Lords Sitting of 17 May 1920

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

TORPOINT FERRY BILL. [H.L.]
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL. [H.L]
WEARDALE AND COMFIT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
FOLKESTONE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CROYDON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.] formerly
  CROYDON CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LLANTRISANT AND LLANTWIT FARDRE RURALDISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  PENLLWYN RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
  Read 3a and passed.

PROFITEERING (AMENDMENT) BILL.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
EJECTION (SUSPENSORY PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

FIFE-YOUNG'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 6.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

COOPERS DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 8.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD)THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD) moved that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended until the House adjourn for the Recess at Whitsuntide. The noble Earl said: On Thursday last I informed your Lordships that it would be necessary to take steps to expedite the passage of three Government Bills. In the absence of my noble friend Lord Curzon, who is detained at a conference and who desires me to apologise to your Lordships for his not being present, I beg to make the Motion standing in his name. Your Lordships will observe that it is framed to apply for the rest of the sittings before Whitsuntide. I think that on the whole this is the most convenient course; otherwise it would be necessary both to-morrow and on Wednesday (which we expect to be the last effective day of the sittings) to put down a similar Motion. This Motion therefore covers to-day, to-morrow, and Wednesday.
I gave your Lordships notice of the Bills to which I suggested that this Motion should apply, but with your permission I will repeat them. To-day we suggest taking the First and Second Readings of the First and Second Readings of the National Health Insurance Bill and the Ejection (Suspensory Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. With regard to the first of these, my noble friend Lord Astor will explain to your Lordships how urgent it is that this measure, which applies to something like sixteen million persons, should be passed at the earliest moment in order that the immense Departmental machinery involved in bringing the Act into effective force may be started as soon as Possible, and thus avoid the very real danger that there might be of serious postponement of the additional benefits for several months were it impossible to pass the Bill shortly with a view to its coming into operation in the first week of July. Of that Bill it is suggested that we take the Second Reading to-day. The other Bill, the Ejection (Suspensory Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, is introduced in order to carry out suggestions made by a Committee of which I think my noble friend Lord Salisbury was Chairman. It is clearly impossibly to pass the Bill so far as England is concerned, but as the removal term in Scotland takes place in a very few days' time it is desirable that a measure should be passed into law in order to avoid any period of suspension.
The Second Reading of the Profiteering (Amendment) Bill it is proposed should be taken to-morrow. To-day we have already taken the First Reading of that measure. Here again I regret that a Bill of this great importance should only reach our House at this late stage of the session. If I remember right the original measure, to which this is an amending proposal, reached us in somewhat similar circumstances last Christmas. However, we have to face the fact that the principal Act comes to an end in three or four days, and although Parliament has inserted in Clause 10 provisions whereby the principal Act shall be deemed to be in force until the passage of this amending Act, nevertheless in order to avoid confusion in administration it is clearly desirable that that clause should not be relied upon—in other words, that the amending Bill should be passed at the earliest possible moment. For that reason it is most desirable that this Bill should receive the Royal Assent before the adjournment for the Whit-
334
suntide Recess. To-morrow, therefore, we suggest that the Second Reading should be taken, with the remaining stages on the following day.
I am informed that, there is a minor Departmental measure which the Treasury are also very anxious to pass through before Whitsuntide, relating to the Savings Banks. It is not a contentious measure in any way, but from the Treasury point of view it would be a great convenience if the change of the law could be made at the earliest possible moment. No notice has been given to your Lordships of any suggestion that this Bill should be passed through, but I will arrange with my noble friend Lord Hylton to have the text circulated at the earliest possible moment. I trust that your Lordships will also allow this, the fourth measure, to be passed before we rise. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX. be considered in order to its being suspended until the House adjourn for the Recess at Whitsuntide.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, your Lordships have heard the speech of my noble friend Lord Crawford. He has in some respects made out a strong case for the abbrevited procedure, and notably so in the case of a Bill for the suspension of legislation which His Majesty's Government promise. No doubt my noble friend Lord Astor will be able to tell us something as to the exact tenor of this Suspensory Bill in a few moments; but as regards the other Bill I do not know that there is much to be said. There is no excuse whatever for their being brought to your Lordships' House at such a period, but we are quite used to that, and what we have to consider is whether the Public Service is better studied by allowing our procedure to be shortened in respect of them or whether we ought to resist. Personally I am not prepared to suggest to your Lordships that you should resist although I say so without prejudice (if I may use such a phrase), because we do not know what is in any of these Bills. It may appear, when we come to read the text of them to-morrow morning, that we are not able to——
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: They have been circulated.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Including my noble friend's Savings Bank Bill?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is a Bill we have to take entirely on trust, on the personal assurance of my noble friend that no mischief is being done. At any rate, we shall look at it with great interest to-morrow morning and see. We cannot, of course, pledge ourselves to what we shall do with the actual text of the Bill when it is submitted. The only question now before us is whether we shall allow our procedure to be shortened. I cannot say I approve the method in which the House of Commons treats us on these occasions, but I am not prepared to suggest to your Lordships that you should resist it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I should like to say that the Savings Bank Bill, about which we are not informed, will be circulated and in your Lordships' hands to-morrow, when we propose to take the Second Reading.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GERMANS AND AUSTRIANS INTERNED IN EGYPT.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state what action is contemplated with reference to the German and Austrian subjects formerly resident in Palestine and now interned in Egypt.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a matter to which my attention has been called by the International Red Cross Society at Geneva. They have requested my assistance because it appears on the face of it to be a case of considerable hardship. It probably will be a surprise to a good many persons to find that now, eighteen months after the termination of hostilities and several months after the Treaties have been ratified, there are still a large number of persons in internment camps. These particular persons to whom the Question refers are not military prisoners at all; they are civilians. I am told that their numbers approach 2,000, and among these civilians are a large number of old men and women and chil-
336
dren. They consist chiefly—though there are, I believe, a few Austrians among them—of persons of German origin who belong to a religious sect called, I believe, the Templars, who correspond more or less to the sect of Quakers in this country.
These people established themselves as colonists in Palestine about seventy years ago, and most of them have little direct connection with Germany at the present moment. When we occupied Palestine towards the end of 1917 and in 1918 these so-called German colonists were deported from Palestine and were interned in Egypt et the camps of Helwan and Sidi Beshir, and apparently the ultimate intention was to send them back to Germany, and Germany appears to have been the last country to which they desired to go, in view of present circumstances. In addition to that, as I have already explained, they had practically lost their German nationality already, and although they were German subjects all their interests and all their property were in Palestine.
According to the statements which have been made, these people were assured last year that the deportation to Germany would be suspended and that they would be allowed to return to their homes in Palestine. The allegation is now being made, though I do not vouch for the truth of it in the least—I sincerely hope it is not true—that these people are being kept in internment until they agree to go to Germany. I am informed that 190 German women and children arrived on May 9 at Stuttgart in a rather deplorable condition, inasmuch as they had no money, very little clothes, and many of the children were suffering from measles.
I confess that I find it a little difficult to understand the attitude of the British authorities in Egypt and Palestine with regard to this matter. If Palestine had been a British Colony it would be perfectly intelligible. As everybody knows, there have been cases in which the German residents in British Colonies had given evidence of enmity to this country and had made themselves objectionable in various ways, and the Colonial Governments, quite rightly, have in certain cases insisted on their deportation. If, again, Palestine had been a German colony there would be an equally good reason for deportating these people and for getting them to go back, because, as the House is aware, the question of the German colonies is speci-

337
fically treated in the Treaty. Under (I think) Article 122 the Government which exercises the authority in an ex-German colony is fully entitled either to repatriate German subjects or to deal with them, their persons or their property, in any form that they think fit. But as a matter of fact, as everybody knows, Palestine has never been a German colony; it has never been a British Colony, and it is not a British Colony at the present moment. Palestine was a Turkish Province, and these people were inhabitants of that Province; therefore, however much they may have desired it, they had no particular opportunity of manifesting either their ill-will or their good-will towards this country.
But, apart from that, my information is that these so-called German and Austrian settlers in Palestine are perfectly harmless people and have made very good and useful colonists. I see opposite my noble friend Lord Lamington, who has recently been discharging public duties in that country, and he probably knows a good deal more about it than I do, and if he has anything to say this afternoon I expect he will bear out what I have just stated, that these people have committed no offence and were quite valuable in their way. It seems to me that in any case there ought to be some very convincing reason for keeping in internment a number of civilians—women, old men, and children—more especially in view of the fact that these unfortunate people have already passed one hot weather season in Egypt in an internment camp, and have now the prospect before them of passing yet another.
The record of this country and of this Government with reference to the treatment of enemy prisoners of war and of interned prisoners is one of which we have no cause whatever to be ashamed. I think that upon the whole our treatment will compare very favourably with that accorded to enemy subjects by any other Government. And, personally, in my experience I have almost invariably found that War Office action was actuated by humanity and good sense. It would be very unfortunate, in my opinion, if that record was in any way spoilt by what appears to be unnecessary harshness on the part of the authorities in Egypt or elsewhere, It is to my mind an additional misfortune that a case of this kind should be taken up by a neutral body such as the
338
International Red Cross, and that a case of apparent harshness should be brought to their notice. I hope, therefore, that the answer which I receive will be one of a satisfactory nature, and that it will put a totally different complexion open the question.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to me as having been recently in Palestine. I was there last year. I gladly support him in his view as to the character of these German colonists. As is well known, the chief colonies are at Haifa, which is overshadowed by Mount Carmel, which has always been regarded as a particularly holy hill—in fact, it is generally known as "the Mountain of God"—not only by Christians, but by a certain sect of Mahomedans called the Bahais. These Germans went there originally because they believed that that was the spot where the second coming of Christ would take place, and at Haifa I never heard a word against the German colonists. I think the noble Lord was wrong in saying that the old men had been taken to Egypt. I spoke on the telephone to-day to a gentleman acquainted with this matter, and he said that the old men were left at Haifa to carry on the work of tilling the ground, and so on. I myself also saw a number of German women and children there. The whole basis of the colony is that of a religious order; and it therefore seems indescribably hard if, as represented by the noble Lord, there are still these German civilians interned in Egypt who are liable, not to go back to their own homes, but to be sent to Germany where they have no wish to return. I hope it will be possible, in the reply given by the Government, to show that the statements made have, perhaps, been exaggerated, but when the information comes from the source quoted by the noble Lord it looks as if it is only too true. Last year we were indebted to the work of Germans out in Palestine, but whether they were civilians or prisoners of war I am not certain. Owing to the demobilisation of our own men most of our repairs in connection with motor transport were done by Germans; in fact, we could not have gone on without them after demobilisation took place. It would be very unfortunate, if the facts are as stated by the noble Lord, that these German colonists should be treated in a way which would be distincty unfair if not rather vindictive.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Peel, who has to be present at a meeting of the Army Council, I have been asked to answer this Question. The position of German and Austrian subjects interned in Egypt, and the question as to whether they should be allowed to return to Palestine or whether they should be deported, is now under consideration by His Majesty's Government. I regret, therefore, that it is not possible to give any definite indication of the action which will be taken. Nevertheless, the speeches made by the two noble Lords will be noted by His Majesty's Government.
LORD NEWTON: I confess that I am unable to regard the answer as in any way satisfactory. I rather think that it has been made before, and I beg to give the noble Lord notice that I shall repeat this Question at an early date.

COAL PRODUCTION BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I hope the House will allow the Third Reading of this Bill to be taken now. There are no Amendments on the Report Stage, and it would be a convenience if the Bill were read a third time to-day.
Moved (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

HOUSE-LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
TRAMWAYS (TEMPORARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order).

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (VISCOUNT ASTOR): My Lords, I must apologise
340
for asking that this Bill should be passed before the Whitsuntide recess. I have been expecting it to come up from the House of Commons for several weeks now. Its arrival has not been delayed owing to its being a highly controversial or contentious Bill, but owing to the congestion in the other House where they have been obliged to deal with the Home Rule Bill and with the Budget. This Bill passed through the Committee stage in one day in the House of Commons. That will show your Lordships that its slowness in coming here was not due to any serious opposition. As my noble friend Lord Crawford said just now, it is vital that the Bill should pass before the end of this week. The Department have to send out something like 20,000,000 cards to be filled in, registered, given numbers, distributed amongst approved societies, and sent all over the country early in June. Those cards ought to be despatched by the end of this week. The next payment is due early in July, and it is as much as the approved societies will be able to do to get the cards properly filled in and distributed among their members during the next few weeks. In addition to that, we have to get something like 200,000,000 stamps ready and distributed.
The Bill does, roughly, four things. First of all, it increases the benefits paid under the National Health Insurance Act to meet the altered value of money; secondly, it states the amount to be paid to the doctors out of the funds of approved societies; thirdly, it in part provides for new machinery for dealing with tuberculosis; and, lastly, there are certain comparatively minor changes to rectify measures which have been found necessary through our experience of administration, and to bring the benefits and the procedure under this Bill more into line with the Unemployment Insurance Bill which will be coming up later from the other House. We propose to increase the sickness benefit for men by 5s. and for women by 4s. 6d., making the total sickness benefits payable to men at 15 s., and to women at 12 s.; disablement benefit will be increased by 2s. Gd. for both men and women, and maternity benefit will be increased by 10 s. These sums were originally settled in order that there should be proper relation between the benefits paid under health insurance and the benefits proposed under unemployment insurance. The funds will be provided by increasing the employer's contribution by 2d. and the contribution of

341
the insured person by 1d. There will be an additional Treasury grant, to the Women's Equalisation Fund of £70,000, and the additional money payable out of the Exchequer amounts to £1,772,000, making the total Exchequer grant up to £6,942,000.
Then for the first time we put into a Health Insurance Act the amount payable to doctors out of the funds of approved societies; this amount is to be 9s. 6d. Hitherto the actual sum payable by approved societies out of their funds has not been stated in the Act of Parliament. We then propose to take out of insurance sanatorium benefit. We propose in future that treatment for tuberculosis should be provided by the larger public health authorities. At present the position is very anomalous. Insured persons have to pay for their treatment if they get tuberculosis, while non-insured persons, who very often are better off financially than the insured persons, are in a position, where the local authority provides adequate schemes for treatment for its citizens, to get free treatment for tubercle—that is to say, at present insured persons have to pay for their treatment, whereas non-insured persons are in a position to get free treatment. If it had not been for the war I am perfectly certain that this would have had to be remedied several years ago. This particular proposal, I should tell your Lordships, will not affect Ireland. It only affects this country. We do not propose to touch Ireland because of the near advent of the Home Rule Bill.
My right hon. friend the Minister of Health will shortly be introducing a Bill dealing with tubercle. All we are doing at present is to take the sanatorium benefit out of the Insurance Act. This means that about £500,000, which hitherto was earmarked for sanatorium benefit, will be available for the general pool for meeting the other benefits. Domiciliary treatment for tubercle will be provided by the doctors as part of medical benefit. It might interest your Lordships to know that there are at the moment seventeen thousand beds in institutions in England and Wales. We are negotiating for about eight thousand additional beds. I hope, therefore, that in the near future we shall have a more Comprehensive and adequate provision for institutional treatment for tubercle throughout the country.
The only other changes of importance affect, first of all, the men in His Majesty's
342
Forces. Up to now 1½d. a week has been deducted from their pay, so that when they are discharged from the Forces they might go straight into the approved societies and draw the benefits. We propose in future that there should be no deduction from their pay. Next, we have a clause safeguarding disabled discharged men undergoing treatment who occasionally find themselves prejudiced when their training is through and they want to join an approved society and get its benefits. We have a clause remedying this, so that they will not be prejudiced in future. There are other minor amendments, but, unless your Lordships ask me to do so, I do not propose to go further into the contents of this Bill. Should your Lordships desire it I can, of course, go into the whole Bill in greater detail. It is a perfectly straightforward measure. As I said at the outset, it got through Committee stage in the other House in one day, and it would have been with your Lordships long before this had it not been for the congestion there owing to the time which had to be given to the Home Rule Bill and the Budget. I trust that your Lordships will assist us in getting this Bill passed this week.
Moved (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Astor.)
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Viscount a question. He told us of the circumstances—as to which I cannot agree with him—which had prevented the Government from bringing this Bill before us except at short notice and in such extraordinary conditions that when the Second Reading is moved we have not the Bill before us. I have to ask him, therefore, whether the Bill makes any changes as regards the treatment of the friendly societies or approved societies, or is their position exactly the same as under the original Bill.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I think the Bill has been circulated to your Lordships in the form in which it passed the House of Commons. It was explained on Thursday that this would be done, and I understand the Bill was circulated on Saturday morning. The position of friendly societies is not materially amended. They get slightly increased grants for administration, but the general scheme of insurance remains as it was.
LORD STRACHIE: They are not prejudiced in any way?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: No.
LORD ASKWITH: I should like to ask a question on a matter which I do not understand. I have read the Bill, and it seems to me most admirable. But I do not quite understand why the sanatorium benefit is being taken out of the Bill. What becomes of the support for sanatoria?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: The treatment for consumptive and other tuberculous persons will in future be provided by the public health authorities. It will be paid for partly out of the rates and partly out of Exchequer grants. As the noble Lord probably knows, at the present moment insured persons have a certain amount deducted every week for treatment, in case they get consumption. We do away with that. Our intention is that the population at large should be provided for and that treatment should be available for all, irrespective of whether they are insured or not. That treatment will be paid for partly out of the rates and partly out of Treasury grants.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EJECTION (SUSPENSORY PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Crawford, in moving the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX, referred to the Committee on the Rent Restriction Acts, which was presided over by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. This Committee has recently reported in favour of a continuation of the protection afforded by these Acts to tenants of dwelling-houses, and also that the protection should be extended to cover houses of a higher value than those already within the Acts. The present limit of value in Scotland is £60 per annum,
344
and, according to the recommendation of the Committee, this limit ought to be raised so as to cover dwelling-houses in Scotland the standard rent or yearly value of which does not exceed £90.
The Government have under consideration, and hope to introduce very soon, a Bill for the United Kingdom on the lines of the Committee's Report. It is, however, not now possible that such a Bill could become law before May 28, the principal Scottish removal term, and it is accordingly necessary, if full effect is to be given to the recommendation referred to, to suspend for the time being powers of ejection in the case of houses in Scotland between the annual values of £60 and £90. In these circumstances the present Bill has been introduced, and its main purpose is to apply temporarily to tenants of such houses the protection from ejection now enjoyed by tenants of houses under £60 annual value.
In the single clause of this Bill there is also a provision relating to workmen's houses which were requisitioned by Government Departments during the war, the possession of which will terminate on May 28. Though the rentals of such houses are in most cases within the limits of the existing Rent Restriction Acts, it is thought that the workmen still housed in them would not, on a strict interpretation of these Acts, be entitled to plead their protection. The ejection of these workmen would, in many cases, cause serious hardship, as there is no alternative accommodation available. The houses in question are, in most cases, houses which, before requisition, were only occupied during the summer months. To be of any avail this Bill must become law before May 28; hence the urgency of getting it through before the Parliamentary recess.
Moved (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at five o'clock