Lords Sitting of 30 July 1924

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: a further Amendment made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDERS.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motions which appear on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban districts of Knutsford, Middlewich and Winsford, and parts of the rural districts of Northwich and Bucklow, all in the County of Chester, which was presented on the 28th day of May, 1924, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Horsham, in the Administrative County of West Sussex, parts of the rural districts of Cuckfield and East Grinstead, in the Administrative County of East Sussex, and part of the rural district of Reigate, in the County of Surrey, which was presented on the 30th day of June, 1924, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name to give precedence to the Unemployed Insurance (No. 2) Bill to-day.
76
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI. be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of allowing the Third Reading of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill to have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the day.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

UNEMPLOYED INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and returned to the Commons.
EDINBURGH CORPORATION WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (DOCK CHARGES, SCOTLAND) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3 (according to Order), and passed.

ST. HELEN'S CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDĒR BILL.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords I beg to move the Motion of which Notice has been given.
Moved, That the Order made on the 10th day of April last, " That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a Second time after Tuesday, the 17th of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, on this Motion I should like to make an appeal to my noble friend, who on this occasion is representing the Ministry of Transport, for his help, not in this Session but in future Sessions. Your Lordships are aware, of course, of the Sessional Order which it is our custom to pass every year, and which is quoted on the Notice Paper before your Lordships:—" That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 17th of June next." The object of that Sessional

77
Order is not capricious. It is in the interests of the efficient performance of the duties of your Lordships' House. It has been discussed once or twice in recent years with the object of urging public Departments to let us have the business here in reasonable time, and I am bound to say that public Departments, as a rule, have met your Lordships very fairly in this way. I may, for instance, inform your Lordships that the Ministry of Health have done their best, and I thank them for it, to conform to this Sessional Order. They have had eight Provisional Order Bills before your Lordships. Five of them reached this House before the date named, and in regard to three of them the Department had to come to your Lordships and ask your Lordships to waive the Sessional Order. The last of them reached your Lordships on July 8, which was a reasonable date.
But that was before the first of the Ministry of Transport Bills had reached us at all. The first of the Ministry of Transport Bills reached us on July 10. This Bill is the third, and I am told that there is one more which has had to go to the Examiner, and I understand it cannot reach us before next Tuesday. Fortunately, I believe that the first three Bills are unopposed, and I think it is probable that the fourth of them, the Bradford Bill, will also be unopposed. But it is not treating your Lordships fairly. It looks to me as though the Ministry of Transport are making no effort whatever to comply with your Lordships' Sessional Order. There seems to be no reason why these Bills should not be introduced earlier, and I want to appeal to my noble friend to use his influence with the Ministry of Transport to ensure that these Bills shall reach us at a reasonable time in the Session.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I need scarcely s>ay that I will take the earliest opportunity of informing the Ministry of Transport of the observations made by my noble friend the Lord Chairman. His views upon the subject are of course of paramount importance and he knows very well that in the general tenor of them he has my personal and entire sympathy.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a accordingly.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BLACKPOOL ORDER) BILL, [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
KEIGHLEY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PENSIONS OF MARRIED SCHOOL TEACHERS.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will consider the possibility of relieving school teachers, who acquire foreign nationality by marriage, from the disabilities which now attend them in regard to pension. I will not detain your Lordships for very long upon this point. I referred to it in your Lordships' House on the Second Reading of the Superannuation of Teachers Bill, when I asked the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, whether it was possible to deal with the matter in connection with that Bill. He thought that was not a proper opportunity and, therefore, that it should be reserved until a future date. So I ventured to place this Question on the Paper to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are able to deal with cases of this kind. I know that the weakness of my case is that only one case has occurred, but it seems to me that when a case of hardship of this kind arises, a concrete case, that is the moment to consider it and, if possible, remedy it and generally put things right in view of similar questions turning up again in the future.
I do not want to go into the particulars of this case, because I think it is very well known to the Ministry of Education. It was considered when I was at the

79
Ministry of Education and, had the late Government remained in power, I should have hoped that we would have been able to do something. But the General Election took place, and His Majesty's present Government came into office. I therefore ask them if they can see any possibility of dealing with cases of this kind and of remedying what I think is admitted on all sides to be a hardship to women teachers who, through no fault of their own, render themselves unable to enjoy the advantages of their superannuation. The matter is dealt with in the Old Age Pensions Act, and it occurred to me when I was considering this case that it would be possible to deal with the superannuation of teachers on somewhat similar lines. I venture to ask the noble Viscount whether the matter has been considered and if anything can be done to remedy this state of affairs.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD): My Lords, this case admits of a very simple answer and I hope my answer will satisfy the noble Earl. The law as it affects teachers at the present moment with regard to cases such as that which has been mentioned by the noble Earl is as follows: Section 102 (2) of the School Teachers Superannuation Act, 1910, provides that no superannuation allowance or gratuity shall be payable to any teacher who is not a British subject and no death gratuity shall be payable in respect of any teacher not being a British subject. It is quite clear, therefore, on the face of it, and as the law stands at the present moment, that the Government are not in a position to meet the hardships of this lady's case.
I happened to have the honour to preside last year over a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on the big subject of the nationality of married women, and the curious result occurred that the five members of your Lordships' House agreed with my Report, which was that there should be no alteration in the law with regard to married women as it stands at present, while five members of the other House agreed with my noble friend Lord Danesfort, who was then a member of the other House. We agreed to differ, therefore, and report our differences to the two Houses. In the course of that Inquiry cases such as the one brought forward this afternoon by my noble friend were
80
urged upon us as a reason for altering the general law on the subject—namely, altering the general law that a woman on marriage takes the nationality of her husband. Those who agreed with me on the Committee felt that they were not prepared to alter the general law on special cases of this sort, but they did recommend that when the opportunity came for dealing with this subject in relation to the particular subject on which they arose there should be a possibility of an amendment of the law.
On this question of the teacher it happens that a very favourable opportunity will occur next year, because I have given an undertaking in this House that the whole question of superannuation in connection with teachers shall then be brought forward in the shape of a Bill if the present Government is in office. That Bill would offer an opportunity by which we can correct this hardship without touching the general law on the subject. In the remarks with which he put this Question, the noble Earl alluded to the Old Age Pensions Act, which he said offered a possible precedent for some such provision in the measure relating to superannuation. I might read what that Act provides in connection with a case very similar to the present one. It provides that if, at the date of the receipt of an old age pension, the alien husband is dead, or the marriage with the alien has been dissolved, or annulled, or the recipient of the pension has for a period of not less than two years up to the date been legally separated from or deserted by the alien, the disqualification for pension shall not exist. It seems to me that that provision is a precedent and a model on which a hardship of this sort might be provided against in the Superannuation Bill.
While I do not make any promise with regard to an exactly similar clause in the Superannuation Bill of next year—in fact, I am not prepared to make any promise at all—yet, at the same time, I can assure the noble Earl that the principle underlying this particular case will meet with most favourable consideration on the part of the Education Department. The noble Earl knows the difficulties of making promises with regard to future legislation far better than I do, and I think he will realise that that is the furthest extent to which

81
I can go. I think he ought to be well satisfied with that reply on the part of His Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I may say that I am completely satisfied with the reply of my noble friend opposite. I agree with him as to the danger of making a definite promise with regard to future legislation. I quite understand that it is out of the question to deal with this without legislation and I thought that the noble Lord understood that.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: Yes, certainly.

NATIONALITY OF MARRIED WOMEN.
LORD DANESFORThad given Notice to ask the Lord President of the Council whether his attention has been called to the fact that, owing to the present state of the British law of nationality and to recent legislation in the United States in 1922, a British-born woman on marrying an American citizen loses her British nationality and does not acquire United States citizenship, and is consequently subjected to serious hardships as regards passport and other matters and to many other disabilities; and further that the recent Joint Select Committee of the House of Lords and House of Commons on the Nationality of Married Women were unanimously of opinion that a British-born woman shall not on marriage lose her British nationality if she does not acquire that of her husband under the law of his country, and to move that in the opinion of this House it is desirable that His Majesty's Government shall, after consultation with the Dominions, introduce legislation at an early date to give effect to this unanimous opinion, without prejudice to the larger questions which have been raised as to the position of British and alien women respectively in regard to the retention and acquisition of British nationality on their marriage.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question and to move the Resolution which stand in my name. My object in doing so is to call attention to the serious hardships to which British-born women who marry United States citizens are subjected at the present time owing to the existing law in this country
82
and the United States. The position is this. By the British law a British woman who marries an alien ceases to be a British subject and becomes an alien. By the United States law, known as the Cable Law, which was passed in 1922, a United States citizen who marries an alien woman does not, by the act of marriage, enable her to take his nationality. On the contrary, she remains an alien according to the United States law. Therefore, it comes to this: that a British woman who marries a United States citizen becomes an alien by the law of this country and she remains an alien from the United States point of view by the law of the United States.
I need hardly say that this is a very serious matter for British women who marry aliens. The British woman who marries an alien immediately loses all rights of British citizenship. She is forced to give up her allegiance to this country, and becomes an alien, and in the case of her marrying an American citizen she gets nothing whatever in return, because she does not get American citizenship. This involves a British woman in many inconveniences and hardships. I need not enumerate them all, but may I give one very practical and very disagreeable- illustration of how it works out in the matter of passports? The United States authorities will not grant United States passports to the foreign wives of their own citizens. On the other hand, the British authorities will not grant British passports to those who, by British law, are aliens. So that a woman in the position which I have indicated cannot get a passport either from the British authorities in the land of her birth, or from the United States authorities, the land of her husband. That is a very serious source of trouble both to the Foreign Offices of the two countries, and to the persons concerned.
It is true that there has been an attempt made to get over the difficulty by means of affidavits made by the persons desiring passports, who, in some cases, receive Consular visas, but that method has been found to be exceedingly cumbrous and most unsatisfactory. Indeed, one case was brought to my attention of a British woman who had married a United States citizen in this country and desired to go abroad on her honeymoon but could not get a British pass-

83
port nor any help from the American authorities. She had actually to go on her honeymoon with a passport made out in her maiden name, accompanied, of course, by her husband. That placed her in a position of some embarrassment, as I need hardly point out.
What is the remedy for this? It is a very simple one. The remedy I venture to suggest to the noble Lord, the Lord President, who will probably reply, is this, that a British woman on marrying an alien should not thereby lose her British nationality unless by the law of her husband's country she acquires his. That alteration in the law would be in accordance with the desires of the Select Committee which sat upon the nationality of married women last Session, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, referred. That Committee was composed of five members of your Lordships' House and five members of the House of Commons. It included myself. I was in the House of Commons at that time. The five members of the House of Commons recommended a very drastic change in the law by which a British woman, on her marriage with an alien, should not lose her British nationality unless she desired to do so. On the other hand, the five members of your Lordships' House were opposed to such a drastic change.
The only change they recommended was the one which I now ask your Lordships to say is the proper change to make pending a settlement of larger questions. What they recommended was that a British woman should not on marrying an alien lose her British nationality if she did not acquire her husband's nationality under the law of his country. Any one of your Lordships who cares to look up the reference will find that recommendation on page 19 of the draft Report. Although that was the recommendation in specific terms of the members of your Lordships' House on that Select Committee, it was also implied in the opinions expressed by the five members representing the House of Commons. The truth is that they wished to go much further, but at any rate they would go so far as that. Therefore, the change in the law which I suggest was advocated unanimously by the whole ten members who sat on that Select Committee.
84
I need only add that if the British law is altered in the way I suggest it would bring it into conformity with the laws of France, Italy, Portugal, Serbia, Sweden, and other countries of Europe, and into closer harmony with the provisions of the Belgian law which is somewhat in the nature of the change recommended by the Committee. I agree that a change of this nature can only be brought about after consultation with the Dominions, but I ask His Majesty's Government to accept the Motion that this change is desirable, and I do suggest that it would be desirable to communicate at once with the Dominions with the view of getting their assent. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that His Majesty's Government shall, after consultation with the Dominions, introduce legislation at an early date to give effect to the unanimous opinion of the Joint Select Committee on the Nationality of Married Women—that a British-born woman shall not on marriage lose her British nationality if she does not acquire that of her husband under the law of his country—without prejudice to the larger questions which have been raised as to the position of British and alien women respectively in regard to the retention and acquisition of British nationality on their marriage.—{Lord Danesfort.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I entirely appreciate the view put forward by the noble Lord, and no one can deny that in the very special cases to which he has referred there may be great hardship on British-born women. As he has pointed out the Motion is confined to the case of a British-born woman who loses her nationality on marriage, but does not obtain the nationality of her husband's country. He knows that under the Act of 1914 a British-born woman on marriage with an alien loses her nationality in this country, and there is a special hardship in the case to which he has referred, because she does not gain the nationality of her husband's country. He has also pointed out, quite accurately, that a unanimous Resolution in the direction he is advocating was passed by the noble Lords who were members of the Joint Committee, and that their recommendation in this respect was agreed to by the five members from the

85
other House. We may take it that it was a unanimous recommendation that an injustice of this kind, which presses hardly in some cases on British women, should be set right.
He has also pointed out, and I only repeat it to show that I do not overlook the matter, that there are other countries which were in the same position as regards the general law of nationality as we are here, but that they have introduced special legislation in order to deal with this particular matter. For instance, a Frenchwoman married to a foreigner ordinarily loses her French nationality on marriage, but if the law of another country is such that she does not gain the nationality of her husband, that case is provided for and she does not lose her French nationality. Almost the same provisions prevail in Belgium; they are exactly the same in Italy, Sweden, Serbia and Portugal.
I have had the advantage of discussing this matter with the Home Secretary, who is in charge of this matter, and I can say that we are wholly in sympathy with the Motion. It is a matter for congratulation that the noble Lord has brought a hardship of this character to the notice of your Lordships' House. He will have the sympathy, at any rate, of the present Government. But when he asks that the Government will introduce legislation at an early date I am glad to find he recognises that there must be consultation with the Dominions. Therefore, it is obvious that legislation of this kind cannot be introduced at the present moment, and it would be quite impossible to introduce it just as we are reaching the end of the present Session. I hope the noble Lord will not, after my statement, press his Motion. When this question is considered it will be the opinion of the Government that legislation should be introduced, and legislation in the direction he mentioned. Having made that statement, I hope he will not desire to pass his Motion now because I cannot give any answer as to the specific moment when that can be done. It will be done as soon as it can be conveniently dealt with.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, after the statement of the Lord President as to the intentions and wishes of the Government in this matter and the fact that they
86
are prepared to act as speedily as possible, I do not propose to press my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, this Bill is to extend the powers of local authorities in Scotland so as to enable them to provide for the use of the lately discovered drug, insulin, in cases of diabetes where the person is a poor person and unable to go to the expense of providing himself with this valuable remedy. That is the main purpose of the Bill; it deals with cases for which insulin has been found to be valuable. I believe it is a direct mitigation even if it is not always a remedy. In addition to that, there is a provision dealing with such other diseases as the Board may by order prescribe, and in regard to which, in the opinion of the local authority, persons require assistance. That, of course, is extending the Bill beyond its main purpose, but it is thought that this would be very useful and make it unnecessary to come to Parliament in the event of some new remedy being found. There are some further supplementary provisions, one of which is important, as providing a safeguard that the orders shall not be too hurriedly and immediately passed in such a case, but I think I have said sufficient to justify me in asking your Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: My Lords, if this Bill had stopped as Lord Muir Mackenzie has said at the question, of providing for the treatment of diabetes there would have been no- objection, I am sure, from this side of the House. Your Lordships will agree that where the Board of Health in Scotland has asked for this power to supply a particular medicine to those who are not able to afford it this power should be granted. But I think this creates a, precedent in regard to other non-infectious diseases of that kind, and in this respect it places the whole burden upon the local authority

87
and does not bring in the central authority, as in the case of tuberculosis and diseases of that sort. But when the noble Lord proposes that we should pass a Bill that would extend those privileges and place those burdens upon the local authorities in regard to a number of unnamed diseases, then I join issue with him at once, and I hope that the House will not agree to that particular part of the Bill. I propose to move in Committee that the words which bring in the other diseases should be omitted, together with a consequential clause which follows with regard to the necessity of Resolutions being passed by the House of Commons.
This is a very serious matter, and I do not know why it should be regarded so lightly by the noble Lord opposite as it appears to be. In this Bill, not only do you import every kind of infectious disease into the system and place, in my opinion, a burden upon the local authorities, but the local authorities also have power, if they choose, to build hospitals, and so on, for the purpose of treating those diseases. They may make such arrangements as they think proper for the purpose, and a wholly impossible burden will be placed upon the local authorities. It seems to be the fashion now to place all kinds of burdens upon local authorities. Those of us who have to pay the rates know very well what that means. There is no margin left, especially where demands are made upon the land. T think, therefore, that we require to look-very narrowly at all these proposals.
Above all things, the precedent is one which ought not to be extended beyond the particular point concerning which everyone is agreed. It is no use saying that subsection (2) of Clause 1 is any protection. It may be a protection against the. folly of placing some non-infectious disease on this list which there is no necessity to include, but it is no protection whatever against the local authority being involved in this possible expense if the proposal is approved by the House of Commons. To that extent I think this is an unfair burden to place upon the local authorities, and I hope that this House will object. I am glad, indeed, that the Second Reading of this Bill should pass. Its history is well known. It was asked for in connection with diabetes by the Public Health authorities in Scotland, and it was originally an ad hoc Bill. Now it
88
is nothing of the kind. No doubt it is still to a certain extent permissive, but it is not an ad hoc Bill since it has been widened beyond its original purpose. It is to this extension that I very strongly object.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I think the noble-Viscount has put the case too high. This is not a Bill which puts any obligation upon the local authority. It only enables the local authority, with the approval of the Scottish Board of Health, to make such provision for diabetes as may be urgently necessary. I have known cases in my own experience where an unfortunate man, doomed by the local doctor for want of special treatment, recovered his health within six weeks as soon as he was properly treated in a way that was not locally possible without assistance. There are other diseases of the same kind. Take, for example, diphtheria, where the treatment may be very urgent. It is not an expensive matter to provide the proper toxin. There are one or two diseases where the treatment has to take place at once, and the toxin or anti-toxin required must be immediately available. When you consider that this is nothing more than a power given to local authorities to provide in cases of very grave urgency, and does not impose any obligation, I think the noble Viscount will agree that he is unduly alarmed at the prospect of the burden which may be placed upon the ratepayers. After all, the local authorities are the people who know the circumstances best and are specially fitted to look after their own ratepayers.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, my noble friend Viscount Younger has raised no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill, nor has he raised any objection regarding treatment for diabetes. He confines his objection to these other diseases. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack says that it is entirely left to local authorities. I think that is somewhat doubtful, because the Bill reads—
"or such other diseases as the Board may by order prescribe."
"Prescribe " is a very strong word. In an earlier part of subsection (1) of Clause 1 the Bill says that local authorities shall have power—

89
"to make such arrangements as they may think fit and as may be sanctioned by the Scottish Board of Health."
So far as I can see, under this Bill the local authority might be able to build hospitals, or to take any other steps of that kind. The noble Lord, in moving the Second Reading, stated that the main purpose of the Bill was the treatment of diabetes, and I hope that when we reach the Committee stage the Government will accept the Amendment which will be moved by my noble friend Viscount Younger, to confine the Bill to that purpose. I cannot speak with authority, but I think I am more or less correct in saying that, if the Bill is passed in that form, it will be much more satisfactory to the local authorities than it is at present. I understand that a very large number of them have requested that it should be in that form, and I am also under the impression that it would probably meet the requirements of the Scottish Board of Health.
This is, at any rate, a very wide question, and it raises the very important point upon which I think that every local authority will agree, that no assistance is to be given by the central authority. I am informed that it is calculated that the treatment of diabetes will not cost a very large sum per annum, and I do not think, therefore, that the local authorities will object to that part of the Bill. But it is a very wide extension to bring in these other diseases, and, if they remain in the Bill, they may lead to the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds without any assistance from the Exchequer. I do not think that such a provision should be put into a Bill of this kind, and I hope that my noble friend will be successful when he moves his Amendments.
As regards the safeguards provided in the Bill, I should like to point out to your Lordships that, although the House of Commons has power to object to the orders that may be prescribed by the Board of Health, your Lordships under this Bill have no power whatever. I certainly think that, if the Bill remains as it is, both Houses should be put on an equal footing. We have no wish to impede the Second Reading of this Bill, but there is a very strong feeling on this side of the House and, also I believe, in the country, that it should be restricted to that which my noble friend described
90
as the main purpose of the Bill—namely, the treatment of diabetes.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, the remarks that have been made have really anticipated to a great extent that which I thought was likely to take place in the Committee stage of the Bill, but I dare say that, before that stage arrives, I shall have been furnished with such persuasive arguments from the Scottish Board of Health that I shall be able to maintain the Bill as it stands.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]
Proceedings resumed (according to Order).
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, there are upon the Paper some Amendments to this Bill which I was obliged to postpone from the last stage because they had not been printed. I move these Amendments now with the. entire concurrence of the members of the Joint Committee who dealt with the Bill. The point was brought to my notice after the Committee stage in this House, and I felt convinced that it was one which we should have covered if it had been before us in the Joint Committee, and I ask your Lordships to allow the Amendments to be made. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Clause 19, page 24, lines 15 and 16, leave out ("an insured") and insert ("a")
Clause 19, line 21, after the first ("the") insert ("Irish Free State, the")
Clause 19, line 23, leave out from (" to ") to the end of line 28.
Clause 19, line 41, leave out ("insured") and insert ("entitled to receive benefits")
Clause 19, line 42, leave out (" benefits under this Act ") and insert ("such benefits")
Clause 19, page 25, line 3, leave out (" insured ") and insert (" entitled to receive benefits ")
Clause 19, line 6, leave out (" benefits under that scheme ") and insert ("such benefits")
Clause 19, line 15, leave out from (" benefit ") to the end of line 21.
Clause 19, line 25, leave out (" c ") and insert (" b ").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CIRCUIT COURTS AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (LEAVE OF ABSENCE) BILL, [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR, INDIA (LORD OLIVIER): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do take into consideration the Amendments of the House of Commons to this Bill. Those Amendments are two in number. The first is to Clause 1, page 2, line 18, after the word "vacant" to insert "in the case of a person granted leave for urgent reasons of public interest as from the termination of that period and in any other case." The reason for this Amendment is very simple. The Bill as passed by this House provided that if any officer came on leave for any reason and did not return at the end of such leave his office should be vacant as from the date on which he came on leave of absence. That was not the intention of the clause, and there must have been some failure in drafting. Obviously, it would be unjust that when a public officer, say, a Viceroy or Commander-in-Chief, had come on leave of absence for public reasons at the request of the Government, the office should be deemed to be vacant, because it would stultify any act which he might have done in his official capacity if the office were deemed vacant during the whole of his leave of absence. The Commons Amendment rectifies that little clumsiness in drafting.
The second Amendment is on line 25, after "shall," to insert the words "unless the Secretary of State in Council otherwise directs." The clause in its original form prescribed that if an officer did not return after leave of absence he should be bound to repay any leave allowances which he had received during his leave, in such manner as the Secretary of State might direct. It was held by the House of Commons, and the Government agree, that that might in some cases work very unjustly; that is to say, assuming a man had come on leave of absence on the
92
ground of his own ill-health, and that ill-health terminated fatally, it would be very unjust that the widow should be required in all cases to refund the leave allowances which he might have obtained. Consequently, the Amendment provides that the refund shall not be obligatory, but that the Secretary of State shall have a dispensing power, so that the refund shall be made unless he otherwise directs. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Olivier.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. 95.]
Clause 1, page 2, line 18, after (" vacant ") insert (" in the case of a person granted leave for urgent reasons of public interest as from the termination of that period and in any other ease ").
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Olivier.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 1, page 2, line 25, after (" shall ") insert (" unless the Secretary of State in Council otherwise directs").
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amend ment.—(Lord Olivier.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, there are certain Amendments down to this Bill which should technically be moved after the Third Reading, but I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I stated now what the attitude of the Government is as regards the suggested Amendments'. The first of them stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Askwith Your Lordships may recollect that during the course of the discussion we eliminated the Minister and left Clause 1 in the form that, first of all, the members of the Advisory Committee should be nominated and then appointed by the local authorities. Lord Askwith

93
pointed out that that was an unnecessarily complicated method of procedure, and I said, from the point of view of the Government, that we certainly agreed with him. The Amendment which he has put down will not only be accepted by the Government but is really an improvement in the fabric of the Bill. The Government draftsman has been very carefully through it and he says it will work properly. We gratefully assent to it. Then, if I may leave for a moment out of consideration what I have to say on the Amendments of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, there is an Amendment in the name of Earl Buxton as regards the Second Schedule. It is quite a proper Amendment, and it improves the drafting.
EARL BUXTON: It is consequential.
LORD PARMOOR: It is really consequential, and the Government accept it. With regard to Lord Montagu's Amendments, I am afraid I cannot make the same statement. He proposes to introduce an additional member, and I think your Lordships have determined more than once that the constitution or balance of the Advisory Committee was not to be altered.
EARL BUXTON: No doubt, as regards the Amendments to which he agrees, the noble and learned Lord's statement will have the effect of saving time, but when he comes to the controversial Amendments I think that your Lordships will be put rather in a difficulty if he makes his statement now.
LORD PARMOOR: I really think the course which I had proposed to follow would be the better one, but I will not go into the controversial points now. So far as Lord Montagu's Amendments are concerned, I will say that we cannot accept them, and when we come to close quarters with them I will state the reasons for our objection. I thought it might have been convenient to him to know at this stage what attitude the Government take. I understand that he desires not to move the Amendment after " One shall be appointed by the Minister," but at the end of the additional member subsection. Of course, I have no objection to that, and I was going to point out that if he moves it at that place it raises an entirely different question from what it would if it were raised at the
94
point at which it is put down. I had promised to consider carefully at a later stage whether we could accept the suggestion which he made, and I promised to give it sympathetic consideration, or something of that sort. We have considered it, and I am sorry to say we cannot accept it.
The second matter arises on Clause 7, at the end of subsection (2) (b). I know that the noble Lord has been constantly anxious about this question of monopoly and he is going to move an addition to the existing words, which I think adequately protect the monopoly point. They were very carefully considered in the other House, and they were adopted in their present form after a good deal of discussion. There again, however, I will leave it open to the noble Lord to bring his Amendment forward. I thought it right to indicate at this stage what our attitude will be. As regards the only two other Amendments standing in my name, they are merely matters of drafting. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Lord Parmoor.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I do not feel that this Bill is going to work a miracle, but at the same time I am not one of those- who take a very pessimistic view as to what it will achieve. In any case, the operation of the Bill cannot be immediately effective. Some time must elapse before the reforms which it projects can mature. I want to refer to the interim period—the period between the passing of the Bill and the effective progress of the scheme which it outlines. What is going to happen meanwhile? I submit that a great deal may be done to improve London traffic at once, if only there is good will and a strenuous attitude on the part of the authorities.
One of the striking facts about London traffic to-day is the extraordinary waste of road space—the extraordinarily uneconomic manner in which the roadway between kerbs is employed. This Bill in Clause 10, and likewise in Clause 9, lays down penalties for disobedience to orders given by the police, and gives powers to make Regulations. Ample powers, both to make Regulations and to impose penalties, are already in the hands of the police to ensure that traffic shall keep to its right side of the road. It constantly happens that in a narrow street you see

95
a motor-car drawn up, with its wheels twelve or fifteen inches away from the kerb. You cannot go down the Embankment, or, indeed, any great thoroughfare in London, in an ordinary taxicab without being blocked by some slow and heavy machine in front of you, which is eight or ten feet away from the kerb, and at a time when there is no vehicle standing by the kerb which would justify that machine in drawing to the centre of the road. Red omnibuses are great offenders, and a still greater offender is the red mail cart of His Majesty's Government.
I will give another case in point. There are lots of places in London where cars are parked. St. James's Square is a very good example. A day or two ago I walked round St. James's Square, and I measured the distance from the kerb, especially on the north side, of the cars which were parked there. In some instances the back of the back tyre was about seven or eight feet away from the kerb. That restricts the thoroughfare available for traffic passing through that square. Of course, the traffic there is not very heavy, but still the case is symptomatic of the fact that, either from oversight or from other causes which I do not try to dissect, it has ceased to be the duty of the police to reprimand a man who puts his car in an awkward position. In fact, attention to that respect for the kerb has ceased to be one of the functions of the Metropolitan Police. When I go about London I see these mounted police. They are really magnificent, statuesque creatures, but they are always standing still. If only they could be moved up and down the great thoroughfares, and, by one gesture of their hand, drive traffic to its correct position on the road, the economy would be enormous. Not hundreds, but thousands of hours are wasted in London every day because the police do not put into operation the powers they already possess.
One other point. A palpable and gross breach of Regulations which is happening all over London, and all over the country too, is the smoke nuisance. I see cars going along which are pouring out streams of poisonous smoke, which really would not be tolerated if they came out of a domestic chimney, because the borough authority would prosecute. But what are the police doing? How is it that this nuisance is growing day by day and week by week? I do wish that the police
96
could be instructed by the Home Office to take up a subject which is really a growing scandal. The laxity of the police —and I use the word advisedly—is really very regrettable. I wish that the Home Secretary would make inquiries of the Office of Works, which takes a very much more severe attitude towards the breach of Regulations than the police do outside the Royal parks. I should imagine that in percentage the number of convictions which take place for this offence in the public parks is six or eight times as great as in the public streets.
If my remarks make any impression on the mind of the Lord President, I wish he would also suggest to the Commissioner of Police what is not a very serious revolution—namely, that the figures on the meters of taxicabs should be made legible. Is it not singular that these figures, which we have had for ten or fifteen years, are still only about one-fifth of an inch long in the great bulk of taximeters, and that they should be so arranged that, whether in daylight or by the exiguous light which they give us at night, a shadow falls across the middle of the figure, while in other cases the figure on the dial is thrown so far back as to be practically illegible, whether by day or night, and always when it is dusk or the window is shut I It would be a great convenience to elderly people, like the Lord President and myself, who have to use spectacles, if that little item of reform could be brought into effect.
There is really in my opinion—pace Lord Montagu of Beaulieu—no reason to despair about London traffic. I hear people talk about blocks in the streets as if blocks had never existed before. Twenty-five years ago, in the days of hansom cabs, a block of twenty minutes opposite what is now the Ritz Hotel was perfectly common. In spite of the blocks that take place now, progress through London is quicker than it has ever been in the last hundred years. And in spite of the difficulty in crossing these huge blocks of congestion, where you are often held up for ten or twelve minutes, you can fulfil more engagements to-day than you could ten years ago. So that really there is no need to despair. The speed with which we get about London, with one form of locomotion or another, is still greater than it ever was before. And when people talk in terms of despera-

97
tion about London blocks of traffic, it may be pointed out that they are nothing compared with what they are elsewhere. The block of motor traffic caused by motor cars in the city of New York extends thirty miles from the centre of the City. There are difficulties here at two or three places, like Brentford, which are being rapidly overcome, but five miles from Charing Cross it is quite exceptional to meet anything that delays one's movements more than three or four, or, at the most, five minutes. We shall get over those difficulties.
Not many years ago there were many people resident in the country who thought that it would be necessary to prohibit certain roads to the use of motorcars owing to the dust nuisance. Dust made cottages on the high roads uninhabitable. We have completely got rid of that difficulty now. The dust nuisance no longer prevails where there is a live local authority.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: We cannot ride on a horse along the road in consequence.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The noble Lord has not ridden for forty years. I think there are other agencies which will greatly tend to help traffic congestion. I am sure that before many years are passed it will be generally recognised that locomotion by tramway is the most extravagant and the most obsolete method of movement. It is impossible to get a great public authority to accept that point of view and to scrap their obsolescent machinery; but the time will come when they will have to do it. Gas has had to go as an illuminant. Tramways will have to go away because they are a great nuisance and a danger. That in itself, no doubt, will help to relieve congestion, tramways being one of the principal parents of congestion.
Again, I am rather inclined to think that perhaps our expectations that the roads were going to be almost exclusively used for the purpose of goods traffic are likely to be falsified. I rather suspect that before very long the railways are going to come back to their own. Only recently I have had some experience in that matter where the railways for a particular traffic service have shown me that competition by heavy motor cars is quite negligible. There, again, I see some potential relief.
98
Clause 7 and Clause 8 of this Bill deal with power to limit the number of omnibuses plying for hire, with reports to Parliament as to the result of operating certain services in London and as to controlling omnibuses in a much wider way than has ever been done before. I am very much afraid that the new authority may be obsessed with the omnibus topic, and that the omnibus problem and the tram problem may carry with them certain wage and economic considerations which are really alien to this Bill but are none the less brought into it, although they are not directly related to the pure traffic problems. The more the attention of the authorities is drawn to wages or to economic questions the less valuable will be their contribution on pure traffic questions. They will find the former very much more absorbing and very much more exciting. If only they will allow the operation of the laws of demand and supply to have, not, indeed, full play, but at any rate a measure of fair play in traffic, I am confident that there are existing agencies which can solve many of these difficulties, if only they are supplemented in the manner I indicated in the earlier part of my remarks—namely, by the vigorous and rigorous enforcement of the existing law.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: My Lords, I find myself very largely in agreement with most of what has fallen from my noble friend, with the exception of one thing which he mentioned—that the blocks in the traffic have been reduced of late in London. I am afraid I cannot agree with 'him on that. If he will go down to the City, to the Mansion House, or anywhere east of Oxford Circus, on most days of the week and for several weeks of the year, I think he will find that the blocks become worse day by day. But that is a detail. With most of the rest of what he said I agree. I certainly agree that once this Bill is placed or the Statute Book, if the Advisory Committee and the Minister know their business, they will be able, by issuing Orders and Regulations, the very next day to make an immediate difference in the traffic of London. There are other things I can think of which would make an immediate difference to the convenience of the public and prevent many of these blocks in the traffic. I refer to small and simple

99
things with which, possibly, the police already have power to deal but do not. If those things were enforced by the authority of the Advisory Committee it would make an immediate difference in the control of the traffic and would prevent many of these blocks.
I will not go into all these questions, but there is one thing which has always struck me. We have discussed in this House the question of the security of St. Paul's Cathedral. If this Bill was placed on the Statute Book to-morrow morning, it would be possible by a stroke of the pen to make St. Paul's Cathedral reasonably secure. Your Lordships know that one complaint of the Cathedral authorities is that the building shakes owing to the weight of the traffic which passes it. If your Lordships looked at the streets there you would see that it was possible to divert every motor omnibus which passed on tne south side of the Cathedral to a street beyond, which would have the effect of adding many years to the life of the Cathedral. I have said that one of the troubles is that the Cathedral shakes owing to the amount of heavy traffic which passes it. That could be prevented under this Bill in the way I have suggested, and many other things could be done, and when the authorities are possessed of the powers which the Bill confers I am convinced it will make a tremendous difference.
There are two things which I very much regret find no place in the Bill. There is no reference as to how the traffic of the future is to be carried and there is no reference in the Bill which would draw the attention of the Advisory Committee to the question of taxicabs. This Is a live question which ought to be considered to-day and not ten years hence, as I think your Lordships will agree if you consider the traffic as it was ten years ago in the streets of London, as it is to-day, and as it may be ten years hence.
My noble friend did not think there were any serious traffic blocks in London, or that there was very much to complain about. I have seen most appalling blocks. If a man who is on business bent loses ten minutes or a quarter of an hour in getting to a board meeting or some particularly urgent business, he may lose thousands of pounds in consequence. I have attended many a board meeting at which, as often as not, a director has arrived and said:
100
"I could not get here in time; I was held up in the traffic for ten minutes." Business men do not like losing time. These blocks occur and grow worse every year, and the question is: How is the traffic to be carried? You can only carry it in two ways—either above ground or below ground. I put aside the question of whether it should go by air. If that is put on one side you have to deal with the traffic on the ground or underground.
Which are you going to do? That is a matter which ought to be considered to-day, and the people who ought to consider it are the Advisory Committee and the Minister whose business it will be to deal with the matter. They will have to decide whether the traffic is going to be carried on the top of the road or underneath the road. In my humble opinion— and I have considered it for a long time —I believe the only practical method of carrying it is to carry it underground. To do that you will have to double the underground railways, but to double those railways will cost an enormous sum of money. Who will find the money? No private or public company can do so, and I suppose the Government will have to do it for the convenience of the nation. But that matter is a subject for the most thorough consideration, and I contend that it ought to be considered to-day and not ten years hence when the traffic has got beyond managing.
There is only one other question upon which I desire to touch, but to my mind it is most important. There is no reference in the Bill to the. establishment of a school to teach men how to control traffic. Controlling traffic is a scientific business. It takes a long time to learn how to do it. You cannot take a policeman and put him in the road and say: " Now, you look after the traffic." That cannot be done. To control traffic requires a certain temperament. There is nothing that I know of that tries the temper more than controlling traffic. If you lose your temper with traffic you might as well give up the job. I do not wish to criticise the police in London. I would be the last person in the world to do so, because I know the difficulties of controlling the traffic, and how very trying it is, but I must confess that at times I have looked aghast at the things that are done by the men placed in control. They sometimes do a thing which no man in the world

101
ought to dream of doing. They make blocks instead of preventing blocks. These men ought to be taught when to hold up their hands.
I was not much struck by what the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, told us in regard to the American gentleman who was so delighted when he came to London to see a policeman hold up his hand and stop the traffic. I wondered whether that policeman held up his hand at the right moment or the wrong one. I have seen men hold up their hands, and create appalling blocks. The only way to teach these men to control traffic is to put them in a school for that purpose, and I regret there is no provision in this Bill for such a school. It is a matter which can be easily provided by the Advisory Committee. They could send the men into the school, and see whether they were temperamentally fitted for controlling the traffic. There are many men who would never control traffic if they lived to be a hundred. If there was provision for teaching men to control traffic I think it would pay everybody.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, we shall know in a few months whether or not this Bill is going to be a success. Personally, I hope it will be. I agree with my noble friend who sits below me that it is not likely to be a success, for the reasons which he gave. I have driven about London—or I did up to the war— for a great number of years, and I can bear out everything that my noble friend said when he stated that blocks existed in the old days. They did exist, but perhaps not to quite the same extent as at present. The old habit of driving some feet from the kerb existed with the old horse wagons in the same way as it now exists with the trolleys driven by motor power. The police in those days had power, as the police now have power, to compel a slow-moving vehicle to keep close to the kerb.
On more than one occasion I have seen a policeman close to a slow-moving vehicle a long way from the kerb, and I have pointed out to him that I could not pass because this vehicle was a long way from the kerb, and the policeman invariably told the driver of that vehicle to keep to the kerb. That is all that happened. It must be remembered that if the policeman had stopped the man and taken him to the police court it would have been diffi-
102
cult to prove any serious offence, and probably the magistrate would have dismissed the man with a caution. Undoubtedly this practice of keeping away from the kerb does, to a very great extent, interfere with the speed of traffic. The reason why people do not like to go near the kerb is that in many places there is a big crown in the roads. Where the roads are more or less flat they not only last longer, but there is no necessity for drivers to keep in the centre of the road. Where there is a crown in the road you naturally try to drive in the middle so as to keep on level ground as much as possible.
I believe there is only one way in which you can reduce the blocks, and that is by reducing the number of omnibuses, but if you reduce the number of omnibuses you will have the public at once com plaining that they have not sufficient means of locomotion, and that they have to " straphang " either in the under ground or in the motor omnibuses. This is a subject in which I have taken a great deal of interest, and so far as I can see the result of the Bill will be nil. I agree with the noble Lord opposite that during the last two or three years the police have held up the traffic too long—
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I never suggested that. I said that I thought sometimes they stopped the traffic at wrong times; I did not say that they held it up too long.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I had hoped that there was something with which I was in agreement with the noble Earl, but apparently there is not. In my opinion the police hold up the traffic too long, with the consequence that a long queue collects, and then you have to have two long queues on each side, whereas if they let it through a little more quickly we should not have these long queues. My noble friend seems to think that slippery roads do not matter. I think he said that I had not driven for forty years. As a matter fact I ride every day when out in the country, and I still hunt, but, as I am getting old, I feel a predilection for the road instead of for the field. Now, however, that the roads are so slippery I am perforce, against my will, obliged to remain in

103
the field, which I do not so very much like. But, with that exception, I venture to agree with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend below me.
LORD HEMPHILL: My Lords, it is not very often that I am in agreement with the noble Lord who has just sat down, but when he said that the effect of this Bill will be nil I am rather inclined to agree with him, though he has put it with rather more emphasis than I think most people would do. Many people object to this Bill on general principles. One objection, it appears to me, is that, this Bill being a London Traffic Bill, people will imagine that it is going to solve the difficulty of London traffic, and that things are going to be put right in a very short space of time. That, of course, is perfectly ridiculous. You are not going to get that result out of this Bill. But the Bill has been greatly improved both by Amendments in this House and in the other House. To think, however, that it is going to solve the question of London traffic is ridiculous. To improve the traffic in London means an enormous expenditure in widening streets, in building bridges, in making by-passes, and dealing with points where the traffic crosses. That all means a huge expenditure of money. The question is, where is the money going to be found?
The Advisory Committee is, to my mind, a body which, while affording a convenient shelter for the Minister when he wishes to avoid responsibility, will not be used by him if he disagrees with it. This Committee will not be a very strong or influential body. It certainly does not represent the local authorities. Where you have several authorities joined together with one representative on the Advisory Committee, that representative is only known to his own particular local authority. If you want the support of local authorities on a matter like this it is desirable to have at least one representative from each local authority who would then be able to indicate to his own council the view of the Minister and the Advisory Committee on a particular matter. The Advisory Committee, in my opinion, is not a very useful body. Its powers have been much clipped, and it is entirely wrong to have representation of interests on a statutory Committee. It is opposed to all ideas of local government.
104
It has been said that there are too many omnibuses and too many trams. Omnibuses, of course, do not run for amusement, but because they are able to carry passengers and earn money. The trams are there for the same purpose, and if trams are empty it is simply because they are going to fetch passengers. If the omnibuses are empty it is because they are going to fetch passengers. The traffic of London is like the traffic of all great cities. At certain hours of the day there is a great influx from the outer districts to the centre, and at certain other hours there is a great flow from the centre to the suburbs. They are the "rush" hours; and you must have sufficient accommodation to carry people during these hours. A man must not be prevented from getting to his work because there is no accommodation; and a man must not be prevented from getting home when he has finished his day's work. Therefore, I think, it is impossible to reduce to any great extent the number of omnibuses or trams. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, says that trams are obsolescent. An Amendment introduced late in the evening in this House included tramways in the Bill. The House did not realise, and does not realise now, that in the large area which will be under the control of the Minister with the Advisory Committee there are many tramway systems, some of them owned by companies and others by the municipalities. The largest, of course, is the London County Council tramway system.
When noble Lords talk about tramways being obsolescent they have neither studied the facts nor the figures. The tramways, in fact, carry at a less cost and more rapidly than any other means of conveyance. It has been said that there is nothing whatever in the fact that they have statutory rights. As a matter of fact they have paid very heavily in order to obtain those rights. They have had to pass the very severe tests of the Committees of both Houses of Parliament; they have been opposed by all sorts of people; and it is only when a very strong case is put forward that any tramway system is authorised by Parliament. In addition to that they have to incur an enormous capital expenditure. They are heavily rated and pay large sums in rates to local authorities. The capital

105
outlay in the case of municipalities has been very large. It has also been large in the case of companies.
Omnibuses, on. the other hand, have simply the capital expenditure of each omnibus, and are not compelled to run on a particular route like the tramways. If you reduce the number of tramways so that you are not able to carry a sufficient number of passengers to make a paying service you destroy the system altogether. I do not wish to detain your Lordships, but I suggest that it is essential that the number of omnibuses and tramways should not be restricted to any extent which will interfere with the convenience of passengers. The interests of the people who have to travel on tramways appear to be the least thought of in this Bill, although the mass of the population of London who have to use the omnibuses and tramways should be, in the opinion of many of us, the first consideration.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, so many speakers have addressed your Lordships on this Bill expressing an adverse opinion that I should like once more to emphasise what was said by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, when this Bill was introduced, and thank the Government for having brought it in. The public of London will be most grateful to the Government for the introduction of this measure. For over twenty years Commissions and Committees have considered the problem of London traffic, but no satisfactory solution of the regulation of this traffic was attempted until this Bill was brought in. I am perfectly sure that my noble friend who has just spoken, from his long acquaintance with the London County Council, would have blessed this Bill if that body had been made the authority. That was, as we all know, impossible.
With regard to the tramways I would remind Lord Hemphill that one of his leaders, Earl Buxton, voted in favour of the Amendment to include them within the scope of the measure. I am not at all sure that it was the right thing to do, in view of their statutory rights, but at the same time the blame must not be placed on one Party or one section but on the House as a whole, if there is any blame at all. It is idle to prophesy what is going to be the future of traffic in London, but I think there will be an earnest attempt to get over many of the
106
difficulties. At the present moment there are hardly any Regulations that can be put in force, but now, for the first time in the history of London, there is going to be some attempt at regulating the traffic, which I hope will be for the benefit of the public and the easement of the present difficulties.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): My Lords, I desire to say, on behalf of the Government, that a careful note will be made of the many valuable suggestions put forward in the debate this evening. With regard to the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, I think he is a little optimistic with regard to the powers of the police in connection with kerbs and smoke, though possibly not with regard to motors. As regards the future of the Bill and what it will do, no one can say. The whole idea of the Government is that it is a stop-gap measure designed to introduce, as soon as possible, some form of control of London traffic and provide a breathing space during which more comprehensive plans can be worked out to deal with this immense problem. It is not only a London problem but, as has been justly observed in this House, it is a national problem. This Bill as it stands now does give that breathing space, though your Lordships, perhaps unfortunately, have extended it for a longer period. The problem is much too big to be dealt with without prolonged study and mastery of detail, and the original intention of the Bill was to provide time in which to give it that study. In conclusion, let me say that wherever Regulations can be introduced to meet the observations and suggestions made to-day, this will certainly be done.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
CLAUSE 1:
Constitution of Advisory Committee.
(2) Of the ordinary members:
One shall be appointed by a Secretary of State:
Two shall be appointed by the London County Council:
One shall be appointed by the Corporation of the City of London:
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, 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 a representative of the metropolitan police appointed by a Secretary of State:
One shall be a representative of the City police appointed by the Corporation of the City of London:
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, and if he cease to hold such qualification shall cease to be a member of the Committee.
(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 he may think fit.
Four shall be 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.
LORD ASKWITHmoved, in subsection (2), in the paragraph beginning " Two shall be appointed by the councils of the metropolitan boroughs," to leave out all words after " boroughs." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, the Lord President, for having accepted this Amendment and the remaining Amendments standing in my name which are consequential upon it, and also for stating that they are an improvement of the Bill. They can consequently go through very quickly indeed. They are designed, as he has shown, to take away one step which might have caused loss of
108
time, and to allow the councils themselves to nominate their representatives, instead of their being picked out by the Minister. That would have been an invidious act for the Minister to perform. A large number of us were of the opinion that the councils should have their own representatives without those representatives being selected for them. The Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, has remarked, is perhaps only a beginning, but at any rate we wish it God speed. This House has paid extraordinary attention to it, and some of us, notably my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, have done our very best to improve it.
I think that the Minister of Transport has succeeded in doing two things. First of all, he has "dug in " the Ministry of Transport, which it was suggested a short time ago should be abolished, and, in the second place, he has shown considerable courage in taking up a Bill which must have been prepared long before his time and bringing it forward in a form adapted to the present period. I trust that these Amendments will go down to- another place and be considered favourably, and that they will not come back to be reconsidered here after all the trouble that the House has taken. I also hope that one who himself has preferred, as also have many of his ancestors, the smell of the lower reaches of the Thames to that of any other part of the world, may have his name connected with a London Bill which will be the beginning of the development of control over London traffic. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out from (" boroughs ") to end of line 6.—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD PARMOOR: We accept all these Amendments of the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 7, leave out from (" appointed ") to (" by ") in line 8.
Page 2, line 11, leave out (" by those councils ")
Page 2, line 12, leave out from (" appointed ") to (" by ") in line 13.
Page 2, line 16, leave out (" by those councils ")
Page 2, line 17, leave out from (" appointed ") to (" by ") in line 18.
Page 2, lines 19 and 20, leave out (" by those councils ")
Page 2, line 26. at end insert:
(" Where one or more members are to be appointed by a group of local authorities the appointment shall be made by a joint committee consisting of one representative chosen by each of the local authorities in accordance with rules of procedure made by the Minister.")
Page 2, line 28, after (" authority ") insert (" or group of local authorities ")
Page 2, line 29, leave out from ("police") to (" shall") in line 30.— (Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUmoved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert—
"One shall he a representative of the users of privately-owned and non-commercial mechanically-propelled vehicles and shall be appointed by the Minister after consultation with such bodies as are representative of such traffic."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to thank the Lord President, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and the members of the House for giving me leave to move this Amendment in the place originally intended. I take this opportunity of saying that I, amongst others representing various interests which are going to be affected by this Bill, wish, it well and hope that it will work to the advantage of the people of London. Many of the points in the Bill are good points, and there is no reason why it should not work well.
I should like, if I may, to offer one word of advice to the Government. If you wish a Bill of this kind to work well, it is important that you should have the cordial co-operation and sympathy of all those who are affected by it, and if the noble Lord thinks that I have been somewhat persistent in moving this Amendment, it is because I know from the people whom I represent that they all feel very sore on the point that their representation is uncertain, and I feel certain that the Bill will work better if it has the cooperation of those whom I represent, rather than their hostility, either active or passive. I am sure that the noble Lord will give that point consideration when he comes to answer my Amendment in detail.
I put down this Amendment as an addition to subsection (3) in order to get over the difficulty, which I realise was a serious one, of adding to the numbers of the Advisory Committee. It does not now interfere with their numbers, and I
110
understand from a source in the other place that there has been an intention of selecting one of the four representatives here mentioned to be a representative of non-commercial traffic—that is, of traffic which is not making money out of the roads and is not concerned financially with the Bill in any sense. I think that this is a fair claim to make. I will make one remark in support of this view. Those whom I represent are something like 70 per cent, of the total traffic in the streets of the greater London area, they pay 65 per cent, of the taxes, and they include a great many people who are not able to protect themselves in the ordinary way, not having the same facilities of representing their case as have my noble friend Lord Ashfield or the trade unions, who are constantly in touch with these matters. They have, if I may be allowed to use a slang phrase, "got the wind up," fearing that they are not going to be represented amongst these four.
If the Lord President could tell me that they are going to have such representation, I would at once withdraw my Amendment and be perfectly satisfied. I am told that a representative of noncommercial traffic is going to be one of the four who are selected under the second paragraph of subsection (3), but, of course, I have not that information officially. If the noble Lord will assure me of that I will drop the matter at once, but if not, I am bound, in the interests of those whom I represent, to move the Amendment on the Paper. Out of the four additional members, one, I believe, is going to represent, and quite rightly, my noble friend Lord Ashfield and his very imposing fleet of omnibuses; one, I believe, is going to represent—quite rightly again—those who own what are called the " pirate " omnibuses; that is, the independent proprietors of public service vehicles; and I am told that one is to represent the heavy hauliers, those concerned in commercial traffic. It is on behalf of the fourth representative that I make this appeal to the House to-day. There is nobody in the Bill to represent the private owners, and yet these private owners are in their various capacities, from owners of Ford cars to owners of Rolls-Royce cars, going to be quite rightly restricted in their use of the streets and are going to be interfered with in various ways—I admit in the public interest. For instance, the ques-

111
tion of parking cars in the central areas is going to be more acute. As the Bill stands they have no representation whatever on this Committee of nineteen.
I have abated my demands, as the Lord President will realise, from a very ambitious programme. I have now come down to the irreducible minimum, so far as those whom I represent are concerned, and that is that out of these four additional members the private owners, who pay 65 per cent, of the taxes and own 75 per cent, of the traffic, should have one representative. I think that is a fair demand to make, and if the noble Lord cannot give way it will make us all the more suspicious, because we shall infer that we are going to get no representation at all. I am not going to say a word about the commercial interest, but there are at the present time about 4,000 omnibuses, 8,000 taxicabs and 150,000 privately-owned ears. Surely, it is only just that they should be represented. I will not say any more, but in moving the Amendment on the Paper I would suggest to the noble Lord that for his own sake, and for the sake of the Bill, he should accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, at end insert (" One shall be a representative of the users of privately - owned and non - commercial mechanically-propelled vehicles and shall be appointed by the Minister after consultation with such bodies as are representative of such traffic ") —(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD RAGLAN: Ought not the Amendment to commence with the words " of whom"?
LORD LAMINGTON: I would like to point out that it is not sufficient to have an undertaking from the Government that these people will be represented. If it is a serious thing it should be put in the Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, this matter has had the careful attention of the Minister and of the draftsman since we had discussions on it both in Committee and on the Report Stage, and I think the difference between us is this. If your Lordships will look at the Bill as it stands you will see that the representatives are to be representative of the users of mechanically propelled and horse-drawn road vehicles. The noble
112
Lord is quite aware that the persons whom he represents are included in those words. His suggestion is that, although they are included in those words, yet they have a practical difficulty. Now I quite agree with what Lord Lamington said—namely, that it would be no good my giving an undertaking in one sense, because what will happen will be determined upon the words of the Bill itself— but I see myself specifically enabled to say this if ram the Minister of Transport, that the interest which the noble Lord represents will be fully considered when these representatives are chosen. It is intended that they should be included, and they are in fact included, in the words of the Bill as they stand, and I think there is objection to taking out a particular class from general words in order to give that class special representation.
Some people may ask why horse-drawn road vehicles or trolley vehicles are not given special representation? They are included. Full weight will be given to the arguments that have been used and I only hope—I cannot say more—that if when the representatives are chosen, the people whom the noble Lord represents make a good case, theirs will be one of the four representatives. I am, however, unwilling for these special words to go in, taking out of the general words one class only. I dare say it is an important class, but it is one class out of a general description, and I think that would be a mistake. That is the view I have to express. Of course if your Lordships generally take the other view it is no use my resisting it. I think the Bill has been changed for the better in many directions in its passage through this House, and I rather hope that this Amendment will not be pressed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I quite agree that my noble friend has been put in considerable difficulty by the usual precipitation with which our legislation has to be carried at this time of the year, but I ought to warn him that Amendments on the Third Reading of a Bill are full of pitfalls. He has already experienced that fact, because he put down his Amendment on the Paper in the wrong place. That is a misfortune which happens to many of us, and it is a mishap that you meet with on the Third Reading. Moreover, it is always rather difficult in

113
moving Amendments on the Third Reading to put in words which are entirely apt. I am not clear in the present case whether my noble friend intends the new representative to be one of the four.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Yes, one of the four.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Amendment does not say so, and its words do not carry that meaning. When we begin to make these changes upon Third Reading we have to remember that we have no opportunity of putting things right afterwards, and your Lordships have been very rigid up to now in seeing that Amendments put in on Third Reading should be given due notice of and not be put in in the elastic manner which is rather characteristic of proceedings in this House. Not only in the present case are the words " of whom " required, bur there are difficulties in the clause as it stands. It says that four shall be representatives of " … mechanically propelled …vehicles." The noble Lord says in his Amendment that one is to be a representative of the users of privately owned and non-commercial mechanically propelled vehicles. The two evidently overlap one another.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: No, they do not.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I suggest that they do, and that it is possible, on the words of the Bill as it stands, that the very interest may be covered which my noble friend seeks to provide, for in his Amendment, because the words in the Bill as it stands—" users of mechanically propelled … vehicles "—might indicate the very persons for whom he himself seeks to provide. He thinks not, but I suggest that it is so, because privately owned and non-commercial mechanically propelled vehicles are mechanically propelled vehicles, and therefore come within the words of the clause, too.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: They might overlap.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is what I suggested just now and my noble friend would not accept the idea. If they did overlap, we should have to re-draft the Bill a little in order to prevent that over-lapping. In other words,
114
my noble friend, owing to the unfortunate hurry in which matters have had to be concluded, has not been able to draft his Amendment as well as otherwise, with his Parliamentary experience, he would have done. It is not good drafting, but bad drafting, and would lead to confusion afterwards. I would suggest to my noble friend—no one can say he has not been a very useful member of this House in respect to this Bill; he has succeeded in persuading your Lordships, and I think very properly, to put in a good many Amendments, and has very much improved it—that, at the last moment, to try to put in an Amendment which does not really read and will require to be amended in the House of Commons, would tend to diminish the lustre of my noble friend's achievements.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: Personally, I am against all these representatives. Of course, it is a bit late to say that, but I am averse in principle from having representation of all these various sorts of transport, because after all the transport authority has to deal with traffic as a whole, and there is no reason that I can see why the owners of privately-owned motor cars should not expect to receive the same attention and satisfaction as the rest of the traffic on the road. This Amendment of my noble friend would lead one to suppose that they were not going to receive the same attention. I can see no reason why you should suppose that, and, in my humble opinion, it is only going to make the difficulties of the authorities who have charge of the traffic all the greater, if you put in these extra representatives. I am therefore very much against doing so.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, when I came down to-night I fully intended to support, by voice and vote, my noble friend's Amendment, but I am bound to say that there is a great deal of force in what has fallen from the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and that it is perhaps rather late, at this stage, to move these words. I think my noble friend, on the other hand, may be satisfied with the case which he has made, not for the first time, and we have from the Lord President at most serious undertaking, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, which practically amounts to this, that one of these representatives will repre-

115
sent the non-commercial element. Indeed, I cannot understand how the Minister of Transport could possibly refuse to consent to that, on the very grounds given by my noble friend Lord Montagu. That non-commercial element, as he pointed out, represents 70 per cent, of those who use the roads, and more than half who pay for them. My advice to him, therefore, would be, in the circumstances, at this late stage, to be content with that undertaking, though personally I should have much preferred to have these words in the Bill itself as an absolute guarantee. But I am afraid that that is all we can expect at the present moment.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Relying to a large extent on the friendly attitude of the Lord President, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. I feel sure that he will represent in the proper quarter the views which I have expressed. In reference to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, I was aware that it was rather late to move this, but, unfortunately, the Bill being put down in a hurry to-day, I had no chance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 (Closing of streets for works):
LORD PARMOOR: The Amendment on Clause 4 is a formal drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 33, leave out (" streets ") and insert (" street or part thereof ").— (Lord Parmoor.)
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.
(2) Where the Minister has so declared any street or part of a street to be a restricted street, the Minister may make regulations—
(b) determining the omnibus proprietors whose omnibuses alone may ply for hire on the street and apportioning amongst those proprietors such aggregate number of journeys as aforesaid; but so, nevertheless, that the right so to ply shall not be limited to the omnibuses of one proprietor in any case where it appears to the Minister to be reasonable and practicable that the right should be exercised by other omnibuses also; and
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUmoved to add to paragraph (b) of subsection (2): " and shall prevent any proprietor or proprietors from obtaining a monopoly of omnibus services on any approved route." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put this Amendment down to a great extent at the suggestion of the Lord President. I understand it is considered that it only repeats what is in the Bill, but it does place beyond all doubt that a proprietor shall not obtain a monopoly of omnibus services on any approved route. There is a very strong feeling outside the House that something of this sort should be added to the Bill. I think the words would do no harm, and they would give the Minister power to resist a growing monopoly.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 26, after ("also") insert the said words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I have always felt considerable doubt as to whether it is advisable to move any Amendment at all on the Third Heading, and I feel still stronger doubt after hearing what my noble friend has said. I am not speaking disrespectfully to him when I say that this Amendment is nonsense. There is no sense in it at all. What the noble Lord is proposing to do is to enforce competition. What will happen? Supposing that there is a company which offers to provide a service on a certain route, and suppose that nobody else offers to do so, what will be the result? The result will be that there will be no service at all, because there will not be any competition. I hope that the Amendment will not be considered for a single instant.
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, I am afraid that this Amendment cannot be accepted, partly for the reasons which have been put forward, and partly for others. The whole object of this clause is to restrict the traffic in certain streets. It is an absolute necessity, in certain short lengths of streets, such as parts of the Strand, Fleet-street, and the Bays-water-road, to have the very strictest Regulations, and it is very difficult to see how you can have strict Regulations, limiting the number of people who can ply on those particular stretches of road, without giving in some sense a monopoly to those whose names are on the lists. In

117
the case of Bond-street, which was the case of which Lord Newton was probably thinking, there is only one proprietor who plies there at all, and this Amendment would prevent him plying. In some other streets there are two, three, and even four, but even if this Amendment were inserted, there is nothing in the world to prevent a dozen proprietors combining together and thus creating a monopoly.
The matter was fully thrashed out in another place, and various Amendments were suggested, notably one by Mr. Percy Harris, which finds expression in Clause 13. Clause 7 also says—
"… the right so to ply shall not be limited to the omnibuses of one proprietor …"
Again, in Clause 13, which was specially inserted after debate in another place to meet this particular point, there is a provision which certainly will go so far as it is possible to go to prevent a monopoly without entirely making the Bill unworkable. The Bill must confer a monopoly on some people in these restricted streets, and it is difficult to see how the noble Lord's Amendment would prevent it without making a situation which was completely ridiculous in certain cases.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Apart from the particular difficulties created by the Amendment on the Paper, I think any dangers that the noble Lord may apprehend are already provided against in other parts of the Bill, by Regulations, and so on. As my noble friend has already carried off one victory, I would urge him to be content with that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.
Particular Matters which may be referred to the Advisory Committee.

PART II.
Matters in respect of which the additional members or one or more of them are, if the Minister so directs, to form part of the Advisory Committee.
(i) The exercise of any of the powers of the Minister from whatsoever source derived in relation to traffic on streets in the London Traffic Area.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I ask the Lord President whether he has
118
observed that on the Second Schedule an Amendment which was consequential on an Amendment to Clause 1 (4), which was carried, has not been made. On that subsection we altered the function of additional members, and enacted that the Minister might only ask all the additional members to act, and not one or more of them. He might not pick and choose. But Part II of the Second Schedule still contains the heading:
"Matters in respect of which the additional members or one or more of them are, if the Minister so directs, to form part of the Advisory Committee."
Those words ought to come out. I am informed by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that it is not in order to move an Amendment on the Third Reading, unless it is on the Paper, and so I cannot move that Amendment, but it is necessary that some Amendment should be made. Perhaps the Lord President would see to that in another place.
LORD PARMOOR: I am much obliged. Of course, these preliminary words do not really affect what is done in the schedule; they are only like a preface. But the words ought not to be in, I agree. I think that the Bill may be re-committed for the purpose of dealing with the point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Lord desires that matter to be dealt with the Bill can either be re-committed or it can be done by the general sense of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As these are not part of the enacting words of the Bill, the matter can probably be put right automatically by the Clerks at the Table. It is just like a marginal note, it does not really count and I think the easiest way of dealing with it would be to leave it for the Clerks at the Table to make it conform.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am willing to agree to that course if that is the proper way of doing it; but I would suggest that all it is necessary to do is to leave out " or one or more of them ". And that can be done in one or two minutes if the noble Viscount will put that question.
LORD PARMOOR: It is very difficult on Third Reading to deal with Amend-

119
ments which are not on the Paper. This is a matter which can be put right by the Clerks at the Table.
EARL BUXTONmoved to add to paragraph (i) "with the exception of any matters dealt with by him in virtue of Section seven of this Act." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I understand that the noble and learned Lord realises that this Amendment is intended only to be consequential, and that he accepts it. As I have taken some part in the discussions on this Bill I should like to join with those who hope that the Bill will be a success. Whatever may be our opinion about the principle of the Bill let us hope that it will be a success. Many of us who object to the Bill in principle and who stated our objection on Second Reading, have tried quite genuinely to amend and improve it in Committee and to make it as far as we could a successful Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 17, at end insert the said words.—(Earl Buxton.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, in accepting the noble Earl's Amendment, I do not know whether I might add that I appreciate the way in which your Lordships have approached the question. I think this House has introduced some very valuable Amendments into this Bill. I am sure your Lordships have approached the matter from the business point of view and the Government may be grateful for many of these Amendments, though I do not say that we are grateful for all of them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule:

THIRD SCHEDULE.
Purposes or Matters for or with respect to which Regulations may he made by the Minister.
(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 may prescribe that a man should be carried at the rear of the trailer.
LORD PARMOOR: My Amendments to this schedule are merely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 26, line 12, leave out from ("description") to ("that") in line 13, and insert (" and for prescribing ")
Page 26, line 13, leave out from (" carried ") to the end of line 14. and insert (" on the trailer or, where more than one trailer is drawn, on the rear trailer for signalling to the driver ").—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I should like to call the attention of the noble Viscount on the Woolsack and the Lord President to the fact that there is a curious difference between the words of Clause (6) of the schedule as the Lord Chancellor is reported in col. 1108 of the OFFICIAL REPORT as having put them to the House and the words in lines 13 and 14 on page 26 of the Bill. When the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack put the Amendment to the House on Report he added, I think with the general consent of the House, the words " for signalling to the driver." Those words appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT. They are not now shown as part of the clause which ends with the words " a man should be carried at the rear of the trailer." I think we are all agreed that " for signalling to the driver " was a rather important addition. Several noble Lords supported me, and I would like to know whether this Amendment is intended to put that right.
LORD PARMOOR: I did not hear all that the noble Lord said, but I understand that he thinks that something has been put into the Bill or the schedule which is not in accord with the determination to which the House actually came.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: The words on the Paper are not the same as those which appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
LORD PARMOOR: I am afraid I do not appreciate what the noble Lord's point is.
EARL BUXTON: I was going to take the opposite line and suggest to the Lord President whether it was wise to put in the words " signalling to the driver," and for this reason. You do not want to go too much into detail. I think it would be better to leave those words out and

121
to give greater opportunity to the Minister of Transport if he thinks that for any other reason than signalling there ought to be a man on the trailer.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I do not agree with the noble Earl. You are driving and trying to pass a vehicle with a trailer behind it, and it is making a great noise. You blow your whistle, or whatever it is, and nothing happens. Eventually after a very long time you get by, and if you say some bad words to the driver he replies that he did not hear you, and probably he is speaking the truth. We want a man on the trailer who will see that there is someone coming behind and will give warning to the driver.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: So far as I am aware the words proposed by the Lord President are right, and I think that was the intention of the House.
LORD PARMOOR: They are intended to carry out the intention of the House
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR: I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (Lord Parmoor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, if I may be allowed to do so, I should like to thank the Lord President for the very courteous way in which he has treated our Amendments. I am sure that the whole House very much appreciates his courtesy.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, it happens that by an undesigned coinci-
122
dence this Bill comes before your Lordships at a very opportune moment. The Bill has for its object the extension of the time in which the Post Office is to make an underground railway from Kensington to Mile End, which is about six and three-quarter miles. The railway was begun in 1913. Operations were suspended during the war. Since that time the Post Office has been hard at work upon it, but it is not yet complete. I say that the moment is opportune because as soon as the railway is completed the red vehicles which were censured this evening by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, whom I do not see in his place, will be entirely removed from a very large number of the streets of London. In those circumstances I think it will be gratifying to the House to read this Bill a second time. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a — (Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Bill read 2a

FINANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is no question, I take it, of meeting again this evening?
LORD PARMOOR: I understand that the Bill will not be finished in time in another place. I might say, however, that I shall seek an opportunity tomorrow to deal with the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill when it comes back from the Commons.
House adjourned at half-past five o'clock.