Lords Sitting of 12 February 1931

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

ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD AMULREE): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It seeks to amend the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, in one small particular in its application to Scotland. The Act of 1919 applies to the United Kingdom. It provides machinery for settling questions of disputed compensation and kindred matters in connection with the compulsory acquisition of land by any public authority, local authority, or any Government Department. When the amount of compensation is in dispute it may be referred to be settled by an official arbitrator appointed under the Act of 1919 or, at the option of the parties, by an arbitrator appointed by them under an agreed reference.
Under the Act a panel of official arbitrators is appointed by a body known as a Reference Committee, separate Reference Committees being set up for England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland. In Scotland the Reference Committee consists of the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk and the Chairman of the Committee of the Scottish branch of the Surveyors' Institution. The arbitrators appointed by the Reference Committee in each country are to be persons having special knowledge in the valuation of land. The members of the panel are known as official arbitrators. An official arbitrator holds office for such term as may be determined by the Treasury and is paid such salary or remuneration as may be fixed by the Treasury. The office is a full-time appointment. Section 1 (3) of the Act of 1919 provides that "whilst holding office" the arbitrator "shall not himself
992
engage or be a partner of any other person who engages in private practice or business." It is this provision in the Act of 1919 that the present Bill seeks to remove so far as it applies to Scotland.
When the Act of 1919 was under discussion a somewhat optimistic view was taken of the amount of work which would be referred to these official arbitrators and it was expected that their salaries would be covered, or nearly so, by the fees that were to be charged to the parties who came before them. In England it was assumed that there would be enough work for perhaps five whole-time arbitrators. Two, in fact, have been found sufficient and they are kept fully occupied. In Scotland it was assumed that two full-time arbitrators would be required. There has not in fact been enough work for one full-time arbitrator. During the five years ending December last there were only sixty-nine awards issued by the official arbitrator in Scotland. That is about thirteen or fourteen, on an average, in the course of a year. No fewer than fifty-six, or 81 per cent., were for compensation sums less than £1,000. More than half were for less than £200, and only nine were for amounts over £3,000.
Fees in respect of the arbitrator are charged to the parties on a scale fixed by the Treasury. The average receipt from fees per award is twenty guineas; the gross cost per award is £94. The exact figure of net cost to the State Under the present arrangement is £73 per award, or a net cost on an average of £1,000 a year—fthat is to say, £1,000 a year outside the fees received. It was not found possible to reduce the cost of the service under a whole-time appointment. The authorities have been fortunate hitherto in securing the services of a whole-time arbitrator with the requisite qualifications at the comparatively moderate salary of £1,000 a year, plus clerical assistance, etc., amounting to £1,300 in all. I am advised further that the fees charged to the parties are as high as can reasonably be imposed. In these circumstances, and having regard to the need for economy in public administration, the Government, while fully realising the force of the arguments in principle 'for a whole-time arbitrator, have come to the conclusion that the

993
whole-time requirement should, so far as Scotland is concerned, be abandoned.
In addition to the subject of economy, we have in Scotland only one arbiter, and the machinery comes to a standstill if the arbiter falls ill, and nothing can he done unless the parties themselves agree to some other form of reference. Awards have been held up because of the illness of the arbiter. This also happened recently when the official arbitrator, Mr. Gordon, I am sorry to say, contracted an illness of which he died last month. I wish to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the excellent work of Mr. Gordon. When the Bill was prepared this early vacancy was not anticipated, but it was hoped that the Bill might be passed before June next, when Mr. Gordon's terms of appointment was to due to expire. I need not: say that the vacancy caused by his death considerably increases the urgency of the matter. I understand that three or four cases were in his hands when he was taken ill. If, as the Government hope, Parliament accepts the proposals contained in this Bill, it is desirable that fresh appointments should be made as soon as possible. I may add that the Lord President of the Court of Session is in entire agreement with the proposals of the Bill. The Treasury also approve. If the Bill goes through, a panel of part-time arbiters will be appointed by the Reference Committee, and an arbiter will be selected from the panel for each claim as it arises. The requirement to appoint whole-time arbitrators in England will remain unaffected. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Amulree.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the fact that this. Government should bring before your Lordships' House a measure that is designed to effect an economy in the public service is so remarkable and so encouraging a feature that I am quite sure that your Lordships would hesitate a long time before throwing out any such proposal. It is true that the economy is, to say the least of it, on very modest lines. It is not quite clear front the noble Lord's statement how much it will be, but even the smallest drop subtracted from the ocean of public expenditure is welcome. Perhaps the noble Lord will
994
tell us whether under his new proposals it is intended that all these part-time arbitrators shall have a salary, or whether they shall be paid exclusively by the fees for the particular arbitration upon which they are employed. I presume it will be the latter, and in that event it would seem that there would be a saving to the State of about £1,300 a year.
LORD AMULREE: About £1,000.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: We are very glad to hear that £1,000 is going to be saved, and we only hope that the Government will not be in too much of a hurry to find the means of getting rid of it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, it is to be hoped that they will bring in some more Bills with the same object.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BRITISH MUSEUM AND NATIONAL GALLERY (OVERSEAS LOANS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Parmoor, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Schemes for preserving amenities of ancient monuments.
(2) Every preservation scheme shall define by reference to a map annexed thereto the area to which the scheme is applicable {hereafter in this Act referred to as "the controlled area") and mar provide for all or any of the following, matters, that is to say:—

(a) for prohibiting or restricting the construction, erection or execution of buildings, structures and other works above ground within the controlled area, or the alteration or extension of any

995
such buildings, structures or works in such manner as materially to affect their external character;

(b) for prescribing the position, height, size, design, materials, colour and screening, and otherwise regulating the appearance, of buildings, structures and other works within the controlled area;

(4) Nothing in any preservation scheme shall affect any building, structure or other work or any alteration or extension thereof, if it was constructed, erected or executed before the date when notice of intention to confirm the scheme was published in the London Gazette under the First Schedule to this Act, and for the purpose of this provision a building, structure or other work and any alteration or extension thereof shall he deemed to have been constructed, erected or executed before that date—

(a) if its construction, erection or execution was begun before that date; or

(b) if and so far as its construction, erection or execution was necessary for the purpose of performing a contract made before that date.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY or TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, my first Amendment, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("character") and insert ("appearance").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
THE EARL or CRAWFORD: My Lords, if the noble Lord thinks that there is no difference between "character" and "appearance," I should very much like to know what is in his mind. This seems to me a very material change, and anything but a drafting Amendment.
LORD PONSONBY oF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, called attention to this point in Committee and, on his Motion, certain words were inserted. The Amendment is to make them correspond with the wording of paragraph (b). We thought it advisable to accept that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in subsection (2) (b), before "appearance," to insert "external." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this also is a drafting Amendment, consequent on the acceptance in Committee of Lord Cranworth's Amendment to paragraph (a).
Amendment moved—
Page 2, hue 6, after ("the") insert ("external").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBEEDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBEEDE moved, in subsection (2) (b), after "works," to insert "above ground.' The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment, consequent upon the acceptance in Committee of the Duke of Buccleueh's Amendment to paragraph (a).
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, after ("works") insert ("above ground").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shillbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"(4) Where after a public inquiry into a preservation scheme has been held, and the scheme has not been confirmed, no further preservation scheme or Preservation Order shall be made in respect of the same monumeat until after the expiration of five years from the date of the report of the person who held the inquiry into the preservation scheme."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, owing to the disappearance of Clause 2 from the Bill as introduced, there is now nothing in the Bill to prevent Commissioners of Works from having continuous shots at getting preservation schemes through, and so gradually wearing down financially an opponent of their designs. It is true that they may be awarded costs, but they are to be taxed costs, and that probably would not cover the expense of the successful applicant.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 24, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount will realise that this is really a very hampering Amendment. To begin with, the reference to the Preservation Order is quite out of place in this clause. A Preservation Order deals with the actual monument, and the machinery for the Preservation Order is quite different from that for a preservation scheme, which deals with the surroundings of the monument. The noble Viscount will realise that after an inquiry has been held all sorts of reasons might emerge to make it desirable to postpone the

997
making of a scheme for a year or two. It might appear there was some prospect of the local authority making a planning scheme to cover the particular area, or after a decision had been made not to confirm the scheme certain difficulties in the way might be removed and the scheme might be proceeded with. If the Amendment of the noble Viscount, even without mention of a Preservation Order, were inserted, it would be very hampering. T could not accept it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in subsection (4), after the first "work," to insert "above ground." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment consequent upon the acceptance of an Amendment in Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, after ("work") insert ("above ground").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shudlbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, after subsection (4), to insert:
"(5) Any person whose property is injuriously affected by the coming into force of a preservation scheme shall be entitled to obtain compensation in respect thereof from the Commissioners, subject to the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think my Amendment properly conies in here and that the Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, would come in as an addition to mine. The effect of the rejection of Clause 2 was to leave the provisions for compensation out of the Bill altogether, and this clearly was not the intention of the House. Your Lordships' House clearly intended that whenever a man considered that his property was injuriously affected by a scheme he should have a right to claim compensation, and to have his claim considered and settled under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. That was the intention which was made apparent on the Committee stage, and it is with a view of carrying that out that this Amendment is proposed to be inserted. The Government are not going to press their proposal any further, but accept the decision come to on the Committee stage. They have also reluctantly agreed not to re-introduce the provision
998
for the payment of betterment, not that the Government are convinced that the principle is not an important one, hut the cases in which it could be likely to arise under this particular Bill would be so very few that it seems desirable to make the machinery as simple as possible. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 39, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shutbrede.)
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, before the Question is pat might I ask whether the old Act provides that the means for compensation will be forthcoming? I suppose it only can be forthcoming by vote of Parliament, hut is there provision in the prey ions Act for compensation out of moneys provided by Parliament?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I would rather prefer to answer that question at a later stage. I should not like to commit myself on the point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE or THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE or THAME moved, after the last-mentioned Amendment, to insert: "In this section 'injuriously affected' includes any restriction imposed by any provision of a preservation scheme upon the use of any property affected by the scheme." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, "injuriously affected" is an exceedingly ambiguous term. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary there are no fewer than three pages of authorities for finding what it is and what it is not. I am not going to read the whole of those three pages, but it does start them by saying this:—
"The complex meaning of this phrase has probably never been more clearly explained than by Baron Bramwell."
I do not think it is at all clear that "injuriously affected" would cover a restriction of the user by a person within the area. I know that it is subject to an Amendment in the Schedules proposed by Lord Ponsonby which brings it to arbitration, but look at the expense of arbitration when you have three pages of cases to go into. It might even come up to the Judicial Committee of this House for decision, and that would be a tremendous expense to the wretched opponent of a scheme. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 39, after the last-mentioned Amendment, insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thorns.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am sure you are grateful to the noble Viscount for having restrained himself from reading out. the three pages of the dictionary, but without going into the niceties of the actual meaning of the words I think they do now occur in more than one Statute, and notably in the Town Planning Act, 1925. A far greater restriction can be imposed by plans under that Act than is possible under this Bill, and although this section of the Town Planning Acts has been on the Statute Book for over 20 years, it has never been questioned that the words "injuriously affected" are not wide enough to cover all the restrictions that can be imposed. If this Amendment were carried it would give compensation to a man for a restriction imposed by a scheme whether that restriction injured him or not, and this, I think, would introduce an entirely new principle into the law of compensation which the Government are unwilling to accept.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 4:
Amendments as to Preservation Orders.
4.—(1) Section six of the principal Act shall have effect in relation to any Preservation Order made after the commencement of this Act as if for subsection (3) thereof (which relates to the duration and confirmation of Preservation Orders) there were substituted the following subsections, that is to say:—
"(3A) If within three months after the publication of the Order in the London Gazette any person, who appears to the Commissioners to have an interest in the monument, gives notice in writing to the Commissioners that he objects to the Order, the Order shall, if the objection is not withdrawn, cease to have effect upon the expiration of a period of two years from the making thereof unless it is confirmed by Parliament, but in any other case the Order shall, without confirmation by Parliament, have effect until re-yoked by an order made by the Commissioners in like manner as the original Order.
"(3B) Where under the foregoing provisions of this section a Preservation Order ceases to have effect by reason of its not being confirmed by Parliament, no further Preservation Order shall be made in respect of the same monument until after the expiration of three years from the date on which the former Order ceased to have effect."
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved in the substituted subsection (3A), to leave out "two years" and insert "eighteen months." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, under Section 6 of the Ancient Monuments Act, 1913, a Preservation Order may be made by the Commissioners of Works if an ancient monument is in danger of destruction or damage. A Preservation Order so made under the Act of 1913 has effect for eighteen months, but it then lapses unless it has been confirmed by Parliament after examination by a Select Committee, before which a petitioner against the Order being confirmed is allowed to appear and to oppose the Order, as in the case of a Private Bill. If a Preservation Order is not so confirmed by Parliament no further Preservation Order with reference to the same monument can be made until after the expiration of five years. That is the procedure under the old Act.
The present Bill proposes to alter this provision in this way. In the first place the Commissioners have to publish an Order and serve a copy on the owner and occupier of the monument. Secondly, if within three months any person who has an interest in the monument objects to the Order, the Order is to lapse at the end of two years, unless it is confirmed by Parliament. Thirdly, if an Order is not confirmed by Parliament it is proposed that no new Order shall be made for three years instead of five years, as in the old Act. Exactly the same proposals were included in the present Bill as introduced in respect of preservation schemes, for the making of which power is given under Clause 1 of the present Bill. They were objected to and omitted from the Bill on the Committee stage. There is no reason whatever for applying the provisions to Preservation Orders under the Act of 1913. It is proposed by my Amendments to accept the procedure proposed by the Bill but to leave the periods of eighteen months and five years as they stand under the existing law. Eighteen months suspense and uncertainty, with an expensive Parliamentary inquiry, is surely sufficient, and certainly no one after defeating a proposed Order, after a Parliamentary inquiry, ought to be exposed to another shot from disappointed Commissioners within a period of five years. This Amendment merely

1001
puts the periods of the 1913 Act into this Bill instead of shortening them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 12, leave out ("two years") and insert ("eighteen months").—(Viscount Bettie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount, described the procedure of the 1913 Act quite correctly. The Preservation Order has to be confirmed by Parliament within eighteen months or it ceases to have effect, and the confirmation has to be by means of a Bill, which the Commissioners of Works are under an obligation to introduce. The Bill goes through. Private Bill procedure, and the period of eighteen months is therefore not too long for the completion of this rather elaborate process. Clause 4 of this Bill provides that a confirming Act shall only be necessary if, within three months of the making of a Preservation Order, some interested party gives notice in writing to the Commissioners that he objects to the Order. Unless, therefore, the period of validity of an Order to which objection has been made is increased, the effective time within which the Bill must be prepared and passed would be reduced to fifteen months, taking three months off the period of eighteen months to which I have already referred. This might very well not be long enough. To take three months off the period of two years would leave a sufficient time for the necessary formalities to be gone through. So I fear I cannot accept the noble Viscount's Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, this is rather a reasonable proposal. I do not know why the owner of an ancient monument should wait about for two years, not knowing exactly what his fate is going to be. If the eighteen months is too long will the noble Lord accept twenty-one months, which would meet his point about the three months?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I quite agree that there is something in the noble Lord's suggestion, but on the whole I prefer the Government's suggestion of two years.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF MAME: My Lords, if the noble Lord will not com-
1002
promise I think. I must press the Amendment to a Division.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in the substituted subsection (3B), after the second "Order," to insert "or preservation scheme." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to give protection, after an attempt to get a Preservation Order has been disapproved by Parliament, against the Commissioners proceeding by a preservation scheme under the Bill. Why is it necessary for the Commissioners to have two forms of procedure, first, the existing procedure for a Preservation Order under the Act of 1913, and, secondly, a preservation scheme under the present Bill? Incidentally it may be noticed that under the Act of 1913 there does rot appear to be any provision for compensating a person whose property is injuriously affected by the making of L Preservation Order under that Act. As a Preservation Order, if opposed, has to go before Parliament presumably a Select Committee would have power to approve the Order, subject to the payment of proper compensation in respect of injurious affection.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 22, after ("Order") insert ("or preservation scheme").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am afraid this Amendment is entirely unacceptable, because this clause deals only with Preservation Orders, and we do not want to mix matters. We want to keep distinct the two sets of procedure, under preservation scheme's and Preservation Orders. It would only confuse matters to insert a preservation scheme here.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in the substituted subsection (3B), to leave out "three" and insert "five." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is more or less the same point that I argued before.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, leave out ("three") and insert ("five").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I accept this.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Amendment as to voluntary contributions.
5.—(1) The Commissioners shall have power under Section nine of the principal Act to receive voluntary contribution, towards the cost of the maintenance and preservation of any ancient monument, and to enter into any agreement with the owner of any such monument or with any other person as to the maintenance and preservation of the monument and the cost thereof, notwithstanding that the Commissioners are not the owners or guardians of the monument.
(2) For the purpose of the said section, the expression "preservation of the monument" shall include the preservation of the amenities of the monument.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or" and insert "and." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this point was gone into on the Committee stage. I moved then to leave out "or any other person." I had the support of my noble friend Lord Peel, who said that he thought the word "and" should be inserted. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said he would have the matter looked into between then and Report and I placed this Amendment on the Paper with the object of eliciting from him the result of his inquiry. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 36, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the noble Viscount is correct in what he says; but on examining into the matter more closely we find that there are cases where an agreement with the owner would be unnecessary. For instance, say that a monument is let on a long lease, the Commissioners would want to make an agreement with the lease-holder alone. During the period of his lease, which might be a very long one, he, and not the owner, would be the person entitled to give the Commissioners powers for maintenance and preservation. When the owner resumed possession at the expiration of the lease, an agreement between the tenant and the Commissioners would not be binding
1004
on the owner and the owner would be in a position to make a perfectly fresh agreement.
If the monument- was let on a short lease the Commissioners would be sensible enough, of course, to take into account the owner and to make an agreement with him. Failing their doing so, the owner would not in any way be bound, and when he came into possession of the property at the end of the lease he would be able to make a fresh agreement. It might be difficult in some cases, in the case of a very long lease, for example, to bind the owner. It might be undesirable to do so. Therefore, on the whole, if the noble Viscount would not press his Amendment, I think we should prefer the words to he as they are in the Bill.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord would say "the owner or lease-holder as the case may be." The words "or with any other person" seem to be so vague. They do not suggest that the other person has any interest in it. Would not "the owner or the lease-holder as the case may be" cover both cases?
LORD PONSONBY oF SHULBREDE: I think there might be other people to take into account in the case of societies or companies, who might not quite fit into the category of lease-holder.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, "or other persons having an interest" or some words of that kind, would do, would they not? The words used are so vague.
LORD PONSONBY oF SHULBREDE: I will consider it.
EARL PEEL: The noble Lord will consider it?
LORD PONSONBY oF SHULBREDE: If the noble Viscount will leave the words as they are, I will see whether they can be made a little clearer.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, if the noble Lord will undertake to put down an Amendment to that effect, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: If I can find words to cover the phrase of the noble Earl, I will see that they are put on the Paper.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6:
Amendments as to lists of ancient monuments.
6.—(1) Before including any monument in a list published under Section twelve of the principal Act after the commencement of this Act, being a monument which was not included in a list published under that section before the commencement of this Act, the Commissioners shall, instead of informing the owner as required by subsection (1) of that section, cause to be served upon the owner of the monument and upon the occupier thereof (if any) a notice in writing of their intention to include the monument in the list.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), after the second "owner," to insert "and mortgagee (if any)." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am not sure whether these words would he a useful addition to the Bill or not. If they are not useful I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 8, after ("owner") insert ("and mortgagee (if any)").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I would rather the noble Viscount did not press his Amendment here. The question of the mortgagee will arise on a later Amendment which I have on the Paper, where it can be more fully discussed.
LORD DANESPORT: The mortgagee might be in possession. If he is in possession, he surely ought to be consulted.
LORD PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, if the noble Lord would bring up that point on my Amendment with regard to the mortgagee, I think it would be more convenient.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9:
Power of Commissioners to enter upon lands.
9.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, the Commissioners, and any person specially authorised in writing by them in that behalf, may for the purposes of investigation enter upon any land which the Commissioners have reason to believe contains an ancient monument, and may make excavations in the lard for the purposes of examination:
Provided that—

(a) no person shall, under the powers conferred by this section, enter any dwelling-house or any park, garden,
1006
pleasure ground or land otherwise used for the amenity or convenience of a dwelling-house except with the consent et' the occupier; and

(b) no excavation shall be made under the said powers except with the consent of every person whose consent to the making of the excavation would, apart from this section, he required.

(2) If any person wilfully obstructs or hinders the Commissioners or any person duly authorised by them who has produced his authority in writing to him in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, be shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the Commissioners, and any person specially authorised in writing by them in that behalf, may for the purposes of investigation enter," and to insert "any person specially authorised in writing in that behalf by the Commissioners, after giving not less than seven days' notice in writing to the occupier of his intention so to do and on production of his authority if so required by or on behalf of the occupier, may enter for the purposes of investigation at all reasonable times." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I undertook in Committee to amend this clause with a view to meeting points raised by a number of noble Lords, and I move this Amendment with the object of meeting them.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 13, leave out from ("provided") to ("upon") in line 16, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, might I ask whether seven days is not rather a short time in which to give notice There is no violent hurry about it, and it is an important matter. Surely fourteen days would not be too long. That would cause no undue delay and it would give the owner more opportunity of considering the question. I would move, if the noble Lord would accept it, to leave out "seven" in order to insert "fourteen."
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
Leave out ("seven") and insert ("fourteen").—(Lord Donesfort.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, in practice probably the notice given would be very much longer. If the noble Loud prefers fourteen days notice I do not think there is any objection to it.
On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in proviso (a) in subsection (1), before "park," to insert "building." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I under-took in Committee to make this Amendment and the noble Viscount withdrew an Amendment of his own on that condition. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 23, after ("any") insert ("building").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, lines 32 and 33, leave out ("the Commissioners or").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the next Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 33, leave out ("them") and insert ("the Commissioners").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11:
Registration of land charges created with respect to ancient monuments.
11. As from the commencement of this Act, the provisions of the Land Charges Act, 1925, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall apply to the following instruments as if they were local land charges, that is to say:—

(a) any deed or order, whether executed or made before or after the commencement of this Act, constituting the Commissioners or a local authority guardians of an ancient monument; and

(b) any preservation scheme or notice of intention to confirm such a scheme; and

(c) any Preservation Order, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act; and

(d) any notice served on the owner of a monument, being a notice of intention to include the monument in a list published after the commencement of this Act under Section twelve of the principal Act, and any en try in a list published before the commencement of this Act
1008
under that section, recording the inclusion of a monument in that list;

and every such instrument shall be registered accordingly by the proper officer of the council of every county borough, county district or metropolitan borough comprising any part of the land affected by the instrument and, in a case where any part of that land is comprised in the City of London, by the proper officer of the Common Council:
Provided that nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall operate so as to impose any obligation to register any such instrument executed, made or served before the commencement of this Act until the expiration of three years from the commencement of this Act, or so as to discharge a purchaser from liability in respect of any such instrument which is not for the time being required to he registered.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to omit the proviso. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to ascertain the reason for the proviso. Is it to be understood that the clause imposes the duty of registering charges created with respect to ancient monuments (which have not hitherto been required to be registered) and that the only object of the proviso is to give a period of three years for instruments of charge under the Ancient Monuments Act made before the present Act comes into operation, to be registered, leaving meanwhile such instruments subject to the law as it stands? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, leave out from beginning of line 39 to end of line 4 on page 10.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the noble Viscount is under a misapprehension. This clause is a concession to purchasers and nowhere imposes any restriction upon them at all. At present all the existing instruments referred to in the proviso are binding on purchasers whether they are registered or not. It is felt that this is sonic hardship on the purchasers and that they ought to be given notice in the usual way of registration. The clause was introduced with this object alone. If the noble Viscount is satisfied with that, I will not enter into a further detailed explanation of the clause.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, after that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14:
Interpretation.
(3) For the purposes of this Act and of Section six of the principal Act, the expression "owner" in relation to a monument shall mean any person entitled to dispose of the fee simple of the site of the monument.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE snored, in subsection (3), after "person" to insert "(other than a mortgagee in possession)." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this, I think, will be the place for Lord Danesfort to make his suggestion. The object of this particular Amendment is to confine the definition of "owner" to persons who have really an effective control of the freehold. The definition of "owner" is required for the purposes of Section 6 of the principal Act, and for Cause 6 of this Bill—that is to say, for the purpose of the provisions dealing with service of notice of Preservation Orders, and notices of inclusion in the list. The object of Preservation Orders and of in-chiding monuments in the list is to preserve monuments from harmful treatment. It is considered that notice ought to be served only on those persons who are entitled to do the acts from which protection is sought. That person is the person who has the effective control of the freehold. A mortgagee who is not in possession has not effective control of the freehold. He is not entitled to do the acts from which protection is sought under this Bill, and therefore it is desired to exclude him from this definition. To give him notice would mean very great delay, and really in some cases would frustrate the object of the clause, because, as your Lordships are aware, in many of these cases the Commissioners have to act with the greatest rapidity, and unless the mortgagee is excluded from this definition it would make the procedure in some cases clumsy and dilatory.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 29, after ("person") insert ("(other than a mortgagee not in possession)").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I think, if I may say so, the noble Lord
1010
is right in the view he puts forward that it would be unreasonable to require notice to be serve0 upon a mortgagee not in possession, but is it quite certain that the words he has suggested would cover the case of a mortgagee in possession? In other words, would the Bill, if altered in the way he desires, make it compulsory to serve a mortgagee in possession? I am not quite sure, and perhaps he would consider that between now and the Third Reading. It is, I think, quite reasonable and right that if a mortgagee is in possession, having control of the property, he should be served, but would the noble Lord see that it is quite clear that he will be served? I do not go into any legal argument about it. Your Lordships will see that the particular person entitled to dispose of the fee simple of the site may not include a mortgagee in possession, because the mortgagee is not entitled to dispose of the fee simple so long as the mortgage is kept up. There is a provision in the deed that until the interest falls into arrear the mortgagee is not entitled to any remedy—to sell or come into possession or anything of that sort. Perhaps the noble Lord would kindly promise to get proper advice so that the mortgagee in possession shall receive the notice.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I will certainly do that, but, although I do not for a moment want to pose as a lawyer, I do think it is perfectly clear that if the mortgagee is in possession he has effective control over the freehold, and therefore, he is the person that would be dealt with; but I will see that it is made pefectly clear.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in subsection (3), after "entitled," to insert "either with or without the consent of any other person." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think after the discussion we have just heard that this may be regarded as a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 29, after ("entitled") insert ("either with or without the consent of any other person").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Special Provisions as to Scotland]:
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the first Amendment on this clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 40, leave out from ("Gazette") to the end of line 42.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the next is also drafting, designed to meet the difficulty with regard to monuments in Scotland.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 17, leave out from ("to") to ("area") in line 15, and insert ("any such monument which is heritable or to any such").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, after subsection (5), to insert:—
"(6) When any such instrument as is mentioned in the immediately preceding subsection is revoked or cancelled or ceases to have effect, it shall be competent to register in the appropriate register of sasines the deed or order by which such cancellation is effected, or a copy thereof certified by the Commissioners, or a certificate by the Commissioners that the instrument has ceased to have effect."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this also is as far as the Act applies to Scotland.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 9, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Provisions as to Confirmation, Variation and Revocation of Preservation Schemes.
1. Before confirming a preservation scheme (hereafter in this Schedule referred to as a "scheme"), the Commissioners shall cause to be published in the London Gazette, and in such other manner as they think best for informing persons affected, notice of their intention to confirm the scheme, of the place where copies thereof may be inspected, and of the time within which and the manner in which representations with respect to the scheme may he made, and shall cause such notice as aforesaid to be given to every local authority whose area comprises any part of the controlled area.
2. No scheme shall be confirmed until after the expiration of three months from the time when the notice referred to in the last preceding paragraph was published in the London Gazette.
3. The Commissioners, after considering any representations duly made with respect to a scheme, and after consulting the Minister of Health, may by order confirm the scheme either with or without modifications:
Provided that a scheme as so confirmed shall not apply to any area to which it would not have applied if it had been confirmed without modification.
4. A scheme when so confirmed shall come into force on such date as may be specified in the order confirming it.
5. A scheme may be varied or revoked by a subsequent scheme made under the provisions of this Act, and the Commissioners may, after consulting the Minister of Health, by order revoke a scheme if they think in the circumstances that the scheme ought to be revoked.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in provision 1, after "time," to insert "(which shall not be less than three months)." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this and the other Amendments I have to move to the First Schedule are a result of an undertaking I gave on the Committee stage. The Government propose that the time within which representations with respect to a draft scheme may be made shall be not less than three months. This makes paragraph 2 as it stood superfluous. The Office of Works clearly cannot confirm the scheme until after the expiration of three months, and therefore it is proposed to leave out the second paragraph. The Government then propose that objections to a scheme must be made in writing, stating the specific grounds of objection and the specific modifications required; and they propose that the Office of Works should have to consider objections as well as representations. That I promised in Committee. These Amendments are based on Sections 80 and 81 of the Factory and Workshops Act, 1901, and the Schedule of the Gas Regulation Act of 1920. Lord Cranworth's Amendments have been incorporated as far as possible. They were also based on the Factory and Workshops Act. The last Amendment provides that the Office of Works may make rules for the holding of such inquiries, which rules may contain provisions as to the costs of the inquiries. Lord Cranworth's Amendments did not provide for this, but some direction as to procedure is necessary, and under the Factory and Workshops Act the Minister may make such rules while under the Town Plan-

1013
ning Act of 1925 the Minister may direct how and in what proportion costs are to be paid. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 10, alter ("time") insert ("(which shall not be less than three months)").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 14, line 15, leave out paragraph 2 and insert:
("2. Any person affected by the scheme may, within the time appointed under the last foregoing paragraph for making representations, send to the Commissioners written objection to the scheme stating the specific grounds of objection and the specific modifications required.")
Page 14, line 18, after ("representations") insert ("and objections")
Page 14, line 20, alter ("Health") insert ("and the Minister of Transport")
Page 14, line 22, after ("that") insert:
("(a) where an objection has been duly made to the scheme by any person appearing to the Commissioners to be affected thereby and has not been withdrawn, the Commissioners, unless they consider the objection to be frivolous or have modified the scheme as required by the objection, shall, before confirming the scheme, direct a public inquiry to be held as hereinafter provided and consider the report of the person who held the inquiry; and
(b)")
Page 14, line 24, at end insert:
("4. Any inquiry under this Schedule shall he held in accordance with rules made by the Commissioners for the purpose, and such rules may contain provisions as to the costs of the inquiry.")
Page 14, line 28, leave out ("made under the provisions of this Act").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY SHULBREDE moved, after the First Schedule, to insert the following new Schedule:—
Provisions as to Compensation.
"1. No person shall be entitled to compensation in respect of a preservation scheme unless within three months from the date on which the scheme comes into force, or within such further time as the Commissioners may in special circumstances allow, he makes a claim for the purpose in such manner as the Commissioners may by regulations prescribe.
"2. A person shall not be entitled to compensation by reason of the fact that any act or thing done or caused to be done by him has been rendered abortive by a preservation scheme, if or so far as the act or thing was done after toe date on which the Commissioners published in the London
1014
Gazette notice of their intention to confirm the scheme, or by reason of the fact that the performance of any contract made by him after that date is prohibited by the scheme.
"3. Where any provision of a preservation scheme was, immediately before the scheme came into force, already in force by virtue of this or any other Act, no compensation shall be payable by reason of any property being injuriously affected by that provision of the preservation scheme if compensation has been paid, or could have been claimed, or was not payable, by reason of that property having been injuriously affected by the provision already in force.
"4. Where any provision of a preservation scheme could, immediately before the scheme came into force, have been validly included in a scheme, order, regulation or by-law by virtue of any other Act, then—

(a) if no compensation would have been payable by reason of the inclusion of that provision in that scheme, order, regulation or by-law, no compensation shall be payable in respect of that provision of the preservation scheme; and

(b) if compensation would have been so payable, the compensation payable in respect of that provision of the preservation scheme shall not he greater than the compensation which would have been so payable.

"5. Any dispute as to whether any property is injuriously affected by a preservation scheme, or as to the amount of the sum which is to be paid as compensation in respect of such a scheme, shall be determined by arbitration under and in accordance with the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a new Schedule. The original Schedule dropped out when Clause 2 was removed in Committee and it is restored by this new Schedule. An Amendment has been made in paragraph 1 on the lines of one which was put down by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, on the Committee stage, but which he had not an opportunity of moving. This is an extension of the time within which claims for compensation may be made beyond the rigid limit of three months. The time will be three months or such further time as the Commissioners may, in special circumstances, allow. Otherwise there are only small verbal alterations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, insert the said new Schedule.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrerle.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting at the end of paragraph (1) "and if no such regulations are for the time being in force, then such claims shall be in writing and be signed by him or his

1015
duly authorised agent." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for having given this extra time, but I desire that the noble Lord's Amendment shall be amended by adding at the end of paragraph (1) the words on the Paper. Suppose there were no regulations in force for the time being, then the wretched applicant will not be able to make any objection at all. You have only to remember what happened in the case of the Irish Settlement Act with regard to the election of Irish Peers. The office of the only person who could call the Irish Peers together was abolished, and so there is no machinery for their election. The noble Lord moved an Amendment to the first Schedule to leave out paragraph 2 and to insert:—
"Any person affected by the scheme may, within the time appointed under the last foregoing paragraph for making representations, send to the Commissioners written objection to the scheme stating the specific grounds of objection and the specific modifications required."
If it can be done there, surely it can be done in ordinary writing without any rules being prescribed. For those reasons I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
At end of paragraph 1 insert ("and if no such regulations are for the time being in force, then such claims shall be in writing and be signed by him or his duly authorised agent").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I really do not think that the case which the noble Viscount describes could possibly arise. The Commissioners will obviously make regulations applicable to every case. Unless they do so they cannot work the provisions of the Schedule. I do not think the Amendment is really necessary.
On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, may I now raise the general question of compensation and where it is to come from? We have already, to-day, carried an Amendment to Clause 1 providing—
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I should like to know what particular Amendment the noble Lord is on. I understood that we had gone through all the Amendments.
LORD DANESFORT: I am on the proposal that this new Schedule be inserted in the Bill. The question whether this new Schedule should stand part of the Bill has not been put. I am speaking on that general question, and I want to ask where this compensation is to come from. We have this afternoon passed an Amendment to Clause 1 that
"Any person whose property is injuriously affected by the coming into force of a preservation scheme shall be entitled to obtain compensation in respect thereof from the Commissioners, subject to the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act."
There is nothing in the Bill to say where this compensation is to come from. It is not to come from the Commissioners' own pockets, I presume, and it must come, I take it, from moneys provided by Parliament.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: If the noble Lord will look at Clause 13 of the Bill he will see that it provides that "all expenses incurred by the Commissioners under this Act shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament."
LORD DANESFORT: Well, I confess, it did not strike me that that would extend to compensation. I thought it referred only to expenses incurred in the normal working of the Act. if that is what it means, I really think it is important that it should he made clear before the Bill leaves this House that the expenses mentioned in Clause 13 are to include compensation. I do not think it is clear as it stands. The clause refers to expenses incurred under the Act. Compensation is hardly an expense incurred. It is a liability which the Commissioners are under in certain cases where a claim for compensation arises. I would ask the noble Lord on Third Reading to put into Clause 13, after the words "all expenses incurred," the words "including compensation payable under this Act." That would make it clear. We do not want to have legal discussions as to where compensation is to come from, and we do not want to be told that there is no provision for making compensation.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I think it is absolutely clear in Clause 13. That clause says "all expenses incurred by the Commissioners under this Act," and compensation is obviously one

1017
of the expenses that is going to be incurred. I think the noble Lord will find that the clause entirely covers the point.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, is the noble Lord really quite clear about this? Would such an important matter as compensation really be covered by the expenses of the Commissioners? One would really think that expenses related to out-of-pocket expenses and small matters of that, kind. Is the noble Lord quite clear that the actual compensation for land taken, and for action taken in the preservation of these amenities, and for land adjoining these ancient monuments, is to be paid under this clause? I think it is an unusual form anyhow.
LORD PONSONBY or SHULBREDE: I personally have no doubt in my own mind, but as such an authority as a former First Commissioner of Works says that it is not absolutely clear, I will consult my advisers to see that the point is made clear and is put beyond doubt before Third Reading. But so far as I am advised Clause 13 covers the point completely.
EARL PEEL: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would give us his opinion on the subject? H he would do that I should be quite content.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, proposes to consider the matter with his advisers I do not think it, necessary for me to say anything at this moment. But I am obliged to the noble Earl for his appeal to me.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
VISCOUNT EMBANK VISCOUNT EMBANK had the following Notice on the Paper—To call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the enormous increase in the past year in the number of unemployed, and to the unsatisfactory way in which they have dealt with the situation, and to ask what measures they are taking and propose to take to reduce this unemployment; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I make no apologies for the Motion which stands in my name because it raises an
1018
issue—the issue of unemployment—which is, and should be, paramount in the minds of everyone to-day. We are facing to-day the most serious and the gravest economic crisis through which this country has ever passed. That the subject of unemployment should be debated in your Lordships' House is as inevitable as it is fitting. It is just about eight months since I introduced a similar Motion into your Lordships' House, and upon that occasion I ventured to include in my Motion certain practical proposals for remedying the situation. The proposals were three fold—the safeguarding of our home industries, anti-dumping measures and Empire economic unity. Your Lordships were good enough on that occasion to support me in the Division Lobby by a very substantial majority. What was the Government's attitude to those proposals? They completely declined to consider them from any point of view at all.
Since then the economic position has gone from bad to worse. At that time, in May, 1930—that is, eight months ago—unemployment stood at the figure of 1,750,000. To-day it has reached the alarming figure of 2,600,000. 850,000 more in eight months; or, to put it in another way, for every day of that eight months, 3,500 more people have gone out of work; or for every hour of the day and night in that eight months 150 people have gone out of work. What 'have the Government done to alleviate that position? Whatever shape their efforts have taken, I think that your Lordships will agree that they have been futile and barren. The right hon, gentleman, Mr. Thomas, who, as Minister for Unemployment, in May, 1930, was boasting that he had found work for 100,000 men, has since given up his job in disgust because he cannot have free play for his ideas for treating this festering sore of unemployment. He, at least, from his experience knows what the remedies ought to be. He, like many other members of the present Cabinet, has been lulled to sleep by the hypnotic influence of the archpriest of Cobdenism, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Hartshorn, who succeeded Mr. Thomas, has been equally unsuccessful in solving this problem. If the latest figures that we are given, which I believe have been quoted in another place, are correct, he has found work for 83,000 people, which is even

1019
less than the number reached by his predecessor. I venture to suggest that probably some of those 83,000 people are legacies of the schemes of the late Minister for Unemployment.
It is all a farce. There has been no serious practical effort on the part of the Government to grapple with this dire disease. Nothing but threadbare and worn-out theories have governed their plans and administration, and now they are trying to cover up their failure and confusion by throwing a smoke-screen across their path in the shape of an Electoral Reform Bill and a Trades Disputes Amendment Bill, neither of which the country desires, and both of which will, in my opinion, do great injury to our political and economic conditions. If the Government had even practised economy, there might have been something to say for them for leaving undone that which they ought to have done, but economy has not even entered into their composition. What has been their record in that respect? First of all, we have the relaxation of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, as a result of which the country has to bear an expense of something like £50,000,000 a year, and it is almost as easy for a person to go on the "dole" as it is for me to walk out of this House. Then we have an Education Bill, and an Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, both of which are going to cost the taxpayers a great many more millions of pounds, unless both of them, as I hope, ultimately find their way into the lethal chamber.
All this shows that the Government have deliberately, with their eyes open, been throwing dust into the eyes of the electors. I think that you will agree that at least they have avoided bringing into force one of the principal remedies that would have helped the situation. I refer to the protection or safeguarding of our home industries. Indeed, in order to Show their disdain of that method of assisting the problem, they have even gone so far as to decline to renew within the past few months certain Safeguarding Duties which were of great value to the industries concerned, and they have done this in spite of the opposition of a great many people in the country, not only those opposed to their policy but those who have supported them in the House of Commons and sup-
1020
port them in the country. In addition, the Government have announced their intention of going still further, if they are in power then—which I hope they may not be—by not renewing other Safeguarding Duties, which likewise are doing a great deal of good to the industries for which they are imposed.
I do not wish to be unfair to the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech in the House of Commons yesterday, suggested that the right hon. gentleman who moved the Motion upon economy had been unfair to him because he had attributed the whole of the unemployment that exists to-day to the Government, and had not attributed any part of it to the world crisis. I admit that part of the unemployment is due to the world crisis, but I will not admit that the whole of it is due to the world crisis, because we know perfectly well that this is not the case. The world crisis has been affecting the nations of the world for only the past year and a half, but this unfortunate country has been suffering agony and has been painfully struggling through a crisis for at least ten years. I venture to suggest to the Government that a year and a half ago, when they came into power, we were beginning to emerge from that struggle, and I venture to suggest further that, if the remedies had been applied which we Conservatives and Unionists believe in—the protection of our home industries, antidumping measures, Empire economic unity—you would have found a very much sounder condition to-day in this country, in spite of the world crisis.
So far as I can see, the principal concern of this Government is for the foreigner. If we are to judge by their action and their non-action, they do not seem to care if our people are ground down by foreign competition, if foreign produce and foreign goods flood our markets, if that foreign produce or foreign goods are the fruits of Russian forced labour, or slave labour, or sweated conditions. They cry: "Let them all come in." It may put some of our people out of work, but the goods are cheap; and "Cheapness at any price" seems to be their motto. "Let the foreigner prosper and the Britisher perish": that is their watchword. In this callous and suicidal policy

1021
they have the most effective alders and abettors in the Liberal Party in the House of Commons. For the first time in their history, as far as I know, the Liberal Party, that great and fearless Party, fear to face the electors.
Last night, in the House of Commons, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a speech which has resounded through the country, in which for the first time he announced to the country something which we have said over and over again and which has been reiterated from these Benches on many occasions during the past year. He told us that the economic condition of this country was very grave indeed. He even acknowledged that if any more taxation were put upon industry it would be the last straw. It seems to me that this is a death-bed repentance—or rather I wish it were, and if it were not for the Liberal Party perhaps it might be. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also, very hesitatingly I admit, accepted a Committee on Economy. I welcome that Committee, but I have great doubts whether, when and if that Committee reports—because it may not report, like the Committee on Unemployment Insurance, which was pushed aside in order that a Commission might be set up in its place—I have very grave doubts whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to persuade the Party of which he is so distinguished a member to support the conclusions of that Committee.
Again, his remarks left me wondering what he meant by the term "industry." Does "industry" include the agricultural industry, or may it not be that once more that unfortunate Cinderella will receive another blow beneath the belt? In any case, from the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I could not help thinking, knowing as one does what a bugbear land is to the Socialists, that land will have to put up with a hard knock in the next Budget. Economy is not the only thing that matters, my Lords. It is a very important factor, but it is not the only one that matters. We must have something more. We must secure, if we are really going to get out of the rut, our home markets for ourselves, or such of them as we want to secure for ourselves. We must, moreover, expand our trade with the Empire, in order to increase our export trade, and it is only in that way, in my belief, that we can,
1022
together with economy, hope to restore the confidence of the country, to revive our trade, and to emerge from the morass in which we are struggling.
As I have said, economy is not sufficient. The country is groaning under the heaviest taxation that it has ever had. We shall be face to face, within a very short time, with a new Budget foreshadowing a deficit of probably £50,000,000. How is that going to be met? We know that we cannot bear any more direct taxation. The Government say that they will not have indirect taxation or protective taxation, and yet, on the other hand, when we turn to those who understand these questions, and who are working amongst them in the country, we find that the most important representatives of the banking world, of commerce, and manufacture and agriculture, have called upon the Government—even the Trade Union Congress itself, which is protected up to the hilt, except in one respect—to change the fiscal system. Nevertheless, they will not do so. Even an influential section of their own Party in the House of Commons and in the country, led by one of their youngest recruits, Sir Oswald Mosley, has declared for Protection. Yet the Government answers, "No! Emphatically no!" Micawber-like they are waiting, I suppose, for something else to turn up, and, like Micawber's, their credit is getting lower and lower. The worst of it is that meanwhile the credit of the country is also sinking. This afternoon I am asking the Government what they intend to do about it. What sort of reply shall I receive? So far as the practical remedies which I have outlined are concerned, I fear the reply will be in the negative, but I venture to say to the Government that until those remedies are applied I can see no cessation of the grievous state of unemployment which is slowly but surely strangling our nation to-day. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I think we are indebted to my noble friend for having brought, this matter forward, but if he expects to get an answer of any value from the Government I think he will be grievously disappointed, because I cannot conceive, even with the greatest respect for the noble Lord opposite who looks as if he is going to reply, that there is any answer to this Motion, although there is an answer which will

1023
satisfy the unfortunate dupes, the mass of the working classes, who put the Government in office on the strength of their promises and their pledges, written and spoken, before and during the Election, that they would deal with unemployment and deal with it successfully. What are the figures? When we left office in June, 1929, there were 1,100,000 on the unemployment register. A year afterwards, when this Government which was going to remedy unemployment had been in office for twelve months, the number was 1,775,000. On February 3 of this year the number in receipt of unemployment benefit was 2,624,000.
By some means or other the Government induced the people to believe that they had a remedy for unemployment, and I want to call not merely your Lordships' attention but the attention of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Passfield) to the very definite promises and pledges given by his colleagues in this matter. I have not been able to find a speech by the noble Lord himself. Perhaps he has been a little more careful in these matters than some of his colleagues. The Prime Minister himself led off with an article in the Daily Herald in April, 1929, when the Election was imminent, and he told the people there that the Labour Government was the only Government which could deal with the problem of unemployment with courageous determination. Courageous determination !—and the numbers are more than doubled.
"Nobody will reduce unemployment to the normal level"—
said the Prime Minister at Middlesbrough in the middle of the Election—
"more quickly than the Labour Party."
Well, I cannot say that they have reduced it to the normal very quickly: they have more than doubled it. But then the Prime Minister—the Leader of the Opposition as he then was—seemed to be quite clear about the merits of his policy, and broadcast it all over the country, so that the occupants of every cottage throughout the land might be revived in their spirits by the pledge which was given—the pledge upon which this Government came into office.
I call the attention of the noble Lord opposite to this because there seems to be, as far as I have been able to read the signs of the times during the last week or two, some kind of agreement, of
1024
collusive friendship, between the Government and the Liberal Party, which is going to lead them to embark upon some scheme or another of artificial work—work provided for the multitude in order that the figures on the unemployment register may be reduced. The Government's position on that is perfectly clear. It was made perfectly clear by the Prime Minister in this broadcast appeal. He said:—
"Unemployment cannot be cured by relief work, nor by patchwork of any kind.… Labour's programme for dealing with unemployment is, therefore, not a programme of relief works upon which the capital spent will be mainly lost to the country."
I imagine the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have had that broadcast appeal in his mind when he made that speech yesterday, when he was supposed to be standing firm against "patchwork" of this kind. The Labour programme, said Mr. Ramsay MacDonald—
"is designed to add to the wealth and efficiency of the nation, to give a spur to industry, and to open the way to markets."
If I may respectfully say so, I agree with Mr. Ramsay MacDonald in this respect. Charity is not what the workpeople of this country want; "doles" are not what they want; artificial work is not what they want: they want a spur to be given to the industry of the country. They want the ordinary processes of manufacture, export and exchange to get working again. I hope I should not be considered rude if I were to say to the noble Lord opposite that what really prevents industry reviving, what really prevents the trades of the country from getting back to full employment, is the lack of confidence which the whole country feels in consequence of the policy of the present Government. And it will not be, in my view, until this Government is relieved of its functions of government that that confidence which is so lacking will be able to return.
But they went further—and I really want to give the noble Lord an opportunity of explaining why they got office and why, when they got it on what I submit were false pretences, they did nothing of the kind. Mr. Philip Snowden said in the Daily Herald on June 3, 1929—
"In our first Session we shall deal with unemployment and bring relief and hope

1025
to the workers of this land. We shall not disappoint those who have shown a belief in us."
There you see the effect of the pledge. Pledges were given before the Election. People were told what they had to expect, and immediately afterwards the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Daily Herald raid said: "We shall not disappoint them; we will deal with it in the very first Session." And at the Socialist Conference which followed in October of that year, we were told that the Government would be judged by their handling of that problem of unemployment, and it would be judged rightly for good or for ill. That statement was made by one of the noble Lord's colleagues, Mr. Thomas, the right hon. gentleman who became Minister for Unemployment, who was prepared to co-ordinate all the great efforts of this great and powerful Government. I have no doubt he had all their pledges in his mind—he made some himself, I believe, as a matter of fact; and, having done that, he was given by the Prime Minister the power and the responsibility of implementing (to use the Scottish expression) those pledges, doing something for this vast army of work-people who are out of employment.
One of their members, a lady, went a great deal further and said:—
"We will deal with the people who are suffering from hunger and cold, from want of boots, from want of milk, and want of clothes. These are things which a Labour Government can cure within three weeks of coming into office."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): What is the context?
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: The context was a speech on unemployment.
LORD PASSFIELD: Quotation without the context!
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I have read a good long sentence.
LORD PASSFIELD: Context, context!
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: The noble Lord can explain the context if he likes, and explain what that meant. All I know is what the poor people of the country thought when they read that speech, and said: "These are the things which the Labour Government can cure within three weeks of coming into
1026
office." What would they expect, context or no context? What would a man out of work, with a starving wife and children—wanting, as the right hon. member said, boots, milk and clothes—what would a family like that think, when they read that speech by the colleague of the noble Lord opposite in the Government? It is all very well to talk about context, but I wonder whether the people who heard those speeches had any knowledge of context. It is all very well if you give a direct and definite intimation to people that their ills are going to be cured. You cannot get out of it by saying that there is a context here or there, which the unfortunate people have never read. That is the kind of sentences which appeared in every speech, in every writing and document published by the Labour Party.
I am not going to accuse the Government of being responsible altogether for this great mass of unemployment, but I say at once that I think the lack of confidence felt by the country in the Government is a very great cause, and I think also that their obstinate refusal even to consider the proposals which my noble friend has made for some form of Safeguarding and Protection is another cause. I do not want to turn the debate into a discussion of Free Trade or Protection, but having regard to the condition of the country to-day and having regard to the statements made by commercial bodies, by bankers and by Trade Union Congresses and others, I am surprised that the Government, still dominated, I take it, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, refuse even to consider any form of Safeguarding or any act in that direction. At all events, a great number of people who are concerned in industry very honestly believe that that policy would enable our trade to take a turn for the better, and it is the turn for the better which the country is so anxiously looking out for.
That is the acid test in regard to the pledges of this Government. I cannot help feeling that if any ordinary person had made pledges of that kind in regard to a non-political matter he would have found himself in the Old Bailey for obtaining goods or gold by false pretences. The Government have obtained office and all that office brings—power, position—by false pretences and by no

1027
other means. The noble Lord may not like the speeches of some of his colleagues, but let me call his attention to this. This is "Labour's Appeal to the Nation." It is the official document of the Party upon which they went to the General Election. The noble Lord himself, I am sure, will not deny that he is as personally responsible for that appeal as any other member of his Party. They put this matter very frankly and very fully. This is the actual foundation stone of their electoral policy. It contains the pledges they gave and the policy they put before the country. It says—
"The Labour Party gives an unqualified pledge to deal immediately and practically with the question."
They have had eighteen months. Did they deal with it immediately? Have they dealt with it practically? Have they reduced by one the number of the unemployed?—which would be dealing practically with it. The noble Lord cannot say that. They have doubled the number of the unemployed they have more than doubled it. When they have found employment for one man, they have thrown another out of work.
LORD PASSFIELD: We have doubled unemployment?
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: You have failed in your pledges to reduce unemployment undoubtedly.
A NOELS LORD: They have added to it.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: It is idle for the noble Lord to sit there and smile. When the time comes for him to go to the hustings—I beg the noble Lord's pardon, he will not go to the hustings, nor shall I; we are absolved from such troubles for the rest of our lives; but when his colleagues go to the hustings, does the noble Lord think that those pledges will not be remembered? Does he think that it will be sufficient for those unfortunate people who are still out of employment, whose numbers have been doubled, nearly trebled, from what they were when the Government came in, to say that there are world causes for unemployment? There were world causes when we were in office. There were troubles in India, in China and all over the world. There are no worse world causes now than there were then. The noble Lord's Government have made no
1028
effort to restore the industries or to develop the country. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us what has been done on this part of the pledge—
"The Labour Party's plan for dealing with unemployment is to provide work."
The noble Lord shakes his head, but here is the document. That is the beginning of a paragraph; there is no context here. It says:
"The Labour Party's plan for dealing with unemployment is to provide work."
I will read the addendum to that—
"but pending the absorption of the unemployed in regular occupation it will take steps to relieve the present distress."
Will the noble Lord's answer to that be:
"We have not improved the condition of trade; we have not made work possible; we have not provided employment; but we have encouraged the 'dole' from one end of the country to the other"? As far as I can see that is the only possible answer that can be made.
Might I also remind the noble Lord that it was said in one of the Labour Party's leaflets that Labour was going to stimulate the export trade in iron and steel and the engineering and textile manufactures. What have they done to stimulate the export trades? What have they done to stimulate engineering and textiles? I suppose the noble Lord knows that in every one of those great trades of the country there is far more unemployment than there was when the present Government came into office. In the iron and steel trades unemployment has trebled since they came into office, and in engineering it has nearly trebled. In shipbuilding it has more than doubled, and in cotton, without regard to the present trouble in Lancashire but before that began, there was nearly four times as much unemployment as existed when the present Government came into office.
What have they stimulated? I am afraid the noble Lord will think that my remarks are somewhat of an interrogatory character, but that is what we want to find out. We are groping in the dark to discover what they have done to carry out these pledges to stimulate trade. It is true that they have increased the "dole." They have done away with a great many of the safeguards which existed in connection with unemployment insurance when we left it. They cut out

1029
the clause with regard to genuinely seeking work, and that involved, I think, the addition of about another 110,000 to the unemployment register. The well-known speech of the Attorney-General comes to my mind—I have no doubt it is in the mind of the noble Lord opposite—in which, when dealing with that very clause (I need not read that speech, it is quite well known), he asked, "Are they to sit at home and smoke their pipes and wait till an offer comes to them, or are they to go out and help themselves? Because," added the Attorney-General piously, "God helps those who help themselves." A very fine speech! It could not have been bettered by Mr. Pecksniff himself. A day or two afterwards that speech was thrown over, the clause was thrown over and 110,000 people were added to the register.
LORD PASSFIELD: Not to the unemployed.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: To the registered unemployed—and the liability was taken from them of seeking work. However, I will not bandy words with the noble Lord. Both he and I know quite well the terms of the debate and of the Act which was passed by this Government. I admit that they have exceeded all possibility even of expectation in regard to the unemployed benefits, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not seem happy about it whatever the noble Lord may be. A million a week added to the debt! I remember that when Miss Bondfield brought in a Bill for a further loan of £10,000,000, she denounced the idea of doing that again and again. But the slope was slippery, and the right hon. lady slipped very easily on the slope not only once or twice, but I believe she is going to do it again, and is coming for another £10,000,000. Is there no limit to the number of these sums of £10,000,000 that the noble Lord and his colleagues would add to the debt of this country? If they were able by these means to get rid of unemployment, if they at least borrowed the money in order to create genuine work there would be something to be said for it.
While on the one hand I will not say that they make unemployment, but by their obstinate refusal to consider the proposals put before them, either by the
1030
Liberal Party or the Conservative Party, they have allowed the unemployment register to increase by a million and a-half; on the other hand, they are adding to the difficulties of the country by piling up these debts. I do not know whether the noble Lord has any idea, I certainly have no idea, of how they can possibly attempt to repay them. They might just as well have said a few months or a year ago: "We are going to abolish the Sinking Fund." They have in effect abolished the Sinking Fund by borrowing more, and so far as one can gather from their own statements, from the reports of their own officials, and the bringing forward of these repeated bills for £10,000,000, there seems to be no possibility of reducing the number on the unemployment register, but rather that it will continue to increase.
The matter is too serious to be treated lightly. I am glad that my noble friend has raised it because we want a definite statement from the Government. First of all, I should like even an admission from them that they regret the position, that they are not happy about the vast number of the unemployed, and that they are going to take some steps to deal with the vast problems of unemployment and the ever growing debt in respect to the unemployment insurance. Unless they are prepared to give us some definite answer, I say with great respect to the noble Lord and his colleagues that they have obtained their position by pledges which I have read to your Lordships and which are as definite as pledges could be, they have taken no steps to fulfil them but have sat back with folded arms and have scorned every effort and every suggestion that has been made by us to them for the improvement of trade. In addition to that they have allowed this Unemployment Fund to go on and on until their own Chancellor of the Exchequer is startled into the speech which he made in the other House yesterday.
He has told the whole world—not merely Great Britain but the whole world—that the position of our finances is, I will not say dangerous, but serious, because of this cumulative expenditure. I know your Lordships' House is not supposed to deal with finance in its details, but finance, which is at the very basis of the prosperity of the trade and commerce of this country, is a matter

1031
that your Lordships can at least ask for a decision of the Government upon. The questions I desire to put to them in amplification of those which my noble friend so well put are: First, have you any real hope of reducing this number of unemployed in the near future? Would you be prepared to-day to make one tithe of those pledges which you made in April, May and June of 1929, about dealing with unemployment? Secondly, I put to them this: What do you propose to do in regard to the increasing mass of debt on the unemployment insurance?
£10,000,000 added to the debt means £10,000,000 taken out of the trade and commerce of this country. Every pound of it—if you like to take it at such a small figure as that—is taken out of the pockets of the people, because sooner or later it has to come out of the pockets of the people. Mr. Gladstone was right when he said it is better that money should fructify in the pockets of the people than that it should go into the Treasury. I know you have not got this vast sum yet; I know you have not actually taken it out of the pockets of the people. I think it is even worse; it is a debt hanging over the pockets of the people. It is a debt which makes people say that they are not prepared to go to the expense of putting in new machinery, or incur any expenditure upon factories or new schemes for providing work, because they know that this great debt—and, if I may be permitted to say so, this illegal finance, this unstable finance of the Government coupled with what I have said with regard to unemployment insurance—is acting and reacting upon everything. I ask the noble Lord whether he can give the House any undertaking of any kind that this debt will he cleared off in the near future, that an effort will be made to deal with it; I do not mean by waiting until some Royal Commission reports in 1932, but whether the Government will take their courage in both hands, and re-convert unemployment insurance into what it was meant to be, an insurance and not a "dole."
LORD PASSFIELD: My Lords, I make no complaint of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, for raising this Question once more, still less do I make any complaint of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, who has just spoken. I might perhaps
1032
have suggested that a little less screaming and a little less scolding would be appropriate. However, everyone has his own way of doing things. I am not going to attempt to pursue the path that has been pursued. Otherwise, as noble Lords must know, there is something to be said about the conduct of our predecessors. But that does not make things any better for either of us. Whilst there is something I could say in the same style, though with far less success, about our predecessors, still, as I say, that does not make things any better. I therefore propose to rule that out. The noble Viscount asked me whether I regretted the position. I do not think anybody can be aware of the position of things in this country to-day, and the position of things in other countries of the world to-day, without being quite seriously concerned about that position, and, of course, regretting it. I do not know whether the noble Viscount was really serious when he suggested that the Government had refused to consider any proposal and had taken no steps, but had sat back with folded arms. I do not think the noble Viscount can really believe that.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I wait to hear the noble Lord's reply.
LORD PASSFIELD: The question was merely put to hear my reply? Surely it meant something. Surely it meant an accusation that the Government had sat back with folded arms, and had taken no steps. If the noble Lord merely meant that as a question, well, he disguised it rather successfully.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Will the noble Lord forgive me? It was my courtesy which caused me to interject just now and say I will await the noble Lord's reply. I quite definitely meant it.
LORD PASSFIELD: Perhaps I misunderstood the noble Viscount. Perhaps he did not mean to say that the Government had sat back with folded arms.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I did mean it.
LORD PASSFIELD: I am not going to reply to that. If the noble Viscount really thinks that the Government has sat back with folded arms and has not worked at this question with anxiety, almost continuously, well, I leave him to

1033
his reflections. I am in a difficulty in replying to the speeches which have been made, because they have been rather wandering, they have been rather unconventional in their style and they have travelled over a great deal of ground. Let me go on as I began. The noble Viscount asked me if I regretted the position. Is there anybody who can do otherwise than regard the position as extremely grave, especially because it is not in this country only, or in this country chiefly, that it is so grave? Obviously no one could do otherwise than regret the position. But regret hardly helps us in the matter. Then, I am going to rule out another of the noble Viscount's questions. He asked me what was going to be done about the debt, and so on. The noble Viscount knows that I could not, even if I knew, anticipate the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, honestly, I do not know exactly what he is going to propose about it, But when the noble Viscount talked about illegal finance I thought he was going a little far. He is a master of words. He knew what he meant by saying illegal finance. Have the Government done anything which is illegal? Of course not. Every step the Government have taken has been lawful and legal, and it would have been very quickly pointed out in the House of Commons if it had been otherwise than legal. I think the noble Viscount ought to withdraw that attitude. It is not a question of illegal finance.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Perhaps the noble Lord is correct. I will withdraw the word "illegal." Perhaps he will allow me to substitute "grossly improper."
LORD PASSFIELD: impropriety is one of those things that is a matter of taste. Otherwise, we might talk about the part of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in these matters. But I should not have suggested that anything he did was illegal. The noble Viscount also, in the same vein, accused us of having obtained office under false pretences.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD PASSFIELD: I am accustomed to that cheering, but perhaps the noble Viscount does not realise that the documents from which he quoted do not bear
1034
out that interpretation. As a matter of fact the one document which is so often quoted, "Labour and the Nation," as the noble Viscount knows—no doubt he has read it besides having quotations from it found for him—contains some 53 pages. It is a statement of the aims of the Labour Party, not for one Session, not for two Sessions but for a generation. No doubt, it might have been improved. It may show a lack of political wisdom even to discuss matters as far off as that. The Labour Party at any rate believes in the education of the people in politics. We did deliberately at that time—I have forgotten when it was, probably three or four years ago—lay down what we wanted to do for a generation. When you come to the Election programme, it is another matter, and, although it is a very full programme, and contains a great many things very much in conflict and contradiction of the maxims of old electioneerers like Mr. Gladstone, for instance, it quite definitely sums it all up by saving that it is the programme for a majority.
The noble Viscount said we had come into power under false pretences. But we never got a majority. We have never had a majority in the House of Commons for these things. The noble Viscount knows that quite well, but that does not prevent him holding us up to scorn for having pledged ourselves to do things when we got a majority, and then, when we have to take office—not power—without a majority, he asks why we have not done things which we said we would do if we had a, majority.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble Lord whether, if the Labour Party had a majority, they would have solved the unemployment question?
LORD PASSFIELD: What do you mean by solving the unemployment question?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Reducing their numbers.
LORD PASSFIELD: I mean something much more than that. I really cannot begin to talk about unemployment with this sort of repartee or accusation across the Table. I want to ask your Lordships to listen to me for a few minutes on the question of unemployment. A great deal has been said, and very rightly, of the number 2,600,000, but I would remind

1035
your Lordships that the noble Viscount's Notice was "to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the enormous increase in the past year in the number of unemployed." That is quite right. Something has happened in the past year. These 2,600,000 unemployed—who are, of course, not a fixed army but a shifting army—may be divided into what I may call four main classes. I would not trouble your Lordships with that if it were not necessary in order to go on to the consideration of the cause of the trouble and the kind of remedy or solution that can be found. There is no remedy, there is no solution, for the mass of 2,600,000 unemployed. The problem can only be approached with any reason, with any fairness, if we consider what the unemployed are.
I first take as one of these four classes—it is a very rough calculation—the smallest of them, though it is considerable of course. They are what are called the abuses, the people who have got unemployment benefit while having no legal or moral right to it at all. That we have reason to believe is a quite insignificant number. Such as it is, it ought to be prevented. It is prevented to a large extent and it ought to be completely prevented. But it is an insignificant number. Then you have an abuse—unfortunately a lawful abuse—of the scheme. It is an abuse which has been met with to an even more serious extent in the German scheme than with us. It is threefold. There are the married women who claim unemployment benefit when they get married but have not any real intention of remaining in their occupation. Then there are the seasonal workers who are paid unemployment benefit in the off season when they are unemployed, and there are workers on short time whose short time is so manipulated as to make them eligible for unemployment benefit. Their working days are so arranged as to make them fit the scheme. That great class of what I call the lawful evaders has to be dealt with.
It is not, I would venture to say, the present Government which is particularly responsible for that. We did not invent the whole scheme of unemployment insurance. I remember that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was the real begetter of that. He did me the honour
1036
to tell me about it at a very early stage and I deprecated it. I did not think it was safe or that it was possible. But it was carried out, as you know, under the Coalition Government. These people, the married women, the seasonal workers and the short-time workers are lawfully entitled to their insurance benefit. They have paid their contributions. They are not outside insurance and they have not run out of benefit. But it is a very serious abuse and steps must be taken to alter it. That, however, requires legislation and we cannot proceed with that until we know the precise way in which it can be stopped. The Government, I venture to say, is not to blame for that. The same abuse existed during the life-time of the last Government and helped to make up the 1,000,000 unemployed which was almost static. I know that since then the difficulty has increased owing to the collapse of Lancashire. That and other reasons have probably increased the numbers in the case of married women and short-time workers. But the abuse existed before and has gone on for the last ten years. That is one class.
Another class is the chronic pre-War unemployment—the unemployment which existed before the War, which exists at all times in this country, which must exist to a greater or lesser extent in every moving and developing country owing to seasonal fluctuations and the changes in the labour market, and so on. That accounted before the War for an average of 4½ per cent., amounting to 500,000 or 600,000. That exists to this day and nothing has effectively been done to cope with that. I regret it. Nothing was done by the late Government and nothing has been done by this Government. They have been so overwhelmed with other matters that I am going to talk about that they have not been able to go on with the work which was begun before the War. That is to say, the only remedy for that kind of unemployment is not work, is not "doles," is not insurance: it is better organisation of the labour market.
The labour exchanges were a good beginning, but unfortunately the organisation of the labour exchanges has never yet extended to the employers of the country, except in one or two instances. There is no way of coping with that kind of unemployment which was in

1037
existence before the War either by money or by work. We must better organise the whole community. A type of unemployment to which that particularly applies is the casual labour at the docks. There is no remedy for that in money, there is no remedy for that in relief works, there is no remedy for that except in better organisation of the industry. That applies to all this mass of unemployment. Noble Lords who care to look can find all about it in Professor Beveridge's book, or for that matter in the Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission of twenty years ago. Practically nothing has been done by successive Governments to give that better organisation of the community which is the only remedy for all that great mass of unemployment which makes up at least one-fourth of the total.
Then we come to post-War unemployment—that which has given us that almost static million. They were not the same people of course, and the numbers fluctuated a little, but they did not vary much up or down from the million. Whatever Government was in office—and there have been several Governments succeeding each other—the number did not alter. That amounts to about 7 per cent., added to the 4½ per cent. I have just mentioned. Attempts were made by the late Government and the Government before the last Government and so on, to deal with that, and attempts have been made by the present Government. Your Lordships would not wish me to take up time about that, but as a matter of fact a White Paper was presented only in December last—No. 3746, "Statement of the principal measures taken by His Majesty's Government in connection with unemployment." If the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, had read that—I am sure he has read it, but if he had done us the honour of believing what was stated—I suppose that, when the Government says that it has done something, the noble Viscount would not suppose that we were telling a lie?
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Certainly not.
LORD PASSFIELD: At any rate I can say that we have endeavoured, in answer to pressure, to find out how many men we were providing work for at any given time last December. That question
1038
was asked of the late Government, of the Government before and of the Government before that. We are able to say that, directly and indirectly, the various kinds of work that are set forth here—roads, development work, drainage and so on—employ 200,000 men at the present moment. Incidentally that is, of course, a very small number out of the 2,600,000 unemployed—
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: It is 2,800,000.
LORD PASSFIELD: It is a very small proportion. It is a number that I am sorry for. All I can say to those who were members of the last Government is that they know the difficulty of having even that number, because that number is at least twice as large as was ever found employment at one time by any preceding Government, although unemployment was above 1,000,000. I am not blaming the late Government for not having done more of that relief work. I think probably, if noble Lords knew, they would not blame the present Government for not having done more than double the amount.
In the first place, it is expensive—but I am not raising that. I think we should wish to see more people given work, even at the cost of having to pay for it. Certainly I would, though that is no solution of the unemployment problem. The difficulty of doing it on a larger scale is insuperable. It is not merely that it is extremely difficult to find suitable work which is not merely sham work, but the other great difficulty, as noble Lords must know, is that in practice you have to work with the local authorities. The local authorities have been urged, pressed tempted and almost bullied to deal with more of these works. They have been offered not merely 25 per cent. or 50 per cent., but 75 per cent. of the cost, and even in some cases the whole cost, and even then it is difficult and you cannot get the work going. I am not blaming the local authorities. The inherent difficulties of the case are so great that there is no solution that way, no hope of finding actual work of that kind for 2,800,000 people. We have done better than any other Government have done, and we are able to say that, directly and indirectly, we believe that there are 200,000 such men employed on those

1039
works. I may tell your Lordships that it costs on an average £1,000,000 to get 4,000 men at work directly and indirectly, and so your Lordships will be able to reckon that, if there are 200,000 such men, then£50,000,000 must be expended in doing this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has provided up to £135,000,000. I think that was the last figure, or rather more now. That does not get spent all at once.
That is what we have done, and I mention that in connection with the Post-War unemployment, that static million from which we have gone neither up nor down until lately. I want your Lordships to realise that, inadequate as the present Government may have been in regard to that matter, they have at any rate been much more adequate than any previous Government. At any rate, we have employed more men. I do not profess that this is any remedy for unemployment. We do not call it a remedy or a solution of the unemployment problem, but it is what you are driven to, for you must keep the people alive, and it is better that they should be employed, if the work is at all reasonably productive, than that they should be given money for nothing. That, at any rate, is my view. Consequently I very much regret that we have managed to get only 200,000 men at work at any one time. I have said this in connection with the figure of post-War unemployment, which I put at something like 1,000,000.
Then you have the fourth class, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, called attention this evening—namely, the increase in unemployment during the past year. That is a new phenomenon, and I venture to suggest that it has nothing to do with the static element of post-War unemployment, and certainly nothing to do with the pre-War unemployment, cyclical and seasonal. It is a new phenomenon, and one which you see in existence in all the industrial countries of the world. There is an outward and visible sign of that change in the tremendous fall in prices. The noble Lord knows that everything—steel, cotton, tin, rubber and sugar—has pretty suddenly collapsed, roughly speaking, to half its price. I know the Government are blamed for everything, but I assume that we can hardly be reasonably blamed for that universal
1040
collapse in price that has led to a catastrophic increase of unemployment in all industrial countries. I have the figures here, for what they are worth. They can only be an estimate. The physical volume of production (not productive value, not pounds sterling) so far as it can he estimated, has fallen, between 1929 and 1930 in the United States by 25 per cent.—they are actually turning out 25 per cent. less goods that they were in the preceding year; in Germany by 21 per cent.; in Canada by 16 per cent.; and in Britain by 10 per cent. I do not say that this is any credit to us. It may be that we were badly off before. I only quote it to show your Lordships that it is a new development and, whatever it is, it has happened during the past twelve months.
It is to this that the noble Viscount has called attention. It is a thing for which you may hold the Government responsible, but if you ask us whether we have been able to prevent that cause operating, I say frankly that we have not. If you ask me whether I have a plan by which I can prevent that cause operating, I have not. I should be very glad to meet anybody who had a plan that could prevent that cause operating, but I have no such plan. That is, of course, a very good reason for saying that this Government ought to go out of office and be succeeded by another Government which, presumably, has a plan—
EARL PEEL: That is the best plan.
LORD PASSFIELD: —a plan to prevent that great fall in prices all over the world. I shall be glad to congratulate noble Lords who will be members of that next Government. If I am alive, I shall be very glad indeed if it turns out that they are able to turn back the cause, whatever it is, that is doing so much harm all over the world. Let me resume. There are these four great groups of unemployment, as a rough classification. Now I come to the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank. His plan for the solution of the unemployment problem is, quite simply, that he wants Safeguarding, anti-dumping legislation, and Empire economic unity, or, to sum up, the protection of home industries. I do not want to be discourteous to the noble Viscount, but I hope he will for-

1041
give me for reminding him of Mr. Dick, who was always writing memorials, but somehow or other King Charles's head got into all of them. I am a little suspicious when the same remedy is trotted out for all these various kinds of unemployment. If it is reasonable to suppose that the imposition of a protective tariff, or of Safeguarding, or whatever specious name is given to the remedy—if it is reasonable to suppose that it is able to deal with all these various kinds of unemployment, and all these different causes of unemployment, I confess that I find myself sceptical. But when Lord Brentford blamed the Government for refusing to consider these things, I do not suppose the noble Viscount would make a statement of that kind without having some reason for making it, but I would ask him how he knows that the Government have refused to consider these things.
As a matter of fact, from the very start this Government used all the economic advisers it could lay its hands upon in order to see what could be done for unemployment, and perhaps the noble Viscount will take my word for it when I say that no proposal whatever was excluded from that inquiry. All these various proposals which have been mentioned, including those of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, were considered; but, as a matter of fact—I hope the noble Viscount will not think that I share the obstinacy of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—I have to confess, humbly, that I and my colleagues were not convinced that putting taxes on imports would cure either the fall in prices which has happened all over the world, or improve our export trade, or stimulate our industry, or do any of those things. We have considered everything that can be said in favour of them, and I have read a number of books about the matter, and I must confess that I remain unconvinced.
That may be stupid on my part, but I hope it is not criminal. I do not think it ought to be denounced as being wicked. If there is a difference of opinion, it may be we are foolish and wisdom will die with you, and you are right, but I do not believe it, and so what ought we to do? Ought we to give way to the people who do believe in it? Because never yet have we seen the country vote in favour of it, although it has been put forward for a
1042
long time. Perhaps the country is going to do so now. But can we be blamed if, having no mandate for it, we do not put it in force? Would it be suggested that, having no mandate for it, we ought to do it? As I have said, the country has never voted for it, and, I do not want to venture now on private ground, but so far as I can make out the Leader of the Conservative Party is not quite at one with the noble Viscount. That will no doubt be cleared up, but that is the position.
Now, as to what the Government have done. First of all, we have put all the energy and thought and study and inquiry into this question of unemployment, from the very moment that we came into office, that we could do. We have used all the means at our disposal, and not refused to consider any single proposal. We have made the best investigation we can, but we do not believe in the remedy of putting additional taxation upon trade as a way of making trade more prosperous. We have a short-range policy, and a long-range policy. We have, on the one hand, endeavoured to stimulate and promote additional trade in this country in fifty ways—all sorts of ways. Then Mr. Thomas, whose efforts were sneered at, has done his best to promote trade, and it would seem to be only a little gracious to recognise that he had spent a good deal of time and energy in trying to increase our trade.
The great increase of unemployment is due to the falling off of our exports, and we shall not get any solution of the problem until we see our export trade restored to something like its old volume, if not in one article then in another. This Government has done more in the way of advertising to the world, in the way of special Trade Missions and special trade development efforts, and in the way of constantly pushing business in all directions, and we have achieved a certain amount of success. Yet the noble Viscount comes down and points out that unemployment has gone up by a million.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: A million and a half.
LORD PASSPIELD: We may have been successful, as I claim, in adding to the amount of trade, and notwithstanding that we have been overwhelmed by

1043
the economic avalanche, it does not follow that we should not get credit for what we have done. When we were asked whether we have diminished unemployment by even one person, I think I nodded. We certainly have diminished it, not by one person but by a great many persons, for whom we have actually provided employment—I do not mean relief works—but unfortunately our efforts have been overwhelmed by what I describe as the world economic avalanche, which has thrown a lot more out of employment. Is it then to be said that we have done nothing? Unless it be said that we are responsible for the fall in prices throughout the world, and I do not think the noble Viscount would say that. Is it to be said that we are responsible for the troubles of Australia and China and all the rest of it? All I would say is that but for our efforts, and what we have done, having regard to what I called the economic avalanche throughout the world, it is possible that the number of unemployed would have gone up to four millions. The numbers have gone up in Germany and the United States, and though it cannot be credited that even under a Labour Government the numbers would have gone up to four millions, they would have gone up much more than they have, had it not been for the steps taken by the present Government, such as I have described, and such as are described in the White Paper.
I am afraid I have not answered the specific questions of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, but I have expressed my regret and the concern felt by all of us, and I say humbly that this Government have done what their powers permitted them to do—shall we say what their intellect permitted them to do? We have done our best and do not expect to get much credit for that in the Party warfare; but it is a little unfair for noble Lords opposite to suggest that we have done nothing, and that we have sat with folded arms, drawing our salaries, and taking no action, when, in fact, we have taken twice the action of the late Government. I do not want to recriminate, and I will only say that we have done our best according to the modicum of intellect which God has given us. I do not want to pretend that we are the only Government or the best Government, but at any rate we have done
1044
something, and I think that when history comes to be written without Party feeling it will do justice to the efforts which we have made to make things better or to prevent them from getting worse.
When I am asked whether I have any solution of the problem to announce, I should have to answer that in two or three ways. I have written one or two volumes about it, and I have expressed my opinion pretty freely there. It is not easy, it is not possible to answer that in a sentence. I remember a very distinguished Governor, a representative of the King, who was greatly concerned about ophthalmia in Egypt, and he sent for a leading doctor and said: "This must be stopped." The doctor began to map out the course of action which would be necessary to stop the ophthalmia, and the Governor hastily said: "Oh! haven't you got a pill or a powder to stop the ophthalmia?" There are people who have pills and powders to stop unemployment. I at any rate can find none. I do not believe that the problem of unemployment is to be solved by any such means as those. I believe it can only be solved by far greater and more extensive organisation of the community. And the way to do it is not money; the way to do it is not taxation; the way to do it is not even laws: in a sentence, it is a much higher organisation of the community than anything that private enterprise has yet given.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think that the House must be grateful to the noble Viscount who brought this Motion before us, because it has at least elicited 'a very interesting speech from the noble Lord opposite, and a very valuable explanation of the Government attitude and the Government ability. We know now that any Government, that any Socialist Party, which claims to be able to deal immediately and drastically with unemployment is making a claim which it knows to he false. The noble Lord opposite said: "It is true that things are much worse now than when we started. It is true that we have no cure for unemployment, but you must not blame us, because we never had a cure. All we can do is to do our best, to use our energies and abilities, and if our energies and abilities are quite incapable of producing any solution, well, after all, you cannot

1045
expect us to achieve the impossible." But supposing they had said that to the country in May, 1929, would they be sitting on that Bench to-day? Supposing they had said to the country in May, 1929: "There is the static million, there is the 4½ per cent. of unemployables, there is the 7 per cent. of persons who are incapable of being absorbed into industry under existing conditions. If you put us in we cannot do anything effective except to run relief works, and they afford no real solution"—does anybody believe that if they had said that, which we now know from the noble Lord is what they ought to have said, they would ever have come back into office, if not into power?
The noble Lord said: "Well, we were not promising to deal with matters in the immediate future. We were speaking of what we should be able to do if we were in for a generation." That is, thirty years. I wonder how many people in the country understood that? I hold in my hand a document, which is headed, not "A Programme for Thirty Years," but "General Election, 1929"; and this is what they said about unemployment:—
"The Labour Party gives an unqualified pledge to deal immediately and practically with this question."
LORD PASSFIELD: Hear, hear! We have done it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: They have done it. My Lords, we know now. They have done it; they have dealt immediately and practically with the question, and, after dealing with it immediately and practically for twenty months, they have increased by two and a-half times the figures of unemployment, and put them up to a figure which had never been reached in the history of this country. The noble Lord has told us what they have done. They have doubled the amount of money spent on relief schemes. The noble Lord quite truly said—and I agree with him entirely—that relief schemes may be a palliative, they certainly are not a cure. They are not a means of dealing immediately or practically with the question. At best they are a means of keeping people capable of employment whilst a Teal remedy is being found. And if the expenditure on the relief schemes is so heavy that it is going to result in throwing more people out of work than it brings into temporary em-
1046
ployment, why, then it is not even a palliative.
The document which I hold in my hand said something of what was a more effective method:—
"A Labour Government will set to work at once"—
what to do?
"to stimulate the depressed export trades of iron and steel, engineering, and textile manufactures"
That is quite right. Stimulation of those depressed industries would be a cure. What have they done to stimulate these depressed industries? They have added an enormous amount of taxation. The noble Lord himself added that he was not one of those who thought that additional taxation was a stimulus to industry. But that is the only stimulus they have applied; and it is not surprising that the result is, as my noble friend Lord Brent-ford said just now, that they have increased the depression and reduced the export trade to a degree unexampled in our history.
They said again (I am still quoting from the General Election pamphlet):—
"There is a great market at home which can be developed by increasing the purchasing power of the working classes."
My noble friend Lord Elibank points out what we on these Benches have long known—that if you protect the home market so that the purchasing power there may be applied to buying British manufactures, you are enormously stimulating your trade. But, it is no good increasing the purchasing power of the working classes and then diverting that power in order to stimulate foreign manufactures coming into this country. And that is why we say the Government have wholly failed to grapple with the problem, which they themselves ought to have appreciated from their own pamphlet, of trying to stimulate the home market by ensuring that that market should make a demand for British, not foreign manufactures.
The noble Lord will say: "It is very unfair to say we have not considered it. We have considered it most carefully, but we knew we could not do it, because we had no mandate from the country to do anything of the kind." It is no good considering a remedy if you start with the knowledge that in no circumstances can you apply it. If they consider the

1047
remedy most carefully they consider it only with this knowledge, that if it turn out that they are unwillingly convinced of its efficacy, all they can do is to resign and leave it to a Party which is bound by no such pledge, but would give it immediate effect. The noble Lord opposite said that they are not in a majority, and that that is an excuse. Is there a single measure they have brought up in either House of Parliament which has been refused? And, if not, what is the good of talking about not being in a majority as an excuse? They say that they have not asked the people's sanction to this, that, or the other scheme, and that the only thing they want in order to carry out their programme is a majority. If they think they have got a remedy let them say what it is, and let them ask the people for a majority. We know very well that the one thing they avoid doing is asking the people, because, if they do ask the people, then indeed they would he swept away by that avalanche of which the noble Lord so picturesquely spoke.
We have a remedy. We do not pretend, none of us on this side of the House pretends, that you can sweep away unemployment by any means; but we do say that, by protecting the home market, by giving to our British manufacturers a fair chance of selling their goods to our own people, by encouraging closer economic unity with the Dominions, by increasing their purchasing power, by affording them a sure market for their goods—by these means we do encourage both our import and our export trade; we do lighten the burden of taxation, which the Government opposite is steadily increasing week by week and month by month; and we do something to restore that confidence which they themselves admit is one of
1048
the main essentials if our trade is to recover, and is one which can never return so long as they occupy the offices which they now hold. I intervened only because after the speech of the noble Lord, I think it is important to call attention to the very remarkable difference between the promises which were held out, not as promises for the distant future but in the immediate present, when they asked the people for their suffrages, and the abject failure and inability to devise any remedy which has characterised the speech which the noble Lord has just delivered in your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, before the adjournment is moved, I wish to thank the noble Lord for his reply this afternoon. I can only say that it is the most unsatisfactory reply that could ever have been given. He has not answered the Question on the Paper. The last part of my Question is, What does the Government intend to do? I can only conclude from the noble Lord's reply that, as the noble and learned Viscount has just said, the Government have no solution whatsoever. With that remark, I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NORTHAMPTON EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.