Lords Sitting of 2 December 1931

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House about business for next week? He intimated yesterday that he would take a discussion on India to-morrow. I have seen my noble friend Lord Lloyd, and one or two other Peers who would, I think, prefer to postpone that until after the completion of the Commons discussion, which ends tomorrow night, and I understand also that the Horticultural Products Bill will not be here until the middle of next week. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend could give a day, say in the middle of next week, instead of to-morrow for the India debate, if that would suit the Government as well?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, after the House rose yesterday I had a communication from my noble friend Lord Lloyd, who intimated to me that some of your Lordships were very unwilling to have the debate on the India. Resolution as early as to-morrow, and did not think that they could be ready to discuss it fully. I should have preferred myself to adhere to the date originally mentioned, but I am very unwilling always to seem even to attempt to rush this House into a decision; and, in view of the fact that Lord Lloyd and those with him, who, I believe, desire to discuss and criticise the Resolution, felt that they would not have time by to-morrow, I do not feel disposed to ask your Lordships to press it on. We have no other business for Tuesday next, as far as I can see, and, if that would be convenient to your Lordships, probably the best plan would be to have the debate on the India Resolution on Tuesday. The Horticultural Products Bill will probably not Come here till Wednesday. I am afraid I shall have to ask your Lordships to deal with it rather hurriedly on Thursday in order to rise on the Friday. But that I am afraid is unavoidable.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I do not want to interfere at all with the general convenience of the House, but when the noble Viscount who leads the House told us yesterday that this Resolution was put down for tomorrow it seemed to me appropriate that we should deal with it simultaneously with another place, and that certainly suited the convenience of those who sit with me. But I am perfectly ready to suit our convenience to the general convenience of the House if Tuesday seems to be a more appropriate day. At the same time, I should like some assurance from the noble Viscount that he is not going to spring on us any further legislative or exceptional measures before the end of the Session.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I can only assure the noble Lord that I have no idea of there being any other measures beyond that one which is now in another place, the Horticultural Products Bill, and I think one or two minor Bills which have already passed through another place and have either reached, or are in process of reaching, your Lordships' House. I do not think there is anything else which could raise any debate next week so far as I can tell, except this India Resolution and the Horticultural Products Bill which is coming up, I suppose, on Wednesday of next week. It will probably, therefore, come before your Lordships on Thursday. I should like to assure the noble Lord opposite that I consulted one of his colleagues who, I know, is conversant with Indian affairs, before I made the announcement I made just now.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, could the noble and learned Viscount tell us whether this Horticultural Products Bill is not likely to come before the House on Second Reading on Wednesday next? Was it not generally expected on Wednesday?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I can only tell my noble friend that such information as I have leads me to believe that it will not pass in another place until Wednesday evening, in which case we cannot have the Second Reading until Thursday. I imagine if I give that intimation now that it will be possible for some of your Lordships who, I know, will wish to discuss the Bill, to have a look at it in its

251
House of Commons form so as to prepare for the debate. We might then have a full debate on Thursday. I do not think there can be any question of any Amendments to it in Committee. Therefore, we might, perhaps, be allowed to take the other stages very shortly. Your Lordships will appreciate that it will be a Certified Bill so that there can be very little in Committee.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Could the noble Viscount tell us what will be the business for to-morrow?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: To-morrow there is already a Bill about Indian pay, on which I think there will be a little discussion. There is also a Motion by my noble friend Lord Lloyd, with regard to British and Indian civil servants, which I think will also lead to some little discussion. But I do not think that those Orders will take a very long time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was only going to ask the noble Viscount whether we might look upon the agricultural debate as definitely fixed for Thursday so far as the exigencies in another place permit, or whether he has any hope that the Bill may perhaps come earlier from the House of Commons, in which case the debate might be on Wednesday.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am told that we cannot really hope to get the Bill before Wednesday night. That is why I was giving this early intimation and, perhaps, as I have given it, it is more convenient to stick to Thursday.

CLYDEBANK BURGH ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

VETERINARY SURGEONS (IRISH FREE STATE AGREEMENT) BILL [H.L.]
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord De La Warr, I beg to present a Bill to give effect to a certain agreement made between His Majesty's Government in the
252
United Kingdom and His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State with respect to the registration and control of veterinary surgeons, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.
EAST LEICESTERSHIRE ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1931.
LONDON AND HOME COUNTIES ELECTRICITY DISTRICT (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1931.
MANSFIELD ELECTRICITY (EXTEN SION) ORDER, 1931.
ALDERSHOT DISTRICT ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, &c.) ORDER, 1931.
BLACKPOOL ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1931.
CREDITON ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1931.
EGREMONT AND CLEATOR MOOR ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1931.
NORTH WANSBECK ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1931.
OSWESTRY ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1931.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, with reference to the Electricity Orders on the Paper, I beg to move that the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

KILMARNOCK GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LAND TAXES.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government the number of valuers appointed under Part III of the Finance Act, 1931; the

253
cost of the same up to now; and if, in view of the urgent necessity of reducing unnecessary expenditure, they will repeal Part III of that Act, which imposes a new Land Tax, which is not likely to produce any revenue for years, and dispense with the services of the land valuers already appointed; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question which appears in my name on the Paper. I put this Question down a short time ago because I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, who had a similar Question on the Paper about three weeks ago and had postponed it until to-day, was, unfortunately, not well and might not be able to be present. As it seemed to me to be an important matter which needed discussion I ventured to put a similar Question on the Paper in my own name. I understand that though Lord Strachie is much better he is not well enough to be present and, therefore, I propose to ask the Question.
The Question really resolves itself into three parts. The first is: Should expenditure on this matter be stopped now? The second is: Will the land values yield any revenue? And the next is: Should not; the Budget be balanced, not by increased taxation but by reduced expenditure? With regard to the first (should this expenditure be stopped now?) I would ask my noble friend Lord Templemore, who I understand is going to reply for the Government, if the Government have not made up their minds as to what they are going to do, whether they should now stop expenditure and not renew it until they have decided whether they are going to repeal the section or whether they are going to continue it. It does not seem to me that at any time, especially at this time, it is wise to con-time expenditure when you do not know whether you will eventually do something which will justify that expenditure or whether you are going to repeal the object for which you incurred that expenditure, and so throw more money into the gutter. I hope my noble friend will be able to satisfy any anxiety upon that point. It cannot be said of me that I have suddenly taken up this question of expenditure. For many years I have endeavoured to call the attention of those people who sit upon Front Benches to the
254
fact that it was desirable in the interests of the nation to stop this great expenditure. I am not accusing any particular Party of being worse than any other, though I am inclined to think the Socialist Party were worse than the Conservative Party; but all Parties were to blame. People who sit on Front Benches are, after all, only human—and humanum est errare. Therefore I think I am justified in saying that they have erred, and that the only reparation they can make is to do something to do away with their errors and to take another and better course.
The next question is: Supposing this land valuation is carried out, is it likely to raise any revenue? We can only judge of the future by the past, and the past in these matters is extremely interesting. If your Lordships will allow me, I will make a short quotation from a speech in another place made on July 14, 1920, by Mr. Chamberlain, now Sir Austen Chamberlain. He was alluding to Mr. Lloyd George's Valuation Act and this is what he said:
"What are the facts? The taxes have yielded £1,300,000 in the course of the years they have been imposed. There is duty assessed, but much of it assessed on a wrong basis, to the extent of another £500,000. That is a maximum yield to date of something below the figure of £1,800,000."
Now, if your Lordships will listen to the following words:
"The cost of the valuation and collection which was estimated by my right hon. friend's (Mr. Asquith's) Government at £2,000,000 in all, has been £5,000,000. We have spent £5,000,000 to obtain a valuation which is useless for any other purpose in life."
I am most happy to hand to my noble friend the quotation if he wishes to verify it.
Having spent £5,000,000 in order to get £1,800,000, it does seem to me, especially at this particular moment, it is rather rash to go and spend more money when, as far as we know, the result will probably be the same as the result of the last land valuation. It is a little striking to remember that when the Bill was introduced the cost was estimated at £2,000,000, whereas as a matter of fact it turned out to be £5,000,000, and in my experience extending over a good many years in another place I have always found this. When any Government bring in any measure

255
which is going to cost money, they always put the cost at less than it turns out to be, and when it is a measure which is going to impose taxation upon the people they always put the amount of the taxation yield at a higher figure than it turns out to be. Therefore, in those circumstances, I do not think we can place very much reliance upon any statement that is made as to what these taxes, if they are carried out, will yield.
The third point I think, if I may venture to say so, is the most important, and it is this: Should the Budget be balanced by increased taxation or by reduced expenditure? In my humble opinion we do not want any more taxation. We are suffering at the present moment from a great deal too much taxation. It is quite impossible for this country ever to return to the position in which it was twenty years ago if everybody's income is mulcted by Income Tax and Super-Tax so that he cannot save anything: and if at his death a large portion of his capital is taken and spent for revenue purposes, this is depriving his successor of capital and is depriving the State of what I think everybody will agree is absolutely necessary, and that is that there should be capital in the country. I remember Mr. Arthur Balfour saying in the House of Commons—I am afraid noble Lords on the opposite side will not agree with this—that what we are suffering from is not too many rich men but too few rich men. That I think is an absolute fact, and it reminds me of what the American Ambassador, Mr. Page, said in a very interesting book which he wrote and which I commend to noble Lords sitting opposite. He said that one of the reasons of the commercial prosperity of this country was that we had for many centuries been able to save money, and consequently that we had a large reserve of capital which we could use, while America, being a young nation, had not had that advantage, but as soon as America was able to save money in the same way that we had done then America would compete with us in our commercial undertakings.
What has happened has been that we have dissipated our money, and we now have very little left. It may have been a good thing to have spent the money that we have spent upon various so-called
256
social reforms. But I think where politicians have made a mistake is that they have apparently been under the impression that there was some hole in the ground to which they could go and dig out money and hand it over to people in return for their votes. Of course there is nothing of the sort. What has taken place is that the money of the few hard-working and saving portions of the community has been taken from them and handed over to the thriftless, and (shall I say?) more lazy portions of the community. The result if this sort of thing goes on will be that there will be no money left to take, and the people who have been receiving these various gifts under the guise of social reform will find there is nothing for them, and the country will be faced with bankruptcy.
May I, in regard to that, quote a few remarks made a few months ago—I think before the May Report—by Sir Ernest Benn? He said this:
"At the death of Queen Victoria our Expenditure and public Debt were both covered at least twenty times by private income and private property. We were therefore in a very strong and very sound position, capable of facing any human emergency. To-day public Expenditure is 40 per cent, of the total National Income, while public Debt and obligations are equal to or bigger than the total of the national wealth, public and private. We are just outside of the bankruptcy line and quite unable to meet any emergency that may arise."
I think those words are very true and I think that they ought to command the attention of everybody in this House and in another place who has any power to control public expenditure. The situation is indeed serious. The value of the pound I see to-day, according to the evening newspapers, is only 13 s. 4d. How much longer are we going on spending money and allowing our resources to shrink? I apologise for having been so long, but I think the situation and the matter is so serious that I earnestly hope that, now that we have a National Government whose object is simply and solely—or is stated to be—the national welfare, we shall turn over a new leaf and economise instead of spending as we have done in the past. I beg to move.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I realise that this National Government has only recently been formed, and that Ministers have many pressing questions to deal with and may not have had time to give to detailed consideration of the question

257
of the Land Taxes. This being the case, the Land Union have no wish to embarrass the Government, particularly as no forms for valuation have yet been issued to the public. On the other hand, we do view with grave anxiety the fact that not only is a costly valuation to be undertaken but that there is also a liability for the payment of very heavy taxation by investors in land and real property. Especially is the liability of an additional Income Tax of 1s. 8d. in the pound on holders of ground rents a crushing burden having regard to the increased taxation in the second Budget for this year which was recently passed.
The difficulties and the unfairness of the valuation to which references were made in the House of Commons last Session, far from being modified, have greatly increased. First, there is the instability of market values due to the fluctuation of the pound. Secondly, there is the fact that the Town Planning Bill which was before Parliament last year, has not been pressed, and the question of town planning has to be taken into consideration as a restriction when making a universal valuation. Therefore immense difficulties must arise. The same state of affairs applies, only in a lesser degree, to the question of land drainage. It had been the intention of the Land Union to raise this matter when either questionnaires or valuation forms had been issued to property owners, but now that the matter has been raised in your Lordships' House we are anxious to make public our attitude on the question without in any way wishing to embarrass the Government unduly. We fought the proposals in the House of Commons last Session. I spoke against the Bill on Second Reading in your Lordships' House, and we are opposed to the taxation of land values.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, my noble friend who made this Motion and I became familiar with the subject in another place. At that time we took opposite views of it. Mr. Lloyd George's scheme was at any rate fair up to a point and I thought it was justified. It recognised all existing values but it had certain disadvantages. It cost, as my noble friend has said, £5,000,000 and it stopped all private enterprise in building, which its one of the results from which this country has had to suffer as much as any-
258
thing else. That was the result of that Act. My private experience of it was this. Being a supporter of the Act I and one or two friends of mine sent in our own valuations of what our land coming under the Bill was supposed to be worth. I had the figures all worked out in my own office but they were not accepted. I think sixteen valuers came down and spent some weeks on the job, which must have cost a vast sum of money, and they came to exactly the same conclusion as my agent. That was the way money went and the way it will go under this new proposal.
This proposal I consider to be simple robbery. There is no justification for it at all. I should say that I served on Lord Dune din's Titles Commission and from what I heard there I should judge that the valuation for this scheme will cost a good deal more than it did for Mr. Lloyd George's Bill. Not only will great cost be put upon the Government but great cost will be put upon the private owner. The private owner is practically used as an unpaid agent by the Government. In Scotland that is much better known than it is here because the whole of the Small Holdings Act in Scotland uses the landowner as an unpaid agent of the State to do all its work. In this case also the cost will be put upon the private owner. I also entirely agree with what my noble friend who made the Motion has said, that it is reduction in expenditure, not increase in taxation, that will count to the credit or discredit of this Government. Like the noble Lord who spoke just now, I am very well disposed towards giving the National Government plenty of time to decide upon its course in every direction, but I do say that it is reduction in expenditure by which this Government will be judged, and by which not only will this Government be judged, but by which the finances of this country will stand or fall.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, may I make one or two observations before the representative of the Government replies? I desire to associate myself entirely with the remarks which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, though I am not quite sure that I shall find myself in agreement with the manner in which he described—I think the phrase was "those people

259
who sit upon Front Benches," which is not altogether quite in accordance with Parliamentary tradition, associating the names of the noble and learned Viscount (Lord Hailsham) and others who sit with him. The question really which disturbs me, and which, I think, disturbs a great many other noble Lords who are connected with the problems of land and land administration, is this. We have had during the last two or three years, under the late Government, for various reasons which we need not go into, a fresh attack upon the landed interest. There is this proposal which the noble Viscount, Lord Novar, has described as "simple robbery." What we are concerned to know is this. This Government is overwhelmingly Tory—it calls itself national but its complexion is the Conservative complexion—and we desire to know whether these measures which were passed by the last Government are going to be implemented by the present Government or not.
I must confess that on a measure of the sort which is being discussed tonight, and for which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Viscount Snowden, was mostly responsible, I am surprised, considering what a source of interest and concern it is not only to noble Lords in this House but to all those who are responsible throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain, that the noble Viscount has not taken the trouble to come down and personally give us an explanation of the principles and reasons on which he felt justified in asking Parliament to pass this Act some years ago. The matter, however, is now left, I hope, in the hands of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and I ask if we might have a definite reply, if possible, to this question. We are, and nobody knows better than the noble and learned Viscount, as the representatives of land in this country placed in a position today so overwhelming and so difficult, in the circumstances of the financial liabilities imposed upon us, that we find the greatest difficulty—almost overwhelming difficulty—in managing the responsibilities and liabilities imposed upon us.
The noble Viscount, Lord Novar, said that the Government used his representatives in Scotland for the purpose of collecting its rents. It is practically the same in England. To-day, really, we are in the
260
position of individuals who are collecting rents on behalf of the Government, and handing perhaps one-third or one-half and sometimes even two-thirds to the recipients at the Treasury. We do not complain. Such is the financial position of the country that all citizens have to bear their share, and if it falls heavily upon us Heaven forbid that we should complain; but we are carrying that enormous burden, and we are entitled to know whether, in addition to that, we are going to have the machinery of this penal legislation—noble Lords described it as "plunder" and "robbery" but I call it penal legislation—imposed upon us, and our subordinates, between now and the next twelve months. If we are to have to face it, then let us know, but if we are not surely the noble and learned Viscount can inform us and the country that this extra responsibility and liability and extra work on those who are toiling for us will not be demanded. If he can do so I can assure him that it will be a source of immense relief to all those associated with the agrarian industry.
I do not want to go into the merits of the financial side. Lord Banbury has told you, and we well remember, in years gone by, that a similar system of taxation was invented when for every twenty shillings you spent you hardly got back ten shillings. Whether that is true to-day, and whether some fresh source of revenue can be extracted from the soil, I am not in a position to judge. The noble and learned Viscount is in a position to know. Personally, I doubt it. I see nothing but a derelict countryside with great houses closed and farms, especially in the Eastern Counties, entirely left vacant. I see the tenantry and husbandmen left in a state of destitution, and many without any prospect of work. To impose fresh taxation upon that portion of the community appears to me to be the greatest folly that could possibly be committed, and it can only be proposed by those who desire from a vindictive spirit to destroy the system of landlord, tenant and labourer which exists to-day.
So much for the financial side. I am not in a position to judge. The noble and learned Viscount is in a position to judge and he can help us enormously by giving us some kind of assurance that

261
this legislation which was passed by the late Government, and with which he cannot have the slightest sympathy whatever, may possibly not be put into operation, and so enable us, who are anxious to make our administration as cheap and economical as possible, to have some assurance that those terrible responsibilities and impositions which would occur as a result of this measure may not be imposed upon us in the future.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, who moved this Motion, did so with all his usual charm and inconsequence. He ranged over practically every subject with which National Government concerns itself, from social services to Queen Victoria, national health and every other imaginable interest of the House. We obtained one certificate from him for which we are profoundly thankful, and that is that those who sit on the Front Benches are human. I do not know whether that extends to the Cabinet, and what we are trying to find out to-day is whether the National Government Cabinet have come to a decision with regard to the question of the continuance or cessation of the valuation for the purpose of the Land Tax. In the case of the Labour Cabinet—of course I do not know what goes on inside Cabinets—I imagine there was a sort of air of a temple, and members spent their time burning incense to gods, perhaps sometimes from our point of view false gods, who in the end did not do us very much good. Inside the National Cabinet there may be another aspect of affairs, but my own impression is that they are spending their time playing "beggar-my-neighbour." One side of the Cabinet offers a tariff if the other side of the Cabinet is allowed to have some voice in what is going to be done in India. The first side of the Cabinet offers a food tax if the other side will allow them to carry the London Passenger Traffic Bill, and so on, between Orders in Council and the Statute of Westminster, we get the card playing game of the exchange of one thing for another.
With regard to the Land Tax, we do not know yet what is the position, but we hope that the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, who, I understand, is going to reply for the Government, will
262
put very clearly before us the decision of the Government on this matter. Before I came in I looked up a very pleasant history of your Lordships' House written by Walter Bagehot and he reminded us that Disraeli had called Sir Robert Peel's Ministry an "organised hypocrisy," and said that the ideas in its head differed from the sensations of its tail!I am not sure that that does not to some extent apply to the present Cabinet—the sensations of the tail differing from the ideas of the head; and perhaps the reply of the noble Lord will reveal whether this is so. We on this side have been taught by distinguished statesmen, economists and politicians to support taxes on land values. The present Prime Minister has told us that land is a vital monopoly. He said:
"It is from the land that we derive all the primary raw materials. It is the soil which the agriculturist needs, it contains the oils and the minerals of all our vast mining, quarrying, smelting trades; upon it must be built our factories, our warehouses, our houses. It is still, with the exception of the high seas the foundation of our transport industry. The owner of the land is thus in the position of a man who holds the keys of life, and he consequently can exact the maximum toll as his price. He does so. Rent, therefore, tends to absorb every social improvement that can be turned into advantage in the exchange market."
The Lord Privy Seal has also taught us a good deal about land taxation. He said:
"The landowner has the monopoly of a commodity universally needed. He is able to exact rent from those who use it. The factors which determine the rent are not created by individual effort. It is monstrous that individuals should be allowed to appropriate the large increases of value which have not been created by them. If the landowner appropriates an increased share of the wealth of the commodity there is so much less for division amongst the remainder."
That is the idea of the Lord Privy Seal.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: That has changed since then.
LORD MARLEY: We do not know. Perhaps we shall hear from Lord Templemore whether it is the head or the tail hat is deciding the policy. Another supporter of the present Government is Mr. Winston Churchill, who has also been a convinced supporter of the taxation of and values. After all, the reasons for his taxation have not been clearly stated to your Lordships' House this afternoon

263
and I should like to think that the heart of Lord Templemore may be softened by the few words I have to say and induce him to return a favourable answer. Land, as is well known, may well be kept out of use by the owners until a higher price can be secured. There is the attempt, if you have land, to keep hold of it and pay no rates, or very little rates, until a considerably higher price can be obtained. And in this connection I ask the indulgence of the House for a moment or two to quote Mr. Churchill, who has so clearly put the whole position in regard to this matter. He said:
"There is a man who keeps a large plot near a growing town idle for years while it is ripening; that is to say, while it is rising in price through the exertions of the surrounding community and the need of the community for more room to live."
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Can the noble Lord say when that was said?
LORD MARLEY: It was quoted by the present Lord Privy Seal in the House of Commons on June 5, 1928.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: That is not my point. When was the speech made by Mr. Winston Churchill?
LORD MARLEY: I cannot say. I expect the noble Duke knows better than I do. Mr. Winston Churchill also said:
"They speak of the profits of land and the land monopolist as if they were the fruits of thrift and industry and a pleasing example for the poorer classes to imitate. We do not take that view of the question. We think it is a dog-in-the-manger policy."
And he went on to describe his plan for dealing with the matter. In just the same way we believe that the taxes on land are a good proposition because we know that the increased value of the land has been created by the community. Mr. Winston Churchill also said:
"A portion, in some cases the whole, of every benefit which is laboriously acquired by the community is represented in the land value and finds its way automatically into the landlord's pocket. If there is a rise in wages, rents are liable to move forward because the workers can afford to pay a little more. If the opening of a new railway or a new tramway or the institution of an improved service of workmen's trains or the lowering of fares or a new invention or any other public convenience affords a benefit to the workers in any particular district it becomes easier for them to live, and therefore the landlord and the ground landlord, one on top of the other, are able to charge them more for the privilege of living there."
264
I do not know how wealthy the landlords are; one is very sorry for their extreme poverty. But as the noble Duke has said, there is poverty universally, and admittedly some landlords have had an unfair share of the increases of the value of the land, and it is only fair that they should share in the taxation that is necessary. Municipal authorities are often exploited when it comes to the acquisition of land, and it was only a few months ago that the Lord Privy Seal quoted cases in which land had to be acquired by local authorities for schools or for other purposes. I know Lord Banbury is concerned with industry, and I will say that by taxes on the land you are going to benefit what is, after all, the staple wealth of Great Britain.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: But you must then get something out of the taxation of land. I do not think you will get anything.
LORD MARLEY: The noble Lord differs from the Lord Privy Seal in this matter. The Lord Privy Seal only six months ago, in introducing the taxation of land values in the House of Commons, said it was the main feature of his last Budget. He said:
"The scandal of the private appropriation of land values created by the enterprise and industry of the people and by the expenditure of public money has been tolerated far too long. We are taking a step that will be approved not only by the Labour and Liberal Parties, who have long advocated this reform, but also by large numbers of Conservatives …"
I hope I see them here this evening. There is a very disappointing response. I hoped that at least there would be some cheers from noble Lords opposite to this excellent suggestion of their Lord Privy Seal. The quotation goes on—
" … whose sense of justice is outraged by glaring examples of the exploitation of the public by private land monopolists. The present system stands in the way of social and economic progress, inflicts crushing burdens on industry, and hinders municipal development."
Another member of the present Cabinet, the President of the Board of Education, in this connection said:
"The Liberal Party welcomes that part of the Budget which deals with the taxation of land values. It is a proposal which has been far too long delayed."
Another member of the Cabinet, the Home Secretary, also said on the occa-

265
sion of the first Budget debates in the louse of Commons:
".…we rejoice that the right hon. gentleman is proposing to carry into effect a reform which has been advocated by us for to many years—the taxation of land values, if only this country had been provident enough in 1848, when John Stuart Mill advocated a tax on these lines—if only this method had been adopted seventy years ago, what princely revenues would now be accruing to the State and local authorities without hardship to anyone!"
This measure has also been supported by the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and, I understand, by the President of the Board of Trade. So we are getting a pretty strong representation in the Cabinet for the principle of the taxation of land values. In these circumstances I hope that the Cabinet has been able in the course of its exchange and interchange of one policy for another to stand firm on this question of the continuation of the valuation of land for the purposes of the taxation of land values, and that the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, will be able to assure the House that there has been no change of opinion on the part of so many of those who hold Cabinet rank in the National Government.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, before I reply to the question of my noble friend I should like, if he will allow me, to offer him my sincere congratulations on his eighty-first birthday. The noble Lord seems to me to get younger every year. As he said, he is a critic of every Government which holds office—I hope, in our case, a friendly critic—but, although he sometimes annoys us, I can assure him on behalf of the House that we could ill spare his services in our councils. Beginning with the speech of the noble Lord, I think we have had a very interesting and useful debate. It has not only ranged over the question of these particular Land Taxes, but we have had, it seems to me, a very wide financial debate, with the speech of Lord Dynevor expressing the views of the Land Union, a most useful and exceedingly friendly contribution from Lord Novar, and an informative speech, spoken, I know, from the bottom of his heart, from the noble Duke who sits on the Cross Benches. I hope that
266
your Lordships will not expect me to go too deeply into these matters, and I hope that the noble Lord opposite will not expect me to answer in great detail the points raised by his speech. He gave us some very interesting historical accounts of the opinion of Disraeli about Sir Robert Peel, and then he went into the subject of the Cabinet, and said he did not know what goes on inside Cabinets. Neither do I. He spent most of his time, not so much in dealing with this question of the Land Taxes but in proving what a bad Government this present one is.
As regards the Question of my noble friend, it refers, of course, to the provisions of the first Finance Act, 1931, which dealt with the question of land values taxation. In answer to the first Question on the Paper as to the number of valuers appointed under Part III of that Act, up to date, the number of additional staff is 700. In answer to the second part of his Question, the cost up to date to the Inland Revenue is about £120,000, which includes £60,000 spent by the Inland Revenue Department, and £60,000 spent by two other Departments, the Office of Works and the Ordnance Survey Department. The estimated cost of the first valuation when the Budget was introduced, a valuation which it was estimated would be completed in time for the assessment and collection of tax in 1934, was between £1,000,000 and £1,500,000, and it was stated that the additional staff to be engaged on a temporary basis for this work would not exceed 2,000 in number at the maximum point, of whom one-half would be technical and one-half clerical officers. A Supplementary Estimate of £290,000 for the current year's expenditure by the Inland Revenue Department for this work was authorised by Parliament in July last.
I here come to a point which I hope will bring comfort to my noble friend, who wanted to know if anything had been done to lessen the cost. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer—that is, of course, the present Lord Privy Seal—said in the House of Commons on September 17 last:
"The engagement of staff required in connection with Part III of the Finance Act, 1931, is now proceeding. The number so far engaged is 205, and their cost during this financial year is estimated at £27,713. I

267
may say, however, it is proposed to reduce the expenditure on the valuation during its initial stages, and thus to effect a considerable saving on the sum provided by Parliament for the current financial year."
In accordance with that statement steps have been taken to restrict the engagement of additional staff so as to reduce the expenditure by the Inland Revenue Department on this work during the current financial year to about £140,000. In addition to the expenditure by the Inland Revenue Department, amounting to about £60,000 to date, expenditure has been incurred by the Office of Works and the Ordnance Survey Department in providing office accommodation and maps. Sums amounting to £110,000 have been voted by Parliament for expenditure on those two services in the current financial year, of which about £60,000 has been spent to date.
I have answered, I think, in full the first two parts of my noble friend's Question. When I come to the last part I am exceedingly sorry, but I dare say I shall not satisfy my noble friend. If I do not he must remember that I am one of those people who, at the moment, sit on Front Benches and also that I am only human. I regret that I am unable yet to give any answer except to say that the matter is under the consideration of His Majesty's Government and that my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed the hope that he will be able to make a statement on the subject in another place before the House rises for the Christmas Recess. May I add, in conclusion, that I have been exceedingly impressed, and I am sure my noble friends on the Front Bench have been exceedingly impressed, by the feeling in your Lordships' House, on this side of the House at any rate, upon this matter.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am sure of that, and I think I may say that I will undertake to bring this particular matter as soon as possible before my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his information.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I only wish to intervene for a very few moments to express my great disappointment at the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Templemore. I cannot help sympathising with the view
268
expressed by the noble Duke on the Cross Benches. It is the uncertainty that is so unsatisactory. Let us have it one way or the other. I do not blame the noble Lord who had to answer on behalf of the Department. I blame the Government for leaving the matter in this nebulous and unsatisfactory state. As we see matters at present, in all probability they do not intend to continue with this valuation or to levy the tax. The preponderance of Conservative opinion in the Cabinet makes that pretty well certain. After all, if the present Cabinet were to drop the Home Secretary, the Lord Privy Seal and even the Prime Minister, it would not very much matter to them. We know that. They have an enormous preponderance of votes in another place. There is a very strong opinion against this Tax in the Conservative Party. Why cannot they have the courage to come down to this House and say so? It would be very much more satisfactory and we should know where we were. Landowners throughout the country would say: "We are relieved of this possible burden in the future." And we should only have one more step towards a completely Conservative policy.
This is another instance of what I mean by the unsatisfactory nature of this so-called National Government. I would so infinitely rather have a Conservative Government with clear-cut views than this present Government.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Hear, hear.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE The noble Lord who made this Motion entirely agrees with me on this point, I am sure. You know where you are then. It is entirely a matter of the tug-of-war inside the Cabinet taking rather longer than usual. We know where all the force is—on one side of the rope. The other side of the rope is very weak indeed. The Prime Minister's head is in a sort of nooze in the middle. It is a most uncomfortable position—and that is the present Government!
I think it is very hard on the noble Lord to be made to come down to your Lordships' House on an occasion of this sort, where an opportunity was given to him. and his friends to say: "We are going to give up these Taxes. We do not agree with them. We do not want

269
them, our friends do not want them, and this is a very good opportunity of putting the stopper on altogether." Instead of that, he is made to come down here and give one of those replies which leave us all in uncertainty, with nobody pleased. I thought it necessary to utter these few words of protest because I had hoped for something clear on the subject. However, I do not want to intervene between your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, who, I think, wants to make some remarks about the Motion.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, in dealing with the Motion which stands on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Banbury and in my own name, I should like to associate myself with everything said by my noble friend in proposing the Motion. I am afraid I must disassociate myself completely from the objection made just now by the noble Lord opposite. For my own part, if 1 may say so in passing, I think that what struck the attention of the House was the Party feeling indulged in by those speaking from the Front Opposition Bench on a matter which, I suppose, was intended by them, when occupying a different position, to be dealt with as a national question on national lines. However, if they prefer to consider the action that was taken when they were in a different position as a Party question and not to deal with the subject on national lines, I presume we may take their criticism at its proper valuation.
At the same time I am bound to confess that I am disappointed with the reply given by my noble friend Lord Templemore. Apart from any question of this, that or the other member of the Cabinet or the composition of the Government, this Government was returned to power to deal on national lines with the questions that lay before it, and this question was obviously one with which it will have to deal on national lines. While we are prepared to understand that there must be some delay in coming to a decision on this and some other matters which certainly would benefit by being dealt with promptly, at the same time I agree that it would be of the greatest help to those who, like myself, are concerned with the question of land and agriculture, of a speedy announcement could be made with regard to the policy of the National Government. It is not our desire, as
270
has been hinted by one of your Lordships on this side of the House, to inconvenience the Government, but the condition of affairs, as the noble Duke has said, is such that it would be of the very greatest assistance to the agricultural interests to know at the earliest possible date where they stood.
The incidence of the proposed Land Tax is one which is bound on investigation, I think, to have a considerable adverse effect upon the agriculturists of the country. From the way in which the Bill was passed, even as amended in another place, I think your Lordships' House, especially after this debate, would feel some legitimate suspicion in regard to this land valuation. Apart from the quotations already made to your Lordships, I should like to read a few words uttered by the late Solicitor-General at Birmingham in July last. He is reported to have said:
"That (the taxation of land values) was a greater reform and a greater step forward than some people realised. He hoped it would not be long before they got real nationalisation of land, and then the last vestige of the old and antiquated feudal system would be dead."
I believe that somewere between 10,000,000 and 12,000,000 hereditaments will have to be dealt with by this valuation, and I should like to remind my noble friend and the Government that, on the previous attempt to value the land of this country, it took some five years to secure the valuation of about three-quarters of the land. No doubt, if this valuation is persisted in, it will take a considerable time before any results, useful or otherwise, can be secured from it. I would appeal, therefore, to my noble friend and the other members of the Government to postpone at any rate the continuation of this valuation beyond the date at which it must inevitably commence as things stand at present— January 1 of next year.
After what has already been said to-day I do not wish to deal with the larger issue of whether a Land Tax is good or not, but I would emphasise, if I may once again, what has been said by several noble Lords, the desirability from every point; of view that we should have some early pronouncement from His Majesty's Government on this matter. So many figures have already been quoted to your Lordships that I am not intending to in-

271
flict any more upon you, but I would suggest to His Majesty's Government that after all, only a short time ago, in an effort to secure economy, with regard to the grant to a very important movement, the value of which has been proved and the success and utility of which have been demonstrated, an economy has been made by ceasing to make the grant that was paid last year to the assisted allotments that were promoted some three years ago by the Society of Friends. They have issued an appeal in the Press which I am sure your Lordships will have noticed with great sympathy, for the sum of £30,000 in order that that most excellent work can go forward. It is a scheme, as I have said, that is a proved success. It is a scheme under which allotments have been afforded to something like 64,000 unemployed men, whose activities have been directed in a most useful way, with an expenditure on the part of the Government of some £23,000. The estimated value of the vegetables and other produce was something like £400,000, if not rather more. I suggest to His Majesty's Government that it is a thousand pities, in the effort to make small and yet important economies, they should be prepared, on the one hand, to withdraw a grant of this nature, and, on the other hand, be prepared to spend, or acquiesce in the spending of something like £110,000 on valuers and machinery for carrying out the valuation. I would remind my noble friend, if I may, that that appeal in respect of the particular small scheme that I have mentioned is backed by no less a person than the present Minister of Agriculture, Sir John Gilmour.
I would therefore once again, if I may, urge the Government to give at the earliest moment possible some decision upon the matter of this valuation. It is due to commence on January 1 next year, and, if nothing better could be done, I would venture once more to suggest that the valuation should at any rate be postponed so that time may be given to deal with this matter in a thorough and fundamental manner. I appreciate the information my noble friend has given us with regard to figures. The size of them will have astonished many who were not aware of what they were, and will have justified my noble friend, and I hope myself, in bringing forward this Motion in your
272
Lordships' House. Perhaps I should add, before sitting down, one word of explanation. My noble relative Lord Strachie is extremely sorry that ill-health has prevented him moving this Motion which was at one time down in his name on the Paper. As my noble friend Lord Ban-bury has said, he is not able to take part in the discussion to-day. May I associate myself with the remarks, as I am sure all your Lordships do, of my noble friend Lord Templemore with regard to the noble Lord, Lord Banbury. He is a man who seems younger in years than he is, and I envy his clarity, his activity, his utility in your Lordships' House. I can only hope that this debate that was inaugurated by him to-day may be of benefit both to the agricultural community, with whose interests I am most particularly concerned on this occasion, and to the country as a whole.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Templemore and my noble friend Lord O'Hagan for the kind and flattering remarks they have made about my humble self. May I also venture to congratulate my noble friend Lord Templemore upon his speech? I think I am right in saying that this is almost the first time he has made a speech on an important subject from that Bench, and I venture to say that it will be by no means the last time. I am reminded of what I understand Disraeli once said to a junior member of the Government sitting on the Front Bench. Some rather awkward question had been asked, and Mr. Disraeli did not want to reply. He turned to a junior member, and said: "Get up and say something. Never mind what you say but say something; only be careful that you don't say anything of any importance." I think my noble friend Lord Templemore, if that was said to him by my noble friend below me (Viscount Hailsham), has fulfilled that task in a most admirable manner. May I venture also to supplement what the noble Duke said? I am rather astonished that the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, is not here. I am not sure that I do not know the reason of his absence. I think the noble Viscount thought that noble Lords opposite knew something of his record, and that if he came he would have to answer for that record, and it

273
would be better perhaps as a member of the National Government not to remember what he said on another occasion when he took rather different views.
My noble friend Lord Templemore has not said anything about Papers. I do in my Question ask for Papers. I presume that my noble friend did not say anything because it would be a little inconvenient to lay the Papers. Whether that is so or not I do not propose to press for Papers, because I think the House has shown, at any rate for once, that the majority of noble Lords agree with me and in those circumstances I do not think it would be necessary to go to a Division. I am not quite certain whether I caught my noble friend's remarks as to the amount of money that has been spent. Am I right in saying that they have spent up to the present time £120,000?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: Yes.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Am I also right in saying they cook under the Financial Resolution power to spend £290,000?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: May I by leave of the House say that they took under the Budget a Supplementary Estimate of £290,000, but this was then reduced to £140,000? That was the estimate, and up to date £60,000 has been spent by the Inland Revenue Department, and £60,000 by the Office of Works and the Ordnance Survey preparing maps.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTH'AM: As I understand it, the original Supplementary Estimate was £290,000. That has been reduced to £140,000, and out of that £140,000 only £120,000 has been spent. May I implore the noble Lord not to spend the other £20,000? Let us at any rate show that we have some regard for economy, though the amount is not large. Let us follow the debate this evening by limiting the expenditure to £120,000. I do not propose to insist upon my Motion, but I will not withdraw it. I would rather it was negatived.
On Question, Motion negatived.

RE-ADMISSION OF UNDESIRABLE ALIENS.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice that he would draw attention to the practice of the Home Office in raising no objection to the re-admission of aliens (if backed by firms or individuals) who have previously been removed or withdrawn at the instance of His Majesty's Government on account of their subversive activities or propaganda in Great Britain; ask His Majesty's Government how many such persons have been re-admitted during the last twelve months; and move that this House requests His Majesty's Government to discontinue this practice and to give instructions to their diplomatic and consular agents to refuse a visa to such persons.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, some of your Lordships may recollect that a short time ago I put a question to His Majesty's Government concerning a certain Nicolas Klishko who had been got rid of on more than one occasion for his subversive activities. As I said on that occasion the answer which I received was most unsatisfactory, and that opinion has since been reinforced by several noble Lords who have expressed to me their grave dissatisfaction at the reckless attitude of the Home Office on the matter. A curious state of affairs was disclosed by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, on behalf of the Home Office. His words are reported in Column 52 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. He said:
"The object of his visits was stated to be the purchase of machinery, and the application that he should be allowed to come here was supported by an important British firm."
My Lords, note that peculiar phraseology. "The object of his visit was stated to be the purchase of machinery." In reply to a supplementary question by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, the noble Earl said:
"I understand that he has to get a visa to come to this country, and he has to be backed by individuals or firms in this country, and in that case I understand that there is no objection raised."
The more I study the careful words used by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, the more apprehensive do I become.
Surely such a reply indicates a weak— almost an inept—attitude for the Home Office to adopt. It shows that the general outlook of that Department on the re-

275
admission of undesirable aliens is, to say the least of it, disquieting, inasmuch as it appears from the noble Earl's answers that if an alien, however objectionable he may be, can get a British firm or even an individual to back his application for a visa to his passport he is automatically readmitted without let or hindrance. It is all very well for the Home Office to say that they have the matter well in hand, but why, I ask, should this country be put to the expense and why should that Department be given the extra work of watching the movements of such people here? It seems most suspicious that the Soviet Government should be so anxious to get such a person as Mr. Klishko into this country, that his rôle is changed from that of Assistant Official Agent of the Soviet Government in Great Britain to that of manager of the technical bureau of the metal department of the. Soviet Trade Delegation in Berlin, for one must bear in mind that when he was employed here before 1917 by an important armament firm, he was not employed by them as an expert but as a clerk. Even under the five-year plan I do not suppose a clerk would become an expert, which might entitle him to change his rôle.
On the occasion of my former Question I asked my noble friend the Earl of Lucan if he was in a position to state that no persons other than Mr. Klishko who had been parties to subversive activities here had been or would be readmitted, but as I received no definite reply I have ventured again to try to elicit an assurance on that by my Question. I now invite your Lordships to agree to my Motion:
"That this House requests His Majesty's Government to discontinue this practice and to give instructions to their diplomatic and consular agents to refuse a visa to such persons."
I suggest that once an alien has been pronounced so inimical to the Government of this country that his absence is preferable to his presence he should in no circumstances be allowed back here for however short a period. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House requests His Majesty's Government to discontinue the
276
practice of raising no objection to the re-admission of aliens, if backed by firms or individuals, and to give instructions to their diplomatic and consular agents to refuse a visa to such persons.— (Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the noble Viscount has referred to the previous occasion on which he asked me a Question on the subject of Mr. Klishko and I notice that he now takes exception to my description of the reason for Mr. Klishko coming to this country. As far as the Home Office knows it was a perfectly good reason. He came over on bona fide business with the firm about which I told the noble Viscount. As regards the subject of the Notice as to what is the practice of the Home Office in the case of the re-admission of aliens, I can only say that he has read rather more than he was entitled to do into the answer which I gave to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Newton. Perhaps it was owing to a mistake of mine in not making it perfectly clear. I said that he had to get a visa to come to this country and that it had to be backed by individuals or firms in this country, but I can tell the noble Viscount that that really is not sufficient. The fact that an English firm has asked for facilities for him is not sufficient in the case of a man who has been previously excluded. It does not automatically lead to the grant of a visa to enable him to come back here. It is one of many factors which are taken into account, and the decision of the Home Office as to a visa depends on whether, having regard to all the circumstances, it is deemed desirable to withdraw an objection which may previously have been raised with regard to the individual in question. Whenever an application for a visa is under consideration the whole previous history of the alien as known to the Home Office is weighed, and the Secretary of State comes to a decision on the question whether any objections there may be to a particular foreigner are outweighed by the advantages likely to accrue to this country from his presence here.
As regards the second part of the noble Viscount's Notice—to ask His

277
Majesty's Government how many such persons have beer, re-admitted during the last 12 months—I understand that in addition to Mr. Klishko only two persons falling within the category referred to by the noble Viscount have been admitted to this country during the last 12 months. Those were admitted for strictly limited periods. One left after three days. The other has been refused an extension of the period for which she was allowed to land. I understand that she was on the way to America and she has been instructed to leave this country at an early date. As regards the Motion made by the noble Viscount, "That this House requests His Majesty's Government to discontinue this practice," I hope that the noble Viscount will not press his Motion. From the answer I have given him he will realise that it is not the practice of the Home Office to raise no objection to the re-admission of aliens if backed by firms or individuals. I hope that the noble Viscount will be satisfied with my answer on this occasion.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, the noble Viscount spoke to me about this matter a day or two ago. I found that I personally had nothing to do with the gentleman named Klishko when I was at the Home Office, but I should like to explain that the Home Office in those days were very careful indeed about the admission of Russians to this country, and if any Russian had what I may call a black mark placed against him by having been requested to leave this country on account of subversive activities, it would have been very difficult indeed for him to get back again. The Home Office, I think, used to regard all Russians with suspicion—some more than others—and I think Mr. Klishko would undoubtedly be among the first mentioned. I see the noble Lord, Lord Snell, is smiling, probably because in another place he has questioned me in regard to these eases. I would, however, ask my noble friend who replies on behalf of the Government to express the view to those, who administer the Home Office at the present tune that there should be no weakening in this matter. The present is certainly not the time to weaken the regulations laid down.
I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, will forgive me if I express here my testi-
278
mony to the way in which the work was done, not, of course, by the Secretary of State but by the staff during that period. I hope we may have the assurance that the same care is taken now. I should like him to suggest that in the case of a man who has been asked to leave this country for this country's good, it should be only under most exceptional circumstances that he should be allowed to come back again. I cannot quite believe that he would be allowed to come on the mere request of some firm desiring to do business with him, when there must be millions of Russians with clean bills of health who might be allowed to come over in his place. If Lord Lucan will express these views to the present Secretary of State I am sure they will be followed, and that the same careful regulations will be administered in this country as have been administered in the past.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I am left in a slight doubt by the speeches which we have just heard from Lord Brentford and Lord Lucan, as to whether the practice has been altered in some way since Lord Brentford was at the Home Office. If it has been altered I should be glad to know when and, if possible, for what reasons.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, before the noble Earl answers might I just say this? I think the House will be very grateful to Lord Bertie of Thame for having brought forward this question. Prima facie, if a man is sent out of this country for having engaged in subversive activities, which mean danger to this country, it appears to me that only for the very strongest reasons should be be permitted to come back. Lord Lucan has said, very truly I have no doubt, that he is not allowed to come back simply because some firm or person desires him to come back, but what he has not told us is what are the conditions which the Home Office think ought to be satisfied before such a person is allowed to come back. Possibly he can tell us in general terms what points the Home Office consider before they allow a pernicious character of this sort, who has been turned out of the country, to come back and, presumably, renew his pernicious practices. Unless there is an overwhelming reason for allowing such a man to come back I think it would be better to keep him out altogether.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, we do not propose to oppose in any way the proposition put before this House that criminals, if convicted of crime, should be kept out of this country. We have no need to import criminals; it is possible to grow as many in our own country as we need. But I would just like to utter one word of reservation. Let us be careful in our interpretation of what constitutes a bad character. It does not always follow that because a man has a Russian name, and has happened to fall foul of the Government of his own country, and has got into a certain habit of advocacy which he continues in this country, he is of necessity a criminal in intention or a really bad character. All I ask for is that in dealing with this matter the Home Office should interpret as liberally as it can those feelings. Our country has, happily, for many generations had a great reputation among the nations of the world for offering hospitality to people who have come here, and I should be very sorry that we should do anything in our generation to narrow that and destroy what is a very precious heritage.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, with the leave of the House I would like to assure Lord Iddesleigh that there has been no change in the procedure of the Home Office. Each case is dealt with on its merits. As to what those merits are, I cannot put them on paper or into words, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Danes-fort, would know for himself what he would look for if he was very careful to keep out anything like a bad character. I can only leave it to the noble Lord's imagination when I tell him that the strictest care is exercised.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I thank Lord Lucan for his reply, but I was rather shocked to hear that not only one but three of these undesirable people had been admitted. That being so I adopt the course which Lord Banbury took when he had his Motion negatived instead of withdrawing it.
On Question, Motion negatived.

STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order).

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (PROLONGATION OF INSURANCE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this is a Bill which prolongs for a further period of one year a procedure of which your Lordships approved last year, I think after very little discussion. It is drafted in almost identical terms with last year's Bill, and has already passed through all its stages in another place, without opposition. In these circumstances I do not suppose you would wish me to add very much to the explanation which is already contained in the Memorandum attached to the Bill. Very briefly, I might explain that there exists to-day a small class of individuals who have been at one time insured and who by reason of prolonged unemployment would normally lose all rights of medical and cash benefits under the National Health Insurance Act; and a more serious consideration is that they would also lose certain pension rights. What this somewhat formidably drafted Bill does is to maintain this class in insurance for a further period of one year.
The Minister believes it is advisable to follow this procedure until the Commission, on Unemployment Insurance has issued its Report, when it will be possible to make a complete review of the whole situation. Owing to the fact that there are only a limited number of people affected—I think between 60,000 and 70,000—the total cost to the State is not expected to exceed £110,000, but they are, of course, a class who by reason of this prolonged unemployment are likely to stand in need of these medical benefits. The Act of last year normally expires at the end of this month, unless it is renewed as is proposed by this Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I ask whether this is a Money Bill?
VISCOUNT GAGE: Yes.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Then it is of no use saying anything about it. Does this deal with national health insurance or unemployment insurance, or both?
VISCOUNT GAGE: National health insurance only.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: But still it is going to cost £110,000?
VISCOUNT GAGE: May I explain? This class of unemployed person, in the absence of any provision of this kind, would have to go to the boards of guardians for medical relief. It adds
282
nothing to the public expenditure of the country, but it is thought better to keep this class of person within the insurance scheme rather than send them to the guardians.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.