Lords Sitting of 8 March 1929

Preamble
The House met at twelve of the clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before business begins I should like to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House how long he proposes to keep the House sitting to-day, and whether he has in his mind any future arrangements if the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill is not finished to-day.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, this is a most reasonable question, only that I deprecate the form in which the noble and learned Lord has put it. It is not for me to keep the House sitting; the House keeps itself sitting; but, as far as my humble advice to your Lordships is concerned, I should suggest that we should make a really substantial effort to finish the Committee stage of the Bill to-day. I hope that would not require a very long sitting, because I think all of the points, except one, of real capital importance have been discussed—not discussed, may I say again, at any undue length. I hope the Opposition will not think for a moment I am criticising the methods they have pursued or that my noble friends behind me have pursued in this discussion. On the contrary, they have been extremely businesslike. I do not think there ought to be any great difficulty in finishing Committee to-day. I hope we shall not sit very late—not an evening sitting; an afternoon sitting, let us call it. And I hope to finish the Bill on this stage.
If, owing to circumstances which we are not envisaging for a moment, the Committee stage should not be finished in reasonable time to-day, whatever that adjective exactly imports, then no doubt we shall have to sit on Monday to finish the Committee stage. I should very much regret that decision of your Lordships, because it would upset the remainder of the time table which, by a common understanding, your Lordships proposed to follow in the succeeding stages of the Bill. We should have, of course, to postpone the Report

325
stage to a rather later date than we had intended, and that would have further effects. If your Lordships ever play skittles you know that if you knock one pin down it knocks down several others, and that is what will happen here. Therefore, I hope that we shall be able to finish the Committee stage to-day. I am quite sure, after what has passed, that I may rely on noble Lords in all parts of the House to co-operate as far as possible to that end.
LORD PARMOOR: I am sorry if I exaggerated in my reference to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, but I am sure our sittings depend on his view, assented to by the rest of the House as they would be because of his reasonableness. It seems to me doubtful whether we can finish the Committee stage to-day, though I feel very strongly that we ought to do our best. This Bill does, however, contain throughout such important matters that I doubt whether we can finish the Committee discussion to-day, but certainly we will do nothing to delay matters.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order): The EARL OF DONGUGHMORE in the Chair.
Clause 68:
Adaptation of enactments imposing limits on expenditure of local authorities.
68.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, any provision of any enactment imposing a limit upon the expenditure of a local authority for any purpose in any year by reference to any specified rate poundage shall, as from the appointed day, have effect as if for the limit thereby imposed there were substituted such a limit as would be imposed if the specified rate poundage were increased by thirty-three and one-third per cent., or such higher percentage as the Minister may in any special case allow.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or such higher percentage as the Minister may in any special case allow." The noble Earl said: I venture to think this Amendment is one of some importance. It raises a matter of principle, which we shall come to again in Section 123 and also in the Tenth Schedule, and that is the question as to how much power you are going to put into the hands of the Minister with-
326
out the slightest check of any kind whatsoever by Parliament. The purpose of the clause is, according to the marginal note: "Adaptation of enactments imposing limits on expenditure of local authorities," and the first part of the Clause contains the limit. One-third more can be spent than at the present time. That can be quite unobjectionable. The Government have considered this matter and they think that the local authorities cannot actually be under this enactment as they come under the other, and they are saying they shall be allowed to spend one-third more.
If the Government had said that in their considered opinion they ought to spend two-thirds more or even double as much, I should have been perfectly prepared to support them because this is a matter they have gone into and they know. But at the end of the subsection come these words, "or such higher percentage as the Minister may in any special case allow." That leaves an entirely free hand for the Minister to say what he thinks is a special case, and having made up his mind that it is a special case, he is left with an absolutely free hand to allow expenditure up to any amount. We ought not to consider this matter only from the point of view of the particular Minister that one may have in mind. A Pharoah may arise who knows not Joseph, and a totally different procedure may come in with a new Minister. One knows from the history of the Local Government Board before it became the Ministry of Health that certain Ministers took the view that the general policy of the Ministry ought to be to check expenditure wherever it could, while other Ministers have said that in their view that is not the most important function of the Ministry, or indeed the function of the Ministry at all, but that it is on the whole a good thing to encourage expenditure of this nature. You would get absolute chaos if you had one Minister doing the one thing and another Minister doing the other.
I am fortified in making an argument of that kind by some words that fell from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, on another clause of the Bill, in opposing an Amendment moved by the noble Earl opposite, Lord Russell. He said:—
There is a still further objection that if the noble Earl's Amendment were accepted

327
it would give to the Minister—to each particular Minister who came into office—absolutely arbitrary discretion as to what areas should, or should not, be included. One Minister might allow it in every case and another might limit it to the whole county. There would be no sort of guide laid down in the Act as to the principle on which the Minister should apply his discretion."
I have no doubt the Lord Chancellor will say in answer, and quite properly so, that the first part of this clause does give some sort of guide as to what the Bill means, but it is not really a guide at all. Nobody would suggest as the clause stands at present that if a Minister chose to say that in his view there was a special case in which he was going to allow an increase of 500 per cent. such an Order would be ultra vires. If it was not ultra vires nobody could object to it, and so I say you are giving to the Minister an absolute latitude to allow any expenditure he chooses. One cannot go into details, but one knows perfectly well that speeches have been made by responsible people who do not agree with us in politics that in their view, for instance, the very great expenditure which was incurred in Poplar was perfectly justifiable. We may get Ministers coming in with that view. Is it then wise to leave such a very wide power to the discretion of the Minister unchecked in any way by Pariament? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 39, leave out ("or such higher percentage as the Minister may in any special case allow").—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: I agree with the argument put forward by my noble friend behind me, but I would suggest that perhaps another form of words might meet his point and also meet the views of the Government. I would suggest these words "or such higher percentage as the Minister may deem necessary to compensate for the effect of derating." That I understand to be the object of the clause.
LORD PARMOOR: There is one other point which I should like to raise. I think the noble Earl's point might be met if, before a higher percentage was allowed, the proposal was laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament and was subject to an affirmative Resolution. I think it is very important in administrative matters that Parliament should retain control, and that is a well recog-
328
nised method of dealing with the question so as to give sufficient discretion to the Minister while still retaining Parliamentary control. I hope the Lord Chancellor will consider that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): The noble Earl in moving his Amendment said that there was raised by this clause a point of great substance which would arise also on Clause 123. I have never disguised from myself that in Clause 123 there is undoubtedly a point of grave importance which has to be very carefully considered. There are obvious difficulties in the clause. There are on the other hand necessities, which I hope to be able to explain to your Lordships when we come to that clause, which render if not that precise form of words, at any rate some power like that in the clause, necessary. I do not want to discuss that at this stage. When we reach Clause 123 I shall be very glad to hear opinions from all sides of your Lordships' House with the object of seeing how far we can thrash out an acceptable and proper form of language.
But I do not want your Lordships to think, and I do not really believe it to be the fact, that the same point is involved in the Amendment which has just been moved by my noble friend the Earl of Halsbury. May I explain to your Lordships why it is that we cannot do what the noble Earl suggests, that is to say, to put in a percentage which would be satisfactory in all cases? The noble Earl said that the Government had doubtless considered the point and decided that 33⅓ per cent. was a proper allowance to make for the loss of rateable value, and therefore he was quite prepared to accept their view on that point. But although we have considered the point and although we have come to the conclusion that 33⅓ per cent. is on the average and in ordinary cases a fair and reasonable allowance, the effect of derating in individual cases will vary so enormously that it is not possible to find one percentage which is equally fair for all areas. You could of course have a higher percentage, but then you would have to have, I think, something like 100 per cent. or even more than that to compensate for the loss. If you were to put in some figure of that kind you would be encouraging those areas, where a much lower percentage was sufficient to give

329
them enough to compensate them for the loss, to an undue expenditure in these matters.
Of course your Lordships will appreciate that we are not dealing with the whole expenditure of the councils. The matters in regard to which there is the expenditure limit which is here being dealt with, are mainly confined to four or five matters such as advertising health resorts, providing bands by town councils, providing allotments, providing gymnasiums and things of that kind, for which the produce of a penny or a halfpenny rate is the sort of amount at present allowed. It is in order to meet exceptional cases, where the loss of rateable value is not compensated by the 33⅓ per cent., that the power has been put in. The last thing the Government would wish to do would be to encourage an arbitrary exercise of authority by the Minister.
I always hesitate, if my noble friend will forgive me saying so, to accept words which I have not had the opportunity of considering and which are proposed on the floor of the House without further consideration because it may be that there is some difficulty which I have not been able to see. So far as I can gather from the glimpse of the words which I have just had the opportunity of seeing, the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Hunsdon is that we put in the words "or such higher percentage as the Minister may deem necessary to compensate for the effect of derating." This certainly seems to me to carry out the intention of the provision and, if he will allow me an opportunity of considering the point with the Ministry before the Report stage and satisfying myself that the words are otherwise unobjectionable, as I hope they are, the proposal would be in no way obnoxious to His Majesty's Government.
A possible alternative would be to insert provision for an Order in Council. If the noble and learned Lord opposite will allow me to say so, I do not think that a matter of such very minor importance as whether a certain percentage shall be allowed to some small parish for a band or gymnasium is one which demands an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I think the better course might be to put in words which will bring the matter under the operation
330
of Clause 122, which, as your Lordships know, involves the Order being laid upon the Table, and provides that a Resolution in either House can negative it. The suggestion of my noble friend Lord Hunsdon would, I think, be satisfactory to the Government. I have not heard what the noble and learned Earl has to say and I do not know whether he would be prepared to allow me to consider which of these alternatives seems most suitable and to bring the matter up in the most convenient form on Report. If that would meet the views of my noble and learned friend, I will do my best to secure that one or other form of words is introduced on Report to meet the point which he raised.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: In view of the extremely reasonable attitude of the Lord Chancellor, I will, of course, withdraw my Amendment. Let me say, in doing so, that I should prefer the difficulty to be got over by the machinery of Clause 122 rather than by a method which seems to me still to leave it to the discretion of the Minister whether a special case has arisen and takes away from Parliament, its ultimate decision in the matter. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clauses 69 and 70 agreed to.
Clause 71:
Adaptation of enactments relating to drainage rates.
71.—(1) Any provision of any enactment directing that the amount of any drainage-rate shall or may be determined by reference to the value for rating purposes of any property as appearing in the valuation list for the time being in force, shall, as from the appointed day, have effect as if for any reference to that value there were therein substituted a reference to the gross annual value for income tax purposes.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF ONSLOW) moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or may." The noble Earl said: I beg leave to move this Amendment in the absence of my noble friend Lord Stradbroke, in whose name it stands. The clause as it stands goes too far and compels not only those authorities who are required to use the rateable basis, but also those who are empowered to do so, to adopt in lieu thereof the Schedule A basis. There is

331
no reason consequent on derating why the latter class of authority should have to adopt Schedule A unless they wish to do so. They will be left, therefore, as they are at present, in a position to adopt any annual values they think fair and equitable to meet the case. That is the position now, and we seek to preserve it by this and the following Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 10, leave out ("or may").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD PARMOOR: I think that what the noble Earl says is extremely reasonable. I am sure we all regret very much the cause of the absence of the noble Earl, Lord Stradbroke.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 25, at end insert:
("(3) Where by any enactment, including this section, the amount of any drainage rate is to be determined by reference to the gross annual value of any property for income tax purposes, then, if the property is not assessed for income tax purposes under Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, as amended by any subsequent enactment, the value thereof shall, as from the appointed day, be determined, in the event of any dispute, by a court of summary jurisdiction.").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 72 and 73 agreed to.
Clause 74:
Power to require copies of values in force under Schedule A of 8 & 9 Geo. 5 c. 40.
74. Any authority or person upon whom is imposed by or under any enactment a duty to obtain information for the purposes of the registration of voters or of enabling the names of persons qualified as jurors or special jurors to be marked in the electors' lists, and any authority person or body of persons having power to levy a drainage-rate whereof the amount is in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act to be determined by reference to the annual value of any property for income tax purposes, may from time to time require the surveyors of taxes for their area to furnish to them, on payment of a sum not exceeding the rate of five shillings for every hundred entries numbered separately, a copy of the annual values for the time being in force for the purposes of income tax under Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, for all or any of the properties in that area.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to omit the words: "whereof the amount is in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act to be determined by reference to the annual value of any property for Income Tax purposes." The noble Earl said: This is another Amendment that I beg to move on behalf of my noble friend Lord Stradbroke. Under Clause 71, the number of authorities who are required to adopt Schedule A values as a basis is narrowed. Only those who are now required to use rateable value will be required to adopt Schedule A values. But there are a number of drainage authorities who, though not required to adopt rateable values, did in practice use them and had specific rights of access to valuation lists for the purpose. These authorities may well desire, in the altered circumstances, to take Schedule A values as a guide to, or indeed to adopt them as, their annual values, and they should, it is thought, have facilities for obtaining the necessary information. This Amendment has been drafted to bring about that result.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 1, leave out from ("drainage-rate") to ("may") in line 4.—(The Earl of Onslow).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clause 76:
General adaptation of enactments and other documents.
76.—(1) Save as in this Part of this Act otherwise expressly provided, any provisions of any document directing that expenditure falling to be defrayed by two or more local authorities shall be apportioned between those authorities by reference to some value (other than rateable value) as appearing in or ascertained from the valuation list for the time being in force or as shown in, or ascertained in accordance with the Acts relating thereto, the basis or standard of county rates shall, as from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty, have effect as if for any reference to that value there were therein substituted—

(a) in the case of a document, not being an enactment, as respects which a value is agreed upon by the local authorities concerned, a reference to that value; and

(b) in the case of any such document as respects which a value is not so agreed upon, and in the case of an enactment, a reference to rateable value as shown by the valuation list for the time being in force.

(2) Save as in this Part of this Act otherwise expressly provided, any provision of any

333
document directing that the amount of any payment, not being a payment to which the last foregoing subsection applies, shall be determined by reference to some value as appearing in or ascertained from the valuation list for the time being in force or as shown in, or ascertained in accordance with the Acts relating to, the basis or standard of county rates shall, as from the appointed day, have effect as if for any reference to that value there were therein substituted—

(a) in the case of a document, not being an enactment, as respects which a value is—

(i) agreed upon by all persons having rights or obligations under the document; or

(ii) determined, in default of such agreement, by an arbitrator appointed by the Minister on an application made to him by or on behalf of any such person,

a reference to the value so agreed upon or determined; and

(b) in the case of an enactment, a reference to such value as may be determined by order or the Minister on application made to him by any such person as aforesaid.

(3) Before making any order under this section the Minister shall require the applicants to serve a copy of the draft order upon any local authority affected and to give, in terms approved by him and in such manner as he may consider best adapted for informing any other persons affected, public notice of the application for the order and as to the manner in which and the time within which objections to the order may be made, and shall consider any objection which may be duly made within four weeks from the date of the notice, and in the event of any objection being so made and not withdrawn the Minister shall make the order as a provisional order which shall not have effect unless and until confirmed by Parliament.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved to leave out Clause 76. The noble Lord said: One of my noble friends behind me said last night that he liked to know what he was voting upon. I have to confess that I do not understand a single word of this clause. There is no reference to it in the explanatory Memorandum, and I think it received very little discussion in another place. I think it is desirable that we should have some explanation of the intention of this clause, so that we may be guided as to the action to take in respect of it.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, leave out Clause 76.—(Lord Lamington.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very glad to have the opportunity of explaining what the clause does. I quite agree
334
that it wants a little analysis. It has two subsections that deal with different matters. In subsection (1) the case is dealt with of a joint service rendered by two or more authorities, the expenses being at present apportioned between them according to the value in the present valuation list. An obvious instance is a joint sewage board operating for two or more districts. The expenses of such a board are at present apportioned according to the value in the valuation list as it exists to-day. In those cases it is provided that the apportionment shall in future be based upon the future rateable value, so that the rateable value of the different parties shall determine the proportion that they will pay of that expenditure.
Subsection (2) deals with cases, not of services done by two parties jointly, but of one local authority paying another some proportion of the cost of services rendered by the either. Here the obvious instance would be the case where the expenses of the police are borne between one or more parties, payments being made to the authority that provides the service. Very often nowadays the amount of payment is calculated by reference to some value in the valuation list. After the alteration in the rateable value, the service that is being rendered will be the same as before and just as many police will be wanted, even if the rateable value of the district is altered. Accordingly it is not fair to reduce the amount of the payment by reason of the fact that the amount of the rateable value of the district paying has gone down. In those cases it is provided that either authority can apply for a revision of the terms of the agreement and, if they do not agree as to what that revision shall be, a decision shall be given by an arbitrator who will be appointed for that purpose by the Ministry.
Subsection (3) provides that the variation shall be made by order, and that if any objection is made by any party to the order that order shall become a provisional order, leaving the final decision to Parliament. I hope that that answers the question which my noble friend has put.
LORD LAMINGTON: I am obliged to the Lord Chancellor for his very explicit explanation, and I hope it has enlightened other members of the House besides

335
myself. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78:
Discontinuance of grants.
78.—(1) The grants set out in the Second Schedule to this Act (in this Act referred to as "the Discontinued Grants") shall cease to be payable in respect of any period after the thirty-first clay of March, nineteen hundred and thirty.
EARL BUXTON EARL BUXTON moved in subsection (1), after the first "grants," to insert "other than grants for maternity and child welfare." The noble Earl said: This Amendment has reference to the question of maternity homes and child welfare institutions, and it is of importance. Let me say at once, with regard to the object which we have in view—namely, the encouragement of maternity homes and child welfare institutions—that I do not think there is any difference of opinion between the Government and members in any part of the House. We want to encourage them as far as we can, and this Amendment can be accepted entirely within the terms of the Bill itself. It does not alter in any way the proposals in the Bill, or the method by which they are to be carried out. It is a matter of the discontinued grants. This is a grant which is to be discontinued, and I ask the Government to see whether they cannot continue it.
The difference which I am going to put to the Government is this, that under the system at present existing when a local authority desires either to institute or extend these maternity homes and child welfare institutions the Department gives it a grant, pound for pound. For every pound which the local authority expends on maternity and child welfare work, it gets another pound from the Treasury. If they are brought, as they are intended to be brought by the Bill, under the block grant system, it means, of course, that they will receive a complete sum annually instead of receiving it in detail. The block grant is based upon the expenditure of last year, and will last for three years, and afterwards may be amended. The difference, so far as the encouragement of these homes and institutions is concerned, is that in the one case, where the local authority institute or extend these insti-
336
tutions, they will get back what they have expended, pound for pound, but when it comes to the block grant, although the amount expended this year has already been included, no additional grant for the extension of maternity and child welfare work will be given.
This work has only been in force for a comparatively small number of years. It was instituted, I think, in 1914, and the Government grant then was only £12,000 a year. It has now risen, as I am sure we all rejoice it should have risen, to just over £1,000,000 a year, which is paid yearly towards these institutions by the Government. Two years ago there were only 400 of these institutions and now there are no fewer than 2,634 centres, and the Minister of Health the other day, in debate, said that the result of the stimulus of this pound per pound system was so satisfactory that the mortality had been reduced to 65 per thousand, or considerably over four per cent. below what it had ever been before. It is clear that the present system has been a great stimulus to the institution and extension of these centres. I think more could be done in regard to them, but that is all the more reason for giving them greater encouragement, instead of damping the work down by not giving the local authority any particular reason for instituting or extending this work year by year.
It must be a considerable discouragement to the local authority if, under the general block grant, they should have to bear the whole of the cost of instituting or extending these institutions, whereas before they have always received a pound for every pound which they have so expended. Let me give an instance. Supposing at the present time they have one institution costing £2,000 a year. The local authority pay £1,000 and the Government the other £1,000. If, in the course of the next few years, the local authority extends its operations in regard to this matter of maternity or child welfare, and spends in the next year, say, £2,500, it will receive, included in the block grant, the £1,000 paid last year, but it will have to pay the other £1,500 out of its own pocket, instead of getting half of the £2,500 back from the Government. The same thing will occur if the expenditure exceeds £3,000. The local authority will then pay £2,000 instead of getting £1,500 back from the Government.
That must mean serious discouragement of the existing institutions and extension of these institutions. The block grant will, of course, be spent upon every conceivable proposal and expenditure coming under the purview of the local authority. Up to the present moment these maternity homes have not been in competition with other proposals and services, because they have been in a privileged position, as being profitable, in a sense, because for every pound that has been spent a pound has been received from the Government. Under the block grant system they will, however, come into competition from the very beginning with all the expenditure of the local authority, and I am afraid that having lost their preference they will be liable—I will not say to disappear, but it will not be to the interest of the local authority to spend money upon them as it has been in the past.
We were told in the debates in another place that the Government were giving for the block grant what they called "new money," and that the local authority would have a larger amount at its disposal, some of which it could spend on welfare homes, but surely that is not the case, because throughout this Bill it has been defended and supported on the ground that it is going to relieve the rates. Therefore, quite properly, especially in these necessitous districts, the first interest will be the reduction of the rates, and however much money may be brought into their purview, there will be an equal demand for a reduction of rates, and therefore there will be no surplus to go to these institutions in which I am interested. Then we were told that at the present moment the Minister has no power to enforce the institution or extension of these maternity and child welfare homes, but that under the Bill he will have the power to force a recalcitrant local authority, or a local authority not particularly interested in the matter, to spend money on the creation of these homes. How can he do it? The only method he has under Clause 96 is to reduce the grant which he is about to pay for the coming year to the local authority; he can only force them to spend money by taking away money to which they are otherwise entitled. That is not a very
338
good method. After all, a Minister in a matter of this sort would enforce Clause 96 for the reduction of grant with great reluctance, and only in cases of great neglect; and I am quite sure that it is better to encourage backward authorities by giving them an additional grant, rather than to coerce them by taking away the grant which they already have.
This proposal of the Government cannot fail to be a real and serious discouragement to the creation or extension of maternity and child welfare homes. I would make an appeal to the Government in this matter. As I say, it does not affect the principle of the Bill; they have only to take this particular grant out of the block grant, and let it remain as it is at present as a great encouragement to local authorities to institute these homes. We all want to do what we can to encourage welfare homes, and especially maternity homes. The very heavy mortality among mothers in childbirth is one of the most tragic incidents in our civilised life, and anything we can do to encourage the extension of these admirable homes we ought to do. I am seriously afraid that if the Government pass this clause the incentive to increase such homes will disappear, and the rapid increase in their number that has taken place in the last few years will cease.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 24 after ("grants") insert ("other than grants for maternity and child welfare").—(Earl Buxton.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARK: I should like to support the appeal which has just been made by the noble Earl. I am speaking as one who for some time has been in close connection with those who have been working in these homes, and I know that there is no proposal in this measure which has caused greater anxiety among those who are concerned in welfare work. I believe that their reasons for asking that some change may be made in this clause are as follows: Firstly, the system of percentage grants has worked admirably. Under this system the development of the work has been very great. In 1916 there were 650 of such centres; last year there were no fewer than 2,684; and in the last five years the amount spent on this work has increased by 36 per cent. They therefore think that it would be very unfortunate to make a change in a system which has

339
been working admirably. Next, they feel that, although real progress has been made, a great deal still requires to be done. I notice that Sir George Newman, in his report on the health of school children, says that no fewer than 25 per cent. of the children in our elementary schools were suffering from illness which could have been prevented if they had only been treated earlier in life. And although this welfare work has greatly increased, it is inevitable that if the health of the children is to be cared for, there must be a great extension of it in the next few years. Therefore it is unfortunate if the basis on which the grant is made is to be changed.
The third point is this. In the future whenever any extension of this work is required an appeal will have to be made to the local authority, and as far as I can see—though it is possible that the noble Earl who is replying for the Government may be able to give some different interpretation of it—the additional expenditure will have to come from the rates. A friendly Minister of Health has been encouraging this expenditure during these past years. Many local authorities will no doubt encourage expenditure which is so important for health, but there are other local authorities who view this work with a good deal of suspicion, and naturally they will be very loath to take a step which will mean an increase in the rates. If the clause remains as it is I cannot see how you can avoid these questions being decided in future, not on their merits from the point of view of health, but from the point of view of rates. I am perfectly certain that the Government are as anxious as anyone else to see that this work progresses in every way. The Minister has made that abundantly clear, and therefore I hope that the Government will modify the clause so as to continue the system which has proved so successful in the last few years.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I regard this as one of the most important Amendments to the Bill. Maternity and child welfare to my mind lie at the whole root of our national well-being. The position in which this country stands to-day with regard to maternity mortality, is—not to use too strong a word, a disgrace. I think myself, though I am not quite certain of the figures, that our ratio of
340
deaths to those in Holland is something like 14 to 2. Of this, at least, I am certain, that Holland and Sweden and other countries have an immensely less mortality rate of women in childbirth than this country has; and yet there is hardly a medical man who will not tell you that maternity mortality is almost entirely preventible, as it is in Holland, where it is reduced almost to nothing. What is the reason for that? The reason for that is ignorance and carelessness—ignorance of the proper conditions in which these women ought to be treated, and carelessness in applying the proper treatment. The same thing is true with regard to children, though there we have reduced the mortality notably, and I trust it will go on.
But both these things depend upon your continued energetic application of maternity and child welfare centres. It is owing to their work that we have been able to go as far as we have, and it is to them that we must look if we hope to get improvement. My complaint against the Bill as it stands is this, that it has robbed this work of its direct incentive to grow. At the present time money that can be raised in the locality is met at once pound for pound by a grant from the Government. There is therefore every inducement to raise the money. Under this arrangement, as I see it, there is going to be an inducement to save the money and that is exactly the thing above all other things that we ought to try to avoid. I believe that we ought to do this in the interests of our people—the interests of the women and of the children. There is another way in which it may be looked at. It is also obviously the most economical expenditure that we can make. To rear a strong and healthy population is the surest way to secure economy. But to let women suffer and children be brought up weak is the surest way to incur further expenditure. Therefore, both upon the public and upon the narrower grounds, I do most earnestly ask the Government, even at this hour, to reconsider their position and not to do something which. I cannot help thinking, will strike a very grave if not a deadly blow against the growing activity of this splendid work.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not think that anybody would deny for one instant the very great importance of this matter

341
which the noble Earl has brought forward—the great importance of maintaining and increasing and rendering more efficient the maternity and child welfare service of local authorities. As he very truly observed, there is no difference between us as to the object which we have in view. He went on to say that the Amendment he has put before your Lordships does not alter the Bill fundamentally. It does alter the Bill fundamentally. It cuts right at the root of the financial system of the Bill, a system of block grants which is the basis of the more important financial clauses of the Bill. I do not want to insist upon the purely financial aspect of this case too much, but I would like also to say that his proposal cuts again at the root of the Bill. It cuts at the principle which we seek to bring forward and which we believe is a better principle for maintaining the object we all have in view than the principle of the percentage grants.
Let me explain what I mean by that. The noble Lord said that a percentage grant is a great stimulus to activity in this or other directions. I do not deny for an instant that a percentage grant may be so; but it is a stimulus in the richer areas. A richer area is more stimulated to spend and to obtain money by means of a percentage grant. Obviously, if you have not a large number of pounds your rates will not bear a very heavy charge and you have not got a large number of sovereigns to put up to earn a percentage grant. That must happen, of course, in the poorer areas, in those areas where maternity and child welfare services are most important and most necessary. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, very truly and very rightly laid emphasis on the necessity for the diminution of maternity mortality in this country. Where does maternity mortality take place? Where is the greatest incidence of that calamity? It is not in the large populous residential areas which have a high rateable value and are able to spend large sums of money on their services and to earn a high percentage grant. The mortality is in the poorer districts and in the less well-off areas which cannot afford to raise the initial sovereigns to earn this pound for pound grant from the Government. That is the actual principle of this Bill. It is to enable those poorer
342
areas to get the necessary money for their services that we have brought forward this principle of the block grant; and while we do not differ in our anxiety to effect these services well, we do differ, because it cuts at the root of the Bill, regarding the proposal of the noble Earl in the light of that which is in the Bill.
It has been said, I think by the right rev. Prelate as well as by other noble Lords, that this block grant of £5,000,000 over and above the compensation for the loss of rates and grants will be used largely to relieve the rates. I do not think it was said by the right rev. Prelate but by the noble Earl that this is a Bill to relieve the rates and, therefore, the first result would be that the block grant, the additional £5,000,000, would be used to reduce the poundage of the rates throughout the country or, at at any rate, in those areas where the pressure of the rates is greatest. That is not the idea of the Bill, and I think it is the first time it has been suggested. The idea of the relief of the rates in the Bill is a rating reform whereby inequitable rates shall be taken off the shoulders of those who ought not to bear them, such as agriculture and industry, and not to give block grants in relief of rates which are admittedly equitable and which are left in statu quo. I do not think the Bill can possibly have that result. I do not suppose that local authorities will say: "Now that we have a block grant, we may cease from our services and use the money to reduce our rates." That, I think, would be a very retrograde interpretation of their duties.
Suppose that were the case. Suppose another difficulty adumbrated by the noble Earl arose: Suppose, in the first instance, that local authorities used the£5,000,000 to reduce their existing rates, or that they said: "We are not going to spend this money on maternity and child welfare; we are going to spend it on our roads which we think are far more important, and as the Government have ceased the percentage grant" (or whatever reason they may give)"we are not going to spend the money on maternity and child welfare," what would happen? The noble Earl said that the power of the Minister to reduce the grant is a very peculiar method of forcing them to spend money in the proper direction. Let us examine how the power of the Minister to reduce the grant will operate. The block grant

343
goes to a district, and the apportionment goes to a county, we will say. That local authority spends its money in its own way and allocates so much for this, so much for that and so much for the other service. The Minister's duty is to inform himself as to the budget of the local authority, and he may say, and no doubt will say because it is the duty of the Ministry of Health to see that this service is properly and effectually carried out: "You are not spending the £10,000, or £20,000 of your grant upon maternity and child welfare as you ought to do." The local authority will no doubt give reasons which it regards as adequate for not doing so. That will not satisfy the Minister, and what will be the result? He will say: "If you propose to spend £20,000 on the roads and not on maternity and child welfare services as you ought to do, you shall not have the money. If you do not spend it in the proper way you shall not have it and you shall not be able to bring it to the relief of roads or any other service."
That power which he will have is a power greater than ever was given to any Minister before. I do not suppose for an instant that it is likely to come into operation so far as actually to reduce the grant, but what will happen is that the local authority will be told that they will not get their money unless they spend it properly. In the event, no doubt, a proper arrangement will be arrived at and the welfare service will be maintained. I want to insist very strongly on the advantages of a block grant as against a percentage grant. It is to the poorer areas that we want to direct the flow of this money. By the percentage grant it is to the richer areas that the money tends to flow and not to the poorer ones.
Take certain figures I will give to your Lordships. Grants per child above five years of age for this service in the year 1926–27 were:—Gateshead. 27 d.; Dudley, 21 d.; South Shields, 29 d.; Tynemouth, 36 d.; Merthyr Tydvil, 43 d.—all poor districts, and largely working-class districts where I have no doubt the calamity mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, is very likely more to be felt than in those districts I will now mention to your Lordships. In the same year the grant for this service to Manchester was 128 d.; to
344
Liverpool, 107 d.; to Leeds, 140 d.; and, highest of all, to Eastbourne, 200 d.—200 d. to Eastbourne and 27 d. to Gateshead! Under the formula the flow of money goes to the area which needs it most—the poorer area—and, therefore, the greater portion of the block grant will go to those areas which most need it, and they will be able to utilise it for that service. That is a fundamental point of this Bill and I insist upon it rather than upon the financial point. I want to impress upon noble Lords that the Government stick to this clause on its merits. We think it is a right and proper way of getting the money applied to this service in those districts which most require it, and which cannot get it under the present percentage system.
LORD OLIVIER: I have an Amendment later on the Paper which proposes to extend the exemption from this clause to certain other sanitary grants, but if this Amendment is defeated my Amendment can hardly have a chance of succeeding. I was glad to hear the noble Earl proclaim that local authorities and richer constituencies are not to imagine for a moment that this Bill is to be a Bill in reduction of rates, and that the new money is not to be applied in that manner. That is a wholesome admission to get on the authority of the noble Earl. I am also glad to hear him say—I hope it is the case universally—that all local authorities and communities now recognise the immense importance and value of these maternity grants and these child welfare grants. The latest London return shows the lowest infant death rate on record. That does not quite satisfy some of my noble friends who also think that we should have the lowest birth rate, and that local authorities should take steps towards that end. However that is a matter we need not go into here.
I want strongly to support the arguments in defence of the percentage grant that have been urged from this side of the House. The noble Earl opposite has given us some reasons for supposing that the poorer districts do not get so much out of it as the richer districts. I was very much interested to hear in the debate on the Second Reading one or two very good arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth. I do not think he is in the House at the present moment. As

345
a supporter of this Bill he gave, What appeared to me to be very good arguments against it, and one of those I am going to quote to your Lordships. He said:—
"Again and again the expenditure, sometimes running into thousands of pounds, has been on the point of being turned down because either it was unnecessary or not so necessary as some other reform. There may be some still small voice, perhaps an official, more often a councillor, who said: 'You know, if you turn that down, you lose £2,000 of public money,' and nearly always that, to my mind false, argument has won the day and the expenditure has been carried through."
The experience of those familiar with local government in regard to this percentage grant tells them that again and again it has encouraged the local authorities to incur expenditure which they would not otherwise have expended, and again and again I am quite sure it has had eminently that effect in regard to those necessary social services which have been grafted on to the old administrative services of the councils. I think the pound for pound grant is unquestionably a very great incentive towards the increase of these necessary social services, and it is an incentive which it is very undesirable indeed to sacrifice.
The noble Earl argued that if the local authorities neglected the development of their social services then pressure could be put upon them by cutting down the block grant. On this clause we are brought into the whole question of the formula and the block grant itself. I have very great sympathy with the noble Earl and with the Government in having had to devise some kind of formula, or some kind of financial expedient, that could be applied to an alteration of our local financial system of such a character as this. I know very well what is the great difficulty when you are changing the incidence of taxation in getting any kind of reform that will act fairly. It is almost impossible to do it.
I must say the block grant system seems to me one of most monstrous and mistaken creations that could have been devised for that purpose. The block grants proceed on the same principle as certain advertisements of clothing which we see. It used to be called "Reach-me-down" clothing and now it is called "Ready-made tailor-
346
ing". You see a diagram put up with certain measurements, and you are told if you make out these measurements and they are operated upon by a formula of reducing the cubic dimensions then the establishment will send you a perfectly fitting suit of clothes. The boy is unfortunate for whom his economical mother orders a suit of clothes made according to this formula. In order that there shall be no mistake she insists that her boy should be given a little room all round. It is thus provided his suit may be a little too big for him all round. Then when the suit arrives his mother says: "I do not think this quite fits you, my boy; your figure is defective in some parts, you do not fill out the suit in some places where you should do so. I am afraid that on the next occasion, if your figure does not fill out in the meantime so as to fit this beautiful Reach-me-down suit of clothes made according to the formula, I shall have to cut down your suit all round—take an inch or so off the width of the trousers and a couple of inches off the bottom, and then the suit will fit you." That is the sort of mechanical process by which we propose to deal with these deficiencies.
The noble Lord says to the local Authorities: "If you do not increase your expenditure on these maternity and other services I shall take off the money I was going to give you for them." That might be a real hardship upon the local community, because on the face of it they may have had to spend money upon other services, and to cut down their block grant may mean that they will have to cease spending money which they otherwise would spend on services that are legitimately and properly required. In any case the incentive to them to increase their maternity and their sanitary expenditure will not be so great as it would have been if they were going to get pound for pound. They will say, and quite truly: "If you were going to give us pound for pound we should certainly put up our rate and undertake additional expenditure, but so long as you do not give us pound for pound for this particular expenditure there are other parts of our expenditure which we think are legitimate that we shall have to sacrifice, and it is a great hardship upon us that you should cut down the whole of our financial budget

347
because certain parts of it have precedence, though in our judgment the distribution is reasonable. If you would give us a pound for pound grant we would do it, but as you will not give it the fair balance of our financial arrangements will be disturbed if we should make this increase."
I am not in the slightest degree convinced by the noble Earl's argument that the block grant is a better system than the percentage grant. It is perfectly true that the deleterious operation is delayed for a certain time and that the hardships of it have been mitigated by an elaborate system of stages by which you are going to apply it, and therefore it is difficult to argue that immediately it will have a deleterious effect, but it is establishing a perfectly mistaken, and, in my opinion, a perfectly indefensible principle of applying the relief which is to be given in aid of the operations of this Bill, in order to evade the much greater task of putting our rating system upon a sound and proper basis. I share the opinion of the noble Earl that encouragement should be given to these activities, and that that will not be done by the substitution of the block grant system.
LORD ARNOLD: Before my noble friend speaks again, as he probably will, I should like to say a few words and to endeavour to reduce the matter to a concrete instance. The noble Earl gave as a reason for changing to the block grant system that the percentage system was unfair to poorer areas, and he gave reasons for that view. The noble Earl knows as well as I do that there is a good deal more behind it. The Treasury for years have wanted this block grant system. I should like to know, if all that the noble Earl said about the block grant system is true, how comes it that, although the Meston Committee did not report, the bulk of its members after prolonged inquiry were in favour of the percentage system?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I know nothing about that.
LORD ARNOLD: The noble Earl said that under this system a poor area could not get as much as a rich area, and the implication was that by this Bill that would be made right. Nothing of the sort will happen, because there is not enough money to do it. If the noble
348
Earl had given your Lordships figures, your Lordships would have seen that these services are going to be shockingly starved under the Bill. If you had enough money to do it there would be more to be said for the view of the noble Earl, but it is not going to be put right. We do not say that the percentage grant system is ideal. In fact, as happens with the education grant, the percentage system may be supplemented, and probably it is on some such lines as that that you will get the ideal. As it is, a great starving of these services will take place under this Bill.
I will give your Lordships an instance. This is the concrete instance I mentioned at the opening of my remarks. Suppose you have now an expenditure on a certain service of £10,000. At present £5,000 is found out of the rates and £5,000 comes from the Exchequer. Suppose you increase that £10,000 to £30,000. What is the result? The whole of the £25,000 will have to be found out of the rates if that is done after the quinquennium. That is five times as much, and not only so, but owing to the derating proposals you will have lessened the rateable value of the area so that, instead of five times as much, the cost will probably be seven times as much to the ratepayers. Is it reasonable in these circumstances to expect the local authority to develop a system on the same lines as it would have done before? It would be a great discouragement to them. It is no reply to say that when the next quinquennium comes it will be all right. There is no certainty of that whatever. There is nothing in the Bill to say that this particular health service will receive an additional penny. It might and it might not. I say you are putting a very great discouragement in the way of local authorities developing these services.
The only other point I would refer to is that the Lord Chancellor in the Second Reading debate gave as one of his very strong reasons for the change that the Minister would now have power to withhold these grants. He can do that now. The percentage grant is only given on approved expenditure. Surely the Lord Chancellor was on a false point there. The whole matter is in the discretion of Whitehall now and it does really seem, if I may say so, to be misleading to give your Lordships to understand that he will

349
be able to do in future what he is not able to do now. As a matter of fact I thought the noble Earl's instance singularly infelicitous because he said that if under the block grant system a council would not spend certain money in the end the grant would be withheld.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I did not say that. I said that if a grant was used for wrong purposes, if, for instance, money was spent on roads which ought to have been spent on maternity and child welfare work, the Minister would say: "You ought to have spent this on maternity and child welfare; you shall not use it for other purposes."
LORD ARNOLD: I do not think the position outlined by the noble Earl is very encouraging for the future of these services, and I have ventured to give a specific illustration. The figures I have given are unshakeable and they show how the additional burden will work out. If they are wrong I ask the noble Earl to say where they are wrong.
EARL BUXTON: I will not detain your Lordships more than a couple of minutes. I do not propose to answer my noble friend because I am anxious to get on, but there is one question I want to ask. If an authority ought to entend its maternity and child welfare homes, is that authority more likely to extend these homes if the whole of the money is to come out of the block grant, or if it gets a grant of pound for pound of the money expended?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The answer is that the block grant will cover the expenditure. They will take the money out of the block grant. They will have a larger amount.
EARL BUXTON: I was speaking of the future if they are going to extend. The block grant is fixed on the expenditure last year.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, much larger in the poorer areas.
EARL BUXTON: In the future they will have to take it out of the block grant instead of getting pound for pound.
ON Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clause 79:
Payment and apportionment of General Exchequer Contributions.
(3) The amount of the General Exchequer Contribution shall be the sum of the following amounts, that is to say:—
(a) an amount equal to the total losses on account of rates of all counties and county boroughs.
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved, in subsection (3) (a), to leave out "total losses on account of rates," and to insert "average annual losses on account of rates during the preceding fixed grant period." The noble Lord said: The two Amendments standing in my name hang together. The first aims at making the general Exchequer contribution more elastic, and the second at making the apportionment to the counties and county boroughs more exactly fit the reasonable needs of local expenditure after the first years of the operation of the Bill. The first Amendment deals with the method of arriving at the general Exchequer contribution by which all the money for the scheme is provided. Let me draw your Lordships' attention to the method by which this is done in the Bill. The general Exchequer contribution is based upon three items: (1), the total losses on account of rates; (2), the total losses on account of grants; and (3), an additional figure which is estimated at £5,000,000 to start with. In paragraph (c) of subsection (3) an explanation is given of how any expansion of this amount can take place. The first two items are fixed for all time, but the third can be varied. Paragraph (c) provides that the ratio that the total amount of the general Exchequer contribution bears to the total grant and rate-borne expenditure at present shall never be reduced, and on page 43 of the White Paper (Cd. 3273) an example is given of how this would work out in practice.
I believe these figures are based upon actual estimates, and the result of the calculation, with which I will not trouble your Lordships, is that, when a rise in rate-borne expenditure takes place in the future, an increase of only one-quarter of that rise will be covered by the increase in the total of the general Exchequer contribution. What I want to point out is that I believe this to be too small an amount. What we want for these increasing activities of local bodies,

351
like the maternity, child welfare and health services in general, is that they should have more money than they are getting at present and, in the future, a great deal more. I think that we on this side of the House agree that more of the expenditure on such services should be gradually transferred to the national Exchequer from the rates, and my first Amendment, which deals with the total amount of the general Exchequer grant, proposes that the total loss due to rates should be re-estimated at intervals so that the general Exchequer contribution may be more closely related to the increase of burdens that fall upon the ratepayers all over England after the first periods of the scheme have been passed.
My second Amendment aims at returning to each county and county borough the whole of its loss on account of rates instead of only a diminishing percentage, as is provided in the Bill. I am aware that additional grants are provided which are supposed to make good any losses suffered in the various localities, and I believe that this may be a satisfactory method of dealing with the problem at first. The various White Papers that have been published tend to show that this will be the case, at any rate in the initial stages of the scheme. But when you reach the end of the first seventeen years, the apportionment will be made entirely by means of the formula, and I cannot help feeling that the result of this will be more or less a matter of chance. There must be some element of chance in it, or I presume that the formula would have been adopted directly the Bill was passed. Where rapid increases of population and industry have taken place—and we all hope that there may be a rapid increase of prosperity all over the country—and especially where there are shifts of industry from one part of the country to another, the increased rate-borne expenditure which will have to be incurred will be less and less adequately met by the provisions of the Bill. A very heavy burden will tend to fall on the general body of ratepayers, as was pointed out in the debate on the Amendment to Clause 78, and local authorities will be discouraged from undertaking important activities such as health work. It is because I believe that the future is inadequately provided for that I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 4, leave out from ("the") to the second ("of") in line 5 and insert ("average annual losses on account of rates during the preceding fixed grant period").—(Lord Henley.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not think that I need trouble your Lordships with any lengthy discussion of this Amendment. The noble Lord and your Lordships must be well aware that this proposal cuts right at the root of the finance of the whole Bill. Your Lordships are familiar with the scheme of the Government, which was laid before you on the Second Reading in the very able and eloquent speech of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It is unnecessary for me to repeat what he said. If your Lordships were to accept this Amendment you would be cutting at the root of the finance of the scheme. The Government claim that in this Bill they have met the justifiable claims of every local authority and that their scheme is an equitable and just scheme of rating reform. They are unable to accept this Amendment, and must stand or fall by their scheme.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD ARNOLD: I wish to say a few words before we pass from this clause, because there are certain very intricate matters which arise in connection with it which are not easy to put into an Amendment. The points which I wish to raise relate more particularly to the working of the quinquennial system. I think myself that the whole basis of this fixing of the block grant for the next five years according to the penultimate year is most unscientific, and is bound to lead to bad results. The noble Earl somewhat surprised me in his concluding argument by saying that they had satisfied every local authority in the country. That is not my information at all, and I very strongly beg to dissent from that statement, because a great many local authorities are very far from being satisfied. I do not think the noble Earl could have meant that statement, because he must know that very strong representations to the contrary have been made.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I wonder whether I might make an appeal to the noble Lord? I hope he will forgive me for interrupting. I quite understand his wish to address your Lordships

353
upon this clause, but I do not gather that he desires to strike this clause out from the Bill. Therefore his observations, although no doubt very much in point, will not really have any effect upon the actual passage of the Bill. What I would venture to say then is that we have had the Bill under discussion for a very long time and I would suggest that in the circumstances we might confine our debates as far as possible to the material matters which noble Lords wish to have altered in the Bill, and which are most appropriate for discussion. I make this appeal to the noble Lord not to detain your Lordships on this clause longer than he can help.
LORD ARNOLD: I am in great difficulty. I am somewhat meticulous about points of order, and therefore I consulted high authority about the points which I wish to make, and I was informed that I could raise them now. I could perhaps have made observations upon the Amendment which was moved by the noble Lord—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord is absolutely in order. There is no question about that.
LORD ARNOLD: I think if I had made my observations upon the last Amendment someone who was super-meticulous would have found reason to take exception—
LORD BUCKMASTER: The noble Marquess has fully explained that there is no question of order involved, but the point is that this debate is futile because there is no question of altering the clause before the House.
LORD ARNOLD: I think that that observation would rule out all discussion upon the question that a clause stand part of the Bill. However, in the circumstances I am not going to detain your Lordships, because it does not seem to be of much use doing so, for even if points are put on these intricate financial matters they are not replied to. Therefore I will leave the matter where it stands.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 79 agreed to
Clause 80:
Payments out of Road Fund towards General Exchequer Contribution.
80.—(1) Towards the General Exchequer Contribution there shall at such times and in such manner as the Treasury may direct be paid out of the Road Fund in respect of the year beginning on the appointed day, and each subsequent year an annual contribution amounting to the sum of the following amounts, that is to say—
(b) in respect of each year in the first fixed grant period, eighty ninety-first parts of the sum of three million pounds, and in respect of each year of each following fixed grant period, such sum as Parliament may hereafter determine with respect to the fixed grant period;
and any sum so payable out of the Road Fund shall, in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury, be applied as an appropriation in aid of the moneys to be provided by Parliament for the purposes of the General Exchequer Contribution.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE VISCOUNT ALLENDALE moved to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Earl Beauchamp. It is intended to oppose any further sums being taken from the Road Fund. It is considered that too much has been taken already, and although I am afraid it is too much to hope that the Government will consider this Amendment, yet it seems that in the present state of our roads every penny in the Fund is needed for their improvement.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 28, leave out paragraph (b). (Viscount Allendale.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I would like in the first place to congratulate my noble friend on what I think is the first time that he has addressed your Lordships, and I wish I had been able to give him a more cordial reception. I am sure your Lordships will join me in that wish. I regret that I am unable to accept the Amendment. The figure has to be considered in relation to the estimated net increase of about £7,000,000 in the total grants to local authorities, and the total net additional cost of the English scheme to the Exchequer of 31⅓ millions sterling. I think I dealt with this point on the Second Reading. It was stated then that the £3,000,000 from the Road Fund was not new money, and I ventured to say then that this Road Fund is increasing and is certain to go on increasing,

355
and that this money coming from the Road Fund is regarded, and should be regarded, as new money, and therefore devoted to proper purposes. This £3,000,000 will not in any way affect the activity of the Road Fund.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clauses 81 to 84 agreed to.
Clause 85 [Schemes as to maternity and child welfare]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 4, leave out from ("shall") to ("a") in line 7, and insert ("before the beginning of each fixed grant period, after consultation with the councils of the county and of the district, make").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 85, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 86 and 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Additional Exchequer grants to county boroughs]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This also is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 24, leave out ("this section") and insert ("section eighty-eight of this Act.")—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 88, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 89 [Payment of supplementary Exchequer grants to county boroughs]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Amendment I move here is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 10, leave out from ("years") to the end of line 13, and insert ("such sum as, together with the amount of the Additional Exchequer Grant (if any), is equal to one-half of the said aggregate amount of such losses;")—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 89, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 90 to 92 agreed to.
Clause 93:
Contributions by councils to voluntary associations in respect of maternity and child welfare.
(2) The scheme shall provide—

(a) for the payment to any such association whose services were immedi-
356
ately before the appointed day approved by the Minister, of such annual contribution in respect of those services (not being less than a sum to be determined by the Minister) as may be specified in the scheme; and

(b) for the payment to any such association in respect of any services not so approved, which are utilised by the council, of such annual contribution as may be specified in the scheme.

LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to add to subsection (2):—
"Provided that the said annual contributions shall be limited to such amounts as represent the cost of the services rendered or to be rendered, during the year to which such contributions relate, by any such association to and at the request of the council, and any dispute between the council and the association either as to the cost of such services or as to the reasonableness of any refusal by a council to request such services to be rendered shall be determined by the Minister."
The noble Lord said: This seems a very strong obligation to put upon county councils because the clause, as it now stands, is rather complicated. The effect would be that the Minister will be able to impose upon county councils—in fact, the clause says:
"It shall be the duty of the council of every county (other than the county of London) and of every county borough six months at least before the beginning of each fixed grant period to prepare and submit to the Minister for his approval, a scheme for securing the payment by the council of annual contributions towards the expenses of voluntary associations … "
—quite irrespective of any benefit that they may receive from these voluntary associations. They may be very valuable or they may not, and there should be some means by which the county council should be protected. That is the object of my Amendment.
I would also draw attention to subsection (5), for it appears to me that voluntary associations may be able to go out and tout for subscriptions saying that for every pound received in subscriptions the county council would have to contribute another pound. If that is the right reading there should be some protection afforded, but the clause is very complicated, and my object in moving is to get a fuller explanation of the position of the county councils. In

357
my Amendment I also arrange that there shall be an appeal to the Minister in case of dispute. The County Councils Association do not like this compulsion. The Government are too much inclined to put compulsion upon the county councils without any appeal to the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 13, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I hope that my noble friend will not insist upon this Amendment. The objections to the limitation which it is proposed to put in are that it would be opposed to the principle on which the clause is based, and it would be inequitable because the whole of the grant paid hitherto by the Ministry to the voluntary associations would be included in the grants to be paid under the Bill to the local authorities, therefore it would pass through the local authority. Secondly, some of the institutions provided by the voluntary associations serve the areas of several councils. It would be necessary in these cases for each to pay a contribution, although a sum equal at least to the whole of the grant hitherto paid by the Ministry would be credited to the council of the area in which the institution is situated. The third objection is that the Amendment would be disastrous to the funds of some of the associations, especially associations like those which run homes for unmarried mothers, because it might be difficult to say that these associations render services to the councils in the area in which the home is situated. I am afraid that the proposal of my noble friend for an appeal to the Minister would not be of assistance in such cases.
LORD STRACHIE: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 93 agreed to.
Clauses 94 and 95 agreed to.
Clause 96:
Power to reduce grants.
96. The Minister may reduce the grant payable in respect of any year under this Part of this Act to any council by such amount as he thinks just, if,—

(a) he is satisfied, either upon representations made to him by any association or other body of persons experienced or interested in matter relating to public health or without any such representa-
358
tions that the council have failed to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of efficiency and progress in the discharge of their functions relating to public health services (including services relating to maternity and child welfare, lunacy and mental deficiency and the welfare of the blind), regard being had to the standards maintained in other areas whose financial resources and other relevant circumstances are substantially similar, and that the health or welfare of the inhabitants of the area of the council or some of them has been or is likely to be thereby endangered; or

(b) he is satisfied that the expenditure of the council has been excessive and unreasonable, regard being had to the financial resources and other relevant circumstances of the area; or

(c) the Minister of Transport certifies that he is satisfied that the council have failed to maintain their roads or any part thereof in a satisfactory condition:

Provided that whenever the Minister makes such a reduction, he shall make and cause to be laid before Parliament a report stating the amount of the reduction and the reasons therefor.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER, on behalf of Earl Buxton, moved, in the proviso, to leave out "whenever the Minister makes such a reduction he shall make and cause to be laid before Parliament a report stating the amount of the," and to insert "the Minister shall not make such a reduction until he has made and caused to be laid before Parliament a report stating the amount of the proposed." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment has the merit of simplicity. As the clause stands, there is power to make a reduction in grants, subject only to this, that whenever the Minister makes a reduction he shall cause a report to be laid before Parliament stating the amount of the reduction. I cannot help thinking that it is an oversight in the Bill that it is not already provided that before he makes the reduction he shall make the report to Parliament. It really does seem quite useless to make the report to Parliament after the reduction has been made—unless, indeed, it is suggested that Parliament should not have any opportunity of criticising it. All that this Amendment proposes is that you should have the report before reduction, instead of after reduction. I hope that will be considered reasonable.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 7, leave out from ("that") to ("reduction") in line 9, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not think there is any very great objection to this Amendment, but I should like to point out certain considerations to the noble and learned Lord. The object of the clause is to equip the Minister with a power of reduction of grant in order to enable him effectively to discharge his responsibility of seeing that the health services are properly carried on and that the expenditure is not unreasonable. It is right and proper that this power of the Ministry should come under the survey of Parliament, and that is done. But it is suggested that it is not desirable that the power should be held in suspense, and further, that the Legislature should be introduced into an administrative process, and that this process therefore should be held up. As a matter of fact, I think the whole criticism which has been directed against this clause hitherto is that the powers of the Minister are not strong enough, and I think the tendency of the Amendment would be, not to strengthen the powers of the Minister, but to weaken them. We are of opinion that the powers of the Minister should be maintained at the level at which they are in the clause, and therefore we think it would be desirable to maintain the clause as it is.
LORD BUCKMASTER: If Parliamentary criticism is to be brought to bear at all it is nothing but fractious to criticise the thing after it is done. If it is to be of any value it must be before the thing is done, and what I suggest is that the noble Earl should consider between now and the Third Reading whether this Amendment is not really, not only a rational Amendment, but one that brings the administration of this measure more into accordance with our Parliamentary practice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I certainly will undertake that the Amendment will be reconsidered. I cannot promise that it will be accepted. There is a point that I am sure will be present to the noble and learned Lord's mind. Parliament might not be sitting, and it might be undesirable if, for instance, during a vacation of five or six months, the Minister could do nothing except say: "When Parliament next meets I am going to make a report against you." I certainly will mention again to my right hon.
360
friend the Minister of Health what has been said, and ask him to give the Amendment his consideration.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am much obliged. The noble and learned Lord will no doubt at the same time point out that the vacations of Parliament are becoming fewer and briefer.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had an Amendment on the Paper to add to the clause:
"Provided also that the amount of the reduction imposed upon a council in any year shall not exceed the sum which should, in the opinion of the Minister, have been expended by the council in that year upon the service or road in respect of which the reduction is made.
(2) Nothing in this section shall affect any classified road situate in an administrative county area or entitle the Minister, in the event of failure on the part of the council responsible for the maintenance of any such road to maintain it in a satisfactory condition, to reduce either the grant payable to the council under this Part of this Act or the grant payable out of the Road Fund in respect of such road."
The noble Lord said: After what has been said on the previous Amendment all I will ask my noble friend is that he will also consider my Amendment. I do not move it; I only make an appeal to him.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will not go further than to say we will consider it before Report.
Clause 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 to 105 agreed to.
Clause 106:
Mitigation of liability of councils for temporary loans raised under 11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 67.
106.—(1) For the purpose of affording relief to the councils of counties and county boroughs to whom liabilities in respect of loans (including overdrafts) raised by poor law authorities under section three of the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act, 1921 (as amended by any subsequent enactment) are transferred under this Act, the following provisions shall have effect with respect to such loans—
(b) where any such loan is a loan made by the Minister, the sum so certified with respect to the loan shall be repaid without interest to the Minister by the council liable therefore by means of an annuity

361
equal to one-fifteenth part of the certified sum, the first instalment being payable on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD had given Notice to move, in subsection 1 (b), after the second "sum," to insert "or on such other terms as may be arranged between the Minister and the council." The noble Lord said: In the Bill as it stands provision is made for the mitigation of the liability of county councils for loans to be transferred from guardians on April 1, 1930, and the Bill provides that loans made by the Minister should be repaid without interest by fifteen equal instalments. It might well happen, however, that some council would find itself in a position to repay these loans at a somewhat quicker rate than that, and I think that any endeavour in that direction ought to be encouraged by the Ministry of Health.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Would it be acceptable if the Amendment were moved in this form: Page 87, line 28, after "therefor" insert "within fifteen years from the appointed day either," and line 32, at the end of the paragraph, insert "or by such other means as may be agreed between the Minister and the council."
LORD ARNOLD: I am much obliged. As far as I can follow, that will entirely meet the case. There is one point I would raise. I do not think there is any difficulty but, perhaps, between now and the Report stage the noble Earl would be kind enough to look at paragraph (d) and see whether any change at all is required in it in view of this. Perhaps there is not any change necessary.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will certainly look into it and see whether there is anything consequential upon these Amendments.
LORD ARNOLD: I am much obliged to the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Then I will move those Amendments in the form I have mentioned.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 28, after ("therefor") insert ("within fifteen years from the appointed day either").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 32, at end insert ("or by such other means as may be agreed between the Minister and the Council").—The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 106, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 107 and 108 agreed to.
Clause 109:
Transfer of road property and liabilities.
109.—(1) Subject to the provisions of the next following section, the following property and liabilities of every district council, in so far as they relate to any roads which immediately before the appointed day were, or as from that day become, vested in the county council, shall, as from that day, by virtue of this section be transferred to and vest in the county council, that is to say:—

(a) any land (other than land acquired for the improvement or development of frontages or of lands abutting on or adjacent to any road) which, before the appointed day, has been acquired by the district council for the purpose of improving any such road, but which does not on that day form part of the road;

(b) the unexpended balances of any loans raised by the district council for the purposes of any such roads or for the purposes of any land transferred to the county council under the last foregoing paragraph of this section, and any sinking funds established by the district council in connection with any such loans;

(c) the unexpended balances of any grants paid by the Minister of Transport to the district council for the purposes of any such roads;

(d) all liabilities (including loans and loan charges) incurred for the purposes of any such roads or the improvement thereof which would become due for payment by the district council on or after the appointed day:

Provided that in the case of any loan the county council and the district council may agree that, in lieu of the transfer to the county council of the loan under this subsection, the county council shall from time to time repay to the district council all sums required to meet the loan charges; and in the event of any such agreement being made, the loan and any sinking fund established in connection therewith shall remain vested in the district council.
Where the loan has been raised partly for purposes relating to such roads as aforesaid and partly for other purposes, the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall apply as if the part of the loan contracted for purposes relating to such roads were a separate loan.
LORD FORESTER LORD FORESTER moved, in subsection (1), after the proviso, to insert:—
"Provided also that nothing in this section shall impose or be deemed to impose upon the county council any obligation to accept the transfer of—

(a) any loan raised by the district council either for the purchase of land or for such improvements to any classified road as have been undertaken by the district council to provide work for unemployed persons:

(b) any loan raised after the commencement of this Act by a district council without the consent of the county council;

and in the event of the county council refusing to accept the transfer of any such loan then the loan shall remain a liability of the district council concerned."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Cottesloe, who, I regret to say, is not here owing to illness, and for the County Councils Association, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the names of Lord Strachie and Lord Cottesloe. The proposed transfer of district roads to the county councils is necessarily accompanied, under this clause, by a similar transfer of the loan liabilities incurred in respect of such roads. There are, however, three kinds of loan which should, in the opinion of the County Councils Association, only be transferred to the councils with their consent—namely, those relating to the purchase of land, those raised for unemployment schemes, and those recently raised for highway improvements generally which the county council consider to be necessary. As to the first, it is thought that land may frequently have been purchased more with a view to town improvement than for the purpose of providing better facilities for through traffic, and it would be inequitable that the relative loans should be transferred compulsorily to the county councils, thus spreading the cost of a local improvement over the whole county.
As to the second, the association are informed that there are cases in which road works have been undertaken by way of providing unemployment relief, against the advice of the Ministry of Transport and the county councils, but that loans were nevertheless forthcoming from the Unemployment Grants Committee. It is appreciated that these relief schemes have been very necessary throughout the country, but this constitutes no reason
364
why the county councils should be compelled to accept liability for work of a type approved neither by themselves nor by the Ministry. There is the further point that most unemployment relief schemes have naturally been of greater benefit to the town than to the country, and this is an additional factor in support of the view that loans made therefor should not be spread over the whole county except with the consent of the county council.
As to the third type of loan referred to, it is understood that there are cases in which district councils are now proposing, with the aid of loans, to undertake highway improvements which the county council consider to be quite unnecessary. Should such proposals mature it is clear, as the Bill stands, that the county councils concerned would be compelled on the appointed day to take over loans raised for works of which they do not approve. This would be inequitable and by paragraph (b) of the Amendment it is intended to empower councils to decline liability in such cases where the loan has been raised after the commencement of the Act. That Amendment is to insert the proviso upon the paper in subsection (1). I would like to ask the Lord Chairman whether I should move also the Amendment after subsection (1).
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord had better take one at a time.
LORD FORESTER: Then I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 20, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Lord Forester.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I hope that the noble Lord will not insist upon this Amendment for reasons which I will give him. I will deal with the paragraphs separately. In the first place, with regard to paragraph (a) every loan for roadworks carried out for the relief of unemployment has been sanctioned by the Minister of Health after the works have been approved by the Ministry of Transport. No unnecessary work, therefore, has been carried out. Normally, the expenditure has been incurred at an earlier date than it otherwise would have been in order to provide immediate employment. The county council obtains

365
the benefit of these works which would sooner or later have to be carried out and there is no reason why the outstanding loans should not be transferred to them. I think that is really an equitable arrangement.
Coming to paragraph (b) all loans raised for highway purposes require the sanction of the Minister of Health, who consults the Minister of Transport before giving it, as I explained just now. Both Ministers are fully aware of the provisions of the Bill relating to the transfer of loans, and loans for improvements would not be allowed if they were not satisfied as to their necessity. If this Amendment were accepted, district councils might be bound to carry loans raised for works which could not be delayed, unless the district council neglected its highway authority merely because the consent of the county council had been refused. In those circumstances, I hope your Lordships will agree to maintain the Bill as it stands.
LORD STRACHIE: I am afraid I cannot agree with the arguments used by the noble Lord. He seems to think that everything that has been done was done simply because it was required absolutely in the interests of the roads. That is certainly not the case. I have the misfortune to belong to a local authority by whom a large amount of money has been spent on improvements which were really not necessary improvements of the roads. The money has been spent, I will not say extravagantly, but unnecessarily. If we can get some assistance from the Ministry of Transport and some in other directions, by spending some money ourselves we shall eventually be able to deal with unemployment in the area. Although we shall put upon our rates heavy loan charges we shall not be increasing our poor rate because there will be less poor relief to pay to people who are unemployed. Very often (quite contrary to what the noble Earl has said that it was necessary to do it) the money has actually been expended simply to afford outdoor relief, and where it would not be sanctioned under all the conditions the expense is borne by the board of guardians and at the same time it has been a charge upon the district council. That, of course, has been admitted.
366
I cannot agree with what the noble Earl says about the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Health. A work may undoubtedly be advantageous in the view of an unemployment committee—a body quite independent of the Government—but the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Health may not approve of it. So it would happen that some grants and loans which the county councils would have to take over were not actually approved by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Health. The noble Earl seems to imply that they have been approved. It is very hard that county councils should have to take over these debts which, in some urban cases, are incurred for improvements of roads to make certain parts of the district more accessible for shopping. It is very important that these district councils should not have a direct invitation to spend money. An urban council is very likely to do it in order that they may have the benefit of it. I hope my noble friend will press the Amendment because it is unfair to the county councils and I know that the County Councils Association feel very strongly in the matter.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Lord has stated that these works have been carried out without the sanction of the Minister of Health and the Minister of Transport. Certainly that is news to me. I thought it was necessary that these works should be carried out with the sanction of the Minister of Health after they had been approved by the Minister of Transport. The noble Lord says, on the contrary, that the Minister of Health did not approve and that the Minister of Transport did not approve either. I accept what he says, of course, but I can only say it is news to me. I admit that these works are undertaken primarily with a view to providing employment, but they are necessary works which would have to be done; they are merely advanced.
LORD STRACHIE: No, not in all cases.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Well, the noble Lord again gives me news that I had not heard of. My information is that they are approved by the Ministry of Health, who consults the Ministry of Transport, who says that they are necessary works. They may not be imme-

367
diately necessary, but eventually they will have to be done. Therefore the benefit of them will inure to the county council and it is not unfair that the payment of the loan should be transferred to them. That is why I venture to think the Amendment should not be accepted.
LORD FORESTER: On behalf of the County Councils Association I shall have to press the Amendment. If the county councils considered they were necessary works done for the sake of unemployment
Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD FORESTER LORD FORESTER moved, after subsection (1), to insert as a new subsection:—
"(2) Where a loan raised before the appointed day by an urban district council has been transferred to the county council by virtue of the provisions of this section, and the functions of maintenance and repair of the road to which the loan relates are subsequently claimed by the district council in accordance with the provisions of section 31 of this Act, then all liability for and in connection with the said loan shall, as from the first day of April next following the calender year in which the claim is made, be resumed by the district council."
The noble Lord said: It is provided by the Bill that councils of urban districts with a population of 20,000 persons can claim the maintenance and repair of county roads in their area, and the County Councils Association think it equitable, in the event of such a claim being made, that the urban district council should thereupon resume liability for loans raised in respect of such roads before the appointed day. I think that
I am sure the county councils would consent and be only too glad to do so. Their grievance is that you are putting this work on the county councils and they think that they ought to be allowed to consent to it, I am certain, if it was for the sake of unemployment and was necessary, they would at once do.
On Question, Whether the words proposed shall be there inserted:
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 8; Not-Contents, 32.

CONTENTS.

Buxton, E.

Aberconway, L.

Forester, L. [Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

Stanley of Alderley, (L. Sheffield.)

Allendale, V.

Deramore, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Plymouth, E.

Desborough, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stanhope, E.

Dynevor, L.

Ernle, L.

Wellington, D.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage) [Teller.]

Elibank, V.

Hastings, L.

Bath, M.

FitzAlan of Derment, V.

Hayter, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Hood, V.

Jessel, L.

Lawrence, L.

Airlie, E.

Askwith, L.

Leigh, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Avebury, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Midleton, E.

Templemore, L.

Onslow, E.

de Clifford, L.

is a very reasonable Amendment, and I hope that the Government will accept it. I do not think it can harm the Bill in any way. I beg to move.
Amendment moved——
Page 92, line 25, at end insert the said new subsection. (Lord Forester.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. The effect of it would be to impose upon urban authorities who claim their roads, and who have the right to claim their roads, a liability in respect of loans which would not attach to an urban district which did not claim. It seems to me very difficult to see any justification for penalising an urban authority which only exercises the right to claim under Clause 31. It would certainly be contrary to the principles of Part III of the Bill. I am afraid I cannot accept it.
LORD FORESTER: I am afraid I cannot follow the argument of the noble Earl. I do not want to penalise an urban district. I only want to make it fair to the county council. If they take

369
the roads back they are responsible for the loans. However, after what the noble Earl has said I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to insert at the end of the clause:—
"(8) Where any person or authority, other than a rating authority, receives any income applicable to the repair or maintenance of roads in any parish or other area, that person or authority shall pay over the income so received (less the amount of any expenses properly incurred in connection therewith) to the rating authority for the county borough or district in which that parish or area is situate, to be credited to that parish or area."
The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to deal with the case of money bequeathed to trustees for the purpose of repairing roads in a particular parish. In the absence of a particular provision the rural district as the highways authority would be entitled to claim. It would be necessary for the county council to keep a special account, which is inconvenient, and it is thought that the better course would be that proposed in the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 7, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 110:
Transfer of quarries, plant, materials, and depôots.
110.—(1) The council of every county shall, on the appointed day, take over—

(a) if desired by the council of any urban district within the county (not being a council who have duly made or are deemed to have duly made a claim to exercise the functions of maintenance and repair of county roads within their district), any quarry belonging to the district council in their capacity as highway authority, together with any fixed plant therein; and

(b) if desired by the council of any rural district within the county, any quarry, plant or materials belonging to the district council in their capacity as highway authority, or any depots used by the district council exclusively in that capacity,

and shall pay therefor such sum as may be agreed upon as representing the value of the property so transferred at the time of the transfer, or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by an arbitrator
370
appointed by the Minister; but the district council shall remain subject to any liabilities contracted in respect of any such quarry, plant, material or depôts.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "as representing the value of the property so transferred at the time of the transfer". The noble Earl said: This Amendment is moved in pursuance of an undertaking given in another place that the Government would consider the insertion of a provision enabling county councils and district councils to agree in the event of a quarry being taken over by the county council that some or all of the liabilities contracted should pass to the county council. I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 35, leave out from ("upon") to ("or") in line 26.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 28 at end insert ("save as in so far as may be otherwise agreed between them and the county council").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 111 agreed to.
Clause 112 [Transfer of road officers]:
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 35, after ("officer") insert ("and").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 113 [Tenure and distribution of transferred officers]:
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved to insert the following new subsection:—
"(3) A transferred officer who on or before the date of his transfer by virtue of this Act shall have attained the age of fifty years and shall have completed not less than twenty-five years' service under any local authority or local authorities may with the consent of the Minister relinquish his office at any time within five years after the appointed day, and any such officer who so relinquishes his office shall be deemed to have suffered a direct pecuniary loss in consequence of this Act."
The noble Lord said: I can put the case for this Amendment very briefly. Under Clause 111 an officer of a Poor Law

371
authority is on the appointed day as respects the office which he holds transferred to a county council or a county borough council as the case may be. Then subsection (2) of Clause 113 provides that—
"The council to whom functions are transferred under this Act may employ a transferred officer in the discharge of such of their functions as they may think proper. … "
This Amendment deals with the case of an officer who is at least fifty years of age and who has completed twenty-five years' service, who may find very considerable difficulty in adapting himself to the new conditions. I will not take up time by citing instances. I think your Lordships will readily appreciate that a position may arise in which, owing to exceptional circumstances, a man may have real difficulty.
It is suggested in this Amendment that, subject to the consent of the Minister, such an officer, within a period of five years, if he has made an honest endeavour to adapt himself to the altered conditions and found that he really cannot and that his life is becoming almost intolerable, should be allowed to resign, and in that case he would be deemed to have suffered direct pecuniary loss in consequence of this Act. That means he would get compensation. I think a very strong point in favour of the Amendment is that Clause 115 provides that any officer—
"who, at any time within five years after the appointed day, relinquishes office by reason of his having been required to perform duties which are not analogous to, or which are an unreasonable addition to, those which he was required to perform immediately before the appointed day … shall be deemed … to have suffered a direct pecuniary loss in consequence of this Act."
The cases I have in mind are somewhat different. A man may not necessarily be in a position in which the duties were not analogous to or an unreasonable addition to his previous duties, and I think your Lordships will have sympathy with men who are in a state of suspense and who, having served the community well and having passed middle age, are asked to change their duties. I consider there is a case for the Amendment. It will be within the discretion of the Minister, but without this provision he could not give permission to a local authority to pay compensation in such cases.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 16, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Arnold.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think this Amendment extends very considerably the facilities which my noble friend quite fairly admits exist in the Bill for the relinquishment of office by dissatisfied officers on transfer. It must be remembered that relinquishment of office has been found most detrimental to the public service. I do not think it is reasonable that reorganisation should entitle a large class of persons to retire and receive pensions, because there is reorganisation and they consider they are unable to go on. Provision is already made for the payment of pensions to officers if they suffer pecuniary loss through reorganisation—that is certainly fair—and for the relinquishment of office in cases where officers are required to perform duties which are not analogous to or are an unreasonable addition to those they were performing, on the appointed day. I think that is reasonable. That seems to me to safeguard the position of officers as far as is just and right.
The ground which the noble Lord advances in support of his Amendment is that an officer who has an appointment in circumstances which do not go so far as I have mentioned should be able to relinquish it and go into retirement. Let us consider for a moment what would happen in the Civil Service. I have been familiar with civil servants and with the Civil Service for many years and I do not think such a principle would ever be considered in any reorganisation of any Department of the Civil Service. I think that what is applicable to the Civil Service should be also applicable to the reorganisation of these services. I venture to think that the safeguards in the Bill are sufficient to avoid any officer being treated with injustice, either pecuniary or otherwise, and therefore I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD ARNOLD: I think the noble Earl has rather overlooked the fact that this is subject to the consent of the Minister. It would not do any harm to give the power in certain cases. I do not think the analogy of the Civil Service is a very real one. Suppose a man had been an infirmary master and now changed to a mental deficiency hospital: there may be no power to allow him to

373
relinquish his post. I do not think, if I may say so, that the case has been met by the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 113 agreed to.
Clause 114 agreed to.
Clause 115:
Compensation to Existing Officers.
115.—(1) Every person who having been an officer of an authority or committee from whom functions are transferred under this Act, or a registration officer or registrar of marriages, on the twelfth day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, is at the appointed day an officer of such an authority or committee or a registration officer or registrar of marriages, and who by virtue of this Act, or of anything done in pursuance or in consequence thereof, suffers any direct pecuniary loss by determination of his appointment, or by diminution or loss of fees, salary or emoluments, and for whose compensation for that loss provision is not made by any other enactment for the time being in force, shall be entitled to compensation under this Act for that loss.
LORD FORESTER LORD FORESTER moved to leave out "that", the last word but one in subsection (1), and to insert "such net personal". The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Strachie. Its object is to make it quite clear that persons whose appointments are terminated in consequence of this Bill shall be compensated solely on the basis of their net personal emoluments. It is understood that some officers, especially under the Poor Law, receive an inclusive salary out of which they pay assistants, and it would be distinctly inequitable to the ratepayer to be obliged to provide compensation for the gross salary in such a case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 42, leave out ("that") and insert ("such net personal").—(Lord Forester.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This is not a very important Amendment. Indeed, it is a purely verbal one. It is open to very considerable objection because it introduces a new term which would require definition. I do not think it is necessary, for the meaning of the clause is, I think, perfectly well known, and I think your Lordship will agree that it is undesirable to overload Bills with technical terms unless they are absolutely necessary. In those circumstances
374
I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.
LORD FORESTER: In view of what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 115 agreed to.
Clause 116 [Superannuation of transferred Poor Law officers]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 35, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 116, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 117 and 118 agreed to.
Clause 119:
Information to be given by poor law authorities and district councils to county councils.
119.—(1) It shall be the duty of every poor law authority, and of their officers, to furnish any information in their power which may be required by the council of any county or county borough for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their functions under Part I. of this Act.
(2) It shall be the duty of every district council, and of their officers, to furnish any information in their power which may be required by the council of any county for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their functions under Parts III. and IV. of this Act.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), to leave out "and of" and to insert "to furnish and instruct." The noble Lord said: As I understand that the noble Earl will accept this and the following Amendments that stand in my name, there is no reason why I should make a speech upon them.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am not quite sure in what form the noble Lord moves these Amendments, but I take it that it is not in the form in which they appear upon the Paper. Perhaps he will move them in the form that he has just shown me, and then, if they are not entirely acceptable in that form, the point can be brought up on Report.
LORD JESSEL: I will do so.
Amendment moved—
Page 104, line 21, leave out ("and of") and insert ("to furnish and to instruct").—(Lord Jessel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 104, line 22, after ("may") insert ("reasonably").
Page 104,lines 26 and 27, leave out ("and of") and insert ("to furnish and to instruct").
Page 104,line 28, after ("may") insert ("reasonably").—(Lord Jessel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 119, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 120 and 121 agreed to.
Clause 122:
Provisions as to orders, schemes and regulations.
(3) Where any order (other than an order under Part IV of this Act) or any regulations are by this Act required to be laid before Parliament, the order or regulations shall be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat after any such order or regulation has been laid before it praying that the order or regulation may be annulled, the order or regulation shall be annulled and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order or regulation.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "(other than an Order under Part IV of this Act)". The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I hope, after what has taken place earlier in these discussions, the Government may be willing to accept. The object is that all Orders made by the Ministry under Part IV shall be laid upon the Table in both Houses, so that, if any objection is taken to them and carried, they will ipso facto become void, without, of course, affecting any action that has been taken. This is the ordinary form of procedure, which has been repeatedly approved by the Government and put into numerous acts of Parliament. It seems to me undesirable that Part IV should be left out, for some very important questions are covered by it. I think we need a very strong reason why your Lordships should be asked in this case to depart from what is now becoming a general practice in regard to Orders made by Ministers. The Lord Chief Justice has pointed out that a
376
Minister is now very often empowered to alter an Act. of Parliament and even to repeal sections of it.
If the House is ready to give these powers, surely we should be careful to keep the right of revision. The Government approve of this procedure in regard to all Parts of the Bill except Part IV. It would take me too long to read to your Lordships all the important provisions of that Part. I know that a strong Amendment will be moved later with regard to this matter showing how much importance noble Lords on both sides of the House attach to it, but I raise the point now because Part IV touches matters of real importance. We may be told that we can have confidence in the present Minister of Health. I quite agree, but the present Minister of Health will not always be there and we may have a Minister who will adopt a very hostile attitude towards county councils and local bodies and want to centralise everything in Whitehall. There is always that danger, and we must look ahead. On those grounds, and on those grounds alone, I beg to move the Amendment that stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 106, line 38, leave out ("(other than an Order under Part IV of this Act)").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This matter has been before your Lordships on an Amendment moved by Lord Beauchamp in Clause 44, and I then ventured to put before your Lordships why it seemed right to make these provisions with regard to one particular matter—namely, the redistribution of areas. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will look into this point again. Without in any way committing myself or making any promise whatever, I will examine the question, subject to what I said on Clause 44. The noble Lord understands that I can give no promise that I shall be able to meet him.
LORD STRACHIE: After what my noble friend has said, of course I shall be ready to accept his assurance that he will go into the matter, without making any promise, but I would again press upon him that this has been the custom of the Government on previous occasions in many other Bills, and that it is desirable to put in this Amendment in order to protect both Houses of Parliament.

377
Having said that, I am quite satisfied that the noble Earl will look into the precedents, and I hope he will consult the Leader of the House, who has always been most anxious that Parliament should have this protection.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Of course I should state that any examination would be subject to the decision which has already been made on the Amendment moved by Lord Beauchamp.
LORD STRACHIE: Perhaps the noble Earl will be kind enough to explain what that decision was.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It was on Clause 44, and it was a proposal to omit from subsection (7) the words after "shall" to the end of the subsection and insert "not become operative until it has been confirmed by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament." That was proposed by Lord Beauchamp, and was not accepted by the House.
LORD STRACHIE: That is an entirely different question. I am only asking that it should be laid upon the Tables of both Houses. I am not asking for a Resolution of both Houses, but only that these Orders shall be laid before both Houses. Lord Beauchamp proposed that no Order should come into force until either House had passed a Resolution, but I am only proposing that they should become void if either House takes exception to them, which is a very different matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE VISCOUNT ALLENDALE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "void." The noble Viscount said: I am moving this on behalf of Earl Beauchamp, and it proposes to leave out the last two lines of the subsection. It appears that under this clause the Minister may make an Order, and such Order may be made during the Recess, when it will be finished and passed before Parliament has an opportunity of considering it.
Amendment moved—
Page 107, line 7, leave out, from ("void") to the end of the clause.—(Viscount Allendale.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: To my regret I must decline to accept this Amend-
378
ment, because the provisions sought to be left out are essential. It is in common form.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 122 agreed to.
Clause 123:
Power to remove difficulties.
123.—(1) If any difficulty arises in connection with the application of this Act to any exceptional area, or in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act, the Minister may make such order for removing the difficulty as he may judge to be necessary for that purpose, and any such order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear to the Minister necessary for carrying the order into effect:
Provided that the Minister shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty.
(2) Every order made under this section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be alter it is made.
(3) In this section the expression "exceptional area" includes any poor law area which is not wholly comprised within one county or county borough, any district which is not wholly comprised within one county, or which is administered by the council of an adjoining district in another county, any parish which is not wholly comprised within one county, county borough or district, or which is not within the same district for municipal and sanitary purposes, and any area which enjoys or is subject to any special privilege, exception or liability in respect of rating or valuation.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH: moved, at end of subsection (2), to insert "and shall not be of any effect unless and until a Resolution affirming the Order is passed by each House of Parliament." The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Strachie has given us an argument, in favour of his Amendment, on the principle of this proposed alteration. It may be said that this clause deals with exceptional areas, that it is hedged by the Minister not having the powers conferred by this clause after December 31, 1930, and that it defines what the exceptional areas are, but if the words of the clause are looked at it will be seen that the clause says that in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act, the Minister may make an Order without coming before Parliament. That has been criticised a good deal lately in the country, although years ago a similar

379
clause may have been included in Acts of Parliament. The draftsmen of those days inserted it with as much skill as the draftsmen and Parliamentary officials have used in drafting this very complicated Bill, for which great credit is due to them.
I do not wish to labour the point, but if it is dealt with by the Government it may be necessary on Report to add consequential Amendments. Taking it broadly, this Amendment would give a control to Parliament which has rather been before the country and which the country desires, against Orders being made by a Minister without anybody else having any control. No doubt in bringing into operation an Act which has just been passed it is difficult for a Minister, and he may find himself hampered by delay, but at the same time it is quite possible for him to have power to go too far and beyond what is really necessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 107, line 22, at end insert ("and shall not be of any effect unless and until a Resolution affirming the Order is passed by each House of Parliament")—(Lord Askwith).
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON had given Notice of an Amendment to insert at the end of subsection (2) the words—"and shall not be of any effect unless and until the Order is approved by a committee to be appointed by Parliament, or, failing such approval, unless and until a Resolution affirming the Order is passed by each House of Parliament." The noble Lord said: I have an Amendment on the Paper which is designed to produce the same results though by a method slightly different. If your Lordships see fit to pass the Amendment now under discussion, I shall not move my Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I think some such Amendment as that of Lord Askwith or Lord Hunsdon should be accepted, and I understood the Lord Chancellor on a previous occasion to say that he would consider the matter. I only intervene because I have an Amendment to leave out Clause 123, for the purpose of seeing that some such provision is introduced. I therefore cordially support either of the Amendments in the names of noble Lords opposite. I think it is quite necessary that some such words should be Used.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Clause 123, which has been, as my noble friend has said, criticised outside is, in fact, a clause which (he has also reminded your Lordships) in some shape or another has been in a good many recent Acts of Parliament, and, in fact, has proved very necessary. I can, if need be, give to your Lordships some illustrations of the sort of case that has to be met. I gather that most of your Lordships at any rate realise that some provision of the kind is necessary. I have here a whole list of cases under the Rating and Valuation Act, in which the power has had to be exercised, sometimes in regard to a particular area, sometimes in regard to a general condition of affairs which could not have been foreseen at the time when the Act was originally passed.
The Government in the House of Commons had the clause introduced in a somewhat wider form than that in which it now appears. The form of words which we now find was introduced on the Report stage, adapted from some words suggested by a private Member in the debate and, we hope, it does not go further than is necessary in order to provide for the Minister the powers which it is essential for him to have. We had thought that the fact that under Clause 122 any Order of the Minister, whether made under Clause 123 or elsewhere, had to be laid on the Table in both Houses was a safeguard which would enable any grievance to be remedied. I should like to explain that it is a mistake to think, as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the Second Reading, that where there is a provision in the form in which it appears in Clause 122 any Order may be disallowed by a Resolution of either House of Parliament. It is impossible in practice in another place to move such a Resolution because those of your Lordships who have been in the other House will remember that it is exempted business under the rules of that House, and therefore any private Member can set down a Motion, which has to be debated and discussed. We had thought that that precaution was a sufficient precaution, but I quite recognise that in the wording of Clause 123, which includes the possibility of modifying provisions of the Act in order to bring an Order into effect, it may be advisable

381
that the special attention of Parliament should be called to an Order made under that particular clause.
I cannot accept the Amendment which my noble friend has moved in the form in which he has moved it, because, as he will appreciate, Orders may have to be made to meet an immediate emergency. Again, I can give him instances in which that was actually necessary. Parliament is not yet—in spite of the warning of my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster earlier this afternoon—continuously in Session from the beginning to the end of the year, and therefore a provision which will protect the Minister from exercising the power until a period, possibly a month, after the necessity of its exercise had arisen, would, in effect, make it nugatory. But I am quite willing to insist if your Lordships think it right, that any exercise of the power of Clause 123 should be brought to the special attention of Parliament by providing that, instead of its merely being laid on the Table, and subject to disallowance by a Resolution under Clause 122, in the case of an Order made under Clause 123 there should be the necessity for its confirmation by an affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament within a named number of days after Parliament meets after the Order has been made.
I do not want to pin your Lordships to words which you have not had the opportunity of considering. I have had something drafted, which I have shown to one or two of my noble friends whose names appear on Amendments to this clause, and it would be something of this kind:—
Page 107, line 21, after ("section") insert ("shall come into operation upon the date specified therein in that behalf but,")—
Then the subsection proceeds that it should be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made,
"and shall cease to have effect after the expiration of a period of …."
three months is what we suggest, but I am not particular to a month so long as I have an assurance that Parliament has sufficient time to do it—
"a period of three months from the date upon which it came into operation unless at some time before the expiration of that period it has been approved by a Resolution passed by each House of Parliament:
382
"Provided that in reckoning any such period of three months as aforesaid, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days."
The effect of that would be than any Order made under this clause would necessarily come under the review of Parliament after it was made as soon as Parliament sat—or at the very time when it was made if Parliament was sitting—and that it would cease to be operative if Parliament did not pass a Resolution approving of it within a specified period after Parliament first had cognisance of it.
I venture to think that does sufficiently safeguard the position which, I quite appreciate, your Lordships are anxious to safeguard, and which I am not less anxious to safeguard than others of your Lordships; and at the same time it does not prevent the exercise of a power which has been useful in practice, and which may be necessary occasionally in the future, and of which I could give instances, if I did not think that probably the general necessity for some such power as this was a matter which is fully recognised in this House.
LORD ASKWITH: If one can be certain in anything in this life it is that the House of Lords would not desire continuously to sit in order to pass Resolutions dealing with these matters, and therefore I thank my noble and learned friend for meeting the suggestions that have been made from many parts of the House. I understand that my noble and learned friend will put down an Amendment for the Report stage on the lines that he has indicated.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I only do not move it now, because I think it is hardly fair to the House to have an Amendment of this kind moved without there being an opportunity of seeing it in print. I think the wording I have read is the wording I propose to put down on the Report stage, and I hope that it will meet with general acceptance.
LORD ASKWITH: I approve of it entirely, and I withdraw my Amendment now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 123 agreed to.
Clauses 124 and 125 agreed to.
Clause 126:
Definitions.
"Certified" means—
in relation to the number of unemployed insured men, certified by the Minister of Labour:
"Road" means a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large, and includes bridges and "improvement" in relation to a road includes the fixing of a building line or improvement line under any enactment:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in the definition of "certified," after "unemployed insured men," to insert "or women." The noble Earl said: This is a consequential Amendment. It is really drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 109, line 5, after ("men") insert ("or women").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after the definition of "county," to insert "'County bridge' includes any bridge which a county council are liable to repair, except a bridge which they are liable to repair only by reason of the fact that the road carried by the bridge is, for the time being, a county road." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to make it clear that a bridge that carries a county road is not for that reason alone to be regarded as a county bridge. It is to clarify the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 109, line 18, at end insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given Notice to move to amend the above Amendment as follows: Leave out from "repair" in the second line to the end of the Amendment. The noble Lord said: I should like to ask the noble Earl the reason for this exception. The County Councils Association are not satisfied with regard to it and perhaps the noble Earl would explain why the exception is made.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am afraid I do not follow.
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Earl will notice that the Amendment says:—
" … except a bridge which they are liable to repair only by reason of the fact
384
that the road carried by the bridge is, for the time being, a county road."
Will the noble Earl be good enough to explain that exception?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Lord's Amendment is designed to do away with that point. The effect of his Amendment would be to exclude all bridges on county roads from obtaining the powers of the larger urban authority and leave to the absolute discretion of the county council the delegation of all bridges on county roads whether classified or not.
LORD STRACHIE: Am I to understand that it is objectionable and not in the general interests to do that?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes.
LORD STRACHIE: Then I will not move the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in the definition of "road" to leave out "includes bridges" and insert "save as in this Act otherwise expressly provided, includes any bridge carrying the road." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 111, line 30, leave out ("includes bridges") and insert ("save as in this Act otherwise expressly provided, includes any bridge carrying the road").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given Notice to move to amend the above Amendment as follows: Leave out "save as in this Act otherwise expressly provided." The noble Lord said: I should like to ask my noble friend whether he has any objection to leaving out "save as in this Act otherwise expressly provided." It seemed to the County Councils Association that such an Amendment was necessary, but, of course, the noble Earl may say that it is unnecessary.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It is unnecessary for the reasons I gave respecting the noble Lord's previous Amendment. If we accepted his present Amendment it would be out of place because the saving would still be required in view of the language of Clauses 31 and 34 in which special provision is made in respect of county bridges.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 126, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 127:
Declaration of intention as to future increases of local expenditure.
127. It is hereby declared that it is the intention of this Act that, in the event of substantial additional expenditure being imposed on any class of local authorities by reason of the institution of a new public health or other service after the commencement of this Act, provision should be made for increased contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to leave out "substantial." The noble Lord said: The County Councils Association suggest the deletion of "substantial" because they fear that it might be construed by the Minister—I do not for one moment think it would be so construed by the present Minister—that practically everything was substantial. The County Councils Association do not wish such an obligation to be put upon the county councils. Some future Minister might contend that practically everything was substantial, and it is clear in such an event that a heavy charge would fall upon the county councils in regard to this matter. The noble Earl will see that that is so. It might be necessary for a county council to undertake very heavy expenditure after the commencement of this Act, and that is not at all unlikely to be the case in the future. If that happened and the Minister took it into his head to say that it was not a substantial expenditure and was, therefore, unnecessary and only a small matter, the charge would fall upon the county council, and there would be no appeal and no opportunity for the county council to put forward its views. In the result a very heavy burden might be placed upon that county council. I agree that the noble Earl has given us a little concession but very little indeed. He is rather inclined to say: "You must take this Bill as it is because we are the best judges." I ask my noble friend to make some concession upon this point.
Amendment moved—
Page 113, line 18, leave out ("substantial").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not think I have deserved the reproach of my noble friend. He says that I am inclined to say that you should take the Bill as it stands and that the Government are the best judges. I have endeavoured to give every attention to the Amendments
386
which have been introduced by noble Lords and by my noble friend Lord Strachie himself. I would remind him that while the Government has introduced this Bill and is its author, it is largely owing to Lord Strachie that many of the provisions are included. Lord Strachie was a valuable and distinguished member of the Royal Commission on Local Government, and Part IV, a portion of Part III and certain other portions of the Bill are based on the recommendations of that Commission, which were unanimous and the whole of which were signed by my noble friend Lord Strachie. Therefore, I think he must share to some extent the responsibility for the authorship of the Bill. With regard to the Amendment, I think it would be unfortunate if "substantial" were omitted, because I think there must be some indication that additional expenditure which is trivial will not necessarily cause increased obligations. A burden must be imposed upon local authorities before increased contributions are to be considered. Therefore, some adjective must be put in. I do not mind whether it is "substantial" or "material," but some indication should be in the Bill, and if the noble Lord has a better adjective to suggest perhaps he will mention it.
LORD STRACHIE: I only ask my noble friend to consider this question between now and Report stage to see whether he cannot meet the County Councils Association in the matter. That is all I ask.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 127 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Amendments to this Schedule are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 116, line 11, at end insert ("therefrom")
Page 116,line 14, at end, insert ("therefrom")
Page 116,line 15, in the third column insert:
("As if the following words were omitted therefrom, that is to say, the words 'or with a surveyor of any county bridge,' the words 'or of any road over any county bridge and the approaches thereto,' and the words 'or surveyor'")
Page 118, line 10, at end, insert ("therefrom")
Page 118, line 13, at end, insert ("therefrom").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second and Third Schedules agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Amendment to this Schedule is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 122, line 25, leave out from the first ("the") to the end of line 35, and insert:
("following assumptions:

"(i) that elsewhere than in the County of London, section nine of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, and not paragraph ten of the Seventh Schedule to that Act, had been in operation with respect to precepts issued by county councils; and

"(ii) that the expenditure on the transferred services had been expenditure by a county council or a county borough council, and, in the case of a county, had been expenditure for general county purposes; and

"(iii) that in the case of the County of London, the London (Equalisation of Rates) Act, 1894, had not been in force in the standard year").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth Schedule:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This is also a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 129, line 15, after ("that") insert ("elsewhere than in the County of London").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sixth and Seventh Schedules agreed to.
Eighth Schedule:

EIGHTH SCHEDULE.
Provisions as to the determination and payment of compensation to officers.
5. In computing the service of any officer for the purpose of the award of compensation the council shall take into account all the service of that officer after he attained the age of eighteen years under any local authority:
Provided that where the officer held two or more offices and the claim to compensation is based on a loss of one or some only of those offices, account shall not be taken under this paragraph of service in an office which the officer continues to hold.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved to add to paragraph 5 "but in the case of any such officer who throughout the period of his service under any local authority or local authorities devoted the whole of his time to the duties of the office or offices held by him account shall be taken of the whole of such period exclusive of any service before attaining the age of eighteen years." The noble Lord said: I can state the case for this Amendment in one or two moments. It is a somewhat important matter and it was not possible to discuss it in another place; therefore I hope your Lordships will bear with me. The point is one which might affect certain men. It is to do with the transferred Poor Law officer who holds perhaps several offices. He may be a relieving officer, a collector for the guardians, a registrar of births, marriages and deaths, and a vaccination officer—a whole-time official, and all his offices really regarded as one. The question is what you would have to spend in respect of compensation if, on his transfer, he were for certain reasons, called upon to take a reduced salary. If there is no reduction of salary the question of compensation would not arise.
This man may have held three offices for thirty years. He may have held, say, the office of vaccination officer for only ten years, and if, when he is transferred, he ceases to be vaccination officer and his compensation has to be assessed on the basis of his only being vaccination officer for ten years, obviously he will not be as well off as if it were assessed on the basis of his having been vaccination officer the whole time. It does not really matter in a great many cases how many offices one of these men hold so long as he has been working his whole time as a whole-time officer. It is really an accident whether he holds three or four offices. He may have had the vaccination office put on him in the last ten years, perhaps because of an increase in salary, or for some other reason, but he cannot work more than his whole time, and if, on the transfer, one of these offices is dropped

389
and it happens to be one which he has not held for anything like the whole time, it is clear as a matter of logic and justice that his compensation ought to be assessed on the basis of the total length of service.
There are reasons why this should be done. If you do not do it you are creating an unfair differentiation between a whole-time officer who holds one appointment only and one who holds several appointments. There is no real justice in it. For the purpose of superannuation under the Poor Law Officers Superannuation Act, 1896, the whole of the service of an officer, whether whole or part time or whether continuous or not, is reckoned. My hope is that this proviso in the Bill really was intended to deal simply with part-time officers. If that is so, I have nothing more to say. I am not for a moment pleading for them, but for the whole-time officers. I think the case for the addition to the proviso which I propose is a very strong one, more particularly as I believe this proviso is new in our legislation. I think it has not hitherto been inserted in any public Statute, Local Act or Provisional Order. Therefore, on those grounds alone, I suggest that before it is left as it is it would require very strong justification. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 133, line 16, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Arnold.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The proviso in the Schedule says:
"Provided that where the officer held two or more offices, and the claim to compensation is based on a loss of one or some only of those offices, account shall not be taken under this paragraph of service in an office which the officer continues to hold."
The Amendment which the noble Lord asks your Lordships to accept would qualify the proviso which I have just read by saying it is not to apply to any officer who throughout the period of his service under the local authority devoted the whole of his time to the duties of the office or offices held by him and that account shall be taken of the whole of such period exclusive of any service before attaining the age of eighteen years. That, I think, is the modification which would take place.
I ought to explain the proviso. It seemed to me that the noble Lord asked
390
for a little clarification on that point. The proviso is designed to meet this class of case. An officer may have held for, say, twenty years an office such as the clerkship to a rural district council, which is not affected by the Bill and which he will continue to hold. About ten years ago he may have secured a second office such as the clerkship to a board of guardians, which is affected by the Bill, while still holding the rural council clerkship. Upon the officer's appointment as clerk to the guardians being determined by the county council, he would be able under the first part of paragraph 5 to base his claim to compensation for the loss of that office on his 20 years' service as clerk to the rural district council. The claim to compensation would, therefore, be based on ten years' service as clerk to the guardians plus service in any previous office which the officer does not continue to hold—that is to say, the clerkship which he held before promotion to the office of clerk to the guardians.
This proviso is right because where an officer holds more than one office service in an office which is not affected by the Bill, and in which the officer will continue, should not be allowed to swell the claim to compensation for the loss of another office held by that officer. The two do not, I think, hang together. If you were to allow them to hang together the compensation would be doubled. I do not think there is any good reason for exempting an officer from this rule because he has devoted all his time to the duties of the offices held under local authorities. The principle that where an officer remains in the enjoyment of the emoluments of an office, service in this office should be disregarded in compensating him for the loss of another office still holds good. That is the whole point.
LORD ARNOLD: The noble Earl's illustration, as I understand it, has to do with two offices, one of which is affected by the Bill, another of which is not. The case I put was different. A man might hold four offices all of which were affected by the Bill and one of which he is required to give up. That is the case I should like the noble Earl to reply to. In that case it does not seem to me a fair thing to assess him for compensation on a shorter term of office in one of those offices whereas he has really been working whole-time

391
throughout his whole service. It does not matter for practical purposes whether he holds three or four offices. Will the noble Earl look into the matter before Report?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It is rather a new point and it will be safer if the noble Lord will allow me to look into it without committing myself.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Amendments to the Eighth Schedule are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 135, leave out lines 1 to 4.
Page 135, line 17, at end insert:
("(c) the office of a teacher in a public elementary school maintained but not provided by a local education authority shall be deemed to be an office under the authority; and").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Eighth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Ninth Schedule:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Amendments on this Schedule are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 137, line 28, leave out ("in case") and insert ("where")
Page 137, line 28, leave out ("had been") and insert ("was")
Page 140, line 16, leave out ("appointed day") and insert ("first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine")
Page 140, line 28, leave out ("appointed day") and insert ("first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine")
Page 141, line 43, at end insert:
("6. Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of section one of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, it shall not be necessary for an agricultural, industrial or freight transport hereditament to be distinguished as such in any supplemental list which will come into force in the County of London on the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty, and nothing contained in any such supplemental list shall operate to alter the valuation list in force immediately before the said date as respects any hereditament which in that valuation list is so distinguished as aforesaid.")—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Ninth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Tenth Schedule:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I beg to move an Amendment which is consequential on Part III of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 144, line 10, at end insert:
("10. Section sixteen of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, shall have effect as if the words 'in pursuance of this Act' were omitted therefrom").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Tenth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Eleventh Schedule:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The first Amendments in my name to this Schedule are required in connection with an Amendment to be moved later on on page 155. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 150, line 18, leave out from the second ("the") to ("in") in line 20, and insert ("estimated rate relief of the companies")
Page 150, line 23, at end insert:
("(b) any interest payable on sums borrowed by the Railway Clearing House in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule; and").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 152, line 1, leave out ("resultant coal") and insert ("coal or of the resultant").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The next Amendment is intended to make it clear that the scheme to be submitted to the Railway Rates Tribunal may provide that a railway company may apportion the rates on coal.
Amendment moved—
Page 152, line 6, at end insert ("and may provide for any certificates necessary for such apportionment being obtained by the companies and for the allowance of rebates apportioned upon the basis thereof, subject to occasional verification of the facts thereby certified").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 153, line 19, leave out ("has been") and insert ("is"),—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The next Amendment on the Paper is designed to meet a situation which may arise owing to wholly exceptional circumstances affecting to an abnormal degree the amount of heavy traffic passing by rail.
Amendment moved—
Page 154, line 18, at end insert:
("11. If it appears to the Minister of Transport that by reason of some excep-

393
tional occurrence the net revenue of the fund for any year is or will be abnormally greater or less than the amount which, upon the basis of the rebates for the time being in force, will be required, to pay the sums payable thereout under paragraph five of this Part of this Schedule to the companies in respect of that year, and that there is danger of such instability being thereby occasioned in the rates of the said rebates as to affect prejudicially the operation of the scheme, he shall issue to the tribunal a certificate that in his opinion the rates of the rebates to be allowed in respect of any group of selected traffics specified in the certificate ought to be reviewed, and upon receipt of such a certificate the tribunal shall, notwithstanding anything in this Part of this Schedule, have power to make such alterations in the scheme as they consider desirable for stabilising, so far as practicable, the rates of the rebates to be allowed in respect of that group, and, if they think fit, for securing that any abnormal excess shall be expended, or abnormal deficiency made good, as the case may be, over such period of years as they think proper").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The effect of the next Amendment is to exclude from application to the jurisdiction of the Railway Rates Tribunal certain provisions as to appeals.
Amendment moved—
Page 154, line 32, leave out ("Sections twenty-five and twenty-six") and insert ("Section twenty-five except so far as it relates to appeals").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 155, line 21, at end insert:
("(d) the Railway Clearing House may, with the consent of the Minister of Transport and subject to such conditions as he may think fit, borrow moneys on the security of the fund for purposes connected with the scheme."
Page 155, line 48, at end insert:
("Provided that in determining for the purposes of this provision whether there is for any year such a deficiency as aforesaid or the amount of any such deficiency, no account shall be taken of any sum paid in that year by way of adjustment under paragraph 2 of this Part of this Schedule").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The next Amendment is intended to remove doubt as to whether the existing definition of carriage charges includes carriage charges made by light railway companies.
Amendment moved—
Page 156, line 42, after ("tribunal") insert ("or made by a light railway company").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 157, line 36, leave out ("subparagraph (a)") and insert ("sub-paragraphs (1) (a) and (b)")
Page 159, line 30, after ("assessment") insert ("or valuation").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The next Amendment is designed to enable a rebate to be allowed on treacle sent to farmers for the purpose of being used as feeding stuffs.
Amendment moved—
Page 160, line 20, leave out ("consigned") and insert ("delivered").—(The Earl of Onslow).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 160, line 41, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 5 on page 161, and insert:
("Such coal delivered to patent fuel works as is used for the manufacture of exported patent fuel:
Such coal delivered to a washery as is washed or cleaned thereat before being exported or delivered to and used in iron or steel works:
Such coal delivered to a coke oven (not being situate at an iron or steel works) as is used for the manufacture of coke which is exported or delivered to and used in iron or steel works:").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Eleventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Twelfth Schedule:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The next Amendment is to repeal Section 4 of the Union Assessment Committee Act which is rendered obsolete.
Amendment moved—
Page 163, line 11, after ("two end") insert ("four").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 170, line 23, at end insert:

("41 & 42 Vict.c.77.

The Highwaysand Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878.

In section sixteen, the words 'in pursuance of this Act.'"

—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Twelfth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at a quarter past three o'clock.