.

I take, first of all, the figures I find on page 94 of the General Annual Report of the British Army, which was issued with the Army Estimates this year. I find that in 1913 the establishment of the Territorial Army of Great Britain was 312,400, and the strength was 245,779. In 1922 the establishment was 179,622, and the strength 134,769. In 1923 the establishment was 180,089, and the strength 140,626. In 1924 the establishment was 180,132, and the strength 142,804. I take next the figures on pages 120 and 121 of the same Report, which give the increases and decreases of other ranks of the Territorial Army—the figures I have given refer to all ranks. For the year ended September 30, 1924, I find that the total increase from all causes was 36,606, and the total decrease 34,277, which gives a net increase for the year of 2,029. That is apart from an increase of 5,946 in the year 1922–23, and of 562 for the year 1921–22.

At the risk of wearying your Lordships—this is a very important point—I will take some more figures which will be found on page 90 of the General Annual Report, which gives the strength and establishments of certain Territorial Divisions that I have picked out. I find that the strength of the Territorial Army Division appears to vary a little in different Commands. I think that the figures vary in the Royal Corps of Signals but the variations are not material, and accordingly I take the establishment of a Division as 400 officers and 10,150 other ranks. I find that on October 1, 1924, the 51st (Highland) Division of the Scottish Command had a strength of 329 officers and 9,201 other ranks: the 50th (Northumbrian) Division of the Northern Command had 333 officers and 8,540 other ranks: the 48th (South Midland) Division had 338 officers and 7,721 other ranks. I then come to the London Divisions which are given together, the 56th and the 47th. They had, on October 1, a strength of 637 officers and 13,773 other ranks, which gives an average for each division of 318 officers and 6,886 other ranks. I come to the 44th (Home Counties) Division of the Eastern Command, with 336 officers and 7,430 other ranks, and to the 54th East Anglian Division of the Eastern Command, with 318 officers and 8,130 other ranks.

I now pass to the strength at May, 1925, taken from the last figures that I have. I find there that the Highland Division, taking other ranks only (the officers do not change much in any division), have a strength of 9,292, an increase of 91; the 50th (Northumbrian) Division have 9,658, an increase of no less than 1,118, which is most creditable and makes it the leading division in Great Britain; the 48th Division have 7,833, an increase of 112. I come to the other side of the picture. The strength of the two London Divisions was 13,530, a decrease of 243, while the 44th (Home Counties) Division decreased by 361 and the 54th (East Anglian) Division by 147.

I think that these figures show that the Territorial Army is only just holding its own, if it is doing that, and, unless recruiting becomes a good deal better, I have reason to think that we shall again finish up on October 1 somewhere about 35,000 or 36,000 men below establishment. I had figures given to me just before I entered the House with which I will not weary your Lordships but which indicate that 5,000 recruits enlisted in June. That, of course, is very good; but against that I understand that about 3,000 men—no doubt they were time-expired men—went away. I would point out to your Lordships that this is a very crucial year. When the Territorial Army was re-formed in 1920 and 1921 the bulk of the men, of course, joined. Vast numbers of men went away on the termination of their engagements last year and further vast numbers were due to go away this year. One question to which I should particularly like an answer from the noble Earl when he replies is: How many of those men are still to go away, and does he think that their numbers will be filled by the recruits who are likely to come forward?

It may be argued from the figures that I have given the House that most of the Divisions are not very bad and that a good many of them, like the Northumbrian and the Highland Divisions, are very nearly up to strength, while others are approaching strength, so that there is nothing very much to be alarmed about. I am quite aware that there are very good features about the recruiting and in various parts that I have quoted and others, such as Birmingham, for instance, where I understand that the battalions are very nearly up to establishment, the position is quite satisfactory. But I would remind your Lordships that the establishments are very low, compared with the establishment of 312,000 before the War. You have, I think, an establishment of 180,000 now, and you cannot even get that. The establishment of an infantry battalion is extraordinary low—only 20 officers and 636 other ranks. Some units are lamentably weak. I will take only two, so as not to weary your Lordships with too many figures. I happen to be familiar with both of them. They are the 5th Battalion of the City of London Regiment, which on October 1—I have no other figures but those of the General Annual Report—had 16 officers and 312 other ranks, and the 7th Battalion of the Middlesex Regiment, which consisted on the same date of 18 officers and 367 other ranks. It is quite obvious—indeed, I know it for a fact—that, when all deductions are made for men away sick, for absence with or without leave and for a hundred and one other causes which prevent men from going out to camp, neither of those battalions went to camp much above a strength of 250 in one instance and 280 in the other.

I need not remind any of your Lordships who have the very faintest acquaintance with military matters that it is a most disheartening thing for a commanding officer and captains of companies to carry out what should be the climax of the year's training with skeleton units. I do not deny that the average Territorial is probably more efficient in his duty than was the old Volunteer. This is no disparagement to those gallant and patriotic men who, from the year 1859 and for nearly fifty years after, came forward and took their place in the, ranks of the Volunteers until the Territorial Army as we know it was formed by the noble and learned Viscount opposite; and, I must say, thanks mostly to his initiative, proved such a wonderful standby and reserve even in the early days of the War.

Here I should like to digress for one moment, if your Lordships will permit me, in order to pay a compliment to two noble Lords whose assistance in laying the groundwork of the reorganised Army was exceedingly important but, I think, too little recognised. I refer to the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, and to the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, whom I am glad to see in his place. The noble and learned Viscount opposite will rightly go down to history as a very great War Minister, but I think that he would be the first to admit that the work of those two noble Lords in the reorganisation not only of the Regular Army but of the Territorial Army greatly helped him in his work of reconstruction—I refer to the work that was done by those two noble Lords in the days before, during and after the South African War, when we first began to organise our Army on modern lines.

I have said that the Territorial is probably more efficient than the old Volunteer, but, for all that, I do feel that the shortage of men is serious and the fart that, five years after the Territorial Army has been re-formed, we cannot even get the modest establishment of 180,000, is a serious matter which requires some explanation, and the House must remember that now we are in a different position to that in which we were before the War. Before the War we had a Special Reserve, we had a very strong Army Reserve, and the Regular Army was stronger than it is now. The Special Reserve was about 80,000, and the Territorial Army was about 245,000 the year before the War. Now we have a far weaker Regular Army, the Army Reserve is exceedingly weak, the Special Reserve does not exist, and we have a Territorial Army of round about 140,000 men.

What is the reason for the reluctance of officers and men, and especially men, to come forward and give the limited amount of service required in the Territorial Army? I have had a considerable amount of experience of this Force, because during the last four years of my military service I was on the Staff of the London District Command, and in close connection with the Territorial Divisions, and after leaving the Service I was secretary to the Middlesex Territorial Army Association. Very great efforts were made between 1920 and 1924. In 1921 Princess Mary presented Colours. In 1922 His Majesty graciously reviewed two Territorial Divisions in Hyde Park, and many schemes were undertaken on behalf of the Force. Lord Lucan, whom I see present, can bear me out with regard to what was done in the City of London; but in spite of all these facts, of all these hard-working and untiring efforts, the results were exceedingly poor. In the first place war weariness was adduced. I think it is getting a little too late to adduce that reason only. There must be something else. One reason that officers gave for not joining or, having joined, for leaving, was the expense in connection with camp and training. I hope the War Office have taken that into consideration, and I expect they have clone so.

Now I come to one important question which has a good deal to do with recruiting, although those mentioned are not directly concerned with the matter. I refer to the question of the Terrfitorial Army Brigadiers. Are the Army Council quite certain that they always get the best men I know it is a delicate question, because it might be thought that I was attacking these distinguished officers and their capability, but nothing is further from my thoughts. I know that the greater number of the senior officers of the British Army are second to none in their military capacity, but it by no means knows that an officer who has reached the rank of Colonel, and who is possibly sent from the staff of the War Office to command a Territorial Army Brigade, is the best man for the job. A Territorial Army Brigade in time of peace is peculiar and requires peculiar qualities in its Brigadier. Those who know the Territorial Army will agree with me as to that. Another thing which I should like to mention is that these Territorial Army Brigadiers, to whom I have been referring, suffer from a reduction of emolument, because if, say, a colonel leaves a first-grade appointment in the War Office for a Territorial Brigade, he at once drops from £1,400 to £900 a year. I think that is a matter to which the War Office might give very careful consideration.

There is one other important matter which does not bear directly upon what I have been saying, but as I have given private notice to the noble Earl that I was going to raise the matter I hope he will make no objection. It refers to the enlistment of men for the Technical Reserve. As the House is aware, about a year ago it was decided to enlist tradesmen and skilled artisans for a Technical Reserve, to take their places, I think, in the Territorial Army and also the Regular Army, in an emergency. For some reason this move was strongly objected to by a great many of the trade unions, especially. I think, by the National Union of Railwaymen. A good deal of correspondence passed and meetings took place, and I think the last we heard of it was that in his speech on the Army Estimates the Secretary of State for War, in another place, said he intended to get these men, he hoped with the help of the trade unions, but if necessary without them. I should like to hear from the noble Earl what has happened, and whether men are forthcoming for this Technical Reserve.

Now, criticisms such as I have made without suggestions are of no use, and I am going now to advance three suggestions which I hope may be of use to the War Office and the Government. Firstly, I think you have got to realise that the Territorial Army, thanks to causes which I have mentioned—the absence of the Militia and the Special Reserve and the smallness of the Regular Army—has become of greater importance than ever, and you ought to try to raise its status in every way. I should begin by raising the status of the head of the Territorial Army. I should like to see the Director-General on the Army Council. I am aware that the Territorial Army is the special province of the Under-Secretary, who, I dare say, discharges his duties well and sympathetically, but I do think that something more is required, and that the military head of the Territorial Army should be on the Army Council as well. If the noble Earl will forgive me, I would remind him that he was absent at Geneva for about two months earlier in the year, no doubt on very important national business, but hardly on business connected with his position at the War Office, and one rather wonders what guardian angel looked after the interests of the Territorial Army during his somewhat protracted absence.

My second suggestion is that from a certain date—it would not affect existing positions—no officer should be appointed to the command of a Territorial Army Brigade, or to the Directorate of the Territorial Army in the War Office, who had not either served as adjutant of a Territorial unit in time of peace, or served on the Staff of a Territorial Army Division. The third suggestion is that there should be a thorough canvass of employers. I do not know whether the War Office have carried out one already—rather think there was one a few years ago—but I should like to see another, and encouragement given to employers to form their shop or works units, such as companies, batteries or platoons. I do not see why we should not have a King's Roll. As you had after the War a King's Roll for employers who employed ex-soldiers, I do not see why you should not have a King's Roll for employers whose men join the Territorial Army.

I have tried in this debate not to exaggerate in any way or to paint too black a picture. There are some very bright spots in our Territorial Army—namely, Scotland and the North, Birmingham and, to a lesser degree, Lancashire. There are, in my opinion, some very dark spots—London, Bristol, East Anglia and the Home Counties. I should like to hear from the noble Earl when he replies whether he thinks that the Territorial Army is going to increase in numbers, to remain stationary or to decrease in numbers, and in the two latter cases what steps the War Office intend to take in the matter. Taking the figures again—and I do it because they are of great importance—when I see that we have a smaller Regular Army than before the War, necessarily a smaller Army Reserve, no Militia or Special Reserve, a Territorial Army smaller by 105,000 or thereabouts than was the case in 1913, and when I compare that with our commitments, which seem to me sometimes to be rather overwhelming, I cannot consider the position satisfactory. We live in an age of gestures—at least I do not think we do now quite so much as we did a year ago; we are gradually emerging to sanity again—but although gestures and diplomacy may do a great deal they cannot excuse a nation for neglecting its armed forces.

Whatever power for the preservation of peace the League of Nations may be in the near or distant future, as practical people we should in these matters live in the present and see that, our land, sea and air forces are ready in numbers and efficiency to do what they may be asked to do. Sometimes these debates do good, sometimes they do not. I have tried to initiate this debate in a spirit of helpfulness. I have thrown out one or two suggestions which, although they may probably not be acceptable as they stand, may at all events form the basis of discussion. It is my earnest hope that this debate may help the War Office to elucidate this problem, a very difficult and sometimes disheartening problem, but one that must be solved—namely, that of providing sufficient and suitable officers and men for His Majesty's Territorial Army. I beg to move.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—( Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Planting of trees and laying out of grass margins in highways.

1.—(1) The Minister of Transport (hereinafter referred to as the Minister) and any county council or other highway authority shall have power to cause trees or shrubs to be planted and grass margins to be laid out in any highway maintainable by him or them respectively; and to erect and maintain guards or fences and otherwise to do anything expedient for the maintenance or protection of such trees, shrubs and grass margins.

(2) No such tree, shrub, grass margin, guard or fence shall be placed, laid out or allowed to remain in such a situation as to hinder the reasonable use of the highway by any person entitled to the use thereof, or so as to be a nuisance or injurious to the owner or occupier of any land or premises adjacent to the highway.

(3) The powers conferred by this section shall not be exercised by the Minister, or any county council or other highway authority except in a highway vested in him or them respectively, or upon land so vested which forms part of a highway.

(4) Where an urban authority incurs expenses under this section in connection with a main road which is maintained and repaired by that authority pursuant to subsection (2) of Section eleven of the Local Government Act, 1888, the expenses shall not be treated as part of the costs towards which the county council are required to make an annual payment under that subsection except where and so far as the county council consent to their being so treated.

The noble Viscount said: The first subsection which I now move gives protection to the gas, water and electricity undertakings, and it also gives protection to other authorities and bodies and individuals also. The second subsection, (6), refers to Section 7 of the Telegraph Act, 1878, and was inserted to protect the Postmaster-General. The effect of it is that if the exercise of the powers of the clause involves the moving of telegraph lines, the expense of the moving is to be borne by the authority exercising the power. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 11, at end, insert the sail new subsections.—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

I think if this country is in such a poor position pecuniarily as to make it doubtful whether it is possible to raise the money for procuring necessary pro- tection for our lives and property, we might really postpone the planting of trees along the road. After all, we have now been in existence for some hundreds of years without planting trees along the roads, and at the present moment, with such shortness of money, not only in the pockets of the Government but in the pockets of everybody else—except, perhaps, the trade unions—I think we might postpone the planting of trees along the highways until a better time. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Leave out Clause 1.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Amendment of s. 8 of 9 Edw. 7. c. 47.

2. For the purposes of Part II of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, the expression "improvement of roads" shall, in addition to the matters specified in subsection (5) of Section eight of that Act, include the planting, laying out, maintenance and protection of trees, shrubs and grass margins in and beside roads, the placing on or near roads of notices, milestones and sign posts, and the freeing of roads from tolls.

Much the same attitude was taken in the House of Commons where the Government was able, by a technicality, to say that the Amendment, moved by one of their own supporters on behalf of the county councils, was out of order and was not within the ambit of the Bill. It is doubtful whether that ruling was correct as it was given by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on, I understand, the advice of the Government draftsman. Such a ruling would not apply to your Lordships' House because your Lordships have power always to alter or amend the title of a Bill if it be necessary.

The county councils are asking that this power should be conferred upon them as they are likely to be put to very heavy expenditure in regard to the future widening of roads, on account of the fast-moving and heavy traffic which passes over them. The same may be said in reference to the cutting off of corners. We all know that if a corner has to be cut off so that vehicles coming in different directions shall have a proper view of each other, the amenities of a house are sometimes affected and the whole house has to be removed. That is a very expensive matter. It is possible that my noble friend in charge of the Bill will remind your Lordships that a. Ministry of Health Bill is coming forward tomorrow which deals with the widening of streets. That Bill has nothing to do with the widening of roads and the county councils are asking for power to prescribe the building line even when there is no idea of widening particular roads, in order to safeguard themselves when a road has to be widened twenty or thirty years hence. As your Lordships are aware, it is no uncommon thing for buildings to be built by the side of the great main roads leading out of our great towns and cities. Unless there is power to prescribe the building line, when those roads have to be widened some time in the future some of those buildings have to be pulled down and heavy compensation has to be paid.

I should like to remind your Lordships that in 1921 this House agreed to the Middlesex County Council (General Powers) Bill which gave a power similar to that for which the county councils are asking to-day. In the present Session your Lordships agreed that similar power should be given to the Surrey County Council, whose Bill is awaiting a Third Reading in another place. That shows that, so far as the principle is concerned, the Government can have no objection whatever; otherwise they would have objected to the Private Bills promoted by those great county councils. The object of the County Council of Surrey was to prevent speculative builders from putting in foundations at the sides of roads which they thought would be widened in the future and in regard to which compensation could be claimed from the county council. If there is much delay in dealing with this question it seems possible that builders in other parts of the country will do the same thing. I cannot see why your Lordships should not safeguard the county councils against expenditure in connection with such matters.

If my Amendment is agreed to, there is, in the subsequent clause which I have placed on the Paper, admirable protection for landowners, tenants and lessees, and everyone interested in land, that they shall receive adequate and proper compensation for land taken when the building line is prescribed. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will accept my Amendment, which is really necessary if the local rates are to be kept down. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 20, at end insert ("and the prescription of building lines along roads in anticipation of the widening thereof").—(Lord Strachie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

Restrictions as to fences at dangerous corners.

4.—(1) Where the Minister or ally county council or other highway authority is of opinion that it is necessary for the pre-

vention of danger arising from obstruction to the view of persons using the highway to impose restrictions with respect to any land at or near any corner or bend in a highway maintainable by him or them, respectively, the Minister, county council, or other highway authority may serve upon the owner and upon the occupier of the land a notice—

(a) directing the owner or occupier of the land to alter the height or character of any wall (not being part of a permanent building), fence, or hedge thereon so as to cause it to conform with any requirements specified in the notice; or

(3) If any person upon whom a notice has been served under this section objects to comply with any requirement of the notice, or objects to restriction imposed thereby, he may, within seven days after receipt or the notice, send his objection in writing, stating the grounds thereof, to the authority by whom the notice was served and thereupon the matter shall be determined by arbitration, and upon any such arbitration the award may direct that the notice shall have effect with or without any modifications, or that it shall be withdrawn.

(7) Any person upon whom a notice is served under this section shall be entitled to recover from the Minister, county council, or other highway authority by whom the notice was served any expenses reasonably incurred by him in carrying out any directions contained in the notice; and any person sustaining loss in direct consequence of any requirement of a notice served under this section, or any person who proves that the value of his interest in any land has been reduced by restrictions relating to the land imposed by any such notice shall, if he makes a claim within six months after the service of the notice be entitled to recover from the Minister, county council, or other highway authority by whom the notice was served compensation for the injury sustained, and the amount of such compensation shall, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration.

(10) Subject as hereinafter provided, every notice which may be served under this section may be served either by delivering it or leaving it at the usual or last-known place of abode of the person on whom it is to be served, or by sending it by post as a registered letter addressed to him at his usual or last-known place of abode, or if that cannot be found, by fixing it on some conspicuous part of the land; and any such notice or document may be addressed to the "owner" and the "occupier" of the land (describing it) without further name or description:

Provided that a notice requiring the owner and occupier of land to alter the height or character of any wall, fence, or hedge thereon shall be served upon him personally, and where any such notice is served upon the occupier a copy thereof shall be served upon the owner of the land.

(11) In section the expression "wall" includes any partition of whatsoever material constructed, and any bank, the expression "fence" includes hoarding or paling, and the expression "hedge" includes any tree or shrub.

(12) Any matter which is under this section to be determined by arbitration shall be determined by a single arbitrator agreed on by the parties or, in default of such agreement, by the judge of the county court of the district in which the land in question is situated according to the procedure prescribed by rules of court.

(13) Nothing in this section shall apply with respect to any wall belonging to a railway company or to the owners, trustees, or conservators acting under powers conferred by Parliament of any canal, inland navigation, dock, or harbour where the wall forms part of or is necessary for the maintenance of their railway, canal, inland navigation, dock, or harbour.

(14) Nothing in this section shall apply to any wall belonging to a railway company and forming part of or necessary for the maintenance of their railway.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 5, after ("fence") insert ("tree").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The noble Viscount said: This is really a drafting Amendment in order to group together at a later stage the arrangements about serving notices and so on.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, lines 3 to 12, leave out subsection (3) and insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, leave out lines 10 and 11—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The noble Viscount said: This is also a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 36, leave out from ("addressed") to the end of the subsection and insert the said words.—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 5, insert ("whether forming part of a hedge or not").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, lines 6 to 11, leave out subsection (12).—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The noble Lord said: In the original Bill no provision was made for a wall which may be dangerous, but which is a wall of great antiquarian value. In my own county there are walls which obstruct the highway, but which are of very ancient origin. It is for this reason that I asked the noble Viscount to give some consideration to the Amendment. I understand he will accept it.

Amendment moved—

Page line 12, after ("shall") insert the said words.'—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, lines 19 to 21, leave out subsection (14).—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Power to prescribe building line.

"

—(1) A county council or other highway authority (hereinafter in this section referred to, where the context so admits, as 'the authority') may by order prescribe, in respect of any road (being a public highway) which is for the time being maintainable by them, a building line along each or either side of the whole or any part of such road, and, subject to the provisions of paragraph ( a) of subsection (10) of this section, it shall not thenceforth be lawful, without the written consent of the authority (which consent, if given, may be subject to such conditions as the authority shall think fit), to erect, or permit to be erected, any structure whatsoever in front of such building line, or to alter, or permit to be altered, any structure existing at the date of the order in such manner that any part thereof projects in front of such building line, or to make, or permit to be made, any permanent excavation in front of such building line:

Provided that the consent of the Minister shall be obtained before any such building line is prescribed as aforesaid in respect of any road, or part thereof, for the time being classified by the Minister for the purpose of advances from the Road Fund.

(2) One month at least before the date of the order the authority shall—

(3) Within one month after the date of the order the authority shall—

(4) If the road, in respect of which a building line is proposed to be prescribed in accordance with the provisions of this section, is either a main road maintained and repaired pursuant to subsection (2) of Section eleven of the Local Government Act, 1888, or a road, other than a main road, classified by the Minister as aforesaid, the authority shall, before prescribing a building line as aforesaid, send a notification of their proposals to the council of the county in which the road is situate, who shall submit their observations thereon, if any, to the authority within three months from the date of such notification, and the authority shall consider such observations, if any, before making any order under this section.

(5) If the road in respect of which a building line is proposed to be prescribed in accordance with the provisions of this section is a main road maintained and repaired by a county council, the authority shall, before prescribing a building line as aforesaid, send a notification of their proposals to the local authority of the district in which such road is situate, who shall submit their observations thereon, if any, to the authority within one month from the date of such notification, and the authority shall consider such observations, if any, before making any order under this section.

(6) The authority may, subject to the provisions of paragraph ( b) of subsection (10) of this section, at any time after the date of the order and on giving three months' notice in writing to the owner or lessee of any structure which, or any part of which, was in front of the said building line at the date of the order, require that such structure shall be demolished or set back or altered in such manner that no part thereof shall project in front of the said building line.

(7) Any person upon whom a notice is served under subsection (3) of this section who proves that the value of his interest in any land has been reduced by the prescription of a building line, and any person upon whom a notice is served under subsection (6) of this section who proves that he has sustained loss or damage by the demolition, setting back or alteration of any structure, shall be entitled to recover from the authority compensation for such reduction in value or for such demolition, setting back or alteration, as the case may be, and the amount of such compensation shall, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889:

Provided that—

(8) Where by any scheme confirmed under the Town Planning Acts, 1909 to 1923, any building line is proscribed by the local authority making such scheme and such building line is nearer to the centre line of the road than a building line prescribed in accordance with the provisions of this section, the local authority shall pay to the authority (if not the local authority) such proportion of any compensation paid by the authority under subsection (7) of this section as may be agreed upon between the authority and the local authority or, in default of agreement, as shall be determined by arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1889.

(9) Copies of any plan prepared, signed and deposited in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of this section shall, when certified by the clerk of the authority to be true, be received in all courts of justice and elsewhere as prima facie evidence of the contents of such plan so far as it relates to a building line prescribed in accordance with this section, and a copy (certified as aforesaid) of so much of any such plan as relates to the district of any local authority shall, on the application of that local authority or of the council of the county in which the road affected is situate, as the case may be, be delivered to such local authority or county council, and copies of or extracts from such plan shall also be delivered to the owner, lessee or occupier of any property in the district applying for the same, on payment of a reasonable fee to be determined by the authority, and all fees so received shall be carried to the credit of the fund out of which the highway expenditure of the authority is payable.

(10) Nothing in this section shall be deemed—

(11) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any building (not being a dwelling-house) or lands now belonging to a railway company and held by them foe the purposes of any railway authorised by Act of Parliament or by an order having the force of an Act.

(12) Every notice for the purpose of this section may be served either by delivering it or leaving it at the usual or last known place of abode of the person on whom it is to be served, or by sending it by post as a registered letter addressed to that person at his usual or last known place of abode, or by delivering it to some person on the premises, or, if there is no person on the premises, by affixing it on some conspicuous part of the premises, and any such notice or document may be addressed by the description of the 'owner' or the 'occupier' of the premises (naming them) without further name or description.

(13) Any person offending against any of the provisions of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds, and a further penalty not exceeding five pounds for every day during which the offence continues.

(14) Nothing in this section shall derogate from the powers of the London County Council under the London Building Acts, 1894 to 1923, and in the administrative county of London the London County Council shall be the authority for the purposes of this section."

The noble Lord said: I beg to more this Amendment formally. It is really consequential, but if the noble Viscount desires to raise any point of detail I shall be very glad to meet him. I accept the Amendments of which Lord Ritchie of Dundee has given Notice.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strachie.)

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Power to conduct experiments.

5.—(1) The Minister may, either by himself or through any authority or other organisation approved by him, conduct experiments or trials for the improvement of the construction of roads, or for testing the effect of various classes of vehicles on various types of roads, and may construct such roads and works, erect such plant, provide such accommodation, and, subject to the approval of the Treasury, incur such expenditure as may be necessary for the purpose.

(2) An experiment or trial under this section shall not be conducted on any highway except with the consent of the authority or person responsible for the maintenance of the highway, and, where the highway is a main road maintained by an urban authority pursuant to subsection (2) of Section eleven of the Local Government Act, 1888, the consent of the county council also.

The noble Viscount said: This strengthens the provision for compensation, where it is shown to be due to the action of the Minister.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 38, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Determination of questions.

" .—(1) If any question arises under this Act—

the question shall be decided, if the parties so agree, by a single arbitrator appointed by them, or in default of such agreement SLS aforesaid, by the county court.

(2) A county court shall have jurisdiction to deal with any such question as afore-said, notwithstanding that, by reason, of the amount of claim or otherwise, the case would not, but for this provision, be within the jurisdiction of a county court.

(3) In determining any question whether a notice served under this Act shall be withdrawn as respects a requirement or restriction objected to, the arbitrator or court shall have power to order that the requirement or restriction shall have effect subject to such modifications, if any, as the arbitrator or court may direct.

(4) Except in so far as they may be applied by county court rules, the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, shall not apply to any proceedings in a county court under this Act."

The noble Viscount said: This rather long Amendment is really consequential upon the introduction of the new subsections regarding compensation, and, as the result of provisions as to arbitration being taken out of Clause 4 and being inserted here, it will apply to disputes arising under any of the three sections. There, I think, my noble friend Lord Danesfort will see an answer to his question.

Amendment moved—

Page 7, line 5, at end insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7:

Interpretation, short title and extent.

7.—(1) In this Act the expression "roads" includes bridges, viaducts, subways, road-ferries and footways, and the expressions "common," "open space," and "allotment" have the meanings respectively assigned to them by the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909

(2) In the application of this Act to Scotland—

(b) the expression "judge of the county court" shall mean sheriff;

Amendment moved—

Page 7, lines 18 and 19, leave out paragraph ( b), and insert:

("(b) the expression 'county court' shall mean sheriff's court'").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Title:

An Act to make further provision for the improvement of roads and for purposes connected therewith.

Amendment moved—

After ("roads") insert ("including the prescription of building lines").—(Lord Strachie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—( Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL Of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Loans by Commissioners to allotment societies.

(3) Lands purchased by an approved society, and in respect of which a loan is made by the Commissioners, shall thereafter be let to members of such society or others and used as allotments, provided that it shall be competent for the society to dispose of the land or any part thereof if so authorised by a resolution passed by two-thirds at least of the members present at a meeting of the society convened for this purpose by a notice stating the proposal for sale and if the consent of the Minister is obtained:

Provided also that if at the time of such sale any part of a loan made under this section remains unpaid the sale shall also be subject to the consent of the Commissioners.

Nothing in this subsection shall affect or apply to the use or disposal of any such land by the Commissioners or any persons deriving title under them in such manner as they may think fit.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 8, after ("thereafter") insert ("while owned by such society").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved—

Page 2, line 15, after ("Minister") insert ("of Agriculture and Fisheries").

Page 3, line 5, leave out ("Act, 1893") and insert ("Acts, 1893 to 1923")

Page 3, line 5, line 6, leave out ("and 1908") and insert ("to 1924")

Page 3, line 5, line 12, after ("Acts") insert ("1908 to 1918").—( Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

Limit of expenditure on provision of allotments.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section sixteen of the Act of 1922 the council of any borough or urban district may take proceedings under the provisions of the Allotments Acts relating to allotments if, in the opinion of the council, the expenses referred to in such section may reasonably be expected, after the proceedings are taken, to exceed the receipts of the council under those provisions by no greater amount than would he produced by a rate of one penny in the pound.

The subsection of Clause 16 of the Act of 1922 which this clause seeks to amend runs as follows:

"A council shall not take any proceedings under the provisions of the Allotments Acts relating to allotments, unless in the opinion of the council the expenses of the council incurred under those provisions (other than such expenses as are hereinafter specified) may reasonably be expected, after the proceedings are taken, to be defrayed out of the receipts of the council under those provisions."

That is to say, only three years ago, with a very extravagant Government in power, presided over by Mr. Lloyd George, it was enacted that a council should not let land for allotments unless they were reasonably of opinion that they could let it without a loss. Now we have a Conservative Government coming forward and saying: "Never mind this; it was three years ago. We will pit in a provision which will enable the county council or urban council to take allotments knowing that there will be a loss, and to make up the loss by a penny rate." That, again, is an instance of the way in which we are every day presented with Bills to increase expenditure, and we are told, as my noble friend Lord Peel told me a few moments ago, that it is only a small amount. But all these little amounts total up, and I sincerely hope that my noble friend Lord Bledisloe will consent to delete this provision. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Leave out Clause 4.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Amendment of section ten (4) of Act of 1922.

7. The right of a tenant to claim compensation under subsection (4) of Section ten of the Act of 1922 shall be exercisable notwithstanding that it is otherwise agreed in the contract of tenancy in any case where the rent payable by the tenant under his contract of tenancy for the land exceeds threepence per pole unless, in the case of a tenancy existing at the passing of this Act, the council within three months

after the passing of this Act gives notice in writing to the tenant that the rent of the land is as from the last preceding date for payment of rent reduced to a rent et threepence per pole or less.

It went through the Standing Committee, but, of course, not without protest, because I noticed that a Conservative Member moved to omit it on the ground that he did not want to commit the Ministry to the principle of limiting the compensation to between April 6 and September 29. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will remember perfectly well that when the Act of 1922 was being discussed in this House a great deal of objection was taken to that particular question, because many of us argued that it was not right that the allotment holder should not have compensation for the winter months, because there would be unexhausted manurial value. Very naturally the allotment holders objected to the limit to the compensation and thought that if they paid rent there also should be compensation. That is the reason why I move to put in what was originally in this Bill as introduced by Captain Bourne, and which was approved of by allotment holders generally.

When the Bill came back to the House of Commons Mr. Wood said that there

was great difficulty in dealing with the matter and in moving what is now Clause 7, he said:—

"I need only add that I have had an opportunity of ascertaining the views of those who represent the allotment holders, and, although I should misrepresent them if I said that they were totally satisfied with this clause, I can with truth say that they appreciate the immense difficulty of upsetting the 1922 bargain, and that on the whole they are prepared to think that this is not an unreasonable compromise."

That is all very well, but a very strong supporter of the Conservative Government, Mr. Hurd, who is a Member for one of the Wiltshire Divisions, and whom I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary knows very well, said:

"It is very difficult to understand this clause, and I should be much obliged if the right hon. gentleman would tell us between whom it is a compromise. What parties have been discussing this matter and how has this decision been reached?"

Mr. Wood only repeated exactly what he had said before—namely, that the matter had been discussed by the representative of the allotment holders in the light of the full discussions and known difficulties that revealed themselves in the course of the Departmental Committee's deliberations.

I cannot help thinking that he cannot have consulted any very large body of allotment, holders and that it must have been a hole-and-corner compromise. I may, of course, be wrong. He will no doubt tell us who they were, and, of course, they may represent more allotment holders even that the federation on behalf of whom I am speaking. I cannot see the advantage which is to be gained by saying that no compensation is to be paid when any rent is beyond £2 per acre. That is referred to in another part of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate in the House of Commons on the Allotments Bill, when Mr. Wood formally moved his consequential Amendment, and Colonel Wedgwood explained what was meant by that when he said:—

"I think, on the whole, we might be prepared to accept this compromise. I am moved toward accepting it by the fact that it will, to a certain extent, stabilise the idea that 3d. per pole is a legitimate rate to ask allotment holders. Threepence a pole is the equivalent of £2 per acre. That is a good enough rent for any land. It is with that in view that I think it would be wise to accept this Amendment. I hope the development of allotments under this clause will be of considerable benefit to the community."

It is quite evident that Mr. Wood wanted to get the Bill through easily, and was able to do so by making a deal with the Labour Party; by putting upon record that no land was worth more than £2 per acre. I cannot see why a man who pays 50 s. per acre should be excluded from any benefit at all. I am exactly in the position of Mr. Hurd, who is a much greater authority than I am—I am perfectly at sea as to what is really meant by this clause. No doubt the noble Lord will be able to explain.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 6, leave out from ("compensation") to end of clause and insert ("cases where notice to quit is given under section one or ten of the Act of 1922, the occupier shall be entitled to compensation for growing crops and unexhausted manures, and such parts of these sections as provide otherwise are hereby repealed").—(Lord strachie.)

On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Clause?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 11.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 7 agreed to.

LORD STRACHIE moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause:—

"No land at present cultivated as allotments shall be taken for recreation unless it can be proved that the land was acquired for recreation before it was used for allotments."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really self-explanatory and 1 should think that the noble Lord would be ready to accept it. It seems only reasonable that men who are doing good work by cultivating land and producing food for the country should not be turned out merely to allow a cricket club or a football club to occupy it. It seems only right and natural, and I am very much surprised that the noble Lord has not himself suggested an Amendment of the kind. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 16, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strachie.)

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.

Clause 10:

Rating of new allotments.

10. Where after the date of this Act coming into operation land which is not used for allotments commences to be so used the gross value, or the gross estimated rental at which the land is assessed immediately before such user, shall not be increased during the first three years of such user, and where the land so used was immediately before such user included with other land in one assessment, the gross value or gross estimated rental of the land included in that assessment shall for the purposes of this section be apportioned according to acreage as between the land used for allotments and the other land.

Amendments moved—

Page 5, line 38, after ("rental") insert ("for the purposes of any enactment relating to rating")

Page 5, line 42, after ("assessment") insert ("in the valuation list in force").—( Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 3 at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 ( Allotment committees of urban authorities):

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 25, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13:

Records of purchase price, rent, and rateable value of land required

13. Where land is purchased or leased by a local authority under the Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1922, or this Act, the local authority shall record the purchase price or rent agreed to be paid for the land, and the gross value, or gross estimated rental at which the land is assessed for rating purposes at the date of its acquisition, where it is separately so assessed, or an apportioned estimate when it is not so separately so assessed, and the particulars so recorded shall be included by each local authority in their annual report to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under Section fifty-nine of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908.

Amendment moved

Page 6. lines 32 and 33, leave out ("an apportioned estimate when") and insert ("the apportioned part thereof as estimated by the local authority, where").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

Order for the House to be put into Committee read.

Committee put off to Tuesday next.

Read 3^a (according to Order): Privilege Amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

House adjourned at five minutes before eight o'clock.