Lords Sitting of 28 July 1924

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

PROPOSED LOAN TO GERMANY.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I desire to present a Petition to this House on behalf of the National Union of Manufacturers, asking the Government whether, before the loan of £40,000,000, or whatever the loan may be, is advanced to Germany, there shall be appointed a Committee of experts who will examine all the possible commercial and trading reactions of such a proposal. If opportunity offers, I shall, by question, raise the subject for discussion on Thursday upon that point.
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION WATER BILL.
Read 3a with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

INSURRECTION IN BRAZIL.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I desire to ask the Lord President of the Council a question of which I have given him private notice—whether he is in a position to add anything to the statement he made in this House on Thursday last with regard to the situation in Brazil.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I regret to inform the noble Earl that since the statement which I made on July 24 the news which we have received
1028
from His Majesty's Ambassador in Brazil is less satisfactory. He says that there is still strong feeling at Sao Paulo in favour of the rebels, who are very determined; that there is a shortage of flour; that a large part of the population has already left the City; and that the foreign banks are carefully guarded. The Minister of War has published an appeal to the people of Sao Paulo to leave the town in order to escape the effects of the military operations which will shortly be carried out. The President of the State of Sao Paulo has agreed to facilitate the departure of British subjects. There are, as yet, no casualties amongst British subjects. The Brazilian Government news is that their troops have advanced, and by occupying another line of railway are cutting off provisions so that their position is now very favourable.
His Majesty's Ambassador has enquired of the President of Brazil what measures are being taken to facilitate the departure of the population of Sao Paulo and to provide for their necessities, and whether the Brazilian Government proposes to indemnify all losses if the City is destroyed. Sir John Tilley was informed by the President's secretary that no immediate bombardment was intended and that it was hoped that it would not be necessary. He has been unable to obtain an answer with regard to the question of compensation for damage. His Majesty's Ambassador is taking steps to provide relief or the removal of refugees from Santos, if necessary. He reports that Rio de Janeiro is quiet but that there is dissatisfaction in business circles. A telegram from His Majesty's Consul-General at Rio de Janeiro states that communication between Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo is interrupted but that the latest reports were to the effect that there were no casualties among the British colony and that the foreign representatives chiefly interested are addressing a collective Note to the President on the subject of the care of foreign subjects leaving Sao Paulo and the responsibility of the Brazilian Government for their lives and property. His Majesty's ship "Curlew" has been instructed to proceed to Brazil at once from Trinidad.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his answer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord would like to say anything as regards business?
LORD PARMOOR: There is a Motion down in my name as regards to-day's business and in moving that I will make a statement. The Motion is that Standing Order XXI be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of allowing the Committee stage of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill to have precedence of the Report stage of the London Traffic Bill and certain subsequent Orders. The noble Marquess will recollect that on a former occasion I stated the urgency of the matter. I think I should warn the House that if we are to finish the business on the Paper to-day it may be necessary, if your Lordships will consent to it, to sit after the dinner hour. I do not want to say that too positively because possibly the business may be got through, but there is a great deal upon the Paper.
The only other questions that I think I need say a word about are these. Subject to the other business which will be upon the Paper it will be important to finish, if possible, to-morrow the Unemployment Insurance Bill so that it may go back to another place as early as possible. The same urgency would apply to to-morrow as to to-day. The London Traffic Bill will, I imagine, be down for to-morrow and it would also be important to do that Bill, though it might stand over for another day if any important change is made upon the Report stage, in order that it might be further considered. As your Lordships are aware the Housing Bill is already on the Paper. That is an important matter which must come on to-morrow. I was going to mention also the Agricultural Wages Bill to which, at the present time, there is no reference upon the Paper. I do not know whether it will come up to us to-day or not, but it is a matter in which your Lordships are much interested and I should like to put the Second Beading down for a time that is convenient to your Lordships. As apparently there is nothing on the Paper for Thursday—
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: There is the question that I have raised to-day, but I do not think it will take long.
LORD PARMOOR: Except that, there is nothing down in the way of Questions, but the Bills come first on Thursday. I will, however, talk to the noble Earl about that, and see what arrangements can be made. I do not wish to say anything to-day about the further stages of the Agricultural Wage" Bill, nor until after the Second Beading has been taken.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of allowing the Committee Stage of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill to have precedence of the Report Stage of the London Traffic Bill and subsequent Orders.—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, it may be to your Lordships' convenience if we definitely heard the arrangements for this week. We are sitting to-day at a quarter past three, and, with the weight of business upon us, it seems to me that it would be better to sit at quarter past three each day.
LORD PARMOOR: There is the Committee for Privileges to-morrow.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Well, then we could sit to-morrow at a. quarter past four, and on the other days, when there is no Committee for Privileges, we could sit earlier. I want to draw attention to the fact that the amount of business to be done makes it very doubtful in my mind whether we can get through it next week, or without encroaching a good deal upon next week. On Friday this week, perhaps, we might sit at twelve, as we did before, to meet the desire of your Lordships, and rise, say, at four o'clock. We could get through a certain amount of business by then. The week after that will take care of itself. So far as to-morrow is concerned I think we had better meet at a quarter past four, and on the rest of the days of the week at a quarter past three.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure the Lord Chancellor is fully justified in asking your Lordships to sit daily at a quarter past three this week. At this time of the Session that is a reasonable arrangement, but I experience a little feeling of opposition when I hear that your Lordships cannot

1031
sit to-morrow at a quarter past throe because one of the Committees of the House is already ordered for that day.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Committee for Privileges.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is a Committee of this House, and I should have thought it was for the Committee for Privileges to give way to the House of Lords rather than the House of Lords to give way to the Committee for Privileges.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): I have no objection at all. It would mean that the Committee for Privileges would have to sit on Wednesday as well. The arrangement for to-morrow's meeting has been made for a long time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not want to interfere: I will leave it to the Lord Chancellor to thrash the matter out with the Lord Chairman. So far as the rest of the week is concerned, I think we should sit at a quarter past three. The Lord President of the Council intimated that the Third Reading of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill must be taken to-morrow, no doubt, because of the exigencies of time. It is very inconvenient that we should have been driven to this position. It is an important Bill, and your Lordships, I think, have been treated very cavalierly by those responsible for the conduct of business in another place. Then there is the London Traffic Bill. The Report Stage will, I think, be finished to-night. The Lord President spoke about sitting after dinner. I do not think that will be necessary. I think he will find that the business will be finished before dinner time. But as regards the Third Beading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, I hope the Lord President will not make up his mind to take the Third Reading to-morrow. I am always very careful about Third Readings, and I want a little time to look through the Bill, to see that it is absolutely all right and that the necessary notices can be handed in of any further Amendments. I think the Third Reading of that Bill may properly be taken on Wednesday. Then there is the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill which stands as the principal business for
1032
to-morrow. The Lord Chancellor did not say when he proposed to take the Committee Stage of that Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have been considering that matter. Suppose we say to-day week; that is, Monday next.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We shall certainly enjoy our Bank Holiday very well in discussing that Bill. As regards the Agricultural Wages Bill I do not see any objection to taking it any convenient day this week. The Lord President, however, will recollect that the adjourned debate on India stands on the Paper. It is quite clear this cannot be taken to-morrow; that is out of the question. The Housing Bill will take the whole of to-morrow. Therefore, I think it is incumbent on the Government to find an opportunity at an early day to resume the debate on India. That may alter the order of business somewhat for this week.
LORD PARMOOR: Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to consult with him on that matter?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Certainly.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: May I ask the Lord President when he proposes to take, the Second Reading of the Old Age Pensions Bill? Some of my noble friends are interested in that measure, and I shall be glad to know on what day he proposes to proceed with it. With regard to the adjourned debate on India, it was, I think, adjourned by a noble friend of mine and therefore I shall be glad to communicate with the Lord President so that I can get in touch with my noble friend and prevent him making a wasted journey to this House.
LORD PARMOOR: The Second Reading of the Old Age Pensions Bill is put down for Wednesday. It is almost entirely a financial measure; but perhaps the noble Earl will see me with regard to it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Lord Chairman has just informed me that the Committee for Privileges will rise in time for this House to sit at 3.15 p.m. to-morrow.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on recommitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
KEIGHLEY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendment proposed by the Committee made.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SMOKE ABATEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, before into Committee I should like to ask why Scotland is excluded from the Bill. A Bill was in draft at the time of the late Government for dealing with smoke abatement in Scotland, and the need for such provisions as are contained in this Bill is even greater in Scotland than in England because of the quantity of soft coal that is burnt in that country.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I was about to ask leave to postpone the Committee stage of this Bill owing do the pressure of business to-day, and it will therefore, be more convenient if I answer the noble Lord when we take the Committee stage. I propose to put down the Committee stage for Friday next
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this Bill will only take a very short time. It was put down by arrangement for to-day. Why is it necessary to interfere with the Orders of the Day?
LORD PARMOOR: It was considered that owing to the very heavy nature of the business on the Order Paper to-day it would be better to postpone the Committee stage. I did not know that that would interfere with the noble Lord's arrangements, and I regret that it should do so.
LORD NEWTON: It is understood that this Rill will be taken on Friday?
LORD PARMOOR: Certainly.
Committee put off to Friday next accordingly.

SLAVERY IN ABYSSINIA.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have received since last July any information on slavery in Abyssinia which they can communicate to this House or to the League of Nations; and to move for Papers. The noble Karl said: My Lords, I am glad that I need not detain your Lordships at any length in putting this Question, but those of your Lordships who remember a discussion which look place last year upon it may recall that at that time the noble Marquess, Lord Curzon of Kedle-ston, who was then Foreign Secretary, promised your Lordships, under great pressure, especially from the Episcopal Bench, to try to obtain some information on this subject from our Consuls in Abyssinia. Twelve months have now gone by, and I hope that there has been sufficient time to obtain a Report on this Question and that the noble Lord will be able to communicate it to your Lordships' House. May I add one sentence: The most interesting and most important aspect of slavery in Abyssinia seems to me to be connected rather with the raids into British territory than with the subject which generally looms more largely in the newspapers—namely, whether we should send gunboats or other vessels to the Red Sea.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall not be able to give the noble Earl all the information that he desires for reasons which I will state, but I should like to say also that great progress has been made in this matter under the ægis and influence of the League of Nations. I will explain to him exactly what has been done. In the first place, I am told that the publication by His Majesty's Government of the Reports which they have received would be the most effective method of closing this source of information and, in consequence, would not be in the public interest, nor would it be likely to bring about the results which the noble Earl desires. Apart from this, the noble Earl will, I think, realise that the publication by His Majesty's Government of these Reports

1035
regarding social conditions in Abyssinia might not unjustifiably be resented by a Power which has only recently become a fellow-Member of the League of Nations and which, as such, will now have an opportunity of furnishing the special Commission appointed by the League to report on slavery with full information regarding conditions within its own borders.
The Abyssinian Government have recently supplied the League of Nations with a copy of an Edict issued by them this year forbidding the traffic in human beings, and I fed confident that the League itself will watch carefully the manner in which this Edict is carried out. Sir Frederic Lugard, the British member on the special Commission, whose experience in these matters everyone recognises, has had access to all the information available to His Majesty's Government regarding conditions in Abyssinia. The special Commission on Slavery will ultimately present its Report to the Council of the League and this Report will naturally receive publicity. In these circumstances I trust that the noble Earl will not press his Motion for Papers to be laid.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord though, of course, he will not expect me to say that his statement is anything but entirely unsatisfactory. It will probably be necessary to have a discussion on this subject in October, when we may be able to enter more fully into the whole subject and expose, I hope, the wholly unsatisfactory character of the answer.

LAW OF PROPERTY ACT (POSTPONEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:—
1.—CUSTODY OF RECORDS IN THE VICTORIA TOWER.
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee that the Records of Parliament stored in the Victoria Tower were in
1036
a somewhat neglected condition and that a certain amount of expenditure would be required in order to ensure their better preservation. He suggested that a subcommittee should be appointed to consider the various matters involved and to report to the Committee.
The Committee approved this suggestion and appointed the following Lords to be the Sub-Committee, namely:—Marquess of Bath, Earl of Clarendon and Lord Wigan (Earl of Crawford).
2.—ECCLESIASTICAL COMMITTEE.
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee that an arrangement had been made with the Treasury by which a payment of £100 a year was to be made to the Secretary of the Ecclesiastical Committee, appointed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, and a further payment of £200 a year for legal assistance to that Committee.
The Committee agreed that these payments might be put on the House of Lords Vote so long as the officials to whom they were made were officers of the House of Lords.
3.—PROPOSED BOX FOR OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE ON THE LEFT OF THE THRONE.
The Committee decided that it was desirable to erect a box for the officers of the House on the left of the Throne to correspond with the box already in position on the right of the Throne.
4.—ANNUAL ACCOUNT OF THE FEE FUND.
The Account of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords for the year ended the 31st of March, 1923, was laid before the Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered and adopted.
Moved, That the Report of the Select Committee be now considered and adopted.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Parmoor.)
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, before the House goes into Committee, I should like to be allowed to make a few observations. Noble Lords who were present when the Second Reading was taken will, no doubt, remember that some of us entered a protest

1037
against this Bill being brought up at a time when the Bill which it is to replace would expire within a few days, and we expressed the view that the Government might have brought it up in time to allow us an opportunity of considering it. We further pointed out that the Second Reading of this Bill, which is the most important Bill, which the Government have brought forward during the present Session, was put down after another Motion which the House had to consider at some length.
The result was that, while my noble and learned friend Lord Cave had an opportunity of making some criticisms of the Bill which were, as usual, brief and lucid, some of us who would have liked an opportunity of dealing with the Bill on the Second Beading were unable to do so. It was, if he will allow me to say so, largely owing to the excessive loquacity of the Lord President that there was no opportunity for any other speakers to take part in the debate. When I say "excessive," I do not think that I am using an exaggerated term, because the Lord President, on the question of the League of Nations and the Second Reading of the Unemployed Insurance Bill, occupied no less than one hour and three quarters of a sitting of four hours. I consider that excessive, and I think it was rather hard on other members who had desired to take part in the proceedings.
I do not propose to detain your Lordships with anything like a Second Beading speech, because I am very anxious, as noble Lords will recognise, not to waste the time of the House, but there is one point upon which I should like to have a little information from the Lord President. It is not a point which I can raise in Committee, because it deals with the whole finance of the Bill. The Lord President pointed out the other day on the Second Reading that what is called the solvency period would, in ordinary circumstances, come into force in June, 1926, and, when it comes into force, the contributions from employers and men are to be reduced from 10 d. and 9d. respectively to 6d. each, while the contributions of the Government will be increased. The Actuary who examined the matter on behalf of the Government has reported that, taking into consideration all the changes which so far have been incorporated in the Bill,
1038
with one exception to which I will refer in a moment, there will be at the end of that period a revenue of £30,600,000 and an expenditure of £30,500,000, giving a surplus of about £100,000.
The Lord President then surprised the House—and I think he admitted that he had been surprised himself—by calling attention to an Amendment which had been made at a very late stage of the Bill in the other House which would throw a charge of no less than £4,500,000 a year upon the Unemployment Fund. The original Bill, for which I was responsible, and the subsequent Bill, provided that no one could obtain benefit until seven days of his unemployment had elapsed. This period of a week is going to be reduced to three days, at a cost of something like £4,500,000 a year, as I think the Lord President stated. The question I want to put to him—and the information will be of advantage to the House—is, how is that going to affect the solvency of the Fund, how long is it likely to defer the day on which the Fund will become solvent and the reduction of contributions by employer and employed take effect? I think everybody has felt that while those contributions have been accepted and paid without complaint by the employers and the men, they are a very heavy burden upon industry, and that the sooner they can be reduced and the Government contributions increased the better it will be for trade, for the men and for the employers. Unfortunately, this charge will throw a very great additional burden on the Fund and considerably delay the period at which the Fund again becomes solvent. Personally I would rather have had the extra contributions and give these three days. I raise this point now because it would not be possible to raise it in Committee, and I shall be glad if the Lord President of the Council will tell us what will be the actual effect of this additional charge upon the Fund, how much it is likely to delay the solvency date, which at the present moment is June, 1926, and how His Majesty's Government propose to meet the additional charge.
LORD PARMOOR: I am very willing to give the noble Earl what information I can. I am afraid I curtailed my remarks so closely the other night, in order to save time, that I may not have made the point as clear as I ought to have done. Really

1039
the position is quite clear. The difficulty to which the noble Earl has referred cannot arise until the deficiency period is over. Until that period is over the larger contributions will go on, and it is certain that the deficiency period will not be over until after July, 1926, which is the time at which this Bill conies to an end, and unfortunately, as has been the case before, no doubt, these financial matters will have to be reconsidered. The estimated surplus while the present payments are made is about £5,000,000. No doubt the £4,500,000 will affect that to a very large extent, but there can be no question whatever of insolvency. What the noble Earl has in mind is what may be the result when the deficiency period is over, and the new contributions come into force. The answer is that it is extraordinarily difficult to foresee what will happen with regard to questions of employment and unemployment. It depends upon the basic figure. It is wholly impossible for the deficiency period to come to an end during the life of the present Bill, and matters will then have to be reconsidered.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Rights of insured persons to unemployment benefit.
(3) If an applicant for benefit in whose case the requirements of subsection (1) of this section are fulfilled is not entitled thereto under the provisions of the last preceding subsection, by reason either that the number of contributions paid in respect of him within the period therein mentioned is less than twenty, or that sufficient contributions are not standing to his credit or that he has already received benefit for periods amounting in the aggregate to twenty-six weeks in the benefit year in which the application is made, he shall nevertheless be entitled to receive benefit if in addition to satisfying the requirements aforesaid he also proves—
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM, on behalf of Viscount Cave, moved, in subsection (3) after "in which the application is made, to leave out" he shall nevertheless be entitled to receive benefit "and to insert" the Minister may in his discretion authorise the payment of benefit to the applicant." The noble
1040
Lord said: As Lord Cave is not here I propose to move the Amendment which stands in his name. The subsection as it stands does this. It says:—
"If an applicant for benefit in whose case the requirements of subsection (1) of this section are fulfilled is not entitled thereto under the provisions of the last preceding subsection, by reason cither that the number of contributions paid in respect of him within the period therein mentioned is less than twenty, or that sufficient contributions are not standing to his credit Or that he has already received benefit for periods amounting in the aggregate to twenty-six weeks in the benefit year in which the application is made, he shall nevertheless be entitled to receive benefit if in addition to satisfying the requirements aforesaid he also proves—"
Lord Cave wishes to leave out the part which entitles a man, subject to the requirements later mentioned, as of right to receive the benefits. I think it is very necessary that these words proposed shall be put in, because your Lordships will see that if they are not put in this result will occur: that a man who has not paid sufficient contributions to receive benefits, or who has already received 26 weeks benefit, notwithstanding that and notwithstanding the fact therefore that he is not entitled to receive any benefits, nevertheless is to receive the benefits to which he is not entitled. This is quite a new provision, although I believe a short time ago it was provided that the Minister might, if he desired, allow a man to receive the benefit, although he was not entitled to it. Personally I do not think that the solvency of the Fund is going to be maintained if we allow this sort of clause entitling a man as of right to receive benefits to which he has not contributed and to which he is not entitled. If we have any regard to the solvency of the Fund we must, at any rate, say that a man is not to receive of right this benefit which is really a payment ex gratia, but may receive it if the Minister thinks that it is necessary he should so receive it.
I cannot conceive, when one looks at the financial position of the Fund, that such a very dangerous provision as this ought to be left in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, a moment ago, stated that he would give a very clear explanation of the question put to him. I listened very attentively to his statement, and so far as I can understand

1041
the clear explanation it is this—that the noble and learned Lord did not in the least know whether the Fund was going to be solvent or not, and we should not find out until July, 1926, when the financial arrangements would have to he reconsidered. That, as I understood it, was the clear explanation given, and I believe that, as a matter of fact, nobody living knows whether or not the Fund will be solvent in July, 1926. I shall have a few-words to say upon that on my own later Amendment, but I might point out to your Lordships that when the departure was made, I think by Dr. Macnamara, four or five years ago, which, allowed people to receive, benefits to which they had not contributed, I stated that the result would be that the Fund would be insolvent, and that unemployment would continue. Dr. Macnamara told me I was wrong, and that the whole thing would right itself before long. Certainly five years have elapsed since then, and the only result is that we go on repeating the mistake which we made at that time.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 13 and 14, leave out ("he shall nevertheless he entitled to receive benefit") and insert ("the Minister may in his discretion authorise the payment of benefit to the applicant").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, let me say a few words on the financial side. I do not think that the financial effect would be different either way, but, as a matter of fact, the Government Actuary's Report was made on the basis of there being a right to the payment, and its not being left to the discretion of the Minister. The discretion of the Minister has been exercised substantially in favour of the claimant by all Ministers of all Governments, but I want to say why it is considered better to make it a, matter of right and not of discretion. Clause 1 deals both with covenanted and un-covenanted payments, and your Lordships will see that, as regards un-covenanted payments, the provisions are contained in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (3). The statutory conditions there set out must, be complied with before any payment is made, and those statutory conditions appear to me to go far in the direction indicated by the noble Lord opposite. The applicant must be normally insured in an insurable employment; he has to prove that in
1042
normal times insurable employment suited to his capacities would be likely to be available, and that he has, during two years immediately before the date, been so employed; and, lastly, he has to make every reasonable effort to obtain employment suited to his capacities, and to be willing to accept such employment. I think it is right that the claimant for benefit, if he complies with those conditions, should receive the benefit as a right, and not as a matter of discretion.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Cave, in speaking on this matter on the Second Heading said he thought that it would be inconsistent with the contributory principle to allow this payment as a right, instead of its being at the discretion of the Minister. I want to suggest, that it is just the other way. Personally—and the Government have given expression to the same view—I am wholly in favour of contributions. I think that the contributory principle ought to be protected and encouraged to the utmost, and, because of that, I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. How does the matter stand? So far as contributions are concerned, they are compulsory for everyone employed in an insurable employment. There is no option of any kind. If you have compulsory contributions on one side you ought to have the right to obtain benefit on the other, subject to any statutory Regulations which it is thought right to lay down. Surely, that is a principle. Why should not a person who is subject to the liability of compulsion for contributions be entitled as a right to receive the benefit, if the statutory conditions are complied with? I feel very strongly upon this point, because, if you take away the claim as of right you are getting back towards the position in which the money is provided by the State and not by contributions. The reason why a man is entitled is that he has been under liability to contribute.
The history of this matter has not been consistent, although when it was discussed in another place I think this Amendment was withdrawn or negatived, and, I suggest, quite rightly. When this uncovenanted benefit was first introduced, or, at any rate, in the Act of 1921, Section 3, it was not discretionary, but was of right. Since that time there have been amendments both ways, it is true, but

1043
surely it is right, and in accordance with the contributory principle, that when a man is under obligation to contribute he ought, as of right, to be entitled to benefit when the time comes.
EARL BUXTON: As regards the first point raised by Lord Banbury I think the answer of the Lord President is really a complete one. Parliament in the last few years has been going step by step in this direction. I think the original Act of 1911 fixed a limit of fifteen weeks, and later that was increased, first, to twenty-six weeks, then to forty-four weeks, and now to fifty-two weeks. So that practically the principle of the thing has been very largely accepted already by various Parties, and in various Bills. I do not think it is a definite new departure from the point of view that the benefit should be more or less proportionate to the contributions that have been paid, or are about to be paid. It weakens, though it does not entirely destroy, that principle. The Lord President has drawn attention to the conditions which have to be complied with if a man is to receive benefit, the most important of which is that the claimant is making every reasonable effort to obtain employment suited to his capacity. Of course, the decision on that is left to the local committee, which represents employers and workmen, and it has to be satisfied that he has made his best endeavours to obtain employment.
There is a further matter which I think escaped the attention of the Lord President and which, to a certain extent, justifies what he says. This is really based on the contributory system. It does not apply to new entrants; it only applies to men who have already been in an insured trade, in insurance for two years or more, and who have already paid at least thirty contributions. That is to say, these men have already been under the purview of the Act, and have paid for a certain amount of benefit. In addition to that, as soon as they are able to obtain employment again they at once resume the payment of contributions to the Fund. Therefore, they are contributors, though not contributors to the full extent to which the original Bill and the Amending Bill intended. The fact is that this system of unemployment benefit has been applied to far more trades and industries than was originally the case when it was an experimental proposal. It covered
1044
originally two and a half millions of people, whereas it now covers, I think, twelve millions and still leaves one or two trades outside. Therefore, in considering this matter, we have to look a little more than we had before, perhaps, to the interdependence of different trades and the risks in them, and it seems to me that contributions ought to bear some relation to risk and to the collective amount obtained for the Fund, as a whole, to cover so many industries.
My noble friend says that this is a new principle applied to the question of unemployment. I will endeavour to show that, although it is a new departure to some extent, it does not destroy the principle of contributions, and that there is a great deal of force in the Lord President's remark that it emphasises and enforces that principle. I confess that I was somewhat nervous when this Bill was first introduced owing to a phrase which fell from the Minister of Labour in another place regarding the question of a contributory basis. I was rather afraid that it looked as though the Government were going to depart in some way from the contributory basis, and I was very much relieved to find that they retained that basis to as full an extent as it had existed up to now; that is to say, that the men, on the one hand, the employers on the other, and the State in the third place contribute to the Fund. If this benefit came to an end, as was the case in the early days of the Unemployment Act, when a man had so much benefit and no more, it would mean that it would come to an end after a considerable period of unemployment when a great deprivation had been suffered by the man and his family. If, after that long period, he was thrown out of benefit it would mean either that be and his family would suffer very severely or that would happen which happens now—they would apply to the Poor Law, and the guardians would be brought into a matter from which I think all Parties desire to keep them. I think that would be a very serious matter indeed.
The main argument used in the other House was, I think, that this provision would induce a man to remain out of work and to prefer to draw unemployment pay, and that a great many men were what is called "work shy." I think the answer

1045
is that even with the increased benefits which will be paid under the new Act the amounts, as the Lord President pointed out the other day, are very small. I do not think in any case they come to anything approaching what the man would obtain in his trade if he went to work. Therefore, the inducement for him to remain on the Unemployment Fund instead of going to work is very slight indeed. Then he has to go before the local committee periodically to show that he has made his very best endeavours to obtain work but has been unable to do so. Therefore, I do not think the question of "work shyness" would come very much into the matter.
This is a more doubtful proposal, however, than that in the former Act. It is. to a certain extent, a new departure, but I do not think it is such a departure from principle as would prevent the Act working properly. I think it would be a very great advantage to these men to obtain this benefit. So far as this point is concerned, the Fund is in a solvent condition and actuarially is able to meet the demand. I hope, therefore, that your Lordship's House will agree with the decision come to in another place and will reject this Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The Lord President in his answer to me, said that he thought it was absolutely right that where a man had contributed to receive certain benefits he should receive them. I agree with him; but he has apparently overlooked the words in this clause which say that, "if an applicant for benefit is not entitled thereto." His explanation falls to the ground. In all these insurance Schemes, if a man contributes he is entitled to receive the sum to which he is entitled under the scheme; but he ought not to receive something to which he is not entitled under the scheme and for which he, therefore, has not paid. Under this provision a man is going to receive something to which he is not entitled under the scheme and to which he has not contributed.
The Lord President also said that it is not necessary to put into the clause the words "if the Minister approves," first, because all Ministers would approve, and, secondly, because of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (3). There can be no harm in putting those words in,
1046
from the Lord President's point of view, if he thinks that all Ministers would approve. But it does not at all follow, I think, that all Ministers would approve. In regard to the abuse of this provision, I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, that people might not refuse to accept work because the benefits are less than they would get if they worked. It is very easy to say that the work offered is not suitable or that something prevents them from taking it. Everybody knows that there are at present a considerable number of people who prefer to be unemployed rather than work. Therefore, the arguments adduced by the Lord President are in favour of the Amendment and not against it.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I must express my regret that I was riot here in time to move the Amendment which stands in my name, but I was engaged elsewhere upon another public duty and did not anticipate that this Bill would come on so soon. I have gathered from the debate something of what was said by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord President, in answer to the Amendment, and I want to make a few points upon it. First, I am sure the House understands that this Amendment is confined to uncovenanted benefit: that is, to benefit which is payable where it would not have been payable as the result of contributions. In such a case hitherto the Minister has had some discretion. He has had the right to make these payments of uncovenanted benefits, but he has not been compelled to pay them. Therefore, he has been able to give instructions to committees dealing with these cases to enable those committees to prevent abuses and in some measure to prevent unjustifiable calls upon the Fund.
In this Bill, for the first time it is sought to take away that discretion and to give to the man who has not paid sufficient contributions to entitle him to benefit a right to have benefit. In other words, for the first time you are giving a statutory right to what has sometimes been called "work or maintenance." That is that if a man cannot work he shall be entitled by law to these allowances out of the Unemployment Fund. I venture to think that this House ought, at the very beginning, to make a stand against such a proposal. It is the very negation of the whole principle of insurance for unemployment. Hither-

1047
to, although there have been a good many relaxations; all Governments and all Parliaments have maintained the principle that benefit in the ease of unemployment must rest upon insurance. This Bill throws away that principle. It destroys the whole rule upon which the present Act rests and it makes that which, for the first time, one is inclined to call a "dole," a matter of right and not of contract. That is, it creates a right dependent upon the gift of other people, and not dependent upon the man's own contributions to the Fund. I hope we shall stop that from the very beginning.
It may be that the Amendment would, in practice, for some, time to come, and while the emergency continues, make no practical difference to the man—that is to say, that a Minister might quite possibly think that in all these cases he should exercise his discretion in favour of the applicant for benefit. But even if that be so you preserve the principle, you enable the Minister, if he thinks fit, to make Regulations limiting this particular kind of gift. This is, of course, put forward not in the interest of the State in the main, although this costs the State something. What I chiefly want is to relieve the other workers and the employers from having to pay this "dole" to men who are not themselves contributing to the Fund. I believe that the maintenance of the premium at its present high rate for a prolonged period is really a great hardship upon the men who are at work, and also a very heavy burden upon industry as a whole, and I want, and I am sure noble Lords opposite want, as soon as they can, to get matters back to the normal. That is really what I am working for, and I do not think I have pressed it unreasonably.
I do not at all mean to object to the increase of the amount of benefit. As I said the other day, I should not like to take the responsibility, in view of what we have been told by His Majesty's Government, of objecting to the increase of the weekly amount of benefit to be paid, nor am I seeking to prevent the Minister from sanctioning the payment of uncovenanted benefit during this period of emergency. Subject to those things, I want, if I can, to keep firmly to the principle that this is a gift. It is really
1048
a gift from the other workers, and ought not to be made a matter of right simply because a man asks for it. I feel greatly indebted to my noble friend behind me for moving this Amendment in my absence, and I hope your Lordships will insert it in the Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: Perhaps I might say one word in answer to what the noble and learned Viscount has said. He is under the disadvantage—or perhaps it is an advantage—of not having heard the case that I had made. I think it is quite clear that as to the contribution principle it is not so much a matter between one contributor and another, as it is one between the Fund provided in great part by contributions under compulsory conditions on the one side, and giving all workers a right to the benefit when the occasion arises, on the other. I pointed out that in my view—and I agree with what the noble and learned Viscount said upon the Second Reading—it is important that under the statutory limitations introduced into this Bill the claim should be one of right and not merely a discretionary claim. I also suggested that we should know that as a rule the discretion has been adopted. As the noble Earl pointed out, you want to make unemployment insurance a safeguard against the old Poor Law principle. You really can only do it in this way. I do not want to go over the argument that I have already used, but it certainly appears to me that you want to keep the contributory principle and to make it effective, and you ought to make it sufficiently wide. That being so this Amendment ought not to be adopted, but the Bill should be left in its present form.
LORD DARLING: I should not have said anything upon this matter, as your Lordships may suppose, but for the explanation which has been given by the noble Lord, the Lord President, as to" why we should vote against this Amendment. I should have thought that the Amendment did more to preserve the contributory principle than anything else. But the noble and learned Lord opposite said that we ought to vote against it because the Bill as it stands does everything possible to preserve the contributory principle which is so important. The way in which it preserves the contributory principle is this, that it allows

1049
people to benefit by the contributions of others to a Fund to which they themselves have not contributed. The noble Lord, the President of the Council, was, I think, a Chancellor of one diocese, or perhaps of several. That being so, I have not the slightest doubt that he has made himself acquainted with the writings of Pascal in his "Provincial Letters." This doctrine of the noble and learned Lord reminds me more than anything I have ever heard of Pascal's explanation where he deals with the casuists. I do not for a moment impute
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4;
Amendments as to disqualifications for receipt of unemployment benefit.
4.—(1) Subsection (1) of Section eight of the principal Act (which imposes a disqualification for the receipt of benefit during a stoppage of work) shall not apply in any case in which the insured contributor proves that he is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work, and that he does not belong to a grade or class of workers members of which are participating in or financing or directly
to the noble Lord that ho is a casuist, but his argument reminds mc of the attitude of Pascal where he deals with the doctrine of "La grace suffisante qui ne suffit pas." Here we are to preserve the contributory principle by allowing those to benefit who have not contributed to the Fund.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 47.

CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Grey of Fallodon, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Riddell, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Soutkwark, L. Bp.

Shandon, L.

Southwark, L

Beauchamp, E.

Arnold, L. [Teller.]

Stanmore, L.

Buxton, E.

Gainford, L.

Strachie, L.

Meston, L.

Terrington, L.

Allendale, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]

Thomson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Curzon of Kedleston, M.

Falkland, V.

Kenyon, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hood, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Lawrence, L.

Balfour, E.

Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.

Bradfoud, E.

Long, V.

Marshall of Chipstead, L.

Coventry, E.

Peel, V.

Merthyr, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch und Queensberry.)

Ullswater, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Newton, L.

Iveagh, E.

Armstrong, L.

Plumer, L.

Lovelace, E.

Askwith, L.

Ponsoby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Lucan, E.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E. [Teller.]

Raglan, L.

Midlteton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Redesdale, L.

Onslow, E.

Saltoun, L.

Clinton, L.

Sydenham, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Templemore, L.

Cave, V.

Darling, L.

Teynhan, L.

Chaplin, V.

Jessel, L.

Wharton, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

interested in the dispute, or that the stoppage is due to an employer acting in a manner so as to contravene the terms or provisions of any agreement existing between a group of employers where the stoppage takes place, or of a national agreement to either of which the employers and employees are contracting parties.
(2) Subsection (3) of Section eight of the principal Act (which disqualifies an insured contributor for the receipt of benefit while he is an inmate of any workhouse or other institution supported wholly or partly out of public funds) shall not apply in the case of an insured contributor who is an inmate of an institution used as a place of residence for workers if lie proves that he was an inmate of the institution immediately before he became unemployed and that during the time when he was employed he paid the whole or a substantial part of the cost of his maintenance as such inmate.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Lord said: There are three arguments against this subsection. The first objection is the financial effect of the provision. The Government have issued a White Paper on the subject of this Bill, giving the further Report of the Government Actuary on the financial provisions of the Bill. First of all the Actuary says that the charges which have been imposed under the Bill while it was in another place will leave a deficiency of £4,500,000 and that this result docs not take into account any liability arising under proposals which he discusses later in the White Paper. Paragraph (8) of this Report is the one which deals with this subsection, and the Actuary says this:
"Clause 4 (1) provides for the payment of benefit in certain cases of unemployment arising in connection with trade disputes. …
"I much regret that after further examination of the subject I am compelled to adhere to the conclusion that the cost of the clause is, as I have stated,' insusceptible of calculation.'"
Therefore, knowing that there will be a deficiency of four and a half millions more than was contemplated when the Bill was introduced, we are actually going to put in this clause, which the Actuary says is "insusceptible of calculation." That is the financial objection.
The second objection is that it is, in my opinion, an encouragement of strikes. It says that where a man is not a member of the trade union in which a strike is going on he shall, because he loses his work on account of the strike, nevertheless be entitled to receive unemployment benefit. There is a provision that his trade union must not be concerned with the other trade union, but that is a matter which can very easily be got over. Conceive an instance which I think is very likely to take place. An employer employs certain men who are members of trade union A, and certain men who are members of trade union B. Trade union A strike, and the result of that is that the employer is unable to employ men of trade union B. Consequently trade union B men, under this clause, will receive unemployment benefit. It is said that if the two trade unions are in collusion the men do not receive benefit, but how are you going to prove that they are, or are not, in collusion? Is it not perfectly easy for the secretary of one
1052
trade union to say to the secretary of another trade union—it need not be in writing at all—"If you strike our men will have to go out, they will get unemployment benefit, and the employer's work will be at a standstill"?
Your Lordships must remember that the employer contributes out of his own pocket to the payment of benefit to the men who are on strike. The men who are on strike stand out, and the employer is compelled to come to term" with them. Then the secretary of trade union B says to the secretary of trade union A: "Now we are coming out. Your men will not be hurt, because you will get unemployment benefit and, when the strike is over, you will have the increased wages which you won by your strike." They go out, the employer's work is again stopped and the employer has to contribute to the benefit of the other set of trade union members who are out. I venture to say, therefore, that this clause is calculated to promote, strikes, and is entirely in the interest of the trade unions in preventing their funds from being encroached upon if strikes take place.
The third point is this. The subsection says that the disqualification for the receipt of benefit shall not apply if
"the stoppage is duo to an employer acting in a manner so as to contravene the terms or provisions of any agreement existing between a group of employers where the stoppage takes place, or of a national agreement to either of which the employers and employees are contracting parties."
How on earth are you to tell whether or not the employers and employees are contracting parties to a national agreement? Some may say that they are, and some may say that they are not. I have been concerned in a good many strikes on the railways. I think, in almost every case it was said that the agreement had not been carried out either by one side or the other, and a dispute immediately arose as to the meaning of certain words in the agreement arrived at. But here "you introduce a clause which it would require the subtlest legal brain to elucidate, and, when you have that subtle legal brain—say that of my noble friend, Viscount Cave—in all probability one of the two parties would not abide by his interpretation. I say, therefore, that this subsection is bad in principle and bad in drafting, and deserves to be eliminated from the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 12 to 26, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PARMOOR: I think I ought first to point out to the noble Lord that the two principal matters with which he has dealt do not really arise on the proposal to leave out the whole of this subsection. They really arise at a later stage, when, no doubt, the matter will have to be fully discussed and considered. The noble Lord's first objection really conies under the Amendment to be moved by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Cave, which stands next upon the Paper, and the second point is raised by the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Askwith. As regards the other parts of the noble Lord's observations, I think he is the only member, either here or in the other place, who has not recognised that the existing provisions of the law under this head work hardly. I thought that this was common ground in another place, and was not-likely to be controverted here.
Under the law as it stands, a claimant to insurance benefit may be disentitled although he has no responsibility for, and no connection of any kind with, the strike in question. Surely that is unfair. I think the noble Lord goes much too far when he talks about encouragement of strikes. This Amendment has nothing to do with that subject. The only point is whether a claimant who is not in any way responsible, either directly or indirectly, for a strike is to be deprived of the benefit to which he would otherwise have been entitled. I should have thought that the noble Lord would be the first to recognise the unfairness of that position. As regards the other matters raised by the noble Lord, I must leave them until the specific Amendments come before us, but I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, which, I think, no other member has regarded as an Amendment which should be brought forward.
EARL BUXTON: With regard to one of the points raised by my noble friend, the observations of the Actuary did not apply to this clause, but to a clause, of the original Bill of a far wider description, the effect of which it is almost impossible to estimate actuarially.
VISCOUNT CAVE: Did not the second Report refer to this clause? I thought that he adhered to his view, that he could not make a calculation.
EARL BUXTON: I do not think that he put it so strongly, but it is more easy in this particular case to estimate the numbers. The other provision, as I think noble Lords who have studied it will understand, brought in a very large number of those to whom my noble friend referred, whereas this one will bring in only a very limited, number. Its wording is directly limited, and consequently it cannot have the effect which my noble friend seemed to fear. I wish to make only one or two observations in regard to this matter, which has always been a. very difficult one. When I had the honour of drafting, introducing and passing the Act of 1911 I had for my assistants Sir John Simon and Sir H. Llewellyn Smith, both most acute and fertile minds, and this was far the most difficult problem with which we had to deal at that time.
The clause introduced in the original Bill divided industries up into different factories, and if there was a strike in a particular factory it was laid down definitely that nobody working in that factory should be entitled to unemployment benefit. That clause stood the test for some years, but, as the Lord President has pointed out, it did lead to-serious hardship. A test case occurred some years ago when a number of moulders struck for increased wages, or better conditions, or whatever was the object. They had a union of their own, but under them, and working side by side with them and dependent upon their work, was a large number of labourers. These labourers had no interest whatever in the moulders' strike. They did not support it or assist it, nor could they benefit by it, whether the moulders won or not. Yet, because they happened, to be in the same factory in which the strike took place, these labourers were debarred from the unemployment benefit for which they had contributed and which, in any other factory, they would have been entitled to receive. This is only one instance of a hardship of which a certain number of other examples could be given.
The Government, in their original Bill, had a clause which, in my opinion, and,

1055
I think, the opinion of those who have considered this matter, went a great deal too far, because it was undoubtedly open to manipulation—I need not trouble your Lordships with the wording of it—both on the one side by the employers and on the other side by the men themselves. Under this clause it was possible to bring out, for instance, just a few of those whom we may call the "key" men, whose cessation of work would bring all work in a particular factory to an end, and the other men, not having given notice, would be entitled therefore to receive benefit from the Fund. That might be the effect of the clause proposed by the Government. There was no provision that men directly interested in the success of the strike—sort of sleeping partners in the strike—should be debarred from obtaining benefit at the expense of the employers. I think the Government realised, after further consideration, that that went too far, and in the other House Sir John Simon, who has always given the matter the utmost consideration, with a desire to make the thing just, proposed this clause which is now in the Bill. The upshot of this clause, I think anybody who reads it must see, is that no working man can obtain benefit who is in any way directly or indirectly interested in the strike itself.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: How can you prove it?
EARL BUXTON: I will come to that. The people whose hardships we want to remove are the people who have no interest, one way or another, in the strike, and who yet are thrown out of employment in consequence of it. The applicant has got to prove that he is not interested. The onus of proof is on him of showing that he is not participating. I am assuming that there is a strike, and that the applicant comes to the local committee, on which are representatives of employers and men. He has to prove that he is not participating in, and is not financing or directly interested in the trade dispute. "Directly interested" means that he will benefit if the strike is brought to a successful conclusion. It seems to me that the clause really covers the hardship, which is undoubtedly great, and I think it affords a sufficient safeguard and guarantee that the unemployment
1056
benefit shall not go to cases in which the man is in any sense directly or indirectly benefiting from the strike. I will not deal with Lord Cave's later Amendment, relating to federations of trade unions, but taking the clause as a whole, in my view—which may not be worth much, but I have studied the question for some time—it will relieve the hardship and also give additional safeguards. The latter part of the clause is, I think, badly worded, but I believe that there is an Amendment on the Paper which may improve it. Taking it as a whole, I think that the clause, dealing as it does with questions of difficulty, does meet them.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I feel some hesitation about this Amendment, because I think there is a great deal of foundation for what my noble friend behind me has said It is true that the Government Actuary has twice expressed his total inability to calculate the cost which will be thrown upon the Fund by this clause. I suppose it is also true that it may happen that two unions, although not associated with one another, might be working together and one playing into the hands of the other. But it is also the fact, I think, that the present rule causes hardship to people in no way responsible for a strike. It has happened, and no doubt may happen again, that a certain class of workers in a factory strikes and throws out of work other workers in no way connected with them either in the class of work, or grade, or in their union. It does seem, rather hard that the latter should lose not only their pay but also all chance of support from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. We have to balance one thing against the other, and I rather hope that my noble friend Lord Banbury will not press this Amendment, but will allow this subsection to be dealt with upon the two points raised by later Amendments. After what Lord Buxton has said, I am sure I shall have his support for my Amendment, and I think in that he will only be following the lead of his colleagues in another place. I think Lord Askwith will have his support, too. I do not, however, want to discuss those two later Amendments now. My own conclusion is that it would be better not to press this Amendment now.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Lord Buxton, in a moment of great modesty,

1057
said his opinion was not worth very much. I bog to differ from him. I think his opinion was very valuable when he brought in the original clause which, according to his own showing, disentitled all men who were on strike, in a factory, whether from their own fault or through the action of the "key" men, from receiving benefit. Now he has run away from that, because of certain hard cases. In this world there always will be hard cases, and if you legislate for hard cases may you not inflict greater hardship upon other people? Of course, the words which Lord Buxton says make this clause safe are legal words, and I presume, they mean what plain English says. But how on earth is anybody to know what are the facts? A man or the secretary of his trade union, may come forward and declare that the applicant is not interested, directly or indirectly, in the particular strike, and is not going to gain anything from it.
That may be true—and even if it is not true it would be very difficult to prove that it is not true—and yet there may be a conspiracy by word of mouth between the secretary of one union and the secretary of the union of the "key" men, by which one set of men should strike first and the other set should strike afterwards, and by so doing so weaken the employers that they would be bound to accede to the men's request. if this provision were not in the Bill the result would probably be that the large number of men thrown out of work by a strike of the "key" men would go to the "key" men, who had not perhaps a genuine grievance and say to them, "You must go back to work." If this subsection is in the Bill, however, there is no incentive to these workmen to urge the "key" men to return to work, because they will receive unemployment benefit. Therefore, I say that this subsection, even as proposed to be amended by the Amendment of my noble friend, would encourage strikes. The Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Cave, is this: After "belong" ["belong to a grade or class of workers"] to insert "to a trade union which either by itself or through another trade, union or a, federation or association of trade unions is, or." I venture to say that the case which I instanced just now is not protected by these words, and, indeed, I do not see how it can be
1058
safeguarded against except by leaving out the subsection altogether. I should very much prefer that the subsection should be left out altogether. I do not want to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division, but if I have any support I shall certainly go to a Division.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT CAVE VISCOUNT CAVE moved, in subsection (1), after "belong," to insert "to a trade union which either by itself or through another trade union or a federation or association of trade unions is, or." The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment does, I think, deal with the very point that my noble friend has just been discussing, and with the point put by the noble Earl, Lord Buxton. The position is this. There may well be engaged in one factory members, of one union, some doing a particular kind of work, others doing another kind of work. The first lot of men may be what have been called "key" men: that is, they may be men whose employment is necessary to keep the factory going. If they are withdrawn the factory may have to stop. What happens as the subsection stands? The union withdraws the "key" men alone, and, of course, his to maintain them while they are on strike. The result is that the other men go out by necessity because they cannot work while the "key" men are away, and they are to be maintained by the Fund. You therefore throw upon the Insurance Fund, which is not meant for that purpose, the main part of the financial support of the strike. I hold that to be absolutely unfair, and I cannot conceive how anybody can support it.
The effect of my Amendment is that in order to receive benefit the applicant must show, among other things, that he does not belong "to a trade union which either by itself or through another trade union or a federation or association of trade unions" is participating in, or financing, or directly interested in the dispute. I believe that is a reasonable proposal. May I add that I think the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, was mistaken? He seemed to think that the words in the Bill are those which were proposed by Sir John Simon. On the contrary, the words proposed by Sir John Simon were those which I am moving to-day, and which were

1059
strongly supported by that distinguished member of the House of Commons. They were definitely accepted by the Minister of Labour, and I think that the Leader of the House, when appealed to, himself accepted them, too. What happened I do not know, but on the following day, when the time came to move this Amendment, no Liberal member was ready to move it, and the Amendment had to be moved by a member of another party. It was opposed both by the Liberal party and the Labour party, and was defeated. So, if my noble friend is going to be guided by the opinion of Sir John Simon, to which he very rightly attached the greatest importance, I shall find him among the supporters of this Amendment
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, after ("belong") insert ("to a trade union which either by itself or through another trade union or a federation or association of trade unions is, or ").—(Viscount Cave.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): My Lords, the Amendment is substantially the same as that moved in another place by Sir John Simon. Sir John Simon had not quite the same words. He merely added "and trade union" after the description of the various grades and classes which would be disqualified. That Amendment was very strongly resisted by a great many trade unionists, for the reason that, for the first time, it established a sort of invidious distinction in dealing with workers, between trade unionists and nor unionists. It aroused so much feeling among the trade union representatives that the Minister of Labour approached Sir John Simon with a view to getting him to withdraw the three, words "and trade union." If the noble and learned Viscount will forgive my saying so, his Amendment goes a little further than Sir John Simon's Amendment. After discussion, Sir John Simon withdrew. The subsection as it stands really covers nearly every point raised by the noble and learned Viscount, except, one. It disqualifies a workman, if either he himself or any members of the grade or class to which he belongs are participating in, or financing, or are directly interested in the dispute. That covers nearly everything, except the case of a high grade man running the powder machinery, who might be said to be in a different grade
1060
from the workmen who are thrown out of work through the fact that he is on strike.
The matter was gone into very deeply in another place, a good deal behind the scenes. I took a great interest in it from the start, and I am persuaded that what decided Sir John Simon and others to withdraw the words "and trade union" was that, for the first time, when a man presented himself at a Labour Exchange now an inquiry would be made whether or not he was a member of a particular trade union, and the attempt would be made to distinguish between unionists and non-unionists. Everybody who has studied these matters will, I am sure, agree that the trade union movement is an absolutely indispensable thing, and to introduce that element of bitterness into it would be highly dangerous. It is for that reason that the Government sincerely hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. In point of fact, it does not tighten up the Bill except in one very small respect, and it is likely to cause a great deal of ill-feeling among trade unionists.
EARL BUXTON: The noble Viscount, Lord Cave, referred to this Amendment as having been in the original proposal made by Sir John Simon. The noble Lord opposite has pointed out that the wording is different, and that this Amendment really goes further.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I agree, it does go further by including a federation.
EARL BUXTOX: I am not authorised to speak on anybody's behalf, but I noticed what happened in the other House. Sir John Simon proposed a verbal Amendment across the Table on a very difficult question. This seemed to meet with the general approval of the House and of the Government, and they accepted it. But, admittedly, they had not had an opportunity of seeing it on paper, and they reserved their right to consider such a question of detail. There is, therefore, no question of a breach of faith. It is simply a question of merits. I understand that these words, or some similar words, were in the original proposal of Sir John Simon, but, after further consideration, he withdrew them on hearing the Minister of Labour's objections.

1061
What we want undoubtedly, I think, is a, definite safeguard that there shall be no abuse of this subsection. The noble Viscount, Lord Cave, seemed to think that this clause is in the same position as the original clause of the Bill, and that you would have "key" men going on strike and that the other workmen who would be effected would receive benefit, though, as a matter of fact, they were interested in the strike. I think that was the main reason why those particular words were put into the subsection, which state that the applicant for benefit has to show that he is not participating in a strike. It may be said that he is not participating in a strike, though the "key" men are, but I think, practically, it would be found that he was. He has also to prove that he is not financing, and is not directly interested in, the dispute. All those who belong to the particular union, or grade, or class as the "key" men, are all equally interested in the effect of the dispute and, therefore, there is no question under this subsection of a few men being taken out and the others being left in. On the face of it, that seems to me, as a layman, to be clear.
Then there is the point which was put by my noble friend Lord Thomson, that until now the committees, containing representatives of the workmen and the employers (and, finally, the umpire in case of dispute), have had to decide conditions which any one can decide, which are clear conditions, and can be decided without any question of going back on what a man's record has been in other respects. They argue that he is an insurable man,
that he has worked in an insured trade, and that he has been endeavouring to obtain work. Those questions are not controversial and, in any case, are all pure questions of fact. If you introduce the very controversial question as to whether a man is or is not a trade unionist, it may cause a good deal of prejudice on the one side or the other. I think it would be a very great pity—and I agree with my noble, friend Lord Thomson in this—if such a question as that, a totally different class of question to that which comes before them now, had to come before these committees to be decided. It would also raise questions between the unionist and the non-unionist, and a man would be, or might be, prejudiced in that way. I think, on that ground alone, that it would "be a very great pity if these words were included in the subsection. If a man's: union is financing the strike he is financing it.
VISCOUNT CAVE: Therefore, in order to find out whether he was financing it you would have to ask the man to what trade union he belonged.
LORD THOMSON: Not on his applying for benefit.
EARL BUXTON: The hardship would undoubtedly be that men who do not in I any way, either direct or indirect, take part in the strike may be refused benefit.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 16.

CONTENTS.

Curzon of Kedleston, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Jessel, L.

Salisbury, M.

Kenyon, L.

Inchcape, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Balfour, E.

Long, V.

Kylsant, L.

Bradford, E. [Teller.]

Novar, V.

Lawrence, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Ullswater, V.

Merthyr, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

O'Hagan, L.

Iveagh, E.

Plumer, L.

Lovelace, E.

Armstrong, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Lucan, E.

Ashfield, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Askwith, L.

Raglan, L.

Morton, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L. [Teller.]

Rathcreedan, L.

Onslow, E.

Redesdale, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Saltoun, L.

Allendale, V.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Strachie, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Sydenham, L.

Cave, V.

Clinton, L.

Templemore, L.

Chaplin, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Waring, L.

Falkland, V.

Daryngton, L.

Wharton, L.

Hood, V.

Harris, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Grey of Fallodon, V.

Riddell, L.

Shandon, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Arnold, L.

Stanmore, L.

Gainford, L.

Swaythling, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Hemphill, L.

Terrington, L.

Buxton, E.

Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]

Thomson, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

[The votes of Earl Beauchamp and Viscount Grey of Fallodon who had voted by mistake with the Content although they intended to vote with the Not-Contents, have been recorded accordingly with the Not-Contents.]
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to omit all words in subsection (1) after "directly interested in the dispute." The noble Lord said: The Amendment in my name on the Paper is to leave out the last part of the subsection. The words are:
"or that the stoppage is due to an employer acting in a manner so as to contravene the terms or provisions of any agreement existing between a group of employers where the stoppage takes place, or of a national agreement to either of which the employers and employees are contracting parties."
On the Second Reading of this Bill I criticised those words as being unworkable and impossible. The Government seem to have been of the same opinion, because an Amendment is on the Paper to-day totally different from the words which appear in the Bill and meaning something quite different from what is in the Bill. I do not think, therefore, that it is of any use my wasting the time of the House in attacking the words of the Bill, which the Minister of Labour spoke of in another place as being words about which he had never been consulted, and of which he had never heard until they were read out.
The Government are proposing a new Amendment, and it seems to me that the most practicable thing to do is to consider whether the Lord President's Amendment to substitute new words for the last part of the subsection ought to be accepted. I would like to criticise the Lord President's Amendment. I have four strong objections to it. In the first place, it is an alternative to what goes before, and, so far as I read it, it would be possible for a person to belong to a grade or class of workers who are participating in or
1064
are financing or interested in the dispute and yet to get unemployment benefit, by being able to say that the employer was committing some breach of a national or district agreement. My second point is that the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord is too wide. It might possibly be improved in the first part of it if the words "at the factory, workshop or other premises" came in again after the words "having committed." Even then the last lines do not lay it down that a man must come forward and accuse the employer of having committed a breach of an agreement against himself, but could say the employer had committed this breach against someone else, it may be Tom, Dick or Harry who was one of the same class of workers to which the assured contributor belonged. It has been argued that it was undesirable that the Employment Exchanges should investigate whether a man belongs to a trade union or not, but it is still more serious for those Exchanges to have to investigate a question of whether there has been a breach of an agreement or not, either national or district.
This question of a breach of agreement is one of the most difficult things in industrial disputes that it is possible to imagine. It was investigated in 1912 by a body called the Industrial Council, which sat for thirty full days hearing evidence, and whose Blue-book amounted to 655 pages. They investigated this question of breaches of agreement. They found what a variety of difference of view there was about it, and how extremely difficult it was to find whether there had been a breach of agreement or not. Among their recommendations they made one or two suggestions as to what should happen when there was an alleged breach of agreement, but that was not after a strike or lockout, but before a strike or lockout. They said that a breach of agreement ought not to be settled by a strike or lockout, but that for every alleged breach of agreement there should be an investigation.
One of their recommendations, in paragraph 16 of their Report, was this:
"We are of opinion that where there is (a) a difference in regard to interpretation of an agreement, or (b) a difference as to whether there has been a breach of an agreement there should be no stoppage of work (by strike or lockout) pending the reference of the difference to some impartial tribunal and pending the issue of a pronouncement by the tribunal."
In paragraph 35 they stated:
"In many associations rules for the punishment of persons committing a breach already exist, and we recommend that other associations should follow the lead which has thus been taken and consider whether it is not advisable that similar rules should be adopted in their organisations."
Those recommendations were made by that important body, consisting of heads of the great employing associations, and also heads of the chief trades unions, and they were signed by, among others, Mr. J. R. Clynes, Mr. Harry Gosling, Mr. Arthur Henderson and another Labour leader, Mr. John Hodge. They considered it important, that questions of breach of agreement should be carefully investigated. They found that it was one of the most difficult things in the labour world to determine, and it seems extraordinary that the question as to whether there is a breach of an agreement or not should be handed over to an official of an Employment Exchange to decide, with a possibility of its going to a referee or umpire after the strike or lockout has begun.
When dealing with the proposed Treaty of Mutual Assistance the Lord President found enormous difficulty in dealing with the question of breaches of international agreements. He said that the effectiveness of the scheme seemed to depend to a considerable extent on the ability of the Council of the League to determine by unanimous vote of all members not concerned in the dispute which nation was the aggressor. It is a difficult question to be settled internationally, and I say that the difficulty of deciding who is the aggressor as regards district and national agreements in the industrial world is equally great. The suggestion by a man that his employer has broken an agreement would bring the employer under this subsection, and that seems to mc to be almost ridiculous. The suggestion is made that the employer might protest that he cannot carry on his work owing to the agreement,
1066
but the idea is that, the day before notice is due to expire the employer might put up a notice to say that if they would work below the terms agreed upon he would continue his works. That is a very difficult thing to do. If the employer is still a member of his association he will have to deal with the association. If he is not a member of his association, he is a free man, able to take his own line; he may be more or less coerced by the opinion of his fellow employers: or he may have his men come out on strike. But that this difficult question which requires an Act of Parliament by itself should be settled by an officer of an employment exchange or by a referee or umpire, and should be dealt with by a subsection in a Bill hurried through at the last moment, is most objectionable.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 21, leave out from ("dispute") to the end of subsection (1).—(Lord Askwith.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In order to preserve the Amendment down in the name of the Lord President I will put the Question that the words "or that" stand part of the clause.
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Lord has taken a convenient course in discussing his own Amendment and the one which stands in my name on the Paper. I should like to draw the attention of the House to one or two points. The first is this. We are dealing in this subsection with a trade dispute, and, as the noble Lord knows, where an employer commits a breach of a district or national agreement to which he is a party and his workpeople decline to continue, a trade dispute arises. What we have to consider is whose fault it is. Is the workman in default in a matter of this kind? I think it is clear under my Amendment that the workman is not in default at all. These are the words I propose to substitute for the last few lines of the subsection:—
"such trade dispute was due to the employer at the factory, workshop or other premises at which the insured contributor was employed having committed such a breach of a national or district agreement to which the employer vas a party as directly affected the conditions of employment of the insured contributor or of any members of a grade or class of workers to which the insured contributor belonged."
The whole basis of the claim for compensation in those circumstances is that

1067
the default came from the employer alone.
The stronger argument used by the noble Lord is this. He said, assuming there is a trade dispute in relation to which the workman claiming compensation is not in default at all, you have a difficult matter to decide as to whether there is a breach of a national or district agreement. I do not think that is any more difficult than other matters with which unemployment committees have to deal. I only wish the noble Lord himself could deal with these matters: I am sure he would find no difficulty at all. I do not think an innocent workman should be deprived of the insurance benefit to which he would otherwise be entitled. It is far wiser to make it clear that where the default comes from the employer's side the workman is not to suffer as regards insurance benefit. And why should he? The real answer to the noble Lord is the difficulty of protecting him. He does not deny that the difficulty is there, nor does he deny that the worker in these circumstances ought to have the insured benefit to which he is entitled. Where I differ from the noble Lord is in thinking that this is a matter of such great difficulty as to deprive a man of a benefit to which he would otherwise be entitled. The drafting of the Bill is very difficult. I said so on the Second Reading. I have consulted the draftsman and the result-is the Amendment which stands in my name. I hope your Lordships will allow that Amendment to pass as a fair solution of this difficulty.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I will only say a few words on the relative values of these two Amendments. My feeling is that you are asking the Fund to take sides in a question as to whether or not there has been a breach of an agreement. That is a very dangerous thing to do. It would be wiser in the end to leave these words out altogether. It is very difficult for even the most experienced person at times to say, first, whether an agreement is binding upon everybody whose name is in it; secondly, whether there has been any breach of that agreement; and, thirdly, whether the trade dispute is bona fide due to a breach of the agreement. If the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord is carried all these questions would have to be considered and determined
1068
either by the manager of an employment exchange or, possibly, by the local committee. One knows very well what acute feelings arise on a matter of this kind and how very difficult it is to judge between the conflicting contentions of both sides in a trade dispute. I think it would be unfortunate if Parliament provided by this Bill that a question of that kind should be brought into discussion upon the question whether a man should or should not be entitled to benefit out of the Fund. I venture to think, although I do not pretend to the experience of my noble friend, that he is right, and that it would be better to excise these words altogether from the Bill, and to leave the question to be decided by the other conditions.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Abolition of power to make special schemes.
8.—(1) The power of the Minister under Section eighteen of the principal Act to make special orders approving or making special schemes shall be suspended until the expiration of one year from the termination of the deficiency period referred to in the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1921:
Provided that the foregoing provision shall not affect the operation of any special scheme duly approved by the Minister before the commencement of this Act or the power of the Minister to approve a scheme if a draft thereof appearing to him to be complete was submitted to him before the third day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, and application was before that date made to him to approve the scheme in accordance with the provisions of Section eighteen of the principal Act.
LORD PARMOOR: I have a drafting Amendment to this clause to omit from the proviso to subsection (1) "the operation of any special scheme duly approved by the Minister before the commencement of this Act or."
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 42, leave out from ("affect") to the end of line 1 on page 8.—(Lord Parmoor.)
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Amendment as to refunds of contributions.
9.—(1) If on an application made under this section the Minister is satisfied that any

1069
person who is or has been an insured contributor had before the date on which this section comes into operation—

(a) paid contributions in respect of not less than fifty weeks in accordance with the general provisions of the principal Act; and

(b) reached the age of fifty years;

that person or his personal representative shall be entitled to be paid out of the unemployment fund a sum representing the present worth as on that date of the excess value of the contributions paid by him together with (in the case of an insured contributor who has not attained the age of sixty years) compound interest at the rate of two-and-a-half per cent, per annum on the amount of that excess value from the date aforesaid until the date on which he would attain the age of sixty years.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
c)The present worth of the excess value of contributions shall be calculated in manner prescribed by regulations, and any regulations made for that purpose shall direct that in making the calculation regard shall be had, among other matters, to the fact that contributions may cease for a period comprising five insurance years to be paid in respect of the insured contributor, and, in the case of an insured contributor who has not attained the age of sixty years, to the fact that he may not live to attain that age.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved in subsection (1), to leave out "excess value of the contributions paid by him together with", and to insert "amount of the excess value of the contributions paid by him as increased". The noble and learned Lord said: I think I ought to say one word in explanation of this Amendment. It has to do with compensation, where you deprive a man of the benefit he now has at the age of sixty. I wish to make it clear that he is entitled to benefit only as regards "the amount of the excess value of the contributions paid by him," and so on. It is on the excess value that he is entitled to compensation. I do not think that this was clear as the Bill stood. The remainder of my Amendments to this clause are consequential upon this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 11, leave out from the second ("the") to ("in") in line 13, and insert ("amount of the excess value of the contributions paid by him as increased").—(Lord Parmoor.)
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 14, after ("years") insert ("by").
Page 10, line 21, after the second ("the") insert ("amount of the")
Page 10, line 22, after ("contributions") insert ("as increased by any such compound interest as aforesaid (if any)").—(Lord Parmoor.)
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 (Short title, repeal, decision of questions, application and commencement):
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved at the end of the clause to insert the following new subsection:—
"(6) The Minister may by regulations provide for the transition from the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1924, to the provisions of those Acts as amended by this Act."
The noble and learned Lord said: It is proposed to introduce this subsection in order that the Regulations may provide for the transition from the provisions of the existing Insurance Acts to the provisions of those Acts as amended by this Bill. It is a purely administrative matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 15, after subsection (5) insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Parmoor.)
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
Third Schedule:

THIRD SCHEDULE.

Enactments Repealed.

Session and Chapter.

Short Title.

Extent of Repeal.

10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 30.

The unemployment Insurance Act, 1920.

Section two, subsections (1), (2), (4), (7), (10) and (11) of section eighteen, section twenty-five subject to the provisions of this Act, in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section forty-seven the words from "and (iii) for" to the end of the paragraph, and the Second Schedule.

LORD PARMOOR: I have two drafting Amendments to the Third Schedule.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, lines 5 and 6, leave out ("subsections (1), (2), (4)") and insert ("subsection")
Page 20, line 6, leave out ("(10) and (11)").—(Lord Parmoor.)
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR: It was arranged, I think, that the Report stage should be taken to-morrow. It really looks as if there would not be any dispute on Report, for nothing has been left over, and we would not seek to re-open these questions.

LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Constitution of Advisory Committee.
1.—(1) With a view to facilitating and improving the regulation of traffic in and near London, there shall, for the purpose of giving advice and assistance in manner provided by this Act to the Minister of Transport (hereinafter referred to as the Minister) in connection with the exercise and performance of his powers and duties in relation to traffic within the area described in the First Schedule to this Act (hereinafter referred to as the London Traffic Area) be constituted a committee, to be called the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee and hereinafter referred to as the Advisory Committee consisting of a chairman elected by the Committee and such ordinary and additional members as are hereinafter mentioned.
(2) Of the ordinary members:
One shall be appointed by a Secretary of State:
Two shall be appointed by the London County Council:
Two shall be appointed by the councils of the metropolitan boroughs from amongst nominees selected by the councils of the several metropolitan boroughs:
One shall be appointed from among nominees selected by the councils of the administrative counties mentioned in the First Schedule hereto, other than the administrative county of London lying north of the Thames, by those councils:
One shall be appointed from amongst nominees selected by the councils of the administrative counties mentioned in the First Schedule hereto,
1072
other than the administrative county of London lying south of the Thames, by those councils: One shall be appointed from amongst nominees selected by the councils of the several county boroughs within the London Traffic Area by those councils:
One shall be appointed by the Minister: Every ordinary member appointed by a local authority other than the representative of the City police and every person selected by a group of authorities shall be a member of the local authority or of one of the grouped authorities, as the case may be.
(3) Of the additional members:—
Three shall be representatives of the interests of labour engaged in the transport industry within the London Traffic Area appointed by the Minister of Labour after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as ho may think fit:
Four shall by representatives of the interests of persons providing means of transport and users of mechanically propelled and horse-drawn road vehicles within the London Traffic Area appointed by the Minister after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think desirable.
(4) The ordinary members shall form part of the committee on all occasions, and the additional members shall form part of the committee when considering and reporting to and advising the Minister upon any matter referred to the committee under or by virtue of Section seven or Section ten of this Act, or any matter or question referred to the committee under this Act in connection with the matters specified in Part I. of the Second Schedule to this Act:
Provided that the Minister may, if he thinks fit, direct that in any particular case the additional members, or such one or more of them as he may direct, shall form part of the committee when considering and reporting to and advising him upon any matter or question referred to the committee under this Act in connection with any of the matters mentioned in Part II. of the said schedule.
(6) The term of office of the chairman and other members of the Advisory Committee first appointed shall be from the date of appointment until the first day of December, ninteen hundred and twenty-five, and subject to the provisions as to the term of office of persons appointed to fill casual vacancies, the term of office of persons subsequently appointed shall he three years; but a person going out of office may be re-appointed.
(8) On a casual vacancy occurring on the Advisory Committee by reason of death, resignation, or otherwise, the vacancy shall be filled by the appointment of a new member in like manner as the member in whose

1073
place lie is appointed, and lie shall hold office until the time when the member in whose place he is appointed would have gone out of office, and shall then go out of office.
LORD PABMOOR LORD PABMOOR moved, in subsection (2), in the paragraph beginning "Two shall be appointed," to leave out "councils of the metropolitan boroughs," and to insert "Minister." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must explain this matter, because the Bill was alterered in Committee on the understanding that administrative Amendments would be introduced in order to make it workable in its new form. I undertook to see the Minister of Transport and the draftsman upon this point. Let me explain, if I may, quite shortly, particularly to the noble Lord opposite, who took an interest in this matter, exactly how it stands. The nominations all come in the first place from the local authorities. No person can be appointed to one of these committees except by the nomination of a local authority, whom he will represent. I think the idea upon which the Bill was founded was that probably you would not have more nominations than persons to be elected, and therefore that the duty of the Minister would really he to a great extent formal. In order to make that quite clear, I propose to introduce an Amendment a little later to the effect that, where the nominees do not exceed the number of persons to be elected, those nominees shall be accepted as representatives by the Minister of Transport.
The difficulty that arises as regards the other method of dealing with this matter is this. I can speak from experience of one of the Counties north of the Thames, namely Buckinghamshire, and I think the noble Lord has the same experience regarding Hertfordshire. These county councils meet only four times a year, and that makes it very difficult to arrange for the joint action which is suggested, in the event of there being any difference of opinion concerning these nominations. I do not know why there should be any difference of opinion, but, in regard to that point, I might add that, although the only power given to the Minister here is to select between nominees if they are more than sufficient to fill the membership, yet it is a point of practical importance, because the Minister wants to get these committees into working operation at the earliest possible date.
I have looked at the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, and I do not think that it really meets the difficulty. It leaves matters in a condition which it may take a long time to settle. This may be a small point in itself, and it is quite possible that there will be no such selection by the Minister as is contemplated, because there will not be more than a sufficient number of nominees, but I am urged by the Minister to press this point on the ground that, for administrative purposes, any other method might introduce a considerable complication in the sense of delay. The Minister is very desirous, as, I am sure, are all of your Lordships, to bring this Bill into operation speedily, and I suggest that this solution may be accepted by your Lordships as adequate. I should like also to call attention to another Amendment standing in my name which makes the point clear, and which provides that where only sufficient nominees are nominated they shall be accepted as representatives by the Minister of Transport. In that case, no kind of selection will be performed by him. From the administrative point of view I am sure that this is far the simplest plan, and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will adopt it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 3 and 4, leave out ("councils of the metropolitan boroughs") and insert ("Minister").—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I see great difficulties in the way of this Amendment. Let me say at the outset that I quite recognise the spirit in which the Lord President of the Council has met the Amendments which your Lordships passed in Committee. He is evidently very anxious to carry out, so far as he can, the spirit of those Amendments, but I am afraid that I do not think that the form in which he tries to meet us on Clause 1 is good, and I would suggest to him, although it is not in order to discuss the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Askwith, which follows, that it is far better than the Amendment of the Government.
There are several objections to the form proposed by the noble and learned Lord. In the first place, he reintroduces the Minister, and that is contrary to the general wish of the House. It is clear

1075
from the votes that your Lordships gave that you wanted to exclude the influence of the Minister so far as possible. I do not mean from the Bill itself, because it is really a Bill to erect the Minister into an autocrat, but I mean so far as the Advisory Committee is concerned. We do not want to have what we decided in Committee weakened in any way on the Report stage, and on the face of it the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord proposes to put back the Minister, and that is an objection. Now, when we come to the Amendment dealing with the position where the number of nominees does not exceed the number of members to be appointed, which is consequential upon the other Amendments of the noble and learned Lord, we find that it provides no machinery whatever, and he must have some machinery. He pointed out to your Lordships that the difficulty about these appointments is that the county councils only meet four times a year. But he will find that that difficulty besets him every way, and even on his own Amendments there must be some machinery by which the county councils must come together to make the nominations. There must be some means of appointing a joint committee of the county councils. If we had time it would be possible for the county councils to meet in October, correspond with other county councils, and eventually to consummate the business in the spring or summer of next year.
But we find that an immediate decision is required, and there is only one way of getting it. When they meet in October they must appoint some subordinate body of joint representatives, and give them plenary power to make the nominations. That has got to be done in any case, and my noble friend's Amendment does, at any rate, provide for Regulations being made by the Minister under which it can be done. The Amendment of the noble and learned Lord does not provide Regulations, and I do not think that the words of his Amendment will do. Of course, if he wants to go into great detail, and have a statutory committee, I should not object, but the words as the Government have printed them will not do, and they have the additional vice of reintroducing the Minister where we do not want him to come in.
LORD ASKWITH: I quite realise the importance of time in this matter, and also that the nominations which in certain cases appear to have been made before this Bill goes through, are not legal nominations under this Bill when it becomes an Act. There will have to be some means of appointing persons representing these different bodies. I do not know whether it is possible to get rid of the double stage and say that the councils shall appoint and that if they fail to appoint then the Minister shall appoint the representatives. I do not know whether it would be better to do that on the Third Reading or at the present moment.
LORD PARMOOR: I am much obliged to my noble friend for the suggestion which I understand him to make. We all, I think, desire to get the appointment from the local authorities, and to avoid delay. The noble Lord's suggestion, as I understand it, is this, that if you are to really get appointments from the local authorities the double stage—first, the nomination and then the election—might be avoided. I think that might be done. My only desire is to assist to make the Bill such as will work, and I will not press the Amendments which I have suggested at the present time, having regard to what has been said. If an Amendment such as has been suggested can be carried out on an agreed basis, we, of course, could introduce it after the Third Reading, and I think that might be a great advantage. We all want the Bill to work effectively, and without delay, and in those circumstances I will withdraw the Amendment now standing in my name.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that is the best course.
LORD ASKWITH: I am agreeable to that, and I think that with a few minutes of consultation between the parties we shall be able to arrive at an agreement.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, after "One shall be a representative of the City police appointed by the Corporation of the City of London," to insert "One shall be a representative of the users of privately owned and noncommercial, mechanically propelled vehicles, and shall be appointed by the Minister, after consultation with such

1077
bodies as are representative of suck traffic." The noble Lord said: My Lords, nay I state shortly my reasons for asking the leave of the House to move this Amendment, instead of an Amendment which I have on the Paper?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It can only be moved with general assent. because there is no Notice of the Amendment on the Paper.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I hope I can have the leave of the House because it will avoid the necessity of moving two other longer Amendments.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear !
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: If I may proceed, the point is this. There are four members of the Advisory Committee to be appointed by the Minister as representative members of various interests which use the streets. I will assume that one will represent Lord Ashfield's group, one the independent omnibus interests, one probably the heavy interests—the motor hauliers—and one probably the railway companies, or somebody else. Rut among all these nineteen members of the Advisory Committee there is not one who can possibly speak for privately owned, non-commercial vehicles. Yet in London it is estimated that there are over 150,000 of such vehicles, as compared with 4.000 omnibuses, 8,000 taxi-cabs, and certainly not more than 10,000 heavy lorries. Therefore, the biggest interest on the streets is not represented; only the commercial interests are represented. These people, however, will be regulated to a large extent under the Bill. They will be told where to park their cars, and to use this or that street, and I submit it is fair that they should have at least one representative out of nineteen.
The Report of Lord Ullswater's Commission proposed that this body should number twenty-one. It is nineteen now. One extra representative was given in the other House to labour, and from that I do not dissent. But, the original proportion having already been interfered with, I claim that the most important interest, the interest which is paying 65 per cent, of the whole motor taxation, should have representation. After all, it is not a question of the owners of expensive
1078
motor-cars. The proportion of expensive motor-cars to non-expensive cars is only one to sixty or seventy. The car will be used more and more by the poorer sections of the community, by the shopkeeper, and the superior artisan, and there ought to be some representation of non-commercial interests on the Advisory Committee.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: Will this be an extra member?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Yes, an extra member. But even then it does not bring the number up to the maximum recommended by Lord Ullswater's Commission. I appeal to the Government to consider this Amendment. I have the united support of the great automobile bodies behind me, representing over a quarter of a million privately-owned cars.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, after line 25, insert the said words-.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: I congratulate the noble Lord on the perseverance he has shown, but I am sorry to be obliged again to give a negative answer. You cannot upset the balance of the representation, which has been carefully considered. Directly you introduce a new member you upset the balance as regards the local authorities and as between the additional members. Representation of private users and others can be obtained under subsection (3), which provides for four representatives of the interests of persons providing means of transport and users of mechanically propelled vehicles. These are users of mechanically propelled vehicles, and the representation of all these persons combined is to be four. That has been very carefully considered. The noble Lord brought forward what is really the same question on the Committee stage, and I think your Lordships determined to adhere to the number of the Advisory Committee as it has been constituted. If we once begin to break in upon that, claims may come in from all sides.
EARL BUXTON: In this case I am afraid I cannot support my noble friend, for the very reasons that the Lord President has given. Personally I am much opposed to this outside representation.

1079
But it is clear that if you are only going to have eight representatives of the municipalities, and you are going to increase the representation of other interests, you must increase the proportion of the municipal representation, and that would upset the whole basis of the Advisory Committee, which has been agreed to. The Lord President said that under subsection (3) one of the four representatives there mentioned might represent these non-commercial elements. If he is prepared to give an undertaking, so far as he can, to carry out that view, I should think my noble friend would be well advised to accept it. That seems to me the way in which this representation ought to take place. It would have the additional advantage of giving a smaller representation to those who are directly interested pecuniarily in these matters. At the same time, I think that these private motor-car owners ought to have some representation.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have some sympathy with this Amendment, although it is a sympathy of a. rather peculiar kind, because I would rather have had a Committee which was without all these special interests. I would rather have had the disinterested form of Committee, before which people could come and give evidence. But, after all, if you opt for the other kind, and if you are going to decide that interests are to be represented, I think you must represent—I will not say all interests (that would be impossible), but you cannot leave out, or it is difficult to leave out, one large interest. Here is a gap really which it is suggested might be filled. I think my noble friend moved his Amendment as applying to the ordinary members and not to the additional members.
LORD MONTAGU OR BEAULIEU: I did.
VISCOUOT PEEL: Possibly it would have appeared better in the other place. I only want to say two things. One is that the noble and learned Lord has laid tremendous stress upon all these numbers being fixed. He rather brought it before us as if it was a settled policy after long consultation that you could not alter one without altering all the others. I think I could criticise that statement because I understand that in another place, possibly when things were in a more fluid
1080
condition and before they had been crystallised into form, several alterations were made. One was, I think I am right in saying, that whereas two labour representatives had been proposed in the Bill there are three now. That is a considerable change, and I do not know why we should be brought up suddenly against this rigidity now.
May I remind him that I am the last person to want to make this Committee a large body? It is smaller, I think, than that proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, and therefore on the ground of size there is very little to be said. But in Committee I think the noble and learned Lord was sympathetic to the idea that this particular large interest should be represented, and he seemed to suggest that it could in fact find representation already under subsection (3) of Clause 1. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he could give any undertaking to do his best to secure that the Minister should appoint a representative of this interest as one of those four. If he says he can give no undertaking at all, I would offer another suggestion—that possibly before Third Beading some Amendment might be drawn up which the Minister might see and then, possibly, it could be introduced after Third Reading. If the Minister will look carefully into that and sec whether it is possible to accept such an Amendment after Third Reading, my noble friend might feel inclined not to press it at this particular moment.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: May I say two things in reference to what the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, has said? The first is that I think it is unnecessary and unwise to overweight this Advisory Committee. You should keep it as small as you possibly can. The second is that so far as special representation is concerned, I can see no necessity for it whatsoever If you are controlling traffic you do not question whether it is a motor car, a motor omnibus or a horse and cart that you have to deal with; you deal with the thing as a whole. For that reason I see no necessity whatsoever for special representation.
LORD PARMOOR: I am afraid I cannot speak again on Report, but by permission of the House I may say that I

1081
could not give any undertaking but that any proposal will have careful consideration. I cannot go beyond that, because I have already stated the general principles which underlie this Bill.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: By leave of the House, I should like to say that I accept what the noble and learned Lord has said in the spirit in which it is offered. At the same time, if my information is correct, there is no chance of getting a representative amongst these four, and perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to put an Amendment on the Paper after Third Reading to the effect that of the four "one shall be a representative of" or something of that sort. If he will give that his careful consideration possibly he could collaborate with the noble Marquess and myself in arriving at a suitable form of words. This is a vital matter, and if I do not ask the House to divide upon it now it is only out of consideration for the House and because I have a belief that we shall be met on the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "and if he cease to hold such qualification shall cease to be a member of the Committee." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is obviously necessary. The representatives are to be members of the local authorities and the proposal I make is to odd words to subsection (2) to provide that if any one ceases to be a member of the local authority he shall cease to be a member of the Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, at and insert the said new words.—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "section seven or." The noble Marquess said: Your Lordships will remember that there was a great discussion in Committee as to what the extent of the interest of these additional members of the Advisory Committee should be. I share what I believe to be the prevailing view of your Lordships, that the additional members are a mistake altogether; but we consented in Committee to retain them and I shall not attempt to go back upon that
1082
decision. But the power, or the sphere of interest, of the Advisory Committee was expressly left open in Committee and I should have thought it was clear that these additional members, who are ex hypothesi all interested parties, ought not to have authority over that part of the Bill under which a monopoly can be accorded to a particular interest; that is to say, Clause 7 of the Bill, which is the most difficult clause of the Bill, as your Lordships are aware.
Under Clause 7 a monopoly or a quasi-monopoly can be granted. I am not saying that is inevitable in all circumstances, but I am prepared to contend that we are faced by such a tremendous difficulty in the ease of the London traffic that it may end in a monopoly, notwithstanding all the precautions we may take. Al any rate, I do not think that interested parties ought to have a voice in regard to that part of the Bill under which a monopoly can be granted. Clause 7 is that part of the Bill, and I propose, therefore, that the words "section seven or" should be left out of subsection (4). The effect would be that the attention of the additional members would be directed only to Clause 10 and to Part I of the Second Schedule, and they would have regard to those two matters only. If your Lordships turn to Clause 10 you will find that really is the same thing as the Third Schedule, because the clause generally merely introduces the Third Schedule. The Third Schedule deals with all sorts of tiny little matters of regulation about which the expert opinion of those interested generally might be of very great value. Therefore, it may very well be admitted that the additional members should have, their attention directed to the Third Schedule. The same is true, though perhaps quite not to the same extent, of Part I of the Second Schedule, which is the other matter that is left.
What I want to convey to your Lordships is that the Third and Second Schedule differ entirely from Section 7, under which the Minister may say that these omnibuses are to be allowed to ply, and that no other omnibuses will be allowed to ply, on this area—that this company is to be allowed to have the whole control of this part of the traffic, or these two companies, or whatever the number may be. That is what he can do under Section 7. Upon that matter it is quite

1083
clear the interested parties ought not to have a vote. When I say the "interested parties" I mean not only those representing the employers, but also those who represent labour. They are both interested, and they ought not to be able to say this or that should be done, because they are obviously pecuniarily interested in the answer. I am not saying that they would necessarily make a corrupt decision, but it is our practice, in this country not to allow people to adjudicate upon that in which they are financially interested. Everyone knows that a magistrate does not sit upon a case the decision upon which will help him pecuniarily. In the same way those who are interested in the drink traffic are not allowed to sit a? magistrates when licensing questions are being decided, because they are financially interested in the result. That is the general rule which we always adopt, and I. submit that it should apply here, because these interested parties are financially interested in the result of the advice they give to the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 12 and 13, leave out ("section 7 or").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I do not think that the principle to which the noble Marquess has referred is really applicable in a case of this kind, because the persons referred to would not be interested in such a way as would a magistrate or Judge who would be disentitled to hear a certain case. On the other hand, I realise that it may be said that these two parties, whose interests we are discussing, might be affected. What induced the Government to put in this provision was that in their view it would be very important, in dealing with these matters, to have the benefit of the experience of these people, who would be people who have had a great experience, and who could therefore help the Government in a most effective way; but if the noble Marquess desires to press his Amendment I shall not oppose it.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I am sure the decision announced by the Lord President will give great satisfaction. There has been a feeling, I think, throughout this House, and also to a great extent in the House of Commons, that the persons financially interested in advice should not be in a position to give
1084
that advice. It is considered very objectionable that persons who have a direct pecuniary interest in a particular case should be the very persons to decide that particular case. I am sure what the Lord President has said will remove from the minds of every one any question of suspicion regarding the additional members.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in the proviso to subsection (4) to leave out "or such one or more of them as he may direct." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is a small one, but think it rather important. The clause deals with the Minister's powers to direct that additional members may form part of the Committee when considering certain questions. As the Bill stands now he would have the power to select one or more of these additional members, and no others. I do not say he would select those interested in the question under consideration, but that might have a great bearing upon his selection. He might, for instance, put on those specially familiar with tramway questions and exclude those familiar with motor omnibus questions. If he appoints any at all I think he ought to appoint all of them. He should not have the power to discriminate between the additional members. If he is to have this power he ought not to be allowed to pick and choose. All road dues are liable to be affected by the advice. Therefore, I think that if any are to sit upon the Committee all ought to do so; otherwise, you may have the Minister possibly selecting people who would be pecuniarily interested, or whose decisions might affect another large and important body of persons. I do not think there can be any objection to this Amendment. It is in harmony with the decisions of the House, and I hope the Lord President will see his way to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 19, leave out ("or such one or more of them as he may direct").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, the Amendment of the noble Lord would mean that if the Minister wished to add any additional members to a Committee he would be compelled to add them all. In framing the Bill the idea that

1085
animated those responsible was that, certainly in many of the subjects in the second part of the schedule, it would be quite unnecessary to seek the advice of all the additional members on many points, notably, on those in paragraphs (h) and (i). Some would be suitable for giving advice under one head, and some for giving advice under the other. In tile ease of (i) it says:
"The exercise of any of the powers of the Minister from whatsoever source derived in relation to traffic on street." in the London Traffic Area."
It might be even desirable to exclude some of the additional members who might be too interested in the matter to be proper advisers upon it. As the noble Lord has pointed out, this is a very slight Amendment, but it does deprive the Bill of a certain elasticity which at present it possesses. It is not only a question of giving the Minister power to discriminate, but it is a question of simplifying the work of the Committees, and not having to put on all the members but giving the Minister the power to exclude some whose advice might be interested. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, I would venture to ask the Government to reconsider this matter, not on the. grounds put forward by my noble friend below me, but speaking for Ministers of the future I am not concerned in this, I need hardly say, but I think Ministers really have difficult jobs enough already without adding to their difficulties, and preparing a bed of thorns for those who are to come after the present Ministers. How on earth is any Minister to make his selection? He can only do it in one way, and that is by consulting those who in the first place, are familiar with the work arising particularly in the immediate question before, him, and, in the second place, those who have some knowledge of the members out of whom the selection is to be made. He cannot do it himself, because he has not the knowledge. I do not suggest for a moment that he will be guilty of appointing men for his own benefit, or anything of that kind, but he will not know whom to appoint, and he cannot know. It is not practical politics. He has a multitude of duties to perform. He has plenty to do already, and you are adding to his work
1086
every day. You are here giving him a very heavy job; you are giving him power to appoint men and then telling him he is to make his own selection. You are inviting him to perform a task which is more likely to lead him into difficulties and make, him unpopular than anything else you have asked him to do.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount is really exaggerating the difficulty. It is simply this, that out of a body which has been appointed specially like this, it is competent for the Minister to ask one or two, or three, or four, to act in a particular ease as against asking them all to act. There might be a difficulty in many cases in getting them all to act. I should have thought it was a very simple administrative matter, and I do not appreciate the difficulty. If you have a panel out of which a Minister can select one or two for a particular duty I, for one, trust that the duty would be carried out. I think the Amendment is an undue interference with the discretion which the Minister is quite entitled to exercise, and would, I agree, exercise in an impartial manner.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: This Advisory Committee will be all at sea at first. They will not know anything about their duties. How many will know anything about the greater or smaller questions of the control of traffic? But in time they will learn, or we hope they will. Then when they have learned their duties it is suitable that the Minister should be able to delegate one of their number to inquire into a particular and specific object. Why not? I can see no reason why he should not; and I should have thought it was a good idea to enable the Minister to appoint one member instead of half a dozen.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I think the Amendment is a very good one. The noble Viscount-, Lord Long of Wraxall, has stated one objection to the proviso as it stands. There is this further objection. There are only seven members. The Minister desires the opinion of these additional members and he informs these seven that on a certain date they will be asked to attend to give an opinion on certain matters. They are under no obligation to attend, and those who know nothing about the question

1087
probably will not attend. The Minister picks one member, and if the decision arrived at is unpopular what on earth will happen in another place? At once several members will ask questions as to whether or not this decision was arrived at by an interested person, and whether the Minister did not of malice prepense appoint this particular person in order that the decision might be given. I am speaking in the interests of the Lord
Resolved in the negative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR: moved, in subsection (6), to omit "Chairman and other." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these words are necessary because the Chairman is no longer an appointed member but an elected member, and is consequently in the same position as all other members.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, leave out ("Chairman and other").—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD PARMOOR: The remaining Amendments to this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 39, at end insert ("the Chairman shall go out of office on the day
President and the Labour Government. I wish to prevent them being subjected to the sort of question which in these I circumstances I should ask if I were in another place. I hope he will accept, the Amendment.
On Question, Whether the words pro posed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17: Not-Contents, 49.

CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Chelmsford, V.

Faringdon, L.

Ullswater, V.

Jessel, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.

Arnold, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Ashfield, L.

Newton, L.

Lucan, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Olivier, L.

Riddell, L.

Thomson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Salisbury, M.

Long, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L. [Teller.]

Peel, V.

Balfour, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Askwith, L.

Pentland, L.

Bradford, E.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Plumer, L.

Buxton, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Chesterfield, E.

Brownlow, L.

Chichester, E.

Clinton, L.

Raglan, L.

Doncaster, E (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Crawshaw, L.

Redesdale, L.

Daryngton, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Desborough, L.

Shandon, L.

Morton, E.

Emmott, L.

Southwark, L.

Onslow, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Stanmore, L.

Stanhope, E.

Gainford, L.

Strachie, L.

Harris, L.

Sydenham, L

Allendale, V.

Hemphill, L.

Templemore, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Lawrence, L.

Terrington, L.

Falkland, V.

Merthyr, L.

Waring, L.

Falmouth, V

Wharton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

on which the members of the committee by whom he is elected ordinarily go out of office:").
Page 4, line 10, at end insert ("the foregoing provision shall apply to the Chairman with the substitution of 'election' for 'appointment' and of 'elected' for 'appointed'.
"If an ordinary member or an additional member is elected chairman his election shall not create a casual vacancy").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question. Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4:
Closing of streets for works.
(3) With a view to securing that, so far as possible, all works involving the breaking up of streets by any undertakers having statutory powers to break up streets (including any Government Department) shall be carried out at the same time as or in connection with works of road maintenance

1089
and improvements, the Minister shall send to all such undertakers copies of the proposals of the road authorities when received by him under this section so far as they relate to streets to which the powers of the undertakers extend and shah consider any representations made to him by such undertakers; and where works of mad maintenance and improvement involving the closing of a street to such extent as aforesaid have been executed in accordance with any such scheme, it shall not he lawful for any such undertakers within twelve months of completion of those works to break up the street or part of the street so closed unless they prove to the satisfaction of the Minister that there wore reasonable grounds for their failure or omission to execute whilst the street or part thereof was closed the works for the execution of which they require to break up the street, and that it is essential that the works should he executed or commenced within the said twelve months.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (3), after "closed" ["street so closed"] to insert "without the previous consent of the Minister and." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I bring forward by this Amendment, in part, I think, at the suggestion of the Lord President,, the question of repairing streets at night. I am only following in this case the recommendations of the Select Committee on Transport in the Metropolitan Area of 1919, who, in their summary of recommendations, state that evidence has shown, among other things, the need of
"systematisation of road repair, much of which, especially in the main streets, might be carried out at night and at such times as will best meet traffic conditions."
On the Committee stage I elaborated instances, and gave arguments as to why I thought this step should be taken. My noble friend Earl Beauchamp suggested that the clause should be turned round the other way, and that the Minister should be given power, where he thought it advisable, to insist that these repairs should be done at night. I have carried out the noble Earl's suggestion, and, as noble Lords will see if they look at the Paper, I have turned the clause round.
I think it is important that this Amendment should be adopted, because we have all suffered in this way, and traffic will suffer still more if these obstructions continue. Since the Committee stage I have had counted the repairs going on between Hammersmith Broadway and Hyde Park Corner, and I learn that there are now
1090
twenty-six such interruptions to the highway between those two points. I think I am correct in saying that in only one case are the repairs being carried out continuously. In all the other cases the work ceases at about five o'clock in the afternoon, and does not commence next morning until, say, eight o'clock. In other words, when the traffic is least no work is being done upon these road repairs. That, I think, is a scandal at this period. This is only one instance, and I could put before the House other instances equally strong. In the circumstances I ask your Lordships to take my Amendment in its new form, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp. It was, I think, the subject of some sympathetic remarks by the Lord President.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 19, after ("closed") insert ("without the previous consent of the Minister and").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: To appreciate the noble Lord's Amendment we must, I think, also look at the next Amendment, to add words to subsection (3) to give the Minister power to make a condition that work shall be carried out at night.
THE MARQUESS OR SALISBURY: It is really all one Amendment.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: That is so.
LORD PARMOOR: The Amendment raises the question of work in connection with street repairs being carried on at night. I suppose everyone would desire that, though one member of your Lordships' House suggested that some people would not appreciate the noise at night. I wish all this work could be done at night, but there art two objections. First of all, you have to get people to work at night, and then, as I pointed out, we are dealing here with works by the undertakers.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULLEU: Works done both by public authorities and by undertakers.
LORD PARMOOR: It applies in this case to all works, whether carried out by the road authority or by the statutory undertaker. Is that so?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: That is so.
LORD PARMOOR: As regards the great mass of works of this kind, it would be difficult and expensive to have them carried out at night. I am not aware of any objection apart from the practical one, but my information from the Ministry is to the effect that, in their opinion, there would be great difficulty in carrying out all these works by night. The suggestion of the noble Lord might perhaps be put in rather a different way. Powers might be given to the Minister, under the head of Regulations, with the object of seeing how far works of this kind might be carried out at night, and such Regulations would come before your Lordships' House and the other House before the matter was finally settled. The actual obligation goes, I think, rather too far, but I must take your Lordships' decision in the matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I almost think that if the noble Lord, the Lord President, will look at the words of this Amendment he will see that my noble friend has been more careful than he gave him credit for. My noble friend, I am sure, recognises, as any one of your Lordships would, that to make it obligatory that the work should take place at night would be very difficult. But that is not really suggested by my noble friend's Amendment, which merely gives the Minister power, if he thinks fit, to take such a step. It does nothing more than that. If the Lord President wanted to make it clearer, the words might be "the Minister may if he thinks fit," or something of that sort. We could quite easily alter the words if necessary, but the Amendment is merely designed to give the Minister power to insist upon the work being carried on at night. From that point of view, I think the Lord President will see that this is a valuable power to possess.
It is quite true that it would not be of universal application, and, as the Lord President points out, there might be labour difficulties which would make it impossible, but all those matters would be taken into consideration by the Minister. Where you are dealing with one of these great thoroughfares it is most important to do away with obstructions, and where the Minister had ascertained from persons who could advise him—the local authority and so forth—
1092
that there would be no special difficulty in the way, he might make it an absolute condition of his consent that the work should be carried out at night. I should have thought that this would be a very valuable power, and as, standing at this Box, I have spoken on many occasions in favour of limiting the power of the Minister, I had rather hoped that, when it was proposed to give him additional powers, we should have found that we were pressing against an open door, so far as the Government are concerned.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: If the noble Lord is the parent of this Amendment, I can claim to be the grandparent, and grandparents being notoriously proud of their offspring, I am as proud as he, if not prouder, of this Amendment. I urge upon the Government the advantage which it confers upon the Minister, and having regard to the approval which has been expressed I trust that the noble and learned Lord opposite will not oppose it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am not clear, and I do not think the noble and learned Lord himself was quite certain, whether this Amendment would apply both to the ordinary undertaker and also to the local authority.
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Lord said to the two.
VISCOUNT PEEL: But the noble Lord not being quite so eminent a lawyer as the noble and learned Lord, I should like to ask whether the Government view is the same.
LORD PARMOOR: I am not sure it is my view, to be frank. It is a rather difficult point, and I rather understand that the noble Lord intended the Amendment to apply to both cases. After what the noble Marquess has said the Government will not oppose the Amendment, but I would suggest the addition after the word "may" in the proposed addition to the subsection, of the words "if he thinks fit."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That would be quite clear.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Would it be possible for the noble and learned Lord to make sure in his own mind whether it does apply to both parties?
LORD PARMOOR: I will look into the matter again. I quite appreciate the point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 25, at end insert ("and the Minister may if he thinks fit make it a condition on giving his consent under this subsection to the breaking up of the streets that all works in connection therewith shall be carried out at light by commencing the same after the hour of eight in the evening and completing the same by the hour of eight in the morning, and if not then completed by carrying on the same continuously by day and night").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Power to attach conditions to grant of omnibus licences plying in the city of London and the metropolitan police district.
(2) When licensing an omnibus to ply for hire within the area aforesaid, the licensing authority may, subject to the right of appeal to the Minister given by subsection (8) of Section fourteen of the Roads Act, 1920, attach to any such licence all or any of the following conditions, that is to say:—

(a) a condition that the omnibus shall not ply for hire upon specified approved routes or any specified parts thereof, but such conditions shall be imposed only on the ground that the omnibus is by reason of its construction or equipment unsuitable for use on such routes or parts thereof;

(b) a condition that the omnibus shall not, without the consent of the licensing authority, which consent may be either of special or of genera] application, and may be either absolute or subject to any conditions, ply for hire except upon approved routes;

(c) a condition that the omnibus shall not without such consent as aforesaid ply for hire except in maintaining a regular service;

and if any person to whom a licence is granted subject to any such condition fails to comply with the condition, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and if a person is convicted of a second or subsequent offence under this subsection the licensing authority may, if they think fit, revoke or suspend the licenco for the omnibus in respect of which the second or subsequent offence was committed.
(7) The Minister may make regulations with respect to the procedure on appeals under this section, and those regulations may provide for the appointment of a person or two or more persons to hold an
1094
inquiry into the subject matter of the appeal and for enabling the person or persons so appointed—

(a) to determine by whom and in what manner the costs of the appeal (including the remuneration of the person or persons appointed to hold the inquiry and any other expenses of the Minister) are to be borne;

(b) to take evidence on oath and for that purpose to administer oaths;

(c) by order to require any person subject to the payment or tender of the reasonable expenses of attendance to attend as a witness and give evidence or produce any documents in his possession or under his control which relate to any matter in question at the inquiry and are such as would be subject to production in a court of law.

If any person fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any requirement contained in any such order he shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
"Provided that the licensing authority and the Minister, in the exercise of their respective powers under this section, shall have regard to the maintenance of competition in omnibus services, and shall, so far as practicable, prevent my person or persons from obtaining a monopoly of omnibus service on any approved route where, any other person or persons propose to establish or maintain a regular service of omnibuses."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendments standing in my name are really all devoted to the same subject, and are intended to prevent, so far as possible, a monopoly growing up. I told the House in Committee my view as to the danger of this monopoly growing up, and I pointed out that the 600 independent motor omnibuses which are now running were justified and that their service was beneficial to the travelling public. I think I shall shorten time this afternoon if I omit to move the first three of the Amendments on the Paper, and confine my remarks to the Amendment at the end of subsection (2) to insert a proviso that the licensing authority and the Minister shall have regard to the maintenance of competition. With the leave of the House I would like to say what I have to say in moving that Amendment. The Royal Commission, the Select Committee on Transport in the Metropolitan Area, and

1095
Lord Ullswater's Commission, in its Report, all lay stress upon the point that the preferential treatment of the "Combine" service would tend to create claims to vested rights. I agree with that, and unless some words such as I have suggested are inserted in this clause there is very grave danger that the Minister, wittingly or unwittingly, will be forced into the position of giving a monopoly to one section only of those who provide public services, and others may be driven off the road.
I say again that I am aware of the improvements made in the London traffic services by Lord Ashfield, but I think this House should be very careful to avoid any monopoly being set up, and to preserve, if possible, the element of competition. My Amendment, in the opinion of those whom I represent, is the best way of preventing any such monopoly growing up and of giving the Minister the power to prevent such a thing happening. I ask your Lordships to consider the Amendment very carefully. I think it will tend to preserve competition, which is important in the interests of the general public, and will not really do any damage to the service of the "Combine," because they have omnibuses enough to continue for a long time as the most powerful item in London traffic.
LORD PARMOOR: The difficulty about this is one that I have already pointed out on the Committee stage. The noble Lord proposes to introduce this Amendment in Clause 6. Clause 6 has nothing to do with what he calls the monopoly question at all. It is a mere licensing clause. The question which he is seeking to raise really arises on Clause 7, which is the traffic clause, and his proposal here is really quite inapplicable to Clause 6. I pointed that out in Committee. We all sympathise with the noble Lord in his desire to prevent what he calls a monopoly, but that question does not arise on this clause.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: There is nothing in this Bill that I know of which prevents any number of omnibuses being allowed to ply on the streets of London, on application to the Minister. He can issue licences for as many omnibuses as he likes, but this Amendment, like one which the noble Lord moved in Committee, and which I did not speak against because I had said so
1096
much already, would have this effect, that any number of what are commonly called "pirate" omnibuses would be allowed to appear in the streets at any moment. So far as the control of the traffic is concerned, that is the worst thing you can think of. Nothing makes more difficulties than that would make. Naturally, everybody would like to see fair competition among omnibuses, in the interests of the public, but now we are considering purely the question of the control of traffic, and if you allow "pirate" omnibuses in any numbers, or impose the necessity on the Minister to issue licences for any number of omnibuses, to appear at any moment they choose, it would make the chaos far worse than it is now.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashfield, will forgive my saying that the omnibuses, next to the tramcars, are the greatest difficulty in the efficient control of traffic in London, chiefly owing to their size, but also owing to their number. If you are going to allow large numbers of extra omnibuses to arrive in London on great occasions, like national festivals, when crowds of people come to London, you will make traffic control practically impossible. At the present moment the omnibuses are very well controlled. The Advisory Committee will be able to find out how many omnibuses are on the roads, when they are running, and when they stop, and it is perfectly easy for them to control them, but if you have extra omnibuses appearing at any moment the owners like, it will be quite impossible to control the traffic efficiently. I should be very much averse from accepting this Amendment.
EARL BUXTON: The noble Earl has misunderstood the aim of this Amendment. There is no question of giving unlimited licence to what he calls the "pirate" omnibuses. What I understand my noble friend desires is to pre-vent the complete monopoly of the streets. On the Second Reading I called the "pirates" "benevolent pirates," and I am in favour of a certain number of them, but it is essential that the present system of uncontrolled licensing should be made much more stringent. That the Bill does. It gives full control to the Minister, and enables him to restrict the numbers. We want unrestricted competition, but we do not want unrestricted monopoly. As

1097
regards the place where this Amendment should come in, the Lord President suggests that it is in Clause 7 instead of Clause 6, and there is some force, I think, in that objection. He is very much in favour of Clause 7, subsection (b), as to the omnibuses of one proprietor. I think he has forgotten that that safeguard, like others, was not in the original Bill. It was put in against the will of the Government, and that and other safeguards have greatly improved the Bill. But I think my noble friend would be well advised when he gets to Clause 7 to strengthen it there rather than to do it here.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LOUD ASKWITH LOUD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (7), to leave out "an inquiry" and to insert "a public inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed."
LORD PARMOOR: The Government will not oppose the noble Lord's suggestion. I accept the, Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 7, leave out ("an inquiry") and insert the said words.—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 (Power to limit the number of omnibuses plying on, certain streets within the City of London and the Metropolitan Police district):
LOUD PARMOOR: I have a series of drafting Amendments to this clause. The words are necessary now that the tram-cars have been included. That point was decided on the Committee stage, and I do not wish to raise it again. It is necessary to draw a. distinction between the omnibus, the trolley vehicle, and the tramcar. The Amendments really carry out the decision at which your Lordships arrived.
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 26,. after ("omnibus") insert ("trolleyvehicle")
Page 13, line 31, after ("omnibuses") insert ("trolley vehicles")
Page 13, line 40, after ("omnibuses") insert ("trolley vehicles")
Page 14, line 2, utter ("omnibuses") insert ("trolley vehicles")
Page 14, line 36, after ("omnibuses") insert ("trolley vehicle" or tramway ears").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to add to Clause 7 the following new subsection:—
"(6) Any regulation made under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith; and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may he annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of a new regulation."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should have liked to move the Amendment in a stronger form, and to have insisted that before any Regulation was made it must meet with the approval of either House or both Houses of Parliament. But I understand that there might be some objection to moving the Amendment in that form, on the ground that members might take advantage of it to raise unnecessary discussion. In the form in which the Amendment is at present it is not of very much use in the other House, unless the Regulation is so bad that there is a very large and strong body of feeling against it. But in your Lordships' House there are better facilities for moving, and therefore I think this form of Amendment may effect some good. A possible objection is that there may be a large number of Regulations to be made, and that this might cause delay. But Clause 7 really only deals with the licensing of omnibuses, and therefore it cannot be said that a very large number of Regulations under it will have to be made.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 5, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PARMOOR: The question here is whether Regulations made under Clause 7 shall be subject to a provision of this character. I want to dissociate that from a question arising later, because there I think the House and the Government are agreed, if not on the actual form, at any rate on the principle of the provision which ought to be in sorted. The objection which the Government have to the insertion of this subsection at this stage is that the sanction of Parliament to Regulations is not suitable to the subject-matter with which

1099
you are dealing in Clause 7. That clause is intended for two purposes—the first is for making orders declaring particular streets to be restricted streets. Is that a matter in which Parliament can give any opinion at all, unless you have some legislation in the nature of Private Bill legislation? The other purpose is to make Regulations with regard to streets which have been declared restricted streets, and restricting the number of omnibuses or tramway cars which may ply thereon. The Minister will consider what omnibuses ought to ply on a particular restricted area, after considering all the conditions and taking any necessary evidence. Is that a matter to come up again for decision in Parliament? It is clear that, if it did, you must hear the parties in order to act fairly. You would have to have something in the nature of Private Bill legislation in order that the parties concerned might be heard. Otherwise, you would have Parliament, on a merely general statement, over-ruling a determination that had been come to, after hearing the parties themselves.
That is the objection which I have to the insertion of these words. I have no objection when we come to Regulations which are of such a character that they ought to be subject to Parliament, both to this House and the other House, and I hope that the form—I do not care what form is adopted exactly—is right. But do not let us make the mistake of making these semi-judicial decisions upon matters which affect different private individuals the subject of Regulations to be submitted to Parliament. If you do I think there ought to be some provision under which those individuals may be heard if the original decision is to be upset. I hope this Amendment will not be insisted upon.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry that His Majesty's Government have taken this line because we congratulated ourselves upon our own immense moderation in this Amendment. Your Lordships will remember that on the last occasion a discussion took place upon a proposal under which an affirmative Resolution would be required for clause 7. But my noble friend has thought fit to take a much more moderate line and has only put forward the ordinary form of a Regulation lying on the Table, and has left it to Parliament
1100
to object. I would like to call your Lordships' attention to the great difference that makes. The argument used against us in Committee was that delay would be caused. What was said, in effect, was: "Here are these awful difficulties about the traffic of London, and you are putting into the Bill all sorts of precautions which will lead to infinite delay and, therefore, any emergency which ex hypothesi has to be met will only be met after delay." Under the form in which my noble friend has moved his Amendment, there will be no delay whatever, not even a delay of five minutes. The Regulation of the Minister will take effect immediately. Its further operation will be restricted only if Parliament objects. Everything done under it up to the moment of objection by either House of Parliament will stand good, but from that moment, of course, the will of Parliament will prevail. Therefore, there is no delay whatever under this procedure and the emergency will be met.
The noble and learned Lord has said that this Amendment is not apt to Clause 7. He said that it applied, first, to declaring a street to be a restricted street. That is not so because that is an order under subsection (1). My noble friend's Amendment applies only to Regulations, and Regulations do not appear in subsection (1); they only appear in subsection (2). Therefore the power of Parliament will apply only to subsection (2) of Clause 7. I hope the noble and learned Lord will observe again how immensely moderate we are and that we have cut the Amendment to the bones and to the very last point which we could recommend to Parliament. Then the noble and learned Lord said that the parties ought to have the right to be heard. Does he provide that the parties are to be heard? He proposes that the Minister shall have absolute power in this matter. He does not propose that the parties are to be heard. It is provided at the end of the clause that they shall be informed. That will be good in either case, and whether Parliament intervenes or "not the parties will have been informed. But the tender solicitude of the noble and learned Lord that the parties should be heard is not expressed in his clause as it stands.
LORD PARMOOR: It is intended.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is not provided.
LORD PARMOOR: Notice is given.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Notice is given certainly. My point is that if notice is given, that will be good in either case. They will be heard, of course, when the notice is given to them, before the matter is laid before Parliament at all and, therefore, they will not be judged without their case having been heard. Everything, therefore, is provided for—justice, rapidity and, I hope, efficiency. That is where I am a little doubtful. I am not sure that the new subsection as it stands will provide a sufficient check by Parliament. However, I prided myself, and we ventured in your name to pride ourselves, on the moderation we had shown, and I earnestly hope that the Government will accept this Amendment as a compromise.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 (Penalties for disobedience to directions of police):
LORD PARMOOR: My Amendment to this clause is entirely a matter of drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 27, after("is") insert ("for the time being").—(Lord Parmoor.) On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10:
Power to make regulations.
(7) Any regulation made under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an address is presented to His Majesty within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation has been laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there-under.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to leave out subsection (7) and insert the following new subsection:
"(7) Any regulation made under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith; and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may he annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything
1102
previously done thereunder or the making of a new regulation."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 37, leave out subsection (7) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD PARMOOR: The only point upon this Amendment is that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, proposed subsection (7) as it stands. So far as the Government are concerned, they are really neutral as between his view and that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strachie.
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Lord, Lord Newton, said that he had no objection to his subsection being left out and mine being inserted.
LORD PARMOOR: Then the Government have no objection if Lord Newton has none.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16:
Definitions.
16. For the purpose of this Act unless the content otherwise requires—
The expression "omnibus" includes every omnibus, char-a-banc, wagonette, brake, stage-coach, tramcar, trolley vehicle, or other carriage plying for hire by, or used to carry, passengers at separate fares;
The expression "trolley vehicles" means a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads without rails and moved by power transmitted thereto from some external source;
LORD PARMOOR: The three Amendments which stand in my name in regard to the definitions of "omnibus" and "trolley vehicles" are drafting Amend ments, and I beg to move them.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 14, leave out ("tramcar, trolley vehicle.")
Page 20, line 14, after ("carriage" insert ("not being a trolley vehicle or tramway car.")
Page 20, line 14, line 20, at end insert ("the expression 'tramway car' includes any carriage used on any street or road in the London traffic area by virtue of an order made under the Light Railways Act, 1890;").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 17:
Short title and commencement.
(2) This Act shall continue in force until the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven:
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON had given Notice to move, in subsection (2), to leave out "nineteen hundred and twenty-seven" and insert "nineteen hundred and thirty-three." The noble Lord said: In view of the Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend, Lord Askwith, I do not move my Amendment.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "nineteen hundred and twenty-seven" and insert "nineteen hundred and thirty." The noble Lord said If the date remains as it stands in the Bill—1927—these authorities will not have time to settle down and the Act will not have a fair chance. There has been a great deal of talk about making it "in perpetuity," but if it remains in force until 1930 some chance will be given of seeing how the thing works and what Amendment", if any, should be made in it. That will not be the case if it comes to an end in 1927. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 2, leave out ("nineteen hundred and twenty-seven") and insert ("nineteen hundred and thirty").—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I regret that I cannot accept this Amendment. It was explained in another place that the Bill was a stop-gap measure and experimental in character. I hope that your Lordships will not alter the date. Should the experiment prove satisfactory, no doubt it will be canned on. This point was raised during the Committee stage in your Lordships' House, and the Amendment was negatived by a very small majority—by 19 votes to 17—but it was negatived.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That was in regard to nine years—not six.
LORD PARMOOR: I think the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, raised the point.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes; but it was in reference to nine years.
LORD PARMOOR: It was not a question of whether it was nine years, or three years, or six years. The view of the Government was that this was a temporary Bill. Certainly it is an experimental Bill, and if the experiment turns out successful I have not the slightest doubt that it will be continued. Still, it was looked upon as being an experimental Bill. It is not a very big matter. I do not want to say it is a point upon which the whole fortunes of the Bill depend: at the same time, the Government think that the basis on which they introduced the Bill and on which it was discussed in the other House should be maintained—namely, that it is a bill of a temporary character.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, we have heard several times the expression that this is a stop-gap Bill, but I should like to remind the noble Lord, the Lord President of the Council, that the Minister of Transport was strongly averse from having a time limit-to it. If any one takes the trouble to read the debates they will see that the Minister of Transport was most insistent upon the fact that it was very important there should be no time limit to the Bill. I have noticed, reading the debates, that the Minister of Transport, in spite of his democratic characteristics, was extremely anxious on many occasions to do the right thing. It was only when he was too much bullied by his own Party, the Labour Party, and by the Progressive members of the London County Council, that he was forced to give way. In this particular instance he was evidently overborne by these gentlemen, and if I am not mistaken he voted against the time limit when the Division took place in the House of Commons. I hope that my noble friend will adhere to the Amendment. I certainly will support him.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, in Committee this question was raised, and we decided by a majority of two to leave the date at 1927, and, so far as I am concerned, I see no reason why we should change that decision. Supposing that this Bill is a success, when 1927 comes there is nothing whatever to prevent it being renewed, for all time if necessary. I am not surprised that the Minister of Transport wanted it for

1105
all time, because that would perpetuate his office, and my desire is to do away with as many of these superfluous offices as we possibly can. My noble friend Lord Newton is so afraid that the Bill, if it comes into being, will be a failure, that he wants to prevent anybody before 1927 saying: "This Act is a failure; let us alter it." There can be no earthly reason why we should not for three years see what is going to happen—whether we are going to be dragooned out of our lives, and monopoles set up, or whether this experiment is going to be a success. I shall vote as I did in the Committee stage.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I quite understand my noble friend behind me (Lord Banbury of Southam) voting for the shorter period, because he is against the Bill altogether. Therefore, he wants the evil thing only to go on for a certain limited time. Perhaps he will allow me to say, as an ex-Minister of Transport, that I am not so enthusiastic as he is about the destruction of that valuable office. I only want to say a few words on this Amendment. The Bill has been described as an experiment, and I think an experiment ought to have a fair trial. I submit to your Lordships—and I speak with some knowledge of London's transport—that it really is quite impossible for this Bill properly to function in so short a period as that proposed in this clause. It must take some little time before this Committee is set up. At the utmost it can only have two and a half years to run, and if the members of this Committee know that their period of life may be cut off so rapidly they will not be able to commence and develop those schemes for the improvement of London's traffic that we wish to see. We shall have the whole thing over again. We have been trying to get a scheme for London traffic for the last twenty years, and we are always being defeated. Now, at the last moment, when we have a Bill to deal with it, that Bill is to come to an end in two and a half years. If you do that you will destroy the whole value of the experiment. You will prevent Parliament knowing what might have been done if you had given a little longer time.
LORD PARMOOR: I am not going to oppose the extension of time if that is the general view of the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule (Particular matters which shall be referred to the Advisory Committee):
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved to substitute "may" for "shall" in the heading to the Schedule. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, my Amendment on the Second Schedule is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 8, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had several Amendments on the Paper relating to the Second Schedule. The noble Lord said: I do not think that I need move any of the Amendments, because the Amendments that we have adopted deciding that the additional members should not take part in matters in which they have a pecuniary interest meet my point. I need not trouble the House with these Amendments.
Third Schedule (Purposes or Matters for or with respect to which regulations \may be made by the Minister):
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, after the fifth clause, to insert:—
"(6) For proscribing the number and maximum size and weight of trailers which may be drawn on streets by vehicles or vehicles of any particular class or description either generally or on streets of any class or description: Provided that where more than one trailer is drawn a man shall be carried on the rear trailer for signalling to the driver."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I think will have the sympathy of your Lordships. We must all have experienced the trouble of driving behind lorries, or some other vehicles, which wore drawing one or more trailers and of being unable to attract the attention of the driver so as to pass them. In the case of one trailer what I desire by my Amendment is not so necessary, but in the case of two trailers I submit there ought to be someone on the hindmost vehicle who could communicate with the driver in regard to following traffic which wanted to pass. What I propose by my Amendment is already in operation in the form of bylaws in several counties, and I think we could well put it into the Bill. Since I put down my Amendment it has been brought to my notice that Section 1 of

1107
the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, legalised motor cars and heavy motor cars as distinguished from locomotives, and permitted a motor vehicle not exceeding two tons in weight unladen, drawing one trailer, to be treated as a motor car. I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether that is so. Whatever the legal point may be, we know that unless you have an attendant on the second trailer the traffic is apt to be blocked, because the man who is driving the leading vehicle does not know that you are overtaking him, and you cannot make him know. I am informed that this Amendment has the full support of the Transport Workers' Union, who think that it is a scandal that two trailers should be allowed to be on the road in charge of only one man driving, and with no means of communicating to him what traffic is overtaking him. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 8, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: The real point, I think, has been stated by the noble Lord himself. The question is that the general law is laid down in the Locomotive Act, 1896, and in the Motor Oar Acts and Orders which are made thereunder. Therefore, if you give this particular power as part of this Bill you would have two statutory directions, which might be decided under differing conditions. It was on consideration of that point that these words were deleted in the other House. There can be no objection to what the noble Lord wants, but I think it will raise complications, because you have an existing law and existing machinery for dealing with these very matters, and that law and machinery might be inconsistent with the decision given under this Bill. I will leave the matter in your Lordships' hands, hoping that-the Amendment will not be inserted. It would only produce complications.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: I agree entirely with the Amendment with this exception, that I wish the noble Lord would exclude the second trailer. It would be more advisable to insist on a man being on the trailer if only one is being towed by a motor lorry. It is just as impossible for the driver to see what is going on behind him with one trailer
1108
as it is with two, and if the noble Lord could alter the Amendment in that respect I should be glad. The danger and the difficulty are just as great with one trailer as with two.
EARL BUXTON: I understand from the Lord President that this matter is dealt with under Statute elsewhere. That may be so, and I am glad to hear it. But so far as my experience goes its effect is very small. These trailers are an unmitigated nuisance and a danger to traffic. The whole object of this Bill is to deal with traffic difficulties and the Amendment would be very useful, it would do no harm at all. I do not like the words of the proviso in the Amendment, and perhaps the noble Lord may be able to see his way to alter them a little.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble and learned Lord might allow us to put this Amendment in now and then, if there is any reason to question it hereafter, it can be referred to on the Third Beading. Like the noble Earl who has just spoken I have a slight objection to the form of the proviso. I think it might run something like this: "Provided that the Regulations shall prescribe that s man shall be carried at the rear of the trailer."
LORD PARMOOR: In reference to what the noble Marquess has said, if it is clearly understood that should further objections be entertained this question will be reconsidered, then I do not object to the insertion of the Amendment now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will put the Amendment in its amended form:— Page 26, line 8, at end insert "(6) For prescribing the number and maximum size and weight of trailers which may be drawn on streets by vehicles or vehicles of any particular class or description either generally or on streets of any class or description: Provided that the regulations shall prescribe that a man shall be carried on the rear trailer for signalling to the driver."
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR: I propose to put down the Third Reading for Wednesday.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (MEASURING INSTRUMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, in moving that the House do go into Committee, I should like to mention one matter. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, asked me at the end of a long sitting on Tuesday last whether the Regulations to be made under this Bill are to be laid upon the Table and passed unless a Resolution of both Houses is passed against them. Quite inadvertently I answered him wrongly Regulations made under the Weights and Measures Act, 1904, are submitted to Parliament, and, therefore, the same procedure will apply to Regulations made under this Bill. If the noble Earl will look at the Memorandum attached to the Bill he will see that it is referred to in terms. I regret the inaccuracy.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, this is an annual Bill, the Second Beading of which is moved formally in your Lordships' House. The main purpose of the Bill is to fix the maximum amount which may be issued by the National Debt Commissioners for the purpose of local loans. The capital required is provided by the issue of three per cent, local stock.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILICOSIS) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment.
TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SMOKE ABATEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, before the House adjourns I desire to protest against the manner in which I have been treated this afternoon in connection with the Public Health (Smoke Abatement.) Bill. It is extremely inconvenient after making arrangements to come down here, collecting one's friends and opponents, to be suddenly informed that the Bill is not to be taken. I was so taken by surprise that I did not protest at the time. I desire to do so now, and at the same time to receive a definite statement from the Government as to when the Bill actually will be taken.
LORD PARMOOR: I regret the fact in one sense, but not in another, because business has gone through more quickly than I anticipated. I thought it would necessitate our coming back after dinner, a step which I think your Lordships desire to avoid if possible. I mentioned earlier that the Bill in which the noble Lord is so much interested will be taken on Friday.

THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: My Lords, may I say one word about the Committee for Privileges which has interested the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, this afternoon? He appreciates the fact that we do not want to obstruct the business of the House in any way and the arrangement I have been able to make for to-morrow's sitting are that the Committee should sit, as it has been allowed to sit before, in the Conference Room, or "Moses Room." Your Lordships will realise that this is a busy time of year, and I am anxious to conclude those two cases to-morrow, if I can. I should be sorry, therefore, to lose an hour's work. I suggest that we should be allowed to sit until a quarter to four in that room, and I would ask your Lordships to be a little patient with those members of the House who are attending the Committee, and who may arrive half an hour late.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will forgive me for rising immediately after

1111
the noble Earl. I do so on account of an observation of mine made, perhaps, without proper respect for the high office which my noble friend holds. So far as I am concerned, and if I speak for anybody else in your Lordships' House, I am sure that we shall readily fall in with the wishes of my noble friend.

DUKEDOM OF SOMERSET.
A witness to attend the Committee for Privileges to-morrow, and to produce a document.
SOUTHEND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BLACKPOOL ORDER) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL.
To be read 2a on Thursday next.—(Lord Arnold.)
PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL.
To be read 2a on Thursday next.—(Lord Arnold.)
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Commons Reason for disagreeing with the Lords Amendment to be considered on Friday next.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (LEAVE OF ABSENCE) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments to be printed, and to be considered on Wednesday next.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.