Lords Sitting of 13 May 1919

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR the Woolsack.
The Lord POLTIMORE—Sat first in parliament after the death of his father.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND (POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to confer powers on the National Assembly of the Church of England, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 5:
Provisions as to Wales.
5. The Minister shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, appoint such officers as he may think fit to constitute a Board of Health in Wales through whom he may exercise and perform in Wales in such manner as he may think fit any of his powers and duties; the Board and any officer who is a member thereof shall act under the directions, and comply with the instructions, of the Minister.
LORD TENTERDEN LORD TENTERDEN moved, after the words "The Minister shall," to insert "transfer to one Secretary of the Ministry who may sit as a Member of the Commons House of Parliament the power and duty". The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I should like to draw attention to the clause as it stands in the Bill. It seems that the clause is of such a nature
608
as to place the powers entirely in the hands of the Ministry of Health. The clause reads as follows: "The Minister shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, appoint such officers as he may think fit to constitute a Board of Health in Wales through whom he may exercise and perform in Wales in such manner as he may think fit any of his powers and duties; the Board and any officer who is a member thereof shall act under the directions, and comply with the instructions, of the Minister." It seems to me that if the Bill is passed in its present form the Health Board in Wales will cease to have any entity. In the first place, they are nominees of the Minister of Health; in the second place, the have their hands tied in every direction and are entirely under his command as to what shall or shall not be done
There is, further, no definition of the duties or powers that it is intended to confer upon the Welsh Board of Health. England, Ireland, and Scotland all have their separate Ministries of Health, and it is difficult to understand why Wales should be singled out for this particular treatment. I know that arguments used against Wales having a separate Ministry of Health have been put forward by the Government very strongly. The Government assert that there are constitutional difficulties in the way of it; but with regard to that argument I would like to point out that in 1911, when the Insurance Act was passed, there were no constitutional difficulties in the way of statutory powers being given and a separate Insurance Board being set, up for Wales.
We have a more recent example in the matter of the Pensions Ministry. It has only recently been decided that Wales shall have a separate Director and a separate Board of Pensions, with supreme control over all matters concerning pensions. Therefore it seems to me that there is no real justification for saying that there are constitutional difficulties in the way of Wales having the same treatment in this matter as Scotland and Ireland. With regard to the National Insurance Act of 1911, this provided for the establishment of four National Commissions with powers and duties independent of the other. By that Act Wales got the same treatment as the other three countries, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners are in their powers as independent of England as are the Commissioners for Scotland and

609
Ireland. The establishment of the Welsh Insurance Commission by Mr. Asquith's Government in 1911 was regarded as the basis of Welsh government, for it has Parliamentary Estimates of its own and appears as an entity in all Government and Parliamentary Reports and publications. The Welsh Commission appoints its own staff and deals with public bodies—such as insurance committees, approved societies, and the Welsh. Memorial Association—without reference to, or approval of, any Department in London. By the provisions of the Ministry of Health Bill the powers and duties of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners are entirely transferred to the Ministry of Health, and the Welsh Commission is abolished. Therefore all executive authority in regard to health and insurance is transferred from Cardiff to London.
I have stated what Clause 5 of the Bill provides. The alterations that I desire to effect by my Amendments would make it read in this way: "The Minister shall transfer to one Secretary of the Ministry who may sit as a member of the Commons House of Parliament the power and duty, subject to the provisions of this Act, to appoint such officers as he may think fit to constitute a Board of Health in. Wales through whom be may exercise and perform in Wales in such manner as he may think fit any of the powers and duties of the Minister; the Board and any officer who is a member thereof shall act under the directions, and comply with the instructions, of the Secretary."
By these Amendments some sort of locus standi would be given to the Welsh Board of Health. They would be given statutory powers which under Clause 5 as it stands they do not possess. By the clause as it now is in the Bill the basis of Welsh government as laid down in 1911 is completely destroyed. Insurance committees, approved societies, the Welsh Memorial Association and the staff of the Commission in Wales will, on the passing of the Bill in its present form, pass automatically from Welsh to English control, and the Welsh Board of Health can only be an agency worked by and through permanent officials in London at their own sweet will. Such powers as may be given to it from time to time can be withdrawn from it without reference to Parliament. There is no such National Board in existence; for, as will be observed, it possesses no definite statutory powers.
610
Wales will have ceased to be an administrative unit in health and insurance matters. The position is a hopeless one, and great dissatisfaction exists among public bodies and nationalists in Wales. The following important bodies have passed strong resolutions condemning Clause 5:—The National Free Church Council of Wales, the National Conference of Welsh Education Authorities, the Conference of South Wales doctors, all the county associations of Welsh approved societies, the Federation of Welsh Approved Societies, and the Association of Welsh Insurance Committees.
North and South Wales are agreed in their condemnation, for both the Cardiff and Carnarvon Town Councils have passed identical resolutions of condemnation and demanding equality of treatment with Scotland and Ireland. As to the position of the Welsh Party in the matter, there is no doubt that some of them agreed to the clause before they understood the nature of the offer. They relied on Dr. Addison giving Wales an Under-Secretary and making definite provision for this in the Bill. Tile Party evidently failed either to appreciate the contents of the measure or to assert Welsh claims, for not a shred of independent authority remains in the Principality. On the other band, Ireland and Scotland get their national arrangements consolidated and extended in health and insurance matters.
The following is a copy of the resolution passed by the Cardiff City Council at their meeting held on the 31st day of March last—
"Moved by the Lord Mayor; seconded by Alderman Morgan Thomas; and resolved unanimously—That the City Council of Cardiff, having given its consideration to the provisions affecting Wales in the Ministry of Health Bill as it passed through the Committee of the House of Commons last week, regrets to observe that the provisions of the Bill as it now stands mark a retrograde step in Welsh autonomy, inasmuch as definite statutory powers regarding Health Insurance are withdrawn from Wales, and the Board of Health to be established in Wales is only to have such powers delegated to it (which, of course, can be withdrawn from it) as the Ministry of Health in London may from time to time determine. It, therefore, respectfully urges His Majesty's Government to take such steps and to move such amendments as will not only retain for the Principality the statutory powers which it now possesses, but will enable Wales to be given the same degree of autonomy in Health and Insurance matters as is proposed for Scotland and Ireland in the measures now before Parliament."
I have not asked for the same degree of autonomy as is given to Scotland and

611
Ireland, but I ask your Lordships seriously to consider whether Wales ought not to have the same statutory power as that which is suggested in my Amendment.
I do not think it can be imputed that gallant little Wales has done anything that should deprive her of having the same conditions for the administration of her own civil and political rights as are given to Scotland and Ireland. We are engaged at present in arranging for the determination by small nations of their own future. I do not know why we should eliminate from that maxim one of the small nations of the United Kingdom. It seems to me a very poor compliment to Welshmen, more particularly, perhaps, to the present Prime Minister, who is certainly a man of extraordinary intelligence and ability. I have never been a passive resister in national matters, and I have never failed to express my opinions, although I have not always been liked for doing so. At the same time, it is not a personal matter, but a very serious one affecting the whole of Wales and a very important part of the United Kingdom.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 30, after ("shall") insert ("transfer to one Secretary of the Ministry who may sit as a member of the Commons House of Parliament the power and duty").—(Lord Tenterden.)
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I explained, I am afraid at some length, the position with regard to Wales and with regard to this clause on the Second Reading, and I do not propose to repeat what I said then, except to say that the noble Lord seems to have forgotten that Scotland has its own Health Bill, and I explained the arrangements which were made with regard to Ireland on a former occasion. The new Minister of Health, as he will be, has no power to undertake and never has undertaken to get a Parliamentary Secretary for the Welsh business of the Ministry, and the Welsh Commission has been in all things subject to the Minister responsible for health insurance, exactly the same as the English Commission, and these gentlemen will be Civil servants.
With regard to the Amendment, it appears to me that it means one of two things—either to set up an independent Minister for Wales, or another Parliamentary Secretary. If it is the former, I submit that it is outside the scope of
612
this Bill; and if it is the latter, the Minister cannot be bound to delegate powers of that kind for making the important appointments referred to in the Amendment. Either this officer will be a subordinate or not. It would mean a transfer or removal of responsibility from the Minister to the Secretary. It would be in substance creating a new Minister. I submit that it is outside the scope of the Bill, the Department being for England and Wales. I must ask your Lordships not to support the Amendment.
LORD TREOWEN: I am somewhat disappointed at the answer given regarding this Amendment, though the Amendment itself is not one which I should be prepared to support. But I was in hopes that my noble friend (Lord Sandhurst) would have been able to indicate that it was the intention of the Government to carry out what I understand was an undertaking given to the Welsh Party in the House of Commons, that there should be an officer at the Ministry of Health who, by his knowledge of Wales and his knowledge of the Welsh language—which is even more important—would be in the very closest touch with the organisation in Wales.
I entirely dissent from a good deal that fell from the noble Lord who moved this Amendment. I dissent from the proposition that you can treat Wales in the present condition of things on the same lines as you treat Ireland and Scotland, for the obvious reason which has been pointed out by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill. Similarly, he has explained the reason why a Parliamentary Secretary cannot be appointed. I do not understand, so far as I am informed, that any promise was given that a Parliamentary Secretary should be appointed, but that a similar course should be followed as was adopted in the case of the Education Department, where an officer was appointed who is in charge of the Welsh Department of the Education Office, and who, by his knowledge of Wales and his very great literary knowledge, is of exceptional value in the position which he occupies. That, I hope, is a matter which will yet be sympathetically considered by the Government, and possibly we may have some assurance from the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to have such an officer at the Ministry of Health who will be a Welshman and a Welsh-speaking Welshman.

613
I cannot insist too strongly upon the necessity for having somebody who is able to speak Welsh. During the whole of last year I had exceptional experience from this point of view when I was in charge as Director of National Service in Wales, and I can assure your Lordships that had it not been my fortune to have been brought up in Wales and to speak the language I should have found myself on several occasions in a position that would have been very much to the detriment of the work which we were then carrying out. I do not support the Amendment as it stands, but I hope I may ask my noble friend to give me some assurance that this will be considered by the Government, and that we may have an officer at the new Ministry of Health to whom Welshmen can look, and to whom they can go whether they speak English or Welsh, in full confidence that the special conditions in Wales will be considered.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I do not think my noble friend can expect me to bind the Minister in any particular direction, and in making appointments of Parliamentary Secretaries I suppose that in the usual course the Prime Minister would naturally be the person to determine. At the same time, from what I have observed through a series of years of my right hon. friend, I do not think he would be unsympathetic in the direction that has been mentioned. I will see that the case is clearly put before him.
LORD TENTERDEN: If I have done nothing better, I have at least got some assurance from the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that this matter will be, taken into consideration, and that a Welshman well up in matters of insurance and health in Wales will in all probability be appointed by the Minister. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I do not want the noble Lord to be under a misunderstanding. He seems to imply that I have given an undertaking. Of course, it will be understood that I am not in a position to do that. What I said was that I will communicate to my right hon. friend what has been said, and, knowing his attitude to questions of this kind as I do, I am sure this matter will have his sympathetic consideration.
LORD TENTERDEN: I am perfectly satisfied with the assurance given.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE had upon the Paper an Amendment in Clause 5, after "appoint such officers," to insert the words "being women as well as men." The noble Lord said: I think that if there is any Amendment required in the place where I have put it down, it would probably be more convenient that any such words should be put in after the later Amendments that bear upon the question of the appointment of women have been debated in this House. I therefore propose not to move this Amendment now, but, if the noble Viscount will allow me, I will reserve the right to move something of the sort on Report.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LLANDAFF THE LORD BISHOP OF LLANDAFF moved to delete all words after "powers and duties." The right rev. Prelate said: It will be observed that the earlier part of this clause provides for all that is really essential in the latter part. The first part seems to give ample powers to the Minister to carry out his duties and to carry on the work without the addition of the second half, and I submit that the words proposed to be left out are unnecessary, irritating, and misleading. They are unnecessary because all that is essential appears in the first half of the clause; the Minister is there given full powers, and he is allowed to exercise his powers through officers whom he himself appoints for that purpose. They are irritating because they give an impression that this Board of Health in Wales is to be directed by an official at a great distance who is offered implicit obedience, and I do not think it is the sort of position in which people would like to be placed. I call them misleading because I do not for a moment imagine that this was the intention of the framer of the clause. I do not in the least suggest that they were intended to be in any way irritating, but I can assure your Lordships that there is a great deal of disquiet and uneasiness and dissatisfaction in various parts of Wales in regard to this Bill.
I have had letters and telegrams from many parts of Glamorganshire, Monmouthshire, Denbighshire, and so on, from public bodies of various kinds which show that on different grounds they are not satisfied with the tone of the Bill and with its pro

615
visions. I do not for a moment mean to say that I think that all they ask for is desirable or practicable, but it shows a good deal of uneasiness and dissatisfaction with the Bill in various parts of Wales. When we consider the very important and delicate work that will have to be done under the provisions of this Bill, the many questions that have to be dealt with, surely it is worth while making some effort to remove or to avoid anything that is likely to cause misunderstanding or to lead to any sort of hostility to the working of the Bill. We want the Bill to work smoothly and to be understood by every one. We want every one to work hand in hand in this great purpose which I think the country has at heart. We Welshmen are sometimes very sensitive. Perhaps some of your Lordships may think us too sensitive. But I am sure that the noble Earl the Lord Chairman, who belongs to a kindred race, will understand our feelings and will sympathise with us and know that we sometimes have very sensitive feelings on matters of this kind. He I am sure, if no one else does, will sympathise with us if at any time, perhaps erroneously, we think we are not being fairly treated.
It is well known to your Lordships that there are a considerable number of people desirous of going a great deal further than the Amendment I have put down. Some wish to have a Secretary for Wales as there is for Scotland and for Ireland. Others go so far as to ask for Home Rule for Wales. I do not ask for either of those things. I am advised that either would be quite out of order in connection with such a Bill as this, even supposing it were desirable—and that I think is a question which is open to a good deal of consideration. If the provisions of this Bill are loyally carried out (as I believe they will be), and efficiently carried out (as I hope they will be), then after a time it may be found desirable and possible to enlarge the powers of the Board of Health for Wales, and for other parts of the country too. We must get on by degrees and learn from experience. What we want above all just now is to avoid anything that will lead to misunderstanding, anything that will cause friction or hostility in the minds of any of those who have the carrying out of this Act laid upon them. I do not think that your Lordships need be at all afraid that Welshmen are going to cause trouble, in such a matter as this, in the way of resisting lawful authority. I remember a great
616
many years ago hearing the late Mr. Gladstone say, "The Welsh people are the most easily governed people in the world; they are governed by a silken thread." I do not think he was very far wrong. But we have to remember that something depends upon the answer to the question, Who holds the thread? When we have had trouble in Wales, I think it will be admitted by those who have followed history that it has usually been due to the wrong person having got hold of one end of the thread for a short while, and when it has got into the right hands things have gone smoothly again. We are not making any extravagant demands; we are asking only for a little consideration; and I feel sure that if this Amendment is accepted it will tend to make the Act work more smoothly and efficiently, and it will be a token of good will which will not be thrown away. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, leave out from ("duties") to end of clause.—(The Lord Bishop of Llandaff.)
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: In reply to the right rev. Prelate I cannot say that, as far as my knowledge goes, the representatives of Wales in the other House showed the same anxiety as that to which he has borne testimony. I venture to say that the matter is a very simple one. These gentlemen are Civil Servants and not representatives, and it is obvious that they must therefore he under the orders of the Minister. If this is admitted, as I submit it must he, there can be no harm in the words in the Bill. If these officers were not to be under the control of the Minister it would mean that they would have power without responsibility. Further, the precise words in the Bill, to which the right rev. Prelate objects, were inserted in order to ensure that the Minister shall be able to direct one of these officers to do a particular piece of work without having to consult the whole Board. Therefore these words, I venture to say, are necessary. As well as securing efficient and prompt working, the words entail and ensure the full responsibility of the Minister. I regret to say that I am unable to accept the right rev. Prelate's Amendment.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I must say I do not think that the noble Viscount has given a very satisfactory defence of these words. They are unusual and tend to

617
produce a sense of irritation, and are apt to be misconstrued. They add absolutely nothing, but still they have been put in and can only annoy people who do not know why they are put in.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Staff and Remuneration.
6.—(1) The Minister may appoint such secretaries, officers, and servants as the Minister may, subject to the consent of the Treasury as to number, determine.
(2) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to the Minister an annual salary not exceeding five thousand pounds, and to the secretaries, officers, and servants of the Ministry such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may from time to time determine.
(3) The expenses of the Ministry, including payments to members of consultative councils and committees thereof, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament:
Provided that no payments shall be made to members of consultative councils and committees thereof other than the repayment of travelling expenses and payment of subsistence allowance and reasonable compensation for loss of remunerative time.
(4) There shall be transferred and attached to the Ministry the persons employed under the Local Government Board, the Insurance Commissioners and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, and such of the persons employed under any other Government department in or about the execution of the powers and duties transferred by or under this Act to the Minister, as the Minister and Government department, with the sanction of the Treasury, may determine.
(5) The Minister may from time to time distribute the business of the Ministry amongst the several persons transferred or attached thereto in pursuance of this Act, in such manner as he may think right, and those persons shall perform such duties in relation to that business as may be directed by the Minister:
Provided that such persons shall be in no worse position as respects the tenure of office, salary or superannuation allowances, than they would have been if this Act had not been passed.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), to insert "Subject to subsections (4) and (5) of this section." The noble Lord said: I have no doubt that it is not intended in the construction of the new Departments to appoint a large number of secretaries, officers, and other people, as mentioned, without having first exhausted the existing officers of the different Departments which are going to be transferred to and to constitute the Ministry of Health. Provision
618
is made in the clause for the transfer of officers, and no doubt in good faith they are intended all to be used. My Amendment is not a very large or important one, but it would, I think, lay stress upon the fact that first of all existing officers are to be employed, and then that such further appointments as may be found to be indispensable should be made under the first words of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 37, at the beginning of sub section (1), insert ("Subject to subsections (4) and (5) of this section").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I suggest that my noble friend's Amendment is really not necessary, and I will try to make the matter a little clearer than perhaps I did on a former occasion. This clause deals with two different categories of Civil Servants, and I submit that it should be read as a whole. One category is that of Civil Servants already employed and dealt with in subsections (4) and (5). The other category is that of new appointments to the Health Department, if and when it may be necessary, under subsections (1) and (2). Under the clause, what is intended is that the Minister will take over the staffs of the Local Government Board, the Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, as a whole. If he takes over the health work from other Departments or Offices, the Health Minister and the Departments whence those people came, with the Treasury, will settle how much staff the work so taken will need, and the Minister in taking over the work will measure the amount of staff that the work will require. These persons belong to the Civil Service and not merely to one Department. Subsection (5) imposes a personal obligation on the personnel to carry out the orders of the Minister, while the proviso ensures to that personnel their rights as to pay, pension, and tenure of office. The question of new appointments will arise only after the allocation of the old staff, and I would remind my noble friend that such new appointments will only be made subject to the Treasury as to numbers and pay on the well-known accepted pre-war conditions. Of course, that proviso would not apply to the men who would not previously have been in the Public Service. I hope that I have made my meaning clear to my noble friend, and that if so he will not desire to press his Amendment.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: The explanation which the noble Viscount has been good enough to give really, as far as I was concerned, did not require to be given, because I absolutely understood the clause in the way he describes, and accepted it as such; but he has pointed out that the first thing that comes is the transfer of the officers, and therefore I suggest that the clause should read in the form I proposed—the logical form in which it should appear. That is brought about by the very simple process of saying "Subject to subsections (4) and (5) of this section." Then, after you have transferred these officers under the conditions there mentioned, you will proceed to appoint such new people as may appear to be indispensable. That is what he has said is the intention of the Bill, and I suggest that it would be best described by beginning with the words I have proposed. If the noble Viscount sees difficulty about it, it is not a matter of great importance and I do not press it, but I should rather like to ask him to consider it before Report.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: Very well.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DOWNHAM LORD DOWNHAM moved, in subsection (1), after the words "The Minister may appoint," to insert "one Parliamentary Secretary and". The noble Lord said: If your Lordships will look at the first three lines of Clause 6 and also at the last three lines of Clause 7, I think it will be fairly obvious that it is the intention of the Government to appoint two Parliamentary Secretaries to the Minister of Health, and that both those Parliamentary Secretaries and the Minister of Health shall occupy seats in the House of Commons, and none of these three Ministers of Health for England and Wales shall sit in this House. The object of my amendment is to limit the power of appointment of the Minister to one Parliamentary Secretary instead of two, or more.
The power to appoint two Parliamentary Secretaries, with seats in the House of Commons, was not in the Bill when it went to Grand Committee, but was slipped in by the Parliamentary Secretary during the course of proceedings in Grand Committee, with the simple remark that it might be advantageous to the Minister of Health to be able to appoint two Parliamentary Secretaries. It may be advanta
620
geous to every Minister to appoint two Parliamentary Secretaries instead of one, but that is not the question we should ask ourselves. The question is whether, particularly in these days, with an enormous Budget and expenditure, it is necessary to appoint two Parliamentary Secretaries to any Minister or any Department. I think there might have been something to be said in favour of appointing two Parliamentary Secretaries if the Ministry of Health had been established a year or so ago when the Local Government Board was doing an immense amount of war work and before it was intended to place all the ordinary work of the Local Government Board in another Department.
What has happened since those days? Since the Ministry of Health Bill has been introduced and carried through the House of Commons, the Local Government Board has rid itself of all the enormous amount of war work which it was carrying on. There is the whole supervision of the military tribunals. I know what an immense amount of time they occupied. That is all gone, because the work of the military tribunals has been suspended. Then again there is the work connected with the Belgian refugees. For the most part the Belgian refugees have gone back to Belgium. Further, the work connected with distress due to the war, air raids, and so on, is now infinitesimal. There is also the work connected with the Civil Liabilities Committee. That was personally entrusted to me before I was President of the Local Government Board. It has now been transferred to the Minister of Labour, and now we hear from the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that it is intended very shortly to transfer to some other Government Department the enormous work done in connection with local government which is not connected directly with health.
Will not that Government Department come to us and say "Very well; if we are to undertake all this work, which was hitherto clone by the Local Government Board, must we not, too, have another Parliamentary Secretary added to us?" It was the fashion of the last. Government—and I think there was much to be said for it, because we were at war—to establish new Department after new Department. No less than six new Departments were established with Ministers drawing the salaries of Cabinet Ministers, and no less than nine Parliamentary Under-Secretaries

621
have been added during the last few years. Now, when we are hoping to get back to something like a peace establishment, we are asked to sanction the appointment of two more Under-Secretaries, one for England and Wales, and one under the Scottish Bill (which I have in my possession). I think it is time that some protest was made by those who consider that we ought to endeavour to get back to a peace footing and that the time has arrived when we should seriously review this constant attempt to add to the official Members of the House, of Commons.
I should like to look at this question also from another point of view. Not so very long ago it was usual, in forming a Government, if the principals of the great spending and administrative Departments were not in this House, that those Departments should be represented by Parliamentary Secretaries. If any one will cast his eye over the list of the members of this Government he will see how few of the great spending and administrative Departments are represented here either by the principal officer or by the Parliamentary Secretary. Since I have had the honour of being a member of your Lordships' House I have observed that, if you want to obtain any information about a great spending or administrative Department, you have to rely upon one of the very courteous officials, who will read you out an answer obtained from a Department with which he has no connection and into which he does not go in the ordinary way which alone will enable him to obtain real knowledge of the Department and what is going on there.
This is the first time on which your Lordships have been asked in a Bill to sanction this new departure. I hope that you will seriously consider whether you will set up this Parliamentary precedent and whether, by passing this Bill in its present shape, you will subscribe to the new doctrine that the House of Commons is to be omnipotent and that this House is to be robbed of much of its efficiency. What I cannot help thinking is that the matter of public health is as much a concern of your Lordships as of the other House, and if there are to be three Ministers for Health for England and Wales, it is quite possible to find in this House at least one efficient member to represent the work which is done in connection with the Ministry of Health. I beg to move this Amendment which confines the power of
622
the Government to the appointment of one Parliamentary Secretary, instead of allowing them to appoint two or more Parliamentary Secretaries in connection with the new Department.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 37, after ("appoint") insert ("one Parliamentary Secretary and").—(Lord Down-ham.)
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I am informed that there are two or three Amendments on the Paper dealing with this subject. There is another in Clause 7 in the name of my noble friend below the gangway, and a third, also dealing with much that has been mentioned by the noble Lord below the gangway, which stands in the name of Lord Bledisloe. What I am told is that the Amendment is unnecessary as the word "Secretaries" in the clause covers more than one Secretary, and this is common form. For example, it is in the Local Government Board Act, 1871, the word meaning a Secretary, Parliamentary or not. At the same time, as the noble Lord has raised the question, I am quite willing to argue it now. I think this Amendment of my noble friend does not reduce the number of Parliamentary Secretaries, but ensures that there should be one Parliamentary Secretary only in the House of Commons, which means one in your Lordships' House. This is rather a delicate matter, because the first result of this will be that there will be an end of the Lord Chamberlain playing a hand in what I think will be an extremely interesting Department. After that mild joke, I might say that I have always sympathised with what was said by the noble Lord—which, I think, gains a certain amount of acceptance with your Lordships—in regard to important Departments being represented here by what Lord Beaconsfield used to call the "janissaries of the bedchamber." And it stands to reason that those of us who do that work cannot be conversant with it to the same extent as would be an Under-Secretary who lives and has his being within the walls of the Office which he represents. I venture to say that there is another side to this question, and it is this. By the Bill one of the Under-Secretaries may be in your Lordships' House. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that. When it comes to distributing the Offices of the Government, if this were put in the Bill would it

623
not tie the hands of the Prime Minister in arranging the representatives of Offices in either House of Parliament? I would respectfully suggest that, so far as my recollection goes over a long period, that business has generally been done by arrangement between the Prime Minister and the noble Lord who leads the Government in this House. I do not think that any provision of this kind, laying down that there should be an Under-Secretary in this House or in one House or the other, has found its way into an Act of Parliament, and I submit it should not find its way into this Bill. I cannot agree to the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I cannot feel that the House will be entirely convinced by the explanation which my noble friend opposite has given in reply to the strictures of the noble Lord below the gangway. It is very likely that in ordinary times, had such a proposal as this appeared in a Bill, it would have passed without, much comment here or elsewhere. The fact is, as the noble Lord pointed out, that the creation of these minor Ministers in great numbers has become almost a disease, and that when a proviso of this kind appears in an Act of Parliament it is assumed almost as a matter of course that there will be a duplication of Ministers serving this particular Department.
The noble Viscount stated that he himself might be affected by the appearance of an Under-Secretary because the work which he is doing would then fall into the hands of somebody else. We all agree that nobody could do this particular work better than my noble friend; and he gives the closest attention to it. It is quite true, although it is not invariably the fact, that those members of His Majesty's Household who are entrusted with the care of Departments in this House do not always get the same advantage as those who are permanently attached as Under-Secretaries to a Department. But still there are exceptions. I can recollect, my own first appearance in this House, holding a post in Her Majesty's Household as it then was, and representing the Board of Trade here. There was a great deal of work at that time in connection with the early stages of electric lighting—so much so that I was given a room at the Board of Trade, where I attended very day and was given the services of a private secretary there. When the business of a Department demands it I conceive that the same might
624
easily happen, and I have no doubt sometimes has happened, to other noble Lords.
What we feel is that, as matters now stand, the provision in Clause 7, subsection (5), is something of a challenge, and it is to that that my noble friend's Amendment is directed. I should go so far as to say that if the Minister sits in the House of Commons and the Department can be as well represented here as it is now by the noble Viscount, a Parliamentary Under-Secretary ought to be dispensed with altogether and his salary saved. There is no reason why this Department more than others should necessarily have two Ministers sitting in the House of Commons. I confess I cannot see that any answer has been given to the Amendment of the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I should like to add one word with reference to what has occurred in your Lordships' House before on the question of these additions to Ministers. The House of Lords considered the whole of this question four years ago in great detail, and I remember well—when all parties in this House agreed on a Resolution inculcating the severest economy on Public Departments—a speech made by the late Lord St. Aldwyn with regard to the danger of the increasing absorption of representation in the House of Commons by the Government. There were two points of view which your Lordships considered. The first point of view was as to the division between the two Houses. The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill said that there was an objection to tying the hands of the Prime Minister. I confess that that objection sits very lightly on me. I should like to see the Prime Minister's hand tied a great deal more than they are at present in this matter.
I think the present representation of the Government in this House tends to become a farce. Men with great experience have to address themselves to members of the Government, and those noble Lords who reply do their best to interpret what has been put before them by the Office of which they are not members, and of which, therefore, they can only act as the spokesmen in this House. But that is not the point of view which I think should most strongly influence us. I call your Lordships' attention to this—that as soon as we passed the Resolution for ecenomy, and as soon as the Government appointed a Committee with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to

625
preside (which was occupied for four months in recommending retrenchment), the Government on its own motion added more than 50 per cent., almost 100 per cent., to its Parliamentary Representation and to those who are paid to represent the Government.
The fact that at this moment there are something like 70 or 80 members of Parliament sitting in the other House who are attached to the Government is becoming a grave danger to the State. You cannot bring forward any Motion without finding on an ordinary occasion that you are confronted in that House by 70 or 80 gentlemen whose votes are already decided; and in a House which is not always as full as it used to be, it makes a material difference. I think it is most demoralising to the House of Commons itself. In regard to the appointments made under these new Ministries, there has been shown absolutely no desire to study the fact that the public purse at this moment is strained to the uttermost.
When the Education Bill was before this House, about ten months ago, I ventured to prophesy that the figure which had been adopted as the expenditure of the Ministry in the first year would be doubled. It has been doubled. Next year it will probably be trebled. I have never wished in any way to assume that we ought not to make wise expenditure because we are so largely in debt, but I do believe that one of the greatest evils which has arisen during the war has been this enormous increase of the salaried members of the Government and of the Civil Service who are employed under the Government. It has been absolutely destructive of all possible economy in any other Department. When people see appointments made by the dozen, many of the men have not enough work to fill the day, they feel that in all public and private economy they have the worst example which could possibly come -from the Government.
This is a new Ministry. It has to work through Committees, rightly or wrongly, which will be to a large extent paid and subsidised. Therefore, if they are to be justified at all, they must be justified on the ground that they take a great deal of labour off the immediate staff of the Ministry. That being so I feel that the
626
only protest we can make is that the Amendment to reduce the Parliamentary Secretaries to one instead of two should be carried, and we should in this House at all events show that we are determined to press for economy in the public services.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I have had a good deal to do within the last few years with Public Departments, and so far from the officials not having their time fully occupied, as was said by my noble friend who spoke last, my experience is that their hours are extremely long, and their duties of the most assiduous nature. Many of them get to the office at ten o'clock in the morning and leave at eight at night. Their time is most fully occupied, far more so than is the case in the private offices that I have come in contact with. I regret very much if my reply was not satisfactory to my noble friend the noble Marquess, but I may point out that the War Office has three Parliamentary chiefs in it—the Secretary of State; the Financial Secretary to the War Office; and the Under-Secretary of State, who, it so happens, is in this House. Then the Admiralty have the First Lord, the Secretary to the Admiralty, and a Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. Those are great War Departments. Surely, my Lords, we are now setting up what is probably one of the greatest peace Departments that has entered into the minds of statesmen in this country, or any other country; and the Minister, after full consideration of what his work is to be in its initial stages, how it is likely to develop, and the necessity for developing it with the utmost rapidity while at the same time ensuring that the work shall be properly done, feels that this proposal should be agreed to, and I should greatly regret if your Lordships felt it your duty to deprive him of one of the chief officials who would help him to carry out his duty. Your Lordships will, of course, do what you think right in the matter, but I urgently ask you to support me in opposing the Amendment.
LORD BLEDISLOE: As I have an Amendment to the subsequent clause to much the same effect, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a few words on this matter, about which I feel very strongly indeed. My Amendment is a modest one. It is simply to the effect that if the Minister is himself a member of the

627
House of Commons it shall only be lawful for one Secretary of the Ministry to sit in that House. This Bill contemplates the possibility of three Ministers, including the Head of the Department himself, all sitting upon the overcrowded Front Government Bench in another place, a most uncomfortable, and, I may tell your Lordships, a very undignified position under the existing conditions of overcrowding. How is it possible to justify in that event three Ministers? Nothing that the noble Viscount has said to us this afternoon has given any reason whatever for having in that House, as representing this Department, more than two Ministers at the most.
I venture to suggest to your Lordships, in these matters concerning public health, the actual administration of which throughout the country rests after all with our county councils, our borough councils, and other health bodies, that with regard to the constitution of those bodies there is a bigger representation and a more authoritative voice in this House than you will find in the other House at the present time, or I believe at any time. That is to my mind one very good reason for having within the four corners of the Bill provision for at least one representative of this Department sitting in this House.
I have a further objection to this multiplication of Ministers, about which even the Treasury nowadays does not seem to have any very sensitive conscience. It is this Every additional Minister that is appointed results in a company, a platoon, if not a battalion of permanent officials who gather round that Minister—
Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
I have had the experience of serving in a Ministry which has to say the least of it been well equipped in the matter of numbers, and my great objection to this multiplication of Ministers, and through Ministers of officials, is that you destroy to a large extent the efficiency of the work done, and almost invariably it involves considerable delay in the execution of that work.
628
I should like, if I may, to give your Lordships an illustration which has come to my own notice during the last few months where the Head of a Department in consequence of the considerable pressure put upon him—and quite justifiable pressure—from some important trade interest, decided to make an Order in reference to a certain controlled commodity. Purely as a matter of courtesy he wrote a Minute to the Head of another Department who might conceivably in certain circumstances be to some small extent affected. There was no reason why he should do so, but as a matter of courtesy he did it, and that Minute passed through the hands of no less than twelve different persons, all of whom made absolutely unconvincing minutes which were neither instructive nor useful. I perused them all myself, and I can tell you their nature. "Is this a matter which should be approved?" What do you think should be done in this matter?" "Does this meet with your approval?" "Is not this a matter that this Department should have a. say in?" and so on. Having passed through no less than ten officials it had to rise through all these officials again, and eventually passed through the Head of the Department before it was finally transferred to the Department which initiated this particular matter. As a result no information was conveyed except to the effect that the other Department saw no reason why the Order should not be made. It was a matter of great urgency; yet owing to this multiplication of officials, all apparently seeking to justify their departmental existence, extreme and unfortunate delay was caused. I should like to put that before your Lordships as a convincing reason why you should not unduly multiply either Ministers or Government officials. It is not for me as a new Member of your Lordships' House to press the point so ably put by my noble friend Lord Downham, but it seems to me, in matters affecting public health, that rather than have three Ministers in the House of Commons you, with your very special knowledge of these subjects, are entitled at least to one.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be inserted shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 21.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Knollys, V.

Ludlow, L.

Crewe, M.

Llandaff, L. Bp.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Salisbury, M.

Monson, L.

Ampthill, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Bathurst, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Harewood, E.

Askwith, L.

Pontypridd, L.

Howe, E.

Avebury, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Northbrook, E.

Barrymore, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Onslow, E.

Bledisloe, L.[Teller.]

Rotherham, L.

Selborne, E.

Blythswood, L.

Saltoun, L.

Stanhope, E.

Brodrick, L.(V.Midleton.)

Southwark, L.

Strafford, E.

Chaworth, L.(E. Meath.)

Strachie, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Downham, L.[Teller.]

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Erskine, L.

Swaythling, L.

Allendale, V.

Faringdon, L.

Tenterden, L.

Devonport, V.

Forester, L.

Terrington, L.

Haldane, V.

Forteviot, L.

Treowen, L.

Harcourt, V.

Greville, L.

Weardale, L.

Hood, V.

Harris, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Jersey, E.

Hylton, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.)

Lytton, E.

Inverforth, L.

Newton, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Ranksborough, L.

Sutherland, D.

Rathcreedan, L.

Annesley, L.

Rothschild, L.

Colebrooke, L.

Shandon, L.

Bradford, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Somerleyton, L.[Teller.]

Chesterfield, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Stanmore, L.[Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, after "determine" at the end of subsection (1), to insert "and in the making of such appointments shall give equal consideration to the suitability of persons of both sexes.''
The noble Lord (who was indistinctly heard) said: This Bill is peculiarly interesting to very large numbers of women, and it is one which women are peculiarly fitted to deal with. Your Lordships the other night threw out an Amendment for the appointment of a Women's Council. In this they agreed with the other House, and they appeared to agree to the principle that there should not be discrimination between the sexes. If so, it will scarcely be logical to throw out what I think is a useful amendment in favour of equal consideration.
I am aware that there is a Committee sitting under the chairmanship of the noble Viscount, Lord Gladstone, with regard to the Civil Service. I see no reason why with a Bill of this kind the House should wait for the consideration of that Committee. This is either a shuffling Bill—in which event women might come in on the re-shuffle—or it is, as I hope, a preliminary
630
Bill. If it is a preliminary Bill, it is desirable that the groundwork should be fixed. Many of your Lordships will have had experience during the war of the advantages of having women in your offices. You know how well women have been able to do their work. They are now likely to be pressed still more to go into the Civil Service; and although the Civil Service Commissioners may at the present time have to return only second-class clerks who are males, yet second-class clerks are not the only officers covered by this Amendment. The Amendment should help the Minister to exercise a wise discretion. I have endeavoured to obtain a wording which may avoid the appearance of dictation to the Minister that he is to do this or that, which no other Minister in the country has placed upon him. I think it is a natural aspiration on the part of women that they should have something to do with the appointments under this Bill, and I think it will be a matter for which they will be thankful if this Amendment is accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 39, after ("determine") insert ("and in the making of such appointments shall give equal consideration to the suitability of persons of both sexes".—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Before the noble Viscount answers, I should like to make an observation. I have an Amendment which follows, and Lord Selborne has one also* to the same effect, which is more definite in its terms. The difficulty is that it suggests that the discrimination which would have to be taken into account would be a discrimination simply on account of sex. I am quite aware that the rules of the Civil Service Commissioners come in there and cause a difficulty. A woman in the ordinary case has not qualified herself by going through the conditions necessary in order to make her eligible, and if what the Amendments of Lord Selborne and myself say were all, I think it might give rise to some danger to the prospects of the appointment of women. What I draw your Lordships' attention to is this, that during the war a considerable number of women have been employed in the Civil Service who never complied with these preliminary conditions, yet they have not only been educated in their work but many of them have done very well indeed, and been quite fit for the occupation of high posts. For that reason, speaking for myself, if the Government would agree to accept Lord Askwith's Amendment—although it is wider, still it declares the principle and avoids the technical difficulty to which I have alluded—I should be content, and would then not move my Amendment.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I cordially agree with much that was said by the noble Lord below the gangway (Lord Askwith), and also with what was said by the noble and learned Viscount, as to the way a great number of women have performed their duties during the war. I think it will render matters short if I say at once that I gladly accept the Amendment of Lord Askwith.
* The Amendments on the Paper in the names of Viscount HALDANE and the Earl of SELEORNE were as follows:—

BY THE VISCOUNT HALDANE.
Page 4, line 39, after ("determine") insert ("Provided that, in the making of any such appointments, no discrimination shall be made for reasons of sex between men and women").

BY THE EARL OF SELBORNE.
Page 4, line 39, after ("determine") insert ("provided that in the making of any such appointment no discrimination be made for reasons of sex between men and women").
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have only to say that, this being so, like my noble and learned friend behind me I will not move the Amendment which stands in my name. I confess to being incompetent to appreciate the argument of the Goverment against the words inserted in Grand Committee in the House of Commons which my friend and I have both chosen for our Amendment; because the fact is—and every one is aware of it—that a great number of women have been engrafted on to the Civil Service during the war and are filling their positions with great advantage to the public service. No one supposes for a moment that women in the future will not be included in the list of Civil Servants.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I have an Amendment down in the same place [after "determine," to insert "including women as well as men" but I do not propose to move it, because I agree with the other opinions that have been expressed with regard to Lord Askwith's Amendment. I should only like to say that it occurred to me that there was a little difficulty about the word "discrimination," and that on the whole, when I saw Lord Askwith's Amendment down, I thought it was the best Amendment. I am very glad that it has been arranged that this is the Amendment to which your Lordships will consent.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Seal, Style, and Acts of Minister.
7.—(1) The Minister may sue and be sued by the name of the Minister of Health, and may for all purposes be described by that name.
(2) The Minister shall have an official seal, which shall be officially and judicially noticed, and shall be authenticated by the signature of the Minister, or of a secretary, or any person authorised by the Minister to act in that behalf.
(3) For the purpose of acquiring and holding land the Minister for the time being shall be a corporation sole by the name of the Minister of Health, and all land vested in the Minister shall be held in trust for His Majesty for the purposes of the Ministry of Health.
(4) Upon and by virtue of the appointment of any person to be Minister, the benefit of all

633
deeds, contracts, bonds, securities, or things in action vested in his predecessor at the time of his predecessor ceasing to hold office shall be transferred to and vested in and enure for the benefit of the person so appointed, in the same manner as if he had been contracted with instead of his predecessor, and if his name had been inserted in all such deeds, contracts, bonds, or securities instead of the name of his predecessor.
(5) Subsections (2) to (4) of section eleven and section twelve of the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916, shall apply to the Minister and the Ministry of Health, and to the office of the Minister of Health in like manner as they apply to the Ministers and Ministries mentioned in those sections:
Provided that it shall be lawful for two secretaries of the Ministry to sit as Members of the Commons House of Parliament at the same time.
LORD DOWNHAM LORD DOWNHAM moved the deletion from subsection (5) of the words "Provided that it shall be lawful for two secretaries of the Ministry to sit as Members of the Commons House of Parliament at the same time." The noble Lord said: After the very large majority which voted on my Amendment on Clause 6, by which it is now made impossible for the Minister to appoint more than one Parliamentary Secretary, it seems hardly necessary for the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill to defend the words I propose should be left out, and I therefore move to omit them.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is a consequential Amendment.
LORD DOWNHAM: Yes.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 16, leave out from ("sections") to the end of subsection (5).—(Lord Downham.)
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I am not quite clear whether the Amendment that was carried will do in that phraseology, but I will inform myself, and, if necessary, communicate with my noble friend before Report.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Provisions as to Orders in Council.
8.—(1) Any Order in Council made under this Act may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Order.
(2) Before any Order in Council under this Act (other than an Order appointing a day for the commencement of this Act or any provision thereof) is made, notice of the proposal to make the Order and of the place where copies of a draft
634
of the Order can be obtained shall be published in the London Gazette, and in such other manner as the Minister thinks best adapted for insuring publicity, and a draft of the Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament for not less than thirty days on which such House is sitting.
(3) In the case of a draft of an Order providing for any transfers of powers or duties to or from the Minister under subsections (2) and (3) of section 3 of this Act, the Order shall not be made until both Houses by resolution have approved the draft or except subject to any modifications and adaptations which may be agreed to by both Houses, and in the case of a draft of any other Order which is required to be laid as aforesaid, if either House before the expiration of such thirty days presents an address to His Majesty against the draft, or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any new draft Order.
LORD DOWNHAM LORD DOWNHAM moved, in subsection (3), after "Act," to insert "or for the establishment of any Consultative Council." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will be aware that the Bill as it stands gives powers to the Ministry of Health to appoint any number of Consultative Councils. Those Consultative Councils are to be appointed by Order in Council, and the only control that either House will have over those Orders in Council will be the very feeble amount of control which resides in the power to move in either House that the Order in Council be disagreed with. In the House of Commons it is customary for that Motion to be made at about eleven o'clock at night, and any one who is familiar with the process knows how extraordinarily difficult it is to get the House of Commons to disagree with the Government at that time of night. Therefore really the power to disagree with any Order, if it consists of the ordinary procedure, is almost useless.
It was because the Government saw how useless that power was that they have generously consented to apply an entirely different procedure to many of the Orders in Council under this Bill. But on such Orders in Council as transfer certain powers under subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 3 of this Bill an entirely new process has been adopted. It will be impossible for any of those Orders to become law and to be operative until both Houses have by Resolution signified that they agree with those Orders. The object of my Amendment is that this new process, which is a process that gives real power to both Houses of Parliament, shall also apply to all these Orders setting up Consultative

635
Councils. I think that this new process certainly ought to be applied to these new Orders. I myself think that these new Orders ought to be in the Bill itself, in the Schedule, because there may be a great number of them afterwards which we shall want to criticise. It is quite possible for every Department to set up Consultative Councils by Order in Council. We can never tell that the Order in Council will be the same as the draft Order submitted to us for criticism in a White Paper. These Orders in Council might give much larger powers to the consultative bodies which are to be set up. All kinds of things might creep into these new Orders, and we shall have no power to control them unless they are submitted to some such process as I have described. Therefore I plead with the Government to allow my Amendment to be carried, so that these new Orders in Council setting up new Consultative Councils shall be subject to Resolutions of both Houses. We shall then have an opportunity of asking the Government to defend the Orders, and if necessary they could be sent to some Committee for re-consideration, and might then appear again in a new form in which they would be more palatable to both Houses. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 33, after ("Act") insert ("or for the establishment of any consultative council").(Lord Downham.)
VISCOUNT SANDHURSTThe Amendment, as the noble Lord has said, seeks to put the Orders in Council in regard to Consultative Councils in the same category as the Orders in Council with regard to new matters under Clause 3, subsections (2) and (3). As he rightly says, in regard to new matters which are to be placed under the responsibility of the new Minister, or other matters to be withdrawn from him, these Orders in Council are to be submitted to both Houses of Parliament instead of merely lying for thirty days on the Table of both Houses. This Amendment has been the subject of very careful consideration. What I want to submit to your Lordships is that the two cases are not on all fours one with the other. The new matters referred to in Clause 3, subsections (2) and (3), will be new matters the principle of which has not been settled by the Bill. It is in regard to those new matters that Resolutions of both Houses have been arranged for. The Consultative Councils are not such new matters. The
636
principle is in the Bill; that is, how they are to be set up and the power to set. them up. More than that, as my noble friend has said, a copy of the draft Order, as a White Paper, was laid on the Table of both Houses as long ago as February, faulty though my noble friend considers it to be.
As soon as this Bill has received the Royal Assent, what the Government is most anxious to do is to get to work as quickly as they can, and indeed I do not think it is using exaggerated language to say that the public strongly demands this of the Government. The Consultative Councils are an essential feature of the new Ministry in the Bill, in procedure, usefulness, and effectiveness, and I do not think my noble friend below the gangway really wishes to procrastinate or unduly to delay that procedure, or make the start of the new Ministry more difficult than it is; and it is no easy matter as it is. These Resolutions could not fail to cause unnecessary delay. I submit that it is unnecessary because the Orders in Council will do no more than carry out what is laid down in principle in the Bill, and in regard to time it is not easy always to regulate time in the House of Commons.
These are Statutory Committees. It was proposed, and in the House of Commons agreed, that they should be a regular part of the new Ministry. They will replace the Statutory Advisory Committee set up under the Insurance Act of 1911, section 58, and the different Councils will have the advantage of not being too large and unwieldly. The Insurance Advisory Committee, I think, at one time numbered 150 persons, which was a drawback to that Advisory Committee. Your Lordships will remember that the normal pressure of control is secured by lying thirty-six days on the Table. Of course, your Lordships will form your own judgment. I do not wish to labour too much what happens in another place, but the matter was discussed very fully and the proposal of the Government was supported on the ground that the principle is in the Bill—the same ground as that on which I take my stand—and I ask your Lordships to support the Government in refusing to accept this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is always very difficult to press my noble friend opposite, because he is so extremely courteous and conciliatory in his methods

637
of dealing with your Lordships that one always feels inclined to accept what he says. I have, however, another reason for desiring not to press him at the present moment. He is aware that many of your Lordships have very grave doubts as to this system of Advisory Councils. I will not repeat what I ventured to say on the last occasion when we considered this subject, but it was rather understood then that the whole matter would be brought up again on Report Stage, and therefore it would be, perhaps, rather a pity to force a decision now. I still entertain a hope that the Government will, upon consideration, see that some sort of concession is really required. It may be that when your Lordships come to consider the Bill upon Report, you may be unwilling to accept the proposal of Consultative Councils at all, but it is more likely that you will be anxious to have some safeguard, and if one forces the Government to say now that they will not have some safeguard we should make it more difficult to come to a unanimous decision on the next occasion. Therefore I rather hope that we shall not have to conic to a decision at this moment. I think the Government will do well to reconsider the non possumus attitude which my noble friend has thought it his duty to adopt on this occasion and on the last. The danger of these Advisory Councils is a very real one. I am not denying that they have merits, but the dangers are very real and it is, I venture to think, the duty of your Lordships' House to insert what safeguards are required, and we hope the Government will co-operate with us in trying to arrive at what these should be.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: We are not now discussing, I understand, whether there should be or should not be these Consultative Councils. There will be a future opportunity of doing so, but enough was said on a previous day to show that considerable doubt exists in the minds of several of your Lordships as to whether the creation of these Consultative Councils is politic. For myself, I have the gravest doubts about their desirability. In the meanwhile, I notice that their creation is to be left to Departmental action, entirely unchecked by anything more or better than the usual perfunctory delay of thirty days. All I have to say is that that is the lowest amount of security that could be afforded to either House. We all know that the communication of
638
these Orders in Council, with a view to laying them on the Table for thirty days, is a matter which probably takes members of either House thirty days to discover. Then somebody finds that a piece of manuscript paper has been placed in one of the libraries of the House, and when members begin to take action they see, to their dismay, that the time has run out:
What is the alternative? It is that, in a matter which the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill says is one in which the public are deeply interested, the Government should be asked to do no more than get from both Houses an affirmative Resolution in favour of the step they are taking. That will be easy to do. It will be easy to do in their own time. It will be a piece of Government business. All that they have to do is to put down the Motion on the Paper and to give, at the most, one evening. Probably half an evening will suffice; and in a great many instances, as we are told the public are keen on these things" probably there will be no debates at all. The Government, if they are doing the right thing, will get their step quite as easily as they would get it if they relied upon this very insufficient security which, I think, only tends rather to awaken the suspicions of Parliament and is really a procedure which has been very much discredited in the past.
LORD DOWNHAM: I think Lord Salisbury has given me some excellent advice—not to press my Amendment on this occasion, but to return to the whole subject on Report. Then I shall certainly press for some limitation, both in quantity and quality, as to the Consultative Councils, to which I entertain very deep objection. I beg to withdraw.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: What I thought possible has taken place. We have been discussing two things. One is the Advisory Councils, and the other is the Order in Council. I am afraid I must stick to my guns with regard to the Amendment of the noble Lord below the gangway.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST VISCOUNT SANDHURST moved, in subsection (3), to delete "or except subject to any modifications or adaptations which may be," and to substitute "nor if any modifications are." The noble Viscount said: This is merely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 35, leave out from ("draft") to ("agreed") in line 36, and insert ("nor if any modifications are").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST VISCOUNT SANDHURST moved, in subsection (3), after the words "agreed to by both Houses," to insert "otherwise than as so modified."
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 36, after ("Houses") insert ("otherwise than as so modified").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Application to Ireland.
10.—(1) For the purpose of promoting the health of the people in Ireland and exercising the powers conferred on him by this Act the Chief Secretary shall be the Minister of Health for Ireland, and it shall be his duty as such Minister to take all such steps as may be desirable to secure the effective carrying out and coordination of measures conducive to health, including measures for the prevention and cure of diseases, the treatment of physical and mental defects, the initiation and direction of research, the collection, preparation, publication, and dissemination of information and statistics relating thereto, and the training of persons for health services.
(2) The provisions of this Act with respect to consultative councils shall apply to Ireland with the substitution therein of the Lord Lieutenant for His Majesty and with the addition of the following provision—
For the purpose of giving advice and assistance and making proposals to the Chief Secretary in connection with his powers and duties under this Act a council shall be established (which shall be called the Irish Public Health Council) consisting of the following persons—

(a)The Vice-President and the two other Commissioners of the Local Government Board for Ireland;

(b)The chairman and such two others of the Irish Insurance Commissioners as may be nominated by the Chief Secretary;

(c)The Registrar General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Ireland;

(d) A registered medical practitioner, who shall act as chairman of the council under the direction of the Chief Secretary, and three other registered medical practitioners, one of whom shall be a woman and one of whom shall be a medical practitioner who is registered on the Medical Register in respect of a diploma in sanitary science, public health, or State medicine;

640

(e) Six other persons having practical experience of matters relating or incidental to or affecting the health of the people.

(3) The Chief Secretary shall from time to time nominate the persons who are to be members of the Irish Public Health Council under paragraphs (d) and (e) of the preceding subsection, including the chairman.
(4) The expenses of the Chief Secretary and of the Irish Public Health Council under this Act, including a salary to the chairman of that council of such amount as may be determined by the Chief Secretary with the approval of the Treasury, and reasonable compensation to the other members of that council for loss of remunerative time, shall be paid in like manner as the expenses of the Ministry.
(5) Save as aforesaid, or as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the foregoing provisions of this Act shall not apply to Ireland.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST VISCOUNT SANDHURST moved, in subsection (2), after the words "the Lord Lieutenant for His Majesty," to insert "of Ireland for England and Wales and of the Dublin Gazette for the London Gazette." The noble Viscount said: This is a verbal Amendment which supplies appropriate language in regard to Irish matters. I do not think I need further explain.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 12, after ("Majesty") insert ("of Ireland for England and Wales and of the Dublin Gazette for the London Gazette").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in subsection (2) (e), to substitute "Ten" for "Six," and, after "persons," to insert "half of whom shall be women." The noble Marquess said: I wish to explain that this Amendment does not emanate from any mere individual opinion. I speak, and I feel it a great privilege to appear in that capacity, as the spokesman and representative of a large number of societies, all of which have taken part in one way or another in the great national work of promoting public health. With your Lordships' permission I will recite the names of these bodies. They are the Women's National Health Association of Ireland, the National Council of Women of Great Britain and Ireland, the United Irishwomen, the Irish Women's Suffrage and Local Government Society, the Belfast Women's Political League, Lady Rhondda's Watching Council on Ministry of Health Bill, the National Union of Societies for Equal

641
Citizenship and the Women's National Liberal Federation. Of course, they represent a very large body of opinion, as I have indicated of informed opinion, the opinion of persons of experience in regard to the great subject we are considering.
I would point out that in this clause there are three elements represented—what may be called the official element, then the professional, and, lastly, the general—in connection with the selection of those considered suitable for membership of the body to which reference is made. I have suggested that the number of six should be increased to ten, and that half of the members should be women. I do not urge this on what is called the ground of sex. I am more concerned with considerations of efficiency, and I move the Amendment with a view to securing the best material for working out this great subject. I dare say my noble friend the Lord Chamberlain will tell me that the Chief Secretary, who has the absolute authority in this matter, will be entirely disposed to give ample representation to women. I quite accept that, but men may come and men may go; and they do change in various Offices, including that of the Chief Secretary.
I urge that it will be well to have a declaration and an enactment that one-half of this body should be composed of women. I say that, not because they are women, but because women have taken such a very prominent part already in the promotion of public health. Take the example of the association that I first mentioned—the Women's National Health Association of Ireland. It has about ninety branches throughout Ireland, every one of which is concerned in a practical manner with the promotion of health. It is admitted that it was mainly due to that Association that there was such an immense reduction in the mortality in Ireland from consumption during the first seven years of its existence. That is to say that in seven years the mortality from that terrible disease was diminished to the extent of 2,500 per annum, and added to that we have the vast number of people who obtained alleviation from the disease and wholly or partly recovered from it. With a view of securing the best work and the best material, definite recognition should be given. I quite understand that there is an option on the part of the Chief Secretary and that he can appoint the whole of this body (which I suggest should be ten
642
instead of six) of women. Although women are now recognised as suitable for all sorts of offices there is still a certain amount of prejudice, and in this case men are so predominant that it is a supposition that the majority of the Council will be composed of men.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 33, leave out ("Six") and insert ("fen") and after ("persons") insert ("half of whom shall be women").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
THE EARL OF MEATH: I rise to support the Amendment of the noble Marquess. I do not myself lay very great stress upon the six or ten, but what I lay stress upon is that half of the number shall be women. Personally I should perhaps be better pleased if your Lordships considered ten as preferable to six. After the decision your Lordships have given on Clause 6, I do not suppose there are many who still desire to keep out women from taking part in this Consultative Committee. It is now many years since I broke my first lance in favour of women being permitted to take larger a larger share in public affairs. It has been a great pleasure to me to find how that idea has spread, and I have lived long enough to see women in possession of the vote. It is rather amusing to me to see three or four noble Lords competing as to who should have the credit of bringing in the women as far as secretaries are concerned, and I hope there will be the same competition in dealing with the Consultative Committee. It is not necessary in these days to dilate on the magnificent work that has been carried out during the war by women, not only in regard to the health of the Army but also in regard to the health of the people generally. Therefore I feel certain that your Lordships will grant to Ireland what I believe is the first demand that has been made with a united front by the Irish people. We have not heard, as far as I am aware, a single word of opposition either from the north or from the south of Ireland. The noble Marquess is a Home Ruler, and I have been a Unionist; but in this I support the noble Marquess. I hope on this occasion we shall be united in permitting at all events half of the members of this Consultative Committee to be women.
LORD SHANDON: I wish very strongly to urge on the Government the acceptance in principle of the Amendment which is

643
proposed. There are practical reasons why it might be done. In the Bill in a previous clause the presence of women in some capacity is upheld, and even in this particular matter of the application of the Bill to Ireland in the immediate preceding clause, dealing with medical representation, there is a provision that one shall be a woman. Perhaps I might be pardoned for saying that I think it will really depend much more on the practical enthusiasts working this Council than on any merely official representation. I suggest that the same principle which is adopted in the Bill with regard to registered medical practitioners should be extended to these outside members of the Consultative Council. It is not an answer at all to say that the Chief Secretary can if he likes select women. There are very special reasons in Ireland why women ought to be named specially as being on the Council. At a time when there was not the same attention directed to this matter in England women of all classes of society and politics threw themselves enthusiastically into the question of promoting public health. They showed that they were not only fitted and able to do the work but they demonstrated that they really were the persons who were able to do it. If I had any personal view on the matter I should be rather inclined to urge that the whole of this outside body should be selected from women, because really in Ireland they have had a practical experience of the subject which is being dealt-with. On those grounds I earnestly hope that the Government will accept the principle of the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I sympathise very much with what has been said by the noble Lords who have addressed us as to the value of women upon these various bodies. I must remind your Lordships, however, that the Irish clause of this Bill was finally settled in its present form in Committee of the other House after consultation with Irish Members of all sections and deputations from various medical and other bodies interested in health matters in Ireland. This applies particularly to the constitution of the Irish Public Health Council, and any material change in its constitution would upset the arrangement made between numerous conflicting interests. Taking the two proposals of the Amendment, the first is a proposal to increase the total number from seventeen to twenty-one. It is not at all desirable
644
that the membership should be increased. In fact, it has been criticised as being too large. The second proposal is to add five more women to the Council. As the Bill stands there is little doubt that the Irish lady Insurance Commissioner will be a member of the Council under paragraph (b), and amongst the six persons to be nominated by the Chief Secretary under paragraph (e) it may be assumed that women will be included. Further the Irish clause incorporates the main provision of the Bill as to the Consultative Council and they must under Clause 4, subsection (2) include women. Therefore, I submit to your Lordships, while I sympathise with much that has been said, that women's interests and representation in Ireland are amply provided for under the Bill as it stands. After all the consultations and conferences which have been held, I am not at liberty to re-open the question and must ask your Lordships to resist the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I think my noble friend Lord Aberdeen would be well advised not to press his Amendment. In the first place, the remarks of the noble Viscount are so far satisfactory as to amount to a pledge that women will be adequately represented on this body. In the second place, I have had representations from influential women and from organisations to the effect that the last thing they desire is to have a proportion on these Councils set aside for members of their own sex. The very thing they have in view is to get rid of discrimination between the sexes. If you say there are to be six members, all women, it implies some difference between women and men. Although, of course, every step ought to be taken to ensure that women are represented, to say that any definite proportion of any body is to be made up of women only is contrary to the very spirit in which this movement is going on. Therefore I feel that it would be best to be content with what the noble Viscount has said, and not to try and put this in a rigid form.
THE MARQUESS OE ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I should like to explain that my noble and learned friend should not attribute to me the view that he seems to attribute to me—namely, a desire to discriminate between men and women in the sex sense. I think that we have got past

645
that to a large extent. Nevertheless he will agree with me that a large number of societies have expressed their support of this Amendment, although they agree with the noble and learned Lord in not approving of what may be called the more old-fashioned plan of giving women one treatment and men another. I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
Short Title, Commencement, and Repeal, and Interpretation.
11.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Ministry of Health Act. 1919, and shall come into operation upon such day or days as may be appointed by Order in Council, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and provisions of this Act:
Provided that the latest day for the transfer of powers to the Minister under subsection (i) of section 3 of this Act shall not be later than one year after the passing of this Act:
Provided that the day appointed for the transfer of the powers of the Minister of Pensions shall not be earlier than one year after the termination of the present war.
(2) The enactments mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that schedule.
(3) For the purposes of this Act Monmouthshire shall be deemed to form part of Wales.
(4) The expression "Government department" includes the Insurance Commissioners, the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, and any other public department and any Minister of the Crown acting as the head of a Government department.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST VISCOUNT SANDHURST moved, in the second proviso to subsection (1), after the words "shall not be earlier than one year," to insert "or later than three years." The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment to ensure against dilatoriness in regard to the inclusion of pensions in the Bill. It was an Amendment passed by the House of Commons, and for some inconceivable reason did not find a place in the reprint of the Bill. I do not think it is a matter that any one would object to.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 18, after ("year") insert ("or later than three years").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.

SMALL HOLDING COLONIES
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY rose to call attention to the colonies established by the Board of Agriculture under the Act of 1916, and to move for a Return showing the number of soldiers established on them, the profit and loss account of those farms, and separate account of the capital expenditure on cottages, buildings, roads, etc.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the object of the Return for which I am asking is to carry out what really was in the Act of 1916—namely, that Parliament was to be presented with an annual statement showing how these colonies were working and how they were paying. It is only fair to the taxpayers of the country that they should know the success or otherwise of the colonies. That is all the more necessary seeing that last year the sum of money spent on these colonies was increased. As will be remembered by many of your Lordships, I asked last year for a Return showing how the colonies were going on It is true that a sort of statement was produced in this House, but even the President and those who represented the Board of Agriculture in this House then were obliged to confess that the figures were such that it was impossible to derive from them any conclusion. I therefore hope that now His Majesty's Government, and the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture, who I see below me, will consent to this Return so that we may be given full information concerning these colonies.
Last year the suggestion was made that a Return should be presented relating to one colony. That was in respect of the colony that I take great interest in. The Return was to be from April, 1917, till Michaelmas, 1918. That date is very curious, because it would have included two harvests, and one would have been purely problematical. I must say in regard to one colony in the East Riding—Patrington Colony—that I do not see why we should not now be able to have a Return concerning it for practically two years working. Objection was taken by the Board of Agriculture to give a Return from Lady-day to Lady-day. Why they should object to that I cannot understand, because the large majority of the tenants of the East Riding, and certainly the large majority in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire, have Lady-day tenancies, and it seems to me that it would only be carrying out what is

647
the custom in the country if a Return were given from Lady-day to Lady-day. If that were done farmers and others interested would be better able to judge of the success or otherwise of these colonies. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell us to-night why the Board of Agriculture objects to giving a Return from Lady-day to Lady-day.
I should like to add a little to the Motion. I have stated that I think the House would like to know how many soldiers have been established on the colonies which have been running for two years, or for a year and a half, so that we may be able to judge whether the returned soldier has a fancy to live on these colonies when they are put in proper places. We should also like to know the profit and loss of the farms, and I think we ought to have a separate account of capital expenditure on cottages, buildings, and roads; and, if the noble Lords will allow me to supplement my Motion to that extent, the amounts spent in the purchase of land. Not all these colonies have been purchased. Some are on lease. In regard to those that have been purchased I hope that their accounts will be put separately. I think that we ought to know what is the capital charge on the various colonies, and I hope the noble Lord will consent to give the Returu that I ask for. I beg to move.
Moved, That there be laid before this House a Return showing the number of soldiers on the colonies established by the Board of Agriculture under the Act of 1916, the profit and loss account of those farms, and separate account of the capital expenditure on cottages, buildings, roads, purchase of land, &c.—(Viscount Galway.)
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD ERNLE): My Lords, I most decidedly agree to the Motion, and as I have some little explanation to offer I gladly avail myself of the opportunity. I am afraid that the Board of Agriculture has been very much under-staffed and over-worked in the last two years. If we present accounts they ought to be, I think, in such a form as will be more or less of a model. We hope, in the accounts which we shall present to the House in some ten days time, to give every detail as to the working of two of the colonies. The other two which were acquired under the Small Holding Colonies Act have not yet advanced to a
648
sufficient stage of development when we can really present any account. One of them we only entered into possession of at Michaelmas last. Though we have been a year in nominal possession of the other we have not been able to obtain possession of the cottages which are necessary for its proper working, nor have we, in the great stress and demand for labour and building materials, yet been able to build cottages to supplement their number.
There are under the Act four estates acquired. The first is the Patrington Estate near Hull, 2,363 acres, acquired from the Crown on a ninety-nine years lease at an annual rental of£3,277. Another of these estates is Holbeach, in the Holland Division of Lincolnshire, 1,000 acres, acquired from the Crown on a ninety-nine years lease at a rental of£1,623. The third one is Heath Hill, in Shropshire, 1,150 acres, bought (at a price of something under£36 an acre) for£40,000. It was particularly well equipped with cottages, there being something like thirty on the estate. The fourth is Pembrey in Carmarthenshire, 1,345 acres, bought (at a price of something like£22 an acre)for£30,000.
Now, to turn to Patrington, the estate which we have had longest in oar possession, I will give you the accounts. Of course, we ought to have an estate account, a trading account, a profit and loss account, and also a balance sheet. The estate account is, I think, very interesting. It shows what, I am afraid, is your Lordships' experience—it shows what is the fate of a landowner who attempts to improve his estate by building cottages and making roads. We obtained from the Treasury a loan of£24,000 (if your Lordships will forgive me, I will give the figures in round numbers). We have already built thirty-four cottages, and two are approaching completion. We repaired certain other cottages, and we have made certain roads. We have to pay interest to the Treasury on the total sum borrowed, and when the account is made up it shows this net result—I am now looking at it from the landlord's point of view—that with the payment of the interest for one and a-half years, and taking in all our rentals from the cottages, we make a loss of£700. That is, I should say, a very common, almost universal, experience of landowners who set out to improve their estate. There is, of course, no item to set off against that, in our case,

649
of rent, but even supposing you had a rent, supposing we were the landlords to the extent that we might set off against that item the rent that we pay to the Crown for the estate as if it had come into our own possession, there still remains the fact that of that rent probably not more than a third represents the value of the land; the rest of it has gone in the making of the land. Therefore from the landlord's point of view we show a loss in the year and a-half of something like£700.
LORD HARRIS: Before the noble Lord passes to another colony, may I ask if that includes interest on the borrowed money?
LORD ERNLE: Yes.
LORD HARRIS: And tithe?
LORD ERNLE: I was going to explain that. We are fortunate in this, that we are not the owners, and we do not pay tithe or land tax; therefore in the case of an ordinary owner the position would be even worse than I have here described. We have also obtained from the Treasury a loan of£33,000 for farming capital. Taking into account all the outgoings of the farm we show on the one and a half years—and I will meet the noble Lord's point about that in a minute, if I may—a profit. We set off, of course, the rent for the one and a half years which comes to£5,060, the rates and taxes, the salary of our management, depreciation and renewal, postage, travelling expenses, and so on.
We take on the other side the profits of the trading account. Your Lordships are familiar probably with home farms, and you all know how the bailiff possibly tells you that you are doing remarkably well. But you go on ladling out the money, and the only thing you have to show for it is a valuation which has gone up. Of course the valuation is the keynote to the whole of the account. We have made our valuation of the stock that we possess, to use the ordinary phrase, on a most conservative basis, but I think that we have done so on really very strict lines. For instance, we have put up the value of nothing; we have put it all down. We have bought, we will say, a binder; we ask what is the life of that machine, say ten years, and we write£5 off against it each year. We ask what the working life of a horse is; we say ten years, and whereas in ordinary practice
650
you write up the value of the horse from the moment he comes into work for two or three years, we have not done it. From the first we have set off the depreciation on such a scale that we shall lose nothing on the horse. And taking the valuation on that basis and bringing into account our sales, after laying the interest on our loans, the wages, the rates and taxes, the rent, and every other expense, we show a profit of£11,500 on the one and a half years.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I ask whether either the buildings, or the stock, or any portion of the stock are insured? Or does the Department adopt the usual Government method of dispensing with insurance altogether?
LORD ERNLE: There is no expense for insurance. We are our own insurers. I believe that to be the case, though I am sorry to say that in these accounts there is that usual item of "sundries," which is considerable, and before I left the Office I had not the time to analyse it; but I fancy that we do not insure.
Now, that shows, I think, in a very marked and striking way the position in which in many cases to-day the landowner and the farmer stand. As I have explained, the estate account shows an actual loss. We are in the fortunate position of being both landowner in one sense and farmer in another. When we come to be farmers we show a net profit on the farm for those eighteen months—which as the noble Lord properly points out includes two harvests—of£11,685. We have started at Patrington a settlement on the profit-sharing system; and obviously, if we had had on the farm a considerable number of men who had complied with the necessity of fulfilling their probationary period, there would be a considerable amount of profit to divide. The participators would be, Capital—that is, the Treasury, who have advanced£33,786 for farming capital and who have already got interest at 5 per cent, included; the manager—who I may say was appointed without any promise of profit-sharing, but for whom I think we shall try to obtain a bonus based on these profits; and there is labour. We propose to form an insurance fund; because, of course, the profits of one year are no guarantee of the profits of the next; and where you have wage-earners paid a weekly wage and sharing the profits, it is desirable as far as possible that they shall not have lean years in which they get

651
nothing. Therefore we very much hope that the profit which we have earned for the Treasury will be set aside in some such way that, after satisfying the claims of the working of the farm (the three participators), we shall be allowed to set it aside for the purpose of creating an insurance fund. All these figures will be placed before the House within, I hope, the next ten days, and with them I trust we shall also be able to submit accounts showing the actual cost of production of all that we have grown on the estate.
I should add that at Patrington we found that the land, which was warp land, was warp land of a rather peculiar kind. I think the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, and I were on the Small Holdings Committee which had something to say to the choosing of the land. The land is heavy warp land specially suited for the growing of corn crops. Corn crops, however, are not suited to small-holders because the margin of profit per acre is generally too small for a man to live upon a piece of land devoted to that purpose. Therefore when we came to examine the land closely we determined that we would run it as a big farm on the system that we have adopted, which has shown so far good results.
Holbeach is different. Holbeach is in the Holland Division of Lincolnshire. It is very fine land; therefore we are fitting out the small-holder with a self-supporting holding. On land like that he can live off ten acres, and we hope that we shall have a promising and successful settlement of men there. The profit of£8,000 that we have earned there is calculated on a similar method to that adopted at Patrington and has been earned off the land which we have cultivated as a central farm. The moment the small-bolder settles on a self-supporting holding he will, of course, depend upon himself for his own livelihood. I shall be very glad to try and arrange the accounts from April to April. I recognise the force of what the noble Viscount has said—namely, that it would be more satisfactory for purposes of comparison, in a district where the holding are Lady-day holdings, that our accounts should be comparable with those kept in that district. I will endeavour to meet the noble Viscount in that respect.
With regard to a point which I think was made when this subject was last discussed, I may say that the Inland Revenue have met the Board in a very generous
652
fashion over the question of accounts. Whatever was the ordinary period when a farmer balanced his books, provided they showed a year's working of the farm the Inland Revenue were content to take that period; and it is a point that, if a farmer makes up his books to Christmas, provided that it comes within the year ending April 5, it will be accepted by the Board of Inland Revenue for purposes of taxation.
The Small-Holdings at Heath Hill in Shropshire, which has admirable railway facilities, is well suited for dairying and market-gardening, and we hope to lay it out on those lines. But we have not yet advanced to such a point in developing the property that I shall be able to include the accounts in the Return we propose to make. The same applies even more strongly to Pembery, where we entered into occupation only last Michaelmas. There are two other largish estates which we have since acquired, but, as we entered into possession only last April, it is plain that I could not give any accounts. One of those is an estate in Nottinghamshire called Rolleston, 2,769 acres, for which we paid£47,750; and an estate at Amesbury in Wiltshire, 2,377 acres, for which we paid£7,500 in cash and an annual rentcharge of£1,300. There is also an estate, Bosbury in Herefordshire, which was presented to the Board as a free gift by a Mr. Buchanan and which is to be developed as a colony for officers. The total acreage held by the Board is therefore 11,761 acres at the present moment.
As to the numbers of men already placed upon the land, there are at Patring ton thirty-three soldiers, ex-Service men, who have been accepted as settlers. At Holbeach there are fifty-seven men who, like the Patrington men, are either on probation or approved as settlers. At Heath Hill there are sixteen soldiers approved and ten on probation. There are on those three colonies therefore seventy-seven approved settlers and sixty-five on probation. We insist upon a period of probation for ex-Service men, because we found from our early experience that the men came on to the land, entered into occupation of a cottage, and then grew tired of the work and threw it up. Probation is a very useful thing, although I think we are going to shorten the period. It stood at one time at a year, and I think probably six months is sufficient. If there is any point which I have omitted I shall be very glad to supply it.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I should like to be allowed to congratulate the noble Lord on the surprisingly satisfactory statement that he has been able to make to us in relation to these colonies. As he truly said, he and I both had something to do with the selection of -the particular land which he first mentioned, in what used to be called Sunk Island, in the Holderness District of Yorkshire, one difficulty in connection with which was that owing to the stiffness of the land it was found unsuitable for growing potatoes, which of course is a very important crop to small-holders. It affords me personally no small sense of relief to find that he has been able to develop a particular type of colony of a very satisfactory and instructive character, if only as showing what can be done in the nature of profit-sharing, which is likely to prove an economic success. It was rather interesting, and to some of us who are land-owners perhaps a little alarming, to find that in separating two parts of his accounts he showed that under present and possibly prospective economic conditions ownership of land appears to be a somewhat unattractive business, whereas the conduct of agricultural operations appears under his able supervision to be a source of considerable profit.
It is rather an indication to some of us in what direction we may usefully apply our energies, by becoming occupiers of larger portions of our own land, possibly introducing some system of profit-sharing by giving the agent or bailiff a reasonable commission on the profits obtained, and possibly also allowing the workers on the land similarly to participate. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether it is his intention to extend this colony system under his Department very much further than he has already gone, because there is no doubt whatever that there is a strong feeling in the country with regard to this colony system, that although it has the great advantage of enabling the development of the co-operative principle, both in buying and selling and transport, it is not attractive to most ex-Service men to go far away from their own homes and settle down in a state of segregation in some distant colony. If, on the other hand, the noble Lord is prepared to encourage county agricultural authorities to set up smaller colonies perhaps on a similar scale within their own administrative areas, it seems to me they would become far more popular and justify themselves to a far greater
654
extent than some of these ultra-extensive areas formed into colonies by the Board of Agriculture.
It is to me a welcome and surprising announcement that the balance sheet has proved to be so satisfactory. I think, if I may say so, that the noble Lord will be wise not to count upon the same commercial returns, upon which he justly prides himself upon having been obtained from Patrington and Holbeach colonies, as necessarily flowing from them year after year; and if he is able to arrange some system by which, instead of sharing out all the profits, a due proportion could be carried forward to meet the requirements of lean years, I fancy the workers will enjoy a greater degree of contentment than if next year or the year after they found themselves with a very much smaller proportion of profit than they had anticipated. It may interest your Lordships to know that I had the experience of sitting as chairman of a House of Commons Committee to enquire into the whole question of profit-sharing and co-partnership in connection with Agriculture, and that we found to our great regret that over a period of 200 years many experiments had been made, but not a single one of them had survived for a period of more than fifteen to twenty years, because when the lean years came the workers repudiated the original arrangement as being not satisfactory from a financial point of view. However, under the scheme which the noble Lord has explained to us this afternoon it looks as if that difficulty might conceivably be overcome.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I ask one question arising out of what has been said by my noble friend behind me. He spoke of the possible adaptation of the colony system to the work of local authorities. Can my noble friend (Lord Ernle) tell me whether in the manning of these colonies regard has been had to the domicile or origin of the soldiers who have been placed there. Are the Yorkshire colonists, for example, men either of Yorkshire birth or who have served in Yorkshire regiments, or has the allocation of the men been purely haphazard?
I was interested to note what the noble Lord said of the purchase of a considerable block of land in South Wiltshire. That, I think, will be an interesting experiment, because the quality of the land in the two

655
colonies of which my noble friend has given particulars, although completely different—in one case being strong land peculiarly fitted for wheat-growing, and in the other fine Lincolnshire land suitable for small holdings—is unusually good. I take it that in the Wiltshire case which the noble Lord mentioned the land is of a quite ordinary character, not by any means first rate, and it will undoubtedly be interesting to see how the colony system develops on average moderate land of that sort.
It almost appeared to us when the question was first mooted, and when Lord Selborne first brought up the idea of starting colonies, that there would be some risk that the system would only be tried in picked circumstances where it was almost bound to be a financial success, and that, on the other hand, if its adoption was to become at all general, land of a somewhat inferior calibre must necessarily be tried as well. Therefore I think we shall all watch with great interest the progress of the further experiments. It is quite clear that on the worst land the financial results cannot be expected to be as brilliant as they are on the highest quality land, but if there is to be anything like a large adoption of the system in different parts of England it is quite clear that average land must be brought into play as well.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I gave such an ominous warning to the Department when Lord Selborne introduced the proposal that I think it only just to say I shall be the first to express my congratulations to the noble Lord if the results of the experiment are as successful as he has indicated to-day. I take it that there is some qualification owing to the fact that in the case of Patrington, at any rate, there have been two harvests. Therefore the profit has to be halved and spread over, I think, 2,300 acres, so it is not quite so much as it sounded. But I am sure that the noble Lord, with his great experience, has taken care that every legitimate charge has been put in, and that the valuation will be made on its proper basis; that is to say, that it will be made good at the beginning of each year. If this is the method in which the accounts have been made out, I can assure the noble Lord that I shall be the first to acknowledge my mistake in warning the Department that there was not much chance of success.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. I did not quite gather the position of the thirty odd men at the Patrington colony Are they now receiving standard wages, and are they paying rent for these houses? What is their absolute position? I understand they are going to have some share of the profits.
LORD ERNLE: If I may deal with the questions that have been asked me, I should like to say that we do not anticipate such profits on average land, nor do we expect such profits when current prices drop. These are, it must be remembered, war years, and that is a warning applicable to the accounts which I have given. There is no reason why county councils should not apply the principle, but I would point out to the noble Lord who raised this question that the reason why we have large areas is that unless you have a large area you cannot afford to pay the salary that a really first-rate man will require. To some extent, of course, in the counties they can supply the place of a special manager by means of their agricultural organiser; but there is a great deal of difference between the man who lives absolutely in the middle of the farm and who has it in his eye from morning to night, and the man who drops in on a large round to give his occasional supervision. That is the reason of the large areas.
I think that when we speak of these group settlements we should try to get out of the way of calling them colonies. My own experience of countrymen is that they think a colony means a collection of epileptics or some sort of penal settlement, and one part of the unpopularity of the movement is, I think, due to the name. Another part, of course, is due to the fact that the man has to sacrifice, to some extent, his own independence. The South Wilts property is a very interesting experiment. There are, as there generally are in most Wiltshire properties, little pockets of good land—of good grass and good arable land—and the main portion of the land requires pretty skilful farming to make it pay. We have bought this estate in South Wilts partly because it is close to one of our biggest military camps. We have a good market, so to speak, at our very door. We have had in past years enormous supplies of manure derived from the camp, and, if we can make South Wilts farming pay on the lower slopes of the Downs

657
anywhere, I think we can make it pay here. It is a very interesting experiment. I am perfectly convinced that the men will not lose by it, and it may turn out a great success for the future development of agriculture.
In these settlements we have not followed the county basis, and for this reason. The county authorities themselves are supposed to confine their holdings to men who were born in the county or who have served in the county regiment. That leaves a great number of men outside. We think we shall best cater for the largest number if we do not lay particular stress on the men belonging to the county where these settlements are grouped. But we do not pedantically hold to that rule. If a Yorkshireman comes forward and says he would like to settle at Patrington, if there was a place there I think we should be inclined to give him a slight preference, especially if he was not able to be placed by the county authority. The men at Patrington are renting a cottage and a small acreage of ground—I think it is in most cases half an acre of their own. For that they pay a rent based on the rents of the neighbourhood. They receive the wages of the district and they share the profits, if there are any. Wherever we establish these settlements these are the principles upon which we work. The men pay a proper rent for their houses and garden; they receive the wages of the district, and the profits, if there are any, are divided between the three participators—capital, management, and labour.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord accept the Motion?
LORD ERNLE: Yes.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STATEMENT OF RATES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
WAGES (TEMPORARY REGULATION) EXTENSION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of May 8.]
BELFAST HARBOUR BILL.
BLYTH HARBOUR BILL.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
DOVER HARBOUR BILL.
DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL.
NEWPORT HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS BILL.
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

SOUTH SHIELDS GAS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]

  HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
  Northampton Gas.
  The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

DOCK AND HARBOUR BILLS.
Report from the Joint Committee made, and to be printed.
BEDWELLTY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.
(Petition for Bill.)
WORKINGTON CORPORATION.
(Petition for Bill.)

SWINTON AND MEXBOROUGH GAS BOARD.
(Petition for Bill.)
The Order of Tuesday last referring the Examiners Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders to the Standing Orders Committee on Wednesday the 14th instant, discharged.

TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Oldham and Chadderton Tramways and Thornaby-on-Tees Corporation Tramways—Was presented by the Lord Somerleyton; read 1a; and to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.