Lords Sitting of 14 June 1921

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

SUTTON DISTRICT WATERWORKS BILL.
Read 3ª, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CORONERS' (REMUNERATION) BILL.

  DECEASED BROTHER'S WIDOW'S
  MARRIAGE BILL.
  DENTISTS BILL.
  IMPORTATION OF
  PLUMAGE (PROHIBITION) (No. 3) BILL.
  POLICE PENSIONS BILL.
  TITHE ANNUITIES APPORTIONMENT
  BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.

  HOUSING BILL.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, in moving that the House do now resolve itself into Committee, perhaps I may be allowed to take advantage of this opportunity to reply to the questions which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, put to me the other day, and of which he truly said that some of them ere technical and required a certain amount of looking up. I will try to deal with all of them, except the question of dilution, which I will leave to my noble friend who represents the Ministry of Labour. The first question of the noble Marquess was in regard to the application of this Bill to Ireland. In reply, I would observe that the financial provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill will not come into operation until the administration of the Irish services is transferred to the Irish Governments.

  507
  In the meantime, the financial relations of the two countries remain unaltered. From the date when the services arc transferred to the Irish Governments it will be the duty of those Governments to provide for the cost of all Irish services. Meanwhile, the administration of all public services in the United Kingdom, including Ireland, remains unaltered; all taxes belong to the United Kingdom Government; and that Government remains. liable to provide for Irish expenditure. Therefore, the present Bill, so far as it provides financial assistance for housing in Ireland, will operate on Imperial funds only up to the date of the transfer of the Irish services. The Government pledge to extend the subsidy to private builders is as much a pledge to builders in Ireland as to builders in Great Britain, and it is the duty of the Government to honour that pledge to the Irish builders so long as it remains responsible for Irish local government administration.
  Then the noble Marquess asked me questions as to materials and designs. I may inform him that at an early stage in this question a sub-Committee was appointed to consider suggestions in regard to materials. This sub-Committee was in close touch with the Building Research Board, with which the noble Marquess is acquainted. A large number of questions with regard to building was examined, and results have been obtained. But I am sorry to say that it must be confessed that, as a whole, the results are rather disappointing. It is true that economy has been effected in certain places by the adoption of special materials which are easily obtainable locally, such as the one the noble Marquess mentioned, and chalk, pise, and various other materials. Unfortunately, up to the present, no general method of effecting very considerable economies in regard to materials has been discovered. The researches are going on, but the results, so far, have not been very satisfactory. In relation to design, I do not think that I need say very much, beyond mentioning the fact that in the earlier stages the standard of accommodation was, as I think the noble Marquess mentioned, put rather too high by the local authorities. But this matter has since then improved. It is a point that is well recognised by my right hon. friend, and one that is receiving very careful consideration and attention at the present moment.
  508
  The noble Marquess also asked for definite information as to what the opinion of the Ministry is with reference to whether costs would fall or rise. I would point out, in reply, that costs vary in different places, but I can give the noble Marquess some figures relating to a number of tenders which have been received in various parts of the country. These figures show that the tender is, approximately, £650 for a non-parlour house, and £750 for a parlour house. That, I think, is a considerable reduction on previous prices. In one case in the north tenders which have been received give the figure of £609 for a non-parlour house, and £709 for a parlour house.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is that in the north of England or Scotland?
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: In the north of England. As to whether the Ministry think the tendency of prices is to fall, I may say that prices have been steadily falling for sonic time, and we hope the downward movement will continue. The noble Marquess devoted a considerable portion of his speech to the question of fixing rents. At present, in fixing rents, local authorities are required to take into consideration the prevailing rents of similar houses in the district, the value of any special amenities possessed by the new houses, the increases allowable under the Rent Restriction Acts, and the class of tenants in the district for whom the houses are provided. A large number of authorities have made returns, and information summarising these returns was laid before your Lordships in March last. That is the method by which rents are fixed to-day. But the noble Marquess dwelt more particularly upon the state of affairs as it may be in 1927, and he anticipated that unless some definite rulings were given at present considerable friction might then arise. Perhaps I may be able to reassure the noble Marquess upon that, to a certain degree at least.
  In 1927 the amount of the Exchequer subsidy to the housing schemes of local authorities will be revised, and local authorities will be expected then to get neither more nor less than the average rents which are being obtained by private owners for similar houses in the district. The subsidy will be fixed accordingly. I would suggest that this is a reasonable scheme, and one which will avoid giving

  509
  rise to friction. It cannot be contemplated that when building returns, as we hope it will return in 1927, to its normal condition, tenants of municipal houses should be in a better position than the tenants of other houses, or that the rents charged by local authorities can differ from other rents. Both should be on the same footing. It is to be hoped and expected that, in accordance with the ordinary economic law, the rents in 1927 will be the economic rents based upon the cost of building at that time. What the cost of building will be then we cannot at present say. As your Lordships know, there exists at present an independent tribunal to determine points of difference in regard to rent. If points of difference arise in 1927 that tribunal will still be available to settle them.
  On the general question, I may say one word, in conclusion. The housing problem is, of course, a very difficult one at this moment. It is realised by the Govern-merit that in the present grave financial position of the country it is impossible to carry out all that was originally planned, or, indeed, all that we might wish to do. I assure the noble Marquess and your Lordships that that is fully realised by my right hon. friend. It was equally realised by my right hon, friend's predecessor, who reached a conclusion with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the limitation of housing schemes. That conclusion forms the basis of the policy of the- Ministry of Health to-day. But time has elapsed since then, and even the limitation which was arranged some time ago cannot be regarded as final. It is subject to further consideration and revision, in view of the circular which was issued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer requesting all Departments to reduce their present estimates by at least 20 per cent. The line upon which the Ministry of Health is working is to endeavour to find some limit to the demands, and to work within those figures, cutting down less urgent needs, and endeavouring to give large cities, where the needs are most urgent, the largest possible share of houses.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, as indicated by my noble friend, Lord Onslow, I have certain information from the Ministry of Labour which I have
  510
  the honour to give to your Lordships. I think it. will answer the questions which the noble Marquess put on the Second Reading of this Bill. The scheme for the employment of ex-Service men to be trained in the building industry, which has been accepted by the Building Trades Employers National Organisations in Great Britain, is designed to provide training in the crafts of the industry which require augmentation—namely, bricklayers, plasterers, slaters and tilers—up to a maximum of 50,000. It is intended to apply mainly to young ex-Service men who have been out of employment for some time, and have no regular occupation to which they can turn when the present industrial depression is over. addition, it is to apply to. ex-Service men now employed in the industry as builders' labourers who may desire an opportunity of learning a craft..
  The employers' federations fixed April 18, 1921, as the date when the scheme should come into operation, and about 17,000 ex-Service men have now applied for training. The number of men placed in employment to date is not great, as the employers state that the industrial stagnation resulting from the coal mines dispute, added to the general trade depression, is affecting their industry so seriously that it is impossible to make much progress in the actual engagement of men until the situation clears and building activities can be fully resumed. Meantime, however, the machinery is being completed which will enable progress to be made when the industrial situation allows.
  In spite of the unsatisfactory industrial position, the building trade employers in London have arranged to allocate a certain number of applicants among all their members, so that they may be started on jobs on which there is a shortage of bricklayers, plasterers, slaters, or tilers, and, in accordance with the Government's undertaking to co-operate in the scheme, His Majesty's Office of Works started a number of men last week. The figures of men actually engaged, given in the House of Commons in reply to a Question by Viscount Curzon on June 1, were as follows:
  "Over 50 men have been taken on and have already started work under the scheme; 70 others have been allocated to employers in the London area and should be started to-day or to-morrow."
  It is reported that the number 70 has now increased to 130. The urgent necessity for more building trade operatives continues

  511
  and a considerable number of additional men in the crafts mentioned could be employed at once on housing schemes. In order, therefore, that there may be no misunderstanding on the part of operatives engaged on jobs on which ex-Service men have been introduced for training, notices have been posted where action has been taken under the scheme, stating that the job in question is only open, so far as bricklayers, plasterers, slaters and tilers are concerned, to men who are willing to work with and to assist ex-Service men to learn these trades.
  With regard to housing operations, the Ministry of Health has issued a circular to all housing authorities drawing their attention to the scheme and asking them to co-operate in bringing it into operation on all housing jobs, whether undertaken by direct labour or contract, in view of the fact that—
  " the position of housing schemes in regard to the supply of skilled labour is still serious. There is probably no scheme in the country on which the skilled labour engaged is adequate for the proper carrying out of the work already in hand, while in the majority of cases the number of houses under construction could be materially increased if an additional supply of skilled labour were available."
  I do not think it can be denied that the scheme, so far as it has gone, is disappointing, very disappointing; but I am assured that the industrial situation is very largely responsible for what has taken place.
  For the information of the noble Marquess and the House I should like to add that a conference is taking place this afternoon at the Ministry of Labour between the executive of the Employers' Federation and the officials of the Ministry. The only further information I have is a general outline of the scheme, and if the noble Marquess desires I will give him the particulars.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If you please.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: The object of the scheme is to relieve unemployment among ex-Service men by providing training for them in the crafts of the building industry which require augmentation, particularly in view of the need for housing, and thus affording ex-Service men a career in an industry where there is opportunity for their services. The responsibility of the Government in the
  512
  scheme is confined to ex-Service men. The scheme is intended to apply mainly to young ex-Service men who have been for some time out of employment and have no regular occupation to which they can return when the present industrial depression is over. In addition, it is to apply to ex-Service men now employed in the industry as builders' labourers. It is designed to provide training in the crafts of the industry which require augmentation. For the time being the deficiency is most acute among bricklayers, plasterers, slaters, and tilers.
  The total number of men to be admitted under the scheme is 50,000. The scheme will be worked through local committees composed of representatives of the associations of master builders and, it is hoped, of representatives of the trade unions. If it is found that the trade unions do not co-operate in the formation of a joint committee, the National Federation of Building Trades' Employers will arrange for their local affiliated associations to appoint committees in each district, which will be responsible for the selection of the men and the general supervision of the scheme in the area. The district committee will, from the register of unemployed ex-Service men kept by the Employment Exchanges, or from other sources, select suitable ex-Service men for training, and will advise the craft in which the men can be most suitably trained.
  A contract of service, valid for two years, be entered into between the employer and the accepted candidate. The contract will be subject to a break at the expiration of a probationary period of three months, and to termination thereafter on the ground that either party is not observing its provisions. Provision will be made for assignment of the contract from one employer to another with the consent of the employe if, for any reason, continuous work with one employer for two years is not, possible. The district committee will exercise a general supervision in this matter. The contract will provide that at any time during its currency an employé will have the right to apply to his employer for a certificate of proficiency, entitling him, on the ground of his qualifications, to a higher percentage of the district rate of wages than that laid down under the scheme. The district committee will supervise generally the execution of the contracts of service and will deal with complaints by either party.

  513
  Ex-Service men accepted under the scheme will be paid by the employers at the following rates:—First six months, 50 per cent, of the district skilled man's rate, plus 10 s. per week; next six months, 65 per cent. of the district skilled man's rate, plus 5s. per week; next six months, 80 per cent. of the district skilled man's rate; next six months, 90 per cent. of the district skilled man's rate; and thereafter, 100 per cent. Towards the payments made by the employer, the Government will contribute, in respect of each man accepted for training under the scheme, for the first 26 weeks, 10 s. per week; for the second 26 weeks, 5s. per week. The State contribution wilt be paid for a full week even though the firm by whom the man is employed may, in fact, be working short time (provided that the man attends fir duty on the days on which the firm requires him), but will not be paid for any week in which a man does not work at all: Provided that if during the first twelve months the employee receives from his employer a rate of more than 65 per cent. of the district rate the State contribution shall cease from the date of receipt of the increased rate.
  The National Federation of Building Trades Employers has accepted general responsibility to the Government for bringing about, the absorption of the desired numbers of ex-Service men, and for their adequate training. They will arrange for regular records to be kept of the progress of the scheme, and, operating through their district committees, will, in conjunction with the Government, exercise supervision over the execution of the contracts of service. The Government have already indicated that they will adopt the principles of the scheme in the case of building operations with which which they are concerned.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords. I rise only to thank the noble Earl for the very full statement he has made on this experiment.. I am sure the country and your Lordships will watch with the greatest interest the development of this scheme, because it may mean a solution of the housing difficulty and the employment of ex-Service men. Both are matters to which the country is paying special attention at this moment. I gather from what the noble Earl has said that up to date the employment of ex-Service men under the scheme has been disappointing, and that only about 200 men are actually
  514
  in employment at this moment. The scheme, of course, contemplates a much larger number than that. The noble Earl did not say where the hitch lies, although. he stated that it was largely due to the industrial situation, and he has every right, of course, to say that. The crisis of the coal strike is sufficient to account. for a great diminution in employment; indeed, it is certain to do so. But there, are probably other difficulties as well.
  We need not conceal from ourselves that the greatest anxiety in the working of thin matter will be the attitude of the trade unions in regard to it. I am confident that if the trade unions can he appealed to in the-. proper way they will take the view that. they ought to support the scheme. There is really no chance of building labourers who belong to trade unions being out of employment, at the present time, if they are willing to take reasonable wages, because the moment the strike is over the demand for building will be resumed, and w ill be of a very pressing character. Therefore, the trade unions, even if they look at the matter from a self-interested point. of view, should be very willing for their labour to be supplemented by that of ex-Service men, Trade unions, however, do not consist only of self-interested men; they have patriotic feelings, and I believe that, if they are appealed to in the proper spirit, the great body of them would be willing to help the interests of the ex-Service men by allowing them to be employed, so far as the unions are concerned.
  But whatever attitude they may take up, I hope the Government will continue with the scheme. They owe it to the solution of the building problem, and they owe it to the solution of the problem of finding employment for ex-Service men. I was very gratified to find, from the excellent statement the noble Earl has just made, how carefully the scheme had been thought out, and how every difficulty has apparently been provided for. I shall venture, if he will allow me, a few weeks hence, when, as I hope, normal conditions will once more-obtain, to put a further question to him, so that we may be informed how far the operation of the scheme has succeeded.
  I will now turn for a moment to what was said by the other noble Earl, representing the Ministry of Health. I do not know whether he quite appreciated all I ventured to say, upon the last occasion, regarding Ireland. I do not doubt that in nor map

  515
  circumstances, if order were obtaining in Ireland, it would be right, that exactly the same housing provision should be made for Ireland as is made correspondingly for England and Scotland. In such a case, his argument that financial responsibility must, until the Appointed Day, fall upon the Imperial Exchequer, would be a very reasonable one. The point of my observations on the previous occasion was thing that the Irish people have taken it upon themselves to cast a very heavy charge upon the Imperial Exchequer in the shape of the burden which these disorders throw upon the British taxpayer, and it certainly seems to me a very astonishing thing that we should continue to pour out Imperial money' for Irish objects, throwing the burden upon the British taxpayer, when the Irishman, on his side, is making these tremendous demands in regard to payments which are caused by the disorders in Ireland.
  Certainly, one would wish the Government to reconsider their position in respect of all Irish services, and to say to Ireland: "If you choose to demand these tremendously heavy payments from us in respect of law and order, we cannot afford to give you houses." That would be a very reasonable answer to make; and I should like the Government to have faced it. They may have faced it, and have a complete answer to my argument, but I am sure the noble Earl will forgive me (since he does not himself represent the Irish Government) if I say that his answer did not scent to me to meet that point. I fully recognise that in normal times it would be quite right that Ireland should be included in the Bill, but I confess that to ask us to spend more money on housing in Ireland when the Irish are throwing this burden on the Imperial Exchequer, scents to me unreasonable, and I believe that the British taxpayer, one of these days, will assuredly hold the Government to account.
  One word as regards rents. I think the statement which the noble Earl has made is quite satisfactory. I hope he will allow me to re-state it, in order to be quite sure that I understand it. I gather that if it be found in 1927 that the local authorities are charging a similar rent for the accommodation they provide to that which is being charged by private enterprise, no further burden will be thrown upon the rates by the whole transaction than is involved in the penny rate, with which we are all familiar. That is really the point.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I cannot quite say that. The same arrangement that obtains now will obtain in future, but the rents will be revised. The debit which falls on the Exchequer will remain after 1927, but the rents charged by the local authorities will he revised.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They may be revised, but if, in 1927, the rent which obtains for similar houses not provided by the local authority is exacted by the local authority, then I understand that there will be no further burden thrown upon the rates, and the taxpayers are assured that when the year 1927 conies they will not be suddenly faced with a burden beyond the penny rate. Representations have been made to me that I ought, as a humble member of your Lordships' House, to take the opportunity of this Bill being before us to find out exactly what the Government. intend. The ratepayer is at this moment extremely sensitive —and very rightly so, when he sees the rates bounding up on all sides—and he wants to be assured that, so long as his representatives do their duty and administer the property properly, the full burden of the loss will be bounded by the penny rate. I asked the noble Lord that question on the last occasion, and he now replies that if the rents charged in 1927 are the same rents as obtain for similar houses provided, not by the local authority, but by private enterprise, then no further burden will be thrown upon the rates.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: That is correct; nothing above the penny rate. I am afraid I did not at first quite understand the noble Marquess.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not a bit surprised that the noble Earl did not. I am conscious that, I did not, state it clearly, but I did my best.. I ant very much obliged to him for making the point clear, and if this information reaches the ears of the public and of the local authorities, I am sure that they also will be very much obliged.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 (Amendment of s. 1 of 9 and 10 Geo. 5, c. 99):
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will the noble Earl allow me to raise one point? With Clause 1 we reach the date to which the provision of the money is extended under this Bill. It is June of this year, is it not?
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: No, it is next year—June 23, I think. Two years and six months.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
  LORD ABINGER LORD ABINGER moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:
  Prohibition of contracts under Housing Acts with certain persons.
  4.—(1) A local authority shall not enter into any agreement for the execution of any works in connection with building under the Housing Acts, 1S90 to 1919 or this Act with any person who is in the employment of the local authority or of any local authority having powers or duties within the parish in which the works are to be executed, or with any person who is in receipt directly or indirectly of any salary or similar remuneration (whether paid by way of commission or otherwise) in respect of services rendered by such person to the local authority making the agreement or any other such local authority as aforesaid.
  (2) Any agreement entered into in contravention of the provisions of this section shall be void.
  The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name I may remind your Lordships of a Question which I put in this House a short time ago. I then asked His Majesty's Government whether it was in order for an official such as an assistant overseer, employed by a local authority, to take a contract in the district or parish in which he was interested, and, if it was not so, would they cause these irregularities to cease? The noble Earl in charge of the Bill at that particular period was unable to answer my Question, but he most courteously asked me to put all the facts and figures in writing. I know that the noble Earl is a very busy man, and therefore, as this Bill was coming on, I did not see why I should throw extra burdens upon him in answering a series of promiscuous letters. So I took the opportunity, which I thought would meet with his approval, of putting down an Amendment, which I considered might be regarded in every shape and form uncontro-
  518
  versial. Unfortunately, the noble Earl does not see it in the same way as I do. He has been most courteous to me, and yesterday granted me a long interview, but, probably owing to my stupidity or density, I cannot see that he advanced any real argument against the Amendment.
  To understand the Amendment in detail we have to consider the organisation of the matter as it now stands. As it is at present conducted most of the duties fall upon the district councils. The district councils, as everybody knows, cover very wide areas, especially in the country—areas up to one hundred square miles in extent—and the representatives on those councils are drawn from the parishes. It so happens, in very many instances, that there is no means of access to or egress from the place where the district council meets, and consequently it is impossible for many parishes to get representatives to sit upon the district councils. Therefore, it may almost be said that the district councils are the most unrepresentative bodies that we have in England at the present day. In those circumstances, although it might be very necessary to employ the district councils, I think it is desirable to exercise every caution and circumspection to see that they carry out their duties fully and perfectly.
  This Bill introduces an entirely novel system. As they originally existed, the councils might he satisfactory for the purpose for which they were instituted—namely, to pay attention to the local wants of the people, but now the Government, acting in its wisdom, seizes the opportunity to hand over very large amounts of money to these district councils to spend. I do not know what the amounts are, but they appear to me to be somewhere about 25 per cent. as much as the Budget used to be, and, therefore, in my view, it is essential to safeguard the interests of the ratepayers and taxpayers, and to see that the money is properly spent. First of all, the district councils have to consider, or should consider, whether building schemes are really necessary, and they can only do that through their parish councils, because few of them have knowledge of their large areas. I may say that they have done so in a most desultory manner. Then houses have been rushed up and contracts entered. into.
  I do not think that the opinion of the parishes as to whether they wanted houses

  519
  or did not want them, was really taken in every case, and the consequence is that in many cases, where houses have been built, it has been only with the greatest difficulty that we could find the people for whom we supposed they were really built—for instance, in rural districts agricultural labourers—to put in them. Therefore, the councils have had to look into the highways and byways to get tenants, and in many cases have had to take tradesmen who wished to start a trade. If the country had been told that this was a Bill to provide everybody and anybody with accommodation in order to start trades in various districts, I do not believe it would have received the support which it did receive.
  Above all that, if the communities were to be properly studied it seems essential that, in the case of the parishes, the parish councils should have been consulted. In the cases in which I am interested one parish covers ten square miles and the other over eighteen square miles. They have considerable populations, and, although the parish councils are bodies of very minor importance, they are of importance in those localities. The people in those parishes, the ratepayers in particular, look to the parish councils to represent them and safeguard their interests in any schemes which may affect their welfare. The parishes have not many officials, and their expenditure is very small, but they have one official, who is an assistant overseer as well as the parish clerk. He is a man supposed to have an intimate knowledge of the parish and of the property within it, and a large knowledge of the people. Although he may not have a vote, his advice and opinion are always taken with the greatest respect, and it seems to me excessively hard that at a critical period, when the opinion of the people is taken as to whether the parish particularly wants houses or does not want them, this man should be put in a false position and given the contract for the houses. In other words it is converting his unprejudiced advice into prejudiced advice, and in my opinion that is against the interests of the ratepayers and the overburdened taxpayers. I have therefore brought forward this Amendment.S
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, after Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Abinger.)
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Amendment which the noble Lord proposed falls into two parts. The first part deals with the employe of a local authority entering into contractual relations with the authority which employs him, and the other deals with contracts with any local authorities having powers or duties within the parish in which the works are to be executed. I submit that the first part of the Amendment is already covered by Section 193 of the Public Health Act, 1875, which provides that "officers or servants appointed or employed under this Act by the local authority shall not in anywise be concerned or interested in any bargain or contract made with such authority for any of the purposes of this Act." That was slightly amended by the Act of 1885, but, substantially, remains the same, and the penalty for any breach is an extremely severe one. The officer concerned is to be incapable of afterwards holding, or of continuing in, any office or employment under the Act, and shall forfeit the sum of £50 in fine. Those provisions apply to the Housing Act, and therefore I venture to think that the object of the new clause, so far as that part is concerned, is already met.
  Now I come to what is new in the noble Lord's clause. It is a prohibition of a contract with any person who is in the employment not merely of the local authority who lets the contract, but of any local authorities having powers or duties within the parish in which the works are to be executed. This Bill applies only to housing. The reform which the noble Lord proposes, if it were desirable, should, I submit, be made applicable to all forms of contract, and not merely to housing. It should be carried out, that is to say, not by the amendment of a Housing Act, but by the amendment of the general law. It would be an anomaly if one kind of law existed for housing contracts, and another for all other forms of contract.
  I submit also that the Amendment is one which is scarcely desirable or, perhaps, reasonable. The particular case which my noble friend has mentioned is that of a rural district council entering into a contract with a local builder who employs part of his time as assistant overseer. The assistant overseer would be charged with the duty of collecting rates, part of which are to meet the expenses of the rural district council. He is not, therefore, an officer of the rural district council, but he is

  521
  an officer of the parish council. There appears, therefore, to be no justification for preventing the local authority from entering into a contract with a man who is an assistant overseer in the employment of another local authority. Such cases as that to which the noble Lord has referred are extremely few; but I will say frankly that it would be the policy of the Ministry to discourage, so far as they properly can, any local authority entering into contractual relations with any person in circumstances which might lead to any ambiguity or misconstruction. But I venture to think that it is unnecessary to amend the Bill in the sense proposed, and I hope that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment.
  LORD ABINGER: The noble Earl says that the assistant overseer is employed by a different council. That is true in one sense, but you can look upon the councils as one single regiment, and to allow the assistant overseer to take a contract, when the direct representative of the district council is not allowed to take a contract, seems to me to be very much the same thing as not allowing, in the case of a regiment, a quartermaster to take a contract, but to say," Well, it does not matter if the corporal does." They are actually working for exactly the same purposes, in the same interest, and under virtually the same authority.
  As regards the first part of the Amendment, possibly it may be redundant. It was put down only in order that the second part might be better expressed. But the noble Earl agrees that there could be no possible objection to the first part of the Amendment. As regards the second part, I think it would be as well to lay it down that officials in the employment of councils, in districts where they are interested, should not take contracts. The noble Earl complains that this has only been put down in the case of a housing Bill: But this is the only Bill before the House. If other Bills came forward of a similar nature, supposing that the Government thought fit and this principle once became law, they would no doubt insert it. However, I have submitted the matter to the House, and the noble Earl says that the Department will discourage any such things in future. In the circumstances, with your Lordships' approval, I will withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 4 to 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8:
  Amendment of 8. 41 of 9 &, 10 Geo. 5, c. 35
  8.—(1) The Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, make regulations prescribing the conditions subject to which repayments are to be made by the London County Council under section forty-one of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, to the councils of metropolitan boroughs in respect of any losses incurred by those councils in carrying out schemes to which section seven of that Act applies.
  (2) Every regulation so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and, if an address is presented by either House within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: A little point arises on this clause, as I think the noble Earl knows, because I have been in correspondence with him about it.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I have not received the noble Marquess's letter.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I concluded that was so from my knowledge of the great courtesy of the noble Earl. I will, however, explain the point to him and he will see whether he can deal with it. Clause 8 deals with arrangements between the London County Council and the metropolitan borough councils. If I remember aright, under Section 41 of the principal Act the London County Council has power to devolve upon the metropolitan borough councils part of its duties under schemes. But it is provided that no loss shall accrue to the borough councils in consequence. It is represented to me that, as the clause is now drawn, great ambiguity remains as to whether this provision saving the London borough councils from loss remains intact. Certainly, as a matter of drafting, I should have expected, if it was intended that the saving should remain intact, that it would be repeated at the end of subsection (1) of Clause 8.
  Of course, it may be that the Government intend to alter the provision of Section 41 of the Act of 1919. In that case, I think they should not do it, as it were, by a side-wind, but say plainly that they intend; in the future, that there should, if possible,

  523
  be a different arrangement under which part of the loss should fall upon the borough councils. They do not say so, but they leave the matter in doubt. In order to clear up the doubt, and put myself in order, I will propose, though I will not press it probably, if the noble Earl satisfies me, to insert at the end of the first subsection the words:
  " Provided that the Treasury shall not approve any such Regulation until satisfied that provision has been made that any loss incurred by the metropolitan borough councils in carrying out such scheme is repaid to such councils, as directed by the said Act."
  That will preserve in this new Bill the same protection as was afforded to the borough councils under Section 41 of the principal Act.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 38, at end insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am sure the noble Marquess will forgive me if I do not give him a quite definite reply. Unfortunately-, his letter has not reached me, and I had no information that he intended to make this proposal. Perhaps I might give a short. explanation of the reason why this clause has been introduced to amend the clauses in the Act of 1919. The clause to which the noble Marquess referred was defective, inasmuch as it required the London County Council to repay the whole loss to the metropolitan borough councils, even if the metropolitan borough council concerned had been negligent or extravagant in the administration of a scheme. Therefore, in this respect, the metropolitan borough council would be in a much more favourable position than any other local authority in the country.
  The difficulty is that there are two local authorities in London—the London County Council and the metropolitan borough councils. The Government deal with the London County Council, and the London County Council deals with the metropolitan borough councils. One has no reason to suggest that it would be so, but, supposing a case of extravagance or maladministration, the County Council and the Exchequer under the present law would be left without adequate protection, and the object of the clause is to remedy this defect. The intention is that Regulations should be issued applying to metropolitan borough councils the same kind of provisions as are applied
  524
  to all other local authorities by the Housing Regulations. I do not know whether that explanation meets the noble Marquess's point, but the proviso he has suggested might, perhaps, be considered and dealt with at a subsequent stage.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My difficulty is that there will not be any subsequent. stage, except the Third Reading, unless an Amendment is inserted in the Bill now; otherwise, I would be most willing to postpone this discussion to the Report stage. I must confess that I am not satisfied with the noble Earl's answer, for this reason. When my attention was called to this subsection I turned at once to the repeal schedule because I expected that if it was intended to alter the existing law the section which the noble Earl says is in force would be repealed, but it does not appear in the schedule. Therefore, I think what was intended was this. I will not say that the Government rather wanted to do it because that would be implying a motive, but somebody was rather anxious to get this Bill through without making this alteration.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I explained the clause on the-Second Reading.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then I withdraw that. I listened very carefully to the noble Earl, but I suppose my attention wandered for a moment and I did not catch that. As a matter of drafting, if it was intended to modify profoundly Section 41 of the Act of 1919, one would expect it to be repealed and a section to be put in for the purpose in some such form as this:
  "Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 41 of the Act of 1919," and so on. As I say, I looked at the repeal schedule expecting to see that this subsection of Section 41 was repealed. It is not the whole of the section, and if a subsection of this former section is going to be reversed by this new legislation the proper thing is to repeal that subsection. That being so, I should rather like to put in words of some kind so that there may be a Report stage on which the noble Earl can deal with this matter, because he knows how difficult it is to deal with all these intricate questions on Third Reading.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Would it meet the noble Marquess if the Report stage were taken to-morrow?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That cannot very well be done unless an Amendment is made.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Then I think the best plan would be to accept the noble Marquess's Amendment, without prejudice.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, it could be accepted without. prejudice.
  On Question, Amendment. agreed to.
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Application to Ireland):
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not wish to trouble your Lordships with another speech, but I think perhaps the noble Earl will realise that I am not quite satisfied, and I do not think your Lordships are quite satisfied, with his reply in respect. to Ireland. I do not ask your Lordships to make any modification in the Bill at the present stage; I desire only to reserve to myself the right of reverting to this matter when the next stage of the Bill is reached.
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to ask the noble Earl when he proposes to take the Report stage.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: To-morrow, I think
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope the noble Earl will give me a little more time than that.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Thursday then, The point is that we do not want to lose more fine weather than we can help.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I agree with the noble Earl, and I have no objection to Thursday. Perhaps he will look at the Order Paper and see whether there is any chance of it coming on then.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will put it. down provisionally for Thursday.

  PROTECTION OF ANIMALS ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD LAMBOURNE: My Lords, this is a very small Bill, consisting of one clause. It is an amendment of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, and as the clause was drafted by the Home Office I hope your Lordships will app cove of it. The object of the Bill is to alter the law so as to ensure that no rabbit coursing shall take place, except in circumstances where the animals are given a reasonable chance of escape The unfortunate rabbit has very little chance in a fenced-in place, but the Bill will give it a. "reasonable chance of escape." I might add that the Bill was brought in because of a. decision in the Courts, where it was held that. a rabbit coursing meeting which took place in a field closely fenced all round with barbed wire and wire netting was no offence against the Act of 1911, notwithstanding that the rabbits had no chance of escape. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Lambourne.)
  On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  CODIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL LAW
  LORD SOUTHWARK LORD SOUTHWARK had given Notice to ask the Lord Chancellor whether he, does not consider that the time has now arrived when it. is advisable that the Commercial Law should be codified and whether he is prepared to take steps to arrange for the codification separately of various branches of Commercial Law; and whether he would make a commencement. with the law of Mercantile Contracts, and have it codified by the incorporation in one Act of all the existing Statutes and the decided cases bearing on the question. The noble Lord said: At the request of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack I beg to postpone this Question until Wednesday, June 22.

  POST OFFICE CHARGES.
  LORD SOUTHWARK LORD SOUTHWARK rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the highly unsatisfactory, unsound, and universally condemned proposals of the Postmaster-General in regard to the altera-

  527
  tions of Postal charges, and with a view of advancing trade on sound and paying lines, they will consider reverting to 1d. postage and 6d. telegrams.
  The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: My Lords, before asking this Question, I should like to express the greatest possible sympathy with the new Postmaster-General in that he was called upon to devise financial arrangements for making both ends meet at the Post:Office before he had had time to consider and formulate any new proposals. The only possible way in which he could make both ends meet waF Hie hasty alteration of the postal rates which he has put into force, and which, I think all noble Lords know well. are very unpopular in the country. In view of the fact that he delivered a long speech in the House of Commons last week, I do not propose to go over postal subjects generally, but to deal with the subject matter of my Question.
  I should I however, to congratulate the Postmaster - General upon having appointed a Post Office Council of business men, so that, as Postmaster-General, he will have the advantage of "a business point of view on every large question which arises in connection with the Post Office." The commercial world will, I am sure, be delighted that he has secured the assistance of such a very strong body of great and practical business men. Having secured their assistance, all will depend upon the powers they are called upon to exercise: As regards the duties and powers of the new Council, I hope they will be more than advisory. I will not ask to-day what the duties are to be, because the Postmaster-General has stated that he does not wish to define them until be has interviewed the new body. I understand that that interview will take place to-morrow. What I do ask for is a promise that the public should be made fully aware of the defined duties when they are settled. That is not an unfair request to make, because we know what advisory councils have been in the past.
  If the Committee is purely advisory on points submitted to it by officials it will not improve matters. The officials will be enabled to make use of it as a buffer against outside criticism. In my view, the Committee should have power to initiate proposals of its own and to bring forward grievances, and at the same time should have assurance that steps will be taken to deal with those grievances. The business
  528
  men who compose this new body are men of great experience and ability. They are men in whom, I am sure, the commercial world has the greatest possible confidence. That confidence will be maintained if the Committee has real power, but if the Committee is there to act simply as a sort of Advisory Committee to the permanent officials, it will not be any good to the commercial world. We want an assurance that the advice they give will be accepted and acted upon.
  The Question that I have placed upon the Paper is couched in rather strong terms. With regard to the statement in it that the proposals are universally condemned, perhaps I may read a Resolution that was passed as recently as Thursday last by the Council of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, which includes London, Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Belfast, Newcastle, and all the great cities and towns of the country. That Resolution was as follows:—
  "The Council of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce desires strongly to impress on His Majesty's Government that the industry and commerce of the country is already overburdened by taxation and charges, and it protests vigorously against the proposed increases of postal rates to make good deficits on the telegraph and telephone services as the postal rates are of themselves at present producing a handsome profit."
  " The time has come to improve the efficiency and reduce the war-swollen cost of the Post Office. and thereby obviate the increase in charges which will strike a further blow at the recovery of trade and prolong unemployment.
  " The Council is firmly of the opinion that the increased charges will curtail the business of the Post. Office, and not accomplish the desired object."
  Those are views which I think are held by every one connected with commerce. We hope this new Committee will advise the Postmaster-General, and induce him and His Majesty's Government to alter the decision to which they have come.
  I would urge the Postmaster-General, in the interests of trade and revenue, and for the prevention of unemployment, to make it one of his first duties to ask the new Council to decide whether it is possible to revert at once to our pre-war postal rates. If that were done it would, in my opinion, enormously increase circulation and income. I think the same thing applies to postal charges as has been found to apply in regard to taxation. We have seen the result of the taxation of wines and cigars.

  529
  It has proved that you can tax up to a certain point., but that when you go beyond it von lose revenue instead of increasing it. I would ask the. Postmaster-General what profit he expects to make upon the increased postal charges. Have the Government considered the serious losses the business community are likely to sustain? Have they considered that, instead of developing business and accumulating large profits resulting in greater revenue from Income Tax, they will be retarding progress, destroying trade, reducing the country's Revenue, and bringing about unemployment? His Majesty's Government. must be in possession of information, received during the past fortnight, showing that these proposals will inflict a very great injury upon trade, create a great deal of unemployment, and bring about no improvement in the Revenue.
  Some noble Lords may not, be acquainted with the effect of the increase of postal charges in the City of London; indeed, in a great measure. I believe, all over London, and, I have no doubt, in other parts of the country also. The increase of letter postage to 2d. has induced large firms and companies to save money by themselves starting postal departments with organised staffs of boys and girls to deliver letters and messages by hand all over London. These formerly used to be sent through the Post Office. As a result. there has been a great loss of revenue for the Post Office. That is one of the results brought about by high postal charges. The Postmaster-General said the other day that in putting up the charges he had considered the losses that the Post Office was likely to sustain by reduced circulation of communications. But we do not want reduced correspondence in this country. To improve the trade and commerce of the country you must make it easy and cheap for people to get into communication with one another, and that you can do by cheap postage and telegrams.
  As to telegrams I would like to make a suggestion. I had the great pleasure, when I was in the House of Commons many years ago, to tell in the Division for sixpenny telegrams. We succeeded, and the sixpenny telegrams were a very great success.
  VISCOUNT PEEL: What year was that?
  LORD SOUTHWARK: Twenty years or more ago. My noble friend, the Earl of Crawford, suggests forty years ago, and it is possible that it may have been as long ago as that. We are told that sixpenny telegrams are very costly to the State, but I would point out that the great expenditure incurred is in the delivery of telegrams at places a long distance from telegraph offices. I would therefore make the suggestion that a telegram handed in at any telegraph office shall be delivered in all cities and towns throughout Great Britain and Ireland at. a charge of sixpence, and that delivery to places outside the cities and towns should be subject to a mileage charge for delivery, as in days gone by. It is more profitable to deal with a large number of telegrams at a low price in one city than to deal with a few at a high price, and, therefore, I. contend that it. would be profitable to encourage the use of telegrams in cities and towns by allowing them to be sent at the charge of sixpence. I am not asking that my opinion should he taken in this matter, but am merely suggesting that as soon as this new Committee meets the Postmaster-General should ask its advice and assistance as to whether it is possible to revert to the cheaper postage and telegraph charges.
  I do not wish to say anything as to telephones. A House of Commons Committee is now sitting in regard to them, and I have no doubt that that Committee will make a recommendation. We all know that the increased telephone charges have resulted in less use of the telephone. Noble Lords present this afternoon know that they do not use the telephone system to the extent that they did formerly. The telephone is now so costly that I am informed the Government are losing revenue owing to the imposition of the high charges. In this matter also private organisation will be brought about to do the work more cheaply than it is done by the Government, just as has happened in the case of letters. I am told, in fact, that. many people in a large way of business are actually saving money by using messengers to deliver by hand communications which formerly would have been spoken over the telephone. That is not good business for the country.
  I know I am expressing the views of the commercial community when I contend that this new Committee, which contains men of great. ability and knowledge, should have

  531
  power not only to listen to the suggestions of the Government but to make proposals which they consider might be carried out. In order to prevent any complaint on the part of commercial men that their views had not been put before the Government and received consideration, we should also be informed, when proposals are rejected, that they have been made and rejected.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I accept gratefully, on behalf of the Postmaster-General, the good wishes, congratulations and compliments which have been dealt out to him by my noble friend Lord Southwark. I suppose the noble Lord spoke those words in expiation of other words which he used about him. In his Question he accused the Postmaster-General of putting before the country "highly unsatisfactory, unsound, and universally condemned proposals." It would not be possible to use words more condemnatory of a Minister than those. The phrase "highly unsatisfactory and unsound" is in the nature of an adjective which he is entitled to use, and which, no doubt, expresses his own opinion. But I must take exception to the words "universally condemned," because that is a question of fact. These proposals, which he says are universally condemned, received the approval of a very large majority in another place after the explanation of the Postmaster-General, and, therefore, my noble friend is making an unwarrantable attack on another place in saving that proposals which were approved by that Chamber are universally condemned.
  He also asks whether, when the Postmaster-General defines what exactly are the powers and duties to be assigned to the Advisory Committee, he will make that statement to the House and to the public. I have no doubt. the Postmaster-General will do so; I think he stated so in another place. I will convey to him the suggestion that the Committee should have power to make representations on certain points. It is to be hoped that the gentlemen who will sit on this Committee will have sufficient time to give to the complicated business of the Post Office. I can assure Lord Southwark that it is an extremely technical business, and unless they can devote a good deal of time to the consideration of these questions their proposals will be of limited value.
  532
  My noble friend must recognise, of course, that there is a loss on the Post Office Estimates for this year, and that the loss must. be met. I was a little anxious and nervous, thinking he might suggest that this loss should be met by means of a subsidy. Having regard to the present condition of taxation I am glad he does not ask me to put any such proposal before the Postmaster-General. He, however, suggested that we should go back to the penny postage and the sixpenny telegram. I would call his attention to the fact that neither the penny nor the sixpence to-day represents the purchasing value it possessed before the war. Even had the value of money remained the same as in pre-war clays it might still be difficult to go back to those original charges. Considering the depreciation in the value of money, the difficulty of returning to the rates that existed before the war would be enormous, even if other questions did not require to be taken into account. The increase in the Post Office Estimates caused by the war bonus alone amounts to over £28,000.000, which is more than the whole of the cost. of the administration of the Post Office in the year before the war. Therefore. my noble friend will see, if he is addressing himself to the difficulties of the Post Office, that it really is the question of this large bonus which stands in the way of any reduction of charges.
  With regard to the specific. point he has placed before the House this afternoon—the question of reverting to the penny postage and the sixpenny telegram—on the postal business as a whole the number of packets passing through the Post Office has fallen by 3½ per cent. since pre-war days. If the penny postage and halfpenny postcard—the noble Lord did not refer to the halfpenny postcard—were restored, and the number of packets increased to the pre-war level, we should obtain something less than £1,000,000 per year on the recovered traffic at the old rates. That is assuming we picked up the 32 per cent. which we have lost; while the loss from the application of the lower rates to the present volume of traffic would be about £20,000,000. That is a terrific and substantial deficit which I would ask my noble friend to digest at his leisure.
  Were the sixpenny telegram restored and the number of telegrams increased to the pre-war level, we should obtain about £400,000 on the recovered traffic at the

  533
  old rate, but lose about £1,900,000 from a reduction of the rate on the present volume of traffic. Again, that is a very substantial loss. Possibly these figures, which have been carefully worked out in the Post Office, may save a certain amount of trouble to the gentlemen on the Advisory Committee and prevent them putting forward similar proposals.
  The noble Lord who has a large experience of business has assumed that if you largely extend the amount of your business you can sell your articles at a cheaper rate, because you can spread your overhead charges over a larger number of articles and thus reduce the cost of production. He is beset by the fallacy that all businesses are the. same and that you can apply to all businesses the principles which you can apply to a certain limited class. A peculiar point about the Post Office business is tins: the overhead charges are very small as compared with the working charges; they are very much less than in most businesses. In the rural areas an increase in the number of letters makes, of course, little difference in the number of postmen required to deliver them.; but in the larger towns, where the bulk of the postal business is centred, the labour required is more closely adjusted to
  534
  the volume of traffic, and an increase in the volume of traffic produces something approximating to a proportionate increase in the number of the. staff. In this particular class of business, therefore, in contradistinction from many kinds of manufacturing businesses, the cost of administration increases almost proportionately with the amount of business that is done.
  One last point with reference to the business. Certain charges have been made as to the increase of staff in the Post Office. As a matter of fact, the staff of the Post Office is smaller than it was before the war, and though, as I said, business has in certain respects fallen off, in certain other respects it has very largely increased, and new duties have been thrown upon the Post Office. The result is that I do not think it can be said—t any rate as compared with the year before the war, when there was no attack, I think, upon the staff of the Post Office—that that, staff is unduly swollen for the duties that it has to perform. I think I have covered all the points to which my noble friend has referred.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.