Lords Sitting of 16 July 1929

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I should like to give notice to the House at the earliest moment of a matter which I have had an opportunity of discussing with the Leader of the Opposition, although he is not in a position to give a definite opinion. Certain Bills, which we hope will be read a first or second time to-day, will be put down for next Thursday because it is of importance that they should proceed as quickly as possible. It may be that they could be dealt with in another place this week, which would be very desirable. Therefore I propose to put down a Motion in respect of those Bills to suspend Standing Order No. XXXIX—the usual Motion. Of course if any difficulty should arise, or there is any matter which requires further discussion, I should not press the Motion in connection with any particular Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the way in which the Leader of the House has been good enough to make that announcement makes it impossible for us to say anything except that we are very much obliged to him. At the same time I think I ought to say that I was not aware, until he was good enough to tell me a few minutes ago, that this Motion was going to be made. It would require a little time for your Lordships to look at the Bills before we commit ourselves to suspending our usual procedure for the purpose of hurrying them forward.
LORD PARMOOR: Certainly.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I refer specially to the Arbitration (Foreign Awards) Bill, which we are to discuss directly. Since the noble and learned Lord opposite spoke to me I have been able to make inquiry and I find that there is some disposition to require delay between the Second Reading and the Committee stage of this Bill, as it deals with a very intricate legal point which it
92
may be necessary for lawyers to consider before we accept it in the exact form in which it stands. I do not anticipate any difficulty, but my noble and learned friend who sits beside me [Viscount Hailsham] will no doubt take part in the debate directly and will give his view on that point. I should not like your Lordships to be committed to having to take that Bill as rapidly as the noble and learned Lord suggested just now. Since I am on my legs, perhaps I may be allowed to ask, for the convenience of your Lordships, if the noble and learned Lord can tell us when it is hoped that the adjournment will take place, and also whether he can tell us now or perhaps to-morrow—I do not know if he will be in a position to do so—when the House is likely to re-assemble after the Recess.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think that I shall be in a position to-morrow to communicate the date when the House is likely to reassemble after the Recess, but I will give this House the first intimation that can be given as to that date. With regard to the date of the adjournment, the view of the optimists is that the adjournment will take place at the end of next week. That, I think, is rather an optimistic outlook; but I hope that it will not be delayed beyond the week after next in any event.
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I ask the noble and learned Lord if he can tell us when he is going to take the Second Reading of the Government of India (Aden) Bill?
LORD PARMOOR: Next Thursday.

INVERNESS WATER AND GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Inverness water and gas; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
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.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
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.

LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Leith harbour and docks; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
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.

DUNFERMLINE AND DISTRICT TRACTION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Sections 8 and 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Dunfermline and district traction; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (ADEN) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that it is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.
GRAND JUNCTION COMPANY BILL.
Read 2a.

DERBY CORPORATION BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, with reference to this Bill, I have now to move its Second Reading and it may be convenient if I mention that I have a letter from the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, with reference to the next Order upon the Paper—[that in the event of the Bill being committed certain instructions should be given to the Committee]—saying that he does not intend to move that Motion. The Motion illustrates certain negotiations that have been going on for the last few days. I understand that, since it was put down, agreement has been reached by all the parties interested and a clause will be introduced in Committee to carry out that agreement. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That, the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.

DARLINGTON CORPORATION TROLLEY VEHICLES ADDITIONAL ROUTES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).

ARBITRATION (FOREIGN AWARDS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, in spite of that which has been indicated as a

95
possibility by the noble Marquess opposite regarding the future of this Bill, I regard it, and I think the noble and learned Viscount opposite will regard it, as neither a contentious nor a controversial Bill, though it may be that, as a matter of drafting, some alteration may be required in its wording. The Bill was read a first time last week and it has been in the hands of the noble and learned Viscount opposite since that date, and, no doubt, he will tell us later what his views are. I can only say that it is desired to meet noble Lords in every possible way in order that the Bill may pass, as it is really an agreed Bill and, even in regard to its drafting, there is nothing of substance that is in dispute. The Bill of which I am now proposing the Second Beading is a further step in the direction of improving facilities for international trade. It was framed under the last Government, I think practically in its present form—I may be wrong about that, but I am not aware of any alteration since—and, as I have said, in my opinion it can be neither contentious nor controversial.
In 1923 an International Protocol on Arbitration Clauses was devised at Geneva, which provided that signatory States should recognise agreements on the part of their respective subjects to submit to arbitration disputes arising out of commercial contracts. So far as this country is concerned effect was given to that Protocol by the Arbitration Clauses (Protocol) Act, 1924. The arrangement, however, did not go far enough, particularly as regards the enforcement of arbitration; so, as your Lordships will notice, Part 1 of this Bill is entitled" Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. "The object is that these foreign arbitral awards, admittedly of great value, should be easily enforced here and elsewhere in the interests of both parties to an arbitration dispute. The World Economic Conference, under the Chairmanship of M. Theunis, in March, 1927, recommended the adoption by all countries of recourse to arbitration, and it was in pursuit of this that the Economic Committee of the League devised a new document. This new document is the Convention attached to the present Bill and the signatories to which agree to enforce in their own Courts arbitration awards made in due form in
96
other signatory countries. This project was considerably revised as a result, largely, of suggestions from His Majesty's then Government, the late Government in this country, and it was adopted by the Assembly of the League in September, 1927.
On December 7 in that year the then Foreign Minister, Sir Austen Chamberlain, speaking at Geneva on behalf of His Majesty's Government, said that he had signed the Convention on the previous day. Then he added that—
" in order to carry out the Convention the British Government would need Parliamentary authority, and proposed to promote legislation at the earliest convenient moment."
As matters have turned out, this seems to be the earliest convenient moment—it is impossible to foresee the future—and the fact that I am introducing this Bill rather than a representative of the present Opposition is merely a result which could not have been foreseen. This is, in a direct sense, a continuity of former policy.
If your Lordships will look at the Bill itself, you will see that the preamble states in short language what I have already stated. It is as follows:—
Whereas a Convention, set out in the Schedule to this Act, on the Execution of Arbitral Awards was on the twenty-sixth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, signed at Geneva on behalf of His Majesty:
" And whereas it is expedient that such provisions should be enacted by Parliament as will enable the said Convention to become operative in the United Kingdom: Now, therefore, be it enacted as follows:—"
I propose shortly to state what is the purport of the various clauses in this Bill. As I have said, their drafting has been very carefully considered, but if any amendment is necessary, we shall receive any proposal in a perfectly friendly spirit, and if it appear to be an improvement it will certainly be adopted.
The first clause says:
" This Part of this Act applies to any award made after the twenty-eighth day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-four—"
That date is really fixed by the provisions of the 1923 Protocol and the 1924 Agreement which brought it into operation after there had been two ratifications. Therefore the date on which it came into

97
operation was July 28, 1924. I do not think it is necessary to read more of Clause 1 until we come to subsection (2), which says:—
" The Governments to which this Part of this Act applies are those Governments in respect of which His Majesty may by Order in Council declare the said Convention to be in force."
The object of that is that there shall be no doubt as to the areas within which these commercial arbitrations will be implemented and enforced under the provisions of this Bill, and that everyone shall have due notice of what they are.
Under Clause 2 they are subject to enforcement under one of the two methods which are recognised by the law of this country, particularly since the Arbitration Act, 1889—either by action or under the provisions of Section 12 of the Arbitration Act, 1889. The procedure here, which I assume will be the procedure adopted under the terms of the Act, is that if any substantial difficulty is involved the procedure will be by action, and if there is no difficulty whatever then the arbitral award will be enforced in the same way as a judgment or order by an Order made under the recognised procedure adopted in this country. With regard to subsection (2) of Clause 2, the intention is that the award shall be regarded as valid, not only between the parties but in its general purport, and therefore, as regard any proceedings, it may be utilised
" by way of defence, set off or otherwise, in any legal proceedings in England, and any references in this Part of this Act to enforcing a foreign award shall be construed as including references to relying on an award."
It may be used for purposes of defence as well as for purposes of obtaining rights which have been claimed.
Clause 3 sets out, I think quite clearly, the conditions for enforcement of these foreign awards. I do not think that anything which is not quite clear turns upon Clause 3 until we come to subsection (3) of that clause, which says:—
"If a party seeking to resist the enforcement of a foreign award proves that there is any ground other than the non-existence of the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of this section, or the existence of the conditions specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (2) of this section, entitling him to contest the validity of the award.—"
98
these are specified reasons for which you may test the validity of the award. The subsection continues:—
"—the Court may, if it thinks fit, either refuse to enforce the award or adjourn the hearing until after the expiration of such period as appears to the Court to be reasonably sufficient to enable that party to take the necessary steps to have the award annulled by the competent tribunal."
I think that, in order to safeguard the position in every direction, that is necessary, and if the noble and learned Viscount opposite will take the reference to Article 3 of the Convention itself he will find how closely the provision of Article 3 is followed in the provision which I have just read.
Clause 4 sets out the evidence which must be produced before the Court in order that an award may be enforced. I do not think there can be any difficulty about that. Clause 5 contains a definition which is essential. The award is known as a "final award" in this country when it has been finally made, although there may be difficulties ahead as regards its enforcement. The clause says:—
"For the purposes of this Part of this Act an award shall not be deemed final if any proceedings for the purpose of contesting the validity of the award are pending in the country in which it was made."
I think that is quite essential as a definition of what we mean by "final award," and it also indicates a distinction by the way in which that expression is used in this arbitration proposal as against the way it would be used in ordinary procedure in this country. Then there are saving clauses, on which I think really nothing turns. In Clause 7 we have the application of this Part of the Act to Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is a matter for the Scottish Office and those who advise Northern Ireland, and the provisions incorporated here have been incorporated under their advice and after their full consideration.
That is the whole of this Bill as far as Part I is concerned. May I pause there for a moment? I hope the noble and learned Viscount will agree with me that there is nothing either contentious or controversial in this. If there is any improvement as a matter of drafting which he would care to bring to our notice I can assure him at once that it will have every consideration, and I hope

99
it will be settled by arrangement between the Parties. Part II is simply a slight alteration in the Arbitration Clauses (Protocol) Act, 1924, by adding the words "or that there is not in fact any dispute between the parties with regard to the matter agreed to be referred." If there is no dispute as regards the matter agreed to be referred there is really no arbitration in the sense in which we use the term, and there can be no valid arbitral award. I hope the explanations I have given are sufficient. If any questions are asked I will certainly endeavour to supplement what I have said. I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Parmoor.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the House, has moved the Second Reading in a speech of a most disarming and conciliatory nature, and he is quite right in saying that the Bill in principle is not in any sense a contentious or controversial measure. Either in its exact form or in substantially the present form it was in draft when the late Government were in office and, as he truly says, it would have fallen to my lot to bring forward this or some similar Bill if the circumstances of the last General Election had not intervened. But when the noble and learned Lord tolls your Lordships that this Bill is a further step to improve the facilities for foreign trade he is using somewhat euphemistic language. The fact is that this Bill is a Bill to remedy the dreadful handicap which was imposed upon our foreign trade by the Convention of 1923, and the circumstances which render this Bill necessary are a signal example of the folly of those misguided enthusiasts who will rush into international conventions regardless of their effect upon trade interests at home, and who have a sort of idea that nothing but good can come from Geneva and are apt to inflict serious injury upon vital interests of this country through their excessive zeal.
The facts are these. As your Lordships know, the great bulk of our commercial contracts made in the City of London contain what is known as an arbitration clause, that is to say, a clause which provides that in the event of dispute the matter shall be referred to arbitration; and when the contract is made between
100
two British subjects there is ample protection afforded by our legislation. The Courts will stay an action brought in defiance of an arbitration clause unless some good reason is shown to the contrary; and an arbitration award when it is made can be enforced by execution. But when a commercial contract was made between a British subject in the City with a foreigner a different position was created. No foreign country recognises or will enforce the award made in any other country, that is to say no foreign country would enforce, for instance, a British award; and no foreign country would before 1923 recognise the existence of an arbitration clause as a bar to an action.
The consequence was that if a dispute arose between a British merchant and a foreigner upon a contract made in the ordinary British form, if the British merchant obtained an award in an arbitration he was no nearer obtaining satisfaction because no foreign Court would recognise that award. On the other hand, if a foreigner had a claim under such a contract against a British subject he could, notwithstanding the arbitration clause, sue in the Court of his own country, which would not recognise the arbitration clause as a bar. Those were the two disadvantages which existed in the case of an arbitration clause in a contract between an Englishman and a foreigner. In 1923 a Convention was made at Geneva by which it was provided that the States which became parties to the Convention would stay any action brought in defiance of an arbitration clause between their own subjects and the subjects of another State which was a party to the Convention; and that removed the difficulty that a foreigner was able to sue an Englishman in his own country upon a contract with an arbitration clause and that there would be no stay.
So far, then, a grievance was removed. But a far greater difficulty was created by the Convention. Before 1923, although the British merchant when he had a claim against a foreigner could not enforce an award when he had obtained it, he could always bring an action in the Courts of the foreigner's own country and obtain judgment which, of course, could be enforced against the foreigner. By virtue of the Convention of 1923, he was no longer able to bring

101
such action because the Convention provided that the State was bound to stay an action brought when there was an arbitration clause in the contract. The result was that if an Englishman had a contract with a foreigner containing an arbitration clause and the foreigner failed to implement his contract, the Englishman, by virtue of the 1923 Convention, was left absolutely without remedy. He could not sue on the award if he got it because the foreign country would not recognise the award, and he could not sue on the original cause of action because the Convention compelled the foreign Court to stop the action. The result, therefore, of this well-meant effort to cure the difficulty that the foreigner could sue in defiance of an arbitration clause, was to create the much graver ill that the British subject was absolutely helpless against any foreigner, unless he had assets in this country, in regard to such a contract.
That was an impossible state of affairs, and it was to remedy that difficulty that the Convention which is the foundation of the present Bill was entered into in 1927. I confess that the Convention does not seem to me in every way satisfactory. There was representing this country a very eminent lawyer, a friend of my own, Mr. Claughton Scott, who did all that could be done; but naturally, as in every international convention you have to give as well as take, he was not able to get the Convention into a form that was altogether satisfactory. To my mind, at least, its language is somewhat obscure and it is, I believe, for that reason that the present Government have done what the late Government intended to do; that is to say, they have not merely asked Parliament to pass an Act giving effect to the Convention but have set out in the Bill what they believe the effect of the Convention to be. I have the best reason for knowing that Mr. Claughton Scott was invited to interpret the Convention as well as he could, and that the Bill represents his view of what the Convention was intended to effect. The Convention itself uses foreign terms for which we have no exact equivalent in English, and it uses English terms in a sense contrary to that in which they are used in England. The noble and learned Lord gave an instance when he
102
referred to the term "final award." What is meant by "final award" in English law is something quite different from what is meant by "final award" in the Convention.
However, the Bill is the best that Mr. Claughton Scott could obtain and, as the noble and learned Lord has said, the Convention provides that under certain conditions British awards will be enforceable in foreign countries which become parties to the Convention. In exchange we undertake to enforce in this country foreign awards made in such countries. One curious result is that an award made in a foreign country by a foreign arbitrator is actually in a better position than a foreign judgment. A foreign judgment can only be enforced in this country by action; a foreign award will be enforceable under this Bill by execution upon the person against whom the award is made. I do not know that this is altogether satisfactory or desirable; still, that was one of the points we had to concede.
I do not suggest that this House or Parliament could or should do anything except pass this Bill, but I think it needs careful consideration by the legal talent in which this House particularly is so very rich, because your Lordships will appreciate that it is important not only that the Bill shall be clear in the use of the legal phrases it contains, but also that the Bill shall carry out the Convention; otherwise, we shall have it said in foreign countries that we have not carried out the Convention and, therefore, our awards will not be enforceable in other countries which become parties to the Convention. Whether it carries it out accurately is a matter which requires very careful study. I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord opposite will give a reasonable opportunity to the lawyers in this House to consider the terms of the Bill, and I hope that some of my noble and learned friends will apply themselves to that task. If they had a week or some reasonable time to consider whether the Bill does carry out what it is designed to do, unless there were Amendments, speaking for myself, I should have thought the other stages might then be taken almost at once. But I think there ought to be a reasonable interval allowed to ensure that there are not alterations to be made in Committee.

103
In regard to Part II of the Bill, which amends the Act of 1924, that again is an illustration of the same unfortunate result of the too hasty and too enthusiastic acceptance of these international conventions. Under our own Arbitration Act, when there is an arbitration clause the Court has a discretion in staying an action, and it will stay an action brought in defiance of an arbitration clause unless some reason is shown to the contrary. Under the Convention the Court has no discretion. It has merely to be said that there is an arbitration clause and there-upon the Court can do nothing but stay the action, although there may be no real dispute between the parties and the defence may be purely dilatory. That was found to be so very inconvenient that a Committee was set up over which, I think, Mr. Justice Mackinnon presided. That Committee recommended that a stay should only be imposed where there was a real dispute between the parties; that is to say, that some really substantial cause was shown why the person stayed should have a question to try. It has been thought, I gather, that it is not possible to go as far as that because you would then be breaking the Convention. Therefore, all that Part II does is to say that where there is any dispute between the parties there must be a stay, and the flimsiest dispute which any dilatory defendant may choose to raise will in itself be sufficient ground, if this be passed, for compelling the Court to stop the action, however ill-founded the defence or the matters alleged to be in dispute seem to the Court to be. I cannot think that is altogether satisfactory. At the same time, I recognise that the Convention of 1923 renders it difficult, perhaps impossible, for the Government to go as far as Mr. Justice Mackinnon recommended, and to compel the defendant to show that there is a substantial dispute with regard to the matters upon which the action is brought.
I have ventured to trouble your Lordships with these observations not, as I hope the noble and learned Lord will believe, with any desire to criticise the Bill he has introduced, which, as I have said, I should have had to introduce myself in other circumstances, and not with any desire to criticise any individual, but only because it seems to me that the difficulty which this Bill has to remove
104
is a very signal and very salutary example of the danger of ill-considered international conventions and of the handicap which may be imposed upon our trade by entering into those conventions without a full consideration of the reactions and repercussions which such conventions might have, and because I hope that the lesson may be taken to heart by some who are at present a little too apt, I think, to regard anything as desirable as long as it is labelled international.
LORD ATKIN: My Lords, I do not desire to venture upon a criticism of anything that has already taken place, but to ask a question or two about the scope of this Bill, concerning which doubts have been raised in my mind by what has been said by the noble and learned Lord President and the noble and learned Viscount. The difficulties that have arisen have been, as the noble Viscount said, due to the fact that foreign Governments, as a rule, have been unable, or unwilling, to pass legislation which enables their Courts to enforce foreign awards, or indeed even foreign judgments. They are very jealous of the exclusive jurisdiction of their own Courts over disputes, and this Convention has provided that the contracting parties will enforce not foreign judgments but foreign awards. The result of that will be that in some countries, when the Convention is thoroughly carried out in those countries, there will presumably have been legislation which will enable the Courts of each country to enforce an English award; but one would have thought that at any rate the intention of the Convention was that such rights as are given by the Convention should be reciprocal. I find it difficult to conceive that we are asked in this country to enforce the awards of a foreign country where that foreign country is not in itself prepared to enforce our awards, and I wish to know whether the provisions of this Bill are such as to make the obligations reciprocal?
The only clause that I can see in the Bill dealing with that is Clause 1 (2) which states that—
"The Governments to which this Part of this Act applies are those Governments in respect of which His Majesty may by Order in Council declare the said Convention to be in force."

105
I gather that the Convention would be in force as soon as it is ratified, and each party that has ratified a Convention could claim that the other parties who had ratified the Convention should perform it, but ratification is one thing and legislation to carry out the obligations which are imposed by the act of ratification seems to me to be a different thing. It has been known to happen that a country has entered into a convention and ratified it, and yet at the same moment has not proceeded to legislate so as to give effect to the convention which has been ratified. If it is intended only by Order in Council to apply this Bill to such countries as have, by their legislation, taken steps to see that an English award will be enforced in that country, well and good; but if we are asked here and now to enforce foreign awards in respect of any country which does not give reciprocal conditions to us, I venture to think this House should think several times before it embarks upon that legislation. It really was merely for the purpose of putting that query that I rose to address your Lordships.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, this may or may not be a controversial Bill. I and other noble Lords only received the Bill when we came down to the House this afternoon. That applies also to the two following Bills, and it applied at the end of last Session to two Bills emanating from the Government Bench. I hope that the Socialist Government are not going to make a practice of keeping noble Lords from getting their Bills till they arrive here.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, in answer to the noble Viscount who spoke last, I may say that the Bill has certainly been circulated in print for some time. I do not know whether he gives a general order at the Printed Paper Office that all Bills should be sent to him when they are printed.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Yes.
LORD PARMOOR: Of course if he has not given an order of that kind he would not have received the Bill until he came down to the House. But I am told it has been printed for some time, and I certainly received it some time ago. It is a week since it was read a first time and ordered to be printed.
106
As regards the points raised by the noble and learned Viscount opposite [Viscount Hailsham] and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, I should like to say one or two words. I do not want to embark upon the so-called shortcomings of international arrangements. That is a point upon which I dare say I should differ from the noble and learned Viscount opposite, but I do not think it is really relevant to the matter we are considering at the present moment. The Convention of 1923 was, I think, both signed and ratified while he was in a very prominent place as a legal adviser to the Government in power. It was in 1923 that that was done. I do not want to go back on questions of that kind; it is never really any use to do so. The point now is whether the Bill as at present proposed does bring about what both the late Government and ourselves desire, a fair method—I use the phrase purposely—a fair method as between ourselves and other countries of bringing into force this later Convention signed in 1927 on behalf of the late Government by their Foreign Secretary. On a subsequent occasion he gave a pledge that suitable legislation would be introduced in this country in order that ratification might follow. So soon as this Bill becomes law, ratification will follow, and the matter will become binding between the countries.
I think the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, has raised, deserves further consideration. I agree with him that we want, as far as possible, to ensure what he properly called reciprocity. I think it really is assured by subsection (2) of Clause (1). I mean the safeguard is that it applies only after an Order in Council. I imagine the Order in Council would depend on the reciprocity element. I do not quite know how further proposals could be made in order to ensure what I desire with him should be ensured as much as possible.
There is one further matter I should like to mention to the noble and learned Viscount opposite. If he feels—I am not sure that he does feel—that this matter would require further consideration, we do not want to quarrel over it. We want to be conciliatory and to come to right terms as between ourselves and other countries in regard to these commercial awards, which are of the greatest value. No one

107
who understands commercial awards can doubt their value for a moment. I believe about 75 per cent. of what I may call international commercial awards which require to be generally enforced, are made in this country, much to our honour, and they may have to be enforced outside. If it would meet the views of the noble and learned Viscount, I propose that we should take the Committee stage of this Bill on Thursday, but if he would prefer that the Committee stage should be postponed until Tuesday in next week in order that he might have further time to consider the Bill, I will put the Committee stage down for then instead of for Thursday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That would do better.
LORD PARMOOR: I hope the noble and learned Viscount will realise that this is done in the hope that any Amendments which are required will be brought to our notice, and I hope, if possible, we shall settle them by talking the matter over rather than by coming in an adverse way to a Division in this House. If the noble and learned Viscount agrees with the noble Marquess that Tuesday would be a better day in order that he may have further time to consider the matter I will put the Committee stage down for Tuesday.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: May I, with noble Lords' permission, say it is not so much that I personally should have time to consider the draft, but that the legal luminaries in which this House is very rich may have an opportunity of bringing their minds to bear upon it, so that if there are flaws which either the noble Lord or myself have failed to detect they may possibly be put right before the Bill is sent down to another place. If there are none, and none are detected, so far as I am concerned I should think that the Report and Third Reading might follow very quickly.
LORD PARMOOR: I am much obliged for the way the noble Viscount puts it, because I think his mind has been upon the Bill quite as much as mine and probably more. At any rate I will take Tuesday, and on Tuesday I will move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be suspended as regards this Bill so as to get the further stages. It really is impossible
108
to wait longer than Tuesday to complete the matter. I will leave the matter in that way.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
LORD PARMOOR: The Committe stage will be put down for Tuesday next. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware that Lord Darling's Motion has been postponed until next Wednesday.

LAND DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, this really is quite a small, formal Bill which I think can be dealt with in a very few words. It deals with a small point that was overlooked in the drafting of the Local Government Act of last Session. Under certain Local Acts, and particularly one that was passed about fifty years ago, the qualification for voting at elections for these drainage boards was based on the valuation of the hereditament for the purposes of the Poor Rate. The derating of agriculture really renders this form of election a farce. We have therefore had to find a substitute for the qualification of the value of the property under the Poor Rate and we have substituted, as your Lordships will see, Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918. We have chosen the gross annual value in this case because, apparently, the net annual value includes certain deductions including the drainage rate. Therefore in order to get over that difficulty we have chosen this phrase "gross annual value for Income Tax purposes" which you will find in the definition.
This Bill also deals with another small anomaly, because under certain Acts, notably one passed in 1861 and also the 1918 Act, some authorities levy rates on an acreage basis, but the voting is still based on annual value as laid down in the Act of 1861. This Bill adjusts that anomaly also. It is a small point, really not very important, because it is so seldom that there are elections for these drainage boards. It is very difficult often to get people to serve at all, but

109
it is an anomaly and it is a good thing that this Bill should put it right. If the Bill should prove to meet the general agreement of your Lordships I will ask permission to put it down for the Committee stage next Thursday—the day after to-morrow—as I understand His Majesty's Government are most anxious to get the Bill through before the autumn. However I will leave that until there has been a discussion on the Bill and we will see whether there is general agreement in the House on the principles of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE, who had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, That the Bill be read 2a this day three months, said: My Lords, I have given notice to move the rejection of this Bill in order that we may have a fuller explanation from the noble Earl than he has vouchsafed to your Lordships. May I, at the same time, congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for War on the fact that apparently he also represents the Ministry of Agriculture. Of course we know he is an agriculturist and thoroughly understands agricultural questions, but I think most of us on this side of the House deprecate very much indeed the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture is no longer directly represented in the. House as it has been for the past twenty-five years, but only by a noble Earl who, however able, has no direct communication with the Ministry and can only speak by the brief which is handed to him.
The difficulties which I expect will arise will be obvious when he is asked to undertake to do something. He will always have to tell us that he will have to apply to Mr. Buxton or to Dr. Addison for leave to carry out anything which we ask him to do. I am going to ask him now whether he would be ready to agree to a particular Amendment. As we hear constantly that the Labour Party is short of Peers it is rather a mystery why they have not taken the opportunity of making Dr. Addison a Peer. He would then be able to represent the Ministry of Agriculture in this House. I do not think for one moment that the Prime Minister would have appointed Dr. Addison as Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture
110
unless he was satisfied that he was well versed in agriculture and thoroughly understood the wants of agriculturists. I have heard it suggested that he is rather more advanced and will be able to supply ginger to Mr. Buxton, the Minister, if he does not go far enough on some questions on which some of us would like him to go further.
I would ask exactly what is the use of this Bill? How does it alter the position of the Local Government Act, 1929? No doubt the noble Earl is quite conversant with the circular which was issued on May 29 last to drainage authorities, which explained exactly how the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1929, applied to land drainage. I do not think the noble Earl showed quite clearly—no doubt it is not his fault—that though agricultural land is derated under the Act of 1929, yet as regards the question of rating for the purposes of land drainage agricultural land is not derated, because I would remind him that by Section 67 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1929, agricultural land and buildings within the district of a drainage authority continue to be held liable for drainage rates. Therefore you see as a matter of fact that agricultural land under that section is not derated. That is pointed out by the circular which I hold in my hand.
Then again by Section 4 (1) of the Land Drainage Act, 1918, rates are levied on acreage or annual value at the option of the local authority. Do I understand from the noble Earl that that option is to be taken away by the Bill and that in future there is to be no possible alternative? It may be in some districts desirable to rate upon acreage alone and not on rateable value. I am not going into the question whether that is right or wrong. I am sorry I do not see the noble Earl, Lord Stradbroke, in his place because no doubt he would have been able to tell your Lordships the reason why that circular was issued and he would be more competent than I am to discuss the matter. It seems to me that the circular is a very valuable one and absolutely necessary, and I should like to ask why the present Government think it necessary as far as I can understand it, practically to destroy that circular which was only issued last May I would also like to know whether the

111
Bill does away with the principle that land rated at 40 s. an acre and land rated at 5s. an acre should bear exactly the same rate; that is to say, that land valued at 40 s. would pay no more rates than land valued at 5s. an acre?
It seems to me, too, that a court of summary jurisdiction is hardly the proper body to deal with these matters. It would be much better to follow the precedent set by the late Government in the Local Government Act, when they provided an appeal to Quarter Sessions in order to facilitate matters of this kind. It was very properly arranged that a special committee of Quarter Sessions should be set up for dealing with these questions. It seems to me that this is exactly one of those cases where it is desirable to have an appeal to Quarter Sessions rather than to a court of summary jurisdiction. I think that noble Lords who sit upon local benches will agree that these benches consist of the men most interested in this question, and many of them would either be disqualified or would be unsuitable to hear these cases. It is very much better to have some tribunal that is entirely dissociated from any local questions of that sort, and that such questions should come before Justices of great experience and learned lawyers who will be able to deal with these very intricate matters. I imagine that the Local Government Act, 1929, will have to be applied in some of the cases, and I hope it is no part of the object of the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary of State for War, to get rid of the provisions of the Act of 1929, which, to my mind, is a very valuable measure indeed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day throe months").—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I do not often find myself in full agreement with my noble friend Lord Strachie, but, as he knows, I have already indicated in the debate on the Address, and I should like to take this further opportunity of saying how very deeply I deprecate the fact that there is no official salaried representative of the Ministry of Agriculture sitting in this House. I took the opportunity of mentioning during the debate
112
on the Address, and I should like to repeat, that the appointment of two separate Ministers sitting simultaneously in the two Houses of Parliament to represent the Ministry of Agriculture was, in fact, agreed to by Mr. Asquith when he was Prime Minister in 1912, on the definite understanding that in future there should always be one Minister representing the Ministry of Agriculture in each House of Parliament. At that time, of course, the sole Minister was the late Lord Carrington, as he then was, sitting in this House, and those of us in the House of Commons who took an interest in agriculture and agricultural matters took exception to there being no duly qualified representative in that House. I hope, therefore, whatever may be said of the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Strachie as to the extensive ennoblement of further sympathisers with the Labour Party, that, rather than disestablish my noble friend Lord De La Warr from the position which he has so well occupied this afternoon, he is the person who would be selected as representing the agricultural industry, of which he is known to be a well-informed champion, rather than that someone else should be asked to undertake the task.
So far as I understand this Bill—and it is rather nebulously worded—I believe it to be a pure matter of machinery in order to enable those who are members of drainage authorities up and down the country to continue to act in that capacity with a proper qualification. I am bound to say that I find it impossible, especially in this hot weather, to follow my noble friend Lord Strachie into the somewhat intricate objections that he found to certain provisions of this Bill. But one thing that I do very much want to say is that some of us are looking for a much more comprehensive and far-reaching Drainage Bill than this small measure and, if I may be allowed to say so as having sat as Chairman of the Royal Commission on Land Drainage in 1927, I consider, and I know that my colleagues on that Commission consider, that this is not a matter which will brook delay. No less than 52 years ago a Select Committee of your Lordships' House sat to consider the relatively water-logged condition of this country, and they stated in their Report that it was a matter deserving the urgent consideration of Parliament.

113
Nothing has been clone since that time, and the land has become increasingly water-logged and less productive of primary wealth, and particularly of the food which we all so much desire to see produced.
There is one other thing that I wish to say. There are no fewer than 361 land drainage authorities in this country. Most of them are superfluous, some of them are costly and wholly ineffective and many of them are moribund. I should like to offer a caveat that there should be no implication, through the passage of this Bill, that those authorities are going to be continued in existence longer than is absolutely essential. The recommendation that we made was, of course, that there should be catchment area authorities and, within each area, certain internal drainage authorities, the number of whom in the aggregate would be something like one-tenth of that which we permit to attend to land drainage matters in this country to-day. I venture to hope that an early effort will be made to abolish the greater number of these drainage authorities, instead of appearing, by improving or remedying the basis of their qualifications for employment, to continue them in their present position for a clay longer than is absolutely necessary.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I do not propose to suggest who should be promoted to the Under-Secretaryship of Agriculture to sit on the Bench opposite, nor do I wish to go into any discussion as to whether or not there should be further provisions with regard to water on the land. At the present moment, so far as I know, there is very little water on the land anywhere, and many people would at the present moment like to see a little more water upon the land. This seems to me to be a very simple Bill which deals, not with any expansion of drainage or protection of land, but entirely with the manner in which a rate is to be levied.
LORD PARMOOR: No.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am very glad to hear that remark. Perhaps I shall get an explanation. The first clause runs:—
" Any provision of any enactment relating to the drainage or protection of
114
land which requires any matter, other than the amount of any drainage rate, to be determined by reference to the value of property as ascertained for the purposes of general rates, or of drainage rates, shall, as from the first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, have effect as if it required that matter to be determined by reference be such value as is herein after mentioned."
Speaking as a layman, that seems to me to refer to the method of assessment for raising rates, and to nothing else. But, if the noble and learned Lord says that I am wrong, I shall be very glad to be put right. The words of the clause are:—
" any matter, other than the amount of any drainage rate."
If he will look at the definition, he will see that "drainage rate" means—
" any rate which is assessed under any commission of sewers or in respect of any drainage, wall, embankment or other work for the benefit of the land."
Surely that covers everything. What else can there be? The definition seems to cover everything, and therefore the first clause—I do not know whether any noble Lord here can explain it—seems to me to be quite unnecessary and very difficult to understand.
Paragraph (i) of subsection (1) of Clause 1 says:—
"In the case of property assessed for Income Tax purposes under Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, as amended by any subsequent enactment, by reference to gross annual value for Income Tax purposes,"
and then the definition clause says:—
"Gross annual value for Income Tax purposes' means the annual value for the time being in force for the purposes of Income Tux under Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918."
Is not that the net income? There are so many schedules that I am not sure, but it seems to me that the Income Tax as determined under Schedule A is net and not gross. I am sure that noble Lords opposite will be most anxious to see that all their Bills are drawn in such a way as to be understandable by the people, which has not always been the case lately, and I hope we shall have some explanation which will show what is the exact meaning of this particular Bill.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: There is only one small point which I wish to raise.
Clause 2 says:—"This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland." The Local Government Act has a clause which does not extend its provisions to the Isles of Scilly without a Provisional Order. I remember that these unfortunate islands were once left out before, and perhaps the noble Earl will look into the matter.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I should like to support Lord Banbury in his request for a little clearer understanding with regard to the reference to "gross annual value for Income Tax purposes." When I read the Bill through I underlined those words. I quite understand, especially when I come to the definitions on the second page, that it is the annual value for Income Tax purposes under Schedule A. That is quite plain there, but why is the gross annual value mentioned in paragraph (i)? I think that Lord De La Warr tried to explain in his speech, but he did not, I think, quite succeed.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I hope you will forgive me if I do not follow Lord Strachie and Lord Bledisloe on the constitution of the Government, but I will convey their message to the Prime Minister. The point Lord Strachie made about the circular of 1929 really is a most vital point, because it was in reference to that circular of 1929, and the replies of certain drainage authorities to the Ministry in response to that circular, that this whole question arose. They drew attention to the fact that there would be difficulties really in the coming elections of the drainage boards. This Bill concerns itself purely with the qualifications for voting, and it has no relation what-ever to the basis on which drainage rates are to be levied. The qualification was based not on the drainage rate but on the Poor Rate. What we call the Derating Act abolished this. We therefore had to find a new basis of qualification for voting, and we have found it in this gross annual value, to which Lord Dynevor has referred.
I am sorry if I did not make the matter absolutely clear to him. It is a very difficult point and I am quite sure that it was my fault. He says that the definition on the second page of the Bill is quite clear, but that he cannot understand why we have bothered to put
116
"gross annual value" in paragraph (i) on the first page. The reason for that, as I tried to say before, was that if we had said net annual value we should have got the annual value with certain deductions, which include the drainage rates, and that was not considered desirable. Therefore the draftsman thought it best to insert "gross annual value," and then to define those words in the terms which Lord Dynevor says he finds quite satisfactory. If he needs any re-assurance on that point I can assure him that it is the definition which is the governing clause of the Bill with regard to that particular matter. I think those are the only points raised, with the exception of the Scilly Isles, and I will have that matter looked into.
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Earl does not answer my question whether he will substitute for a court of summary jurisdiction the Quarter Sessions.
LORD PARMOOR: The court of summary jurisdiction is the court which is generally used. It is much easier and less expensive.
LORD STRACHIE: I can assure the Lord President that that is not so, because under the Local Government Act the court of summary jurisdiction is not brought in. However, I will put down an Amendment in Committee, and will ask leave to withdraw my present Amendment, the noble Earl having explained to my satisfaction that this Bill merely deals with the qualifications—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Order! Order! the noble Lord is not entitled to make a second speech.
LORD STRACHIE: I thought that in withdrawing my Amendment I had a right.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Certainly not.
LORD STRACHIE: Then I will not say anything more.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POOR LAW BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I need not detain you many minutes over this Bill, because, like many others in previous years, it is introduced and submitted to your Lordships for the sole object of being referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills which is in course of being set up by communications between this and the other House. I still have some hope that, although it can only be a short time before Parlament expects and hopes to adjourn, there is just a chance that that Committee may be constituted and may contrive to have a sitting in time for this Bill to be run through and receive the Royal Assent before the Recess—an object which it is really very desirable to attain if possible. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, as I explained when I had to do with the Local Government Act which was passing through your Lordships' House, that Act did not attempt to deal with the Poor
118
Law as it stood consolidated under the Act of 1927, it only dealt with the transfer of functions to the county councils and county borough councils; and I told your Lordships that when the new authorities had acquired experience of their new duties, and had thorough knowledge of the working of the Poor Law, the amendment of the Act of 1927 would be considered and discussed with those authorities. I should like to know whether the introduction of this Consolidation Bill is a forerunner of that policy.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I do not think that I am in a position to give a definite and precise answer to the noble Earl, but this I certainly can say, that if the subject of the Poor Law is to be dealt with it is of great importance that this consolidation should be in the hands of those who are interested in drafting any future Bill, for the purpose of putting into definite and intelligible form any changes which it is desired to make.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.