Lords Sitting of 23 March 1926

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

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
A Petition of Messrs. Torr, Durnford and Company, of 2, Millbank House, Westminster, Parliamentary Agents, praying for leave to present a Petition of the National Federation of Launderers, Limited, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 92 for presenting such Petition has expired, was read last Thursday and ordered to lie on the Table, and Standing Order No. 92 to be considered to-day in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Petition.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands on the Paper. This is in accordance with an agreement between the parties.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 92 be considered in order to its being dispensed with, with respect to a Petition of the National Federation of Launderers, Limited.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly. Leave given to present the Petition.

BIRMINGHAM CANAL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SERLE STREET AND COOK'S COURT IMPROVEMENT COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BROMPTON, CHATHAM, GILLINGHAM AND ROCHESTER WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SMOKE ABATEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, as a Bill very similar to this has already been introduced three times in this House I need only recall to your Lordships a very brief outline of its history and purpose. The activities of various smoke abatement bodies, and also Parliamentary action, led, in 1914, to the setting up of a Departmental Committee to investigate possible ways of strengthening the law against pollution of the atmosphere. This Committee had to be dispersed at the outbreak of the War, and not until 1920 was the Ministry of Health able to set up another Committee, under the Chairmanship of Lord Newton, whose exhaustive Report is no doubt familiar to your Lordships. Following this Report, Bills were introduced in 1922, 1923 and 1924, but only in the case of the last was it possible to proceed to Committee stage. In view of the somewhat inauspicious careers of these Bills, one of the principal objections directed against them was that the Government of the day bad never any intention of passing them into law, which is certainly a very valid criticism, if it can be substantiated, against any Bill, but it is one which I hope will be now satisfactorily and finally dissipated.
I may, perhaps, remind your Lordships that it is now possible for the sanitary authorities too proceed under various Acts of Parliament, some local and some general—more particularly the Public Health Act, 1875—against excessive pollution of the atmosphere by smoke. It is the intention in the present case to follow the precedent of other Bills and to extend the scope of certain Acts, and, in addition, to encourage the more rigid enforcement of the existing laws. The Minister feels that a great deal more could be done in this direction, and that by rigid enforcement of moderate restrictions a more useful public purpose could be served than would be served by extending restrictions without regard to the burden thereby imposed on industry and on the convenience of the public, which, in his opinion, would only hinder the recuperation of industry or, alternatively, would lead to the non-observance of the law.

715
If your Lordships turn to the Bill you will observe that Clause 1 makes it possible to take proceedings in respect to a smoke nuisance irrespective of the colour of the smoke; and it provides for a wider definition of the term "smoke." On the other hand, it extends temporary exemption from liability as regards such proceedings to certain processes, chiefly—or entirely, I think—in the steel trade, and enables the Minister, subject to confirmation by Parliament, to exempt other processes. It will, however, be a defence against these proceedings to show that the best possible means have been taken for preventing a nuisance, except in the case of the emission of black smoke, where the existing law will continue to apply. The clause also allows of the imposition of larger penalties than at present, and in certain respects incorporates different suggestions from varying points of view expressed in Committee on the 1924 Bill. It does something to strengthen the existing law on the lines suggested in the Newton Report; at the same time, it exempts certain industrial premises which might be unduly handicapped thereby.
Clause 2 enables local authorities to set up standards of smoke emission, subject to confirmation by the Minister. I understand that this provision will facilitate the enforcement of the law, inasmuch as the onus of proof, after certain standards have been exceeded, will now rest on the manufacturer, instead of on the local authority. An alteration has been made in this clause to meet the criticism of the majority on the last Bill and in order to strengthen the existing law. Clause 3 is, I believe non-controversial: it merely strengthens and extends the scope of some of the provisions of the Alkali, &c., Works Regulation Act.
Clause 4 enables local authorities to require that certain new buildings should be provided with arrangements for smokeless heating. This is rather an important clause. It was debated at some length in Committee in 1924. The Minister is anxious to do what is possible to reduce the volume of domestic smoke, which, as was shown in the Report, is responsible for at least 50 per cent. of the pollution of the atmosphere. While it is obviously impossible to require the alteration of heating arrangements in existing buildings, the Minister considers that it should be possible to enforce smokeless
716
heating arrangements in new buildings, but he excepts dwelling-houses. He has very carefully considered whether this provision could be extended to dwelling-houses, but after extensive inquiries he has come to the conclusion that such an extension would not be compatible with the rapid and inexpensive provision of working-class houses, which are still so urgently needed. It must be remembered in this connection that experience has proved that people are exceedingly conservative in their domestic habits, and also that no cheap form of smokeless fuel is at present available for domestic consumption.
In Clause 5 local authorities are to be able to combine for the prevention of smoke nuisances. Clause 6 is for the purpose of strengthening the hands of the Ministry in cases where the local sanitary authorities are in default in respect of their anti-smoke duties. The Minister is enabled in such cases to transfer their powers to county councils and also to hold an inquiry into the manner in which they are carrying out their duties in this respect. Clause 7 enables the Minister to procure information -as to the general progress of anti-smoke measures. Parts of Clause 6 and all Clause 7 are new and are inserted with the object of strengthening the hand of the Minister, in order to lead to a, better general enforcement of the law. It has not been found possible to adopt all the suggestions of the Newton Committee, such as that which provided that county councils should ordinarily be responsible for taking proceedings in respect of nuisances. I do not think I need enter into the reasons for that decision at this stage of the Bill, but I might observe that the clause does in some respects approximate to the recommendations of that Committee; at least, more so than has been the case in previous Bills.
Under Clause 6 ships are exempted from the operation of the Bill. This clause has been inserted in response to strong representations made in Committee on the 1924 Bill. The Minister has been convinced of the desirability of exempting ships, because of the technical difficulties of enforcing legislation in regard to ships, and also on account of the complications that might arise if an attempt was made to do so in respect of foreign vessels. Clause 9 enables pressure to be exerted on Govern-

717
ment establishments Which may transgress the law. An attempt has here been made to meet the very general desire that Government establishments should be prevented from setting a bad example in respect of smoke nuisances. It is, of course, understood that Government Departments cannot be made subject to legal proceedings in the ordinary way because ultimately Parliament itself is responsible, but in this clause a method is adopted which attempts to attain the desired object while avoiding the practical and constitutional difficulty which would otherwise be involved.
I think have said sufficient at this stage about the clauses of the Bill. Your Lordships will see that this is not a very stringent measure, and it will not bring about the complete disappearance of fogs and smoke, which have obviously such unpleasant and harmful effects, both here and in the industrial areas, and on which such very full evidence is given in the 1921 Report. But I submit that the Minister has gone as far as he could without adding to the cost of living and without adding to the expenses of production in manufacture by requiring the installation of new plant in factories. On the whole, I think it is stronger than previous Bills and I hope it will commend itself to the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I noticed the other day that the noble Lord observed that each successive Bill was worse than the one before. I also noticed that in 1923 he said that he cheerfully admitted that the Bill of that year was a considerable improvement upon its predecessors. Although he may not usually be given to undue optimism, I hope the noble Lord may continue to be cheerful in respect to this Bill, which I think follows more closely the lines of the noble Lord's Report. I have only one thing to add in relation to a criticism which was previously made against the form of the Bill, that it contains an enormous number of references to Acts of Parliament. There is no defence. It must be admitted that it is a bad example of that sort of thing, but I understand that it is intended to carry out a consolidation of all the Public Health Acts as soon as the time of the appropriate officials permits. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this Bill is really a very important measure, although nobody would guess that this was the case judging by the appearance of the House at the present moment. It is a somewhat singular fact that a measure of this kind, which as I say is one of very considerable importance, is not, apparently, considered worthy of patronage by one of his Majesty's Ministers. As the noble Viscount said, this Bill is the fourth of a series. It is the fourth Bill which has been introduced since 1921, when the Committee over which I presided issued its Report. Here I would like to correct the lapsus lingua of which I admit I was guilty the other day. I did say that one Bill was worse than the other. In a sense that was true; but what. I ought to have said was that the Bill had started very badly Fait had gradually improved, and I am now ready openly to admit that there has been a progressive improvement for this reason; that every year one more of our recommendations has been adopted. But the real trouble with previous Bills was that, to use a racing term, they were "never meant." It was never intended that any of them should pass. They were all introduced at a period of the Session when it was perfectly obvious that nothing of the kind would be in the least likely to go through the two Houses of Parliament. I hope this time that His Majesty's Government are animated by a different feeling, that they really have honourable intentions in this case and that they mean to get this Bill through, somehow or other.
In studying the measure one cannot help being struck with the influence which important and powerful organisations are able to exert upon all Governments. The noble Viscount indicated certain changes which appear in the Bill. Let me first of all call your Lord ships' attention to Clause 1, subsection (1), paragraph (e). This is the clause which deals with exemption and it must be perfectly clear to everybody that this clause has been put in at the instigation of, and owing to pressure by, the Sheffield people. There was already a large number of exemptions under the old Act of 1875. The Sheffield people came forward and said that they would be ruined unless their particular industries were included amongst the

719
exempted industries. They have got their way. So much for the Sheffield provision. I pass to subsection (4) of Clause 1, which refers to the giving of notice of nuisance. That was obviously put in by the Federation of British Industries. I remember they objected to the wording of a similar subsection in last year's Bill.
Then I pass to what is much more important—namely, Clause 8, which exempts steamships. It must be perfectly obvious to everybody that what has happened is that Lord Inchcape, accompanied by other shipping magnates, went to the Government and made out that unless steamships were exempted the whole of the shipping trade of the country would be ruined. The astonishing thing is that he has succeeded in persuading the Minister to adopt his views; with the result, which is almost unbelievable, that the shipping industry is placed in a better position than it was in before. Up to now a steamship in harbour was treated like a house and came under the same regulations. Now, as I understand it, there is not to be any liability whatsoever, in spite of the fact that there is no real argument against steamships being treated in the same way as other industries. If I am not mistaken, every single port authority is against the shipping people in this matter.
But the most surprising of all is Clause 9, with regard to Government establishments. My noble friend who moved the Second Reading of the Bill endeavoured, of course, to make out that the Government were acting in an altruistic and patriotic manner and were going to allow their own establishments to be dealt with in the same way as private undertakings. It is nothing of the kind. The position is that the Minister who happens to be at the head of the particular Department which is causing the offence is the judge of whether he is causing a nuisance or not. That is to say, supposing a Government establishment, an arsenal or something of the kind, was creating a nuisance, it would be impossible to proceed against them unless the Secretary of State for War, or the First Lord of the Admiralty, admitted that it was a nuisance. On the other hand, a private establishment of the same kind which was emitting smoke would be
720
liable to heavy penalties under the Bill. Really it does seem to be grotesquely impudent, if I may use the term, that the Government should propose punitive legislation for private manufacturers who are carrying on exactly the same kind of work and should deliberately exempt themselves. I think this clause must be radically altered before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House; otherwise, we shall put ourselves in an absurd position.
Apart from these criticisms, I gladly welcome this Bill as an improvement upon its predecessors. I welcome it all the more because this Bill embodies recommendations which we have hitherto urged without any success whatsoever. For instance, it increases the penalties, which in itself is a good thing. It enables standards to be fixed by local authorities—a point we were very desirous of establishing. It gives county councils power to carry out duties which have been neglected by the smaller authorities. At the same time, I am afraid I do not see any power given to the Minister to compel the county councils to carry out their duties. I submit also that the Bill deals in a somewhat half-hearted way with the question of local authorities insisting upon smoke-abating appliances being introduced into buildings which are being put up. Altogether, to put it shortly, it is a Bill which may do a great deal of good, in the first place, if it is amended in Committee, and in the second place, if it is administered in the proper spirit.
Everybody, I think, by this time admits that a measure of this kind is badly required. I notice that the Coal Commission the other day pointed out, what was of course familiar to anybody who has studied this question—that the waste from burning raw coal at the present moment equals the output from all the mines in this country working for three days with considerably more than one million miners employed. That gives one some small idea of the reckless waste that is going on at present. I do not want to enlarge upon this matter. Every one knows perfectly well the damage which is done all round by smoke. But this is not simply a question of economy. It is a much larger question than that. It is a question that concerns not only the economy of the nation, but the general amenity of life of the vast majority of the inhabitants of this Island.

721
If this measure passes with the necessary Amendments, if it is administered in a proper spirit, and if the Ministry of Health will show a real interest in this question, which they have never hitherto dune, then I think a good deal can be done to reduce a state of things winch really is almost a disgrace to a civilised community.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I feel that I ought to be in a position to congratulate the noble Lord on introducing a Bill so very similar to that which I myself introduced two years ago, but I am afraid that congratulation cannot be wholehearted because the position to-day is quite different. The Smoke Abatement Bill of 1924 was introduced by a Minority Government, which had to introduce an agreed Bill. The situation to-day is not at all like that. We have now a Government with an enormous majority in both Houses, and I think we are, entitled to say that if they had really meant business they would have brought in a very much more stringent Bill than this is.
At the same time, when the noble Lord, Lord Newton, blesses a Smoke Abatement Bill, it would seem to be almost presumption for any one else to find fault with it. It certainly has, as he pointed out, a certain number of weaknesses. He hit on the right point at the end of his speech when he said that, providing the Minister of Health really set out to administer this Bill in a spirit that he, Lord Newton, would desire, the Bill would be an immense improvement on what has gone before. But is the Minister of Health prepared to give us an undertaking that he really is going to have an inquiry with a view to terminating what we may call the metallurgical exemptions" Is he prepared to give us an undertaking that he is going to enforce in the near future ample by laws on the local authorities?
There are a number of Amendments that I shall hope to move, or that I hope may be moved by some one, before the Bill goes finally to the other House. In Clause 4, which was referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, there is a notable exemption which I hope will be omitted. I see in the Report of the Committee stage proceedings of the 1924 Bill that it was omitted. The words are
722
"other than private dwelling houses." The noble Lord, Lord Newton, on that occasion moved an Amendment and the Government accepted it. That has now been vetoed. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, also mentioned the question of Government Departments. I hope that on that point a very strong Amendment will be moved. Of one thing I am sure and that is that, however strong the Amendment is, it ought to receive very great support from the Government Benches, judging from the bombardment and buffeting to which I was subjected by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Marquess the Leader of the House.
I can assure the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that whatever is moved from this side of the House will be moved solely with an earnest desire to help in every way to improve the Bill and will not be designed in any way to impede its passage. We on this side of the House, as well as the Opposition in another place, believe that the problem of doing away with the smoke in our atmosphere is one of the most important problems presented to those who are interested in public health. As the noble Lord, Lord Newton, pointed out, it is not merely a matter of economy, not solely a matter of saving the hundreds of thousands of pounds that we lose every year by the destruction of buildings in our towns, or the wastage of time occasioned through unnecessary fogs, but it is a question of our whole general outlook on life. I wonder how many of your Lordships consider the enormous number of people in this country who hardly know what a really pure ray of sunlight is, and what that must mean to their moral and æsthetic outlook on life. Surely that is just as important as any other consideration. I hope, however, that this Bill will receive a Second Reading.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, the noble Earl opposite apparently got up to curse the Bill, but finished by blessing it, as, I am sure he would, because he has agreed, like so many other noble Lords in this House, that smoke, especially in large towns, is most injurious to the public health. I am well aware, as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, said, that this is the fourth of a series of Bills. I hope it is going to prove to be the lucky number, and that it will pass into law. This question of smoke abatement has been con-

723
sidered very carefully for some years by the London local authorities, especially by the London County Council, and they have repeatedly pressed that the Ministry of Health should bring in a comprehensive measure.
There is one point, however, to which I should like to draw the attention of the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading. My point arises on subsection (3) of Clause 2, and it is this. Ever since the creation of the London Borough Councils they have been the authority to administer the present Act, and the public control committee of the London County Council stated in their Report that during the last twenty years smoke conditions all over London have greatly improved. They are by no means perfect, as we all know, and we hope this Bill will do something to remedy the defects that exist. At the same time, it is curious to note that that period of twenty years is practically coincident with the creation of the London Borough Councils.
I may be mistaken, but so far as I can understand Clause 2 it gives power to prescribe standards or by-laws to a local authority on the recommendation of the Minister of Health. Subsection (3) contains the application of this clause to London:—
"In the application of this section to London, the port sanitary authority of the Port of London shall be the local authority within the district of that authority,"—
it is, that is to say, the authority to carry out the work—
"but save as respects that district the London County Council shall be the local authority within the area of the county of London and the Common Council shall be the local authority within the City of London."
The London County Council is quit e satisfied with the way in which the borough councils are carrying out their work and it is part of the policy of the London County Council to devolve as much of their powers of this kind, in view of the congestion of the work they have to do, upon local authorities. I cannot see any reason why work which has been admittedly well done so far as lies in their power under the existing Acts, should be taken away from them. I may be mistaken in my reading of the clause and it may mean simply that the
724
London County Council shall be the authority for making by-laws. To that, of course, nobody can have any possible objection. My point, however, is that it is the authority now. We must have one authority in London and I see no reason why this power should be taken from the existing authority. I hope that the Minister in charge of the Bill, Viscount Gage, will explain the matter, because I can assure him there will be a great deal of opposition from the London local authorities and the County Council itself if the present system is altered by this Bill.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I have very little to add to what I said originally because the points that have been raised are nearly all Committee points, which will naturally receive consideration from the Minister before the next stage of the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said he was surprised that the Government with its majority should introduce such a weak Bill. This is not a Party question. It is a question of doing as much as we can without harming industry. I do not think the question of majorities comes in at all. As regards what he asked in connection with the assurance that the Minister of Health would undertake all he has promised, I can only refer him to the testimony which Lord Newton, a few days ago, bore to the good intentions of the Minister of Health. I think he expressed some doubt as to the good intentions of his colleagues, but as to the Minister himself he expressed no doubt that everything that he intended would be carried out to the best of his ability. The only other point which has arisen is the point just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel. So far as I am able to understand the subsection, I think he is under a slight misapprehension. What is referred to here—I think it is fairly clear—is the power of making by-laws. You will note that the clause is described as dealing with power to prescribe standards. That is the power which is conferred on the County Council. The enforcement of the by-laws will remain as at present with the boroughs.
LORD JESSEL: The sanitary authority.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I beg your pardon, the sanitary authority.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, I would be glad if the Government would state whether it is their intention to include Scotland in a measure of this kind, because it is just as much needed there as in England. In fact, it is needed even more as we burn more soft coal in Scotland. I am disappointed that the measure does not extend to the northern part of this Island. On the point under discussion, in my experience I have found it desirable to have powers conferred on the larger rather than on the smaller authorities. On the general principle I think that all the borough councils in London are very much dovetailed into one another, and I should have thought the central authority would be most effective. There is so much pressure brought to bear upon a borough council, whether by the municipality itself, whose electrical or gas or other concerns may be one of the leading causes of the pollution of the atmosphere, or by the strong representations of persons interested, who also contribute to the pollution of the atmosphere and who can make their influence more powerfully felt upon a smaller rather than a larger authority. But the reason I rose was to ask whether it is intended by the Government to extend this legislation to Scotland.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to point out the inconvenience of procedure by which speeches are made by noble Lords after the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has spoken in answer to questions raised. We had some little discussion some time ago on points of order of this kind. It is quite obvious that a noble Lord in charge of a Bill is placed in a difficulty if speeches are made after he himself has answered to the best of his ability the points already raised. The noble Viscount in charge of this Bill is not to blame, if I may say so, because nobody rose to continue the discussion. But if you are going to have questions of this kind raised after the noble Lord in charge of a Bill has replied on behalf of His Majesty's Government we shall inevitably be left in difficulty.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, may I be allowed to point out that it is the noble Duke, sitting below me, who usually answers for Scotland and he has not spoken yet.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I quite agree that it is inconvenient after the Minister in charge of a Bill has replied for the discussion to continue, but I am sure your Lordships will allow me to answer the noble Viscount. I agree with him, if I may be allowed to say so, that Scotland is at least as much in need of a Bill of this kind as England. He is quite correct in that respect. But he knows much better than I know that the law of Scotland is not the same as the law of England and it is not easy to deal with the law of England and the law of Scotland in one Bill. It is the intention of the Government to introduce another Bill to deal with Scotland. I do not know whether it can be done in the present Session; but that is the intention. We carefully considered this point and we came to the conclusion that it would be impracticable to add Scottish provisions to this Bill. It would have led to a great deal of confusion and we were obliged to abandon the attempt, but the matter has not escaped us.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole. House.

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND): My Lords, this is a Bill providing that a person convicted on indictment may appeal to the High Court of Justiciary, and it gives effect to the recommendations of a Committee which was appointed by the Secretary for Scotland last year. At present persons convicted on indictment in Scotland have only limited rights of appeal. There is, for example, no means of bringing the verdict of a jury under judicial review, whether the trial is in the High Court or the Sheriff Court. This Bill confers rights of appeal in Scotland substantially similar to those enjoyed in England under the Criminal Appeal Act of 1907. I beg to move tat the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, this Bill is quite a good one and the only observation to be made upon it is that it ought to have been introduced long ago. My noble friend Viscount Dunedin has been driven away by smoke and therefore he cannot make his observations upon the Bill. I will only say that I have read the Bill and I think it does that which the noble Duke says: it applies the principle of the English law. But why it is that we in Scotland, not only in respect of smoke but in respect of criminal appeals, should be left behind the country south of the Border I cannot tell. Your Lordships can scarcely realise that even the principle—which Lord Cairns passed a quarter of a century ago—of the Settled Land Act has never been applied to Scotland and, what is more, it is not likely to be applied. Both in the matter of land and in the matter of smoke the people of Scotland appear to be of a highly conservative disposition, and not decreasingly so, so far as I can see.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I wish they were a little more conservative.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I really think the noble Marquess has not acquainted himself with the movements of opinion there. We get nothing from Scotland that is of an advanced, much less of a revolutionary character. At any rate, the noble Duke has done his best to make up for this delay by bringing in this Bill, even thus tardily.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MARKETS AND FAIRS (WEIGHING OF CATTLE) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

LAW OF PROPERTY (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Amendment of 15 Geo. 5. c. 20. s. 140. in its application to agricultural holdings.
2. Section one hundred and forty of the Law of Property Act, 1925 (which relates to the apportionment of conditions on severance), shall have effect as if at the end of Subsection (2) thereof the following proviso were inserted:
"Provided that where the land demised is an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, the tenant on whom notice to quit is served by the person entitled to a severed part of the reversion may, if he is a tenant from year to year, at any time within twenty-eight days of the service of such notice to quit, serve on the persons severally entitled to the severed parts of the reversion a notice in writing to the effect that he accepts the notice to quit as a notice to quit the entire holding to take effect at the expiration of the then current year of tenancy; and the notice to quit shall have effect accordingly."
LORD STRACHIE: I desire to ask the Lord Chancellor one or two questions before Clause 2 is agreed to. I should like him, if he will be good enough, to explain the reason for amending Section 140 of the original Act. I should also like to ask him if it is the case that, if an owner sells part of the farm and if the purchaser gives notice to quit to the tenant of that part, the tenant can give notice to quit the other part of the farm and claim compensation from the landlord. That appears to me to be the position under the law as amended, and it seems to me to be really rather necessary to amend this clause. But time has been so very short that I have been unable to consult with those interested in the matter and I am merely making the suggestion on my own behalf.
Again, if this proposed amendment of the law is agreed to, what will be the position of a landowner who sells part of a farm, and how will the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, apply in such cases? It seems to me that the legal position is very difficult indeed, for, as the House knows, the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, is very complicated

729
and difficult to interpret. All that I want to do now is to make an appeal to the Lord Chancellor not to rush this Bill but to give us an opportunity between now and the Report stage of considering it further and putting down Amendments. I think the noble and learned Viscount will agree that it is very difficult indeed for us, unless we have consultation with our legal advisers, to tell exactly what the effect of the Bill will be.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): I agree that the question is rather complicated, but I think I can give the noble Lord an explanation in a few words. The effect of the Act of 1922 and of the Consolidating Act of 1925 is that when land which is let to a tenant is severed—that is, when part is sold to a new owner and part retained— the conditions are apportioned, so that the owner of part of the land can give the tenant notice to quit that part of the land. The Acts of 1922 and of 1925 make provision for this difficulty in the following way. The framers of the Act saw that the effect of giving notice to quit part only of a farm might be to make the rest of the farm almost impossible to work. It might be too small or it might have no proper buildings, no farmhouse or something of that kind. Accordingly the existing Act provides that where notice is given to quit part of a farm by the owner of that part the tenant may give a counter-notice to quit the whole so that he may get rid of his tenancy.
That was all right so far as it went, but I think one point was overlooked. If the tenant took advantage of that provision and gave notice to quit the other part he would not be entitled to compensation for improvements because, the tenancy being determined by himself and not by the landlord, the provision as to compensation would not apply. That might be very unjust to the tenant, and accordingly we are amending that provision by saying that, if the owner of a part gives notice to quit his part, the tenant may, without himself giving notice to quit the rest, take the notice to quit part as a notice to quit the whole, and by that means he does become entitled to compensation. That is the simple effect of the amendment made by this Bill.
The noble Lord has raised a point which I think certainly deserves
730
consideration. He asks what will then be the effect of the special section in the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923. As the noble Lord knows as well as any of us, where, under that Act, notice is given to quit a small part of a holding for the purpose of forming allotments or for certain other purposes and the tenant says: "Very well, I will quit the whole," the tenant is not entitled to compensation for the small part. He is using the machinery of the Act in order to get rid of his tenancy. I think the noble Lord suggests that this arrangement should apply to this clause also. I admit that this is rather a complicated point, but it is well deserving of consideration and, if the noble Lord will permit me, I will consider the matter to see whether we ought to introduce in this substituted proviso words which will bring that section of the Act of 1923 into operation. I was anxious to get an early passage for the Bill but, since this point has arisen, I am afraid I cannot put down the next stage for an earlier date than Thursday. If the noble Lord will be good enough to tell me privately what he thinks ought to be done, or if he will look at an Amendment which I will show to him, I have no doubt that we can by Thursday agree upon a form of words, if any Amendment is required.
LORD STRACHIE: I am very much obliged to the Lord Chancellor for putting the Report stage off until Thursday, if he cannot put it off even a little longer. Even so there will be very little time to consult with those who advise us on questions of this kind, and I should have been very much obliged if he could have put the Report stage down for Tuesday.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should very much like to get my Bill before Easter, if possible.
LORD STRACHIE: That would make it impossible. Did I make myself quite clear about one point? I do not think the noble Viscount answered it. It is this: Whether, as the clause now stands, it is the case that where a man has sold part of a farm, retaining the rest, and the man to whom he has sold that part of the farm gives notice to the tenant of the owner, then the tenant has a right to give notice to the landlord to quit the rest of the farm, which the landlord did not sell,

731
and in consequence the landlord, although he has not given the tenant notice, has to pay compensation to the tenant for disturbance. That is what we object to. We think it is unfair that the landowner, who does not give notice to the tenant to quit the rest of the farm, is nevertheless liable to have notice given to him by the tenant, and will then have to pay compensation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is not the effect of this clause, but is what the existing Act provides. It is thought that it is not fair that the man should sell part of a farm and not pay compensation for disturbance.
LORD STRACHIE: It is not a question of a man selling. It is when a man has sold part, say twenty or thirty acres, but does not give notice to the tenant to quit the remaining 200 acres. Will the effect of his having sold part of the farm, and of the purchaser having given notice to the tenant, be to entitle the tenant to give notice to the landlord to quit the remainder of the farm and demand compensation from the landlord? That, I am told, is the effect of the amendment made by the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understood the noble Lord perfectly well. That is the effect of the Act as it is to-day. All we are now doing is to say that if that happens the tenant shall not lose his right to compensation.
LORD STRACHIE: It is the landlord and not the tenant who is damnified. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will let me come and talk the matter over with him.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Will the noble and learned Viscount let me ask him this question? A landlord lets a farm to a tenant, and it is agreed that should the landlord require to take possession of a certain portion of the farm at an agreed rent, then that can be done. Suppose the landlord does do that, and the tenant under this new proposal gives the landlord notice to quit, will the tenant be entitled to compensation, although he had agreed when he took the farm to surrender part of it when called upon?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not here to answer hypothetical questions,
732
but I should be inclined to answer "No." At all events, this Bill does not affect that question.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
The Schedule:

SCHEDULE.

  MINOR AMENDMENTS.
  Enactments to be amended.

  Amendments.

  Settled Land Act, 1925.

  S. 13

  For the words "without notice "of any settlement" there shall be substituted the words "without notice of such tenant for life or statutory owner having become so entitled as aforesaid."

  THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL moved, after the reference to Section 13, to insert the following new paragraph:
  "S. 31……at the end of subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:—
  "Where there are trustees for the purposes of this Act of the instrument under which there is a tenant for life or statutory owner but there are no trustees for those purposes of a prior instrument, being one of the instruments by which a compound settlement is constituted, those trustees shall, unless and until trustees are appointed of the prior instrument or of the compound settlement, be the trustees for the purposes of this Act of the compound settlement."
  The noble Marquess said: The object of my Amendment is to enable a tenant for life of settled estate to comply with the requirements of the Law of Property Act, 1926, with as little expense as may be. After the passing of the Law of Property Act, before the owner can deal with any of his land, by sale, enfranchisement or anything of that sort, he has to ask his trustees to put him in possession of his property by executing a vesting deed. In many cases before the deed of settlement was executed the land which is comprised in that deed of settlement was by previous deed subject to various charges. When this has occurred what is called a compound settlement is constituted and before a vesting deed covering the whole property can be executed it may be necessary for the owner to make application to the Court to appoint trustees who can act under the Settled Land Acts, far the purpose

  733
  of the Law of Property Act, 1925. I am told that it would usually be found that the trustees of the settlement would be the trustees to be appointed for these prior deeds.
  That is the, real reason why I have brought in this Amendment, for under it, without any extra cost to the owner, and without unnecessarily having to employ counsel to go to the Court, and, further than that, without unnecessarily taking up the time of His Majesty's Judges in Chambers to settle who those trustees ought to be, under this Amendment I believe the trustees of the settlement will be enabled straight away to execute the necessary vesting deed. Great expense has been put upon the owners of property in order to comply with the Law of Property Act, and it does seem to me that at the present time the less these expenses are put upon the owners of property the better. If we can reduce the costs that are at the present time put upon them by the Act of 1925, surely it should be done and done as soon as possible. I have been in communication with a good many solicitors, and it has been astonishing to me to find the unanimity with which all of them have blessed me for bringing in this Amendment.
  One would naturally have thought that the legal profession would have been pleased to get the chance of bringing a, lot of legal work to hear, because it would give them extra remuneration, but in this case it seems that, so far as solicitors are concerned, their ideas as to how this sort of vesting deed should be carried out have been so upset that they are in a great quandary as to how to carry on. People do not seem really to know what ought to be done. In one ease a solicitor wrote to me to say that in regard to one settled property no fewer than six prior deeds would have to be taken to Court to determine what trustees would, in the ordinary course, be able to give the owner this vesting deed. That particular property has no income, and yet before anything can be sold that property will have to find the money for very large costs, unless this Amendment goes through. I should like to thank the noble Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, for the help which I have received from his Department in drafting
  734
  my Amendment, and I only hope it may appeal to your Lordships arid go through. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved.—
  "In the Schedule, page 5, line 12, at end insert the said new paragraph."—(The Marquess of Bristol.)
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess. I can speak very feelingly on this Amendment, because I am one of the sufferers from the land legislation passed within recent years, and because I myself am in the happy—or unhappy—position of having no less than half-a-dozen settlements on my property. It is absolutely necessary in these cases that we should have some sort of statutory power whereby the trustees of an existing settlement should also be trustees, unless others are appointed, of a prior settlement. In my own case—and I know of others—there are instances of settlements made very nearly 100 years ago which are still kept alive by reason of a jointure or other annuity charge on the settled estates, under some power contained in a very old settlement which would have otherwise come to an end. There may be several legal instruments in existence owing to settlements or re-settlements, made from time to time, and all those legal instruments may still live, owing to these annuitants still drawing the rent charges or annuities.
  I must take this opportunity of again thanking the noble and learned Viscount for the sympathetic way in which he has met the demands of those who are interested in this subject. There are many more cases of this kind, perhaps, than he dreams of, though the sufferers may not yet have found out their misfortunes, as some of us have. It is extremely difficult to persuade trustees to retire, and extremely expensive, too, and it is almost impossible to carry on the management of landed properties in these days when they bring in no income, when expenses are increased by having two or three or possibly more different sets of trustees.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure we all sympathise with the woes of noble Lords who are possessed of large estates, and I am only too anxious to help them

  735
  in every way that I reasonably can. The noble Marquess has made a proposal which is, I think, a very helpful one. He is dealing with a case which only happens on large estates, where there is a whole series of settlements succeeding one another. There may be two or three or even more settlements of the same property made by different generations, and a little bit of the earlier settlement is left, and so it continues, and the whole series make up what is called a compound settlement. Of course, every settlement must have trustees, otherwise the land cannot be safely dealt with. The noble Marquess puts forward a case where there are trustees of the last settlement, but no trustees of the preceding one, and in such a case, as the law stands, you must get trustees appointed of the preceding one, or of the compound settlement as a whole, before you deal with the land. That must, of course, lead to delay and expense, and the noble Marquess proposes that in such a case the trustees of the last settlement shall be the trustees of the whole until new trustees are appointed, either of the earlier settlement or of the whole. It seems to me a very reasonable proposal and one which will save time and trouble, and I hope the House will accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

TRADE FACILITIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, there is no new principle involved in the Bill of which I move the Second Reading to-day. Similar Bills have been approved and supported by all Parties in the House. Briefly, this Bill affects two separate schemes—the trade facilities scheme and the export credits scheme. In so far as the trade facilities scheme is concerned the object of this Bill is, first, to increase from£70,000,000 to£75,000,000 the total loans which may be guaranteed; and, in the second place, to extend the period during which they may be guaranteed to March 31, 1927. As far as the export credits scheme is concerned the objects are to extend, first, the time before which credits and guarantees can be given from September 8, 1926, to September 8, 1929;
736
and, secondly, the date up to which these guarantees may remain in force from September 8, 1930, to September 8, 1933. I should like to say, with regard to the trade facilities scheme, that it is expected that on March 31 of this year there will be an unused balance of£5,000,000. That, together with the extra£5,000,000 for which provision is made in this Bill, will leave£10,000,000 available for the year 1926–27.
As your Lordships know, these guarantees are granted on the advice and recommendation of an independent committee, and the principal object of the Bill is to relieve unemployment as far as possible by granting these guarantees for loans, the proceeds of which are used in creating work to give employment to people in this country. The arguments which were brought forward in favour of this Bill obtain now just as much as they did in years past—namely, that there is a very large amount of unemployment in the country at the moment, that there is very serious depression in trade, and that there is altogether a lack of industrial enterprise. I think it is generally admitted that these guarantees have served their purpose. They have been of considerable value—exactly how much is very difficult to say, but they have, up to a point, achieved their object and relieved the situation; and, in addition to that, very small losses have, up to the present, been made with regard to the trade facilities scheme. I think that the same remark and the same arguments may be applied to the export credits scheme. The guarantees under the export credits scheme have proved of very considerable value, and in that case also the losses up to the present have been very small. As far as export credits are concerned under this Bill, there is no intention of increasing the maximum of£26,000,000 which has been made available for use. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, this Bill has been before you each year now for some years, and there has usually been some debate, so I desire to make a few observations to-day. First, I would say that, so far as the passage of the Bill through another place is concerned, I can

737
scarcely remember a measure which was commended to the House by the Government of the day with less enthusiasm. In fact, I think it would be no exaggeration to say that the Bill was regarded by many of the supporters of the Government and, indeed, by the Minister in charge with an almost ill-concealed dislike. The noble Earl in your Lordships' House has treated the matter in a, somewhat different vein and I am glad of it. Why is it that this Bill is so disliked by the Conservative Party? Nobody could read what happened in another place without coming to the conclusion that it was disliked. The reason is, of course, that this Bill in its aspects is very much more in accordance with the principles of the Labour Party and the principles of Socialism than with the principles of the Government of the day. This Bill is a measure of State assistance to industry in the form of guaranteed credit and, therefore, is in principle opposed to the doctrines of laissez faire and unassisted private enterprise which the Government profess but which they are being driven more and more to abandon.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Laissez faire is a Liberal doctrine.
LORD ARNOLD: The noble Viscount says it is a Liberal doctrine, but it is one to which, as I understand, the Conservative Party fully subscribes. Indeed, the intervention of the noble Viscount does not really affect my point, because I do not think I should be wrong in saying that there were many speeches made in another place regarding this Bill—one or two at any rate I think I saw—from the Liberal side of the House, which were by no means too favourable. I say that this Bill is much more in accordance with the principles of the Labour Party than with the principles of the Government. That does not mean that we are satisfied with the Bill. We are not. This Bill does not go nearly so far as we should like, and we have asked this year as we have asked before that in return for the very valuable State credits, which are given in the last resort at the expense of the taxpayers, there should be some participation the assets created. That has been our contention. I say it is a right and reasonable contention. Indeed, there
738
has been no adequate reply to it; but the Government have refused to accede to our views in that respect.
A good deal has been said from time to time in regard to the effect of these Acts upon the national credit and I should like to look at that point for a moment. In so far as under this Act there are created new trustee securities—and the loans made under these Acts are trustee securities—to that extent the competition with existing trustee securities may be, at certain times, and indeed looking at the matter as a whole, may be appreciable. But when we consider the question of the effect upon the national credit from the more general standpoint I do not think that any case of substance can be made out to the effect that these Acts are a serious factor in relation to the national credit.
I would say two things about that. In the first place, the total National Debt of the country now amounts to somewhere about£7,500,000,000, and as these guarantees are extended under this Bill, as the noble Earl said, to a total amount of£75,000,000 so far as trade facilities are concerned, that total amounts to 1 per cent., broadly speaking, of our whole National Debt. That is, of course, a small proportion. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that there is a very great difference between Debt created against which there are no assets and Debt created against which there are assets. If the view is taken that these Trade Facilities Acts increase the National Debt by the sum of£75,000,000—and in a sense that view may be taken—it is vitally important to bear in mind that for every penny of that money, practically speaking, there is value, because assets are created. Indeed, it may be argued, and I think it should be argued, that as new assets are brought into being through the operation of these Acts the national credit is really helped; because credit depends in the last resort upon taxable capacity, and the productive enterprises brought into being owing to these Acts all go to increase the taxable capacity of the country.
Apart from that, there are the important considerations to which the noble Earl referred, particularly the effect which these issues have had in helping unemployment. I did not hear him mention

739
the figure and I do not bind myself to it, but I think it is correct to say that these Acts have been the means of finding employment, so at any rate it has been estimated, for about 100,000 men. That is a very considerable achievement. It is true that on the debit side regard must be had to the losses which may be incurred and which may ultimately come back upon the taxpayer. So far those losses have been extremely small; I think I am right in saying that they have not amounted to more than about£25,000. That, of course, is not a sum to be disregarded in itself; but in relation to the total operations of a. sum of£70,000,000 to£75,000,000 the amount cannot be regarded as of very great moment.
Before I sit down I should like to say a word or two about Clause 2 of the Bill. That clause relates to export credits and prolongs the period for guaranteeing export credits. I am not objecting to that; I support, it. I am not proposing to occupy your Lordships' time with any general discussion of the question of export credits, but I believe it is generally agreed that this export credit scheme has not had the success which was originally anticipated. It has not been availed of to the extent which was hoped and, indeed, which was expected. There are many reasons for that. I will not throw the whole blame upon the Government Department concerned. I do not think it would be fair to do so. But I do not think they are free from blame. Government officials are scarcely at their best in understanding the psychology of business men, particularly the business men of the North—of Lancashire and Yorkshire. These men will not submit to having too many obstacles, too many pettifogging and irritating inquiries and delays in regard to their business transactions. Rather than that they will not resort to the export credit scheme at all, and in a number of cases I am afraid that is what has happened, owing to certain experiences arising out of this scheme.
Again, I do not consider that the Overseas Trade Department, from certain knowledge which has come to me—I am not making this charge in relation to anything like the total transactions—have sufficiently realised in a number of cases that the export credit scheme cannot be worked without certain risks. It was, of
740
course, the very genesis of the scheme that unless there was this Government assistance certain business which might be undertaken would not be undertaken. That was the whole basis of it. The whole idea was to encourage trade in the difficult conditions of post-War unsettlement. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Government should sanction business which is definitely unwise and definitely too doubtful; but, on the other hand, if the attitude is to be taken up, as I am afraid it has been taken up on certain occasions, that very little risk should be run, then the scheme is not being worked as I think it should be worked.
Let me put it like this. Even if, by the granting of these credits, there should be a somewhat higher percentage of ultimate loss than in the case of ordinary business, it could well be argued that on balance this country would be the gainer under the total transactions of the export credit scheme. I do suggest that the officials who administer this scheme ought not to take up too rigid an attitude. I am not blaming the officials for this, because I think the decision rests more, with the Government; in any case, the Government are ultimately responsible. But this is a most important matter of procedure under the Act, and I am referring to the question of export credits for Russia. The noble Viscount says he thought I should come to that. Why should I not get to it? It is a most important matter. If the noble Viscount studied the statistics of the trade that is being done by other countries with Russia—valuable trade that we are not getting—he would not be so ready to intervene in a spirit almost, it seems to me, of levity. The fact is that the economic position of Russia is improving steadily, and the trade which is being secured by some of our competitors is very considerable and very valuable.
There is a further point in this connection, and it is this. Anybody who knows anything about Russian trade in the past—and I have no reason to think that the temperament of the Russian people has changed materially in this respect—knows that they are very conservative, and that once they do trade in certain channels the tendency is for that trade to remain in those channels. We have a great opportunity to supply Russia, particularly with various kinds of

741
textile and agricultural machinery, to a very much larger extent than we are doing now, and we are missing that owing to the prejudice and obstinate attitude of the Government. If we secured that trade it would not be merely the present trade but trade for long years to come, which would be of the greatest value to our manufacturers. That is one thing I have in mind when I say that even if it were the case in regard to some of these transactions that the percentage of loss was greater than in ordinary transactions, it might well be, taking the long view, that they would pay this country and pay it well. This matter has been discussed n another place. The Government remain in their position, as I think, of quite rigid and unfair opposition to this extension of the export credits scheme. Our trade might be increased and our unemployment might he lessened, and this is not being done owing to the attitude of the Government. Consequently our manufacturers and workers at home are suffering. In a general way, however, we on this Bench support this Bill.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, as far as I gathered from the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down its whole object was to indict the Government for not lending money to certain people to enable them to trade with Russia. Russia is a country that has broken all her financial obligations and during the years that I spent in the City I was always told that it was bad business to have a bargain with somebody who had already broken his bargains with other people. Apparently the noble Lord thinks otherwise. May I ask him why the co-operative societies, who have large sums of money and are, I understand, more or less in relation with the Labour Party, do not enter into trade relations with Russia? Apparently it is because they are too wise to do so, and prefer to trade with other people.
I am sorry that the Government have introduced this Bill. I think it is based on a wrong principle. I objected to that principle when it was first introduced in another place some years ago by, if I remember rightly, Mr. Lloyd George, who was then Prime Minister and who, whatever his other qualities may be, is certainly not a financial
742
expert. What is the object of the Bill? Its object is to say to certain people: "You desire to borrow money in order to carry on a certain trade. You do not go to your bankers; you do not go to the public and ask them to provide money; but you conic to the taxpayer and ask him to do so." If it is good business the money can be got from the public or from the banker. If it is bad business then the taxpayer does not want to do it. The only possible advantage is this, that the people who borrow money with the Government guarantee get it rather more cheaply than they would do if they borrowed it from a. bank, or went to the public and borrowed it as an ordinary company. But why should the taxpayer enable certain financial people to make a larger profit? It does not cure unemployment in the least. The money would be found whether the Government guaranteed it or not, always provided that the object was good. All that this Bill does is to enable certain people to obtain their money rather more cheaply than they otherwise would do, and consequently to make a little more for themselves.
The noble Lord who has just sat down said something respecting whether or not these trade facility loans depressed financial credit. It is perfectly clear that the more sellers you have of an article the lower the price of that article will be, and the more buyers, provided the buyers outnumber the sellers, the more the price of the article will increase. I do not absolutely pledge myself to these figures, but I think I am more or less correct when I say that within the next three years something like£1,000,000,000 of money will have to be found by the Government, and, therefore, what they ought to do is to stop all borrowing now so as to leave the market as free as possible for them when they come to renew this£1,000,000,000, or whatever the amount may be.
Instead of that I am sorry to see that they are not only extending the old£70,000,000, but they are talking about borrowing another£33,000,000 for an electricity scheme and, if the Coal Report is adopted, another£100,000,000 to buy the mining royalties. They are going on as if we were a prosperous country with any amount of money and did not know what to do with it. I hope that the noble

743
Viscount, Lord Peel, with whom I once had the pleasure of sitting on a banking board, will endeavour to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he wants to save the country from bankruptcy and wants to restore prosperity, the first thing he has to do is to stop borrowing unless he is absolutely bound to borrow. The next thing is to endeavour to economise on the various Services, which, I am sorry to see, he is not doing, and so reduce the burden of taxation which is killing industry. If taxation were reduced that, to a great extent, would provide a remedy for the evils under which we are suffering.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, perhaps you will allow me to say one brief word in reply to the noble Lord opposite, Lord Arnold. May I first thank my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam for again returning to the charge on the question of economy. I hope he will constantly do so and I can assure him that any suggestions he may make for a reduction of expenditure will always be listened to and most favourably considered by the Government. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Arnold, at the beginning of his speech, said there was not very much enthusiasm for this Bill in the ranks of the Conservatives in another place. He said it was very coldly received and very coldly pressed, and he seemed to think the reason for that was that it was contrary to Conservative principles and inconsistent with the general lines of laissez faire. It is rather interesting to find a great love for laissez faire attributed to the Party to which I belong, because I understood the main credit for retaining those famous words was to be attributed to the noble Earl and his friends on the Liberal Benches.
In the last few years, when I have had the honour of introducing on other occasions Bills for the safeguarding of industry, it has generally been the charge that we have not been sufficiently devoted to the principle of laissez faire rather than any undue addiction to it. But there is, of course, a much more businesslike and matter of fact reason than that why measures of this kind are disliked by the Conservative Party. It is because they are signs that trade is still bad and that there is still a very large number of unemployed, and it is because of that
744
that the State has recourse to these—palliatives shall I call them?—trade facilities and export credits. Everybody wishes, except perhaps the noble Lord, to see this state of affairs in industry done away with, because it would be a sign of growing development of trade and of the possibility of letting trade take care of itself.
The noble Lord referred to State participation in assets created. I am not sure what particular participation he desires to see by the State, or what assets he considered were created, but the great advantage which the State gets from this, apart from the question of Income Tax on profits, is the reduction in the number of unemployed and consequently a less call on the State for provision for the unemployed. Obviously, the whole scheme fails unless the number of unemployed is reduced and unless employment is given. My noble friend behind me dealt very sensibly with the question of the effect on national credit. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, seemed to think it did not very much matter how large were the loans issued, provided, as he said, there were some assets behind them. I do not think a general proposition of that kind would commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who must have, as the noble Lord behind me said, in the years before us very large schemes of conversion and these schemes must be affected if any amount of trustee securities, or securities in the nature of trustee securities, giving a higher income exist in which people can invest their money.
There was another criticism, which I think was rather unfortunate, about the number of officials under the Export Credits Acts. It is precisely not officials who decide What bills shall be guaranteed. Of course, the Board of Trade must be ultimately responsible, but the business is entrusted mainly to a committee of bankers and business people who are most competent to decide when credits should be allowed. My noble friend behind me seemed to draw too sharp a distinction between what he called good and bad business. There is a sort of intermediate business, which is neither good nor bad, and my noble friend's mind rune on rather too rigid lines in that connection, because all these suggestions for raising credits and for the Government guarantee come through the banks and as they come through the banks

745
it is pretty obvious that if they are good business, or quite good business, the banks may very likely take them up themselves. Then they are passed by this committee of business men.
I think the test really of whether they are good or bad business is what are the losses that have been incurred. As my noble friend the Earl of Plymouth said, the losses are really quite small on this export credits scheme. It is true that full advantage has not been taken of it. My noble friend is perfectly right in saying that the full value of£26,000,000 has never been taken advantage of, and as regards export credits I think they have never gone further than about£5,000,000. But it is a revolving credit and the amount of business cannot be measured by merely stating the amount outstanding at any one time. The noble Lord opposite wants to increase, I think, the amount of export credit and he wants also to increase the risk. I said some words in reference to Russia. If I may say so to the noble Lord I really did not intend him to hear them. I used them sotto voce but the noble Lord's ears are so keen that he heard. I did say that probably we should get to the question of Russia sooner or later, and I will only say one word on that. The noble Lord opposite attacked the Government most vigorously for its extraordinary stupidity and blindness when other countries were doing business with Russia and said we were losing great opportunities. We are not losing any opportunities at all. Nobody prevents anybody in this country doing business with Russia. All these great societies, whatever they may be, trade unions or co-operative societies, can invest their money in Russia if they wish.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: They know better.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is a very remarkable thing that they do not do it. Although politically and outside on the platforms they share the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, when as good business men they sit round a table and consider where to put their money, for some reason—whether it is due to business or political prejudice I do not know—they do not put money in Russia. There is a deeper reason arising out of the economic condition of Russia itself. The noble Lord opposite asks why not grant these
746
credits in Russia. Perhaps it might be done if there were any traders in Russia, but there are not. The people who would get the credits would be the Russian Government because the peasants and the Centrosoyus are only another expression of the business facet as it were of the Russian Government. What you would be doing would be to grant further credits to people who have already declared that they are going to repudiate their debts. Does the noble Lord really suggest that that should be done? Does he think the business position of this country has been built up by giving credit to people who have repudiated existing debts? If he does think so, I confess I do not think the noble Lord is very deeply acquainted with the history of the successful business career of this country. However that may be, I support a Bill of this kind because, unfortunately, it is still necessary and because, unfortunately, there is still a large number of unemployed. I think it is possible that some further decrease in the number of our unemployed may be brought about through the action of this Bill, although certainly I should be glad to see the whole of the Bill swept away because that would mean a return of trade and prosperity to this country.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committe of the Whole House.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, this Bill is required to confirm an Agreement between the Treasury and the Ministry of Finance in Northern Ireland. I do not think that it is necessary for me to go into the details of the Agreement at any length, but I will try briefly to explain its objects. The underlying idea is that Northern Ireland, so far as unemployment insurance is concerned, should be in a position to maintain the same rate of contributions and benefits as prevails in this country. I think your Lordships will agree that this is an eminently desirable object, for, at the time of the passing of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the Government of Northern

747
Ireland made it perfectly clear that they felt that the Act should in no way have the effect of depressing their social services.
The Act of 1920 made unemployment insurance a Transferred Service, but it was not believed at that time that any financial difficulties would arise in connection with it. As a matter of fact, ever since that time the position in Northern Ireland has gradually been getting relatively worse compared with that in this country. In 1925 the percentage of insured persons unemployed in the two countries was, in Great Britain, 11 per cent., and in Northern Ireland, 23·9 per cent. Taking another figure as an example, up to September 30 last year the loans made by the respective Exchequers to their respective Unemployment Insurance Funds were, in Great Britain,£7,935,000, and in Northern Ireland,£3,614,000. Your Lordships will see that these figures are out of all proportion, and it is quite clear that, if matters were allowed to rest where they are, Northern Ireland would have to cut down the benefits paid under its insurance scheme very drastically indeed.
The first object of this Agreement is to keep the two Funds at parity for the period from September 30, 1925, 0 March 31, 1926, and for the four succeeding years, and this is to be done by additional payments, if necessary, from the Exchequer of the country in which the poorer Fund exists to its Unemployment Insurance Fund. After that there is an equalisation payment from one Exchequer to the other, but I think I should point out here that this contribution is to be calculated, not on the total of the insured population in the respective countries, but on the basis of the total population, for the simple reason that the percentage of insured people in Northern Ireland is smaller than in this country and it would therefore be obviously unfair to this country if the calculation were made on the basis of insured people only. In addition, as a recognition of the fact that each country keeps an independent control over its unemployment insurance system, it is stipulated in this Agreement that only 75 per cent. of the sum required to equalise the charge per head of population will be paid over from one Exchequer to the other.
748
I really do not think that it is necessary for me to go into any further details. The net result of the whole transaction is that the contribution of the British Exchequer for this year will be about£680,090. It is very difficult, owing to the uncertain industrial conditions, to say at all accurately what will be the position in the future, but the contribution from the British Exchequer for the year 1926–7 has provisionally been fixed at£875,000, and it is hoped that it will not exceed that sum in any succeeding year. I should add that, in order to safeguard the British Exchequer against an unlimited liability, the Northern Irish Government have undertaken that, should the contribution from the British Exchequer exceed the sum of£1,000,000 in any one year, the Imperial Government shall be free, with out any question of breach of the Agreement, to re-open the question upon its merits. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, the noble Earl, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, did not stress the financial commitments involved, and, indeed, I scarcely think that any of your Lordships listening to him, who might not be familiar with the provisions of the Bill and with the White, Paper that has been issued in connection therewith, would realise that the effect of this Bill is extremely likely to be a cost to the British taxpayers of between£4,000,000 and£5,000,000 With commendable discretion the noble Earl avoided giving that impression, but I will supply the deficiency because I think that the facts about this Bill ought to be fully known.
The noble Earl said that in the current year the cost to the Exchequer of Great Britain would be£680,000 and that it had been estimated that in the following year the cost might be£875,000. He did not tell your Lordships that the cost in the following three years as well is likely to be about£875,000 per annum, and may indeed reach£1,000,000. Even on the basis of£875,000 for four years, with the addition of£680,000 for the current year, the costs come to over£4,000,000, and, if the item amounts each year after the current year, as it may do, to£1,000,000, the total will be nearly£5,000,000. More-

749
over, there is a clause in the Agreement, to which the noble Earl referred, under which, if the liability, supposing it were all discharged by this country, were to come to more than£1,000,000, then the matter is to come up for review; and I have no doubt whatever, having regard to the fact that the Government have on this occasion given way to Ulster that they would give way again, so that the ultimate cost might, indeed, be distinctly more than£5,000,000.
This Bill is only another example of the propensity, I might almost say the practice, of his Majesty's present advisers to settle their difficulties by a cash payment at the expense of the taxpayers of Great Britain. Sometimes it is a cash payment and sometimes it is a gift, as in the case of the Italian Debt settlement. But whether it is a cash payment, or, in effect, a gift, it is a very expensive matter for the British taxpayer. Thus it comes about that under the present Government—and I shall have a word or two to say about its professions of economy in a moment—the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at his wits' end for money. Of course, the Government always has a defence for its extravagances that is satisfactory to itself. In the present case the defence is the hardships of Ulster. We in the Labour Party are not unmindful of the hardships of Ulster, and I shall have a word or two to say about that in a moment, but, whatever may be said about the hardships of Ulster, the broad fact remains that this request, or a request for money in connection with Ulster's Unemployment Fund, has been made to the British Exchequer for years and has always hitherto been refused. It was refused by Mr. Baldwin in 1923 when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer; it was refused by Mr. Neville Chamberlain when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer; it was refused by Mr. Philip Snowden when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer; and it now falls to this present Government, with all its vaunted professions of economy, to accede where, on three or four separate occasions in the past, the request has been refused. The present Government has given way, and thus it is that we have this Bill which, as I pointed out, may cost the taxpayer£4,000,000 or£5,000,000, or even in certain circumstances more than that.
750
We in the Labour Party are not unmindful of the hardships of Ulster, and we recognise that owing to exceptional depression in her two main industries—shipbuilding and linen—the Unemployment Fund of Ulster has run into debit to a very large extent., and we are quite willing to assist Ulster in that dilemna. But what we have proposed, and surely it is most reasonable, is that these millions should not be given to Northern Ireland out-and-out, but should be lent to Northern Ireland as a loan, so that when the good days come again for Northern Ireland, as no doubt they will come, this money that we have advanced, and which we can very ill afford to lose, and which this Bill is going to lose altogether, may be returned to us.
There is an extremely good precedent for this proposal in what is happening in regard to our own Unemployment Fund. Our own Fund in this country is in debit. It ran into debit at one time to the extent of£17,000,000. Happily, that sum has now been reduced. and stands at between£7,000,000 and£8,000,000, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not then come to the House of Commons and say: "Well, here is this Unemployment Fund not doing well, the conditions are worse than were anticipated, and I propose that we pay the money out of the taxes, in order to put the matter right." Not at all. What happened was that our own Unemployment Fund went into debit and the money was borrowed at 3 per cent. interest. All we propose is that exactly the same procedure should be followed in regard to these millions which are now to be given to Northern Ireland. No adequate reply has been given to that contention. No adequate reply can be given to it, because it is so right and proper and so in accordance with what is happening in this country.
I say, then, that the attitude of the Government is one which is open to great criticism, and it is specially open to great criticism in view of their professions about economy and their professed desire to retrench. This is not the occasion—I wish it were—for a general debate on the question of economy, but the time will conic, and come within a few weeks, when we shall have an opportunity here of reviewing that whole problem in detail. It will

751
then be very easy to show, I am sorry to say, and to prove to within five places of decimals, what a hollow mockery the Government's professions as to economy are, and how tragically the Chancellor of the Exchequer has failed in carrying out the policy of retrenchment which he put before the country last year, and which the noble Marquess opposite supported, and how completely falsified have been the expectations which the noble Marquess held out a short time ago. When that opportunity for debate comes we on this side will undoubtedly take it.
I think the attitude of the Government with regard to this Bill is singularly unfortunate in view of the mean and shabby way in which they have retrenched on the social services, health and so on, and propose to raid the benefit funds of the health societies of the workers. That brings into very disagreeable and ugly contrast the attitude of the Government in regard to this Bill and towards the proposal we have put forward that this money should not be given but lent to Northern Ireland. I have no hope that the economists in this House will get up and support our proposal. I know that the Bill will be passed on to the Statute Book. I am sorry Lord Banbury is not in his place. He has a reputation for being an economist, which, as I have said before, is not very well based, because his only idea of economy is to cut down schemes for benefiting the working classes, and when it comes to spending money on the fighting Services the more money that is spent the better he is pleased. Still, if he were in his place he might have given some support to our proposal, which is so right and reasonable in itself.
I hope, although this Bill will pass, that the Government, before they bring forward another Bill, as they may be tempted to do—for instance, if the million mark should be exceeded—will then pay more attention to the proposal that the money should be advanced and not given. Meanwhile this Bill will go on the Statute Book as another tribute to the extravagance of the Government and another proof that under this present Administration we are not going to have any real economy at all.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I am quite unable to understand the
752
heat which the noble Lord has put into his speech. I am not going to follow him into the realms of economy. It is really quite irrelevant on this Bill. I think this is a matter of elementary justice, and the noble Lord has not denied the contention that it is only right and fair that Ulster should not suffer in her social services as a result of the Act of 1920. I do not think the noble Lord disagrees with that contention. The only suggestion he has made is that this money should be lent and not given to Ulster. I think he is labouring under a certain misapprehension. The suggestion seems to imply that the whole of the deficiency of the Ulster Fund is to be made up in this way. That is not so. All that is being done is that these equalisation payments are being made to wipe out only the excess of the deficiency over the amount which may be proportionate to the British Fund's deficiency, which is a very different thing. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HYDE PARK TRAFFIC.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question of which I have given Notice—namely, whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the various suggestions which have appeared in the Press for removing the railings on the east side of Hyde Park, and permitting heavy traffic to use the road over the Serpentine; and what is their attitude towards these proposals.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, there are, of course, several proposals besides those that appear on the Paper for diminishing the amenities and reducing the pleasure which now people take in Hyde Park, but I will deal, as he has suggested them, with the two which appear on the Paper in the Question of the noble Earl. I think it will be generally admitted that no one would wish either to diminish the area of Hyde Park, or to reduce the amenities, until some overwhelming reason for doing so were given.
I would like to examine whether any such reason has been given, but first of all let me point out that these proposals

753
would entail considerable expense. Take the Serpentine, for instance. I understand that in order to leave that road open for heavy traffic the road itself would have to be largely relaid, and the present bridge over the Serpentine would have to be greatly strengthened. It would, of course, be impossible to leave the Park entirely open all night, and obviously, if you were going to leave that road open for all kinds of traffic, it would not do to have the road closed at eleven or twelve o'clock at night. It would he necessary, therefore, to bring another set of railings—and it is very difficult to find railings which are in themselves very beautiful things—along the whole of the east side of that road. I am not giving very accurate figures, because they are only a kind of general estimate, and might be a good deal exceeded, but I am advised that the price of carrying out these alterations would be something like£200,000.
As regards the east side of the Park, the proposal, I understand, is that the east road should be thrown open to general traffic. At present lighter traffic goes down the road, and the heavy traffic goes down Park Lane, and I am told by the Ministry of Transport that that arrangement is thoroughly satisfactory. Well, if this proposal were carried out, you would, of course, take away the present railing on the east side of the Park, and, in order to allow the Park to be closed at night, you would have to move that railing on to the west side of the east road—I presume carrying it a little beyond the roadway where people walk at present. This clearly would entail having a rather large series of gates constructed, one over the south road, one over the road going to the Serpentine, and one over the north road where it turns away from the Marble Arch. Further there would have to be a certain number of openings for pedestrians, who otherwise would not find it easy to get into the Park. The whole of the east road would again have to be remodelled for heavy traffic.
In addition to that considerable changes would have to be made in the entrances to the Park itself. You would have to alter the gates on the north side, and you would also have to find some new opening out of the Park at Hyde Park Corner. You would have three alternatives. You might buy and remove Apsley House, and come out in that
754
way into Piccadilly, or you might entirely alter or remodel—if you are sufficiently a Philistine to do so—the present arches through which traffic now goes; or, if you did not decide to do that, you would have to pass round the north side of these arches, and come out at a very inconvenient place for traffic somewhere opposite St. George's Hospital. All that would cause a very considerable amount of traffic, and, in addition to that, you would have to leave the strip between the Hyde Park road and Park Lane, I presume, as it was dedicated to general traffic, in the hands of the local authorities. I am not at all sure that the local authorities would appreciate having the extra cost thrown on the rates. Anyhow, the area of Hyde Park would in that way be diminished, and the extra noise, smell and general stress from all the heavy vehicles and traffic would further invade the Park and diminish its amenities.
I have consulted my hon. friend the Minister of Transport as to whether, from a transport point of view, there is any reason for invading the Park in this manner and diminishing its pleasantness, and his advice is that it is totally unnecessary on the score of traffic requirements. In these circumstances I trust that your Lordships will give me every support in resisting proposals of this kind, made by Philistines who apparently want to diminish the amenities of the Park and curtail the pleasures of the people.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for the very reassuring speech which he has made on behalf of himself and of the Minister of Transport. Those are the two chief Ministers concerned, and I am glad to think that I need not pay too much attention to the recent vivacities of the Home Office on this subject. May I occupy two or three moments of your Lordships' time in commenting on this proposal? It seems to be assumed that new roads provide the only remedy for our transport difficulties. That really is not the case. It is not by any means the sole remedy, and one remedy which, no doubt, is bringing itself into being naturally, but which should be stimulated, is the removal from our roads of the slow-going traffic. Were this slow-

755
going traffic, which has always had an inclination to keep as near the middle of the road as possible, eliminated and replaced for business purposes by mechanical traffic, the increased user of the road would in some cases automatically multiply by 50 per cent, if not more.
In the second place, may I say a thing which is no doubt very old-fashioned, perhaps very stupid—that, in my opinion, speed in itself is not a final ideal? It is very useful when you have to catch a train, it is no doubt useful when you want to send for a doctor, but writers, speakers, and thinkers on the problem seem to imagine that speed in itself is an ideal which must be pursued and maintained at any cost. In that relation it is worth bearing in mind that notwithstanding all the congestion in London to-day, which, judging from newspaper correspondence, you would think amounted really to a serious national crisis, the speed with which you can move from one end of London to the other is more than twice as great as it was twenty years ago. That is a striking fact which, I think, must be taken into account by those who wish to run these new roads all through our towns, all through our parks, and all through the country. I am not at all sure that, commercially speaking, the value of the speed thus attained is worth having. I think that, if there were a little less speed attained in meeting engagements needless engagements would not be made, and the business men would give much more attention to the subject-matter of the really important meetings they have to attend.
Then again, I think that the new roads can be over-rated commercially. It is assumed that if you plank down a new road you are doing something which is good for the commerce of the country. I am not at all sure that that is the case. I am not at all sure that the volume of commerce justifies the expenditure
756
upon these roads, and certainly some of these roads are being monopolised to-day by "scorchers" and those who use the roads for professional trials of motor cars. I will make one final observation, strictly in reference to this proposal to take a slice off the Park. Speed is very necessary, but in my opinion speed in a huge metropolis like London must not be purchased at the expense of the health and the repose of the community. Every slice you take off Hyde Park throws back the area of repose so many yards and removes from the Park so many acres and to that extent is a direct diminution of the health and the repose of the community. We have in central London the most remarkable series of urban parks in the whole world. Nothing in France, nothing in Germany, nothing in the United States can approach them; because here they are central; elsewhere, as in Dublin and at Edinburgh, they are on the outskirts of the city. They are a. most precious asset of the Metropolis and I rejoice that the First Commissioner of Works should have spoken so strongly in their defence.

PETROLEUM BILL. [H.L.]
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Petroleum Acts, 1871 to 1879, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at half past six o'clock.