Lords Sitting of 30 November 1911

TOWNHEAD STREET (SHEFFIELD) BAPTIST CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
BRIDGE AND CAUSEWAY (GLOUCESTER) CHARITY BILL.
BIRKBY BAPTIST CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
HUMBERSTONE WESLEY CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
EPPING CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
MONEYLENDERS (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); Bills reported without amendment, and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

THE INSURANCE BILL.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, when the Insurance Bill is presented to this House, they will have a copy of the Bill printed to show—

1. The variations which have been made in the Bill during its passage through the House of Commons; and

2. Those clauses which by operation of the various forms of closure now in use in that House have been passed without any discussion;

and to ask whether it will be possible now to state the estimated cost of the proposals contained in the Bill, and the number of new officials who will have to be appointed.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting these Questions I suppose it is hardly necessary for me to disclaim any idea of raising upon them any controversial debate on this matter. In fact, I do not desire to raise any debate of any kind. I am purely desirous of information, and I can say for myself that when this Bill was introduced I did my best to understand it and for a time to follow the discussions which took place upon it. But however much time one gave to it and however much one desired to take a really intelligent course in following the discussions which went on, one found it absolutely impossible to understand the changes that were being made. Whatever view one may hold, the subject is one of enormous magnitude and very great complexity.
I am not, of course, in the secrets of noble Lords on the other side, but it seems not improbable that this House will be asked to deal with the Bill within an extremely limited time. It has been decided that it is not a Finance Bill, and therefore I suppose some responsibility is expected to lie upon this House to see, as far as the House is given an opportunity of seeing, that the Bill is passed in an intelligible and consistent form. It is quite obvious that if the first two Questions which stand in my name can be answered by such a print as I suggest, the task, the almost impossible task, which is being laid on your Lordships will be made, at any rate to some extent, simpler than it would otherwise be. That is the sole reason which actuated me in putting down these Questions.
With regard to the last of the Questions, whether it is possible now to state the estimated cost of the proposals contained in the Bill and the number of new officials who will have to be appointed, it seems to me that we are entitled to have this information before we make ourselves responsible for the scheme. No doubt we are not responsible for finance. But I assume that the Government know, after all the changes that have been made, what the cost is likely to be that the public funds will have to bear and the responsibility which the State is taking upon itself in inaugurating this scheme; because it is quite obvious that if the scheme is once passed, if the bill is, so to speak, once drawn, to use commercial language, the country will have to pay the cost whatever it is. It would be interesting if we could ascertain whether the Government have any really consistent view of what the cost is likely to be. If they have—I do not put the alternative if they have not, because I can hardly conceive it possible—if they have, I can see no reason why your Lordships and the public should not be given the information.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): My Lords, the Questions put by the noble Lord are, in our opinion, perfectly justifiable. All the cardinal and leading points in the Insurance Bill raise questions which, as the noble Lord said, are of great magnitude and complexity; and this House, although the time, unfortunately, appears likely to be short in which the House will have to

435
exercise its function of supervision, ought not to be placed at any disadvantage, but ought to have before it all the material which would conduce to a sound judgment.
In his first Question the noble Lord asks whether the Government will have a copy of the Bill printed to show the variations which have been made in the Bill during its passage through the House of Commons. The answer is that, though it will be a very elaborate process, both in preparation and in the mechanical business of printing, His Majesty's Government propose to have a copy printed showing the variations that have been made in the Bill during its passage through its various stages in the House of Commons. I can assure the noble Lord that we have given this matter most careful consideration, in spite of the mechanical difficulties and others that were interposed, and we hope we shall be able to comply with the noble Lord's request.
The second Question is a little less simple. The noble Lord wants to have placed on the Table of the House a Paper containing those clauses which, by the operation of the various forms of closure now in use in the House of Commons, have been passed without any discussion. I would point out, and I am sure the noble Lord will see this point, that to distinguish those clauses which were put under the Closure Resolution would be, or would run the risk, at all events, of being rather misleading, for this reason. The great majority of those clauses deal with points that had already been discussed before the clauses were passed into the Bill, and they merely represent, in their final shape, decisions arrived at as the result of previous discussion. Therefore, though the closure might have struck off further discussion, that does not at all mean that there had not been adequate and ample discussion at other stages. I will give the noble Lord an instance. Take the first of the new clauses which went under the guillotine —and this is, I think, a very fair case to take—the clause with reference to the peculiar arrangements in the case of small societies. That clause was guillotined, but the principle of it was discussed first on Clause 5 of the original Bill, and secondly on Clause 18, when a whole day was given to a discussion of it. To print that clause —and I merely take it as an instance—in a distinctive way in order to show that
436
it had not been discussed in Committee would be to give an impression which, in the opinion of the Government, would be completely opposed to the real facts of the case. I will not trouble your Lordships with other instances, though they could easily be multiplied—I mean where the discussion, though obstructed or not taking place in the Committee stage, still had taken place in other parts of the deliberations on the Bill. The Committee stage—I would really commend this to the noble Lord if he has in his mind, as I am pretty clear he has, that the discussion was somewhat truncated ill another place—the Committee stage of this Bill, exclusive of Part II, which, as your Lordships know, was considered with great expedition and with satisfaction, I think, to everybody in Grand Committee—occupied thirty days of Parliamentary time, and there was hardly any point, so I am informed by those who followed it through all its stages in the House of Commons, that did not at one time or another receive ample and adequate consideration.
Then the noble Lord asks a very important Question—whether it is possible now to state the estimated cost of the proposals contained in the Bill. I am not at this moment. in a position to state the exact estimated cost of the proposals contained in the Bill, but I can assure the noble Lord that the actuaries are at this moment, and have been for some time, engaged in preparing a fully and carefully revised estimate of the cost, and I understand that the information desired by the noble Lord will be ready almost immediately. I assume that the noble Lord, when he talks of cost means the cost to the Government—in other words, that he does not mean the gross cost.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It would obviously be impossible to obtain the gross amount either of the workers' contributions or of the employers' contributions, as you cannot possibly know the numbers.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I felt sure that the noble Lord did not mean the cost including the employers' and the workers' contributions. But I can say this to him, that a comprehensive estimate of the whole charges—it can only be an estimate, but it will be a full and comprehensive estimate—is now being prepared and will very shortly be laid before Parliament.
LORD SANDERSON: I venture to remind the noble Viscount that there is already an actuarial estimate of the probable amount of the contributions by employers and employed. I suppose if that is altered in any way the alteration will be indicated in the new estimate.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the variations which have been made in this Bill, when we come to see them, will be almost innumerable, and I am afraid that a return simply of the variations would be a very long and complex document and would not convey very much information. I do not know whether it is in order, but might I ask whether the Government would not only produce a statement showing the variations which have been made, but would also give us an explanatory memorandum with regard to the Bill and divide that memorandum under certain heads. For instance, take the doctors, the friendly societies, and other heads of that sort. There have been several changes both with regard to the doctors and the friendly societies. At one time the friendly societies were apparently placated, upon which the doctors again rose in rebellion, and so on; and there have been several settlements or supposed settlements which have turned out not to be in any way final or satisfactory to the persons concerned. It would be of value to know how the succession of changes that have been made with regard to the various classes of persons who are interested in the scheme came to be made.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I was glad to notice that the noble Viscount admitted readily that my noble friend was amply justified in asking for this information, and that he recognised that his Questions were not prompted by mere idle curiosity. With regard to the answers given by the noble Viscount, we are grateful to him for undertaking to supply us with full information as to the variations which have been made in the Bill during its passage through the House of Commons. My noble friend who has just spoken would like to supplement that by a kind of historical or explanatory memorandum which would have the effect of placing before us in consecutive shape the origin and history of some of those somewhat protean changes. We should be delighted to have such a document, but I am bound to say that I think its preparation during the course of the next few
438
days would severely tax the powers of research and the ingenuity of the official entrusted with the compilation of the Paper.
Then the noble Viscount gave us a reason for which a return in accordance with the second of my noble friend's suggestions might be somewhat misleading. He told us that many of the clauses which had been passed without discussion represented the outcome of prolonged debates, and that it would be misleading to represent them as having never been considered by the House of Commons at all. That, I think, is a perfectly just observation; but I still do not see why it should not be possible, in the special print of the Bill which will be prepared, to indicate, by a red line or otherwise, those clauses which, in fact, have not been discussed at all. If any of us suggested that a particular clause had not been adequately considered, it would be easy for the noble Viscount to point to the history of the clause and show that it was to some extent an agreed clause; but a, number of these undiscussed clauses are by no means agreed clauses, but represent proposals which have been sprung on Parliament and have never been directly or indirectly discussed at all.
The noble Viscount has, I think, met my noble friend very fairly in regard to the proposal that we should be supplied with an estimate of the cost of the proposals contained in the Bill. I am afraid that for myself I do not attach very much importance to these official estimates. We have had some experience of them, and the conclusion to which I am inclined to come is that no amount of actuarial research will give you a result which can be accepted as beyond all proof establishing that the expenditure to be incurred will remain within certain limits. The only other observation I wish to make is that the noble Viscount omitted altogether to notice the last suggestion made by my noble friend, that we should have a statement of the number of new officials to be appointed. That is an item to which personally I attach a great deal of importance. There is no doubt that the creation of new official appointments has lately been proceeding at a fast and furious rate, and I hope that as the noble Viscount has met my noble friend on the other points he will be able to satisfy him upon this point also.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I am not able to satisfy the noble Lord on that point, which I ought to have mentioned. The Commissioners who will have the administration of this Act will find out from experience what number of officials will be required, and it is impossible for us at present to give even an estimate, or anything more than a very loose or useless estimate. The demand made by the noble Earl opposite is, I think, a perfectly reasonable one in itself if it could be complied with. It would be an enormous facilitation to the discussion, limited as it will be inevitably in this House, if there were a statement of that kind—a statement, for example, which is, I understand, what the noble Earl desires, of what the doctors say, what the housemaids say, what the friendly societies say, and so on. But, as the noble Marquess sees, it would take a great deal of time and a great deal of pressure of mind to state that in a short, simple, and explicit way. But I will consult my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and do the best I can to persuade him that it would be desirable to give this information if it is reasonably possible.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Viscount spoke of a statement showing what the doctors say, what the housemaids say, what the friendly societies say, and so on. It is not that that I want. What I want is a statement as to what proposals were originally made with regard to doctors and also with regard to housemaids and so on, and how many times and when and how those proposals have been altered.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I submit to the noble Earl that all that would be rather old history and purely academic.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Not at all.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I should have thought, with all deference and respect, that the object of the House of Lords would be to supervise a measure sent up to it from the House of Commons. For purposes of debate it is, of course, lawful to demonstrate inconsistencies. So be it. But to print all the first form of the Bill and contrast that in printed form with the shape that the Bill has ultimately assumed is, I think, too historic and too academic.
440
But, as I say, I will do the best I can to get the view of the noble Earl met.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I should be wanting in courtesy if I did not express my acknowledgments to the noble Viscount for the way he has met my request for information. But because a clause has been tabled by the promoters of the Bill and is intended—genuinely intended—to meet criticisms which have been already passed on the original clause, it must not be assumed that it has met the objections to the original clause.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I never for one moment meant to say that the clauses that now appear in the Bill are agreed clauses. I never meant that.

AGRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE IN SCOTLAND.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I rise to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture the total amount spent by the Board during the last completed year for the purposes of agriculture and forestry in Scotland. This Question is based on the assumption that the accounts of the Board of Agriculture are kept in such a way that the expenditure upon England and Scotland can be shown separately. I am anxious to learn what is the actual amount spent in Scotland upon all departments of agriculture under the control of the Board of Agriculture. I have asked in my Question only for the total sum, but it would be an additional favour if the noble Lord could tell me how it is divided up among the more important works—works carried out under the Feeding Stuffs Act, agricultural education, agricultural colleges, the money spent for research and experiment, and so on. Indeed, in all those cases where the Board of Agriculture are spending money in Scotland I should be glad to know if the noble Lord could include the amount in his answer.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, there is a certain difficulty, as the noble Lord will readily understand, in separating the accounts for Scotland and those for England. In a Return asked for by Mr. John Dillon in the House of Commons in

441
July of this year that part of the expenses of the Board of Agriculture which might be considered as directly attributable to Scotland was given in round figures as £15,500. I can give the noble Lord the main items, but of course he will understand that it is a little difficult to estimate these figures exactly. Take the case, for instance, of the administration of the Diseases of Animals Act. You can say exactly what the cost is of the number of inspectors allocated to Scotland, what they cost the Board in the matter of salaries, and so on. Under that head the cost is £3,750, but that does not take into account other expenses which have to be considered. For instance, if you are trying to make out what the administration of the Act costs you have to allow a certain proportion of the salaries of the head veterinary officers and so on at the Board of Agriculture. In round figures that is estimated at about £5,000. Salaries and wages are the largest of all, and they come to £9,960; travelling expenses come to £2,700, and the collection of statistics to £1,085. These go pretty far to make up the total sum. They at any rate are the principal heads of the expenditure as far as it can be calculated, and I hope the information meets the noble Lord's point.
LORD BURGHCLERE: Can my noble friend inform the House how many inspectors of the Board there are at the present moment in Scotland purely for Scottish purposes?
LORD LUCAS: Four.
LORD CLINTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his answer; but surely there is, in addition to the amounts he has mentioned, a considerable sum spent on agricultural education.
LORD LUCAS: That does not come under the Board of Agriculture.
LORD CLINTON: At one time there was a grant from the Board of Agriculture for research in Scotland, because I recollect very well its being withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS: The Board of Agriculture has nothing to do with that at the present time. I think it is entirely administered by the Scottish Office.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON rose to ask the Secretary for Scotland what sums he estimates will be available from the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund for the purposes set forth in the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, Clause 4 (2), (3), (4), and (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as we have just learned from the noble Lord who represents the Board of Agriculture, the ordinary expenses of the Board do not include a considerable number of those items which apparently will be chargeable to the proposed new Board of Agriculture in Scotland. The mall Landholders (Scotland) Bill provides that a sum not exceeding £185,000 is to be annually voted by Parliament for the whole of the purposes of the Bill. Section 6 of the Bill provides that this Fund—the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund—shall be applied for the following purposes, namely, for the purposes of facilitating the constitution of new landholders' holdings, the enlargement of landholders' holdings, and the improvement and rebuilding of dwelling-houses or other buildings of landholders and cottars in terms of the Landholders Acts. That apparently is the first matter for which this money is to be used.
In addition to that, the Fund is to be applied to meet the requirements of the Congested Districts Board and for the purpose of exercising the other powers and duties which will be transferred from the Board of Agriculture under the Order of the Secretary for Scotland to the new Board which is to be set up in Scotland. Those purposes, of course, are not yet defined, but we see that they are to cover matters of very large importance, such as the general duty of promoting agriculture, forestry, rural industries, etc., and also the collection of statistics relating to these purposes for research, experiment, and instruction, and the promotion and development of agricultural organisation and co-operation. Those are all matters of great importance to us agriculturally in Scotland, and what we fear is that when the prior claims under this Bill for the purpose of small holdings are satisfied, we may find that an inadequate amount of money will be left for these other purposes of the Board of Agriculture.
There are in Scotland considerable objections to a grant which is absolutely fixed and out of which a variety of possibly

443
conflicting interests have to be satisfied, particularly when there is no allocation made for those particular interests in the granting of the money itself. The Government will probably recollect the case, with which we were very familiar in Scotland, of the incidence of the Residue Grant. The residue of certain licences was paid to the Local Taxation Account, and that was diminished every year by sums required for the purpose of the Diseases of Animals Act. The balance remaining was utilised on technical education, and we used to have the extraordinary result that the more swine fever we had in the country the less technical education we were able to carry out. It was a very objectionable feature, and I fear very much that we may have the same sort of result under this Bill—that the more small holdings are created the less money we shall be able to get for the ordinary purposes of agriculture. Important as small holdings are, they are of relatively small importance compared to the real great interest of agriculture as a national industry.
We are proud in Scotland of the very high standard to which we have reached in agriculture. We are, we understand, far ahead of the world in that respect. But the time has come, and really has long since arrived, when we do require a great deal more consideration paid to agricultural education, particularly in the way of research and experiment. At the present moment we are probably behind any other country in the world in the attention and assistance paid to any of those objects. We are anxious to have increased expenditure in all these directions; and though the Secretary for Scotland may tell us that the present allocation is sufficient actually for the moment, it is more than likely that it would be quite inadequate if these industries are set going and attended to, and there is no provision in the Bill for giving us larger funds. Forestry will demand under this Bill considerable assistance. We hope something will be done at all events in the way of agricultural organisation and co-operation and also in the direction of many rural industries, but we fear very much that under this scheme the work of the Board of Agriculture, the legitimate work which has to be carried out in Scotland, may be stereotyped to such a degree that all these newer purposes may be almost starved. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND): My Lords, I am gratified to find that the noble Lord is so heartily at one with us in our endeavours to develop this kind of work which will fall to the proposed Board of Agriculture in Scotland. In the first place, may I make one correction The Fund will amount, not to £185,000, but to £200,000. There are two sums, £185,000 plus £15,000; so that when we are dealing with the total sum available for the whole of Scotland we are entitled to say that the total sum available for the purposes set forth in the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill is £200,000. It is not possible at this stage to frame such estimates as the noble Lord desires.
It is quite true that under the Bill duties are laid upon the Board of Agriculture to promote forestry and other rural industries, to collect statistics, to develop inquiries, research, and experiments, and to develop instruction in order to help those industries. There is also the duty laid upon the Board of assisting agricultural organisation and co-operation. As a safeguard to the methods in which this money is applied, I may remind the noble Lord that a full report will be presented to Parliament every year, and will, of course, be subject to the criticism of Parliament. The main distinction which I wish to draw is in regard to the charges which will be laid on the public in relation to this Bill. The charges connected with the office and establishment of the Board will be laid upon the Votes in the annual Estimates and will be voted by Parliament every year, whereas the money applied for the different purposes to which the noble Lord has drawn attention will come from the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund of £200,000; that also will, of course, be under the full control of Parliamentary criticism.
I may, perhaps, remove a misapprehension on the part of the noble Lord in regard to the present expenditure on agricultural education in Scotland. The agricultural colleges in Scotland, through which this work is done, are under the supervision of the Scottish Education Department, and they receive an annual grant altogether of something like £12,000 from central funds. It is not intended at this moment to disturb that arrangement; in fact, as years go on it is hoped that it will be possible to further encourage and develop that work, but it

445
will not fall on this Agriculture (Scotland) Fund. It is not thought desirable to apply rigidly parts of this Fund to separate purposes. The noble Lord drew attention to the inconvenience and hardship inflicted by the Residue Grant and its distribution in Scotland; but let me point out a distinction between this and the Residue Grant. The hardship in regard to the Residue Grant was that it was a varying sum. There is no variation about this. The sum paid will be a fixed sum of £200,000 until Parliament in its wisdom chooses either to increase or diminish that sum; so that the hardship due to the diminution of the Residue Grant will not be present in this case. In the opinion of the Government it is safer and wiser to allow this Department to develop forestry and other rural industries as time goes on, and to be guided in applying the funds by the public demand for such development. I do not honestly think that there is any real justification for the fears expressed by the noble Lord.
My noble friend who represents the Board of Agriculture has just stated to the House that the total annual sum now spent by that Board in Scotland may be estimated at £15,500. Making every possible allowance for rapid development, I think there are ample funds at the disposal of the proposed Board of Agriculture for Scotland to carry out all its purposes—in the first place, the development of small holdings; and, in the second place, though I do not put one before the other for they are both of equal importance, the promotion of the general well-being and prosperity of all agricultural interests in Scotland. I may remind my noble friend that only recently a Development. Fund has been established under the Development Act of two years ago, and that fund, which is open to all Government Departments, will, I trust, be equally open to the Board of Agriculture which is now proposed for Scotland.
LORD CLINTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his answer, but he has not given me the figures for which I asked. It is no doubt difficult to get at them in accurate detail, but I am surprised that there is no estimate of the annual cost of promoting these small holdings at the beginning of the scheme.
LORD PENTLAND: The charge made by the Congested Districts Board last year in
446
respect of agriculture, which includes the improvement of live stock, the development of poultry, and other agricultural industries, was between £8,000 and £9,000. Again, the charge for settlement schemes—that is, land schemes—was a sum of nearly £9,000. That makes a total of £17,000 annually expended on purposes of this kind at present by the Congested Districts Board, which work will fall, if the Bill passes in its present form, to the new Board of Agriculture. That is all that is being done by any authority in Scotland for that particular purpose. Then I come to forestry. All the money that is spent on forestry in Scotland now is spent largely on instruction through the agricultural colleges. That expenditure will not be disturbed. I may remind my noble friend that quite recently the Scottish Office appointed a Committee to inquire into certain matters connected with forestry in Scotland. That Committee has not reported. No doubt its recommendations will, if approved, lead to some expenditure, but how far that expenditure will fall upon the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund, and how far, for instance, it may possibly be met by the Development Fund, it is quite impossible at the present moment to state. It is difficult to forecast with any precision whatever the actual charge upon public funds which will be caused by the development of forestry in Scotland. We have set our hands to the work and we mean to pursue it, but to give any estimate now of what is likely to be the expenditure next year or the year after is really very difficult. But an examination of what is at present spent and what is likely to be required in the immediate future will bear out my assertion that there are ample funds for all the purposes undertaken by the Bill; and the noble Lord may rest assured that, if these funds in time to come are not sufficient, those who represent the Board of Agriculture for Scotland will come to Parliament for increased funds.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I would ask the noble Lord whether the figures which he just quoted as the expenditure of the Congested Districts Board include salaries.
LORD PENTLAND: No.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Can the noble Lord tell me the amount of the salaries of that Board?
LORD PENTLAND: I think they amount to something like £2,000 a year. But that is not in question. I have already pointed out that the establishment expenses of this Department will fall, not upon the £200,000, but upon the annual moneys laid before Parliament in the Estimates and voted by Parliament; so that that, as the noble Earl will appreciate, does not enter into the estimate which Lord Clinton desires to have from me.

SHIPPING CASUALTIES.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to move for the Return which stands in my name.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return giving particulars of official inquiries into shipping casualties held at
448
home and abroad between the 1st July, 1896, and the 30th June, 1911, the reports of which contained any material comments or statements as to the vessels concerned being in charge of uncertificated and irresponsible masters and mates.—(Lord Ellenborough.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, the Government will be glad to give the noble Lord the Return for which he asks.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered acordingly.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.