Lords Sitting of 4 December 1928

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, with reference to the Bill which your Lordships have just read a first time and to the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which I hope your Lordships will read a second time to-day, I propose, with your Lordships' consent, to ask the House to sit on Monday for the next stages of those Bills—that is, the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and the Second Reading of the Public Works Loans Bill. I hope your Lordships will consent to that course.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, might I ask the noble Marquess whether that will be the only business that we are to sit for on Monday? There is a question which will arise, though I do not think it will take any time, on the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, to which I propose to call attention. Is it necessary to have a special meeting on Monday with only those two matters? Of course, we would agree to whatever is convenient to the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As your Lordships are aware, next week is rather full. I do not mean to say that I could not arrange otherwise; but there are reasons which I am quite willing to communicate to the noble and learned Lord if he likes privately why it would be convenient to have a sitting on Monday. If there were any very strong objection of course I would not press it.
LORD PARMOOR: It is quite sufficient so far as we are concerned for the noble Marquess to have made that statement.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, has the noble Marquess considered the possibility of Thursday for the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill? There is very little down, I think, on Thursday. If that was more convenient I do not think the noble Marquess would find any objection.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Am I to gather from the observations of the noble Earl that he wishes to take part in the discussion of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill on the Committee stage?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: What I do not want to do is to be brought to London on that day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We hardly ever can dispense with the noble Earl, but perhaps on that day it might be managed. May I put it in this way—if the noble Earl will satisfy me in private there are strong reasons for not sitting on Monday I will give way, but as at present advised I take it your Lordships will sit on Monday?

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I think it is customary not to discuss this Bill at any length on Second Reading. It is an annual Bill, and it is usual to raise points on the Committee Stage, when the representatives of the various Departments will be here in order to answer any question that may be put. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl and I do not desire to raise a discussion at the present moment, but I think it is convenient at this stage to suggest a point that I intend to raise on the Committee Stage in order, as the noble Earl says, that the appropriate Minister may be here to deal with the matter. If the noble

361
Earl will look at Part I of the Schedule he will see "The Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, Section 1." The result of that is chat whereas the Aliens Restriction Act of 1914 was only to be applied in cases of emergency or of imminent national danger such as war, those words are now excluded, so that it may be put into force at any time. I shall ask on the Committee Stage whether there are any reasons why a provision originally introduced as an emergency provision with the limitations I have stated should still he wanted in a case of ordinary administration. Of course, if it is not necessary for the purposes of ordinary administration it undoubtedly takes away one of the causes which may, and do, raise friction between this country and other countries.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, in moving that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, may I say in two words that the Amendments I have put on the Paper are accepted by the Institute of Architects, and that they are nearly all inserted to meet the wishes of the Institute of Civil Engineers and the Surveyors' Institution. Several of them are purely drafting Amendments, and only one has any question of substance at all and that is rather small.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I wish to say to my noble friend that, though the Government have not put down any Amendments to the Bill, I do not want him to think that we preclude ourselves hereafter from taking another course. On the Third Reading perhaps an Amendment, may be proposed. I do not think it is of very great importance, indeed I believe it to be a minor matter, but I should not like my noble friend to think because there are no Amendments put down now that we were not keeping it open to ask him on Third
362
Reading, if we desire to do so, to agree to a particular Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Persons entitled to be registered without examination.
(3) For the purposes of this section there shall be appointed annually an Admission Committee consisting of twenty-four persons, one to be nominated by each of the twelve bodies specified in the Second Schedule to this Act and twelve persons to be appointed by the Council, of whom ten persons shall be members of the Institute, one person shall be nominated by the Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, and one person shall be nominated by the Ulster Society of Architects (Incorporated). The Admission Committee shall continue in existence for such period as may be necessary to deal with questions arising under subsection (2) of this section.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved, in subsection (3), to substitute "eleven bodies" for "twelve bodies." The noble Earl said: The Surveyors' Institution desired to have their name removed from the Second Schedule of the Bill—that is, the Admission Committee. The name was inserted with their consent, and I believe at their instance, originally. Now they desire no longer to serve in that capacity. I accordingly move that the word "twelve" be left out and "eleven" inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39 leave out ("twelve") and insert ("eleven").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "twelve persons" and insert "thirteen persons." The noble Earl said: This is consequential in the sense that it provides an alternative member for the member who would have been ruminated by the Surveyors' Institution.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 90, leave out ("twelve") and insert. ("thirteen").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 42, after ("the") insert ("Surveyors' Institution, one person shall be nominated by the").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Council to prescribe future qualifications for registration]:
LORD DANESFORT: May I ask my noble friend if he has considered the question which I raised on the Second Reading of this Bill, as to the body who had charge of the arrangements for, and the conducting of, the examinations which an architect will have to pass before registration. Examinations are not very pleasant things as some of your Lordships who have had to submit to them know very well. I agree that in this case a proper examination is absolutely essential, but I hope that the examination will be strictly appropriate for the purposes for which it is conducted. My doubt, which I expressed on Second Reading, is whether the body—I am not quite sure how many compose it—is the best body that could be set up in order to arrange for these examinations. Perhaps my noble friend can tell me now whether he has considered the point which I raised, and whether it is quite certain that proper Committees are possible of this very large body which is mentioned in the Second Schedule and that these Committees will be sufficient in number and in quality to deal with the very important matters which will be committed to their charge.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It is impossible, naturally, for me to predict what course will be followed by a Committee which, as my noble friend rightly points out, is very large. It consists of fifty individuals nominated by various bodies. But it is quite clear that the Board of Architectural Education, set up in the First Schedule under Clause 6 of the Bill, is already invested with large powers and considerable discretion. The Bill gives that Committee discretion as to time and place and very largely as to the nature of examinations. Under those conditions I am advised by my friends who are learned in the law that this body is empowered to appoint Sub-Committees to which it is authorised to delegate its responsibilities. There is nothing in the Bill to say so; there is nothing in the
364
Bill to say that the Board of Architectural Education shall keep minutes; but those rights are inherent, I understand, in Committees set up in this fashion, and once Parliament begins to lay down that such and such a body shall keep minutes, or that such and such a body shall have the right to appoint sub-committees, you begin to make a schedule of rights and powers which, as I am told, is most undesirable because probably you will leave out something and later on the discretion of the Committee may be there by fettered. That point, therefore, I hope is satisfactorily dealt with.
As regards the other point, nobody likes examinations, but I am confident of this, that certainly as regards architectural education the tendency nowadays is to ensure that there shall be great disparity of method and style of education. So much the better. There is no uniformity, there is nothing in the nature of stereotyped examinations, and I hope that that will be maintained by the Board, because I am sure that disparity of education in these artistic as well as in these constructional matters is a very excellent thing. I hope that on these two points I may have reassured my noble friend.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Use of title.
11. Any registered person shall be entitled to take and use the name or title of "Registered Architect" or any style containing the words "Registered Architect," but a person shall not practise in Great Britain or Northern Ireland under any name, title, or style containing the words "Registered Architect," unless he is a registered person, and any unregistered person who so practises or wilfully pretends to be a registered person, or takes or uses the name or title of a Registered Architect or any name, title, style or description implying that he is a registered person, shall on summary conviction be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds for the first offence and one hundred pounds for every subsequent offence: Provided that, subject to the provisions of this section, nothing in this Act shall prevent any local authority or person performing any act or operations in connection with the construction of buildings which such local authority or person was entitled to perform prior to the passing of this Act: Provided also that nothing in this section shall affect the validity as between contracting parties of any act of any person under any customary form or conditions of a building contract.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved to leave out "or any style containing the words Registered Architect'" The noble Earl said: I move to omit the whole of the last line of page 5 of the Bill because the words are tautological and are covered by the words at the top of page 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 41, leave nut ("or any style containing the words Registered Architect'").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved, in the first proviso, after "local authority," to insert "corporate body." The noble Earl said: I move to insert these words at the request of the Institution of Civil Engineers. They think that the words rather extend the scope and therefore it is an Amendment which they are anxious for your Lordships to accept. I accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 13, after ("authority") insert ("corporate body").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL or CRAWFORD THE EARL or CRAWFORD moved, in the first proviso, before "the construction," to insert "the design or." The noble Earl said: This is the only Amendment in my name of any interest or substance of all those that I have to move to-day. The Bill, in line 14 on page 6, speaks about the performance of "any act or operations in connection with the construction of buildings." The Institution of Civil Engineers have suggested that the wording of the proviso should be extended to introduce the word "design," so that if this Amendment is accepted it will read "design or construction of buildings." It certainly is an extension of the rights conferred on the Institution of Civil Engineers and other similar bodies, but as it is not one to which architects or their Institute object, I suggest that your Lordships should accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 14, after ("with") insert ("the design or").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved, in the first proviso, after "buildings," to
366
insert "of a nature." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 14, after ("buildings") insert ("of a nature").—(The Earl of Crawford)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 15, after ("authority") insert ("corporate body").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Saving for other bodies.
19. The provisions of this Act, other than the provisions of the section of this Act of which the marginal note is "Use of title," shall not, unless he is a registered person, apply to any person who is or may at any time hereafter he a professional member of the Institution of Civil Engineers or is a professional member of any of the bodies specified in the. Second Schedule to this Act, or of such other professional body as may from time to time be approved by the Council or to any person when performing any of the duties or functions connected with any office held by him under ally public or local authority or to the department of any undertaking the head of which is a registered person: Provided that nothing in this section shall operate to prevent a professional member of any body referred to in the said Schedule, or of such other body as may from time to time be approved by the Council from being registered under this Act if he is duly qualified for registration under the provisions of this Act.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved, after the first "person," to insert "or has made application to the Council for registration under Section five of this Act." The noble Earl said: I have put down several Amendments to this clause at the instance of the Surveyors' Institution and the Institution of Civil Engineers. The first Amendment which I move gives a right of appeal which otherwise, I am afraid, would have been omitted from the Bill. It is not a very important point, but it brings it into conformity with the other part of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 30, after the first ("person") insert ("or has made application to the Council for registration under Section five of this Act").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved to leave out the first "professional" and to insert "corporate." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is intended to deal with a technical oversight. "Professional" is not the correct word as defining membership of the Institution of Civil Engineers. It should be "corporate."
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 31, leave out ("professional") and insert ("corporate").—(The Earl of Crawford)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved, after Institution of Civil Engineers," to insert "or of the Surveyors' Institution." The noble Earl said: This is to make it correspond to the Surveyors' Institution.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 32, after ("Engineers") insert ("or of the Surveyors' Institution").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD had given notice to move, in the proviso, after "prevent," to insert "any person who is or may be at any time hereafter a corporate member of the Institution of Civil Engineers, or." The noble Earl said: May I have the permission of your Lordships to add at the end of the Amendment on the Paper the words "of the Surveyors' Institution, or." That extends the Bill to corporate members of the Institution of Civil Engineers or of the Surveyors' Institution who may hereafter desire to be registered.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 40, after ("prevent") insert ("any person who is or may at any time hereafter be a corporate member of the Institution of Civil Engineers, or of the Surveyors' Institution, or").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved, in the proviso, to leave out the first "body" and insert "of the bodies." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 41, leave out ("body") and insert ("of the bodies").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 42, after ("other") insert ("professional").—(The Earl of Crawford)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: moved to leave out "The Surveyors' Institution." The noble Earl said: Your Lordships have just inserted the name of the Surveyors' Institution in Clause 5, and it is therefore unnecessary to include it in the Second Schedule.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 20, leave out ("The Surveyors' Institution").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I find myself to-day in the fortunate and unusual position of making a Motion for the Second Reading of a Bill which, I understand, is entirely non-contentious, and I shall therefore tell your Lordships in the fewest possible words what its object is. In the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, Section 16 provided for compensation for disestablishment or worsement of employment under, or in consequence of, operations or schemes under the Act. There was a provision that the workmen to whom this should apply must have been permanently employed in or about the undertaking at the date of the Act—that is, May 8, 1919. This provision was, no doubt, an unusual one, and I need not detail all its history, but it was, I suppose, then assumed that schemes would not take more than two or three years, or at the outside four years, to mature and develop. They have, in fact, taken very much longer, and it has come to a position where men who have nine or ten years service are not eligible for compensation because of the provision fixing the date at May 8, 1919.

369
That difficulty has already been felt, and in 1926 an attempt was made to overcome it by including in the compensation Provisions words to the effect that Section 16 of the Act of 1919 should apply to—
"Any officer or servant who before the closing, acquisition or imposition of the restrictions was regularly employed by any authorised undertakers"
following the date of the Act, and this was supposed to be satisfactory. It has since been found, as was apparently not anticipated when this was thought satisfactory, that this provision can apply only to schemes authorised under the Act of 1926, so that the mischief caused under the Act of 1919 is still left unremedied. The Bill to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to-day is designed to put this right. As your Lordships will see, it has only one operative clause, and that clause merely provides that in the original Act of 1919 the words "before the said eighth day of May" shall be omitted wherever they occur in Section 16.
I think your Lordships will appreciate that this matter is non-contentious from the mere fact that the Bill has reached your Lordships at this early period of the Session, after passing through all its stages in another place. I understand that no opposition is offered to it on behalf of the Government because it is regarded as merely putting different classes of employees in the same category and removing what was felt to be an injustice. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Russell.)
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, before your Lordships decide to give a Second Reading to this Bill I should like to raise one or two questions regarding it. The noble Earl who has just sat down mentioned that he thought that the Bill was non-contentious and that it passed easily through another place. The fact of the matter is that the electricity companies had really no opportunity of dealing with this Bill. This is an amendment of a Government Bill that was debated at enormous length in this House. I do not know whether the Government now intend to support it, after having opposed similar provisions on two occasions through Cabinet
370
Ministers. I understand that this Bill was read a first time in the House of Commons on November 13. It was read a second time on November 21 and, being a Bill which, as the noble Earl said, cannot be amended, no Amendments were put down and the Bill was hurried through Committee and Third Reading on November 29. It has now come up here for Second Reading and no real consideration has been given to it.
So long ago as 1919, when a similar point was brought up in the Standing Committee, the Home Secretary said that it was intended to deal with people who were employed before May 8, 1919, and continued to be employed since. That was a known date, which was put into a public Act of Parliament. Now a Private Bill comes along to provide for anyone who has gone into this industry since 1919, and apparently to hang round the necks of the companies for years to come a provision that anyone who goes into the electricity industry must be compensated by Act of Parliament if he is affected by authorities being taken over or by amalgamations. This seems to me a most extraordinary thing to do. The Home Secretary said in 1919:
"If they went, into the employment since that date, they went in with their eyes open."
—the date being May 8, 1919. Then again, with regard to a similar proposal in 1925, the Minister of Transport said that he could not possibly accept it, and he used these words:—
"The people before May, 1919, were probably put in a worse position, and it is right that they should be compensated, but those who came in with their eyes open, under new conditions, when the Act of Parliament was in operation, knew exactly what was going to happen, and it would be putting an unfair burden upon the industry to do this. These people are really not entitled to it. I am sure the Committee has shown itself very sympathetic to the claims of the staff and the wage-earner."
The Government, through their Ministers, have said on previous occasions that they are not prepared to accept this proposal in a Public Act, and if a Second Reading is given to this Bill to-day I propose that a very long period should be given, since no Amendment is possible, before the Third Reading, so that your Lordships may consider whether you would be pre-

371
pared to vote for the Third Reading of the Bill "on this day six months," rather than pass it in such a hasty manner.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, a very far-reaching principle is being introduced in this Bill. It appears to have passed through all its stages in two sittings in another place without a single word being spoken in favour of it, and it has been sent to your Lordships' House. My attention was called to its provisions only this morning, but it seems to me to be a Bill of a very far-reaching character and I hope that your Lordships will hesitate before you give it a Second Reading. Accordingly I am prepared at once to propose that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
This Bill, as the noble Lord who has just spoken has explained, arises out of the Electricity (Supply) Acts of 1919 and 1926, and, as the noble Lord has said, on both occasions the Minister of the Crown in Committee denounced this proposition as being one which could not be justified. Mr. Wilfred Ashley, who was in command of the Bill, pointed out in very distinct terms that it was quite impossible to accept an Amendment of this kind, because it would introduce the principle that a man had to be compensated when he had entered into a service with his eyes open. I ask your Lordships to take a simple illustration. An Act of Parliament is passed and a great many schemes are introduced. These electricity schemes, so far as I know, may go on for years and years, and yet any individual who, after the passing of that Act, is employed in that industry may ask for compensation, and has a right to ask for compensation, if he is disturbed in any way in connection with his work; in other words, the electricity companies in this country will have no opportunity of displacing or altering the duties of any of their servants without compensating them, even although they give them adequate notice.
Suppose they employ an individual at the rate, say, of£300 a year, as an electrician. That man is found is to be quite incompetent to do his work, but he has been employed, say, for two or three years, and he has to receive compensation under the provisions of this measure if he is discharged. Thus a burden will be placed upon that industry, not only in connection with that man, but in connection with any other man who may be em-
372
ployed in that industry and who seeks compensation. An individual like that may easily get£1,500 compensation because he has lost his job. We all are in sympathy with the man who has lost his job through no fault of his own, but that is no justification for compensating a man and placing an obligation upon the employer to pay for the loss of that job to that man, by a lump sum that may be awarded to him. It is an absolutely new principle under our legislation, and it is one which I hope your Lordships will hesitate to adopt.
The position may not be very serious for the particular undertaking, and there may be, for all I know, not a great number of applicants for compensation, but if there is to be compensation because a man is dismissed for inefficiency it is going to put a premium upon inefficiency, because at the present time men go into the electrical industry knowing perfectly well that schemes are going to be imposed. They take the risk in their own case, and if their work is altered, or they are dismissed at any time, they cannot seek compensation any more than anyone else in any other industry. If the obligation is to be put upon the electrical industry to compensate individuals of this kind, it will be equally competent, with very little stretching of the principle, for any individual in any occupation to seek compensation from his employer if he is dismissed. I believe in the absolute liberty of the subject. I believe that the individual workman has a right to be employed where he likes, and to accept what pay may be offered to him. I equally believe that the employer, if he finds an inefficient workman, ought to be able to get rid of him, and if he is not competent to do the work the workman ought to be given notice and no burden should be placed upon the industry in consequence. It is because of that far-reaching principle that I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Gainford.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, when I came down to the House I had no idea that my noble friend was going to take the course which he has taken, but I knew that Lord

373
Askwith was proposing to say something on the Bill. Unfortunately he did not furnish me with any of the questions which he proposed to ask until I reached your Lordships' House. The attitude of the Government in this House is naturally the same as the attitude which they adopted in another place, and it does seem to me surprising that the objections which the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, has put forward so forcibly were not put forward by his friends in another place. I would venture to ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading, and, if the noble Lord feels so strongly about it, on the Committee stage he can move an Amendment, or he will have further facilities later on for taking the course which he is endeavouring to take to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Askwith, has given us quotations in regard to the previous history of this particular measure, which is really only an amendment of Section 16 of the Electricity (Supply) Act of 1919. As to the earlier Amendments that were proposed, I have not had an opportunity of going into them myself, but I would like to point out that an Amendment on the lines of the present Bill was brought forward during the passage of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, and that it concerned Part II of that Bill, with which, for reasons that may be familiar to your Lordships, it was not deemed expedient to proceed, so that the Amendment lapsed at the same time.
The Bill which the noble Earl is putting forward is an amendment of Section 16 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919. That Act laid it down that employees who had suffered loss by reason of loss of employment etc., could only claim compensation if they had been employed in the undertaking before the eighth day of May, 1919. I think your Lordships will realise that this might quite easily lead to the exclusion of equitable claims, and the proposed amendment which is embodied by the noble Earl in this Bill removes the qualifying date of May 8, 1919, and thus enables employees to claim compensation for disturbance under, or in consequence of, the Act of 1919, provided they have been regularly employed in or about the undertaking. The Electricity (Supply) Act of 1926 states the principle that genuine employees, whatever the initial date of employment, may prefer claims
374
for loss of employment in consequence of the operation of that Act. Therefore I venture to say to your Lordships that the Government are taking no objection to the Bill put forward by the noble Earl, are taking perhaps I might say a benevolent view of it, and are willing that it should pass into law, provided the electricity undertakings themselves are willing to undertake the liabilities which the Bill may involve.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I do not know whether to be glad or sorry that the two noble Lords who have spoken have deprived me of the opportunity of being engaged in a non-contentious matter. In one sense a contentious air is what I am rather more familiar with, but I had hoped to establish a record to-day. Before we finish with this stage of the Bill I think I ought to put one or two matters right. The noble Marquess opposite, speaking for the Government, has, I think, corrected some of those misapprehensions. The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, seemed to suggest that it was impossible to deal in the ordinary way with your servants—that you could not discharge them for incompetence. Nothing of that sort happens here. The employer has a complete right to get rid of a man if he thinks he is no good, or for any other reason. All that the principal Act, which we are now amending, provides is that where, owing to an electricity scheme under the Act, certain men are squeezed out of their places by the amalgamation, they shall receive compensation. That is a principle which, as the Bill was introduced, applied to directors and people in receipt of large salaries, and it was thought at that time not inequitable that it should apply also to those in receipt of weekly wages. That is the only compensation that is given. It has nothing to do with anything like permanent employment or a right to be employed—the men can be dismissed in the ordinary way: but if a good servant is employed and loses his job, through no fault of his own, because of an amalgamation under the Act, then, and then only, does he become entitled to compensation under this scheme.
As to the suggestion that there was no discussion on this matter, I ought to say that there was a long discussion on the Second Reading in July of last year on this same Bill, and after that discussion

375
the Bill passed in another place without a Division. So that it cannot be said that the other House did not know what it was doing, or that this Bill passed through inadvertently. The reason why it passed quickly this year was that was fully discussed and the principle was assented to last year. I am glad to think that at any rate I was right in saying that it was not contentious so far as noble Lords opposite are concerned, and that I have their support to-day.
On Question, Amendment disagreed to: Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

VOLUNTARY BOARDERS AT PUBLIC ASYLUMS.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST asked His Majesty's Government whether they will in the present Session introduce legislation to enable voluntary boarders to be received into public asylums. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I may perhaps remind you that there are three classes of institutions that provide for the treatment of the insane. There are the licensed houses, more commonly known as private asylums, and registered hospitals, and these two cater for those who are persons of reasonable means—some with comfortable means; then there remain the public asylums, which cater for the poorer class of patient. The first two can receive what we call voluntary boarders; that is to say, patients who feeling themselves in danger of mental disturbance volunteer for admission to those institutions. But with two exceptions, which I will mention later, public asylums cannot receive voluntary boarders, and in that respect the poorer classes are placed in a very disadvantageous position compared with that of their more wealthy neighbours.
It is five years since the Mental Treatment Bill of 1923 passed all its stages in this House, and it contained, with, I think, complete approbation, a provision which would have remedied this injustice. It is two whole Sessions since the Royal Commission on Lunacy reported, and reported in favour of this change, and I may perhaps be allowed to
376
two passages from that Report. One, on page 45, is as follows:—
"The evidence given before us indicated conclusively the need for remedying this omission,"
and, referring to the Mental Treatment Bill of 1923, the Report contains this passage:—
"The reforms to which it is directed are long overdue."
I limit myself to advocating the adoption of this single reform for three reasons. In the first place I realise that Parliamentary time will not admit of any extensive reform of the lunacy law; in the second place, I believe this proposal to be entirely non-controversial, and I feel considerable confidence in this on account of the attitude taken up by my noble friend Lord Russell when he raised the subject more than two years ago, and I think I can rely upon it that his friends, as a Party at any rate, will not offer any opposition to the suggestion that I make: and, lastly. I believe it to be the most urgent of the reforms indicated by the Report of the Royal Commission. Another reason I have for putting it forward now is that the political future of next year is somewhat obscure, and we may have interposed yet a further delay in lunacy reform, which is now, as I have said, long overdue.
The principle is not a new one. It is in force in Scotland. In Scotland the public asylums are able to receive voluntary boarders; and in this country, by Private Bill legislation, the London County Council obtained power to entertain voluntary boarders in the wards of their Maudsley hospital as long ago as 1915, and, since the Mental Treatment Bill failed, owing to the Dissolution of 1923, the City of London has obtained similar powers to receive voluntary boarders in their present hospital or in any other hospital they may establish for mental patients. The powers in the latter Bill were granted almost in the same terms as those suggested in the Mental Treatment Bill. There can be no difficulty of draftsmanship, because the matter is all cut-and-dried. The necessary language will be found in Clause 2(3) and Clause 5 (1) of the Mental Treatment Bill, 1923, and further precedents are afforded by the Private Acts of Parliament to which I have referred, and parts of which will

377
be found in Appendices 13 and 13 a of the Report of the Royal Commission.
When this matter was raised before by my noble friend Lord Russell, it was pointed out on behalf of the Government that several reforms suggested in the Royal Commission's Report were such that they could not be dealt with apart from the question of Poor Law reform. Now that observation does not really apply to this suggestion that I make. The private enactments to which I have already referred show that it is a matter which can quite easily be dealt with piecemeal and by itself. But it may be possible for a clause to be introduced in the Local Government Bill which is now being discussed in another place. In this connection perhaps I may say it was with very great satisfaction that I read that the noble Earl, who had charge of the Mental Treatment Bill in this House and who made himself thoroughly acquainted with the whole business and knows well the necessity for the reform for which I ask, is going to have the conduct of the Local Government Bill in your Lordships' House.
With your Lordships' permission I should like to read a short, extract from a speech made recently at the Public Health Congress by Mr. H. P. Macmillan, who was Chairman of the Royal Commission on Lunacy Reform. He is reported to have said that—
"When he first approached the problem which came before the Royal Commission he was impressed by the cardinal defect in the existing law, that prevention was better than cure, and how this doctrine had not been recognised. He had no secrets, but he was hopeful of legislation. There was no legislation which would be more beneficial and bring more happiness to those who had suffered than an Act of Parliament which would throw open the doors of our mental hospitals to those who desired to avail themselves of their treatment."
I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Paper.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, in rising to support the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, I am not quite so sanguine as he in thinking that legislation may be introduced this Session; but I hope that something may be done in regard to this matter. It cannot be too strongly urged that the best chance for the early recovery of a patient suffering from
378
mental disease is the earliest possible diagnosis and treatment. Once the disease has progressed so far that certification is necessary the chance of recovery is infinitely more remote. It is fair to say, I think, that in this country we are very much behind the rest of the world as far as the early treatment of cases of mental disease is concerned. In America they have the great Phipps Clinic at Baltimore. There are similar institutions at Utrecht and other places on the Continent, while the Zurich Hospital is world famous. Under the Lunacy Acts, as the noble Lord has pointed out, local authorities in this country are empowered to deal only with certified cases. The only hospital which can accept voluntary boarders is the Maudsley Hospital of the London County Council, which, by private legislation, has been able to do that, not since 1915, but since 1923. This Hospital was the first of its kind to be established to deal with early cases of mental disorder, and that some provision of this sort was very necessary has been shown by the fact that the demand for beds has greatly exceeded the supply and that there has been such pressure on the out-patients' department that it has been practically impossible to cope with it. The enlargement of the Hospital is very likely to take place in the near future.
Apart from the benefit to the patients themselves, the system of allowing voluntary boarders in mental hospitals will be of great benefit to the medical profession. It will enable observation to be made of cases possessing unusual scientific interest and will do a great deal to bring together the treatment of cases of mental disorder and ordinary general medical practice which now, I am sorry to say, are somewhat widely separated. Although it is rather early yet to draw conclusions from the statistics obtained at the Maudsley Hospital, the figures show that of the cases admitted to that hospital many more recover than of the certified cases which go to the ordinary mental hospitals of the London County Council and other institutions. On the score of economy as well as of humanity I would urge that some such legislation as is proposed should be introduced very soon. It is far more economical to cure these infirm people at the early stage of their disease than to wait until they are certified and

379
then allow them to drag out a dreary existence in some mental hospital as well as being a continual burden on the rates.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I am glad to welcome to your Lordships' discussions of this subject a new recruit who is interested in mental treatment. The noble Lord who introduced this subject has, of course, quite a special and extensive knowledge of the matter. I acquired perhaps a more diffuse but even wider knowledge of it in my two years on the Royal Commission in which, I think, we had before us either collectively or singly practically the views of every alienist in the country. This is really a matter both of humanity and of common sense. All those who are interested in this matter, the late Chairman of the Board of Control, the whole of the medical profession who have to deal with it, all those who administer asylums, have their hearts really wrung all the time by realising that there is in the country a large class of persons mentally unstable, and becoming more mentally unstable, for whom there is no treatment available until they reach the final stage of certification.
It is unlike any other disease. You are practically, in the present circumstances, unable to treat it in its initial stages and in the stages where you might prevent it ever becoming the subject of certification. All of us on the Royal Commission were tremendously impressed with the weight of this evidence, and I hope that the Government's spokesman, even if he does not make a very favourable answer, as, indeed, he did not when I addressed your Lordships on this subject some two years ago, will say that some thought will be given to accepting even this one very simple proposal which is now put forward by the noble Lord. The well-to-do are able to obtain from private doctors, or from private asylums, treatment as voluntary boarders under the voluntary system before they are certified. The only place where the poor can obtain adequate treatment of that character is the county asylum, and the doors of the county asylum are now closed to any one who does not come there with a certificate of insanity; that is to say, such asylums cannot take in and cannot treat people in the early stages, however much they
380
may wish to do so. I told your Lordships before, and I think it is worth repeating, that we actually had evidence of people who had said that they wished to go there and be treated but they could not go, and had to wait until some months later they got worse and were taken there as certified lunatics.
So much for the side of humanity. Now let us look at the side of common sense. If you can avoid certification, if you can arrest mental disease at an earlier stage and turn the person out a sane citizen and useful worker it is surely all to the good of the country. It reduces the upkeep of asylums, it will reduce the total certified population, and it is really a measure of sound economics. It is a very small matter, but I cannot help thinking that either by a single-clause Bill, which I do not think would meet with much opposition from any quarter, or, as is suggested, by a mere amendment to that very voluminous Bill which is now being dealt with in another place and which I can quite understand there may be hesitation in further encumbering, or in some other manner this subject could really be dealt with in this Session of Parliament. I appeal to the Government to do what everyone who knows about these things is most anxious to see done, and what everyone feels it is folly not to be doing—to start at once by giving the opportunity for voluntary treatment to those who feel that they are ready to submit to it, and who by that treatment may be saved from the much more expensive and much more troublesome compulsory treatment afterwards, which by the stigma of certification sometimes destroys their chances in the world when they are released after cure and their chances of remaining cured. I only rose to impress upon your Lordships the fact that this is really a matter of very considerable importance.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, you have listened to speeches from two noble Lords who are peculiarly qualified to deal with this question. The noble Lord who raised the matter has very great experience, and my noble friend opposite [Earl Russell] served upon the Royal Commission and has great experience and knowledge of the subject. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, mentioned the fact that

381
the Royal Commission reported some two years ago and issued a very comprehensive Report upon the whole matter. It is certainly the hope of the Government to lay before Parliament a measure to deal with certain aspects of the recommendations of the Royal Commission and to deal with the subject as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, the noble Earl opposite and also my noble friend behind me expressed the hope that it might be possible to deal with the subject separately, but there are considerable difficulties in bringing in a Bill dealing with one side only of the question, and dealing with it separately. We feel that the proper way of dealing with this important matter of lunacy and mental disorder is by treating it as a whole under one Bill.
EARL RUSSELL: Hear, Hear. Two years have passed.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will come to that in a moment. The noble Earl suggested, if we did not bring in a one-clause Bill, that we might introduce some addition to the Local Government Bill. I dare say your Lordships have studied the White Paper which was issued to accompany that Bill on the First Reading, and those of you who have done so will see that the Minister of Health stated that the reason why certain recommendations of the Commission regarding lunacy law were not dealt with in that measure was that it was proposed to deal with the whole matter separately. That being the intention of the Government, it would, I venture to think, in spite of the weighty arguments which have been brought forward by noble Lords, be inconvenient to deal with this question of the admission of voluntary boarders into public mental hospitals separately. Although this question is a very important one it is only one of those which were before the Royal Commission. Another very important consideration was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and it is this. At the present stage in the life of Parliament, with the numerous commitments that the Government have, it is impossible to bring in a comprehensive Bill dealing with the whole of this subject. If you deal with one part of it, it is difficult to see why other parts should not also be dealt with. Although I am afraid I cannot give a satisfactory answer to what
382
noble Lords have asked me in regard to dealing with this matter in the present Session, I can say that the Government hope to introduce a Bill dealing with lunacy and mental disorder as soon as possible, and when that is done I can give an assurance to noble Lords that provision for the admission of voluntary boarders into public mental hospitals will certainly find a place in the Bill.
The noble Lord alluded to the Mental Treatment Bill of five years ago which I had the honour of introducing to your Lordships. The noble Lord opposite, Earl Russell, has supported this proposal of voluntary boarders, and I think, judging by the experience we had at the time of the Mental Treatment Bill, that this particular proposal of the Royal Commission is likely to meet with support from all sides of your Lordships' House. In order to indicate to your Lordships the importance which His Majesty's Government attach to this question, I would like to quote what was said by my right hon. friend the Minister of Health. In another place a short time ago, he said—
"I fully realise the great importance of improving the facilities for early mental treatment; and, as I have frequently stated, I hope to be able to take the necessary action as soon as it is practicable to introduce legislation."
We regard extended facilities for the treatment of incipient mental trouble as one of the most important features to be included in any lunacy legislation, and though, for the reasons I have stated, we are unable in the present Session to introduce legislation as suggested, the matter will certainly be dealt with when a Lunacy Law Reform Bill is introduced, and we hope that such a measure may be brought before Parliament at no distant date.