Lords Sitting of 24 April 1929

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
SALFORD CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.

NITH NAVIGATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Nith navigation; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

BRAUNTON AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1929.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Londonderry, I beg to move that the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on March 26 last be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 26th of March last be approved.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WARRINGTON ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1929.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Londonderry, I beg to move that the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday be approved.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MIDDLES-BROUGH EXTENSION) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MERTHYR TYDFIL WATER CHARGES) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, this is the last opportunity of making some remarks in a broad sense upon this Bill which, as a matter of fact, has been most inadequately discussed. I propose to occupy your Lordships' time for a few moments in calling attention to certain of its vices, as we hold them to be. It is a Bill which has aroused intense opposition in Scotland, which after all is the country concerned. I do not think that can be denied. So strong is the opposition which it has aroused that I am informed that it is probable that not more than a handful of Tory members from Scotland will straggle back to Westminster after the General Election. The fact is that the Bill contains nearly every fault that a Bill can contain. It is grossly inequitable in its derating provisions as between one part of the country and another, and it will certainly lead to administrative chaos, so much so that it is already being said by men of all Parties in Scotland that the Bill simply cannot stand in its present form and that before long amending legislation will be necessary.
146
I will confine myself to three points, the important points in the Bill. The first has to do with the change which this Bill makes in the education system of Scotland—an absolutely complete change in the whole education system. At the last General Election not one elector in 10,000 or even 50,000 had the slightest idea that anything of the sort was going to be done. There is no mandate for this Bill and no demand for it. The Bill, so far as education is concerned, abolishes the ad hoc system in Scotland which has worked extremely well. It hands over to the county councils and four large cities the education system of Scotland. The county councils are already shockingly overworked and the Government, recognising that it is impossible for them to discharge these very important and onerous duties with anything like their present personnel, have inserted provisions for co-option which are quite undemocratic and which do not really meet the case, because a considerable number of men who have served on Scottish educational bodies hitherto—men who have made it almost their life work apart from their ordinary vocations, some of the ablest education experts in Scotland—will not agree to be co-opted members. They will not go on the new bodies and in many cases the new bodies will be bereft of the advice and help which they require. There is really nothing in the point, which has been made in the endeavour to justify this change, that it brings the administrative and financial control of education under one authority. I dealt with that on the Second Reading.
I want to call attention to a fact which I really think ought to receive some attention in your Lordships' House. This very important matter of education has so far received, I think, discussion in this House totalling in all possibly about fourteen or fifteen minutes. Very important points were put in Committee about this change in the education system. Not a syllable of reply was made from the Government Bench. You cannot in a deliberative Assembly conduct any kind of discussion properly in that way. I say we have a right to have important points replied to. Not the smallest attempt was made from that Bench to meet the points although every one was a point of substance and worthy of a long discussion. That is the way in which a Bill like this is treated in your Lordships' House.

147
I come to the second point, which has to do with the transfer of health services from the small burghs to the county councils. That is also a vital matter. The management and control of the health services of the small burghs is to be taken away from them and given to the county councils. There was no mandate for this, certainly no demand for it. I pointed out in the cases of Rothesay and Oban the chaos which it would lead to, how extremely unfair it would be to those who had been doing work in the past, and how it was bound to make the service less efficient, in the interests of health particularly in Scotland owing to the geographical difficulties which obtain. This has even been admitted by the Government, I think, in another place, up to a point. Here no reply is made at all, except that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that the Bill is bringing the matter into conformity with modern experience. As a matter of fact, that is not so. This provision is not in the English Bill. If that is the principle, why do you not make it uniform? I pointed out that in England there are 400 small communities (with a population of less than 5,000 each) which have left to them still the control of the health services. When I suggested for Scotland a limit of 10,000—and even then I said not in every case, because so fair was my Amendment that it was still left in the power of the Scottish Office, if it was considered desirable, not to accept that part of the Amendment—there was no reply, except that the noble Earl said that my Amendment was not in conformity with the principle of the Bill. That is what we complain of. It is the principle of the Bill that is wrong. You cannot rebut opposition by saying that certain proposals which themselves are most reasonable are not in conformity with the principle of the Bill until you can justify the principle of the Bill, which has certainly never been done in any of these debates.
I pass to the last point, roads, and here I hope I may get the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, because he has an Amendment down on one of these points. I pointed out that this Bill is imposing a very unfair burden on the small burghs in respect of the maintenance of county roads. The truth is that there are in the 178 small burghs at the present time about 350
148
miles of classified roads and in the county 8,390 miles of classified roads. That is the present position. Under this Bill these small burghs are called upon to bear part of the expenditure on the whole of the roads in the county. The estimated derated value of the burghs is £4,863,000. The estimated derated value of the counties is £6,147,000; but the Bill actually increases the liability of the small burghs in respect of roads to the amount of twenty-four times over the standard year. But there is no proportionate assistance coming to them from the Treasury grant. That is the point. In respect of the small burghs an aggregate population of rather less than 800,000 will have to pay 6d. per head for the cost of the county roads, as against 4d. per head from the county ratepayers. And this is made all the worse because the cities—might I have the attention of the noble Marquess on this point? It is a very important point.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I was consulting my noble friend with regard to his speech.
LORD ARNOLD: Perhaps the noble Marquess will be good enough to follow this and the very important points which are coming on. The point here is, what is the justification for imposing upon these small burghs this additional burden on the ground that people living in the small burghs also use the county roads, when no part of this burden of which I am now speaking is imposed on the cities and the large burghs which have an estimated valuation of £20,000,000 and a population of over two and a half millions? How can you justify that? Do not they use the county roads? Their population is more than three times that of the aggregate of the population of all the 178 small burghs, and yet under this Bill they are not to contribute to this expenditure of which I am speaking. The small burghs are to have this very heavy burden put upon them. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, says that if he accepted my Amendment it would not be in conformity with the principle of the Bill. Again I say it would have been no justification for the principle of the Bill and I really cannot admit the case which was put forward with some generality of that kind. Why

149
is not some attempt made to answer or rebut the figures put forward? If the figures are right, as I believe them to be, the case as a matter of fact is unanswerable.
What is the truth about this measure, this indefensible measure as I hold it? There has been no demand for it. Its unpopularity in Scotland has been evidenced in many ways including the by-elections. I think there have been two by-elections in Scotland since this Bill was introduced. In those two by-elections the poll of the Government candidates has declined by between 30 and 40 per cent. Nothing like it has ever been known in the history of by-elections. If the General Election were to follow that proportion there would not even be a handful of Tory members straggling back to Westminster. There would not be sufficient to fill a first-class carriage. That is roughly the position. Yet noble Lords opposite, the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, and the noble Duke said there is no evidence that the people of Scotland are against this, that and the other. I believe that the feeling against it will be evidenced in a very marked way on May 30.
What, then, is the truth about this Bill? I have been trying to get some kind of theory as to why such a measure has been put forward in this way, and I think I have managed to evolve one which is really in accordance with the facts. I believe the truth is that the measure originated in the mind of, the Minister of Health in this country. He has almost a mania for this county control. He has torn up many of the most valuable provisions of our English system of local government. Not content with that, he insists on forcing his ideas upon a country with which he has nothing to do really except in a very general way. He forces the Secretary of State for Scotland to do his will. The fact is that the Minister of Health is becoming, and if he is allowed to go further—happily he will not—he will become, a sort of little Mussolini. This Bill has been forced upon Scotland under pressure and the Secretary of State for Scotland has had to give way; this hotch-potch measure has been produced and not a properly thought out plan to meet the difficulties. I say that literally the Bill is and will be intensely unpopu-
150
lar. From that point of view we have no right to complain; but we do complain and we criticise it strongly from the point of view of the best interests of the Scottish people, and we make our protest.
I could prove to you, if I had time, that this Bill was forced through the House of Commons under the "guillotine" and that some of the most important matters were really not discussed there at all. It certainly went through your Lordships' House without any adequate discussion, and I can prove that. I have already said that about fourteen minutes in all were spent upon this vital matter of changing root and branch the whole education system of Scotland. As regards the transfer of the health services, I think the discussion in all took also about a quarter of an hour. The truth is that your Lordships are not interested in these matters. You are not interested in education and you are not interested in health services. The Prime Minister stated the other night in his broadcast speech that the matters about which his Party were most keen were education and health. We do not find that that is so in your Lordships' House. It is a matter of common knowledge that if a Motion about education is placed on the Paper there is hardly anybody here, and there is not the slightest interest taken in it.
If it is some question about salmon there will be a long debate. There was a long debate on the salmon question in connection with this Bill. Noble Lords were very eager and keen, and the Government was defeated and had to give way on the point. That is the truth. Again, noble Lords were very keen when there was a chance of depriving Labour members of an opportunity of serving on county councils, and they very nearly defeated the Government. If they had been able to prevent assistance being given to enable Labour members to serve on the county councils they would have felt that their day's work had not been wasted. When it comes to the really vital parts of the Bill, the great matters of fundamental importance to the whole of the people of Scotland, discussion is practically non-existent. We know that the Bill will go through; but I say that it is a Bill introduced without mandate,

151
without a demand for it and without justification, and that it is being passed without proper discussion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, you have listened to a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, of a type with which, I am sorry to say, we have become familiar, in which the noble Lord—being, as I greatly regret, in a small minority in this House—thinks it suitable to scold your Lordships' House and noble Lords who have a great deal more experience and, may I say, a great deal more knowledge than himself in relation to public questions. I do not know whether the noble Lord really thinks that by making speeches of that kind he recommends himself or the Party to which he belongs to your Lordships' House, or whether he thinks he will be more likely to be successful in persuading your Lordships to take his view. If he will allow me to explain, as a member of your Lordships' House who has sat here for a great many years, that attitude towards your Lordships' House is almost certain to result in failure, even if the noble Lord had much more argument to back what he says than he has. That kind of action is almost certain to excite opposition, and I think justly so, in your Lordships' House. That is not the way, to use his own phrase, to deal with a great deliberative subject. You have to persuade, you cannot scold people into taking your view. I will leave that part of the subject.
As to the result of the by-elections, it is, of course, the experience of all Governments that by-elections have a tendency to go against the Government of the day. If you take the whole number of by-elections which have taken place in this Parliament I think your Lordships will agree that there has been on the whole a very remarkable result, and that on the whole the Government have maintained their position in the country. But the noble Lord need not be worried about it. He will have an opportunity, of which I am sure he will avail himself, of addressing numerous electioneering meetings throughout the country, and no doubt he will address them in the same sort of tone as that in which he addresses your Lordships. He may be able to persuade them, though I think it is unlikely, to support the
152
candidates that he is good enough to help. In any case the question as to which Party really has the confidence of the country will be more adequately settled than by the assertions of the noble Lord.
The noble Lord said that we had no mandate for this Bill. I do not quite understand the extent to which noble Lords sitting on the Front Opposition Bench are going to extend the doctrine of mandate. Are we to be told that the two Houses of Parliament are not entitled to submit and pass into law Acts of Parliament unless they have been sanctioned by the electors? If that is the case I hardly see any reason for the continued existence of Parliament. If the object of its existence is merely to put into form decisions which have already been come to in the constituencies, for my part I should have thought that a very much simpler form of Parliament would adequately fulfil the task which seems to be assigned to it. We have never admitted, and it has never been admitted in any constitutional work on this subject in this country, that Parliament is confined in its activities within the limits of what may, according to the phrase, be the subject of a mandate at the General Election. We are here in both Houses of Parliament to do our utmost to legislate for the good order and for the welfare of the country, and if we fail in our duty then, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, which is the governing Assembly, and by whose authority the Government of the day sits, they will be called to account at the next General Election and the country will pronounce upon their conduct. That is the Constitution of this country. This theory of mandate would really hamstring the activities of Parliament. I am quite sure, if I may say so, that noble Lords who belong to the Labour Party will find it extremely inconvenient, with the activities which they intend, if they are obliged to lay every part of their legislative activities beforehand before the electors. They will find that absolutely impossible. That is not the Constitution of this country.
The noble Lord then said that no answer had been given to the questions which have been put in the course of debates upon this Bill in your Lordships' House. I am very sorry if the noble

153
Lord has reason to complain. I seem to have a sort of recollection that I have spoken at much too great a length, and much too frequently, in the course of the discussions, and I was under the impression that I had answered—I certainly tried to answer—a very large number of questions; but I must admit that I was very intent upon answering questions which were put to me by noble Lords from Scotland who understand Scottish affairs rather than by a noble Lord from England who perhaps does not thoroughly understand Scottish affairs. Therefore, that may be the reason why the noble Lord thinks he has cause to complain.
He said, among other things, that the education changes which are contained in this Bill were to be condemned. He said that the system of co-option on an education authority was very shocking. I am surprised he said that, because he does know about England, and the system of co-option in the education administration of this country has been in force for thirty years; certainly it is in force now. On every education committee in the country there is a system of co-option, and not only is it in existtence, but it has worked extremely well. As any of my noble friends who serve upon English county councils know perfectly well, the education committees have worked extremely well, and I have never, in my experience in my own county, ever heard the least criticism of the system of co-option as applied to education. The noble Lord says it is undemocratic. What is the good of those phrases? What do they mean? What does the noble Lord think he means by them? The general system of our administration is democratic. If giving power to an elected body to call into their councils the assistance of others whom they know to be experts were undemocratic, it would condemn absolutely the democratic system of government. Such a system would be mere folly, because we should then lay it down that the people who are elected are not to ask those who understand the subject to come and help them in arriving at their decisions. I am quite sure that in his more careful moments the noble Lord himself will realise, if he will allow me to say so, what nonsense such an observation is.
154
As regards the health services, those which are transferred in this Bill from the small burghs to the counties are, I believe, very much like the health services which have hitherto been enjoyed by the small authorities in the English case and have been similarly transferred to the larger authorities. In the same way as regards roads, there is really no objection, as far as we can understand, to the system under which the small burghs will contribute to the county roads. They use the county roads. Why should they not contribute to their cost? "Oh," says the noble Lord, "but the large burghs use the county roads, why should they not contribute to their cost as do the small burghs?" The counties, conversely, do contribute to the upkeep of the classified roads in the small burghs, whereas the large burghs undertake the care of the classified roads themselves. That is the distinction between the two cases, and that is the reason why they are differently treated under the Bill.
I do not believe in the least that this Bill has the weight of public opinion against it which the noble Lord tried to make out. There was, of course, opposition to the Bill in the House of Commons, but my impression is that on the whole, after the enormous number of concessions that have been made by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and his colleagues, and after the discussion had been completed, the opposition which was left to the Bill was not really of a very keen character. There is no question that the general system under which we get rid of the small authorities and promote the jurisdiction of the larger authorities is in the direction of true progress. That is the policy of His Majesty's Government whether it be in England or Scotland, and in this Bill, which I am asking your Lordships to read a third time, is the method by which we desire to carry it into effect.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should not have intervened if it had not been for some remarks which the noble Marquess has made. Whatever may be his view as regards speeches made to the House from the Benches on which I sit, I should have thought that he would have agreed with me that the method of scolding the particular Peer which he

155
adopted was most uncongenial to the spirit of this House, and that scolding of that character can never take the place of substantial and real argument. Even if it was my noble friend's fault, and he was led away—I do not admit that—I was disappointed that so experienced a member of this House, one to whom undoubtedly we all look for guidance in what we should do in this House, should, instead of endeavouring to answer the arguments brought forward by my noble friend Lord Arnold, have assumed the attitude of a scolding schoolmaster to a boy at the bottom of the fifth form.
There is one point on which I agree with him. I do not want to go on with the discussion in the somewhat angry form that has been adopted. I agree that as regards the Scottish Bill the per sons immediately concerned to consider these questions would be the Scottish Peers, and I recollect making that statement at an early stage of the Scottish Bill. We on this side have in the main adhered entirely to that view. What may have possibly confused the noble Marquess is that the discussions on this Bill have largely been in the hands of Scottish Peers. Those numerous speeches, to many of which I listened with admiration and to some with doubt, were in a very large number of cases addressed to his own Back Benchers, and not merely to his Back Benchers but, in particular, to Scottish Peers. We recollect that the noble Viscount, Lord Novar, was not apparently entirely in favour of this Bill, and the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Younger of Leckie, moved Amendments which I think to a large extent were adopted. I do not find any fault with that—probably it is right; he is a wise man in matters of this kind—but why should we be abused, we who sat quietly to a great extent, because the noble Marquess found himself attacked by his Back Benchers and had to take a very strong attitude in trying to persuade noble Lords to vote with their Party? I recollect a very critical Division in which the votes were equal. We contributed to the support of the Government. He has not shown any gratitude for that. If it had not been for our support he would have been defeated, and defeated on a very important
156
point in my view—defeated on the question of properly providing for poor people attending these central bodies.
Then the noble Marquess referred to the question of mandates. When one has heard political speeches for forty years, one knows, of course, that the word "mandate" is used with a variety of meanings, but the constitutional principle is that where a mandate has been given no one denies that the Government, either in this House or in the House of Commons, has full authority if it has the necessary majority to carry through any particular legislation. That is common ground. But what is always discussed, and always will be discussed, is whether, if you really believe in representative institutions, Parliament is entitled to carry through a matter ipso facto of great importance although the electorate has never been consulted at all. I should like to remind the noble Marquess of speeches in which he has stated that it was the right of this House to bring a matter before the electorate if there was no mandate for a measure passed in another place. How often has he made that statement? He has made it a defence of this House that we are here to see that, where there is no mandate, legislation is not forced upon the people of this country without some proper opportunity of expressing their views. He has said that again and again. I do not want to quarrel with him about it, but that is the actual fact.
As regards other matters, I only want to say one or two words. Scottish education is a system of its own in my opinion. I think the Scottish people have had greater advantage from their education system than any other people in any part of the world. Not only have they had that advantage, but they have made splendid use of it. If you go abroad, particularly in engineering and shipping circles, you find Scotsmen with the advantage of education holding fine positions such as they are entitled to hold, but which they could not have held without having had the advantage of the Scottish education system. I was going to say that centuries ago (although probably that is too long) the poorest Scotsman could find his way to a Scottish University. I do not believe myself that Scottish education will be improved by this Bill—I believe the ad hoc prin-

157
ciple is best—but whether that is so or not will have to be decided by future experience.
I do not desire to re-open questions of that sort, but there is one other matter upon which I should like to say a word. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, to draw attention to the cost which was thrown on small burghs in respect of, I do not know whether I ought to call them unclassified roads, but in respect of the roads for the repair of which they will be responsible. I do not know whether the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, is going to move the Amendment which he has placed on the Paper, but if he does press it, we shall support him, of course. I do not think the noble Marquess gave any answer to that. It is an important point. He says he thinks public opinion is with him in Scotland. I do not want to upset his placid opinion on a question of that kind, and I am certainly not one who will prophesy, but I do hope that he will not adopt towards junior members of your Lordships' House, like my noble friend and myself, that scolding attitude which will never persuade us, although in his more kindly attitude we always try to support him whenever we can.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 2:
Transfer of functions to county councils.
2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act there shall be transferred to and vest in the county council of the county—

(a) all the functions of the district committees of the districts within the county;

(b) the functions of town councils of small burghs within the county as local authorities for the purposes of the statutory provisions set out in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act;

(c) the functions of the town councils of small burghs within the county as highway authorities so far as relating to classified roads;

(d) all the functions of the commissioners of supply of the county;

(e) the functions of the town council of any burgh under the Burial Grounds Acts and the Cremation Act, 1902, exercisable in respect of any area outwith the burgh and within the county or with respect to any churchyard so far as situate outwith the burgh and within the county vested in the council in pursuance of section thirty-two of the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Act, 1925;

158

(f) the functions of the town council of any large burgh under the Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages Acts so far as relating to any area outwith the burgh and within the county.

(2) It shall be lawful for the Secretary of State by order to transfer to the county council of a county the functions of the town councils of the small burghs within the county as local authorities for the purposes of any statutory provisions (other than those set out in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act) relating to the matters specified in Part II of the said Schedule.
(3) Where after the commencement of this Act any road vested in the town council of a small burgh becomes a classified road, the road shall thereupon become vested in the county council of the county in which the burgh is situate and the whole functions of the town council as highway authority so far as relating to the said road shall be transferred to and vest in the county council, and the Secretary of State shall by order make any provision which may seem to him necessary for the equitable adjustment of any liabilities of the town council relating to the road.
(4) The county council may without prejudice to any provision of the Income Tax Act, 1918, exercise the power of appointing general commissioners transferred as aforesaid from the commissioners of supply, at any general meeting of the council the notice of which meeting has specified the appointment as an item of business.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE moved to add to the clause:—
"Notwithstanding anything contained in subsections (1) (c) and (3) of this section the provisions of Section sixty (except so far as relating to the reconstruction, repair and maintenance of classified roads within the burgh) and Section sixty-four of the Argyllshire Bonds Act, 1861, shall continue to apply within the Burgh of Oban, and the said provisions shall continue to be enforceable at the instance of the town council of that burgh."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to save certain clauses of the Argyllshire Roads Act under which the town of Oban, which is a very important place especially in summer, has control of the management of its own roads throughout the town and can take care that a proper alignment is maintained in the main streets. I do not know whether this Amendment is really a necessary one, but counsel has advised that there is some doubt whether the exact powers under the Argyllshire Roads Act will continue, or whether this clause does not imply the repeal of those powers. I should be glad to have some assurance from the noble Earl on that point. I do not wish to press my Amend-

159
ment to a Division, but it is very important to retain these powers. I hope it may be that they are retained, but I am not sure about it.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 11, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Younger of Leckie.)
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I think this is a rather complicated question and also it is a little difficult to follow because of the drafting of the noble Viscount's Amendment. As his Amendment is drafted, as I read it, Section 60 of the Argyllshire Roads Act would apply to classified roads except in so far as relates to reconstruction, repair and maintenance. That would not interfere with the construction of a new classified road—with, of course, the consent of the Minister of Transport—by the burgh. If that were to be the case, then the county council might oppose the making of such a classified road and they would be bound to maintain it whether they liked it or not. I do not think that is the intention of the noble Viscount, but I only point it out because I think that would be the effect. I understand the intention of the noble Viscount is that classified roads should be excepted and that only unclassified roads should be included. I am advised that the unclassified roads are not affected. The Department has taken advice and that is the effect of it.
As regards Section 64 of the Argyllshire Roads Act, it is quite true that the application of this clause will pass to the county council as regards the classified roads, not as regards unclassified roads. I believe that the necessity for putting Section 64 into operation has not arisen, or at any rate has arisen only on very rare occasions, but, if it does arise in regard to classified roads in this area, it seems right that it should be the county council, as the authority concerned with classified roads, who should have the responsibility of enforcing this section. There is another point which has perhaps escaped the notice of my noble friend. In order that the burgh council may be fully protected in regard to building lines, which the noble Lord mentioned—and these matters too are dealt with in Section 64—I should point out that the powers of the county council under the Burgh Police Act as regards buildings and building lines are not in
160
any way affected in regard to either classified or unclassified roads. That Act is still in force. I hope that the explanation that I have given of this somewhat complicated matter has enlightened my noble friend.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: It has partly enlightened me, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, let me say, before the Amendment is withdrawn, that I do not quite understand why the noble Viscount has put it down and why, if he takes this particular interest in Oban—
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: I was Member for Oban for a good many years.
LORD ARNOLD: But there are other places besides Oban.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: That is why I took an interest in it. The noble Lord was surprised that I had done so, and I thought that I had better explain.
LORD ARNOLD: I am only expressing some disappointment that, in view of his solicitude for Oban, he did not give any support on the general question that was raised to meet the unfair position in which the smaller burghs are put in regard to rates. When I moved an Amendment in that connection I got no support. When he singled out this particular place, for reasons which I think I know very well, I could not help thinking that there are other places, such as Rothesay, about which he has nothing to say. Plenty of other places are put in a very unfair position under this Bill. If we pursue matters further on genuine points we are told that it is nonsense, so I do not think it is much good arguing the matter.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: There is a special Act of Parliament in regard to Oban.
LORD ARNOLD: Yes, and for one or two other places.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Provisions relating to or consequential on transfers of functions]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I have two drafting Amendments to this clause.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 4, after ("members") insert ("or to officers")
Page 6, line 7, after ("members") insert ("or to officers ").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6:
Transfer of property and liabilities of transferor authorities.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, all property and liabilities transferred by or in pursuance of this section shall be held or treated as incurred by or on behalf of the transferee authority for the same purposes and subject to the same trusts, and in the case of property subject to the same debts and liabilities us they were held or incurred by or on behalf of the transferor authority, but, save in the ease of a trust constituted by deed or other writing, any property or liabilities relating to a function transferred by or under this Act shall be held or treated as incurred for the purposes of the function so far as relating to the whole area of the transferee authority: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect the provisions of the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1882, and the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1928, as respects any trust to which those Acts apply.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (2), after "writing," to insert "or in the case of property held for the purposes of the Public Libraries Acts." The noble Earl said: My Lords, my Amendment to this clause is consequential upon the various Amendments relating to public libraries which were put into the Bill on Report. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 12, after ("writing") insert ("or in the case of property held for the purposes of the Public Libraries Acts").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7:
Transfer of officers and superannuation funds.
(2) Any transferee authority to whom a superannuation fund is transferred by or in pursuance of this Act, may, and if required by the Secretary of State shall, frame a scheme with respect to the rights and liabilities of parties interested in the fund, and such scheme may provide for the said fund being merged so as to form one fund with any other superannuation fund of the transferee authority, whether established under the same Act or not, and for
162
any necessary financial adjustments, and may modify or adapt the provisions of any Act of Parliament, rules or scheme relating to any of the said funds, so however that the rights and interests of officers in any such funds shall be adequately protected; and any such scheme shall have effect only subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: My Lords, I beg to move, towards the end of subsection (2), to leave out "have effect only," and to insert "be."
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 14, leave out ("have effect only") and insert ("be").—(Viscount Younger of Leckie.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am told that this is not necessary.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: Very well.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE had given Notice to move, after subsection (3), to insert:—
"(4) Where any scheme under this section modifies or adapts the provisions of any Act of Parliament or statutory rules the scheme shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such scheme is laid before it praying that the scheme may be annulled it shall henceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there-under or the making of a new scheme."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, not quite as it appears upon the Paper, but with the omission of the words "or statutory rules," which appear after "Act of Parliament" in the second line of the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 23, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Younger of Leckie.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Viscount agrees to my Amendment?
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: Yes, I accept the noble Earl's Amendment standing next upon the Paper. I will either move my Amendment in that form or leave it to the noble Earl to move his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it would be more regular if the noble Viscount would allow my noble friend Lord Onslow to move the Amendment in the form in which it stands in his name. My noble friend is probably aware that we cannot change the form of an Amendment on the Third Reading. Perhaps he will allow us to do it in that way.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after subsection (3), to insert the following new subsection:—
" (4) Where any scheme under this section modifies or adapts the provisions of any Act of Parliament the scheme shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such scheme is laid before it praying that the scheme may be annulled it shall henceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of a new scheme."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the reason for omitting the words "or statutory rules," to which the noble Viscount has referred, is that there are schemes, such as the Glasgow superannuation scheme, which do not have to be laid, and therefore you would have to lay the alteration in a scheme which itself would not necessarily be laid before Parliament. Accordingly we prefer the Amendment in the words that stand in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 23, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19:
Consolidated rate.
(4) Every demand note in respect of the consolidated rate shall, instead of showing the amount in the pound of or in respect of each separate rate, show the amount of the expenditure under each of the branches prescribed by the Secretary of State which is being defrayed out of the said rate and grants under Part III of this Act, and subsection (2) of section sixty-two of the Act of 1889 and paragraph (f) of subsection (1) of section twenty-two of the Act of 1926 (which relate to demand notes) shall have effect accordingly.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I have a drafting Amendment to this clause, in subsection (4).
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 2, leave out (" paragraph (f) of ").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35:
Medical Officers of health and sanitary inspectors.
35. On a vacancy arising after the commencement of this Act in the office of medical officer of health or sanitary inspector of a small burgh, the medical officer of health or sanitary inspector, as the case may be, of the county within which the burgh is situated shall ipso facto become the medical officer of health or sanitary inspector for the burgh, and such proportion of the salaries and expenses of such officer as the county council and the town council may agree shall be paid by the town council to the county council, and, failing agreement, as may be determined by the Department of Health.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE moved to insert as a new subsection:—
" (2) Except with the sanction of the Department of Health, no person shall, after the commencement of this Act, be appointed sanitary inspector of a county or burgh unless he possesses such qualifications as may be prescribed by the Department of Health."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this simply restores to the Bill a subsection of this clause which was taken out by mistake. It was intended to delete only a particular subsection. I would merely restore the subsection in the original Bill, as the Government desired me to do.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 9, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Younger of Leckie.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, my noble friend has quite rightly stated the position, and the Government are of course quite willing to accept this provision, which, indeed, formed part of the clause which my noble friend's own Amendment struck out of the Bill. Accordingly we are very glad to see it come back. I should not like my noble friend to conclude from this that we approve of the rest of what he did upon that occasion. I am afraid that we must say regretfully that, although in that respect we have the misfortune to differ from the majority of your Lordships' House, we still do not agree with what he did on that occasion.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: I know that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 75:
Commencement and grants in respect of period beginning 16 th May, 1929.
75. Save as otherwise expressly provided this Part of this Act shall come into operation on the sixteenth clay of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, and as respects the year beginning on the said day there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to every authority levying rates a sum equal to the amount estimated and certified as being the difference between the sum receivable by the authority as the proceeds of rates in respect of the said year and the sum which would have been so receivable had the rateable value of the area of the authority been calculated as if this Act had not passed: Provided that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the amount in the pound of the rates levied by any such authority in respect of the said year has been abnormally increased by reason of charges not ordinarily falling to be borne by rates having been imposed thereon, the sum payable to the authority under this section shall be such as may be estimated and certified as the sum which would have been so payable if the said amount in the pound had not been so increased as aforesaid.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to leave out "out of moneys provided by Parliament." The noble Earl said: My Lords, both this and the following Amendment are required in consequence of the ante-dating of derating of agricultural land announced in another place when the Budget was introduced. By the Amendments which were made in your Lordships' House on the Report stage, provision is already made for the additional derating and for the payment of compensation in respect thereof to rating authorities. All that this Amendment does is to secure, in accordance with the scheme announced with the Budget, that, in so far as the compensation is in respect of the derating prior to October 1, 1929, it shall be paid out of the Rating Relief Suspense Account, under the Finance Act, 1928.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 19, leave out (" out of moneys provided by Parliament ").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 34, at end insert the following new subsection:—
("(2) The sums required for the payments directed by subsection (1) of this section to be made to authorities levying rates shall be paid, to the extent of four hundred and seventy thousand pounds, out of the Rating Relief Suspense Account, and, to the extent of the balance, out of moneys provided by Parliament ").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule:
THIRD SCHEDULE.
Audit of Accounts of County and Town Councils.
14. In the application of this Schedule to the accounts relating to education of a county council or of a town council of a burgh being a county of a city the following modifications and provisions shall have effect:—

(a) References in paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 to the Secretary of State shall be construed as references to the Scottish Education Department;

(b) Notwithstanding anything in this Schedule—

(i) The accountant of the Department may also, by demand in writing, require the production before him of all the accounts of any such council relating to education and of all books and documents which he may deem necessary for the purpose of examining the said accounts, and shall have the same powers as the auditor with reference to requiring the appearance before him of any person, the production of any books or documents and declarations as to the same, and the provisions of paragraph 4 of this Schedule so far as relating to penalties for neglect or refusal or making an untrue declaration shall apply as in the case of a requirement by the auditor;

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved, in paragraph 14 (b), after "Notwithstanding anything in this schedule," to insert "and for the purpose of securing compliance with the Statutes relating to education and the orders, regulations and minutes thereunder." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Onslow. There is no desire to have an independent cash audit. All that is required is the examination of the accounts by the Department itself, in order to see that there is full compliance with the orders. It is in order to secure this that the Amendment is moved.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 8, at end insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: My Lords, I am willing to accept this Amendment in substitution for that which appears next upon the Paper in my name.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, with the Amendments, and returned to the Commons.

C.O.D. POSTAL SERVICE.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH THE EARL OF DENBIGH had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government what progress is being made with regard to Postal Cash on Delivery, and whether fees and charges can be still further lowered in order to encourage a more extensive use of the system, and also to ask why steps are not taken to make the C.O.D. system more widely known to the public; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have on two or three previous occasions drawn the attention of this House to the desirability of encouraging the system of Cash on Delivery, popularly known as C.O.D. At the beginning, of course, there was a great deal of opposition on the part of traders—opposition of a very incomprehensible nature. The big stores seemed to object because they thought it would put the small traders more on a level with them, and the small traders objected because they thought it would divert business to the big advertising stores. However, that opposition seemed to die down a bit, and then the Post Office took courage over the matter and decided to follow the example of most other civilised countries and institute a system of C.O.D. It began in a tentative way, which was more or less experimental, but gave it to be understood that if the system proved a success it would be extended. So matters have gone on, and I am anxious to know exactly what progress is being made, how many parcels have been sent during the past year, if possible, and also what is being done with a view to encouraging the system.
One thing that we are particularly anxious about is that there should be more advertisement of it. I think it is a very simple axiom, in any class of business, that the first thing you have to do when starting anything new is to advertise it. For some extraordinary reason, which I am not able to fathom,
168
the Post Office say that it is not for them to advertise any methods which they have, or it is not for them to advise the British public how it ought to conduct its business or to do its shopping. If they want to make this system popular and to increase their turnover and reduce the cost—the only way in which you can reduce the cost is by increasing the turnover—you have to make it popular and make people understand what it is all about. There is no doubt an enormous amount of ignorance with regard to the convenience attaching to this system of shopping, and what we want the Post Office to do is, for instance, something in the way of franking letters "Shop by C.O.D." That would induce people to make inquiry, such as we saw happen a few years ago, when the walls were plastered with notices telling people to join the Mustard Club. Everybody thereupon set to work to ascertain what was the Mustard Club.
With regard to the argument that it is not for the Post Office to give advice or to advertise its own wares, I have here a document which I have no doubt others of your Lordships have also received, and which was probably sent in with the quarterly telephone bill, which latter, no doubt, recorded the large number of wrong numbers that were given by the young ladies of the telephone service. We get these large bills, and this year we receive with them yellow slips saying, "Make your telephone your telegraph office; send your telegrams by telephone." In other words, they are doing everything they can to encourage people to use the telephone more. To say that it is not for them to advertise their own wares in order to bring home to the people the various conveniences which are at their disposal, seems to me to be an argument which could only come from an official mind, and not one which could possibly emanate from any real business house. I cannot imagine any private business going to the expense of starting some new system, and then shying at the expense or trouble of doing a little advertising, because they think it is not for them to advise people whether they should make use of the system or not. Therefore I particularly wish to ask whether the Post Office will reconsider their determination not to advertise their own conveniences.
Again, we wish them to do something in the way of reducing the fees, which at the present moment are too high. After a considerable struggle we obtained the extension of the system to letters. First of all it was only for parcels, and then we made a great point of asking that it might be extended to the letter post. It was eventually extended to the letter post, but there was what seems to us the rather unnecessary provision attached to it that every letter should be registered. Why should it be registered? Why cannot a letter be sent by C.O.D. and simply posted with a small posting fee, or a receipt be taken? Attaching the expense of registration to a letter or small light parcel going by a 1½d. stamp—some small article like a fountain pen, costing a few shillings—is practically taking away with the one hand what you have given with the other. The result is that the system is not being used as much as it ought to be, and on all sides we hear complaints that the system would be far more utilised if the charges for small parcels and light articles were reduced. After all, nobody connected with this movement has any personal advantage to gain. We are simply doing it in the public interest, and we are strong believers that anything which brings buyers and sellers together is good for business and trade.
Nowadays we use so much machinery for electric light and for motor cars that it is an enormous convenience to be able to get spare parts. Under this system, by sending a telegram to the manufacturers a person living in an out-of-the-way district can get any spare part that he wants by return of post, he can pick it up at any particular place, and he can pay for it there and then. He may not be able to send cash for the article, because he may not know the price, and if he were not known to the manufacturer the latter might refuse to send the article on credit. That is one of the great features of this system and where the C.O.D. is most used—namely, in this question of spare parts. There are many other ways in which it could be extended: for instance, in the matter of agricultural produce and poultry, and in the matter of the produce of small holdings. Also it might be extended and used for the products of our various village industries, and the excellent organisation of Women's Insti-
170
tutes. These latter are extending ail over the country, and everywhere they are teaching the members to make use of their hands and to make goods for themselves and for sale. I have seen excellent scarves and gloves made by these people, and what they want is a market. If they could establish some sort of connection and send their goods out by C.O.D., I think there would be considerable extension.
Further, if only traders would realise that the C.O.D. system would save them an enormous amount of money by their not incurring bad debts, I am sure it would be more widely used. There is much more difficulty in getting small bills paid than there is in getting large bills paid. People will not take the trouble to write cheques for small bills, and they let them accumulate. They have Bills of 5s. or 10 s., and they say, "Oh, I will pay that presently," and they put them on one side. Meanwhile the unfortunate trader, who perhaps has a large sum out in small bills, has to stand out of his money, and has very little redress. If, however, he were able to encourage his customers to order these goods by C.O.D., and the fee were a small one, I am sure the system would be very largely used. Germany is far ahead of us in this matter. The year before the War there were something like 70,000,000 parcels sent, of an average value of about £1, so that goods of the value of £70,000,000 were sent through the post by the C.O.D. system. I have figures also from America, supplied by the office of the Postmaster-General in Washington. In the year ending June 30, 1928, there were 49,000,000 parcels sent and the fees received amounted to 6,207,000 dollars. I would like to hear something from the Government with regard to what is being done in this matter, and I particularly hope that we may get a reduction in the charges, and also an extension in the weight which can be carried. If the facilities were increased, I am perfectly certain that the number of parcels carried would be very largely increased, because in any business it is always found that when you increase the turnover you reduce the costs.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the noble Earl, as he says, has on more than one occasion asked Questions on this subject in your Lordships' House. It is a

171
subject about which he is very keen. He was really, I think, partly responsible for its inception by the Post Office. I see that the last occasion on which I answered him was about two years ago, and since then the system, instead of being confined only to the parcel post, was extended about a year ago to parcels sent by registered letter post, and, in collaboration with the railway companies, to consignments sent by railway. The arrangements for sending Cash on Delivery packets by letter post are identical with those in force for parcels, except that, when the letter post is used, the packets must be registered. The limit of value in each case is £40 for one packet or parcel. It is also possible to send parcels by railway, by a system which is in force, which is also considered to be of great use to the public. As regards registration, which was the subject of complaint by my noble friend, of course it is more expensive than sending with an ordinary three-halfpenny stamp, but, on the other hand, it is cheaper than sending by parcel post, where the minimum charge is 6d. You have the advantage of additional security and speed afforded by the use of the registered post. Under the railway system, the sender has practically no restriction on the weight of his consignment, and he is also able to take advantage of the specially favourable rates quoted by the railway companies for certain commodities.
As regards the growth of the service, the number of packets of all kinds posted during the calendar year 1928 was, in round figures, 1,860,000, as compared with 1,520,000 in the previous year. During the last three months of 1928 the consignments despatched under the arrangement made with the railway companies were 12,346. My noble friend asked about the possibility of reducing the fees, but I am afraid that at the present moment my right hon. friend the Postmaster-General does not see his way to do that. The revenue from the service just covers the cost, and there is at present no margin to admit of any reduction of the fees. The financial position, however, is kept under review, and the question of reducing the fees will be considered whenever the circumstances warrant this step.
As regards advertisements, my noble friend pressed that point two years ago,
172
but I am afraid I cannot give him any more encouragement on the present occasion than I could then. The C.O.D. service is advertised through the usual channels for bringing Post Office services before the notice of the public. It is advertised by the railway companies, who have exhibited posters at their stations. The Postmaster-General is still of opinion that it would not be right for the Post Office to urge the public to use the C.O.D. service in preference to other forms of purchase and remittance. I notice that my noble friend is very anxious about this matter of advertisements, and I will certainly take the opportunity of conveying to the Postmaster-General all that the noble Earl has said on the subject. I am sure it will be given favourable consideration, because, though I will not say that the Post Office are quite as keen about the C.O.D. service as the noble Earl, they have always given it very favourable consideration.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I should like to convey my thanks to the noble Earl, and I was glad to hear that he will represent to the Postmaster-General what I said on the question of advertisements. He says the Postmaster-General does not consider it right to push the C.O.D. service by advertisement. Does he think it would be a sort of crime then to advertise his own goods? I do not understand that expression that it would not be right. It seems a curious idea. If it is not right to do that, why is it right to advertise the telephone and the telegraph?

COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): My Lords, in moving that the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, perhaps it would be convenient if I explained to your Lordships the reason for the Motion which I have down on the Paper to suspend Standing Order XXXIX in order to pass the remaining stages of the Bill this afternoon. The Bill is purely a Consolidation Bill. It is a Bill which has been receiving very careful attention at the hands of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, which is presided over by my noble and

173
learned friend Lord Muir Mackenzie. They have presented a unanimous Report, in which they inform your Lordships that the Bill is pure consolidation, and they urgently recommend that the Bill should be passed into law in the present Session of Parliament. As your Lordships know, it is not the practice of your Lordships' House on a Consolidation Bill to attempt to make any amendment of the law. All that is desired is to ensure that the existing law is faithfully reproduced in the proposed Statute, and therefore, inasmuch as the Consolidation Committee have satisfied themselves upon that point, presumably your Lordships will not think it necessary to make any alteration in the Bill at a subsequent stage. I propose therefore to ask your Lordships to pass the Bill through its remaining stages this afternoon, and, if that be done, I am sure there is every prospect that in another place it will be possible to pass it through all its stages in time to place it on the Statute Book before the Dissolution of Parliament. I beg to move.
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.]
Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Amendments reported: Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill your Lordships would like to have from me, I think, a short explanation of the matters with which the measure deals. There are two topics, both of which are of urgent importance to the industrial assurance companies, in regard to which experience has shown that there is a real need for an amendment in the law in order to ensure that what was believed to be the law should receive legislative sanction, and that the companies should be protected from what apparently has been an unwitting departure from, and transgression of, their legal limitations.
The first point is with regard to the granting of endowment policies on the lives of relations. Section 3 of the Industrial Assurance Act of 1923, re-enacting an earlier enactment, provides for the issue by industrial assurance companies and collecting societies of policies on the lives of certain relatives for funeral expenses. There is a somewhat similar provision for friendly societies in the Friendly Societies Act of 1896; but no provision is made anywhere for the issue of endowment policies on the lives of such relatives, except a provision in the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, which provides for the endowment of nominees of members at any age, and that applies only to friendly societies. Such policies have been issued for a great many years past without any question of their legality having been raised. But the question has been raised and it becomes necessary therefore to deal with the situation and to legalise the position by enacting what has always been supposed to be the law—namely, that these endowment policies should be included in Section 3 of the Act of 1923.
The second point, similarly, is a point which arises through a misunderstanding. As your Lordships are aware, the existing law provides that where there are insurances on the death of a child the amount which can be paid shall not exceed a specified sum at various ages. There is a common provision that in the event of policies being more the amount of the premiums paid shall be returned. At the time when the section was passing through Parliament in 1923 an Amendment was moved in Committee in another place to make it clear that the return

175
of the premiums in certain events should not be illegal merely because the premiums, when added together, came to a little more than the specified amount. An assurance was given to Parliament then, on the authority of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, that there was no need for that Amendment because that was the law. On the face of that assurance the Amendment was dropped and the Bill passed into law as it stood. Unfortunately, in a prosecution which took place last year the Courts decided that that view of the Chief Registrar was a mistaken one, and that in fact, on the language of the Statute, it was illegal to return premiums if, when added together, they amounted to more than the specified sum. Obviously the industrial insurance companies were placed in very great difficulty by that decision, the more so as they were liable to very heavy penalties if they issued illegal policies. The other amendment which is proposed is to deal with that situation and to provide that the law is as it was believed to be.
Finally, when those two amendments are made, one has to remember that if these policies are made legal there will be certain rights in the holders of policies issued before 1924 to a free policy at certain rates and to the return of premiums in the case of policies issued after January 1, 1924. In order to protect any existing rights and inasmuch as this in one sense is retrospective legislation, provision is made in a later clause of the Bill that sums shall be payable in respect of these policies to a substantially larger amount than is given in the case of forfeited policies under the Act of 1923. The Bill, I believe, has the approval of all Parties and of all persons interested, and it is desired, if possible, to pass it into law during the present Parliament. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I do not propose to discuss this Bill in any detail. It is, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said, a noncontroversial Bill and, broadly speaking, it is supported by all Parties. But I think it right to point out that had the advice of the Labour Party been followed in 1923 this
176
Bill would not have been necessary. The noble and learned Lord did not tell your Lordships that. As a matter of fact this point, the main point of the Bill, was the subject of an Amendment by Mr. Tom Johnston in 1923 in another place, and Mr. Johnston was told by the present Attorney-General, who was then Solicitor-General, that the Amendment was not necessary, that it was not needed. On that assurance, coming from a Law Officer of the Crown, naturally enough, Mr. Johnston withdrew his Amendment. That advice was wrong, completely wrong. That was not the only mistake made and not the only wrong advice given by the Law Officers in that year, 1923, as your Lordships may remember.
I mention this because I think it is right that the facts should be known, and also because I observed very recently that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, suggested in an article that when the Labour Party came into office they would not have lawyers of sufficient capability to discharge the functions, or words to that effect. In view of what I have said, the article of the noble and learned Earl leaves us quite unmoved.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think it necessary to enter into controversy with the noble Lord as to the legal attainments of my right hon. and learned friend the present Attorney-General. I did tell the House just now that this Amendment had been moved and had been dropped in 1923 on the assurance then given on the authority of the Chief Registrar, who is the administrative officer conducting the affairs of these societies, that it was unnecessary, and I told the House that it was because a conviction recently obtained shows that that view of the law, which had been acted on for a great many years, was erroneous, that this Bill became necessary. I did not inform the House that the gentleman who moved the Amendment was Mr. Tom Johnston because I did not think that was relevant. As the noble Lord thinks it important, by all means let it be known that Mr. Tom Johnston moved the Amendment which was dropped in those circumstances. Beyond that I do not know that the discussion as to the competence of those who will be called upon to fill legal offices

177
in the unlikely event of a Socialist Government ever being formed is relevant to the present Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past five o'clock.