Lords Sitting of 11 June 1913

CAROLIN'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Proceedings on Second Reading to be resumed on Thursday the 19th instant.
WATNEY, COMBE, REID AND COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given yesterday); read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
CHESTERFIELD CORPORATION RAILLESS TRACTION BILL.
The Loan CHANCELLOR informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
(UNOPPOSED ORDERS.)

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
(UNOPPOSED ORDERS.)
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
The KING'S consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
READING CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
The KING'S consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.

WORTHING GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no
572
parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 17th of March last and the 3rd instant discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.

GOMM HEIRLOOMS BILL. [H.L.]

  MID-KENT AND EAST KENT DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.
  HUMBER COMMERCIAL RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed for Tuesday next.

  LYMM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
  Read 2a, and committed.
  DUNDEE BOUNDARIES BILL.
  HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAY BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  RHONDDA TRAMWAYS (RAILLESS TRACTION) BILL.
  Standing Order No. 93 considered (according to Order), and dispensed with, with respect to a Petition of the Rural District Council of Llantrisant and Llantwit Fardre: Leave given to present the said Petition.
  MAC COLL'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
  Message from the Commons for copy of the Minutes of Evidence taken before this House; together with the proceedings and documents deposited in the case: Ordered to be communicated with a request that they may be returned.
  ST. ANDREWS BURGH EXTENSION AND LINKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill relating to St. Andrews Burgh Extension and Links—Was presented by the Lord Emmott; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Section 7), deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee. (No. 63.)

  OLD-AGE PENSIONS AND PAUPERISM,
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH rose to call attention to the following passage in a speech made by the Prime Minister at Leven on January 29, in which he is reported to have said—
  And just remember by way of illustration that there are close upon a million old-age pensioners alone receiving some £12,000,000annually, though on the other side of the account it should not be forgotten that outdoor pauperism has been concurrently reduced by no less than 94 per cent.";
  and to ask whether the facts and statistics upon which this statement was founded can be made available to the Rouse. Whether a Return could be prepared showing the number of persons of seventy years of age and upwards who have become chargeable to the Poor-law authorities in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, and Aberdeen, and some of the larger centres of population in Scotland since the commencement of the Old-Age Pensions Act. Also a Return showing the number of persons enrolled as members of approved societies who, although they have paid the whole of their contributions under the Insurance Act, have had to be relieved at the expense of the ratepayers in Edinburgh and Glasgow between January 15 and the end of May.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Questions which I have put on the Paper will, I think, be admitted to deal with matters which concern large and important points of public policy. I do not propose to go over the wide field of debate which they would seem to indicate, because my object to-day is not to criticise or to find fault so much as to ask for information. There may be points in which criticism may be necessary and even complaint may be justifiable, but I am quite sure that even those who are responsible for either the Old-Age Pensions Act or the National Insurance Act will agree with me that it is to the advantage of both sides that before criticism is passed or fault is found we should have as near as possible an agreement upon the actual facts.
  The first Question standing in my name on the Paper has reference to a passage in a speech which is reported to have been made by the Prime Minister at Leven, in his constituency, in the early weeks of the present year. As it stands, it is perfectly obvious to any one who knows anything about these things that there must be a
  574
  mistake somewhere. The Old-Age Pensions Act, of course, only applies to those who are above 70 years of age, and therefore the proportion, 94 per cent., by which it has been alleged that outdoor pauperism has been reduced in consequence of that Act is manifestly absurd; because it cannot be, even if the whole of those chargeable to the Poor-law above 70 years of age had been completely taken off the list of poor, that pauperism could have been reduced by the amount claimed. There-fore I assume that there must have been an error in the report, and that, even if correctly reported, the claim made by the Prime Minister must have been that 94 per cent. of persons over 70 years of age who were in receipt of Poor-law relief had been taken away. I believe that even that is an undue claim, at any rate so far as Scotland is concerned. All on that point I want to know is this, whether we can have the facts and statistics on which this statement was based in order that we may be able to judge of its accuracy or the reverse for ourselves. It is not absolutely stated that the claim is in respect of Scottish pauperism. The speech was made in Scotland, and therefore I assume that it referred to Scottish statistics. It has been suggested to me since I put the Question on the Paper that it may not have had reference to Scotland, but whether to Scotland or England I still hope that we may be allowed to see the facts and figures on which this claim is made.
  Another of the Questions which I have put down has reference to the Insurance Act. I am anxious in this matter to be absolutely and perfectly fair. It is quite possible that in the early weeks and months of the operation of the Insurance Act things may not have been wholly in working order; but 1 have been supplied with a list of individuals, twenty-two in number, who it is represented to me are members of approved societies whose contributions have been fully paid up, both for employer and employed, during the months from January to May, and I am informed that in all these twenty-two cases these individuals have become chargeable to the Poor-law and no recompense has been made by the approved societies to the Poor-law authorities who have discharged the duties in connection with them. I will not, of course, read the list. I can only say that it seems to me to be thoroughly well authenticated. The

  575
  names of the approved societies with whom these people were insured are given. I have obtained the list from the Inspector of Poor for Edinburgh, and I have no reason to doubt that it is absolutely accurate.
  What I am anxious to know is whether we can be informed of the number of enrolled members of approved societies who have paid the whole of their contributions under the Insurance Act but have had to be relieved at the expense of the ratepayers in Edinburgh and Glasgow. I add Glasgow as a thoroughly typical large centre of population in the west of Scotland, in order that we may know as far as we possibly can to what extent the Insurance Act in this matter is really fulfilling the obligations undertaken on behalf of it and the promises which have been made in respect of it. I think it is possible—I make this as a conjecture—that the individuals whom I have mentioned may have been casual labourers; they may have been lodged in lodging-houses and may have fallen ill and had to be removed at the instance of the sanitary or medical authorities to the poorhouse. But, even so, there is a failure on the part of the approved society to undertake its obligations; and even if the society is not ready to do it the. Poor-law authorities ought to be recompensed at the expense of the society. It does not seem to me fair that all these claims should be made of the amount of reduction of pauperism, and yet when people whose; contributions have been fully paid become chargeable to the Poor-rate the burden should not be borne in the right quarter. No one would suggest that anything but the promptest relief should be given, and at the expense of the Poor-law authorities if necessary. It is their duty to do it if no one else can step in and do it at the moment. No sort of delay should take place. But I do think, if it be the case that the Poor-law authorities have clone the work, that the approved society to whom the contributions have been paid should not be excused of the burden for which they have received the premiums.
  The other Question relates to an even larger matter, to old-age pensioners. From the city of Edinburgh I have received a list of between forty and fifty individuals chargeable there to the Poor-law in the
  576
  first five months of the present year. In this case a certain amount of recompense has been made. Some small proportion of the cost has been repaid at the expense of the old-age pension which otherwise would have gone into the pockets of the individuals; but it is only, as I am informed, a comparatively small sum which has been so recovered from the pension authorities. I am told—and this I put forward rather for the purpose of inquiry than assertion—by the Poor-law authorities that great difficulties are put in their way in the recovery of the sum from the pension authorities when the old-age pensioner has become chargeable to the Poor-law. I believe it is paid with comparative promptitude if the pensioner is in the hospital, but not otherwise. It does not seem to me fair that a person should become chargeable to the Poor-law and that while he is so chargeable his pension should accumulate and that when he ceases to become chargeable he should then he able to go to the pension authorities and draw all the arrears of pension that have been accumulating and put the money in his pocket, and the Poor-law authorities should have no recompense. Again I am told that if an aged individual is for a long period chargeable—I believe the period is twelve weeks—to the Poor-law, then the pension is withdrawn altogether. I am not quite sure what is the reason underlying that course of policy, if it is so. It may be justifiable or it may not. I am asking for information whether that is the case, and, if so, on what point of public policy it is justified. As I have said already, I do not want to criticise until we know the facts; but I submit that under all the circumstances in which we are placed and in view of the great claims which are put forward in respect of this Act to the credit of the Government we are entitled to know exactly how the matter stands, what is the policy of the Government, the policy of the Insurance Commissioners, and of those who administer the old-age pension funds.
  We were told that the Old-Age Pensions Act would empty our workhouses. I wish it would. Mr. Charles Booth was credited with the belief that it would be possible to do away with outdoor relief altogether. Some people held out hopes that the granting of a pension at 70 would be a great incentive to self-maintenance until that age is reached. We have not had

  577
  long enough time to judge, but if all the reports which reach me are correct—and I am in touch with Poor-law authorities in various parts of Scotland, haying been chairman of my local Poor-law authority for forty-three years, during the whole of which time I have attended two-thirds of the meetings and therefore know well the difficulties which are encountered by those who have to administer the Poorlaw—I am very much afraid that this hope about self-maintenance up to 70 is not being fulfilled. When all the facts and figures are made known I am afraid it will be found that a good many people are going on the Poor-law before the age of 70 who would not have done so under former circumstances. There ought to be, and the Government ought to see that there is, as complete co-operation as possible between the authorities who have to administer the respective funds in question; and those who are dealing with the same class of people, often with the same individuals, should know as far as possible what each other is doing.
  It is an English instance; but since I took up this point a pamphlet, reprinted from the Economic Journal of December last, has been sent to me by a Mr. Bailward, and on page ILI of this pamphlet there appears this pregnant passage. It refers to London, and therefore may not be strictly germane to the Question on the Paper, which refers to Scotland. But this is what is stated in the pamphlet—
  "In at least one London union careful statistics have been kept since the Old-Age Pensions Act came into operation, with the result that in the case of that union 240 pensioners have received relief from the guardians, and of this number 136 came into the workhouse or infirmary, 29 received both indoor and outdoor medical relief, and 75 outdoor medical relief only. Many of these cases here relieved for unbroken periods varying from six to twelve months. Several have been continuously receiving relief since taking their pension. In all these cases, except in six, When the pensioners came into the workhouse they continued to receive their pension.…Notwithstanding the Chancellor's s7aternent that guardians could get an officer nominated to receive the pension, every obstacle has been placed in their way by the pension authority, who apparently look upon the guardians as a hostile authority. This lack of co-operation is most unfortunate. In one case a pensioner was admitted to the infirmary suffering from senile debility and in a verminous condition. The relieving; officer found that he had been living with a woman much younger than himself, who retained the pension book for her use. He reported the case to the pension officer, who said that it was 'no business of his'"
  578
  I venture to say that if any of that is at all approaching the truth it is quite time that somewhat different instructions were given. I do not say that it is absolutely accurate. There may be another side to it. But I do say that, taking the facts and figures which I have given the House from Scotland and this quotation from a London union, it is time we had more information than we have at the present time, and I make an appeal to the Government to give us as much information as possible in order that we may see the trend of their policy.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD EMMOTT): My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord who has asked these Questions today that it is very desirable that we should as far as possible agree about the facts, and I have much pleasure in giving him the facts on which the statement of the Prime Minister to which he has referred was based. The exact number of old-age pensioners in the United Kingdom on the last Friday in March, 1912, was 942,160, and at the same date in 1913 was 967,921. The provision made for the payment of old-age pensions in this year's Estimates is £12,538,000. The figure of 94 per cent.—and this is the point about which the noble Lord is really inquiring—mentioned by the Prime Minister had reference, as was explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place recently, and as, I think, is clear from the context, to the effect of old-age pensions on outdoor pauperism among people of 70 years of age and upwards.
  The actual figure of 94 per cent. relates to England and Wales, the reduction in the number of persons over 70 receiving outdoor relief being from 168,096, a figure which was obtained in the year 1906 when a census was taken for the Royal Commission on the Poor-law, to 9,530 in 1912. That is a reduction in England and Wales of 94 per cent. I can give the noble Lord the reference to the Blue-books in which these figures appear if he desires. For Scotland there was a reduction in outdoor poor of 70 years of age and upwards from 13,860 in January, 1909, when the number of paupers over 70 years of age was first ascertained, to 2,324 in September, 1912—a reduction of 83 per cent. for that different period in Scotland. The reason why the figure

  579
  cannot be given for 1906 in Scotland is that the figures were taken between 65 and 75 years of age; there was no dividing line at 70 years of age. I ought to explain also that in a considerable proportion of the cases the relief granted consisted only of medical relief. That is my answer to the first part of the noble Lord's Question.
  I now turn to the second part, in which he inquires whether a Return could be prepared showing the number of persons of 70 years of age and upwards who have become chargeable to the Poor-law authorities in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, and Aberdeen, and some of the larger centres of population in Scotland since the commencement of the Old-Age Pensions Act. I am informed that the number of persons aged 70 years and upwards who were in receipt of parochial relief, indoor and outdoor, from the Poor-law authorities of the parishes of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, and twenty-three other large centres of population on January 15, 1913, was 2,356, of whom 1,658 were in poor-houses, 228 were old-age pensioners in receipt of medical relief, and 470 were outdoor paupers. The actual Return which the noble Lord suggests would, I think, be more troublesome and expensive to make than its value when made would really justify; but I have a Return which I shall be very glad to hand to him showing the details of the figures of the twenty-seven large centres of population in Scotland on which the totals that I have just given him are based.
  The noble Lord has made some criticism upon the Old-Age Pensions Act. It is not my intention to-day to enter upon any general discussion of that question, neither would it be my business to do so; but the particular complaints that he has mentioned refer to general questions which arise, or are apt to arise, equally in England as in Scotland. I am not able to answer him in reference to the individual cases which he mentioned to-clay, of which I heard for the first time; but perhaps I may make one or two general observations on the questions raised in the remarks that the noble Lord addressed to the House. The subject which he has introduced is a very thorny and difficult one. Not the least formidable part of it is that serious objection would probably be taken in many
  580
  quarters to a close association between Poor-law administration and old-age pension administration as being contrary to the whole spirit and intention of the old-age pension legislation in this country.
  Complaints are being made on the question to which the noble Lord referred by Poor-law authorities in this country and no doubt also in Scotland, and the complaints usually fall under two headings. In the first place, as regards the receipt of disqualifying Poor-law relief, instances are known where old-age pensioners have managed to evade the provisions of the Act, and on their discharge from the institution have withdrawn the arrears of pension which accumulated during their stay. In the second place, as regards medical relief, which does not generally disqualify, it is possible either for the pensioner to allow his pension to accumulate during his sojourn in the Poor-law infirmary and withdraw it in a complete sum on coming out and perhaps spend it upon an orgy, or to arrange for the pension to be received by a member of his family while he is in the Poor-law institution. Proposals have been put forward for the total abolition of the Poor relief disqualification and for payment of the pension to the authorities during the period of chargeability to the rates. This would transfer large responsibilities from the Poor-law authorities to the State, and I do not think it would be advisable under existing circumstances. It has also been suggested that medical relief as well as ordinary Poor-law relief should disqualify for pension. On administrative grounds, of course, there is something to be said for the latter proposal, but on other grounds there are really serious objections. Particularly I may mention the hardship to the pensioner of losing the pension during temporary illness. So much as regards the question of an alteration in the law.
  I would now like to say one or two words about the administration of the law. As regards evasion in respect of Poor relief certain precautions are taken. The pension officer has to visit the pensioner in his home at intervals, and in Scotland the Poor-law authorities notify the pension officer if the pensioner becomes chargeable on the rates, and in return the pension officer notifies the Poor-law authorities in any specific instance whether or not the

  581
  individual is an old-age pensioner. I am not maintaining that the position is altogether satisfactory. Recently the Chancellor of the Exchequer received a deputation on the subject from the Association of Poor-law Unions and the. Central Committee of Poor-law Conferences, and promised to give consideration to the subject of administrative changes, but he was not able at that interview to adopt any of the specific proposals that were put before him.
  As regards pensioners in receipt of medical relief, I may refer to a reply given by my right hon. friend Mr. McKinnon Wood when lie was Financial Secretary to the Treasury in answer to a Question by Mr. Hicks Beach in another place on November 15, 1911. The substance of that reply was that any assignment of a pension is invalid in view of Section 6 of the Old-Age Pensions Act; and that if the pension is drawn by an agent the agent must pay over the money to the pensioner forthwith, in accordance with the undertaking given on each occasion on drawing the pension on the pensioner's behalf. It is, of course, difficult to enforce that provision unless the pensioner himself complains of any default in regard to it. Moreover, if the money passes into the pensioner's hands the guardians appear to have power to appropriate, so that the practical state of the case is this. An old-age pensioner may appoint as his agent a Poor-law official, who in that case would pay the money over to the Poor-law authorities. He may, on the other hand, appoint a friend or relative to draw his pension, who would in that case have to pay the money over in the same way to the Poor-law authority. The pensioner may, however, allow the pension to accumulate, and he can draw it up to three months limit when he leaves the Poor-law infirmary. There is the further possibility, if the circumstances do not come to the notice of the pension officer, that the pensioner may appoint an outside agent, who by arrangement does not pay over the money hut expends it on the pensioner's behalf, for example in the payment of rent. I have admitted that the position is not very satisfactory, but the difficulties appear to be inherent in the system of allowing concurrent receipt of pension and medical relief; but, as I have already stated, there are formidable objections to the abolition of that system. What I can say
  582
  about the matter is that the class of cases is not very numerous. I think the worst case is where the pension accumulates and may be spent in a night's dissipation after it is drawn, but this case is met to some extent by the provision that the accumulation can only take place for three months. Every effort is made in the administration of this Act to avoid abuse as far as possible.
  I now turn to the noble Lord's third Question. The noble Lord asks whether a Return can be granted showing the number of persons enrolled as members of approved societies who, although they have paid the whole of their contributions under the Insurance Act, have had to be relieved at the expense of the ratepayers in Edinburgh and Glasgow between January 15 and the end of May. In regard to this Question, I can only give the noble Lord the figures. I did not know what he was going to say, and therefore I have only been provided in this case with the figures, which I shall be very glad to give to him. I am informed that the number of fully paid up members of approved societies under the National Insurance Act who have been relieved by the parish council of Edinburgh between January 15 and May 31 of this year is 46; the number for the parish council of Glasgow is 490. I believe that the two figures are prepared on the same basis, but I am not quite certain. I think I ought to say that in addition 150 fully insured persons were granted relief by the latter parish council on behalf of wives and children, the occasion of the application being in most cases physical or mental illness. I have only one observation to make about these figures. Of the 490 insured persons who have received Poor relief in Glasgow more than nine-tenths were relieved in institutions, either in the poor-houses or in asylums. Section 12 of the National Insurance Act provides for the stopping of the payment of sickness, disablement, and maternity benefit to the insured person whilst such person is an inmate of a poor-house or asylum, and the money which the insured person would otherwise have received is to be used primarily for the relief or maintenance of his dependents. I apologise for having occupied so much time in answering the noble Lord's Questions, but my excuse must be that I was anxious to give him the fullest information in my possession.

  INSURANCE COMMISSION REGULATIONS.
  *LORD SANDERSON*LORD SANDERSON rose to ask His Majesty's Government—
  1. What is the number of Orders, Rules, Provisional Regulations, and Regulations applicable to England which have been issued by the National Health Insurance Commission and other Public Departments under the provisions of Parts I and II respectively of the National Insurance Act, 1911, since the Act was passed.
  2. Whether it can be stated how many of these have been altogether superseded by those subsequently issued, and how many remain wholly or partly in operation and have statutory force as part of the Act.
  3. Whether the Orders, Rules, and Regulations applicable to Scotland, Wales, and Ireland are substantially identical with those in force in England, and whether the dates assigned to them are the same as or different from the latter.
  4. Whether it will shortly be possible for the Insurance Commissioners and other Departments to issue codified sets of these enactments suitable for the use of the general public, and provided with an Index similar to that which has been compiled for the Act itself.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I ask permission to detain the House for a few minutes only while I explain my reasons for putting the Questions which stand in my name on the Paper. I wish to disclaim any suggestion that blame is to be imputed to the Health Insurance Commissioners because they have issued a large number of Regulations in a somewhat unsystematic manner. The Act required a complicated code, and the Government decided to put it in force in a manner which made it necessary to issue Regulations piecemeal as occasion arose. But the Act has now been in existence for eighteen months; it has been in force for eleven months, and it seems time that we should take stock and see where we are. There is a good deal of irritation on the subject, not at all due to Party faction, which might be removed by some clear declaration of what is intended.
  I may, perhaps, be allowed to relate one or two of my own personal experiences. As chairman of the council of the Charity
  584
  Organisation Society I have had to preside at a number of meetings and consultations of charitable societies affected by the Act. When any question as to the provisions of the Act itself was raised it was easy to refer to them by means of the Index which has been presented to Parliament. But if there were questions as to the wording of Regulations or Circulars nobody dreamed of attempting to refer to them on the spot. It was hopeless to burrow in a pile which one of the secretaries tells me is now about ten inches thick. The matter had to be left for subsequent research and study. In February last the secretary of a suburban Charity Organisation Committee, a very hard-working young lady, wrote to me and told me that she was constantly being brought face to face with problems arising out of Parts I and II of the Act, and she asked whether I could recommend to her any book which would enable her to get a knowledge of its provisions. As regards Part II there was little difficulty. There were a single Leaflet, two Pamphlets, and two sets of Regulations issued by the Board of Trade. But as regards Part I the case was very different. There was a "Handbook to the Administration of Sickness and Maternity Benefits by Approved Societies," a volume of eighty pages with a most inadequate table of contents but with useful side headings. There was an index to this handbook and to certain Circulars; it was not for sale but could be procured from the Insurance Commissioners on application by favoured people. I thought it better to ask an expert to advise me as to the books to he supplied to this young lady, and he recommended a set of books costing in all about 15 s. This seems to me an excessive price to pay in order to be able to master this measure. The Insurance Commissioners have issued a list of their official publications extending over 12½ pages and containing about 150 items. But, of course, these are not all Regulations. A good many of them are other papers. On the other hand, the list does not by any means include all the Regulations.
  One of my reasons for putting down the first three Questions is that Regulations for various parts of the United Kingdom have been poured upon us in such profusion that I think a good many of your Lordships have come to believe that they are like the sands of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude. Now the case

  585
  is not so bad as that, and I thought it would be useful to know exactly what are the facts and what the work of codification entails. As regards the need for it I think there can be no doubt. I will trouble the House with only a few instances. I think that the Regulation which affects most of us is that respecting payment of contributions. There were Provisional Regulations issued on May 22 of last year, and I studied them carefully. On January 20 of this year definitive Regulations came, out. They were not the same as the Provisional Regulations, but there was nothing to show how they differed, and it necessitated a process of collation to find out what changes had been made. One thing became evident when you looked at the end of the Regulations. Form 6 had entirely disappeared. It had somehow been absorbed in Form 4. There was an additional Form 7a, but Form 6 had gone out altogether. That is a detail, but it is rather confusing to find that the forms go in number from 5 to 7.
  There have been a number of Regulations issued as to subsidiary employments which do not necessitate insurance. Four of those were issued at different times last year, and it seemed that the tale was told; but in February of this year a fall of snow occurred, and it was found that people employed by local authorities to remove snow were not included in the Regulations, and therefore a fresh Provisional Regulation was issued. It consisted of a page and a-half of what I may call prelude, and the final four lines were the operative part of it. It cannot be doubted that it is most desirable that these Regulations should be codified. Quite recently Provisional Regulations were issued on outworkers, and they were of such a nature that I am sure if some noble and learned Lords had perused them they would have said something about their being the worst specimen they had seen of legislation by reference. I will read one passage—
  "For the purposes of the principal Regulations notice given under paragraph (1) of Regulation 3 of the National Health Insurance (Outworkers) Regulations (England), 1912, shall be deemed to he a notice of entry duly given under paragraph (1) of Regulation 3 of the principal Regulations, and in die case of any such notice the proviso to paragraph (4),of Regulation 3 of the principal Regulations shall have effect as though the date of the commencement of the period of currency in which the notice took effect were substituted for the 13th day of January, 1913."
  586
  I think it will be evident from this that the sooner codified sets of these enactments are issued the better.
  The noble Earl who represents the Board of Trade in your Lordships' House called my attention to the fact that as regards Part II the Board of Trade have already codified the Regulations. They have done it in a manner which leaves nothing to be desired. All the parts where the first Regulations have been altered by the second set of Regulations are inserted in italics, and the whole is perfectly intelligible and clear. Part II of the Act has not been indexed, nor have these Regulations been indexed. But really Part II has nothing whatever to do with Part I, and I never understood why they were put together; and if the Board of Trade, which is a most business-like Department, thinks it unnecessary that the two parts should be classed together, and that an index to Part II is not required, I should be the first to accept their opinion. But as regards Part I the matter is different, and I cannot help feeling that in this matter the Government have a duty, first of all, to the great body of insured persons. The Government have forced 15,000,000 of His Majesty's subjects to come into this insurance scheme, and it surely is incumbent on them to see that these insured people get the advantages to which they arc entitled will the least amount of difficulty and delay. On the other hand, it has entered into partnership with the friendly societies. The officers of these societies are men of very little leisure, of no great technical education, but of immense goodwill, and it really is a public duty that these men should be as little as possible embarrassed by a series of confusing and technical Regulations, and that what they have to do should be made as clear as possible to them. I beg to ask the Questions which stand in my name.
  THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My Lords, I have nothing to complain of in the way in which the noble Lord has brought this subject before your Lordships' House. He is well qualified to do so, for we are all aware of his great experience in all matters of administration. The noble Lord himself said that he is not finding fault with the Insurance Commissioners, because he quite realises that they have had very heavy work laid upon them to bring into force as quickly as possible an Act which is very far-reaching

  587
  indeed and which we are all aware from the necessities of the case is highly complicated, dealing as it does with a large number of people under varying conditions. As to the Act having caused irritation, I think that was unavoidable owing to the difficulties attending the bringing of this great measure into force. The noble Lord complained of the want of codification. I can assure him that the Insurance Commissioners are at present considering whether it is possible and desirable to codify the various Regulations.
  LORD SANDERSON: I did not complain. I merely said that I hoped they were thinking about it and going to do it.
  LORD STRACHIE: I quite recognise that the noble Lord threw no blame upon the Commissioners, who he recognised were doing their best. I will now give the noble Lord detailed answers to the four Questions which he has placed on the Paper. As regards Part II, as the noble Lord said, he has been in communication with my noble friend the Master of the Horse, who represents the Board of Trade in your Lordships' House. Unfortunately the noble Earl was unable at the last moment to come down to the House to-day, and he has asked me to read his answer, which I will do presently, as regards the question affecting Part II.
  It will be convenient to take Questions 1 and 2 together. Under the provisions of Part I of the National Insurance Act 42 Provisional Regulations applicable to England have been made by the Joint Committee and the English Commission alone or jointly. Twenty-three of these remain in force, and 19 of them have been made substantive. Twenty-six Substantive Regulations (including the 19 above referred to) have been made by the Joint Committee and the English Commission alone or jointly. Thus 49 Regulations in all are in force. Five Substantive Regulations bearing on Part I of the Act have been made by other Departments—the Treasury, Inland Revenue, Board of Trade, and Local Government Board—one of them superseding a Provisional Regulation. The English Commission have made one set of Rules as to the conduct of Special Order inquiries. Two sets of Rules have also been made as to procedure in the County Courts under Sections 66 and 68 respectively. Eighteen Provisional Special Orders have been made, two of
  588
  which are amended editions of Provisional Special Orders. Two Provisional Special Orders were superseded by Substantive Special Orders, three in all having, been issued. Under Section 78 154 Orders. have been made by the Joint Committee or the English Commission, including 129 Orders and further Orders in identical form (mutatis mutandis) with reference to the constitution of Provisional Insurance Committees. The Local Government Board have issued two Orders.
  Then as regards Question 3, the Regulations, Orders, etc., applicable to Scotland, Ireland, and Wales in many cases are substantially identical with those applicable to England, but in some cases they differ owing to the circumstances of the different countries. The dates in most cases are not the same as those assigned to the English Regulations, Orders, etc., but as a rule they do not differ by any considerable period.
  In Question 4 the noble Lord asks whether it will shortly be possible for the Insurance Commissioners and other Departments to issue codified sets of these enactments. A volume containing the Statutory Rules and Orders issued in connection with Part I of the National Insurance Act during 1912 has already been issued. This contains all the Orders, Tables, Rules, and Substantive Regulations with a note of all the Provisional Regulations (which are not technically Statutory Rules and Orders) which were still in force on December 31,1912. The question of consolidating and publishing the Regulations together when they have all become substantive is under consideration.
  The answer, so far as Part II of the Act (Unemployment Insurance) is concerned, is as follows. Six sets of Regulations and two Special Orders have been made by the Board of Trade. In addition, two sets of Regulations have been made by the Treasury and two Orders in Council have been made for adapting the Regulations to workmen in the service of the Admiralty and the Army Council respectively. The Unemployment Insurance Regulations, 1912, have been amended by the Unemployment Insurance (Supplementary) Regulations, 1913, but subject to this all the Regulations and Orders referred to remain wholly in force and have statutory effect as part of the Act. All the Regulations and Orders are applicable to the

  589
  whole of the United Kingdom. A publication has been prepared by the Board of Trade containing Parts II and III of the Act, with Schedules, an Explanatory Memorandum, and Statutory Regulations, Rules, and Orders in connection with unemployment insurance. This includes all the Regulations and Orders made by the Board of Trade; it is provided with a Table of Contents and is published by His Majesty's Stationery Office at the price of threepence.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: May I venture to suggest that the statement which has just been read to the House by the noble Lord might be conveniently presented to us in the form of a Paper. It was not easy for us to follow the figures, and I for one was quite unable to gather the grand total of this immense series of documents which have been laid before the public.
  LORD STRACHIE: Certainly; His Majesty's Government will be only too glad to comply with the noble Marquess's request. The figures shall be circulated as a White Paper with the Minutes.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The Master of the Horse must be one of the most gifted members of His Majesty's Government, because not only is he responsible for the Royal stables and for answering on behalf of the Admiralty in your Lordships' House, but he is also responsible for replying to Questions concerning the complications of the Insurance Act.
  THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: For replying for the Board of Trade, but not for the Insurance Commissioners.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not know which member of His Majesty's Government is responsible for answering for the Insurance Commissioners. But in such a Return as we have been promised I venture to think it would be of the greatest possible use if it could be made quite plain to the secretaries of approved societies, whose characteristics have been so admirably described by my noble friend Lord Sanderson, which of these Orders, Rules, and Regulations are no longer in force, so that they may weed the file which has accumulated. I know from personal experience that these secretaries are in
  590
  some cases simply dazed—that is the only word which describes their situation—by the communications they have received from the Insurance Commissioners. They have taken great pains to master the general details of the Act, but they have quite given up endeavouring to follow the Regulations issued by the Insurance Commissioners. I do not for one moment wish to imply any criticism of the Commissioners any more than my noble friend does. We all know the extreme difficulty of the task which they have to fulfil. But the condition of these secretaries, as I think the noble Lord will know from his local experience, is in some cases almost deplorable.

  THE NATURALISATION LAWS.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information as to the present position of the question of naturalisation which was discussed at the last meeting of the Imperial Conference.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, at the last meeting of the Imperial Conference this question of naturalisation was dealt with and much public interest was excited in the matter; and no wonder, because I do not think the noble Lord who represents the Colonial Office will contradict me when I say that the naturalisation laws of the Empire are in a state of chaos. It is quite impossible for any ordinary man to know where he is naturalised and where he is not. For instance, drawing on my South African experience, I remember that a man who had been naturalised in Cape Town was not naturalised either in England or in the Transvaal. It is a very pretty conundrum, When is a man a British subject and when is he not. Therefore it was with great satisfaction that those of us who are interested in this subject saw it alluded to in one of his Majesty's Speeches from the Throne at the opening of either last session or the session before. But since that time we have heard nothing further about it, and I should be very glad if the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies could inform the House how the question now stands, and whether there is any hope of His Majesty's Government being able before long to lay before the country the solution to which the Empire, I hope, will have agreed.
  *LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I am sure we shall all agree with the noble Earl that the question of naturalisation is a very important one, and that it is at present in a state of chaos. Practically a system of Imperial naturalisation applicable to the whole of the Empire does not exist. The subject was discussed, as the noble Earl has stated, in 1911, and a general agreement on the principles of a measure was arrived at and recorded in a series of resolutions. But this matter, when you come to details and to the drafting of a Bill, takes considerable time to settle, inasmuch as correspondence is somewhat lengthy when it must be carried on with Dominions at the other side of the globe. All I can say at the moment is that correspondence on the re-drafted Bill is still proceeding, and that we hope there will soon be complete agreement. At the moment I cannot go into details, and I do not think it would be convenient or for the public good that I should do so. All I can say is that we hope very soon to produce an agreed-upon Bill.

  THE UGANDA RAILWAY.
  *LORD HINDLIP: My Lords, I rise to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the state of congestion on the Uganda railway, and to move for Papers. In doing so it will not be necessary for me to enter into the past history of the railway, as it will be within the recollection of most of your Lordships that the line was originally constructed for political purposes and more or less to suppress the slave trade. Since those days, however, the whole aspect both of East Africa and of Uganda has changed, and a considerable amount of development has gone on in both countries. The Uganda railway is now a great artery of the Empire and has become a considerable commercial asset; and I should like it to be clearly understood that in any remarks I make this evening I wish to direct no criticism whatever to the authorities who work the railway.
  Let me deal first of all with the two ports of Kilindini and Mombasa, where there is a serious state of congestion. In the year ended June 30, 1912, 686 steamers, representing a tonnage of 1,500,000, entered the ports; this was an increase of 75 steamers and 206,000 tons—an increase in the volume of trade in five years of 75 per cent. This increase is going on steadily. The German East-
  592
  Africa Line are now running boats of 8,000 tons; the Union Castle Line are putting on boats of 10,000 tons; while the Messageries Maritimes are accelerating their service, and their example is being followed by all the other lines which trade with the East African ports. I may also say that a great many of the ships leaving London do so with full cargoes, and many shipments are left behind because of lack of accommodation. We hear many stories of plans for the improvement of the ports to which I am referring, and Mr. Alfred Lyttelton, who early in the year spent a week-end in the Colony, wrote several articles to The Times in which he mentioned a sum of £600,000 which was going to be spent; but, as far as I can make out, nothing has been done. And in the Report for the year ended June last of the East Africa Protectorate I find, on page 16—
  "Work has not yet been begun on the deep water pier at Kilindini, it having been deemed necessary to submit the matter for report by the consulting engineers. The present wharf and general facilities for handling cargo, including lighterage accommodation, have proved inadequate, and with the sudden rush of trade great congestion of traffic has resulted. Remedial measures are, however, now being adopted. The port of Kilindini is in the meantime being used to its fullest capacity, especially for export purposes. Its increasing popularity has prevented an absolute block at the port of Mombasa, but there also the congestion is serious. A growing import and export trade through native development is assured, and if in addition a large import and export trade is built up by white settlement, extensive improvements even on a larger scale than is now contemplated would appear to be amply justified at Kilindini."
  I also find it stated later down on the same page of the Report that—
  "Improved means of communication, by which districts hitherto practically inaccessible are being opened up, must result in a still further increased volume of exports and imports."
  Now let me turn to the railway itself. I find that for the same year ended June, 1912, the total tonnage hauled rose from 77,000 to 115,000 tons; and the number of passengers carried rose front 403,000 to 442,000. The tonnage carried by the steamers on the Victoria-Nyanza rose from 33,000 to 43,000 tons. According to the latest official information I have been able to get, the receipts on the railway up to the end of last March showed an increase of 1,500,000 rupees, I suppose gross, which is roughly £100,000. The Report for last year, from which I have already quoted, referring to the railway, says—
  "The lighter wharfs and new sheds at Kilindini proved useful within limitations, but the accom-

  593
  modation and the facilities for handling merchandise are at present totally inadequate to meet the rapidly increasing traffic of the port."
  Then at the end the Report speaks rather mole hopefully, for it says—
  "Speaking generally, the year's progress from a railway point of view has been very considerable, and the preparations made to meet still greater development in the immediate future will largely conduce to the prosperity of the country, to which an efficient railway service is absolutely necessary. The provision of funds lately made under the grant has removed any anxiety, and the future may be contemplated with confidence, as we can now guarantee that all reasonable requirements in the way of rolling stock, locomotives, and steamers will be met."
  I am not quite sure that that cheery optimism is exactly justified. I am told that of the new engines which have been ordered there are some twenty of a large type capable of hauling considerable loads, but they are too heavy for the bridges between Nairobi and the lake and can only be run between Nairobi and the coast. I do not know whether that is true or not. Another statement in the railway report is that—
  "The export of cotton and cotton seed from Uganda was beyond expectations, and it is predicted that even larger quantities will be exported luring 1913–14 if adequate provision is made in the way of roads, piers, and sheds, the demand for which is strongly emphasised."
  I find another rather disturbing statement as regards the future in a speech made the other day by Mr. Laurence R. Philipps, the chairman of the British East Africa Corporation, who said, addressing the June meeting of the shareholders—
  "Owing to congestion on the steamers and railways in Uganda and British East Africa, it had been impossible to move much of their produce up and down the line. The corporation had had cotton and other produce, which the Government had accepted for shipment across the lake and to the coast, lying at the wharf for three, four, and live months. There was an absolute lack of the necessary facilities for transport. Whenever the question was raised the Government replied that it was not possible to obtain money for providing the requisite locomotives and wagons."
  Mr. Philipps does not seem quite so confident of the future as does Mr. Lyttelton, and I do not think that either Mr. Philipps or the company of which he is chairman can be counted among the hostile critics of the Government, for it may be remembered at the Colonial Office that this company was at its inception a kind of adopted child of the Government of that day.
  These difficulties and this congestion have occurred with existing traffic. I
  594
  would like to know, not what the Government are going to do to meet the traffic non the main line now, but what they are going to do to cope with the traffic which will ensue from the feeders which they are now providing. The Government have on the stocks, I believe, two new steamers for the Victoria-Nyanza. They have built the Jinja-Kakindu railway in Uganda to bring traffic from Lake Kioga, where there are two steamers, some fifty lighters, and where, like Oliver Twist, people are asking for more; while the Government Report itself says that additional rolling-stock is already required. Then there is a railway being built front Port Bell to Kampala and front Nairobi to Fort Hall. Trade is increasing everywhere; and last, but certainly not least, a cable was received in this country the other day saying that the railway from the main line to Magadi was being completed. This railway alone is to bring some 160,000 tons to the Uganda railway, which is hopelessly congested with 115,000 tons!A tonnage of 115,000 may not sound an enormous figure, but the old small engines, which used to be the only ones on the railway and as far as I understand are still the only ones at one section, can only haul a train-load of 100 tons.
  There is another thing I would like to point out to His Majesty's Government. In your leases of land to settlers and planters both in East Africa and in Uganda restrictions are made and a condition is that a certain amount of the land has to be brought into cultivation. That is a restriction of which I do not complain at all; I only wish it had been adopted earlier. But I rather question whether the Government are justified in making these restrictions and conditions until they are in a position to carry the produce of the planter or settler to the market at a reasonable rate and at a reasonable speed.
  The noble Lord who will reply to me will probably say that neither the Treasury nor the taxpayer will provide sufficient money to develop the line as it ought to be developed; so the railway must be starved, and the taxpayer does not get a proper return on the £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 already invested in the railway. I would like to point out two ways in which the money required—a considerable sum, probably £2,000,000 or £3,000,000—could be raised. The Government could raise the money by a loan on the railway

  595
  which might be guaranteed for ten years; or they might conversely follow the methods which have been carried out with great success by the Mexican Government, and in this case sell the railway to a company, retaining 51 per cent. of the Common Stock, which would give them control of the policy of the company. It is perfectly certain that until this congestion is removed by improving the port and the railway and reducing the rates the line will not be economically worked, the taxpayer will not get a proper return, and the country will not be properly developed. I beg to move.
  Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the state of congestion on the Uganda Railway.—(Lord Hindlip.)
  *LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has introduced a question of very great importance and one which is of considerable interest to many members of your Lordships' House, and he has done so in a speech of which I make no complaint, although I think he has been unduly pessimistic about the actual situation, and has incidentally exaggerated some of the extra demands which we shall have to meet shortly. For instance, the Magadi railway will probably not be opened until July, 1914, and for the first year it is practically certain that there will not be exported more than 80,000 tons. Therefore that new demand, which will soon be a very important demand, I believe, upon our resources, will not actually come into being for another year or two.
  I admit the fact that there has been congestion. It is not denied in any way, and it is perfectly natural that those who are interested in East Africa, as the noble Lord has been for many years, should feel some anxiety as to the situation. I therefore hail the opportunity of being able to give the House some particulars in regard to it.
  I may point out, in confirmation of what the noble Lord said, not only how enormously the demand on our resources has increased during the last few years, but what a great part of that increase is actually within the last two years. The tonnage up and down the railway for the year 1906–7 was 52,784 tons; in 1910–11 it was 77,280 tons—an increase for the four years of about 50 per cent., or at a rate of geometrical increase of 10 per cent. per
  596
  annum. From 77,280 tons in 1910–11 the tonnage went up to 115,768 in 1911–12—an increase of almost 50 per cent. in one year after it had been increasing at the rate of 10 per cent. The noble Lord is quite correct in saying that the receipts in money are £100,000 up for the year 1912–13; that shows an increase of 33 per cent. for the last twelve months, and an increase of 33 per cent. in money means, I think, an increase of more than 33 per cent. in tonnage.
  This is not the only Colony where we are faced with a sudden increased demand. The same situation has arisen in Nigeria, and it is especially marked in the demand for tropical products. It is our duty to relieve this congestion, but I really cannot feel gloomy about the cause even if I tried. The real reason of the anxiety is a satisfactory one—namely, the sudden expansion of the demand for the products of these Colonies, which in turn leads to a demand for imported goods to pay for them and a further demand for material in order to take in hand further extension and development. It does seem to me a matter for legitimate satisfaction and pride that this development is proceeding so rapidly in countries where only very recently over-seas trade was practically unknown.
  I turn to the steps which we have taken to meet the demand referred to by the noble Lord. First of all in regard to railway material, at the end of 1911–12 we had 67 locomotives which had 800,000 lbs. of tractive power, and our wagon stock represented 9,600 tons. In the first nine months of 1912–13 five locomotives were sent out with tractive power of 89,000 lbs., and 99 wagons with a capacity of 2,170 tons. During the last three months of the year 1912–13 we sent out six Mallet locomotives with tractive power of 144,000 lbs. There are now on order ten more Mallet locomotives with tractive power of 240,000 lbs., and 280 wagons with a capacity of 5,500 tons; and also five new tank engines have been ordered to replace the five old ones which are being transferred to the Port Bell-Kampala railway. Steps are now beina taken to order ten more engines of the tank type, which can be used if it is found impracticable to use Mallet engines beyond Nairobi. We have been a good deal hampered by the delay in the delivery of railway material. The demand throughout the world has been

  597
  enormous, and it seems as if none of the contractors have been able to keep to their promises; and that, of course, has added somewhat to our difficulties in regard to the matter. But for immediate purposes, for the demands that we see before us at the moment, our experts advise us that we have ordered sufficient engines and trucks. That being the case, I am sure your Lordships will agree that the present time, when prices for these materials are so extraordinarily high, is not a time when we ought to order in advance of our requirements.
  A point of no less importance in regard to the extra carrying power of this railway is that money has been found for eighteen new crossing stations, and when they have all been made there will be crossing stations at distances of nine miles. Four of these new crossing stations have been already completed, and when the whole number of eighteen are ready they will add enormously to the carrying capacity of this railway. The figures which the noble Lord mentioned of the effect of the changes that may be expected in the future represent a total of tonnage far below what can be carried by a single line provided there are adequate and sufficient crossing stations.
  I would next refer to the congestion at the terminus of the railway at Kilindini. To meet urgent immediate wants quick working cranes are being erected, and electric light is being provided for all-night working whenever it is necessary for loading and unloading steamers. That, again, will considerably add to what we can do in the port. As regards the provision of deep-water berths, Mr. Wilson, of the firm of Coode Matthews, the well known harbour experts, has been asked to examine the conditions on the spot on our behalf, and he is preparing a report which we expect will be in our hands within the next few weeks; and I can assure the noble Lord that the report as soon as it reaches us will receive our careful attention. As to the lake, one
  598
  cargo steamer is in process of construction; the plates are on, and it should be launched before the end of the year. The material for a second steamer should be arriving at the port about this time. Also a tug has been provided for Kavirondo Gulf and neighbourhood, and a railway is in process of construction from Port Bell to Kampala which will assist the traffic in cotton and other materials.
  It will be seen, I think, that we have taken energetic steps to meet immediate requirements and to provide for the expansion of the year that lies before us. At the same time everything points to further, and probably more rapid, development in the country. I do not think that we can, or that we ought to, rest content with what we have arranged to do up to the present time. It is our duty to look ahead, first of all of course for the sake of the Protectorate, but secondly also because the increase in the trade of this Protectorate will be of benefit to this country and to the whole Empire. I can assure the House that the whole position is fully realised by the Secretary of State, and that he is giving the question his most earnest consideration.
  *LORD HINDLIP: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his sympathetic reply. I would like to point out that although the Magadi railway possibly will not be opened for another year, there will be, as I understand, a large amount of traffic in the erection of works, and I would express the hope that there will be sufficient powerful engines to cope with the traffic between Nairobi and the lake, not only for the reasons I have stated, but because I think the rates ought to be lower, and they cannot be as long as there is insufficient engine power. I beg to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.