Lords Sitting of 29 May 1930

Preamble
The House met at half past three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
BOROUGH MARKET (SOUTHWARK) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (DOCKS) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
BRIXHAM GAS AND ELECTRICITY. [H.L.]
Read 3a: An Amendment made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

KINGSBRIDGE AND SALCOMBE WATER BOARD BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MENTAL TREATMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, I beg to move that these Amendments be now considered. Your Lordships will notice that the list of Commons Amendments
1178
is rather long, but by far the larger number of them are purely drafting Amendments. For instance, the words "mental illness" have been substituted for the words "mental disorder," which was by way of softening the description of the treatment. Then the words "voluntary patient" have been substituted for "voluntary boarder." When we come to these Amendments perhaps your Lordships will allow me to move them where possible en bloc, because they are merely drafting Amendments. I think in the whole Bill your Lordships will find there are only two or three of the Amendments to which I need call your special attention. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Earl Russell.)
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, if I may be allowed for a moment or two to make a general observation with regard to these Amendments, it will save time in dealing with them en bloc. As your Lordships know, I took a strong view against this Bill at a previous stage, a view which was not shared by the majority of your Lordships' House. My view in regard to many of the details of the Bill is still as strong as it was on the last occasion. It is the first time, I think, that voluntary patients have been allowed to place themselves in what we used to call a lunatic asylum. They can place themselves there without any certificate or any reception order. They can be placed there by their relations, again without any certificate, and when a man has been sufficiently lacking in volition to place himself as a voluntary patient he can then be detained there without being certified by any judicial body. He can even, if he recovers his sanity, or if he becosmes capable of volition—that is, I take it, recovers his sanity—still be kept there for twenty-eight days although, ex hypothesi, he is quite sane again, and he can also, by order of the representatives of the Board of Control, be kept without any judicial decision for six months. That is a provision of the Bill to which I take the very gravest exception.
I know the whole purpose of the Bill is to do away with the ordinary certificate—the safeguard of the subject in regard to lunacy proceedings for the last 100 years. In my view a certificate with a judicial authority is the greatest

1179
safeguard for the liberty of the subject. However, I realise that your Lordships, and the majority in another place, have come to the conclusion that my views are wrong and that the views of the majority are right. I have no wish to play the part of Athanasius contra mundum. But after all Athanasius may have been right and the world may have been wrong, and the world may subsequently, when this Bill comes to be reconsidered by another Royal Commission on the Lunacy Laws, think that you have gone too far. I do not wish to stand against what I think was on the last occasion the obvious view of the House, but I thought I ought to make this short statement. I propose to offer no further opposition to the passage of the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill (No. 60) as last printed for this House.]
Clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out ("disorder") and insert ("illness").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think nothing relevant to the observations of the noble Viscount would arise on the Amendments before your Lordships. The first is one of drafting—to leave out "disorder" and insert "illness." I move that we agree with this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 1, line 9, after ("purpose") insert ("to the person in charge").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this is a shade more than a drafting Amendment. The Commons have inserted the words "to the person in charge" to show the person to whom application should be made. I beg to move that we agree with this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("boarder") and insert ("patient").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 1, line 12, leave out the second ("or") and after ("home") insert ("or place").
Page 1, line 14 leave out from ("or") to the end of the subsection and insert ("into the charge as a single patient of a person so approved, and any approval under this section may be granted subject to such conditions as the Board think proper and may be revoked at any time").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the Amendment in line 12 is for the purpose of giving rather more elasticity with regard to the places where voluntary patients may be received. In addition to the words "institution, hospital, or nursing home" you leave out "or" and insert "or place" and then the next Amendment, in line 14, is part of the same process of making it possible to have any other place provided by a voluntary association and not necessarily one answering to the words in the description. I beg to move that this Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("disorder") and insert ("illness").
Page 1, line 18, after ("makes") insert ("to the person in charge").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, these two are drafting Amendments and I beg to move that they be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("boarder") and insert ("patient")
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("person") and insert ("medical practitioner")
Page 2, line 17, leave out ("boarder") and insert ("patient") and leave out ("disorder") and insert ("illness")
Page 2, line 25, leave out ("boarder") and insert ("patient").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, these Amendments are all drafting, and I beg to move that they be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 2, leave out lines 31 to 36.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the words which this Amendment proposes to omit are those by which, if a patient received as a voluntary boarder who has given seventy-two hours' notice in writing of his intention to leave is not allowed to leave at the expiration of the notice, he shall be entitled to recover as liquidated damages from the person in charge £10 for each day or part of a day during which he is detained. The omission of these words, which was moved by Sir Boyd Merriman, has the effect of leaving the damages at large at the discretion of the Court. The Government have no objection to the Amendment, and I beg to move that it be approved.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 2, page 2, line 42, leave out ("boarder") and insert ("patient").
Clause 2, page 3, line 2, leave out ("day next following") and insert ("second day after").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, these are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 3, line 4, after ("control") insert ("in the case of a patient in an institution which has a visiting committee, by the clerk of the institution, and in any other case").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this is to meet purely an administrative point because the duty of sending a statutory notice is normally placed upon the clerk and not upon the person in charge. I beg to move that this Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 3, line 8, leave out ("day next following") and insert ("second day after").
Page 3, line 9, after ("control") insert ("in the case of a patient in an institution which has a visiting committee, by the clerk of the institution, and in any other case").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, these are the same as the last Amendments. I beg to move that they be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 3, line 12, leave out ("volition") and insert ("expressing himself as willing or unwilling to continue to receive treatment").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this Amendment is one to which I ought to call the attention of the House. We had some discussion here about the meaning of the word "volition" and it is now suggested by the other House to leave out "volition" and insert "expressing himself as willing or unwilling to continue to receive treatment." Those are words much easier to understand and much easier to construe, and I think your Lordships will approve of them. I beg to move that they be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("boarder") and insert ("patient")
Page 3, line 14, leave out ("one month") and insert ("twenty-eight days")
Page 3, line 14, leave out ("but shall on or before the expiration of that period be discharged") and insert ("and shall, if he has not been previously discharged, be discharged on the expiration of twenty-eight days from the date on which he became incapable of so expressing himself")
Page 3, line 16, leave out ("volition") and insert ("so expressing himself")
Page 3, line 18, after ("under") insert ("Section five of")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, these are all drafting Amendments. I beg to move that they be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 3, line 19, leave out ("incapable of volition").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment dealing with the same point which I mentioned just now. I beg to move that it be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 3, line 28, leave out ("boarder") and insert ("patient").
EARL RUSSELL: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that it be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 3, line 32, after ("under") insert ("subsection (1) or subsection (2) of")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that the penal provisions of subsection (5) apply to the notices required by subsections (1) and (2). I beg to move that this Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 3, page 3, line 36, leave out ("boarder") and insert ("patient")
Clause 3, page 3, line 40, leave out ("boarder") and insert ("patient")
Clause 3, page 3, line 41, leave out ("boarder") and insert ("patient")
Clause 3, page 3, Page 4, line 2, leave out ("boarder") and insert ("patient")
Clause 3, page 3, line 4, after ("under") insert ("Section five of") and leave out ("incapable of volition")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, these are drafting Amendments. I beg to move that they be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 4, page 4, line 7, leave out ("a voluntary boarder or as") and after ("under") insert ("any of")
Clause 4, page 4, line 10, leave out ("voluntary board or")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, these are drafting Amendments, consequential on the substitution of the term "voluntary patient" for "voluntary boarder." I beg to move that they be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 4, line 12, leave out from ("that") to ("any") in line 14, and insert ("for the purposes of the provisions of the principal Act relating to the number of patients who may be received in such hospitals or houses).
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this really is a drafting Amendment connected with the calculation of the number of patients and when a relative or friend has a right to be received. As the clause was worded originally it was not strictly accurate because the number was prescribed once for all. The object is to ensure that the presence of relatives or friends does not result in exceeding the number prescribed, and this Amendment has that effect. I beg to move that it be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 4, line 15, after ("patient") insert ("unless he sis lodged in a part of the hospital or house not permitted to be used for the accommodation of patients.")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the point of this Amendment is that if a relative or friend is accommodated in a portion of the house or a portion of the premises not licensed for patients, the presence of the stranger shall not count. I beg to move that this Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 5, page 4, line 18, leave out ("disorder") and insert ("illness") and leave out from the second ("is") to ("likely") in line 19.
Clause 5, page 4, line 20, after ("treatment") insert ("but is for the time being incapable of expressing himself as willing or unwilling to receive such treatment")
Clause 5, page 4, line 24, leave out ("provided") and insert ("maintained")
Clause 5, page 4, line 32, leave out ("single care") and insert ("charge as a single patient")
Clause 5, page 4, line 34, after ("Act") insert ("must be made to the person in charge").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, these are all drafting Amendments. I beg to move that they be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 5, line 13, at end, insert:
("Provided that in the case of a person who is to be received into a licensed house or a nursing home or into charge as a single patient the recommendation shall not be signed by the person in charge, or by any person in the employment of the person in charge, or by any person interested in the house or home, or by any person in the employment of any person so interested.")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this Amendment was inserted in another place to meet the suggestion that it was important to secure that the practitioner entitled to sign recommendations under Clause 5, subsection (3), should be entirely disinterested as regards the admission of the patient to treatment. These words provide, as your Lordships will notice, that they shall not be signed by any person who is so interested. I beg to move that this Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 5, line 20, at end insert ("and the grounds on which he bases his recommendation.")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this provides an additional protection for the patient and was accepted in another place by the Government. I beg to move that it be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 5, line 37, leave out ("day next following") and insert ("second day after")
Page 5, line 38, at end, insert ("in the case of a patient received into an institution which has a visiting committee, by the clerk of the institution to the Board of Control and to the clerk of the visiting committee, and, in any other case")
Page 5, line 39, leave out from ("and") to the first ("to") in line 42.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, these are drafting Amendments. I beg to move that, they be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 5, line 43, at end, insert:
("The Board of Control shall upon the signed request of any person who considers himself to be unjustly detained under such application, recommendation, or order, furnish to him or to his authorised representative free of cost a copy of such application, recommendation, or order.")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I beg to move that in this case your Lordships should agree to this Amendment with an Amendment. It is purely drafting, but it puts the matter in order. The form in which I ask your Lordships to pass the Amendment is as follows:—
"The Board of Control shall upon the signed request of any person who considers himself to be unjustly detained under such application or recommendation, furnish to him or to his authorised representative free of cost a copy of such application or recommendation."
The words "or order" which are in the Amendment are not apt.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment as amended.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 6, line 3, leave out from ("shall") to ("before") in line 4.
Page 6, line 3, line 5, at end insert ("be sent, in the case of a patient in an institution which has a visiting committee, by the clerk of the institution to the Board of Control and to the clerk of the visiting committee, and, in any other case, by the person in charge to the Board of Control and to the clerk to the visitors of licensed houses for the district in which the patient was immediately before the death or departure.")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, these Amendments are designed to cover an administrative point. It is desirable that the visitors should also be notified of the death or departure of a patient because it might avoid an unnecessary visit. I beg to move that these Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 6, line 6, leave out ("in charge")
Page 6,line 29, leave out ("day next following") and insert ("second day after").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, these two Amendments are both drafting. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 6, line 37, leave out subsection (12) and insert as a new subsection:—
("(12) If a person who has been received as a temporary patient becomes capable of expressing himself as willing or unwilling to continue to receive treatment, he shall not thereafter be detained for more than twenty-eight days unless in the meantime he has again become incapable of so expressing himself.")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this new subsection is consequential upon the decision to change the words "incapable of volition."
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 7, line 36, at end insert as a new subsection:—
("(17) Any approval granted by the Board of Control under this section may be granted subject to such conditions as the Board think proper and may be revoked at any time.")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this is really no more than a drafting Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMNS AMENDMENT.
Clause 6, page 7, line 39, after ("to") insert ("investigate the needs of their area and to take such steps as they consider necessary to").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this is a little more than drafting. The clause as originally drafted imposed on local authorities the duty to provide accommodation for the reception of temporary patients. By this Amendment the duty is converted into a power. The local authorities are not ordered actually to do it, but merely to take into consideration the needs of their area and then to take such steps as they think necessary.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 7, line 41, at end insert ("and a local authority shall have power, subject to the approval of the Board of Control, to contract for the reception and treatment of such patients in any registered hospital or any institution, hospital or nursing home approved by the Board of Control under that section").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this repairs an omission in the Bill. As originally drafted, local authorities were enabled to provide and maintain accommodation, but they were given no power to contract with a registered hospital or an approved institution for the reception of those patients, and it is desirable that they should have this power.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 8, line 2, leave out ("boarder") and insert ("patient") and after ("under") insert ("section one of")
Page 8, line 7, leave out ("with any registered or other hospital")
Page 8, line 2, line 8, leave out ("boarders in the hospital") and insert ("patients in any registered hospital or any hospital or nursing home approved by the Board of Control under that section").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, these three Amendments are drafting.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 8, line 9, leave out line 9.
Page 8, line 15, leave out ("disorder") and insert ("illness")
Page 8, line 16, leave out paragraph (b)
Page 8, line 26, leave out ("disorder") and insert ("illness")
Page 8, line 28, at end insert:—
("(c) to contribute to the funds of voluntary associations formed for the purpose of the prevention and treatment of mental illness;")
Page 8, line 29, at the beginning insert ("Subject to the approval of the Board of Control")
Page 8, line 30, leave out ("disorder") and insert ("illness")
Page 8, line 32, at end insert:—
("(e) to make and carry into effect agreements with any other local authority for providing for co-operation in or joint exercise of any powers conferred on them by this subsection, and for the apportionment between the authorities of the expenses incurred under the agreements.")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, now we come to a series of Amendments the effect of which is to remove the previous approval of the Board of Control to the matters there dealt with, except as regards research. Great objection was taken by local authorities to the approval of the Board of Control being required for these matters, but no very great importance is attached to it by the Minister except in the case of research. In that case, of course, it would very likely lead to unnecessary duplication and
1190
possibly to wasted effort, and the effect of this Amendment and the Amendments to line 16, line 28 (which gives the power to contribute to the funds of voluntary associations), line 29, and line 32 (which gives power to make agreements with another local authority) are all designed to carry out this purpose. The intervening Amendments to line 15, line 26, and line 30 are drafting.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Notion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 8, line 38, at end, insert ("and, subject to such modifications and adaptations as may be prescribed by rules made under Section three hundred and thirty-eight of the principal Act, the provisions of Sections two hundred and seventy-five to two hundred and seventy-eight of that Act (which relate to the making of general rules and regulations and the appointment and duties of certain officers) shall apply in relation to institutions maintained by a local authority as they apply in relation to mental hospitals.
(5) The Asylums Officers' Superannuation Act, 1909, shall have effect as if for references-therein to mental hospitals there were substituted references to institutions maintained by local authorities").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this relates to institutions provided by a local authority, whether they are technically mental hospitals or not. The institutional accommodation which will be transferred to the county council, or rather which has been transferred since April 1, may place at the disposal of some authority premises which they might usefully use in connection with mental cases, but they would not perhaps be institutions under this Bill, and a definition has been drafted to provide that "institutions" shall mean other premises. To those appropriated premises you apply the provisions of the principal Act with regard to their management—that is to say they must have a medical officer of health and a clerk—but in the case of these premises for an appropriated institution it is sufficient to provide that they are a mental hospital. With that the House of Commons do not agree, and the object now is to make it possible to make rules applying to these. The object of subsection 5 in the Amendment is to give the rights to superannuation

1191
in regard to the officers employed in these new premises.
Moved, That this House doth agree With the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 7, page 9, line 4, after ("appoint") insert ("annually")
Clause 7, page 9, line 22, leave out ("mental hospital provided") and insert ("institution maintained")
Clause 7, page 9, line 25, leave out ("mental hospital or hospitals") and insert ("institution")
Clause 7, page 9, line 30, leave out ("there is") and insert ("the committee is the visiting committee of")
Clause 7, page 9, line 34, leave out ("so to be")
Clause 7, page 9, line 35, after ("appointed") insert ("for an institution")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, all the Amendments on this page are drafting.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 10, line 7, after ("women") insert ("one member at least of every sub-committee appointed under this section for an institution shall be a woman").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the subsection provides that two members on every visiting committee shall be women, but the visitation of institutions may be carried out by a sub-committee, and the Government consider that it would be consistent with the intention of the clause that there should be at least one woman on any sub-committee. That is the effect of this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 10, line 9, leave out ("in respect of any mental hospital") and insert ("for any institution").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 10, line 14, leave out ("administrative").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this is a misdescription. The Administrative County of London will include the London County Council area, which it is not desired to include because the arrangements regarding the visiting committee of that area are dealt with in the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1915. It is not desired, however, to exclude from the clause the City of London, and that is the object of leaving out the word "administrative."
Moved, That this. House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 10, page 11, line 16, after ("expenses") insert ("reasonably")
Clause 10, page 11, line 17, leave out ("as certified by the City Chamberlain")
Clause 10, page 11, line 18, at the beginning insert ("A certificate by the City Chamberlain that any expenses have been incurred under this Act by the Common Council shall be conclusive evidence that those expenses have been so incurred, and")
Clause 10, page 11, line 23, after the second ("any") insert ("such")
Clause 10, page 11, line 25, after ("buildings") insert ("or have not been reasonably incurred")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this is a series of Amendments to Clause 10 which have been agreed upon between the London County Council and the City Corporation. They are all drafting Amendments to Which there are no objections.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 11, page 11, line 32, at end insert as a new subsection:
("(2) The members of the Board of Control shall be styled 'Senior Commissioners.'")
Clause 11, page 11, line 33, leave out ("members of the Board of Control") and insert ("Senior Commissioners").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, there are several Amendments to this clause, because

1193
as it was originally introduced it was intended to leave on foot most of Section 22 of the Mental Deficiency Act, which provided for the appointment of Commissioners by the Crown and described their qualifications. It has now been suggested that the visitation by officers who are Assistant Commissioners might be less effective than the visitation by those who have the rank of Commissioner, and it has therefore been decided to drop the grade of Assistant Commissioner and to provide that the visiting staff shall be Commissioners. For that purpose the section is repealed leaving only the operative words:
"There shall be constituted a Board of Control,"
and the Commissioners are now called the Senior Commissioners. This covers the first two Amendments to this clause.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 11, line 35, leave out ("one at least shall be a Medical Commissioner") and insert ("two shall be Medical Commissioners").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this provides for two Medical Commissioners.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 11, line 37, leave out ("members of the Board of control shall be styled")
Page 11, line 38, leave out ("and") line 39, leave out ("regards") and insert ("respects")
Page 11, line 41, leave out ("on the recommendation").
Moved, That this Abuse doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 12, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert:—
("(5) No person shall be appointed a Legal Senior Commissioner unless either—

(i) he is a practising barrister or solicitor of at least five years' standing; or

(ii) he is a Commissioner, other than a Senior Commissioner, and was, at the date
1194
when he was appointed such a Commissioner, a practising barrister or solicitor of at least five years' standing;

and no person shall be appointed a Medical Senior Commissioner unless he is a registered medical practitioner of at least five years' standing.")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the reason for this Amendment is that it was intended to retain that part of Section 22 of the Mental Deficiency Act which, owing to the last Amendments, will now go. I move that the Commons Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 12, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert:—
("(7) After the commencement of this Act—

(i) no further unpaid Commissioners shall be appointed;

(ii) the paid Commissioners, other than Senior Commissioners, shall be appointed, subject to the approval of the Minister, by the Board of Control and there shall be included among them women as welt as men and any Commissioners so appointed")

Page 12, leave out line 26, after ("Commissioners") insert ("and")
Page 12, leave out lines 27 and 28, leave out ("and Assistant Commissioners")
Page 12, leave out line 35, leave out ("or Assistant Commissioner").
Page 13, line 31, leave out ("or Assistant Commissioner").
Clause 13, page 14, line 7, leave out ("or Assistant Commissioners")
Clause 13, page 14, line 10, leave out ("Assistant Commissioner or").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, these are all consequential upon the change in the Commissioners, and I beg to move that they be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 16, page 15, line 38, after ("report") insert ("application, recommendation")
Clause 16, page 15, line 39, after ("report") insert ("application, recommendation") and after ("Act") insert ("or any Act amending this Act")
Clause 16, page 15, line 40, after ("Act") insert ("or any Act amending this Act").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, these are Amendments to ensure that the protection given by the clause shall extend to action taken under the present Bill. It introduces the references to Section 330 of the Act of 1890.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 16, line 1, leave out paragraph (2) and insert:—
("(2) No proceedings, civil or criminal, shall be brought against any person in any court in respect of any such matter as is mentioned' in the last preceding subsection, without the leave of the High Court, and leave shall not be given unless the court is satisfied that there is substantial ground for the contention that the person, against whom it is sought to bring the proceedings, has acted in bad faith or without reasonable care.
(3) Notice of any application under the last preceding subsection shall be given to the person against whom it is sought to bring the proceedings, and that person shall be entitled to be heard against the application.
(4) Where on an application under this section leave is given to bring any proceeding, and the proceedings are commenced within four weeks after the date on which leave was so given, the proceedings shall, for the purposes of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, be deemed to have been commenced on the date on which notice of the application was given to the person against whom the proceedings are to be brought.")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this is an Amendment for the purpose of giving protection to the medical profession against vexatious actions, and your Lordships will remember that I explained when the Bill was in this House that everything possible had been done to give that protection, but in another place, on reconsideration, they were able to think of a form of words which made the clause more effective. Therefore paragraph (2) is left out and the words on the Paper are inserted. They do, to some extent, strengthen the clause, and I recommend your Lordships to agree to them.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I think I ought to make one observation, although I said I would not again intervene on the Bill. This is an extension even of the clause as originally in the Bill, and I think it does not apply only to the medical profession but to any one who has taken part in putting a man into what is now called a home. The proposed new paragraph says:
"No proceedings, civil or criminal, shall be brought against any person in any court in respect of any such matter as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection, without the leave of the High Court."
The matters in the last preceding subsection apply to anybody who applies for a reception order, or has signed or carried out or done any act with a view to signing or carrying out an order purporting to be a reception order. That would apply, I think, to the relations of a man.
I think that I ought to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that this is an extension of the protection as it was before your Lordships' House. We gave pretty full protection, I think, in the original Bill to the medical profession, and this Amendment makes it impossible for any man who has been put in an asylum wrongfully, by his family or by a medical man signing a reception order, to get any redress without first going to the High Court and establishing that he has a prima facie case. That is a very unusual proceeding to take. The Courts of Law have always been open to a man, who could take his case before a jury. That is impossible under this clause. The man must first satisfy a Judge of the High Court that he has a prima facie case before he can take action and submit it to a jury. I thought it was only right to point that out. The responsibility must be on the shoulders of the Government for carrying the clause in this form.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies may I ask him if there is any precedent in a case of this sort for a subject, who thinks he is injured, and who thinks he has got a right to claim damages from some one who has injured him—is there any precedent for compelling that man to go to the High Court for leave to bring his action? I am aware that in the Privy Council, on appeal from certain of the Dominions,

1197
you have to get leave to appeal, but that is a very different thing. Is there any case at all resembling the present case where, before bringing an action for damages, a subject has to go before a Judge and satisfy him that he has a prima facie case?
LORD DARLING: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to answer that question? There is already on the Statute Book such a provision, and the Courts have acted upon it frequently. There are people—there have been several of them—who apparently have an idée fixe and who are a positive nuisance.
LORD DANESFORT: Cases of nuisance.
LORD DARLING: I should not have used a word known in the Courts of Chancery. I am referring to a tiresome set of half-crazed people, suffering from an idée fixe, which leads them to bring actions against all sorts of well known people, and there is a section by which they can be put upon a list and not allowed to bring an action against anybody unless they satisfy the proper authority that they really have a prima facie case. Then they can come into Court. When I was in the King's Bench there was one particular man—I think he must be dead for I have not seen him for a long time, although it may be because he is still on the list—his name was Boaler, and he was constantly coming before the Courts and trying to bring actions until at last he was put upon the list. Even then he came before us in the King's Bench and tried to ventilate the question whether he could apply to be taken off the list. Lord Danesfort naturally had not heard of it in the Courts with which he is familiar.
LORD DANESFORT: Oh yes, I have heard of it, but that is quite a different case.
LORD DARLING: It is aimed at the same sort of people—people with an idée fixe who after they have been put away for a short time want to revenge themselves upon society and particular individuals.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I am afraid I have not the slightest idea what is meant by the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken. Lord Danes-fort asked if there was any precedent for
1198
a person who has a grievance coming into Court and claiming the right of trial by jury. Lord Darling suggested that there is such a thing as vexatious litigation, and that if a person goes on bringing actions which have no substance in them he can be put upon a list. Apparently the noble and learned Lord assumes that a person who has been wrongfully shut up in an asylum has an idée fixe. The whole basis of the action is that he has not an idée fixe, and I fail to see that it has anything to do with the matter raised by Lord Danesfort.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I do not propose to follow noble and learned Lords into these legal subtleties, but it was felt that more protection should be given to doctors, and the Bill passed in this form. In another place the matter was very carefully considered by all the legal talent on both sides, and was argued at very considerable length in Committee in that House, and ultimately they thought this protection was not too much. I think that one may quite safely say that no person with a genuine case will be stopped by this protection from starting his case. It is only the person who imagines he has a case, and in fact has none, who will be stopped from giving all this trouble and causing all this expense. I ought also perhaps to say that this Bill had a fairly rough passage on the Report stage in another place, but not a word was said on Report in opposition to this clause, and I hope that your Lordships will accept it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 16, line 14, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("passing") and at end insert ("(3) This section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the Bill will not come into operation until January, 1931, and the interval will be necessary for preparatory work, but this does not apply to the circumstances for which Clause 16 makes provision. It is thought that that might properly operate from the passage of the Bill, and any proceedings which are actually pending when the Bill passes will not be affected. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
After clause 16 insert the following new clause:
Accounts of licensed houses.
("17.—(1) The licensees of every licensed house shall cause such accounts to be kept as the Board of Control from time to time prescribe, and the accounts so kept shall be audited once a year in such manner and by such person as the Board direct.
(2) A copy of the accounts and of the report of the auditor thereon shall be sent by the licensees to the Board of Control and the Board may, if they think fit, publish in their report the whole or any part of any such accounts or report, and any information obtained therefrom.
(3) The licensees shall pay to the auditor such fee in respect of the audit as the Board of Control direct.")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, as the noble Earl opposite is proposing the rejection of this clause, I will confine myself to moving formally at this stage that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendracnt.—(Earl Russell.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY, who had given Notice that he would move that the House doth disagree, said: My Lords, it is difficult to see what the object of this clause is. It is quite clear that these licensed houses should have every proper supervision in order to see that the patients are properly looked after, and that there is no abuse, and that, when necessary, they should be let out. All that I can understand. But these are private ventures, and what excuse there for saying that the accounts of a private venture should be gone into? If it is to be said: "You know you ought not to charge a person more than a certain amount," where is that going to lead to? Is an auditor a proper person to say, in respect of food that has been purchased, what amount the patient should be charged for entertainment? See how the clause runs:
"The licensees of every licensed house shall cause such accounts to be kept as the Board of Control from time to time prescribe …"
Later on you will find that the wretched licensee has to pay for it—
1200
"and the accounts so kept shall be audited once a year in such manner and by such person as the Board direct."
In such "manner" as the Board direct. So they have a perfectly free hand to say what sort of audit is to be made. It may be a very expensive one.
Now you come to subsection (2), and that surely goes beyond everything. It says:—
"A copy of the accounts and of the report of the auditor thereon shall be sent by the licensees to the Board of Control and the Board may, if they think fit, publish in their report the whole or any part of any such accounts or report.…"
So the public is to be told exactly how a man is carrying on a perfectly private concern of his own. But it is even worse than that, because they can publish the whole or any part of the accounts or report; they can publish one part of the audit and suppress the other. The publication of part of a document may, of course, be very misleading. There is no opportunity for the licensee to supply the missing part, and any comment may be made on a part of the audit which the Board of Control choose to publish. Surely, that is an unwarrantable interference with a concern run for private profit. Then the usual consequences follow that—
"The licensees shall pay to the auditor such fee in respect of the audit as the Board of Control direct."
This clause is not a Government clause. It was not moved by the Government in another place. It certainly goes too far, and I hope it will be left out.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I should like to take exception in the first place to a description, which the noble Earl used many times over in his speech, of a licensed house as a purely private concern. No concern which is officially allowed to have the charge of a certified lunatic can possibly be regarded as a purely private concern. It is clearly one in which the public has a direct and over-riding interest.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I probably used an expression which was not accurate. What I meant was that it was a purely private concern so far as regarded the financial running of it, and this clause deals with the financial running of it, and with nothing else.
EARL RUSSELL: I was going on to say that it is a matter in which the public

1201
are profoundly interested, and it is, above all, a case in which duty may very easily conflict with interest. So much so, that your Lordships will remember that on the point of the retention of licensed houses at all the Royal Commission were divided half and half. Now, the Government's attitude is perfectly simple. The Government did not desire to deal with licensed houses in this Bill, and they did not really think it appropriate to have a clause relating to licensed houses pitchforked into the Bill; but it was put in on the advice, and with the great support, of friends of the noble Earl's in another place, and the Minister somewhat reluctantly accepted it. If the noble Earl desires this House to remove it, he must make his account with them.
I must point out this further difficulty which he has to meet, that the clause, as it is in the Bill, does agree almost word for word with the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission. Although they were divided, six and six, as to the continuance of licensed houses at all, they all twelve agreed that if licensed houses continued it was proper that a power of this character should exist. Why the noble Earl should think it likely that it would be misused I do not know, but it is apparent, I think, from the Report itself that the Commission were driven to that conclusion by facts which came to their knowledge in the course of their inquiry. Many licensed houses are excellent; some licensed houses are not, and it is undoubtedly a wise thing to keep some control over them; and I have very little doubt that if my right hon. friend had been introducing a Bill dealing with licensed houses he would have introduced this clause. Whether it is to remain or not I must leave to your Lordships after that explanation.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I do not think the noble Earl has given us any explanation of the reason of his Motion. He has told us the clause was inserted in another place largely by friends of my own, and that the Minister had grave doubts about it. But what is the object aimed at by this clause? We all know that there are certain institutions which may be called private licensed houses, which receive patients who can afford to pay sometimes rather large fees for their accommodation therein. I do not know that there is any
1202
accusation made against them with regard to the amount of the fee, or the mode in which those houses are run. We know many of them are remarkably successful and well conducted establishments. I could understand if the noble Earl said these were bad establishments, and ought to be swept away; but he also says that, while the privately conducted institutions are left in existence because they supply a public want, the Government insist on their accounts, which are private, being submitted to the Board of Control and published. Now, really, what advantage is there in that? If the noble Earl can show the advantage I would ask my noble friend behind me not to press his Amendment. But what advantage can it be to the administration of the Lunacy Law to publish what are (I still consider this the proper expression) private accounts of the running of an institution which is run under supervision in regard to certain respects, but which merely takes in private persons whose friends pay for them what they regard as a reasonable fee for accommodation in a private home? What reason is there for submitting them to the Board of control for publication in their Report? Perhaps the noble Earl can give us that information.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I must first apologise for having forgotten to mention a point on this clause which I should have mentioned. The clause says that the accounts shall be audited once a year in such way and by such person as the Board direct. In another place it was stated that it was intended to use the services of district auditors in this work, but the Minister thinks there may be a legitimate grievance and, therefore, is quite prepared if it can be shown that a private audit has been carried out effectively and has proved effective, to agree that the work should not necessarily be withdrawn from the private auditor, but that the public auditor should only be appointed if that were not the case. That does not answer the point that was asked me by the noble Viscount, but I ought to mention that to the House.
The noble Viscount asked me what the reason was for this. I was not present at the discussion in Committee, but I think the sort of reason is this. I do not think it has so much to do with the fees to be charged to the patient. There

1203
is no particular reason why it should have. Those fees are a matter of bargain between two sane persons, the friend of the patient and the keeper of the licensed house. He may charge what so ever he is able to get and there is nothing improper in it. I do not suggest that there is any impropriety in that for a moment. But the sort of question that did come to the notice of the Commission, and they thought it really very undesirable, was a case where the superintendent of a very important house of this character was paid partly by commission on the profits. It is pretty obvious that a provision of that kind does at once bring into action a rather direct conflict between interest and duty, and it is not a very desirable thing.
Then there were other cases in which various articles had been supplied to patients while there, extra articles which, of course, they were entitled to purchase, and prices had been charged for them in excess, sometimes considerably in excess of their cost to the institution. There were two possible views about that. One view, of course, was that the keeper of the institution was an hotel keeper and was entitled to charge his guests anything he could make out of them. I think your Lordships will agree that the better view rather was that he was not entitled to charge his patients more than the cost price plus something, perhaps, for establishment or overhead charges, and that in any case the excess over included in the prices charged, if more than the sums actually paid, ought to be disclosed to the person paying the accounts. The case, which was gone into as a matter of fact by a special audit by the Royal Commission, was rather a bad case and raised some apprehension in their minds.
As to the publication of the accounts, I cannot conceive and I am sure your Lordships will not conceive that any portion of those accounts is likely to be published unless there is something which amounts to a perfectly definite public scandal which ought to be shown up and held up to public odium and execration. I cannot imagine that they would be published even in a casual way for any casual reason, nor is there any idea of doing that. But it is thought they ought ultimately to be audited. I can only tell
1204
your Lordships that the whole of the Royal Commission agreed to that and apparently everybody in another place agreed with it. It was put in at the instance of Sir Boyd Merriman and was discussed at considerable length. I must leave the matter to your Lordships with that information. I really do not think I can carry it any further.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I do not profess to have followed the course of this somewhat extraordinary Bill; indeed, attention was only called to it quite recently. But so far as this Amendment is concerned it occurs to me that the real meaning and object of it is to put an end altogether to these private homes or houses where people prefer to send their friends very often if they are mentally deranged or affected. Would it not be better and more in accordance with straight legislation—if we ever get such a thing—to say that these private homes are not to exist at all? A person selects a home because he knows its reputation or because he does not want the public generally to know, as it may be only a temporary matter, that the person confined in it is mentally deranged. Assuming that such a home is to be allowed under our law at all look at what this clause says you are to do. It says you are to keep such accounts as the Board of Control may from time to time prescribe. Why? Are you enacting that the parties cannot arrange between themselves what those who enter into a mental home are to pay?
Then it goes on to say that
"the accounts so kept shall be audited once a year in such manner and by such person as the Board direct."
Then comes the most extraordinary part of the clause:—
"A copy of the accounts and of the report of the auditor thereon shall be sent by the licensees to the Board of Control and the Board may, if they think fit, publish in their report the whole or any part of such accounts or report, and any information obtained therefrom."
Was ever a more extraordinary provision put into an Act of Parliament at all, assuming that you are allowing private homes The noble Earl says that there are scandals connected sometimes with these homes. So there are with all nursing homes. So there are with lunatic asylums. So there are with poor houses: there have been many. So there are with

1205
almost every Government Department that has tried to run any of these things.
EARL RUSSELL: They all publish their accounts.
LORD CARSON: Scandals are connected with all of them; but you say that anybody sending in accounts is to run the risk of having the whole of them published with the report of the auditors as sent to the Board of Control. Then the licensee, I suppose to make it cheaper, is to pay "such fee in respect of the audit as the Board of Control direct." That is a tax that you put upon the licensees in order that they may send forward their accounts, which may be published in the manner that I have mentioned to your Lordships. This is really one more of those persistent attempts to get everything under the control of Government Departments. You find it in every Bill that is brought forward now.
I remember when I was at the Bar defending certainly three different doctors who were prosecuted for having uncertified lunatics, as they were called, in their houses. I am glad to say that in those three different cases the whole of them got off, because the people were not lunatics at all. The truth of the matter was that the Board of Lunacy, like every other board, thought that the greatest benefit that could ensue to any subject was that he should come under their control. They always do. One of the cases was that of a young girl who had just reached puberty and who used occasionally to get a little hysterical. This doctor was treating her and they prosecuted the doctor for having a lunatic under his care. Another was a case of a woman who had just passed a critical period at middle age. I remember the cases perfectly well. These doctors had to stand their trial, one at the Old Bailey and the other down in Surrey. I was brought down specially to
defend that case. I came to the conclusion—and the more I have seen of public Departments the more that conclusion has been confirmed—that every public Department considers that the greatest advantage to any British subject is to be put somewhere or other under the control of that Department.
Many people select these homes because they are known to be conducted by kindly people who look well after the patients and make a reputation for themselves. Here you are saying to these people: "No; you must put down every egg that is given to the patient, and every egg that is given to everybody else, and the whole accounts must be kept as if it was a great business." The noble Earl says there has been a scandal. Well, if there has been a scandal, or anything like scandal, the thing to do is to stop the licence. You have the fullest possible control over the matter by the licence, which you can take away. For heaven's sake do not let us, under these pretexts, put an end to these private homes which, in my opinion—and I have had a good deal of experience of various kinds of cases that have had to be dealt with by the Courts—have been of great service. Do not let us think that everybody must be put under this Board of Control. For my own part I think if this Amendment is left in the Bill these private places had better be shut up altogether, and we had better get on to another sort of compulsory Coal Bill which, instead of making coal dearer, will make the houses for the mentally afflicted dearer. It is all the same thing. I hope the House will consider well before they allow this Amendment to stand.
On Question, Whether the Lords should agree with the Commons in the said Amendment?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 31.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, L.(L. Chancellor.)

Mersey, V.

Erskine, L.

Gainford, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Hereford, L. Bp.

Marks, L. [Teller.]

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Beauchamp, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

De La Warr, E.

Clwyd, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Russell, E.

Darling, L.

Thomson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sutherland, D.

Salisbury, M.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Linlithgow, M.

Bathurst, E.

Lindsay, E.

Lindsey, E.

Carnock, L.

Lloyd, L.

Plymouth, E.

Carson, L.

Melchett, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Danesfort, L. [Teller.]

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Brentford, V.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Hailsham, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Shandon, L.

Joicey, L.

Templemore, L.

Annaly, L.

Lamington, L.

Teynham, L.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Lawrence, L.

Trenchard, L.

Wharton, L.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 18, page 16, line 38, leave out from the beginning to ("any") in line 41 and insert:
("(a) the provisions of Section twelve of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1929 (relating to the administration of any pensions to which that Act applies, receivable by rate-aided persons of unsound mind); of the provisions contained in the First Schedule to that Act with respect to rate-aided persons of unsound mind; or (b)")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that we agree.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 16, line 46, at end insert:
("(c) any of the provisions of the Pensions Act, 1839, or any power of His Majesty or of any Government department to provide, or the validity or the construction of any Royal Warrant, Order in Council, or Order, in force at the commencement of this Act, which provides for the repayment from any pension of the expense of the maintenance of rate-aided persons.
(2) This section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act.")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this Amendment was put in because Clause 18 removes certain possibilities arising from the pauper status of mental patients, but it does not interfere with the provisions of the principal Act regarding the liability of friends, and the new paragraph (c) has been inserted at the request of the Admiralty and the Ministry of Pensions, who pointed out that a similar safeguard is required in regard to the provisions stated in the subsection. I beg to move that we agree.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 19, page 17, line 17, at end insert ("(2) This section shall come "into operation on the passing of this Act").
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this is an administrative provision to facilitate the reception of retained cases in any place approved by the local authority in lieu of the workhouse which has ceased to be a workhouse since April 1. I move that this Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 20, page 17, line 20, leave out ("in England")
Clause 20, page 17, line 33, at end insert:
"(3) Any provision in any local Act for the reception of voluntary boarders into any institution shall have effect as if for references therein to 'voluntary boarders,' there were substituted references to 'voluntary patients,' and any reference in this Act to persons received as voluntary patients, or as patients, under any local Act shall be construed as including a reference to persons received before the commencement of this Act as voluntary boarders under any such Act.")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, these are drafting Amendments. I beg to move that we agree with them
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 17, line 41, at end insert:
("(5) The word 'lunatic' (except in the following contexts, that is to say, in the phrase 'criminal lunatic,' and in relation to persons detained as lunatics outside England) shall cease to be used in relation to any person of or alleged to be of unsound mind and there shall be substituted for that word wherever it occurs (except in the above-mentioned contexts) in any enactment or in any order, regulation or other document issued under any enactment the expression 'person of unsound mind,'

1209
'person,' 'patient,' 'patient of unsound mind' or 'of unsound mind' or such other expression as the context may require.
(6) The Minister of Health may by order modify the wording of any enactment so far as is necessary to bring it into conformity with the provisions of this section.")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this Amendment provides that the word "lunatic" shall not be used where it can be helped. Of course, there are some cases where you will have to retain it. Therefore power is given to make the necessary substitution in the proper place. I beg to move that this Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 21, page 17, line 45, leave out ("provided, required or appropriated") and insert ("maintained")
Page 18, line 4, leave out from ("received") to the end of line 11 and insert ("or about to be received under this or any local Act as a voluntary or temporary patient (not being a person received, or about to be received, as a single patient) means the medical superintendent or other person in charge of the institution, hospital, home, or place into which he is, or is about to be, so received, and in relation to a person so received, or about to be so received, as a single patient, means the person into whose charge he is, or is about to be, so received.")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, these are consequential drafting Amendments. I beg to move that they be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 18, leave out lines 12 to 15.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, these lines contained a definition of "local authority" as including the Lancashire Mental Hospitals Board, the West Riding of Yorkshire Mental Hospitals Board and the Staffordshire Mental Hospitals Board, but some doubt is felt as to the construction of the four lines and it is not quite certain that it is wise to leave them in. Therefore it is proposed that they should be omitted. I beg to move that this Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
First Schedule, page 20, line 15, at end insert:
("3. I have formed the conclusions stated below on the following grounds, viz.:—")
First Schedule, page 20, line 21, at end insert:
("3. I have formed the conclusions stated below on the following grounds, viz.:—")
First Schedule, page 20, line 25, leave out ("disorder") and insert ("illness")
First Schedule, page 20, line 26, leave out line 26.
First Schedule, page 20, line 27, at end insert:
("(iii) is for the time being incapable of expressing himself as willing or unwilling to receive such treatment.")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, these are consequential and drafting Amendments, and I beg to move that they be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 20, line 36, at end insert:
("A person in specifying the grounds on which his conclusions are based, must carefully distinguish between statements of fact which are based upon his own observations and statements of fact which are based upon communications made to him by others.")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this is intended as a footnote for the guidance of the medical practitioner. The distinction already exists in the form of certificates scheduled to the Lunacy Act, but it is thought that here it would be better to keep the words out of the form itself in order that it should not too closely resemble a lunacy certificate. It is put in, however, as a guidance to the practitioner.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.))

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Third Schedule, page 22, line 23, leave out ("or house, which receives any

1211
patient") and insert ("house or place where any voluntary or temporary patient is received ")
Third Schedule, page 22, line 24, leave out ("Act or any boarder under this Act")
Third Schedule, page 22, line 26, leave out ("or") and after ("houses") insert ("or places")
Third Schedule, page 22, line 29, leave out ("or boarders")
Page 23, line 1, leave out ("or boarders")
Page 23, line 3, leave out ("or") and after ("house") insert ("or place")
Page 23, line 4, leave out ("or") and after ("house") insert ("or place")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, these are all consequential or drafting Amendments. I beg to move that they be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 23, line 9, at end insert:
("4. Applying to temporary patients received under Section five of this Act, subject to such modifications and adaptations, if any, as appear to the Board to be necessary or convenient, the following provisions of the principal Act, that is to say, Section forty (which regulates the use of mechanical means of restraint), Section forty-one (which relates to the letters of patients), Section forty-two (which relates to the posting of notices), Section forty-seven (which relates to the visits of friends), Section forty-nine (which empowers the Board of Control to order the examination of a patient by two medical practitioners), Section fifty (which relates to inquiries as to property), Section fifty-one (which relates to searches in the records of the Board of Control), and Section eighty-five (which provides for the retaking of patients who have escaped).
5. Modifying and adapting, in relation to institutions maintained by local authorities not being mental hospitals, the provisions of Sections two hundred and seventy-five to two hundred and seventy-eight of the principal Act (which relate to the making of general rules and regulations and the appointment and duties of certain officers.")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this has been inserted in deference to representations made to the Minister that the various provisions specified there, which now apply to certified patients, should be applied with such adaptation as necessary to temporary patients. They are in the nature of additional safeguards. No doubt some of them will be rarely needed, but it has been decided to put
1212
them in. Paragraph 5 in the Amendment is consequential.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell).

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Fourth Schedule, page 24, line 16, column 3, at end insert:
("(except in relation to persons who are at the commencement of this Act being lodged thereunder).")
Fourth Schedule, page 24, line 37, column 3, leave out from ("In") to end of line 38 and insert:
("subsection (1) of Section twenty-two, the words 'not more than fifteen Commissioners of whom not more than twelve shall be paid,' and the words from 'and of,' to the end of the subsection, subsections (2), (5), and (6) of the said section and, except in relation to persons who are at the commencement of this Act Commissioners, subsections (7) and (8) of the said section.")
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, these are consequential and drafting Amendments. I beg to move that they be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Russell).
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the list of Amendments as printed does not include the Privilege Amendments, which had to be re-inserted in another place. I beg to move that the Privilege Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That Privilege Amendments be agreed to.—(Earl Russell).
A Committee appointed to prepare a Reason for the Lords disagreeing to an Amendment, the Committee to meet forthwith.
Report from the Committee of the Reason to be offered to the Commons and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons returning the Bill with the Reason.

POOR PRISONERS' DEFENCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The

1213
principle it proposes is above Party politics and, I think, beyond the region of controversy. The object is to make better provision for the defence of poor prisoners in criminal cases. Doubtless most of your Lordships have either presided over or taken part in the trial of prisoners at Assizes or Quarter Sessions, and are thus aware how desirable and how necesary it is that a poor prisoner's case should be properly presented to the Court. I suppose that everyone of your Lordships when addressing this House for the first time suffered from nervousness, and felt great embarrassment in doing justice to the cause he had in hand. Here the only penalty which awaits you—an unpleasant one enough I admit, but the only penalty—is the rejection of your arguments. How much must that embarrassment be intensified when the result may mean the loss of your liberty and the ruin of your reputation. The accused finds himself in a public place, standing alone in the middle of a crowded court, the observed of all observers, unfamiliar with the practice and the procedure of a court of justice. In such surroundings how can he properly place his case before the Court? He cannot.
Often enough all he does is to hand in a long and irrelevant statement which he has prepared in the solitude of his cell. If it comes to cross-examining the prosecutor, the difficulty is in turning narrative into interrogation. He is asked if he desires to put a question to the witness. He starts by making a statement; is told that he can do that later, and generally the Judge puts questions for him. When the case for the Crown is closed he does not know how to submit that there is no case to go to the jury, and if a point of law arises he is quite unable to deal with it or to discuss it. He has not the section of the Act of Parliament under which he is charged, or any of the decided cases on it, and if he had he would not understand them. But I need not labour these facts. Your Lordships know them. They have been recognised by everybody, and we are all disposed to see that legal aid should be granted in order that justice may be done in such cases.
The development of the law in this respect forms an interesting chapter in the history of our legal jurisprudence.
1214
It culminated with the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act of 1903. The object of this Bill is to amend and extend the provisions of that Act. The Act enabled committing justices, or the Judge of a Court of Assize, or a Chairman of Quarter Sessions, to certify for legal aid to poor persons, but with certain restrictions. Soon after its introduction Lord Alverstone, who was then Lord Chief Justice, drew attention to the fact that there was a condition precedent to the grant of such aid, for it could only be granted where, having regard to the nature of the defence disclosed by the prisoner in his evidence or statement before the committing justice, it was in the interests of justice that legal aid should be given to him. Many people objected to this on principle. They urged that the first axiom of English Criminal Law is that the prosecution must prove their case, and that a prisoner ought not to be forced to disclose his defence as a condition of getting legal aid. Others, perhaps with more justice, pointed out that there may be cases, especially where a point of law is involved, where a prisoner could not at the moment state or formulate his defence. I hope that nothing I say will lend countenance to the idea that a prisoner ought to reserve his defence before the justices. That idea is quite exploded. There may be cases, especially those where an alibi is pleaded, where it is the worst possible thing for an accused person to do.
There was another matter in which it was thought that the Act of 1903 had a shortcoming. It only applied in cases of trial on indictment, and therefore legal aid could not be given in cases before justices. Public opinion, grounded on the experience of the working of the Act, came to the conclusion that both these matters required to be remedied, and in 1925 my predecessor, the late Viscount Cave, and my noble and learned friend Viscount Brentford, who was then Home Secretary, than whom, if he will allow me to say so, poor prisoners never had a better friend, appointed a Committee to consider and report upon the position. The Committee was a strong one. It was presided over by a member of your Lordships' House, Viscount Finlay, one of His Majesty's Judges of the King's Bench Division, and included a number of gentlemen well versed in the practice of the Criminal Law. They produced a

1215
unanimous Report, and this Bill is founded on their recommendations. They advised: (1), that the condition precedent to the right to legal aid should be abolished; and (2), that legal aid should be granted in suitable cases before the justices.
Sir John Withers, a distinguished solicitor and the Member for Cambridge University, took the matter up and drafted a Bill which, after being submitted to the Home Office, was approved by Sir William Joynson-Hicks, then Home Secretary, who took a great interest in it. He went through the Bill, amended it in certain particulars and gave it his full approbation, and undoubtedly the Bill would have been introduced a year ago had there been time to give to it. But fate and fortune smiled upon the proposals, and in November last Mr. Turton, the Member for the Thirsk Division of Yorkshire, having obtained a place in the ballot for Private Bills, asked Sir John Withers to allow him to introduce the Bill, to which Sir John readily assented. It was introduced into the House of Commons, was very strongly supported by Mr. Clynes, the present Home Secretary, every speaker was enthusiastic in its favour, and—no one speaking against it—it was carried without a Division. After a few verbal Amendments in Committee, it was again approved without a Division, and it now comes before your Lordships for your approval.
Clause 1 provides that a poor prisoner shall be entitled to a defence certificate in trials for indictable offences: (1), whenever the trial is upon a charge of murder; or (2), whenever, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is desirable in the interests of justice that he should have legal aid. Clause 2 enables a legal aid certificate to be given in cases before justices where, having regard to the gravity of the charge or to the exceptional nature of the case, it is desirable that such a certicate should be forthcoming. The remainder of the Bill is mere machinery. Clause 3 provides that the cost shall come out of the local funds, while Clause 4 enables rules to be made for carrying the Act into effect. Clause 5 is the repeal clause. The position therefore is this: that a Committee presided over by a High Court Judge has recommended these proposals; they have been approved by
1216
two Home Secretaries, my noble friend Lord Brentford and Mr. Clynes, and unanimously passed by the House of Commons. What need I say more? May I in my last words quit the argument of an advocate and give the testimony of a witness? It has fallen to my lot, as your Lordships are aware, to preside over Assizes in nearly every county in England and Wales. I must have tried hundreds of these cases. I should deprecate—indeed, I would go further and deny—any suggestion that the absence of the present proposals has led to any appreciable number of miscarriages of justice, but, having regard to my experience, I think it is incumbent upon me to say that in my view the Bill will make for the better and safer administration of the Criminal Law. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I do not think that, after the clear speech of the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, it is necessary for me to detain the House. I had intended to speak in support of the Bill, which, as the noble and learned Lord so kindly said, the Home Office produced at the time when I was there, but I can save your Lordships' time by accepting and adopting, if I may be permitted to say so, as my own every word that the noble and learned Lord has said, except only his kind reference to myself.
LORD CARNOCK: My Lords, it is with considerable fear that I address your Lordships for the first time, and I only find courage to do so because I happen to be a member of the Old Bailey Bar and also of the London Sessions. I should think I am probably the only member of your Lordships' House who, in the last few weeks, has defended persons under the provisions regarding poor persons' legal aid. I did that only a fortnight ago. It is quite clear to all members of the Criminal Bar that this Act is a necessary one, because what often happens is that a person appears at a police court on a certain charge and he and his friends and relations have been able to raise enough money, perhaps, to instruct solicitors and even to brief counsel. Acting under the instructions of his legal advisers he says: "I plead 'Not guilty,' I call no witnesses here and I reserve

1217
my defence." When the case comes for trial the money has run out, and the unfortunate person then finds that he is unable to be defended and is quite unable to defend himself. I do not pretend for one moment that innocent men are ever found guilty for that reason, because our Judges are always counsel for the defence if necessary, but I do say that very often the case is not put as well as it might be put, and that there are often extenuating circumstances which would mean that the punishment would be quite different.
But I do not speak for the poor prisoner; I speak for quite a different person, for the poor barrister—a poor but deserving class. Lately all legislation has told very heavily against that branch of the legal profession and barristers find themselves in a worse position year by year. I do not know what effect this Bill is going to have on them—whether it means that those barristers who have plenty of work to do are going to have more and those barristers who have no work to do are going to have less. It will obviously kill the dock brief. Prisoners will naturally not pay £1 3s. 6d. for a dock brief when they know they can get legal aid by asking for it. I presume that it will be for the barristers themselves to make arrangements by which this legal aid will be distributed in the same way that the prosecutions are distributed now. Of course it will become much more elaborate. I am convinced of that. It will end that every prisoner eventually will be granted legal aid, and it will almost come to a question of there being a Public Defender in the same position as the Public Prosecutor. Of course there are dangers that in time the jury will know that if a prisoner is not defended there must be a very good reason for it. Juries know now quite well that if a prisoner's character is not put in it is because it is a shockingly bad one. I do not think that that has any effect upon their verdict, but in time it will become known that if a prisoner is undefended it must be because the Chairman or the Judge thinks he has not got a chance.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, I have been asked to say a few words concerning this Bill, and it is not necessary to say much, because the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has so thoroughly
1218
explained what has been the working of the present system at Assizes and Quarter Sessions. As my noble and learned friend Lord Carnock has just said, it has long been the theory and the truth, with regard to people put upon their trial at Assizes, that the Judge is counsel for the prisoner. Therefore it is that it is almost impossible to point to any case where a prisoner has been wrongly convicted. The Judge, if there is a legal point in his favour, will see it and mention it to the Jury. It is his duty to do so and he does it. Of course the difficulty is that if the prisoner has not stated what his defence is, and does not say much before the Judge, it may well be that the Judge is quite unacquainted with the real facts, which might entitle the prisoner to acquittal. I say "entitle to acquittal" because he is so entitled, even although he may be guilty, unless he is proved to be guilty. It is not because the English law is altogether wrong that so many people are acquitted, although they are guilty enough: it is because it is not possible to prove it in fact or from a legal point of view and so they are entitled to be acquitted.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said that this Bill has the approval of two Governments. Of course, on the face of it, it is one of those Bills which come under the general heading of Social Service. It deals with the industry carried on by a very large number of people, and I imagine that one object of this Bill in having people defended by learned Counsel and solicitors is this, that prisons are not now what they were when Miss Elizabeth Fry visited them on behalf of the public. They are places where one can enjoy many amenities and therefore this Bill properly recognises that no one should get into prison unless he has been genuinely seeking hard labour, and the Counsel appointed will certainly see to that. He will not get there unless he deserves it. It is a curious matter, seeing how humane the English law is, that for centuries it was possible for a prosecutor to get the aid of the State in preferring his charge against the accused, but it was impossible for the accused person to get any aid whatever, except that he trusted to the righteousness of the Judge, whose business it was to see that the case was proved.

1219
In this House it may be interesting to notice that in cases of high treason for a very long time the accused was not entitled to have any legal aid whatever. High treason has always been recognised, particularly in the time of the Plantagenets and Tudors, as what is called in labour circles a gentleman's job, and yet I have no doubt that the fact that no lawyer was allowed to appear on behalf of a man accused of high treason must have led to this, that many of your Lordships sitting on these Benches would not be here if your ancestors had been properly defended. Therefore the paths of glory led to Tower Hill, and the honours passed to the cadet branch. That cannot occur if this Bill should receive, as I have no doubt it will receive, your Lordships' assent. It is odd, as I have said, that for long the State gave its aid to those who prosecuted and made no provision for those who were accused. We recognise on high authority that the rain falls upon the just and the unjust in equal proportions, and it is only right that if the State provides an umbrella for one it should provide an umbrella for everybody. Then no one will get too wet.
This Bill makes a difference in the procedure which I think is a very valuable one. It gives help to the accused at a very early stage of the proceedings against him. Before the magistrates the man accused cannot, if he has no money, get the witnesses—that is truthful witnesses. He can sometimes get witnesses who will not tell the truth and do not wish to do so, but that is a dangerous thing owing to the law of perjury. This Bill will allow him, owing to the action of the justices, to get the help of a solicitor and money to pay the witnesses, who would be properly summoned and brought into Court. In this way a good many cases will be disposed of before the magistrates and will never come to the Assizes or Quarter Sessions at all. It means, I think, that perhaps more people will be acquitted at the Assizes and Quarter Sessions than are now, but whether they are acquitted or not they will be acquitted or convicted after their cases have been better put before the Court. To a lawyer it is a great pleasure to know that not only will they be acquitted but acquitted, if I may say so, secundum artem.
1220
It may be that there is an evil in this Bill—there is in most things—but it is a negligible one. It is part of the duty of an advocate for the defence to see that facts particularly prejudicial to his client, the prisoner, do not reach the Court. If they do it makes a very great difference in the sentence. I dare say that when this Bill is passed, and everybody is defended by a barrister, a good many facts which a prisoner now blurts out, or allows to come out for want of taking proper objection, will be excluded from the knowledge of the Judge. It might be said that that would be a great pity, because it is in the public interest that everything should come out, and it may be that this Bill will work some little injustice in this way. If anyone doubts whether the conduct of Counsel does result in the case of a person not being presented in its full blackness before the Court, I would, with your Lordships' permission, tell a story which was told me of his own practice by Sir Frank Lockwood—known, I dare say, to many of your Lordships, and beloved by everybody who knew him.
He told me that he was retained to defend a prisoner on a very serious charge, and the prosecution had told Sir Frank Lockwood that they would be quite content to take a plea of "Guilty" upon a minor charge, which would involve a much lighter sentence. Sir Frank Lockwood, in consultation with the prisoner, told him this, and the prisoner said he was not going to plead "Guilty" to any charge whatever. Sir Frank Lockwood said: "Well, I have told you my opinion about it, and I can only say this, that it will be very much worse for you if you plead 'Not guilty' and the facts come out." The prisoner said to him (Sir Frank was in his robes, wig and gown): "Facts come out, did you say? Why, you fuzzy headed fool, what do I employ you for except to keep them back?" And that is one of the duties of a really successful defender of people accused. It may be that this Bill will give them an undue advantage, but on the whole I think that the injustice will be so small that it would be well if this Bill should pass into law.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COAL MINES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that on the Second Reading there was a debate of several days, and when the Committee stage was reached your Lordships gave it a very minute and, if I may say so without impertinence, a very careful examination. The result of that was that your Lordships passed several Amendments which we on the Government side could not accept, and are not now able to accept. At the same time, the position in which I find myself is this, that I know of no fresh facts or no fresh arguments which ought to induce your Lordships to decide to-day in a different way from what you decided a week ago; and I think it would be discourteous of me, and certainly no good purpose would be served, if I detailed the old facts and repeated the old arguments. We all know that there may be another occasion on which your Lordships will have an opportunity, should you desire to use it, of reconsidering the decisions which you came to a week ago. I am not in a position now, although we do not agree with your decisions, to do anything except formally move that this Bill be read a third time. There are a few Amendments, chiefly of a drafting character, standing in the name of my noble and gallant friend Lord Thomson which he will move, and one or two others. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 3:
Provisions of district scheme.
(2) Every district scheme shall further provide for the following matters—
(f) for the determination, at such times and for such periods as may be decided in accordance with the provisions of the scheme, of the price below which every class of coal produced in the district may not be sold or supplied by owners of coal mines in the district, and for securing
1222
that the actual consideration obtained by the sale or supply of the several classes of coal, exclusive of coal supplied free or at reduced rates for the use of persons employed in or about the mine, shall not be less in value than the price so determined;
(3) A district scheme may further provide—
(a) for the deduction, if it is so decided in accordance with the provisions of the scheme, from the quota of any coal mine for any period of the tonnage by which, in contravention of the provisions of the scheme, the output or disposal of the coal mine has during any previous period exceeded the quota of the coal mine for that previous period, but without prejudice to any penalty that may have been incurred by reason of the excess;
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON) moved, in subsection (2) (f), to leave out "employed in or about the mine," and to insert "who are or have been employed in or about the mine and the dependants of persons who have been so employed." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is inserted in response to the desire of Lord Joicey, who very kindly has said he will let it stand instead of his Amendment. It is merely to comply with the custom in coal mines whereby certain coal is given to employees and their dependants. The Amendment that I move gives a slightly wider scope than the Amendment originally suggested by Lord Joicey.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, lines 2 and 3, leave out ("employed in or about the mine") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Thomson.)
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, this Amendment is not a very important one, but it is one in which I feel sure that the miners in different parts of the country will take some interest. It is the custom in the North of England, particularly in Northumberland and Durham, to have a large number of aged miners' homes. These have been built, some by the coal owners themselves, others by the miners, and the miners have always liberally contributed a weekly sum to the aged people who occupy them. The owners as a rule are only too glad to give free coal to their old servants who have to occupy these houses. The Amendment moved by the

1223
noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is probably a better Amendment than mine, because it includes all those who are dependent on the aged miners who occupy these homes.
LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON moved, in subsection (3) (a), to leave out "or disposal." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is merely a tidying-up Amendment. During all the vigilant scrutiny of this Bill which has taken place in both Houses of Parliament, no one noticed those two unnecessary words. They were noticed at last by a draftsman. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 31, leave out ("or disposal").—(Lord Thomson.)
Clause 4 [Effects of schemes on contracts]:
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, there is a consequential Amendment here. It is the same as the last Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 28, leave out ("or disposal").—(Lord Thomson.)
CLAUSE 5 [Committees of Investigation]:
LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON moved, in subsections (6) and (8) to leave out "interests" and to insert "interest." The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are really drafting Amendments too. My noble friend Lord Russell said he did not like the use of the word "interests" after "public"; he thought "public interest" was better English.
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 40, leave out ("interests") and insert ("interest")
Page 14, line 4, leave out ("interests") and insert ("interest").—(Lord Thomson.)
Clause 8:
Information obtained under Act not to be disclosed.
8. No information with respect to any particular undertaking shall be included in any report published under this Part of this Act by the Board of Trade, the central council, an executive board, the national committee of investigation, or a district committee of investigation, unless the owner of the undertaking agrees thereto, and any person who obtains any information in the
1224
exercise of the powers conferred upon the council or upon any executive board by any scheme made in pursuance of this Part of this Act or conferred upon any such committee by this Part of this Act, shall be required to make a declaration of secrecy in such form as may be prescribed by the Board of Trade, and any person who acts in contravention of any declaration which he has so made shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine:
LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON moved to leave out "acts in contravention of any declaration which has been so made," and to insert "discloses any information so obtained by him." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is to meet a point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, who wanted to make it quite certain that everybody who disclosed information should be liable under the Bill. I have the authority of the noble Viscount for saying that he is quite satisfied with the Amendment as it now stands. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 31, leave out from ("who") to ("shall") in line 32 and insert ("discloses any information so obtained by him"). (Lord Thomson.)
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Bertie, who is unable to be here to-day, to thank the Minister in charge for his courtesy in putting this Amendment on the Paper. The same remark applies to Lord Thomson's Amendments to Clause 11.
Clause 10 [Duration of Part 1]:
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, this Amendment is of exactly the same character as that which I have just moved, and the same arguments apply to it. It merely tidies up the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, lines 4 and 5, leave out ("act in contravention of a declaration of secrecy") and insert ("disclose information".—(Lord Thomson.)
Clause 11:
Amendments of Part I of 16 & 17 Geo. 5 c. 28.
(3) If the owner of any undertaking (in this subsection referred to as the "transferor undertaking") proposed by any scheme prepared by the Board of Trade under this section to be amalgamated with, or absorbed in, any other undertaking (in this subsection referred to as the "transferee undertaking") satisfies the Railway and Canal Commission that any money or securities or real or personal property belonging to the transferor undertaking formed, at the date of the passing of this Act, a reserve which, when the scheme was submitted, was not required for the efficient carrying on of the transferor undertaking, the Railway and Canal Commission shall not confirm the scheme except after making such modifications, if any, as may be necessary for securing that the money or securities will not be transferred to the transferee undertaking.
LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "money or securities or real or personal property" and to insert "property, whether real or personal"; and towards the end of the subsection, to leave out "the money or securities" and insert "that property." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this form of words has been agreed upon as meeting the case. It also meets the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie. That applies to both Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 18, lines 41 and 42, leave out ("money or securities or real or personal property") and insert ("property, whether real or personal.")
Page 19, line 6, leave out ("the money or securities") and insert ("that property").—(Lord Thomson.)
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, I presume that these words will comprise all classes of property and investments of every kind that may happen to be in the reserve fund?
LORD THOMSON: That is what I understand.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
LORD JOICEY: I should like to be satisfied of that, because it is a very important matter indeed.
LORD THOMSON: That, I understand on the highest legal authority, is the situation. I hope that will be to the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Joicey.
Clause 16 [Interpretation]:
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon the one moved by myself instead of the one put down by Lord Joicey.
LORD JOICEY: Yes.
LORD THOMSON: Precisely the same arguments apply in this case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 36, leave out from ("rates") to ("and") in line 37, and insert ("for the use of persons who are or have been employed in or about the mine and the dependants of persons who have been so employed").—(Lord Thomson.)
Moved, That this Bill do pass.—(Lord Thomson.)
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, before this Bill passes finally from our charge and returns to another place I should like to make a few remarks on the position we now stand in, especially in view of the important speech made by the Prime Minister in his constituency on the position of the Bill and, if I may say so, of your Lordships' House. The Prime Minister entered at some length into the position of the Bill and laid down some general principles, one of which was that although amalgamation was not at first part of the Government's scheme, which he admitted was introduced to reduce the hours the miners were working, he was not prepared to accept any Amendment which struck at the root of amalgamation. Later in his speech he went on to say something that I thought was rather significant and I hope somewhat kindly—
"If the House of Lords was a revision Chamber, and took a national interest in vigilantly watching lest the House of Commons should do damage, there was just as much reason for those worthy gentlemen to put in an appearance up to 1929 as since the 1929 Election."
And he concluded those remarks by saying—
"If it is willing to do its work as a revising body, treating Labour Bills in the

1227
same impartial way as Tory Bills, I should be the last man in the world to say that such revision was not to the public benefit."
What I would like to stress is this. I do not think that anybody can say that this Bill has been dealt with in any except a revision sense. Nobody can say that our discussions have been in any sense Party discussions. They have been very largely technical discussions, and the alterations made in the Bill have been made, not as the noble Lord, Lord Marley, indicated, brutally, but in the sincere belief that we were improving a Bill which, I frankly admit, we do not much like. This is the last opportunity we shall have of dealing with this matter, and I hope that the spirit which seemed to infuse the Prime Minister's speech will be carried into the consideration of the Amendments to the Bill when it comes before another place.
I would more especially stress again the importance of the spread-over hours which now stand part of the Bill. Since this Bill has been under discussion unfortunately the export coal trade of the country as well in Durham as in South Wales has been getting worse instead of Improving. Only recently I had occasion to discuss with colleagues of mine the position in South Wales, with which they are intimately acquainted from day to day, and the position there is really desperate. As a matter of fact it seems almost ironical to discuss the question of the limitation of the hours of work of men who can get so few days' work a week. If you take the whole of the average time that they are working it is far below any figure you could put into any Bill and far below any time that they wish to work. The spread-over is really of very great importance. I understand that conversations and discussions have been going on in South Wales between the representatives of the miners and the representatives of those who run the collieries and are tending towards the recognition of some friendly arrangement. There is the hope that we may arrive at a basis of friendly co-operation.
All we have asked for, and really all that the Amendment does, is to leave all the areas to be the best judges of their own salvation. As I pointed out before, it is really a very modest request. It is a reasonable request. It is a request
1228
which I do not think affects any principle involved in the Bill. It is one which I understand a very large proportion of those responsible on the trade union side are anxious at any rate to explore, and I almost think to accept. I think it is an enormous responsibility for any Government to undertake in view of the present position. Yesterday the House of Commons was engaged for hours in the exploration of the desperate unemployment position—everybody trying to find some solution, everybody practically admitting the difficulty of finding any solution. It does seem to an ordinary human being a most extraordinary thing at a moment like this to pass legislation to prevent people coming to arrangements which might mitigate instead of increasing unemployment, in one branch of industry at any rate.
I would beg the noble Lord, who has conducted the Bill through your Lordships' House with such courtesy and skill and has shown himself so extremely reasonable, to represent to those with whom he has influence that in all sincerity, without any kind of Party feeling or anything else, I wish the Government to re-examine that part of this problem in the most sympathetic way. It can be to nobody's interest, in order to achieve a kind of symmetry which today is somewhat fashionable in legislative action and outside, to do something which we feel is going to be detrimental not only to those who own collieries but to those working in them. The noble Lord said the other day: "You say the costs will go up; you have had other advantages." But, all those advantages admitted, at the present time the position is terribly bad, competition is very keen, and it is extremely difficult to obtain the orders we want. It is, however, really of no use for us to try to throw stones at each other. The position is there and has to be faced. I am certain if the Government would take the unbiased opinion of those in these areas they would find almost a general agreement on this matter.
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, I quite agree with what has been said by my noble friend. I think the whole question was originated by the unfortunate pledges which were given by the members of the Government and their supporters

1229
during the late Election. I could not help thinking, as time went on, that they began to see the difficulty there would be in shortening the hours and meeting the increased costs which that shortening of hours would involve. I more than once thought they would have been only too glad to have dropped the whole thing. But, once they had brought the Bill into the House of Commons, the politicians there seized upon it, and made all kinds of additions to it dealing with matters about which they did not seem to be well acquainted. I have some sympathy with the Government in that respect, because there is no doubt that the Amendments which were made were Amendments which did not improve the Bill. On the contrary, they worsened it. Some of the Amendments which have been made here have had the same effect.
I am not a believer in the Bill. I think it will do more harm than good. The objects which the Bill had were cheaper coal, shorter hours, and higher wages, but I feel quite sure that none of those objects will be realised, because the costs which will be added by the shortening of hours and by the reduction in quantity of output will be such that it will be absolutely necessary to put on a considerable price to the consumers in order to meet the heavy additional costs. So far as I am concerned—and I think I can speak for the mine owners of Durham and Northumberland—although we do not like this Bill we shall do all we can to make the best of it. There are many difficulties to contend with, but your Lordships may rest assured that, if anything can be got out of it, the coal owners in the North of England will make the greatest efforts to carry out everything that the Bill compels them to do.
We do not like public control. We do not like to be controlled by a Department, or even by Parliament in this matter. Parliament is not always wise. All of us who have been for some years in Parliamentary life know that Parliament often makes mistakes, and, depend upon it, when legislation is produced and Hushed forward in the interest of one special class you will find such action is
1230
a mistake and against the interest of the country as a whole. So far as we are concerned in the North of England we repudiate all responsibility for this Bill. The responsibility must rest upon those who forced these various Amendments into it, and upon those who brought the measure forward. The responsibility rests with them and not with the coal owners, who are always blamed for any misfortune that comes upon the coal trade. I could show that the present depression has not arisen by the action of the coal owners, but has arisen from the action of the politicians. Those who give the matter serious thought will, I am sure, agree with me. But, I repeat, we shall do all we can to make as much out of the measure as possible.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

RAILWAYS (VALUATION FOR RATING) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
Clause 12 [Valuation lists to conform to railway valuation roll]:
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, I beg to move four small drafting Amendments which are necessitated by the splitting up of Clause 12 in Committee.
Amendments moved—;
Clause 12, page 20, line 6, leave out ("this") and insert ("the next")
Clause 12, page 20, line 11, at the beginning insert ("(4)")
Clause 12, page 20, line 12, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section")
Clause 12, page 21, line 39, leave out ("the last preceding subsection") and insert ("subsection (4) of this section")
—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before six o'clock.