Lords Sitting of 27 May 1924

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I think we are agreed in all parts of the, House that the reform of the Poor Law is long overdue, and the Government have actually pledged themselves to introduce reforms in the Poor Law as soon as they possibly can. But there is also equal agreement in this House that the matter is one in regard to which considerable preparation and prolonged discussions are needed before anything can be done, more especially if, as is desired, we are to introduce proposals that will be accorded general acceptance. We, therefore, ask your Lordships to continue for two years those provisions which we have inherited from the last Government, and which the last Government inherited from the Coalition Government.
The provisions of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1923, fall into two heads. The first concerns London. I think your Lordships will agree that London is faced by certain peculiar difficulties. Unemployment in London is very strongly localised. This was recognised as far back as 1867, when some system of equalisation of rates became necessary. Therefore the Common Poor Fund was established. Under this Common Poor Fund 1s. 3d. per head is allowed for indoor relief and 9d. per head for outdoor relief, and your Lordships will realise that this method of fixing the claim to be made on this fund excludes any question being raised of the
664
particular amounts that particular councils may think fit to pay in relief. The amount per head is quite definitely fixed, so that whatever the authorities pay they cannot get more from the Common Poor Fund than the amount which is laid down. The second set of provisions refers to local authorities generally. It gives them the power of borrowing to meet current expenses. The amount they can borrow is limited to two years' assessable value. The sums that local authorities borrow for purposes of public works in order to relieve unemployment are, however, not affected; they are not counted in this provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Strachie, has given Notice of a Motion which is tantamount to the rejection of this Bill. I earnestly hope he will not press his Motion to a Division. I ask him to take the word of the Government that they have this matter very deeply at heart, and that it is a question which they intend to press forward with the utmost possible expedition. I ask him also to realise the enormity of the problem, and to give the Government time to bring forward proposals that offer a real solution. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, That this Bill be read a second time this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Earl has given us a description of the Bill, but has not gone fully into it. Your Lordships will realise the reason for this when I explain exactly the object of the measure. It is called the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill, and was read a second time in the House of Commons on March 2. Apparently no great emergency can have existed, as the Bill has only now come up to your Lordships' House. What does it do? It extends for two years the provisions of the Act which was passed last year. What was the Act which was passed last year? It was to continue, or rather extend, the provisions of the Act passed in 1921 under very special circumstances, which I will explain later. It is, I think, desirable to explain what the first Clause of the present measure does. It allows any board of guardians to give outdoor relief

665
at 1s. 3d. per head per day. But they are also allowed to go further. They are allowed to pay 1s. 3d. per head per day in outdoor relief to farm colonies, such as Hollesley Bay, and the Act still further extends the liabilities on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund.
There is also a provision which was not in the original emergency Bill. That is a provision to allow a charge to be made on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund for outdoor relief of 9d. per head per day. That is giving to those boards of guardians who receive this 9d. per head per day a very large sum indeed and one quite out of proportion to what is paid in outdoor relief in certain districts. Then there is a provision which enables local authorities to borrow money temporarily for current expenses. This is opening a wide door indeed. The original Act never proposed that they should be allowed to do this. It is now proposed to prolong the Act of 1923 and then at the end of another two years, if the Labour Government is still in power—and the Prime Minister apparently thinks it will be—he will ask for a further extension of these enormous powers of borrowing. It is rather objectionable to introduce these new principles of outdoor relief as a charge on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. It is quite true that many years ago an Act was passed—I think I voted for it—allowing a common charge of 5d. per head to be made, but it was strictly limited with regard to indoor poor, but that is very different from the present proposal. You cannot compare indoor and outdoor relief at all.
It would have been interesting if the noble Earl had told us the origin of the Act of 1921. It was an emergency Bill. What was the emergency? It was the sudden increase of unemployment in Poplar and Bow and Bromley. A heavy charge was thrown on the ratepayers of Poplar, and Mr. Lansbury and his friend" took direct action and refused to pay the London County Council precept. The Government thereupon introduced the emergency Bill of 1921, which was to last for one year only, in order that an opportunity may be given to consider what might happen in the future. In my opinion it was a very dangerous precedent indeed. I notice that in another place the Labour Members made the boast that this was a success for direct
666
action. Certainly it had one very unfortunate effect in that there now exist no safeguards or checks against extravagance. In fact, the present position is a direct incentive to boards of guardians such as those of Poplar, or Bermondsey, or Bow and Bromley to increase the amount of outdoor relief. They naturally choose to give this 9d. per head per day, which amounts in some cases to a very large sum, since it will not fall upon them but upon the London area generally. Their payments in outdoor relief on the ground of unemployment are consequently very heavy.
I should like to ask a question as to what is happening in London with regard to unemployment. One cannot help wondering whether adequate efforts are made to obtain work for unemployed men in other districts as is done in the provinces. In London they appear to fall back upon the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund and throw this heavy expense upon other people's shoulders. It has been stated by the Government in another place that unemployment has decreased very little, if at all, in London, while in the provinces there has been a distinct falling off. I think the reason is fairly obvious. In London a man has no such inducement to try to find work as he has in other districts. What inducement is there for a man to go out and seek work if he is to get the full amount of his wages for doing nothing at all? There is no doubt that this was originally an emergency Act and ought to have come to an end after one year. I am sorry to say that the last Government but one extended it for another two years and now the present Government ask for a further two years, taking us to the end of 1926.
I cannot help thinking that if your Lordships accept this arrangement you will be giving direct encouragement to direct action and to law breaking generally. Surely it is time to deal with unemployment on a national basis. The Labour Government, which were always boasting before the General Election that they were going to deal with unemployment, have never attempted to grapple with the question during the time they have been in power. What did they say before the Election? They issued a manifesto, signed by the Prime Minister and by other members of the Government,

667
though not, I think, by any of the noble Lords sitting on the Government Front, Bench, to the effect that "the Labour Party has a positive remedy for unemployment." And yet they have never attempted to show us what that remedy is.
On January 1 the present Colonial Secretary, speaking to his constituents, said:—
"We will make a real attempt to substitute work for doles, which have already demoralised our people and caused incalculable harm to the financial stability of the country."
I think your Lordships will agree with that statement of the Colonial Secretary. But what has the Labour Government done to carry out that, very reasonable view? They have done nothing whatever, except to introduce this emergency Bill to prolong the present conditions of outdoor relief and to demoralise the people of London. On February 18 the Minister of Labour made the following statement:—
"The present position is that unemployment of an exceptional kind is facing the country. In the opinion of the Government that unemployment is directly caused by the war and ought to be considered national responsibility. The present position is that the industries bear, roughly, three-quarters of a burden that ought to be purely national."
But the Government have produced no proposal for making it national. On the contrary, they propose that London and its unfortunate ratepayers should continue to bear this heavy burden which is to be charged upon the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund.
We all know that rates are a very heavy burden upon industries, as the Minister of Labour stated. It has been stated that in some directions the cost in this country of manufactured articles, such as steel rivets, is so enormously increased that it makes it very difficult indeed to contend with competition from abroad in foreign markets. There is no doubt that this system of doles, supplemented by outdoor relief, is simply demoralising and sapping the independence of the people of this country, and the Labour Government, which was so fail of promises and is so lacking in performance, now demands two more years for an emergency measure that once more postpones the solution of this matter. Surely the time has come
668
when we may call upon the Government, instead of asking us for this extension of the operation of an emergency Act, to bring before your Lordships some of their concrete proposals to deal with unemployment. All that the noble Earl has told us in favour of this Bill is that it will give further time to deal with unemployment apart from the Poor Law.
I cannot help feeling that they might have done something more in that direction, because this is a question that has been pretty well agreed upon by all Parties. Your Lordships will remember that a very important Royal Commission, presided over by Lord George Hamilton, adopted a proposal of the County Councils Association, which is certainly not a revolutionary body, laying it down that unemployment relief should be taken out of the Poor Law. That proposal was adopted in both the Majority and Minority Reports of that Royal Commission.
LORD PARMOOR: Is the noble Lord referring to the original Report?
LORD STRACHIE: The, Report of Lord George Hamilton's Commission.
LORD PARMOOR: Is that the original one?
LORD STRACHIE: The Commission re ported in 1911, and, although the members differed on many other points, they were certainly unanimous in the opinion that unemployment should be taken out of the Poor Law. I think that all of' us who happen to be unfortunate ratepayers, either in the country or in London, will agree that it is very desirable that unemployment should be entirely removed from the Poor Law, and that the burden should not fall upon realty as distinct from personal property. It is certainly a national charge and, on those grounds, it seems unreasonable that the Labour Government, who protested that they had a remedy for unemployment, should come now and ask for another two years during which this very heavy charge is still to fall upon the ratepayers of London. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—Lord Strachie)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, as my noble friend opposite has said, the genesis of this Bill was the Act of 1921, which I had the privilege of introducing to your Lordships. At that time, which, as my noble friend Lord Strachie has said, was one of very great unemployment, that Bill was introduced as one of a number of measures to deal with that pressing question. There were three methods by which this matter might have been dealt with. First was the general reform of the Poor Law to which my noble friend has alluded. The second would have been an increase in the equalisation rate of 6d. in the £. The objection to that would have been that it would not have raised enough money for outdoor relief in the poorest districts. The third method was that proposed by the town clerk of West-minster, one of the richest boroughs in the Metropolis, and it is the one which was embodied in the Bill, and generally agreed to by all the Metropolitan Boroughs. One might add that this was entirely a non-Party measure, because it was introduced by the Coalition Government, carried on by a Conservative Government, and now the present Government are carrying out the same policy. The Liberal Party did not introduce it because they did not have the opportunity, but, if they had had that opportunity, I rather venture to think that they might have followed the example of the Prime Minister of the Coalition, who was at that time a member of their Party. But perhaps that is speculation.
There was, and there now is, a fourth remedy for this difficulty, which has been very ably and eloquently stated by my noble friend Lord Strachie. That is to be found in the schemes which the Government are said to have for the relief of unemployment and which we await with such anxiety. When these materialise possibly the necessity for a Bill of this kind may not exist, but they have not yet appeared and therefore, perhaps, the alternative is the one which the noble Earl has put before us to-day. Of course, this Bill differs from the one which I introduced last year, because it extends the operation of the original Act for two years instead of for one year only. I do not want to go at length into the question of the desirability of a general reform of the Poor Law, or whether this is the moment for making it. I would, however, say that
670
if we are going to tackle a big question of that kind the time which must be available for doing so must be practically the whole of the Session. The matter is one of great difficulty and technicality and also of controversy, and I think it would be doubtful, even if the proposals of the Government to deal with the reform of the Poor Law were actually on the Table of this House, whether it would be possible to get them through during the present Session. Therefore I do not see that it is possible to do more than carry out the policy of the last two Governments in this matter by passing this Bill through the House.
I should like, however, to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill a question with regard to one matter. The original Bill of 1921 was threshed out at a meeting held at the Ministry of Health, and a common agreement was reached. I think the extension of the principle made in the Bill of last year was also done by common agreement. I should like to know whether all the Metropolitan authorities are agreed upon the extension for two years. So far as my recollection goes, when the late Government went out of office we were under the impression that the local authorities had no objection to the extension of two years, but I understand that the position of the local authorities has since been subject to modification, and that interviews have taken place at the Ministry of Health on the subject. Therefore, perhaps, I may be allowed to ask the noble Earl whether the local authorities are entirely agreed upon this measure, or whether some prefer that the Act should not be extended for so long as two years.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Strachie has moved the rejection of the Bill, and if he goes to a Division I shall be very pleased to vote with him. The effect of this Bill is to extend for two years the power of certain people who are by nature, or for some other reason, extravagant, to spend money and then to obtain from other people, who have no power over that expenditure, the money which has been spent. The noble Lord said that the beginning of this Bill was made when there was an extension of the Common Poor Fund. I think he said he voted for it. I spoke and voted against it, and therefore I am not in any way departing

671
from the attitude which I have always taken up. I spoke against it, and I remember that Sir George Bartley also spoke against it. We represented different constituencies in London which would be most affected and would gain most under that Bill, but we were returned at the next Election.
It seems to me an unspeakable proposition that you should allow people to spend other people's money and not give the people whose money is spent any authority over that expenditure. In certain emergencies it may be necessary to do something of that sort, but I should like to ask His Majesty's Government how long this is going to continue. I can remember that during the war several bad measures were passed, and I was told, when I opposed them: "This is only for the war: do you forget that we are at war?" Nearly all those measures are in existence at the present moment, and this measure, originally passed in 1921, and extended in 1923, is now to be further extended for two years. If His Majesty's Government are in power two years hence, what are they going to do? They do not know. Personally, I think the time has come when we should put a stop to this sort of emergency legislation.
My noble friend Lord Strachie said he did not believe that any of the noble Lords sitting on the Front Government Bench said anything before the Election about the various schemes for unemployment. Of course they did not, because most of them were Conservatives at that time, and could not venture to speak for the Labour Party. I sincerely hope that that which is a very vicious system will be put a stop to now. If you are going to make the Metropolis, as a whole, liable for the expenditure on Poor Law relief, you must have one central authority which not only collects the money but spends it. If you have one central authority composed of all the areas which have to find the money, besides the areas which have to spend it, I do not know that I should have much to say against it, but I repeat that the principle by which you allow a certain area to spend money and compel another area to find the money, is utterly wrong.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I should like to say a word at this stage, as regards this proposed Bill, and first
672
in reference to what Lord Banbury has said, do I understand that he is in favour of the abolition of the Common Poor Fund in London?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: No, I did not say that. I said that if there was to be an extension of the Common Poor Fund, which has been extended lately or was extended in 1921, I was against it, unless there was a central authority which could control the whole thing.
LORD PARMOOR: Then on the first point the noble Lord is in agreement: there must be a Common Poor Fund. When the time comes for a general settlement of the Poor Law question in the Metropolis I shall be glad to be able to quote his opinion, if I have anything to do with the matter, that a central authority is the right authority to deal with all these questions within the Metropolitan area.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: If you have a Common Poor Fund.
LORD PARMOOR: I thought the noble Lord said that we must have a Common Poor Fund. He cannot have his negation both ways, and it being necessary that there should be a Common Poor Fund, in his opinion that necessarily implies some central authority. Therefore I need not deal further with the objections which the noble Lord has raised. The Earl of Onslow has, I think, really stated the answer to Lord Strachie. This matter was considered by the late Government. Sir William Joynson-Hicks convened a meeting of various people interested, and I think they were all of one opinion—namely, that there must be an extension Bill. Later, all the authorities—and the noble Earl has referred to this fact—were consulted. There was some difference of opinion as to whether the extension should be for one year or for two years, but when this matter was discussed in another place, so soon as the principle of extension was allowed no one suggested that it would be advisable that the extension should be for one year instead of two years. I dare say the noble Earl has read what passed in another place, when this matter was considered, and I cannot find that this was ever suggested by anyone as an amelioration of the Bill. It was thought that a proposal of this sort had better be extended for two years.

673
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, is going to press his Amendment. Certainly that would be inconsistent with the desire of, I believe, "every local authority concerned. It is inconsistent with the opinion of everyone who has had to deal with this question. On general principles I agree with him. I have often said the same myself. I should like a reform of our whole rating system, but at present that is quite outside the sphere of practical politics. What does the noble Lord suggest if this Bill is not given a Second Beading? None of these matters to which he has referred will be ameliorated; on the contrary, they will all really be made worse. I repeat that every Government, every authority who has studied this matter, is of opinion that there must be a temporary extension—that is to say, that this Bill must be read a second time—and the only question is the length of the extension. How far that can be considered at the present time under a privilege Amendment I do not know, but I hope the noble Lord, after this discussion, will withdraw his Amendment.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, whatever may be the politics of the Government in power we should always be anxious, if we can do so, to pass a measure which the Government declare to be an emergency measure. So far my sympathies are entirely with the Government in this matter, but I regret the words of the Lord President of the Council. He seemed to shut the door upon what, during the debate, had seemed to me a possible compromise, and that is that we should reduce the period from two years to one when we go into Committee. I have very little hesitation in saying that the question of privilege really would not apply in this particular matter. It does seem rather a strong measure that we should continue until 1926 a Bill which, in 1921, was declared to be a matter of emergency. And there is also this, that if we refused to allow, not only to His Majesty's Government, but also to the Departments concerned, so large an extension as two years, it may prove something of an incentive to them to take up seriously the whole reform of the Poor Law. The noble Earl who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench just now said that his Party might have proposed an identical
674
measure. From my experience, and supposing this had been the particular set of circumstances, I believe the noble Earl would have removed this particular objection to the Bill.
I do not think it is unfair also to emphasise the point made by my noble friend Lord Strachie that in the Bill when last introduced there were certain provisions which were not to be found in the Bill as originally introduced. I regret very much that the Lord President seemed in his remarks to disapprove of the idea of reducing this extension to one year. For my own part, it was in my mind to suggest to my noble friend who moved the rejection of the Bill that he should withdraw his Amendment and put down in Committee an Amendment reducing the period and making the period of extension one year instead of two years. From the debate which has taken place I cannot help thinking that that course would probably meet with the general approval of your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I really think that the obiter dictum of the Lord President of the Council was a most unfortunate one. He seems to have suggested that it might be breach of privilege if we reduced the currency of this Bill from two years to one year. I really cannot conceive why it should be a breach of privilege. The Bill proposes to make a certain extension of an existing Act of Parliament which, certainly, has to do with rating, but we shall not in any sense violate any privilege, so far as I have learned them since I have been a member of your Lordships' House, by reducing the period. I confess that, if there was any ground for believing that your Lordships would be precluded from carrying such an Amendment, I should be inclined to vote with the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, against the Second Reading of the Bill, but I think we must not allow ourselves to be placed in such an absurd position as that. But I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, that there is really no ground of privilege involved at all.
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I gather that the noble and learned Lord agrees with that.
LORD PARMOOR: To put matters straight, may I say that I thought it my duty to call the attention of the House to what might be a possible difficulty, but personally I do not believe there would be a breach of privilege.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We are the guardians of our own privileges, and it is our duty to see that our privileges are not invaded, just as it is the duty of the House of Commons to see that theirs are not. The humble advice that I should give at all times to your Lordships is that we should adhere to our views where we are quite certain that we are right. But I do not think the question of privilege really arises. What is the actual situation that we have to meet? The Lord President tells us that every local authority whose views he has had the opportunity of learning is agreed that some extension is necessary. I have not access to the official information which is at the command of the noble and learned Lord. But if that is true, it is no doubt a very strong argument which will have great weight with your Lordships, but I do not think it is an argument which would lead to the conclusion that we ought to extend the Bill for two years. For my part, therefore, if the Government would be willing to withdraw the suggestion that they will support the idea that an Amendment of this sort would be a breach of privilege, in that case I should not be prepared to oppose the Second Beading of the Bill. But if we are to be excluded from passing a very obvious and very just Amendment I should be obliged to oppose the Second Reading.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think the Government would take the view that it is a breach of privilege. The Government desire the two years. I say nothing about that; it would have to be discussed. But, so far as privilege is concerned, it is not a matter for the Government to bring forward; it is entirely a matter for the House of Commons itself.
LORD STRACHIE: I understand that the general feeling of the House is that it is undesirable to go to a Division on the Second Reading, and that, instead, I should give notice of an Amendment to limit this Bill to one year. That being so, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Chelmsford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Extension of period during which contributions by or in respect of school teachers are to be payable.
1. The School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1922, shall, unless Parliament shall hereafter fix some earlier date for the purpose, have effect as though in subsection (1) of Section one thereof (which provides that contributions thereunder are to be payable as from the first day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, until the first day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-four) the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, were substituted for the first day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-four.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM,VISCOUNT BURNHAM, on behalf of LORD EMMOTT, moved to leave out "the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty six," and to insert "the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-five." The noble Viscount said: Lord Emmott has asked me to move the Amendment which stands in his name. It seeks, as your Lordships will see, to bring to an end the hand-to-mouth arrangement which at present exists in regard to teachers' pensions nearly a year earlier than is proposed in the Bill. It forces the Government to make up their mind sooner, no doubt, than they washed to do, but I would submit that that is not an impossible, even if it be rather a disagreeable, matter. All those who have any concern with the educational system of the country know that the greatest need of the present time is stability in its administration. Teachers are not likely to do their work with the greatest measure of success whilst their minds are so much troubled with material things, and whilst

677
they do not know whether the pension system which is to apply to their profession is to be contributory or not.
Your Lordships are well aware, of course, that the system of pensions in the Civil Service of this country is not contributory. At present, as I understand it, the Government are not prepared to say whether the system which shall apply to the school teachers is to be contributory or not. The noble Lord, Lord Emmott, explained with great clearness and cogency how important this question is, having regard to the Inquiry and Report of the Committee over which he presided. I venture to put it to your Lordships from another point of view. I have had something to do with the scales of salaries which are paid in all classes of schools now, whether on a provisional minimum or on a standard basis. I submit to your Lordships that it is not very easy to discuss what scales are to be continued for the future without knowing the nature of the pension rights—and pensions, after all, are in the nature of deferred pay. I cannot imagine why the Government want to procrastinate in regard to this issue. They have everything to gain by a clear decision, and I do not hesitate to say that if the Joint Committee on Salaries fails to come to an agreement and the Ministry of Education is dragged more directly into the fixing of salaries throughout the country, it is still more to the interest of the Ministry that there should be no doubt about the matter.
The period known as the period of peace for administrative arrangements in regard to salaries in the whole country outside the County of London was meant to last for five years and comes to an end in April of next year. The Committees which are now sitting would be better able to grapple with the great difficulties which confront them if they knew definitely on what principle the pensions are to be assessed and administered. Surely it is not asking too much of the Government that they should apply themselves to this matter. I know they have many things in hand. The Ministry of Education has been considering this for years, and I cannot see why your Lordships should have before you again an emergency Bill to postpone to 1926 the decision as to whether the teachers of the country are to have a contributory scheme of pensions
678
or not. It is for that reason that my noble friend Lord Emmott, who speaks with great authority because he was responsible for the Report which was presented last year, placed on the Paper his Amendment that the date at which the temporary provision shall come to an end shall be July of next year and not April of the year following. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 13 and 14, leave out ("the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-six") and insert ("the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-five").—(Viscount Burnham.)
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD): When I moved the Second Reading of this Bill on Thursday last I explained in some detail the circumstances in which it had been impossible to put through permanent legislation on the subject of superannuation. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that it was in consequence of the unsatisfactory finance of the Act of 1918 that the Government took two measures. In the first place, they put through that temporary Act of 1922, under which there was a five per cent. contribution on the part of the teachers. In the second place, they referred the whole question of superannuation to a very strong Departmental Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Emmott, in whose behalf this Amendment has been moved.
The short point to-day is whether the Government is to have power to extend this Act for another two years, or for one year as proposed by my noble friend. May I point out that Lord Emmott, in his speech on the Second Reading the other day, showed the very grave difficulties and complexities of the whole subject, and I think it was obvious to any one who listened to him that it was not a matter which any Government could dispose of in a short space of time. This further consideration must be borne in mind. The noble Lord's Committee did not report until July of last year. The late Government had from July of last year until January of this year, when they went out of office, to formulate their proposals upon this subject, and it can be well understood that in the time at their disposal between July and the General Election they were not able to bring forward any serious legislation on the matter. We have had since January to

679
tackle this very difficult problem. All we ask is that we should not be put in the awkward Parliamentary predicament that we should be in if, supposing your Lordships were to accept the Amendment of my noble friend, we had not in another year's time passed through our permanent legislation on this subject of superannuation within that time limit.
I gave an undertaking on behalf of His Majesty's Government on the Second Beading of the Bill that we would legislate with as great dispatch as possible, and my right hon. friend Mr. Trevelyan said in the other House that he hoped to introduce a measure on the subject early next year and to pass it by the very date which the noble Lord mentioned—July, 1925. Hut there are always slips in legislation, as no one knows better than my noble friend Lord Bumham, and the Government do not want to come forward again and ask for an extension of time. In those circumstances, and in view of the complexity of the problem and the large interests which are involved—because my noble friend knows that we have to negotiate with many people to get anything like an agreement on this subject, otherwise the Bill will be of a most controversial character—I think it is only reasonable to suggest that time is required, and I hope your Lordships will give us the time that is asked for in this Bill. Nothing will foe gained by trying to force us within the limits of time suggested in this Amendment, because if we can carry through the legislation we propose we shall certainly, we hope, carry it through by July.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: Is that an undertaking to bring it forward?
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: I gave the undertaking the other day on the Second Reading of the Bill that the legislation would be introduced early next year and that the Government hoped to carry it through, if possible. That was the undertaking which I offered to the House on the last occasion, and I repeat it to-day with the greatest definiteness. Therefore nothing is to be gained except that we may be put in a very awkward Parliamentary position if the time is limited, as the noble Viscount hints, by tying us down to July 31 of next year. I hope your Lordships will support the
680
Government in this matter. I may remind you that the noble Earl opposite, when he spoke on the Second Reading, said that the Government of which he was a member, had they been in power at the present moment, would have found themselves constrained to bring in the same legislation that we are doing now, and the late Minister of Education, in another place, supported my right hon. friend Mr. Trevelyan when this Bill was passing through the other House. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will reject the Amendment which has been proposed.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think your Lordships find yourselves in regard to this Bill in exactly the same position as that in which we were when the last Bill was before us. Here is another emergency Bill for which, once more, His Majesty's Government is taking a period of two years. I confess that I share the hesitation of the noble Viscount behind me—[Viscount Burnham]—in allowing another two years to pass in this matter without forcing His Majesty's Government to come to this House in order to ask for fresh authority, and if he goes to a Division I shall be very much inclined to vote with him. There is one point which I should like to put to the noble Viscount (Viscount Chelmsford) upon which ho did not touch. In the Second Beading debate it was suggested that discussion had taken place in the Scottish Grand Committee on May 22, and that in the Scottish Grand Committee the date had been fixed for July 31, 1925. If that has been done in another place with regard to the Scottish Bill, it seems to me very desirable that we should do the same thing in this House, Whether that is so or not I do not know, and I should like to put the point to the noble Viscount who, no doubt, will be able to give us the information.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: It is quite true that the date July 31, 1925, has been put in the Scottish Bill, and I shall have the honour of moving the Second Reading of that Bill in this House to-morrow, but I would point out that the circumstances of Scotland are entirely different. In the first place, the Scottish local authorities have a power with regard to educational matters which is not possessed by English authorities, and, in

681
the second place, there is every possibility that there may be an agreement on the matter. At the present moment I cannot say anything in that respect regarding the English Bill. It is because we apprehend very great difficuties in the case of the English Bill that I ask for the extra time. As to the Scottish Bill, we have every confidence that there will be agreement, and therefore we have not to ask for the extra time that we are asking for in the case of this Bill. Does that answer the noble Earl?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: As the noble Viscount opposite has said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, told us in his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, it is obvious, from the very able Report which Lord Emmott's Committee produced, that a measure to give finality to this most important question is one which will need most careful deliberation on the part of the Board of Education, of the Cabinet, and also of Parliament. It is a most complicated, difficult, and technical measure, and, having served for some time in a humble position in the Board of Education, I feel that it would be churlish to grudge the President of the Board and his Parliamentary Secretary time to go fully into this matter. I think that perhaps your Lordships will not disagree if I say it would be only fair to the great service rendered by the teaching profession of this country that the Government should have every chance of producing a measure which would settle and give finality to this question. I may also mention to your Lordships that the noble Viscount opposite has given an undertaking that the greatest expedition will be shown in the matter.
It is really a small point, because, if the Government are unable to produce their measure by next year, they will have to come to Parliament again, and ask for an extension. From the time when the Report was produced until the Government of which I was a member ceased to be in Office, my right hon. friend and I certainly did consider the matter in detail, and we found how technical it was. But if the Government cannot introduce their measure they will, as I pointed out, have to ask for an extension of time. Lord Burnham, whose experience in this matter is second to none, either in your Lordships' House or outside, because he was Chairman of
682
the Committee which dealt with the question of salaries, told us that the subject is most intimately connected with salaries, and that the question of salaries would be greatly assisted by the passage of a Bill dealing with superannuation. Coming from so high an authority as the noble Viscount, I will not dispute that statement, but I should have thought that it would be desirable to give time for the Board of Education to settle the salaries question, which, of course, is one of great difficulty, to the satisfaction of the three parties concerned—namely, the teachers, the local authorities and the State—before proposals for superannuation are brought forward. With that my noble friend Lord Burnham disagrees, and I will not continue the argument.
In the debate on the Second Beading my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster suggested that there was a great danger, if you gave an emergency extension for two years instead of one year, of the Department in question going to sleep, and not pressing the matter forward with all that expedition which we should desire. If I may again say so, I have been connected with Government Departments for the last twenty-five years, and have had experience of six or seven, and in none, I am perfectly certain, is there less chance of its officials going to sleep than in the Board of Education, with a vigilant body of teachers on the one side, and a vigilant body of local authorities on the other. I do not think, therefore, that that danger need alarm your Lordships. Still the matter is really unimportant, because it can be put right if the Government have to ask for a further extension next year. I should personally ask your Lordships to fall in with the wishes of the noble Viscount who moved the Second Beading of this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): The Government is grateful to the noble Earl who has just spoken for having explained that which demands knowledge at first hand to explain properly—namely, the difficulties of negotiating a thing of this kind. There is an immense amount of detail to be dealt with. For instance, the Burnham scales are not yet finally completed. Negotiations are still going on, and upon how those negotiations turn out will depend a good deal the prospects of the Superannuation Bill. If the scale falls short of what the teachers

683
expect, they will object to the deductions for superannuation, and ask that they may be treated more like civil servants. If, on the other hand, the negotiations are satisfactory to them, there will be the more need of coming into this scheme. As the noble Lord knows, not only the teachers have to be considered, but the local authorities also, and the amount of negotiation that has to take place before the basis of a superannuation scheme is adopted is immense. I speak with some knowledge of an analogous problem, because we had the same question with the University professors under a contributory system, which is now working satisfactorily. I myself prefer a contributory system to the system which applies to civil servants.
What I want to bring out is just what, the noble Earl opposite has told your Lordships: that there is a great deal of negotiation to be done. I can assure the noble Lord that there is no delay in the matter. Difficult negotiations are going on, and I think, from what I know, that they are bound to last a considerable time. To quote the analogy of Scotland is to quote an analogy of something which is different. There the local education authorities are of a different kind to those in England. They are an ad hoc body, and are able to deal rather differently with these matters. They have been able to make up their minds and come to an agreement along with the teachers without difficulty. If we had to deal only with Scotland we should have no difficulty in carrying out Lord Emmott's Report quickly. I wish it was as simple a problem as regards England. It is on these grounds that we think it would be unsafe and fatuous to take the earlier date. We want the later date in order to make sure of completing the negotiations.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: May I say one or two words in answer to what the Lord Chancellor has said? It is just the difficulty that teachers have in knowing how they will stand in respect to superannuation that makes it all the harder for the local education authorities to come to any agreement with them as to their scale of salaries. It is quite obvious that the Lord Chancellor has put the argument in an inverted way. Is it not easier to settle pensions if you know what the scale of salaries are, because pensions are part of the scale of salaries and have
684
to be considered in fixing them? After what has been said I do not intend to trouble your Lordships by carrying this matter to a Division, but I note what the noble Viscount, the First Lord of the Admiralty, has said—that legislation on this subject will be introduced in another place at the earliest date possible in the next Session and will be pressed into law.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Restrictions on manufacture of therapeutic substances.
2.—(1) No person shall manufacture for sale any therapeutic substance to which this Act applies unless he holds a licence for the purpose from the licensing authority, or elsewhere than on the premises in respect of which such a licence is granted.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, at the end of Clause 2, to leave out "granted" and insert "in force." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a small point. It puts the clause in exactly the same wording as the clause which was amended in Committee; the Amendment being suggested on that occasion by the Lord President of the Council.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 16, leave out ("granted") and insert ("in force")—(The Earl of Onslow.)
EARL DE LA WARR: The Government accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (LEAVE OF ABSENCE) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order); Privilege Amendments made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BOROUGH COUNCILLORS (ALTERATION OF NUMBER ) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Alteration of number of councillors of metropolitan boroughs.
2.—(1) The powers of the Secretary of State under Section twenty-six of the London Government Act, 1899 (which relates to the alteration of wards of metropolitan boroughs) shall be extended so as to include power, whenever he is satisfied that a primâ facie case is made out for a proposal for the alteration of the number of councillors of a metropolitan borough, to cause such inquiries to be made and such notices to be given as he may think expedient, and, if satisfied that the proposal is desirable, to make an order altering the number of councillors of the borough and the apportionment of the councillors among the wards and the said section as amended by any subsequent enactment shall have effect accordingly.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in subsection (1), after "satisfied," to insert "by a petition in that behalf presented by the council of a metropolitan borough." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment deals with the question as to the method of altering the number of councillors in the Metropolitan Borough Councils. I will only move it formally because I understand the Government intend to make a statement on the subject. Whether I wish to proceed further will depend on what is said by the representative of the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, after ("satisfied") insert ("by a petition in that behalf presented by the council of a metropolitan borough ").—(Viscount Peel.)
EARL DE LA WARR: The Home Secretary has considered the suggestion of the noble Viscount and has authorised me to say that he can think of no occasion when the Government would increase the number of councillors if the borough councils were opposed to such a course. In this respect the Bill merely follows the lines of existing legislation, and no difficulty, so far as the Government is aware, has ever arisen.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am obliged to the noble Earl for the statement. May I put it in my own words? I presume that no alteration will be made in the number of borough councillors in London unless the borough council itself has been first officially consulted and has assented to the course.
EARL DE LA WARR: That is the policy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment.

SCILLY ISLANDS: GRANTS UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to take any steps to afford to the Scilly Islands the advantages which accrue to a spending authority under the Agricultural Rates Act, 1923. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Question probably requires one word of explanation. The Scilly Islands are peculiarly situated because they do not constitute a Poor Law union. The Poor Law is administered by the parishes, and in these circumstances it has been held that payment of an additional grant under the Agricultural Rates Act, 1923, cannot be made. I think everybody is agreed that the Islands should be able to benefit by that Act, just as England is able to benefit. The peculiar position in which they stand was overlooked at the time when the Act was passed; otherwise, provision would have been made to meet it.
The Scilly Island authorities brought the matter to the notice of the late Government, and it was suggested that it might be put right by a clause in the Finance Bill of this year authorising the payment of an additional Grant under the Agricultural Rates Act to the Scilly Islands Council in respect of Poor Law expenditure, but, as your Lordships may have observed, no such clause was included in the Finance Bill. Another suggestion was made that the Islands should be constituted a Poor Law authority. I do not know whether that is possible or not, but if so it would remove the difficulty. I think it is admitted that the Islands suffer under a disability, and I should be very glad

687
if His Majesty's Government could tell me whether they propose to do anything to rectify it.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, as the noble Earl knows, the Council of the Isles of Scilly is a spending authority for the purpose of the Agricultural Rates Acts, and receives its appropriate share of the Grant payable under that Act. But the difficulty to which the noble Earl refers arises, I think, from a different source. So far as the Isles of Scilly are concerned—it is not quite the same, I think, in all the other islands—the Poor Law rate is not paid by the spending authority. Poor Law administration is in the hands of overseers, and there are no guardians. The result is that certain sums which are paid to spending authorities outside the Scilly Islands are not paid to the spending authority within the Scilly Islands. That is exactly how the matter stands, and that was the point that it, was proposed to put right in the Finance Bill of this year. But this was found to be impossible for certain technical reasons.
The difficulty could be remedied in one of two ways. Either the money could be paid in the case of the Isles of Scilly to the spending authority in a wider sense, that is to say, though it could not be so paid now, the money paid to the spending authority could be made to include Poor Law payments made within the Isles of Scilly. That would be one way of dealing with the difficulty. The other way would be to introduce a change in the Poor Law administration of the Isles themselves. I quite agree with the noble Earl that this is a matter which should be put right in one way or another at the first available opportunity, but unfortunately that opportunity has not so far arisen. The amount of inconvenience or injustice is really comparatively slight, but on the first occasion that arises the Government would desire to put a matter of that kind right. I do not think, however, that it could be done immediately in any way.

STREET TRADING.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, may I ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to introduce legislation to regulate street trading? At the end of last Session I introduced a Bill for the regulation of street trading within the Metropolitan Police, district, and to
688
authorise the adoption of its provisions in certain other areas of England and Wales. That Bill was the embodiment of the recommendations of a Departmental Committee, and it was not intended at the time to proceed with it forthwith. It was introduced to invite criticism and comment, and it certainly received a great deal of attention from those interested in the matter on one side or the other, from those who supported its adoption and from those who were strongly opposed to it. My object in asking this Question of His Majesty's Government is to learn whether they intend to do anything in the matter, and to proceed with this, or a similar Bill, to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down had a good deal to do with this matter. He will probably agree with me when I say that it is a very difficult subject, and a subject in which one must proceed with the greatest caution. The Secretary of State, however, is now in process of considering representations from the various interests immediately concerned. He has recently received a deputation from the National Chamber of Trade and other associations of shopkeepers representing particular trades, and he hopes shortly to receive a deputation representing street traders. In those circumstances it would be premature to make a positive statement as to the intentions of the Government until the Secretary of State has had an opportunity of receiving and considering the representations which are being addressed to him.

SMOKE ABATEMENT.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I wish to ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to introduce legislation dealing with smoke abatement during the present Session. Last time this matter was raised my noble friend opposite said that the Government had the fullest sympathy with the proposal to deal with smoke abatement, and he went on to say that the Ministry of Health were receiving deputations in the near future, that the Government wanted time to consider the points put before them by those deputations, and that, they would then be in a position to give more detailed information as to their intentions. I rise only to ask whether that moment has

689
come, and whether the Government are in a position to tell us any more about their intentions regarding a Bill to deal with smoke abatement.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the deputation to which the noble Earl has referred was recently received by the Minister, and he was pressed to introduce a Smoke Abatement Bill. A conference was held at the Ministry this week with representatives of the Coal Smoke Abatement Society and the Federation of British Industries on proposals contained in a draft Bill on the subject. There is reason to hope that a large measure of agreement was reached as to the proposals of the Bill, and it is the Minister's intention to have this Bill introduced in the House of Lords as soon as possible.
LORD NEWTON: Can the noble Earl say whether the Bill will be introduced before the Whitsuntide Recess?
EARL DE LA WARR: I am afraid I cannot, but it will be as soon as possible.

EDUCATION COSTS.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government what is the cost per child per annum—(1) for elementary education from the ages of 12 to H: (2) for secondary education from the ages of 12 to 16.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give the noble Earl a very specific answer to the Question which he has put, because we are not able to work out the figures according to the ages of the children, but I can tell him that at the present moment, as regards elementary education, the cost falling upon the Grants and rates is £11 10 s. per child, and in the case of secondary education the gross cost is estimated at a little less than £27 per pupil and, when fees, endowments and other receipts are deducted, the net cost falling upon public funds is estimated at a little less than £17 per pupil. I am afraid that is as far as I can go, but I shall be very happy to provide the noble Earl with a Return which has been made out by the Board of Education regarding the cost per child of elementary education, if he would like to be furnished with a copy.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount.

CHILD LABOUR IN PERSIAN CARPET INDUSTRY.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR had given Notice to ask Lord Parmoor as League Minister whether his attention has been called to a Report made to the International Labour Office of the League of Nations by the Persian Government on the improvements which have been effected in the conditions of child labour in the carpet industry in Persia, and whether His Majesty's Government are in a position to corroborate the statements made in that Report.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, some three or four years ago the attention of the International Labour Office was drawn to the conditions under which children were employed in Persia in the carpet industry. One can only describe the conditions, as they then seemed to exist, as being pitiable and inhuman. Persia, being a signatory to the Covenant of the League of Nations, was approached by the International Labour Office, and I understand that the Persian Government has recently made a Report to that Office as to the changes which have been brought about. I shall be very grateful if the noble Lord can tell the House whether His Majesty's Government are able to confirm the report as to improved conditions which has been submitted by the Persian Government.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount is quite right in saying that this is a matter which comes largely within the purview of the Labour Office of the League of Nations, and that Persia being a member, the question of the employment of these people in the carpet trade has been a matter of much inquiry, and at one time of much anxiety. At the present time I may say, generally, that nearly all the causes which rendered this employment unsatisfactory have been removed, and the Foreign Office has information which entirely corroborates the information to which I think the noble Viscount refers. Perhaps, with the permission of the House, I may read what I think to be the information to which he refers, because it appears to me to be entirely satisfactory, and then I will add a word or two of corroboration from the information which has come to the Foreign Office.

691
I think the document to which he refers is in these words:—
"The office (the International Labour Office) now learns by a communication from the Persian Minister at Berne that in accordance with the decision of the Persian Government, the Governor of the Province of Kerman has issued a Decree dated December 17, 1923, which confirms and in some respects extends the measures previously applied."
There follows an account of the measures now applied—
"The new Decree provides for a maximum working day of eight hours, holidays with pay on Fridays and festivals, a minimum age of eight years for boys and ten for girls, separate work places for boys and for girls with forewomen to supervise those for girls, prohibition of the employment of workers suffering from contagious disease, prohibition of underground or damp workshops, the provision of windows facing south, disposition of the weaving frame and worker's seat such as to give the best possible working position for the young worker, and monthly sanitary inspection of workshops. The police authorities are instructed to enforce these requirements, any infringement of which is punishable by a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding twenty days,"
That is a Decree which has followed former Decrees, and I will now state what information, as regards the conditions, has come to the Foreign Office, apart from the mere question of Decrees being issued. I think that will be entirely satisfactory to the noble Viscount.
These Reports have been received by the Foreign Office for a series of years, and I have summarised them, in order that I may give the result at which we have arrived at the present time. In the first place, they find that the workshops are excellent, and compare favourably with Persian houses, even such as are lived in by the upper classes. Secondly, the conditions in the villages are good, so far as is known. That, of course, is important, because it is more difficult to see that conditions of this kind are complied with in the villages than it is in the towns. Thirdly, the standard set by foreign firms of repute has been largely followed. I should like to emphasise the fact that a large factor in the development of better conditions in the native industries has been the excellent standard which most of the foreign firms have set as regards the treatment of their workpeople. Lastly, the tendency towards general improvement is expected to be progressive.
I have not troubled your Lordships with the large number of Reports which
692
have been received, because I thought it better to summarise them. That summary, I think, ought to be entirely satisfactory. I should like to add that I think that one of the factors which show the great importance of the work which the League of Nations docs is that they have managed to introduce a system so satisfactory into the conditions of these workpeople, and these boy and girl workers in Persia—conditions which in the past, when they first undertook the task, were found to be wholly unsatisfactory, and such as could hardly be tolerated having regard to the conditions prevailing in more civilised countries. I had an opportunity the other day of stating, in answer to Lord Lamington, the satisfaction of His Majesty's Government with the present conditions in Persia both with regard to finance and with regard to law and order, and I am pleased to add that in their industrial development great progress has taken place, entirely to the satisfaction of the Labour Office of the League of Nations and of His Majesty's Government.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I think the Lord President of the Council has said rightly that we ought to be gratified with regard to the general condition of Persia and also with regard to the information that the regulations as to industrial conditions in that country are apparently being so carefully carried out. I was a little surprised to hear such a statement, because I travelled through the country before the war, and I do not think it could then have been said that any such satisfactory conditions existed. I understand that the information given to us is confined to the Province of Kerman. Of course, that is the Province where the principal carpet factories are, and no doubt the fact of there being European agencies in charge has largely contributed to these more satisfactory conditions. I
think that we, and especially Persia, ought to feel very gratified that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has elicited so satisfactory an account, corroborated, as it is in two quarters, by His Majesty's Government and by the League of Nations.
LORD PARMOOR: Lest there should be any mistake, I will repeat that I was dealing with the Province of Kerman.
House adjourned at ten minutes before six o'clock.