My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which appears on the Paper with regard to this Bill.

My Lords, this Bill authorises the Board of Trade by Statute to maintain a coastguard force in place of the coastguard maintained by the Admiralty since nearly 200 years ago. I understand this force is already in being, though it has not yet been authorised by Statute, and it has been paid for by Estimates presented to Parliament. Further, the Bill provides that the administrative work in connection with the acquisition of sites, buildings, the upkeep of buildings, and so on, of the coastguard stations should be done by the Commissioner of Works on behalf of the Board of Trade. The last object of the Bill is to provide for the transfer and control of the coastguard to the Admiralty in the event of war.

The action proposed to be taken in this Bill follows really upon a Report on the whole subject which was issued in 1922, the Committee being under the Chairmanship of the present Postmaster-General. That Committee considered that the purposes for which the old coastguard was maintained could be better dealt with by a smaller force under the control of the Board of Trade and the establishment was fixed at about 935 officers and men for coast watching and life-saving services. Besides that there is a small force to be maintained by the Admiralty—I think something like 100 men—for wireless telegraphy and naval signalling, and, further, there is a small coast preventive force controlled by the Board of Customs and Excise as a supplement to the existing water guard staff which is for the protection of the revenue. Economy was really the motive for this change, and it is rather a remarkable fact that though you split up the coastguard into three parts and assign those parts to three different Government Departments, yet I believe that the saving that has been effected is something like 50 per cent.; that is to say, nearly £300,000 on a previous expenditure of £600,000 a year, which is a remarkable, though apparently paradoxical, achievement.

It is important that these buildings should be transferred to and managed by the Board of Works on behalf of the Board of Trade, because at the present time they are invested in the Admiralty and the leases and so on are very difficult to deal with. Again, a good number of them are surplus and are let to civilians, and difficulties arise in that way. There is further a clause in the Bill which gives power to acquire land compulsorily for coastguard stations, where necessary. This clause is taken from the Coastguard Service Act, 1856, and merely gives to the Office of Works powers that were already given to the Admiralty under that Act. It is important also as provided in this Bill that in any necessary emergency the coastguard shall be placed under the control of the Admiralty. This can be done by Admiralty Order and the force reverts to the Board of Trade after the emergency is declared to be over. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.

My Lords, this Bill has been discussed for twenty years Within my recollection and no progress has ever been made with it. It was high time that the reform should be carried through, and I am glad to see that it is now to be carried through. The coastguard dated from a period when there was a great deal of smuggling, which Free Trade got rid of.

Oh!

Yes, which Free Trade got rid of. There was also a great deal of faith that an enemy would somehow land in small boats and invade us from various points along the coast. There is not much smuggling now, and I think there will not be smuggling in the future. As for the other point we have completely got away from the notion that anybody can invade us so long as the British Navy is efficient. In these circumstances there is no justification for keeping up an Admiralty coastguard in the old form, and I am glad that it is to be in the new form, with the resulting economies of which the noble Lord has spoken.

My Lords, I have a small formal Amendment to move at this stage. It is simply due to the fact that one of the persons to be transferred when the library is transferred from the Faculty of Advocates is a woman, and therefore falls under a different Superannuation Act to that of 1909. I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Privilege Amendments be made.

My Lords, this is another Bill which certainly was uncontroversial in another place. It passed riot only with general approval but without a Division. The objects with which the Bill deals are, shortly, five. First of all it deals with the question of roadside tree-planting; then with the erection of road direction signposts and warning signs; with the freeing of roads and bridges from tolis; with the prevention of blind corners at cross roads; and with experiments connected with the improvement of the construction of roads and the testing of the effect of various classes of vehicles on roads and bridges. I do not suppose that any member of your Lordships' house will quarrel with the clause which enables trees to be planted along the rather bare and inhospitable looking new roads which have been recently constructed. I ought also to say that many trees have been cut down during the construction of those roads and it is very necessary that they should be replaced.

Clause 2 extends the meaning of the expression "improvement of roads," towards which the Minister may make grants, and refers to the additional purposes, to one of which I have already alluded, of planting trees along the sides of the roads; secondly, as regards the notices, warning signs and so on; and thirdly—a point which is rather more interesting—the making of grants in order to remove the thirty toll bridges which still remain on Class 1 roads and the eighteen toll bridges on Class 2 roads, apart from some on a number of roads of lesser importance.

Clause 3 deals with the acquisition of land in order to compensate open spaces or commons for land taken from them far the purpose of making roads running across them. Clause 4 enables the Minister, a county council or other highway authority to serve notices upon the owners or occupiers of land, at a road junction, requiring them to remove or alter the height and character of any wall, fence or hedge thereon so as to conform with any requirements specified in the notice and restraining them from permitting any building, wall, fence, Or hedge to be erected or planted on the land. All these requirements, of course, are subject to proper compensation being made as well as to arbitration as regards the reasonableness of the requirements and the amount of compensation. Clause 5 is, perhaps, one of the most interesting in the. Bill because it enables experiments to be made, subject to the approval of the Treasury, for the construction, maintenance and improvement of roads and bridges and as to the effect of different types of vehicles on roads and bridges.

The expenditure upon highways at present is something like £40,000,000 year, and yet it is riot competent for the Minister of Transport or any other authority to carry out the investigations and experiments necessary to ensure that this very large sum of money is spent to he best advantage. With that last point I am sure your Lordships will be fully in sympathy. Those, I think, are the principal provisions of the Bill and I cannot imagine that they will cause any very great difficulty or heart searching to anybody. I beg to move.

My Lords, so far as that part of the road-using community for whom I speak is concerned we entirely welcome the Bill. Such a measure has long been needed. The power to plant trees alongside the highways is most valuable and I hope it will be freely exercised. May I suggest to the noble Viscount that he should suggest to the Minister of Transport, that it would be a very good thing if fruit trees were planted in such places? Anybody who knows the roads in Northern France will recollect that for miles and miles along those roads there are apple trees and pear trees, which are not only beautiful objects in spring and autumn but incidentally produce a good many apples and pears for the small boys of the neighbourhood and the passers-by.

In regard to the power to conduct experiments, I may remind your Lordships that several of the bigger counties have their own laboratories and are conducting very useful experiments indeed regarding the qualities of road stone, the various kinds of bitumen and the quantities used per mile of road, with the object of discovering the most useful sorts. Then there is a point in connection with Clause 4 that I would ask the noble Viscount to consider between now and the Committee stage. At the end of Clause 4 there are subsections preserving the right of railway companies and others not to have their buildings interfered with. Subsection (11), for instance, says:—

"…the expression 'wall' includes any partition of whatsoever material constructed…"

Railway companies and canal companies have protection for their buildings, as I have said, and I think that in the interests of ancient buildings that protection should be extended in respect of them. As the Bill stands to-day you can pull down any wall or anything of the kind if it necessary to do so. But the antiquarian interests of such an erection may be far greater than any other, and the benefits to be gained by preserving it from that point of view may be more than those to be gained by pulling it down. Therefore, I think it would be well if some provision could be made under which the consent of the Office of Works should be obtained in such cases. With that exception I entirely approve of the Bill.

May I say that the power to cut off dangerous corners already exists under the Highways Act of 1835 and it would seem that this Bill is only repeating, so to speak, powers which already exist. Perhaps the noble Viscount would consider that point. I hope that your Lordships will accept the Bill and that the noble Viscount will give consideration to the points I have raised between now and the Committee stage.

My Lords, I do not rise to oppose the Bill, but to call attention to Clause 4. I think I am right in saying that Clause 4 was incorporated in the Bill during its passage through another place by way of incorporating provisions suggested by the Roads Improvements Association to deal with blind corners and make improvements where they are thought desirable. Clause 4 is, I think, altogether desirable and, although the wording is perhaps necessarily very long, it seems to carry out the objects aimed at.

There is one point which occurs to me and that is in the first subsection. Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) refers to the serving of a notice

"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…

It seems to me that it might be advisable to include the word "tree" after "fence," because the object is to preserve an unobstructed view, and it does sometimes happen that a tree which has grown, perhaps, originally eight or ten feet back from the road leans over the road at a corner, particularly if the road is on a dip and obstructs the view of the corner. It may be as well to take power to deal with trees, but if that is likely in any way to hinder the passage of the Bill I should not propose to move an Amendment. I should, however, be glad to hear from the noble Viscount whether he thinks we could include the word "tree." I am not sure that the words, as they now stand, would cover a tree, which is not part of a hedge.

I am not quite sure whether it would and I will look into that point. The noble Lord behind me fears that ancient buildings might be removed. I would point out that arbitration occurs in those cases, but I will look into the point.

May I point out that the noble Viscount has not given a reply about the apple trees?

The question of fruit trees has been constantly considered by the Ministry of Transport.

May I ask the noble Viscount whether he will state on what day the Committee stage will be taken?

Tuesday next.

Tuesday is a day on which a good many noble Lords will be somewhere else, and I suggest that it would be a very inconvenient day indeed.

What is next Tuesday?

It is the twenty-first

If we put it down for Tuesday it may be possible to put it forward later.

As Tuesday will be very inconvenient for a good many noble Lords, could not the noble Viscount put it down for Wednesday?

If it is pat down for Tuesday now it can easily be moved forward.

I quite agree, but I would urge this upon the noble Viscount If it is put forward many noble Lords may be brought up from the country and find that it is down for the day after that on which they expected it would be taken, and there would be complaints about that.

Very well, it shall be put down for Wednesday.

I beg to move that this Report be now received.

My Lords, on this Motion I would like to ask whether it is thought that this Bill really goes far enough. On the Second Reading the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London indicated that he would put down some Amendments to strengthen the Bill, but so far as I know he did not put down any; at all events I saw none on the Paper. I am not sure whether the Bill does go far enough to protect the people it is intended to protect. Can any noble Lord tell the House exactly what is meant by the first part of Clause 5 which says that a theatrical employer shall be guilty of an offence who, during the course of a theatrical engagement, "abandons the theatical performers"? I do not exactly know what human action is indicated by the word "abandon." We know what abandoning a ship is, but I do not know how or in what way you can abandon theatrical performers. The language does seem to me remarkably vague.

My Lords, the answer to the question of the noble Earl is this. There is a definition of "abandoned" in subsection (2) of Clause 5. But for that definition I think the noble Earl's criticism would be well founded, but there being a definition that is, I think, an answer to his question. As regards the Bill not going far enough, many of us entirely agree with the noble Earl, but the difficulty was this. This Bill came from another place as an agreed Bill. It had the approval of the theatrical employers on the one hand and of the employees on the other hand, as well as of the Home Office. There are many who would have liked to strengthen the Bill and to make it a good deal more drastic in order to remove what undoubtedly are very great abuses, but it was realised that if the Bill was to be got through this Session it would have to be accepted by your Lordships' House substantially in the form in which it came from another place. Upon that consideration the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London was good enough not to put clown Amendments which he indicated were desirable on Second Reading, and every one is most anxious that the Bill should go through, even in this somewhat incomplete form, this Session. I hope, therefore, the noble Earl will accept that explanation.

My Lords, these two Motions of mine, with reference to this Report and the new Standing Order, really hang together. In accordance with precedent I put them down as separate Motions, but I should suggest it would be convenient that we should consider the two together. One is to consider the Report of the Committee appointed by your Lordships and the second Motion is, if your Lordships see fit, to agree to a new Standing Order carrying out the recommendations of that Committee. I do not think I need go through the list of Orders to which they refer, though I have them in full here. But really this debate follows the debates that have taken place so recently in your Lordships' House, or if they have not taken place recently I know they are still in your Lordships' memory, that I do not think I need enlarge upon the position. I would like to pay my special tribute of thanks to my noble friend, Lord Muir Mackenzie, whose special vigilance in these matters, in the course of the progress through Parliament in Sessions gone by, of Bills foreshadowing these Orders enabled him I think, first of all, to foresee the difficulties that have arisen, and he gave full notice that they would have to be dealt with. My noble friend has proved an accurate prophet, and it is following on what he said then that I am going to say what I intend to say to-day.

On the subject of merits, I would only specially refer to the debate that happened last year, when the necessity of setting up some such system as is outlined here was made quite clear in speeches made by my noble friend opposite, and the present Leader of the House and others. The system of affirmative Resolution, in my belief, is one that has come to stay, and I hope, now it is to be extended, that it will be more and more extensively used. But that can only be, of course, if it is worked with the good will of all concerned, and, above all, if it obtains the full confidence of members of both Houses of Parliament. That can only come. about if Parliament, when it delegates powers—this, after all, is a system of delegation—is assured of having full knowledge of all that is going on under the powers that it has so delegated. I am quite sure that this system will result in saving a great deal of Parliamentary time.

Fears have been expressed, I know, that delays will result, but I need hardly point out that we have already had an example during the last fortnight of the working of this system when a very important Order—one of the most important that can possibly be conceived—was referred to a Committee under practically the same system as I am outlining here, and the whole proceedings in Committee only lasted eight days. In eight days there was a Report to your Lordships' House—a Report which my noble friend who represents the Ministry of Transport is going to take advantage of in a few moments. There is already a Ministerial pledge that none of these Orders shall he considered unless they have laid on the Table of your Lordships' House for fourteen days, and that is a system which I think is used to the best advantage. It will be a little longer than fourteen days, hut hope to see the majority of these Orders through at any rate within a period of three weeks.

I do not think I need do more than draw your Lordships' attention briefly to the new Standing Order as it is on the Paper. The first paragraph defines special Orders, and at the same time the subjects which are already dealt with by special Committees of your Lordships' House are excluded. The second paragraph sets up the new Committee, and it follows the form used in the old Standing Order, with which your Lordships have been familiar for years past. Then the third paragraph defines the duty of the Special Order Committee to divide these Special Orders into classes. The first class includes subjects kindred to those which would be enacted by a Public Bill; the second class contains subjects which would be more of the nature dealt with by a Private or Hybrid Bill. In the latter case it provides for the ordinary system under which a. Petition can be deposited. In the former case it calls on the Committee to report—this is in paragraph 5—whether there are any important matters of principle or policy involved and whether the matter is founded on precedent; whether, in fact, the Order can be passed by the House without special attention.

Coming back to the second class of subjects the system recommended is outlined, and it is a system which will bring this about. A Petition will not involve necessarily an inquiry by a Committee upstairs, but a Petition will involve a decision by a Committee of the House as to whether a further inquiry is necessary or not. That is obviously a great saving of time. I ought to say that I am indebted to Lord Merrivale for assistance in the drafting of this new Standing Order within the last few minutes, and with your Lordships' permission I desire to make an Amendment in paragraph (6) in the form which the noble and learned Lord has suggested to me. It is in paragraph (6) (ii) which reads as follows:

"(ii) whether the matter has been adequately dealt with at a Departmental Inquiry;

The noble and learned Lord suggests to me that it should read:

"(ii) whether the matter has been so dealt with upon a Departmental Inquiry that further inquiry is unnecessary."

I think your Lordships will see that this carries Out the intention of the Committee, and I shall ask leave to move this new Standing Order in that amended form. Then paragraph (7) calls on the Committee to report specially on the subject of intra vires, and the last paragraph is merely a matter of machinery.

I should like to say one thing which I hope your Lordships will note. It may be said that this may put difficulties in the way of a decision of these matters by the two houses of Parliament, but your Lordships will notice that in any very important matter it may be that both Houses will desire an inquiry by a Joint Committee. The system of Joint Committees is well-established and everyone understands it. It is easy by means of Messages between the two Houses to set up a Joint Committee, and nothing in this new Standing Order will exclude that in cases where it is thought appropriate.

Let me again emphasise the position. We are not asking that all these questions should again go to a Committee as in the case of Private Bills. We are asking that machinery should be set up whereby your Lordships will be able to decide whether a further inquiry is necessary or not. That really is all I have to say. I hope the system will be given a fair trial, and if we find that there are rough edges in the working then we can make any amendments that are necessary. If it is found unsuitable it can be dropped; but if it is dropped I am quite certain that the system of affirmative Resolutions cannot be extended as much as I hope it will be extended. If it is a success it will enable your Lordships to use the system more extensively and in a wider circle of subjects, and in that way result in the saving of hours of valuable Parliamentary time. I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name.

My Lords, I am not proposing in the least to criticise or object to this proposal, I have taken a good deal of interest in these Orders which pass through your Lordships' House more or less sub silentio, but the Lord Chairman's experience is so large and his guidance of this House so wise that I am not proposing to suggest any sort of Amendment at this stage. But I confess that I am a little afraid of what Departments are apt to do by Departmental Orders, and I wish I saw the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, in his place at the moment because I think he shares my fears. The procedure that is now suggested applies only to Orders which require affirmative Resolutions, and I am not at all sure that the more dangerous Orders are riot those which pass sub silentio by being laid on the Table of the House. I should have been glad if these had been included in the ambit of this Committee, and perhaps at some future time they may be. These are the Orders which are really dangerous. Affirmative Orders can at some time or other be brought to the attention of your Lordships, but in the case of these other Orders they have only to lie on the Table of the House and become effective without our notice unless we are exceptionally vigilant. Those are, I think, Orders which require special care. So far as this procedure goes I think it is admirable and will work very well.

My Lords, speaking as a member of the committee and not as a member of the Government, I should like to say that this point was under our notice, and speaking entirely for myself I should have been rather glad if I could have carried out the suggestion made by the noble Earl. However, we thought it was better to proceed by stages and that it was wise to try this procedure in the more important case of the two, and if it works well then your Lordships can, if you see fit, extend it.

My Lords, I now beg to move that the new Standing Order be added to the Orders of the House, subject to the Amendment I have already indicated.

My Lords, I beg to move that the London and Home Counties Electricity District Order be approved, subject to a modification suggested by the Committee.

moved to leave out "modification" and insert "modifications." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have a series of Amendments to move to this Motion. Subject to what the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill has to say, if the word "modifications" is accepted, then the rest of the Amendments would follow. If it remains as "modification" then the rest of my Amendments go by the board. I shall deal with the Amendments as a whole on the first one. The point is that it is desired by certain boroughs and corporations that they should be put upon the same footing as the Borough Councils of St. Marylebone, Hampstead and Fulham, which are dealt with by Clause 13 of this Order. Those borough councils have the right of having a supply of electricity made to them in bulk by the Joint Authority without any conditions. The other boroughs and corporations have had conditions annexed to them, and I am acting at the request of the Corporation of Ealing, the Urban District Council of Heston and Isleworth, the Corporation of Hornsey, and the Urban District Councils of Finchley and Walthamstow. These five bodies came under the authority of certain electricity supply companies in the year 1900, and they only came in as part of certain Poor Law unions.

My Lords, I hope my noble friend will not think that I am making in any sense any reference to him personally when I make a complaint as to the way this Amendment has been raised. As your Lordships are aware, a Committee of this House was set up, consisting of five members, who were to consider and did consider all the Amendments that were put down for this Order. They dealt with all the Amendments and the only persons who did not bring forward their Amendment were those who are now represented by my noble friend. It is not a new Amendment. I understand it has been on the Table of another place since June 16. Yet they think fit to neglect the whole of the procedure of this House, to avoid appearing before this Select Committee which dealt with the matter, and, in fact, to flout the authority of this Committee. I ask your Lordships to condemn the action of these gentlemen. I suppose they thought that they would rely upon the eloquence of my noble friend here to persuade your Lordships, who must be much less familiar with the matter than the Committee who sat in order to consider it. I again say to your Lordships that their conduct in not bringing this matter before the Committee when they had ample opportunity of doing so does require a good deal of explanation

Let me say one word upon the merits of the Amendment. First of all, I have to ask your Lordships to refer to the governing Act, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919. The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the joint authority to supply to any borough or urban district irrespective of whether it is situated in the area of supply from a power company. The Act provides that a joint authority cannot supply in the area of a power company without the consent of the company, but it provides also that, if in any particular case the power company is not willing and in a position to give a supply within its own area at rates which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, will afford an adequate return to the power company, then the joint authority may be authorised by Special Order to supply in the power company's area in that particular case. We are asked, therefore, by this Amendment, to do two things that cut right across the procedure that obtains under the Act of 1919; to do away (1), with the necessity of the power company's consent and (2), with the Special Order procedure in a case where the power company is not willing to give a supply under the condition laid down in the Act

My noble friend asked, I think, why certain boroughs were excepted. Under Clause 14 of the Act the power company concerned can express their consent to a supply by the joint authority to those boroughs and urban districts where those conditions obtain. That, I understand, has been done by arrangement in those particular cases. But the Amendment of my noble friend wants to do a very wide thing—namely, to overrule in this Order the provisions of the Act of 1919. I am advised that this is ultra vires, that it cannot be done and that the provisions in an Order of this kind, which is an instrument of subsidiary legislation, cannot, in fact, overrule the provisions expressly enacted in the General Act of 1919 under which the Order is made. I submit, therefore, on the technical ground, as well as upon the other grounds that I have mentioned, that I am not able to accept my noble friend's Amendment

My Lords, I am afraid that I am unable to give any explanation to the noble Viscount as to why these authorities have not taken steps at an earlier date to come before the Committee or why they have taken the course of asking your Lordships to consider this matter, as it appears that they have power to do, under Section 7 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, if they choose to do so. That Section says—

"An Order made under this section may be altered by a subsequent Order made, confirmed, and approved in like manner as the original Order"

The previous subsection provides that:—

"Any such Order shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is confirmed, before each House of Parliament but shall not come into operation unless and until it has been approved either with or without modification by a Resolution passed by each such House, and when so approved shall have effect as if enacted in this Act"

My noble friend says that the legal interpretation of this section that is given to him is that neither House of Parliament has power by Resolution to alter or to modify the Order. I am sorry that I do not quite agree with that legal interpretation, but in the circumstances I shall withdraw my Amendment