Lords Sitting of 27 July 1931

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
ISLE OF MAN (LOANS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
MIDLOTHIAN COUNTY COUNCIL (CALDER) WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislature Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (SWINDON CORPORATION) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ABERTILLERY AND DISTRICT WATER DISTRICT AND WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) SEWERAGE BOARD) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

AGRICULTURAL LAND (UTILISATION) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments made by the Lords agreed to without amendment; one Amendment agreed to with amendment; certain Amendments disagreed to, but Amendments made in the words so
1162
restored to the Bill; and certain other Amendments disagreed to for which disagreement the Commons assigned Reasons.

PRIVATE BILL STANDING ORDERS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW) moved a number of Amendments to the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills. The noble Earl said: My Lords, if your Lordships will kindly look at the Paper I am afraid you will see a very long Notice down in my name. This is a Notice in regard to Standing Orders relative to Private Bills, and it is suggested that your Lordships' Standing Orders should be amended as is proposed on the Order Paper. I would, with your Lordships' permission, occupy one or two moments to explain what has occurred and what has necessitated this Motion. It will probably be within your Lordships' recollection that on November 13 last my predecessor the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, moved the amendment of Standing Orders relating to Private Bills, and your Lordships were pleased to agree with his proposals; but there was one important point that stood over at that time dealing with the method of giving notice in regard to Private Bills.
The noble Earl was not at that time in agreement with the authorities of the other House, and he therefore asked your Lordships to appoint a small Select Committee to enquire into the matter and to make recommendations for the consideration of the House. This was done, and the Select Committee met and came to certain conclusions. Those conclusions are embodied in the Amendments which are proposed to Standing Orders 3, 4 and 10, but not the whole of the Amendments apply to Standing Order 4. Those I will deal with in a moment. The Committee recommended that Standing Orders 3 and 4 should be made identical with the analogous Orders in the House of Commons, and that Standing Order 10 should also be amended, but that our Standing Order should go rather farther than the one which had been adopted by the other House—that is to say, instead of the short title of the Bill the whole title of the Bill should be quoted. The Select Committee thought the short title rather

1163
too brief to give the necessary indication of the whole purport of the Bill.
I come now to the other Amendments which are rather voluminous, but they deal with very minor matters indeed. These were precisely referred to the Select Committee which was appointed to deal with Private Bills in so far as they affected notices by advertisement. So I have not, after the consideration of Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 10, summoned the Committee again. They were good enough to say that if any other point should arise they would give me their valuable assistance, but the matter was so very small that I did not think I was justified in troubling them to meet again. The main point is that we have got those dealing with Bills relative to Letters Patent. Such Bills have not been introduced for many years, and it is extremely doubtful whether they ever will be, but it is necessary to leave the door open in case such Bills should be introduced. Therefore it is suggested that we should have the same procedure as is adopted for personal Bills other that Estate Bills. It is very unlikely to occur again. Therefor in No. 175 proceedings in respect of such Bills are made subject to such directions as may from time to time be given by the Chairman of Committees. We have suggested that Letters Patent Bills should be co-ordinated with this procedure.
The last point which arises is that which arose out of the London Electric, Metropolitan District, and Central London Railway Companies (Works) Bill and the station which it was proposed to erect on Camberwell Green. Your Lordships will see on page 3 of the Order Paper that we propose to amend Standing Order 4, and paragraphs (d) and (e) show the changes which it is proposed to make in the Standing Orders to remedy the state of affairs which arose with regard to the Camberwell Green proposal. This makes it necessary for due Notice to be given in regard to any proposed interference with the surface of any public park or open space in London or any other urban area. The words which appear on the Order Paper are "the surface of any public park or open space," but I think it would be better—and with your Lordships' permission I will move it in that form—that it should read "the surface of any public park or public open space. "I think that
1164
probably the word does cover both, but it would be desirable to make it quite clear that what is referred to is any public" open space. I understand it will cover all public open spaces, not only in London but in the provinces, and I venture to hope that the proposal will give effect to the wish expressed so widely in your Lordships' House on the Third Reading debate on the Bill to which I have referred. I suggest that it would he desirable if possible to get the Standing Orders passed before the adjournment of the House so that Parliamentary Agents and others interested in Bills, when they are preparing Bills during the Recess, may be aware of what changes are intended to be made.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills be amended as follows—

PART I.
Standing Order 1, page 14, line 6, leave out ("Letters Patent").

PART II.
Standing Order 3, page 16, leave out the Order and insert the following new Order 3:
Notice to contain concise summary, etc.
In all cases where Application has been or is intended to be made for leave to bring in a Bill relating to any of the subjects included in either of the two classes a Notice shall be published in manner hereinafter provided containing a concise summary of the purposes of the Bill, but without detailed particulars and without any reference to provisions of an ancillary, subsidiary, or consequential nature intended to give effect to any such purpose.
Provided that if by the Bill power is sought to amalgamate with any company, or to sell or lease the undertaking, or to purchase or take on lease any undertaking, or to enter into a working agreement or traffic arrangement, the Notice shall specify the authority, company, or person with, to, from, or by whom it is proposed that the amalgamation, sale, purchase, lease, agreement, or arrangement is to be made.
The Notice shall also state that on and after the fourth day of December a copy of the Bill may be inspected and copies thereof obtained at a reasonable price

1165
at an office (to be mentioned in the Notice) in London, and at the following office or offices (to be mentioned in the Notice) that is to say—

(a) in the case of a Bill relating to any particular city, borough (metropolitan or other), urban or rural district, at an office situate in that city, borough, or district;

(b) in the case of a Bill relating to an undertaking at an office situate in the county in which the principal office of the Promoters of the Bill is situate;

(c) in the case of a Bill authorising the construction of works, or the taking or compulsory user of lands, or extending the time granted by a former Act for any such purpose, also at an office situate in the county, or each of the counties, in which the works or lands are situate.

The Notice shall be headed by the short title of the Bill, and shall be subscribed with the name of the person responsible for the publication of the Notice.
Standing Order 4, pages 16 and 17, leave out the Order and insert the following new Order 4:
Further particulars in case of Second Class Bills and certain First Class Bills.
In cases of Bills of the Second Class, and of Bills of the First Class in respect of which Plans are required to be deposited the Notice shall also contain—

(a) the names of the cities, boroughs (metropolitan or other) and urban and rural districts, and in the case of rural districts the parishes from, in, through, or into which any work is intended to be made, maintained, varied, extended, or enlarged, or in which any land intended to be taken is situate; and

(b) a statement of the Officers with whom plans, sections, and books of reference have been deposited in accordance with the requirements of Standing Orders 24 and 29; and

(c) in the case of a Bill of the Second Class, a general description of the nature of the proposed works; and

(d) in the case of a Bill authorising the taking or compulsory user of any common or commonable land the name, if any, of the common or commonable land, and of the city, borough (metropolitan or other) or urban or rural
1166
district, and, in the case of a rural district, the parish or parishes in which it is situate, together with an estimate of the area of so much of the surface of such common or commonable land as is proposed to be taken or used compulsorily; and

(e) in the case of a Bill authorising the taking or compulsory user of the surface of any public park or public open space situate wholly or partly in any city, borough (metropolitan or other) or urban district, or of any protected square mentioned in the Schedule to the London Squares Preservation Act, 1931, the name or description of the park, open space or protected square, and of the city, borough (metropolitan or other) or urban district in which it is situate, together with an estimate of the area of so much of the surface of such park, open space, or protected square as is proposed to be taken or used compulsorily.

Standing Order 8, page 17, leave out the Order.
Standing Order 8a, page 18, leave out the Order.
Standing Order 10, page 19, leave out the Order and insert the following new Order 10:
Publication of Notice in the Gazette.
Not later than the Eleventh day of December there shall be published once in the London Gazette a short Notice stating—

(a) the title of the Bill;

(b) the name and date of publication of each newspaper in which the full notice has been or will be published in accordance with Standing Order 9;

(c) the offices at which copies of the Bill may be inspected and obtained mentioned in the full notice;

(d) in the case of a Bill of the Second Class or of a Bill of the First Class, in respect of which Plans are required to be deposited, the Officers with whom plans, sections, and books of reference have been deposited in accordance with the requirements of Standing Orders 24 and 29.

Standing Order 25 c, page 25, line 12, leave out ("1") and insert ("one")
Standing Order 33, page 27, line 38, after ("gas") insert ("or")
Standing Order 33, page 27, lines 38 and 39, leave out ("or patents, designs, trade marks, or copyrights")
Standing Order 33, page 28, after line 47, insert:—
("(13) Of every Bill affecting property vested in or under the management of the Forestry Commissioners or containing references to the said Commissioners, at the office of the Forestry Commission.")
Standing Order 85, page 48, lines 37 and 38, leave out ("(to be printed in all opposed cases)")
Standing Order 86 a, page 49, line 11, after ("days") insert ("on which the House shall sit for public business")
Standing Order 137, pages 66, 67 and 68, leave out the Order.

APPENDIX (B.).
Page 86, line 20, leave out ("Patent")

APPENDIX (C.).
Page 92, line 16, leave out ("Omnibuses") and insert ("Public service vehicles")
Page 92, line 30, leave out ("Trackless trolley") and insert ("Trolley vehicle").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I should like to say a word or two upon this Motion. I have always regarded it as a matter of the greatest importance that our Standing Orders with regard to all Private Bill legislation should be effective, and I think that our Private Bill legislation and our Private Bill Committees carry out some of the most useful work that we do in this House. Therefore I heartily commend the adoption of these proposed Amendments to the Standing Orders which would draw the attention of the House to cases where it is proposed to authorise the taking or compulsory user of the surface of "any public park or public open space." I understand that is to be the wording of the new Standing Order. We all know what happened lately when it came upon us as a surprise that portions of a certain public open space were going to be taken for the purposes of a railway station. I think that the other matters to which the Lord Chairman has referred are really matters of detail to bring our Standing Orders into line and to put them into the same words as those of
1168
similar Standing Orders in the other House. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will accept the proposal of the Lord Chairman.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I should like to say how much obliged I am to the noble Earl for the two Amendments he proposes in paragraphs (d) and (e) of the proposed new Standing Order 4. The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has just referred to the subject of encroachment on public spaces. These two Amendments will at least give us notice when anything is proposed to be clone, and as such the Amendments will be valued by all who place importance upon the health and amenities of our great towns.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had given Notice to move, That Standing Orders No. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended until the House adjourn for the Recess. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper, and I should like, if I may, to say one word or two as to its effect on our business to-day. The improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Bill stands second on the Paper, but I propose for the convenience of one or two members of your Lordships' House on the other side of the House that it shall be put last on the Paper. I think that intention has been communicated to the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Hailsham, and subject to that I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.
Moved, That Standing Orders No. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended until the House adjourn for the Recess.—(Lord Parmoor.)
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of deriving a little satisfaction for myself and my colleagues who were on the Committee that considered the question of the duration of the Pariamentary Session. The effect of the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord President, is that

1169
the Session will not conclude at the end of July, but will continue until somewhere about Christmas. I do not know whether your Lordships remember that in the years 1923 and 1924 a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons was set up to consider the question of the commencement and the termination of the Parliamentary Session. I had the honour of presiding over that Committee in the year 1923, and the noble Earl whom I see present, Lord Buxton, presided over it in the year 1924. The suggestion was then made that the Parliamentary Session should be commenced in the autumn and should be concluded, whatever happened, not later than July 31. We considered that proposal and unanimously that Committee advised that it was impracticable, and that the old system was far better of beginning the Session at the beginning of the year, either in January or February, and concluding it at the end of the year shortly before Christmas.
How is it that the Government will never be advised by those who know? Over and over again they have set up Committees—Joint Committees, Commissions—and all sorts of learned people and experienced people and experts are brought together to advise His Majesty's Government about these matters, upon which they require advice presumably, because otherwise they would not set up these Committees and Commissions. But when these Committees and Commissions report the Government sweep their findings aside as if they were of no use whatever. I should like to remind the Lord President and the House that, after two Sessions spent in considering this matter, the Joint Committee came unanimously to the conclusion that the proposal to meet in the autumn and to adjourn at the end of July was impracticable and that it would lead to grave abuses. First and foremost they pointed out that one of the abuses would be an excessive use of the closure. Has that come right, or has it not? We know perfectly well that the closure this year in another place has been used even on the Finance Bill—utterly unheard of before this year.
Has our forecast come right that it would be impracticable to close the Session on July 31? We have just had a Motion from the Lord President which shows that we must go on to the end of December. I have had the
1170
satisfaction of saying "I told you so," and that is really all I have to say. It is obvious that we are now going to revert to the older and better system, which was unanimously recommended by Lord Buxton's Committee, and which I feel confident will prove to be the only sensible system—that is to say, to meet at the beginning of the year, either in January or February, and to close at the end of the year just before Christmas.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like just: to say one word in the reply to the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. I do not appreciate how the matters to which he has referred arise in any way directly on the proposals I have made—
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: You are continuing the Session.
LORD PARMOOR: That, I understand, is what the noble Viscount has urged.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: Quite.
LORD PARMOOR: Therefore we are making a proposal in accordance with what Lord Ullswater thinks to be right—that is, we are not proroguing at the end of July but we are proposing to go on and carry out our programme in the autumn. That is what I thought the noble Viscount considered the right step to take, in accordance with the resolution to which he has referred. I am not going into the general question, but I think am entitled to point out that all Governments are found fault with, particularly in the administration of business: but when I am proposing a Motion entirely in accord with what the noble Viscount has suggested, I hardly see any reason for his interference in the present Motion.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: I am not opposed to the Motion. I am only pointing out that, after all that was said and done, the Government have been obliged to come back to the scheme which we unanimously approved.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I confess I heard with some surprise the closing observations of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House. It does seem to me that when we have among our members somebody with experience of administration of business

1171
in both Houses, one who has had the responsibility of presiding over Commissions dealing with this matter, we ought to be rather grateful for his advice than resentful of what the noble and learned Lord is pleased to call his interference.
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: With a great deal of that which Lord Ullswater said I find myself in very hearty agreement. I entirely agree that the method that has become usual during the last two years of appointing a Committee in order to escape having to make a decision, and then, when at last the Committee reports, completely ignoring its finding, is a habit of this Government which certainly does not commend itself to my judgment. On one or two points my noble friend Lord Ullswater will perhaps forgive me if I do not entirely agree with him. He has said that the starting of the Session in the autumn has led to the excessive use of the closure, and he has instanced that the Finance Bill was passed under the closure. I entirely agree with him in the view he seems to take that this is wrong, but I do not think that vice is occasioned by the commencement in the autumn, but is inherent in the Government of which the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House is a member. Not only have they made use of the closure on the Finance Bill, but I would remind your Lordships that they have done much worse than that, and used the "guillotine." That is to say, that they have not only stopped discussion when, in the opinion of the Speaker, it has gone far enough, but they have prevented discussion altogether of a great number of very important clauses which, by virtue of the Parliament Act here and by virtue of the "guillotine" there, were not allowed to be discussed. I think the complaint is entirely justified, and I can only regret that it seems to have fallen not only on deaf, but even on resentful ears.
For myself, I do not quite agree with my noble friend, though I recognise at once how much more experience he has than I, that these ills are due to the autumn meeting, because your Lordships will remember that the Government of which I had the honour to be a member inaugurated the Session beginning in the autumn, and one reason why they did it,
1172
and the reason which I think will most commend itself to your Lordships, was to secure the possibility of getting Bills forward in the House of Commons before Christmas and to get them brought up to this House at a much earlier date than was otherwise possible. It was, in fact, a device which was intended among other things to give this House a little more opportunity to have proper time in which to discuss important measures than has been, unfortunately, practical in the past. At any rate, while we were in office I think we were able to achieve that end. I do not think it completely solved the difficulty—I am afraid that would be claiming too much—but it did allow your Lordships to receive at a reasonable period of the Session some at least of the more important measures which you had to consider.
For myself, in regard to the Motion that we are now discussing, I do not think the remarks of the noble Viscount regarding the question of Prorogation were strictly relevant. This is only a Motion to give the Government the right during the next four or five days to take the business which is on the Order Paper in such order of precedence as they think fit. It would be equally moved whether we were going to adjourn or to be prorogued, so that I do not think that the actual point arises upon the Motion which we have before us. But I do think that my noble friend Lord Ullswater has mentioned a matter that is well worthy of the attention of all those responsible for the conduct of the business of Parliament, whether in this House or in another place.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I have no wish to interfere, or perhaps I should say to intervene, in this debate, except for the purpose of making one observation. Speaking for myself and, I am sure, for those with whom I am associated, we should be very sorry if anything were said by the Leader of the House which could be regarded as in any way deprecating the observations which were made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, on a subject with which he is so thoroughly conversant.
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear!
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The noble Viscount speaks with great authority,

1173
and we are only too glad when he gives us the benefit of his vast experience. I hope that nothing that has been said here will prevent his doing so in the future.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to make what is really a personal explanation. It is entirely a misapprehension to suppose that I desired to be in any way discourteous to Lord Ullswater in regard to what he suggested. I pointed out, and I think I was right in doing so, that what he said was not really relevant to the Motion I was making or to the matter before the House, and in that the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition agrees with me. As regards the more difficult question, I do not say a word. We know what Mr. Baldwin's view was when he was Prime Minister, and I am not going to discuss these matters at the present time.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

NORTH KILLINGHOLME (ADMIRALTY PIER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading react.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, this little Bill for which I am asking a Second Reading passed without any opposition through another place, where it was backed by members of all Parties. I trust it will meet with the same treatment at your Lordships' hands. Last year at this time we passed into law the Adoption of Children (Scotland) Act, 1930, which for the first time, legalised the adoption of children in Scotland. The Act in question provides that the allowance payable in respect of a child under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts shall only be available in respect of an adopted child if the child was adopted in the life-time of both spouses. Experience has shown that that limiting condition has prevented a number of widows of insured men from having the benefit of the allowance
1174
for an adopted child, and this Bill seeks to give the allowance if the child was, in fact, adopted prior to the passing of the Act of last year, if the formal legal adoption is carried through before July 31 next year.
These conditions can only apply in a comparatively small number of cases, but I think your Lordships will agree that the small payments which the Bill permits will be very helpful in the homes into which they go. I need not say more except to express the hope that your Lordships will now give me the Second Reading for which I ask. In view of the time limit in the Bill—namely, July 31, 1932—it is very desirable that it should become law before the end of this month, in order that those who are interested in its provisions may have time to make them known. May therefore, ask that special accommodation may be given for the Bill to pass through its further stages before this House rises for the Recess?
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Kinnoull.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, this Bill, as the noble Earl has told you, is to supplement a Bill passed through this House last year by my noble friend the Duke of Athol], which received the approval of your Lordships. As the noble Earl has informed you it is very important that it should become law this summer. I understand it had a comparatively peaceful passage through another place, and therefore I hope you will give it a Second Reading and pass it through all its stages.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD AMULREE): My Lords, on behalf of His Majesty's Government I have to say that they are anxious to give this Bill sympathetic support. As my noble friend has pointed out the Bill proposes to cover a gap which exists in the present law. That gap, so far as we have been able to ascertain, affects a very limited number of young persons. We estimate that something like 400 or 500 may be covered by the Bill. The expense will amount to about £14 per child per annum. The expenditure will be a diminishing one, and the Bill will cease to have operation entirely on October 1, 1947.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IRISH FREE STATE.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT had the following Notice on the Paper—To ask His Majesty's Government whether any Convention has been made between the British Government and the Irish Free State Government as provided by Article 2 of the Annex to the Treaty of December 6, 1921—

1. As to the existing and future submarine cables and wireless stations in Southern Ireland for communication with places outside Ireland;

2. As to the maintenance by the Irish Free State of lighthouses, buoys, beacons and navigational marks and aids; and

3. As to war signal stations existing at the date of the Treaty.

And whether any Convention has been made between the British Government and the Irish Free State Government as provided by Article 3 of the said Annex for the regulation of civil communication by air; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Paper. The way in which this matter arises is this. The Treaty—to use the common term by which it was described—between this country and the Irish Free State, of December 6, 1921, is as follows as affecting these matters:
"7. The Government of the Irish Free State shall afford to His Majesty's Imperial Forces:

(a) In time of peace such harbour and other facilities as are indicated in the Annex hereto, or such other facilities as may from time to time be agreed between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State; and

(b) In time of war or of strained relations with a Foreign Power such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for the purposes of such defence as aforesaid."

Then, turning to the Annex referred to in Article 7, we find this provision:
"2. A Convention shall be made between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State to give effect to the following conditions: "—
Your Lordships will see the great importance of these provisions, which are contained in this Annex—
"(a) That submarine cables shall not be landed or wireless stations for communication
1176
with places outside Ireland be established except by agreement with the British Government; that the existing cable landing rights and wireless concessions shall not be withdrawn except by agreement with the British Government; and that the British Government shall be entitled to land additional submarine cables or establish additional wireless stations for communication with places outside Ireland.
(b) That lighthouses, buoys, beacons, and any navigational marks or navigational aids shall be maintained by the Government of the Irish Free State as at the date hereof and shall not be removed or added to except by agreement with the British Government."
I need hardly pause to point out the great importance of that provision with regard to British commerce, and more especially British shipping between this country and the Free State.
"(c) That war signal stations shall be closed down and left in charge of care and maintenance parties, the Government of the Irish Free State being offered the option of taking them over and working them for commercial purposes subject to Admiralty inspection, and guaranteeing the upkeep of existing telegraph communication therewith.
3. A Convention shall be made between the same Governments for the regulation of civil communication by air."
The question which I wish to ask is whether those Conventions which have been referred to have been made as yet or not. If they have been made well and good, and I would like to see copies of them, but as far as my investigations have gone no such Conventions have been made. If they have not been made I should like to ask the Government why they have, not been made. Ten years have passed since the making of the Treaty. It cannot be said that those are matters of no importance, or of small importance, and it is obvious that the provisions contained in the Annex are a very sketchy outline, which has to be filled in and ought to be filled in by a properly and carefully drawn up instrument, which should be signed by both Governments.
The importance of this matter has received a very striking illustration in the course of the last few days by an incident to which I shall refer in a moment, which happened in the Irish Free State Senate; and before I come to this let me say that it is unfortunate that we in this country do not learn very much from the Press of this country of what is going on in Ireland. I do not

1177
for the moment think it necessary to go into reasons for that, but it is the fact. The result is that a careful student who desires to know the course of affairs, political or otherwise, in Southern Ireland, or who. desires to know the aspirations, intentions and desires of prominent men in Ireland, leaders of public opinion, is necessarily driven to reading the Irish newspapers, and perhaps it is even more important that he should read the debates in the Irish Dail and Senate. Without such study I am afraid that we are left in very serious ignorance of either the political or the material situation in Southern Ireland at present, or the possibilities of the future in that country.
I said that there was a debate in the Senate on July 23. Unfortunately the Official Report has not yet come out, but I have a longish report—which I will show the noble Lord if he desires to see it—in the Irish Times. I find that in the course of that debate the Leader of the Labour Party in the Senate, a person of considerable importance, made this statement, and it is with reference to the paragraph which I have just read out in Clause 7 of the Treaty—namely, that
"the Government of the Irish Free State shall afford to His Majesty's Imperial Forces … in time of war or of strained relations with a Foreign Power such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for the purposes of such defence as aforesaid."
And the statement of Mr. Johnson, the Leader of the Labour Party, was as follows:
"It was time that the Government sought the abrogation of the clause of the Treaty under which the British Government had power to land troops in the Free States in times of strained relations. They could not say that the State was independent while that clause remained."
Your Lordships will find, if you read the debates in the Dail and the Senate, that people of all Parties—I think I am right in saying of all Parties—are continually harping on that strain of Irish independence, freedom from the British Crown or from any possible relations with the British Government. If we find that an important person like the Leader of the Labour Party is endeavouring to throw over that clause of the Treaty which bears so closely on the question under discussion, it is time that we in this House gave expression to the opinion that the
1178
clause of this Treaty should be maintained, and that it is mischievous, not only in this country but exceedingly mischievous in Ireland, and excites false hopes, if such statements are passed without comment.
But that was not all, because in the course of that debate there was another point raised, which is an illustration of what may happen if these Treaty rights are not strictly maintained. Clause 4 of the Treaty provides that:
"The Oath to be taken by Members of the Parliament of the Irish Free State shall be in the following form:"
I need not read it: it is the Oath of Allegiance, slightly altered from the form in which it is taken in this country. In the course of that debate comments were made by various persons upon the position of His Majesty the King, in which it was said that they desired to get rid of the Monarchy, and one Senator went so far as to say that he did not want the British Monarchy, either as a shadow or as a reality. Some apparently were willing to allow the British Monarchy to exist in Southern Ireland as a shadow, but others did not want it either as a shadow or as a reality. Then the question arose of whether the members of the Senate had or had not taken the Oath of Allegiance. Sundry members of the Senate got up and declared most positively that they had not taken the Oath of Allegiance. The Minister denied it and said, "You did." The gentlemen in question answered and said they had not, and a very unseemly wrangle ensued; and it appears that, according to their own statements, they had not taken the Oath of Allegiance, and had thereby violated the Treaty.
I think that debate is instructive, and I should be very glad if the Minister who replies would not only tell me something about these Conventions but would express a hope, if it be possible for him to do so, that these threatened invasions of the Treaty should not be referred to. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, would normally answer this Question, but that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, is going to answer it and therefore it may not be possible for him to give us quite full information as to the position of affairs; but I hope he will be able to tell us that at long last, after ten years, negotiations, if there are any

1179
for this purpose, are in good progress, that the instrument has been considered, that it has been put before the Irish Free State, and that before long these Conventions will be signed. Anyone who reads the recent debates in the Dail and the Senate must feel convinced of the paramount importance, not only to this country, but to Southern Ireland, that the obligations of the Treaty on both sides should be fairly, strictly and rigorously carried out in the interests of both countries. As a matter of fact, we have carried out our part of the Treaty with the utmost precision. I beg to move.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I do not know how far it is in order to discuss the debates in another Parliament in the British Dominions. If it is in order, it seems to me a very inconvenient proceeding, because, if what takes place in one Parliament is to be discussed in another Parliament, it can only lead to confusion and misunderstanding. therefore do not propose to follow the noble Lord in what he has said with regard to what took place in the Senate and the Dail. With regard to the specific Questions which the noble Lord has addressed to the Government, I may say that I am acting on behalf of Lord Passfield, who unfortunately is unwell. The answer to the first Question is that no Conventions have yet been concluded. Discussions have taken place informally from time to time regarding various points arising out of the provisions in the Annex to the Articles of Agreement, in particular in relation to the maintenance of the Irish lights. The subject has not been lost sight of, and, if opportunity arises, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would be ready to seek a suitable occasion for effecting a comprehensive settlement of the various matters in question.
It may, however, be said that, generally speaking, it has been possible so far to dispose of any questions arising in relation to these matters by suitable administrative action. For example, by arrangement between the two Post Offices the Anglo-Irish submarine cable is being maintained and worked on similar lines to those in force before the Treaty; the Irish Free State Post Office has also granted licences to the cable companies for submarine cables landed in the Irish
1180
Free State on similar conditions to those prevailing before the Treaty. No cases have arisen in which wireless services between the Irish Free State and countries outside have been established since the date of the Treaty. Next, with regard to the Irish lights. The lights are maintained by the Commissioners -of Irish Lights, with money provided from the special fund for light dues which forms part of the general lighthouse fund administered by the Board of Trade. No alteration of any importance is made without the Irish Free State Government being consulted.
As regards air arrangements, at present only private flying is in question, and for this administrative action on existing lines is sufficient. But in the event of a regular commercial service being established, it will be necessary that we should have some agreement, or some Convention, as contemplated by the Treaty. Your Lordships will thus see that, although no Convention has been arrived at up till now, both Governments have been able to carry on by administrative action all that is contemplated under these Conventions. I agree with the noble Lord that the matters referred to in his Question are matters of great and serious importance, and endeavour is being made, and has been made continuously since the present Government came into office and I believe under the previous Government, to try to come to some definite arrangement in order that these Conventions may be properly effected. The noble Lord has asked for Papers. There are no Papers which will throw any light upon the matter or which have special reference to it.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I hardly think your Lordships will regard the reply made by the noble Lord to the Questions of my noble friend Lord Danesfort as very satisfactory. He began his remarks by taking exception to my noble friend quoting from the debates in another place. My noble friend merely quoted from those debates as showing the opinions and views of those in a responsible position across the water. I would suggest to His Majesty's Government that when an arrangement was come to under a Treaty no less than ten years ago, it is highly unsatisfactory that the reply to my noble friend should be on the

1181
lines that informal conversations are proceeding but that nothing has been definitely laid down for carrying out the agreement which was definitely arrived at at that time. The matters raised by my noble friend are certainly very important. I agree that the noble Lord will have satisfied my noble friend in telling us that certain of these arrangements in connection with lights, lighthouses, buoys and beacons are on a satisfactory basis and that there is a very definite understanding between members of His Majesty's Government here and members of the Government in Dublin. I understand that from him; but I feel it is of the highest importance that we should have a much more definite reply as to why, instead of the Convention having been set up, merely informal conversations should have taken place. One would like to have seen a businesslike arrangement. For that reason I shall certainly support my noble friend if he goes to a Division.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I am afraid I share the disappointment of the noble Marquess as to the amount of information we have received from His Majesty's Government. I realise that it may be difficult for the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who has been called, as it were, in an emergency to answer these Questions, to give very full information. But I think the Department which gave him the information might at least have given some information why there should be a delay of ten years in carrying out a definite provision of a Treaty upon what the noble Lord admits to be most important matters. Not a syllable has been said as to the reason for that delay.
We have been told that there have been no administrative difficulties. I only express the hope that the reason why there was no friction or serious difference of opinion between the two Governments was that we did not in this case, as I am sorry to say we have done in many other cases, give in to the demands of the Free State Government without adequate consideration for the interests of this country. When my noble friend says that the administrative difficulties have not been serious or, indeed, of any particular consequence, does it not show, if that is so, that ten years ought not to have elapsed before a written agreement was come to. Either we are in
1182
agreement with the Free State or we are not. If we are in agreement why should it take ten years to incorporate in a written instrument that about which we are in agreement? If, on the other hand, we are not in agreement with the Free State, surely we ought to try at the earliest possible moment to reach an agreement, so that when difficulties arise we shall be able to point to a definite written statement signed by both parties which would govern the matter.
Therefore I trust that the noble Lord, or, perhaps, the noble and learned Lord who leads the House, will give us an assurance that no further delay will take place in bringing this exceedingly important matter to a close. In the meanwhile, perhaps he can produce some Papers which show what the course of negotiations has been, what we have proposed to them, whether any difficulties have arisen, and if so what they are. I would ask him if he cannot lay those. Papers on the Table.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think I might say a word or two in answer to the noble Marquess and the noble Lord who asked the Questions. During more than seven of the ten years referred to by the noble Lord a Conservative or a Coalition Government were in power. I think all Governments have followed the same view. They want, if possible, to arrange a matter of this kind by agreement and I think that is the proper thing to do. I am sorry that I cannot give any detail about that. It was only as I came into your Lordships' House that I heard that my noble friend Lord Passfield was prevented by illness from coming here this afternoon. But I am perfectly certain that everything has been done as heretofore as regards arrangement and, agreement. If it would in any way satisfy the noble Lord, I can assure him that we intend to follow the same methods now. Of course, if a Convention can be actually arranged it is better. In the meantime, for a long period of years this matter has been carried on in a friendly way by arrangement between the two parties, and in the absence of coming to a Convention that appears to me to be the best method to follow.
I am sorry I cannot give the noble Lord any further information. He will understand the difficulties that have arisen from the unfortunate illness of

1183
Lord Passfield. When the noble Lord returns if any further details can be given I have no doubt he will be glad to add them. I am afraid there are no Papers that can be published. I have already ascertained that and therefore we are obliged to hold to what my noble friend Lord Amulree has already said on that point.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, in view of the noble and learned Lord's statement, I do not press for Papers at this moment. I shall hope to raise the question again in the autumn, by which time I hope there will be some Papers which will be of value.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSING (RURAL AUTHORITIES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[THE EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Special Government contributions to housing expenses of certain rural district councils]:
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): The first Amendment on the Paper is only drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 21, leave out ("and") and insert ("(4) In considering applications so made to them").—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MARLEY: The next Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("for the purposes of") and insert ("under").—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MARLEY: My third Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 27, leave out ("for the purposes of") and insert ("under").—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "the Commons House of." The noble Viscount said: Although under Clause 5 of the Bill money required for the purposes of Clause 1 is very properly to be provided by Parliament, if your Lordships will look at subsection (4) of Clause 1 you will see it provides that:
"The Minister shall cause any conditions laid down by him for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, and any directions given by him for the purposes of the last preceding subsection, to be laid forthwith before the Commons House of Parliament, and, if that House within the next twenty-one days on which the House has sat after any such conditions or directions are laid before it, resolves that they shall be annulled, they shall cease to have effect. …."
Therefore, it would appear that the actions of a Minister in certain cases are not to be subject to Parliament but only to the Commons House of Parliament.
When I ventured to draw the noble Lords attention to this matter on Second Reading and requested him to follow the good example of his own colleague Lord Passfield, who rectified the Colonial Naval Defence Bill in a somewhat similar respect, he suggested that if I thought it of sufficient importance I should put down Amendments myself. By putting down the Amendments on the Paper I have taken up the noble Lord's challenge. Although it may not be a matter of first importance, I think I am quite justified in drawing your Lordships' attention to it, and in putting down Amendments for your Lordships' consideration, because I am of opinion that the conditions laid down and directions given by the Minister should equally be subject to a negative Resolution of this House and not of the Commons House only. It looks to me as if an attempt is being made to set up a bad precedent, and it is in order to try and prevent it that I now beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 29, leave out ("the Commons House of").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD MARLEY: I had no intention of challenging the noble Lord's suggestion in this matter. I only said he might, if he desired, put down an Amendment on Committee, as in fact he has done. I

1185
would point out to your Lordships that when the Bill was first introduced there was no suggestion of laying these regulations before either House, and that it was in the course of discussion in another place that agreement was reached with the Opposition. The actual subsection has been agreed in consultation with the Opposition in the House of Commons. I do, therefore, hope that in those circumstances the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment. In any case I think I ought to remind him that invariably a Resolution of one House only suffices to annul directions given by a Minister, and, us your Lordships have approved the principle of the Committee, perhaps the blouse is not specially interested in the mere details of the conditions and directions. Furthermore the additional laying before both Houses means an extra cost: I do not know quite how much, but something between £10 and 20 plus postage; and if the House is not in fact very interested in this I trust the noble Viscount will in the circumstances see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME As the House does not seem to be interested I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Fourth Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported:
1. TELEPHONES.
The Committee sanctioned the installation in the rooms of Heads of Departments of a limited number of the new type of telephone receiver.
2. VISIT TO THE LIBRARY OF THE FRIENDS OF THE NATIONAL LIBRARIES.
The Committee approved arrangements for a visit to the Library by the Friends of the National Libraries.
3. HOUSEKEEPER'S CARPET.
The Committee sanctioned a payment not exceeding £10 for a new Carpet for the housekeeper.
4. FEE FUND.
The account of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords for the year ended 31st March, 1931, was laid before the Committee.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move, that this Report be now considered and adopted. The Report is in your Lordships' hands, and I do not think there is anything I need say in drawing your Lordships' attention to it, except as to the statement of the visit to the Library of the Friends of the. National Libraries. This is a new society that has been formed, and the Committee recommend that its request to visit the Library should be agreed to by your Lordships.
Moved, That the Report be now considered and adopted.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 3) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, on the 2nd of July, when we were debating the Unemployment Insurance (No. 4) Bill, I promised noble Lords who were desirous of speaking upon it that there should be au opportunity of debating the whole question of unemployment insurance when the No. 3 Bill was before your Lordships' House. Here is the No. 3 Bill, and the opportunity for debate is available. I propose to be extremely brief, so as to give ample time for those who wish to speak in the debate. Perhaps I might say on the broader issue of unemployment insurance, that, on the whole, I think we may feel that the unemployment insurance system has had a beneficial effect on the economic status of this country, a stabilising effect. The machinery of unemployment insurance has proved equal to an extraordinarily difficult task in a time of great economic depression, and it has served as some means of maintenance to those who, through no fault of their own, have become unemployed. The stabilisation of purchasing power is, I believe, something of very great value, and the system has, generally speaking, worked smoothly.
It is interesting to note that in countries which have riot an unemployment insurance scheme very considerable difficulties have arisen. In the United States, we learn, there is suffering and misery among millions of unemployed

1187
because there is no system of assistance. Private charity has been inadequate and loans from friends have now largely come to an end. Their fuel was exhausted at the end of last winter, and they are facing the coining winter with very great misgivings; so much so that we learn that the great industrial States in the United States are considering generally a scheme for unemployment insurance. The State of New York intends to found a scheme on our experience, and actually has at the present moment an expert observer in this country preparing details for the plans which it is understood will be adopted by the State of New York for next winter.
There must be anomalies in, and possibly abuses of, a scheme of the vast magnitude of the unemployment insurance scheme in this country, but in that connection I would point out to your Lordships that there has been a great deal of very loose talk. How often have we heard about the domestic servant who prefers the "dole" to domestic service! How often have we heard about the farm labourer whose benefits are more than his wages! Neither of those categories is included in the scheme, and, therefore, immediately, we know that such criticisms are based on a lack of adequate knowledge of the terms of the scheme. A letter was brought to my notice which appeared in The Times a few months ago from a distinguished public man. He quoted from a letter in which it was stated: "Millie"—that is the lady's name—"has left school, and had a job for a month, so she has got the 'dole.' "If Millie did get the "dole" that was a definite abuse, or a. failure on the part of the exchange to watch over the interests of the Act. In point, of fact Millie could not have got payment of unemployment insurance benefit unless she had thirty weeks' work, and, therefore, thirty payments to her credit. Moreover, Millie in that ease would have had to attend an instructional centre had there been one in the area in which she lived. As this was a biggish industrial centre, it is probable that there was an instructional centre in that area.
That is a feature of criticism which has served to discredit what on the whole has been a very remarkably successful
1188
scheme. However, difficulties did of course arise and there was widespread anxiety because of the cost of the scheme and the rate at which the debt of the Insurance Fund was rising. In consequence, a Royal Commission was appointed last year and an Interim Report was published on June 1 this year. The Government have considered that Interim Report and decided that the recommendations were so wide that it would be wiser to await the final Report before reconstructing the scheme. But they decided that as regards the abuses, which the Report, terms "anomalies," they would take action. Perhaps I might quote the paragraph of the Report dealing with that. Paragraph 103 of the Report states:
"Much attention has been directed to certain provisions of the scheme which give rise to what have been commonly termed the abuses ' of the Acts Inn which may more fairly he called 'anomalies.'"
The Report goes on to state:
"It is difficult to make provision in an Act of Parliament for unanticipated problems, and it is not surprising that the general provisions of a scheme which is designed to deal with the normal type of unemployment should, in their application to an infinite variety of individual circumstances, operate in some eases in a way which was not within the intention of the Legislature. We wish to make it clear that the classes of claims which have been criticised as not properly within an insurance scheme are permissible under existing legislation. Moreover, as we shall show later, some of them arise out of longstanding provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts which have only recently been called in question."
Then the Report in the next paragraph draws attention to the seriousness of these anomalies—that is to say, the unnecessary expenditure, their effect on the repute of the scheme to which I have referred, and the "encouragement of methods of industrial organisation which may be harmful to trade and employment in general." The Report goes on to deal with certain classes of claimants to which the attention of the Royal Commission was specially drawn. It is the object of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Bill, the Second Reading of which I am now moving, to remove the anomalies as regards the four classes particularly mentioned. Clause 1 (2) of the Bill refers to the four classes particularly concerned. Briefly, I will call them the substantial earners, the seasonal workers, the intermittent

1189
workers and married women. Under the Bill, the Minister must by the provisions of Clause 1 (1) make regulations for the purpose of removing the anomalies. It was felt that it was better to deal with this very difficult and complex problem by regulations rather than by actual provisions in the Bill itself, because in the first place the anomalies themselves are exceedingly complex, and it is more than probable—as suggested by the Report of the Royal Commission—that any Act of Parliament while trying to deal with some anomalies would create other anomalies in the attempt to provide legislation for these difficulties.
The rules must in their nature be extremely detailed. They would make an Act of Parliament very bulky and would tend to make it inflexible. It is felt to be important if we are going to deal with this matter adequately that there should be elasticity in the regulations that are drafted. The regulations which are made by the Minister will be submitted in draft to an Advisory Committee before they are actually made. The Committee must report without delay to the Minister, and that report—which will be a report by the Committee on the draft regulations—must be laid before both Houses of Parliament at the same time. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, will be pleased to hear that. The regulations themselves—after the Committee has reported on the draft regulations—when issued by the Minister, must also be laid before Parliament. That comes under the 1920 Act, not under this Act. The function of the Committee is to advise the Minister whether, having regard to the intentions of the Act, the draft regulations submitted are really effective in doing what they purport to do. Moreover, they must also say whether they consider the regulations are generally suitable to the difficulty that they are intended to deal with.
The constitution of the Advisory Committee is dealt with in Clause 2. The Committee must be formed within six weeks of the passing of the Act and will consist of a. Chairman and nine other members, one of whom must be a woman. Three of those members are to be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, three after consultation with the National Confederation
1190
of Employers' Organisations, and one after consultation with the Treasury. It is interesting to note that the two principal organisations concerned included this recommendation in the proposals which they put before the Royal Commission.
If your Lordships will turn to Clause 3 of the Bill, you will see that that deals with the question of the policy of industrial transference, and perhaps your Lordships will forgive me for a moment if I deal with that. The policy of industrial transference was first adopted by the Conservative Government in 1928 on the recommendation of the Industrial Transference Board. It its limited in its action to what are known as the depressed areas, such as those connected with coal, iron and steel and shipbuilding, and more lately cotton. Each area can be helped under this scheme according to a definite schedule. The lists are actual and clear lists, scheduled and limited to these places only. Under the scheme facilities are provided—I want to be very brief in dealing with this matter—for such matters as the advance of fares (which are recoverable) to men seeking employment outside the depressed area. Latterly this advance of fares has been extended to men who are going to another area, not having a definite job but having a good prospect of employment in that area, provided the man has friends or relations who will give him accommodation for a limited time while he is making good his search for work.
Then there are grants for juveniles and young persons, including their fares and in certain cases the making up of a small wage to allow for the cost of living in a new place away from home. There are also grants to married men and to single men with dependants, for the permanent removal of households, their furniture and household effects, when they find work in another area. There are loans to men who are waiting for their first week's wages—recoverable loans—and advances towards the cost of temporarily maintaining two households until the family can be removed. There are special loans to single men awaiting their first week's wages and there are advances for clothing and hoots, and in cases of men taken ill while away from home there is provision to enable a man to have a free

1191
ticket home. These are rather pitiful aids to the maintenance of human relationships in cases of extreme difficulty. I feel certain that your Lordships will want to continue these aids. The reason for the clause is that to some extent the conditions of the Labour Exchanges Act, under which industrial transference is allowed have been exceeded, and this has been going on for some two years. The clause is put in as an attempt to regularise the practice and make possible the continuance of these extended facilities.
The Public Accounts Committee drew attention to this matter in their Report in 1930. They said:
"Your Committee are informed that both the Treasury and. the Ministry of Labour were aware of, and accepted, the constitutional view, and the Treasury requested the Ministry to take steps at the earliest possible opportunity to obtain amending legislation. No such legislation has as yet been introduced.
"Your Committee, in calling attention to these facts, desire to reaffirm in the most emphatic terms the opinion expressed by their predecessors and accepted by the Treasury in 1908. Your Committee recommend that appropriate legislation should be introduced forthwith."
This clause is included in this Bill because it was not possible to include legislation in previous Bills, since they were Money Bills, dealing only with borrowing powers and the extension of transitional periods, and it would not have been appropriate to include such a proposal in those Bills. The services for which the clause is required include free fares for juveniles, grants, and loans for lodging and removal expenses, advance of fares for employment found in directions other than through employment exchanges and other small miscellaneous grants. The total sum involved is something like 840,000. As regards the anomalies, the Government believes that the Bill will effect its object in taking away abuses and remedying anomalies, and by removing one of the chief excuses for attacks on the whole scheme of unemployment insurance it is hoped that the result of this Bill will be to safeguard the Fund for those for whom it is really intended—that is to say, for the unemployed and their dependants. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Marley.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, we have listened with interest to the very lucid exposition of this Bill by a noble Lord who always addresses your Lordships very eloquently and, if I may say so, states his case with great precision and lucidity. But we have been watching the mountain in labour, and I think your Lordships will agree that we see now only a very diminutive and I might say a dwindling mouse. In a word, the Bill which the noble Lord has introduced amounts to very little. In fact, I think your Lordships will agree with me that, while it does amount to very little, we can say in its favour that it is a very halting and undecided step perhaps, but a step in the right direction. While I listened to the noble Lord developing his argument, I was hoping to hear something from him of the larger question. In his opening remarks he told us that this would be an opportunity of raising the whole question of unemployment insurance, and that on this little Bill we would have an opportunity of developing all our arguments.
I was hoping to hear from the noble Lord something on the question of economy, because it seems to me that that is what is really in the minds, not only of your Lordships, but of all thinking people throughout the country. I think I am right in saying that we are all filled with feelings of alarm and, in fact, at the present time I suppose that the position reached as regards finance is one of the most difficult, and perhaps one of the most dangerous, that we have ever passed through. And yet, when there is a great problem which touches our finance as closely as unemployment insurance, we hear nothing from the Government but the explanation of the few little proposals which are contained in this Bill, and nothing on the larger question which is in all our minds. It is not as if the leaders of the Government were not aware of the gravity of the situation. I could quote to your Lordships many statements from the Prime Minister and from Mr. Snowden and his colleagues showing that they are fully aware of the very dangerous position in which we stand at the present moment.
If I wanted an authority that would carry weight with your Lordships, I need only quote the statement of Sir Richard

1193
Hopkins. It is a statement which your Lordships know quite well, but I venture to quote it again. In giving evidence before the Royal Commission, he used these words:
"Continued State borrowing on the present vast scale without adequate provision for repayment by the Fund would quickly call in question the stability of the British financial system. The State has every year to borrow large sums for various productive purposes. This additional borrowing—for purposes other than productive—is now on a scale which, in substance, obliterates the effect of the Sinking Fund. Apart from the impairment of Government credit which such operations inevitably involve, these vast Treasury loans are coming to represent in effect State obligations at the expense of the future, and this is the ordinary and well-recognised sign of an unbalanced Budget."
It seems to me that we are drifting very rapidly into the position which has been so clearly put by Sir Richard Hopkins. In relation to unemployment insurance policy, the Government are carrying out a policy of postponement and procrastination, and at the same time there is hanging over our heads this great and menacing problem.
This Bill may be said to have made a stormy passage through the House of Commons. The opposition to the measure was carried on by what is known as the Left Wing of the Socialist Party, and in reading the debates which took place in the House of Commons I find some very interesting statements in regard to economy. As I have said, the leaders of the Government know quite well that economy is vital to this country, and yet we read the doctrine put forward in another place that economy is merely a policy of relieving Income Tax and Super-Tax payers in this country and defrauding the working classes of money which is rightfully theirs. It might be surprising that Members of Parliament sent to another place by the voters of the country should support individuals who hold those doctrines, and I feel that the Government, instead of paying lip service to the policy of economy, ought to do something to show that they are seriously determined, not only to carry out economy in every way they possibly can, but to establish it as a policy throughout this country.
I think I am entitled to say a few words regarding unemployment and I can assure your Lordships that I am not
1194
mentioning this subject in a controversial spirit. It is a controversial matter, no doubt, but it is not in the hope of gaining any Party advantage that I discuss it. I feel very strongly that the question of unemployment and the method of dealing with it is a matter which concerns all Parties, and that no one has any right to make capital in the country in relation to the scourge of unemployment or to the method by which successive Governments may help to deal with it; but I think there are one or two significant factors which I am entitled to mention. The debt on unemployment insurance has steadily increased from the year 1929. We can remember the indictment which was brought against the previous Administration by the Socialists, who were then aspiring to office, and I think your Lordships will agree with me that none of the promises and prognostications which were put forward so lavishly and extravagantly then have been carried in any sense into effect.
I may perhaps be allowed to compare the two periods. In 1929 the debt on the Insurance Fund amounted to £36,870,000. The increase in that year was £4,430,000. When the. Conservative Government left office the outgoings and the incomings were almost balancing, on a register of 900,000 unemployed, and if the indictment is raised at this moment that the Conservative Government should have taken sonic definite steps, I think I am entitled to say that we had every hope at that time that there was going to be a. turn in trade, and that better times were coming. I have regretfully to say that the idea in our minds has not been fulfilled, and it would not be true to say that it was entirely due to the Socialist Government. I am not saying that at all, but what I would venture to say is that in the year 1929 the situation rapidly changed, and for the worse, and now in 1931, after a little more than two years, we find that the debt is nearly £90,000,000, and is increasing at no less a rate than £1,000,000 a week. My Lords, that denotes a very serious situation indeed, and one would have thought that at this time, after mature consideration and after the many hopes held out and promises made, one would have seen some attempt on the part of the Government to grapple with this grave problem, this vast expenditure of money, which is the life blood of this country gradually

1195
flowing away without any steps being taken by the present Government to check it.
The noble Lord who introduced this Bill spoke of the principle of unemployment insurance, and it is one to which we all subscribe. We believe that those unfortunately displaced by circumstances from the capability of earning their living should, by some scheme or other, be saved from the wants and requirements which the destitute would have to suffer. In 1912 this scheme was put forward. Since then there have been many developments. Now one might say practically that, with the exception of the two cases mentioned by the noble Lord, the whole of the industrial population of this country is included. That certainly is a step in the right direction, and I would agree with the noble Lord that it has created many influences of a very beneficial character. In fact we stand in the forefront of all countries in this social legislation. It is legislation with which we all agree and which we want to see continued and developed on proper and businesslike lines.
I would venture to say, however, that there is no excuse whatever for the dilatoriness of the Government. We know quite well that a year ago, in response to the clamour at that time, they established a Committee which contained representatives of all three Parties. That Committee deliberated in private for some considerable time but, without letting either the Conservative or Liberal members know that they had another plan, the Government then put forward the policy of a Royal Commission. This was a matter which required dealing with as speedily as possible. It was recognised on all sides that it had to be dealt with; yet a Royal Commission was set up, and the Government continued their play acting, if I may so describe it, and told us they were only waiting for the Interim Report. In fact they pressed the Commission to bring forward its Interim Report at the earliest possible moment. That Interim Report was brought out and this is what the noble Lord has said—that when that Interim Report was issued the only thing the Government could do was to bring in this miserable Bill because they were waiting for the final Report before deciding on a complete scheme of reconstruction. It seems to me that the matter is relegated
1196
to the future, and that while the present Government remain in office we shall see little done with regard to reconstruction on a subject of such vital importance.
I do not feel that I need say very much more on the subject which I have ventured to develop. With relation to the Bill itself I can only repeat what I said in my opening remarks. The Bill achieves practically nothing. It may be said to remove a few anomalies where they exist, but with regard to what may be called the chief anomaly, on which I do not propose to express any opinion, that was struck out of the Bill which had been brought in in another place by the determination of the Left Wing of the Socialist Party. What the Government told us was a very important provision they were quite willing to let go owing to representations made to them by the Left Wing of their own Party. On the subjects of the Advisory Committee and regulations I am not proposing to quarrel with the proposals of the Government. I think there is a great deal to be said for an Advisory Committee, and for the Minister making regulations in connection with the difficulties which are bound to surround a Bill of this description. It is much easier to deal with them in the manner which the Bill prescribes. These regulations do actually come before the House of Commons in their final form, and I think there is enough general supervision to prevent any steps being taken which would not be in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the people of this country. The noble Lord spoke of elasticity, and I think with regard to the Advisory Committee and regulations there is the elasticity which in very difficult circumstances should be granted to the Minister.
Beyond this I do not feel that I have anything to add. I repeat that it is a matter of very great regret to me that when the Government had the opportunity of dealing with this subject in a comprehensive way—and I maintain that they have enough information in their hands at the present moment to go very far into this question—they have put off the country with this Bill, which practically amounts to nothing at all.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I do not think that at this time of the Session there will be any particular advantage in going into great detail on this Bill. I should like to make a few preliminary

1197
observations, then say something in reference to the Bill, and perhaps I may be allowed at the end to say something with regard to the general position. The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, has just pointed out that this Bill is a great disappointment to all of us, and to the nation at large, which is interested in the question of unemployment. It is the sole attempt which they have made to give effect to their own profession, over and over again repeated, that they were determined to bring the insurance system back to a proper actuarial basis and to put it into a state of solvency.
They appointed a Royal Commission in order to bring that about. The history of that is rather peculiar. There was a three-Party Committee, out of which we hoped some advantage would come. For some reason or other that Committee was brought to an end without any information being vouchsafed to the country at large as to what they had recommended, and why their recommendations were not accepted. Then the Government as an alternative appointed a Royal Commission, and directed them in the terms of reference
"To inquire into the provisions and working of the unemployment insurance scheme, and to make recommendations with regard to (1) its future scope, the provisions which it should contain, and the means by which it may be made solvent and self-supporting …."
That must be considered in connection with the declarations of members of the Government. The Prime Minister him3elf in November, 1930, declared that unemployment insurance must be put back on to an insurance basis. The Minister of Labour, Miss Bondfield, as late as February, 1931, said:
"It is our considered view that the scheme of unemployment insurance should be a self-supporting scheme."
She says there should be tripartite contributions, and the funds should cover the risks which they were intended to cover. The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed the same view that the funds must be put back on to an insurance basis, in view of the alarming expenditure which was falling on the public Exchequer. After the Royal Commission had been sitting for a certain time the Government, in the words of the Commission, themselves pressed upon them the necessity of an early Interim Report, as the matter was urgent from the
1198
point of view of the national position. The Minister of Labour said that they were looking forward to the Report in order to base legislation upon it at a very early date.
I think that gave the impression to the country at large that when the Report was made action would immediately be taken in the direction of putting the Fund on a solvent basis. But the Report came out, and made certain obvious recommendations, pointing out that in order to put the Fund on a solvent basis you must make your income equal to your expenditure. They made recommendations which, if they were carried out, would, either by reduced expenditure or increased revenue, have reduced the annual deficit on the Insurance Fund from about £40,000,000 to £7,000,000. The Government, who had pressed for the appointment of the Commission and for the Interim Report, unfortunately did not see their way to accept the proposals. The noble Lord who introduced this Bill said they did not do it because they thought they ought to wait until the final Report is issued. That seems to me to be a perfectly untenable argument, because they specially asked the Commission to hurry up the Report, solely in regard to this financial question, and the Commission themselves in their Report say that the question of solvency was quite apart from the recommendations which they would make later. They promised to deal later with certain fundamental questions, such, for instance, as the relations between the central Government and the Poor Law, and the question of whether benefit did not lead to additional difficulties with regard to unemployment and trade arrangements, and with regard to elasticity. It therefore is really no excuse at all to say that the Government must wait for the final Report before taking action in matter which they themselves have declared was of the utmost urgency, on which they have made declarations that they would deal with it at once, when, owing to the feeling Among their own Party, they are going to postpone it until the Greek Kalends.
That makes it all the more absurd for them now to come before us and say they are introducing a Bill that will deal with an important part of the unemployment insurance scheme. Everybody admits

1199
that these anomalies have to be dealt with. I shall certainly support the Bill because it does deal to a certain extent with these abuses. But, while the recommendations of the Royal Commission would have reduced the deficit on the Insurance Fund from about £40,000,000 to something like £7,000,000, all that can at the outside be saved under this Bill is a matter of about. £5,000,000. Indeed, the Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Labour in another place repeatedly said they did not accept that estimate; they did not think the saving would amount to anything like it. As a matter of fact, a very small sum will be saved by dealing with these anomalies. That is the gravamen of the charge which we make against the Government. They made these promises and I believe fully intended to carry them out, but as soon as they had the opportunity they failed to do so.
In reference to the Bill itself, as I said just now I shall certainly support it because it does deal with some anomalies and abuses which are of really grave importance. But I think it is the greatest misfortune that at the present moment there should be suspicion and misunderstanding and a feeling that a great deal of this money does not go to the proper person—that it goes to, I forget the lady's name, but at all events to people who ought not to receive it. That has brought the Unemployment Fund into some disrepute and has been the cause of a great deal of criticism. I agree with my noble friend opposite that the number and quality of the abuses are very much exaggerated. There are abuses, undoubtedly, and they ought to be dealt with. They are met with in administration and now we are going to meet them in law; but that they are exaggerated I am certain. At the same time that does not relieve one of the feeling that the unemployment system, which covers so large, a field and so large a number of persons, is under considerable discredit and suspicion largely due to misrepresentation—but there it is. Therefore, anything that can be done by any Party in your Lordships' House or another place to remove that suspicion and discredit is to the good.
I find it difficult enough to follow the Bill itself and what its exact effect will
1200
be, being only an unfortunate layman. The Royal Commission recommended, of course, that three classes of workers should be treated on a separate basis from the present one—casual workers, those working short time, and intermittent workers. Undoubtedly, the Royal Commission made out a good case for dealing with those problems. But it is very difficult to see what definition you can draw up as between persons who ought to receive benefit in addition to their ordinary wages when they are actually on short time or completely unemployed and those who ought not. The noble Lord did not attempt to draw up any such definition, but the attempt has been made by the Minister of Labour in the course of the debates in another place, and I think he put it very clearly. I should like to point out what seems to me to be the real difference, on which this Bill ought to be based, as between those who ought to be in the Bill and those who ought to be excluded from it.
Roughly speaking, I think, Parliament intended that benefit should be drawn by the man who in the ordinary way had regular normal weekly wages and who, through no fault of his own but in consequence of slackness of trade or the prevalence of short time, was unemployed. Those men ought to be excluded from the Bill. But the next class are those who ought, I think, to be in the Bill and I would like to know whether they are definitely included. Benefit is not intended to be drawn by the man who habitually works only on certain days of the week for which lie receives special rates of pay, whose short time is habitual and has no relation to bad trade, and who is not, therefore, unemployed in the ordinary sense of the term. In other words, a man should only receive benefit for the days on which he is willing to work and yet is actually unemployed in his trade, and ought not to receive benefit for the days on which, in consequence of trade custom or for other reasons, he does not work and does not intend to work. It seems to me that is the difference and that is the distinction to draw—whether a man is willing to work on those days but is unable to obtain work and, therefore, is unemployed, or whether he does not work on those days simply because he is overworking on other days of the week.

1201
I am not sufficiently a lawyer to be able to say whether this latter class is included in the Bill. One has some difficulty about understanding that because in the Bill as originally drawn the clause was somewhat different from the present clause. That was discussed for some 19 hours at an all-night sitting, some of the more extreme Labour members opposing the Bill and especially this clause. The Government stuck to their guns, but in the end on the Report stage they proposed other words. As far as I can judge, those words more or less carry out the object my noble friend opposite has in view, but the fact that the original clause was objected to by the more extreme members of the Labour party, that finally the Government capitulated, that members who had been the most active opponents of the Bill withdrew their opposition, accepted the Amendment as a great step in advance and allowed the Bill to pass, makes one suspicious. I should like to know from the noble Lord during the Committee stage a little more exactly what those words mean.
With regard to the machinery part of the Bill I have no adverse comment to offer. It seems to me that the appointment of the Advisory Committee is much the best method of carrying out the proposals, inasmuch as no Act of Parliament in a matter of this kind could so define the various anomalies which exist without raising further anomalies. This gives greater elasticity through the Advisory Committee to the Minister, and I think that is the most satisfactory way of dealing with it. I think the composition of the Advisory Committee is very satisfactory. The proposal is that the employers and the employees should each nominate so many, and of course there is a representative of the other sex. I should like in Committee, if I can get my noble friend to agree, to reduce the number by one because I think it is a little overbalanced as against the interests of the men. But that can be discussed when it arises.
In regard to the general position, as my noble friend behind me said it is appalling at the present moment. Until 1924 under the original Act, for which I was personally responsible, the Fund was solvent and there was a surplus of something like £22,000,000 available. That
1202
surplus, especially since 1930 under the Act of the present Government, has become hopelessly insolvent. I do not know whether noble Lords have followed the figures in the Report of the Royal Commission very carefully but there are two Funds. There is, first, the so-called Insurance Fund—though it has very largely lost its insurance properties—the income of which at the present moment is £44,000,000 per annum and the expenditure £84,000,000, a deficit each year of £40,000,000. In addition to that, as noble Lords know, there is what is called the Transitional Benefit Fund under which the State pays something like £35,000,000 a year in addition to the other; so that the whole deficit on the Fund is something like £75,000,000 a year. Because of the fact that it is getting steadily worse and the undertakings of the Government, we hope at all events they will do something, if not very much, to remedy that state of things.
The debt has risen from £4,000,000 in 1924 to no less than £115,000,000 to-day. The most disquieting part of the whole position to my mind, is that for many years past we have always talked of the transitional benefit, the extended benefit, and so on, as if it was a thing so damaging to the Insurance Fund as to put it on a basis which was not an insurance basis. It is perfectly true that it was a very damaging fund, but as a matter of fact it has been taken away entirely from the real insurance part, and in spite of that there is a deficit of £40,000,000 a year on the insurance side. It is no longer the Insurance Fund that it was in the early days. To-day the benefits are far in excess of the contributions, and are allowed to go on for an unlimited time. Unfortunately, these men and women who are getting insurance are not adding anything to the wealth or the prosperity of the country, but very much the opposite. It is their misfortune that they have to remain unemployed. We are spending this enormous sum without any possible benefit to the country, as a whole, except this, which is the other side of the shield that I would like to emphasise if I may. The figures are very large, but they have, after all, prevented an immense amount of serious distress, and, I think, possibly saved us from a social, political and economic upheaval.

1203
Many millions of men and their families have been saved from real privation. Their homes have been kept together instead of being broken up; their health has not been impaired, and they have been saved from a feeling lest at some time or other, through no fault of their own, they would be unemployed and left to starve. It is a striking thing, I think, that it is only twenty years since, under the first Insurance Act, the State admitted that it had a liability to these able-bodied men who were out of work, and, through co-operation with the employers and the men themselves who contributed to the Fund, the State was able, at first in a small way no doubt, to provide for the position which has now arisen—namely, that no man and no woman who is out of work need fear that their homes will be broken up. They are saved from terrible hardships, and are able, at all events as long as they continue unemployed and are genuinely seeking for work, to receive something from the State. I am much obliged to your Lordships for listening to me so patiently. I had not intended to say so much. There are other points in connection with the whole matter which deserve discussion, but I have confined myself to those which seem to me of most pressing importance.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, we have no reason on this side of the House to find any fault with the speeches either of the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, or the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry. I think they have recognised very fully that the discussion on a matter of this sort must not in any sense be a political Party discussion, but that we should try together, if I may use that expression, to deal with what is an extraordinarily great difficulty arising from the trade depression which exists not only here but throughout the world. I do not want to speak for more than a short time. May I at the outset agree with what was said at the end of his speech by the noble Earl, Lord Buxton? He recognised, and I believe all Parties in this country recognise, that an insurance scheme for unemployment is an enormous social advantage and a social advance from the point of view of labour. I am sure the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, from what he said to-night, would not question that, and I do not think anyone in this House would question it. When this
1204
scheme was settled very much in accordance with what I may call the Conservative outlook, those then concerned had before them the consideration that it should be a contributory scheme. I think all people who look upon this as a question involving great social difficulties were agreed that the scheme should be a contributory one—that is to say, that the workers themselves should pay towards the insurance which is provided for them in case of unemployment.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It would not be insurance without that.
LORD PARMOOR: I agree. I do not find any fault with what the noble Marquess has said. It was to be a real insurance scheme. What has happened since is this. I am not talking about transitional benefit, but about the ordinary benefits to which the noble Earl called attention. It was to be a true insurance scheme, and it has been of enormous social benefit. It has prevented in the case of unemployment perhaps huge masses of our workers being thrown upon the Poor Law system. Everyone, I believe, is agreed that that is a beneficent and proper social improvement. What has happened is this. Owing to the conditions of employment, which are really worse than anyone could have regarded as probable at the time when this scheme was settled, the obligations which have been thrown upon the State as the third party to this insurance scheme have been enormously increased. I do not think anyone could have foreseen the extent to which they have been in fact increased, and the position now is, how can this matter be dealt with without imposing any hardship—and no hardship ought to be imposed—on those who themselves were contributories to this all-embracing insurance scheme, each paying what was considered at that time should be their contribution to it?
We sometimes hear this spoken of as a "dole." It is not a "dole" really; it is an insurance; and that should be kept very clearly in view. If the workers had not contributed you might have said it was not an insurance but a "dole." When we come to consider this as an insurance scheme surely those who have contributed to it—subject to the question of anomalies about which I will say a word in a moment—are entitled to receive

1205
the benefit that was promised to them. I do not think anyone in this House would doubt that proposition. That is the essence of insurance as against what we call the "dole."
Let me pass on a little further. Why is there this uneconomical payment which has now to be made, if I may use an expression which has been used already to-day? I assume everyone in this House is in favour of prudent economy, though we may differ as to what prudent economy may be. I also believe everyone in this House would say that where workmen have contributed on a certain basis to an unemployment insurance scheme they are entitled to the fixed benefit for which they insure if, from circumstances outside their control, they are out of employment. Is there anyone in this House who would contest that proposition? It is not only a simple proposition, but it is carrying out a contractual relationship which had been entered into with the insured for their benefit. It appears to me on that ground, not as a matter of "dole" but as a matter of insurance honour, that these workpeople who have contributed to this Fund are entitled to the benefits which they were told they would obtain if they contributed.
I agree we have come to a very difficult climax. I rather hoped the noble Marquess would have told us in some way or other what his own solution would be. I know he has great experience of the relationship between employer and employed workmen, particularly in the coal districts. But the real question is, what are we to do? Are we to meet this very heavy obligation which we have entered into as a contractual relationship and find the money which is required to carry out that contract? That is the question. I agree very much with what the noble Earl said. You will not find anything like a complete dealing with these difficulties, complete alleviation under what is called the anomalies or abuses clause. My own strong view is that in the interests of the workpeople themselves all these anomalies and abuses should be carefully considered; but when you come to consider them it is not a question of £40,000,000 or an even larger sum—I think a million pounds a week was the sum mentioned by the noble Marquess—but a comparatively
1206
small matter. At the same time, I am one of those who think it essential that anomalies should be properly dealt with. But it is not fair towards the insurance scheme as a whole or towards those who have bona fide contributed and who bona fide come within the insurance contemplated, that their position should be worsened by what are called anomalies and abuses in other directions.
This is rather a legal question, and I do not want to be too technical at the present time, but the noble Earl asked me as a lawyer about the drafting of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) Of Clause 1 (2). I think if he reads paragraph (a) he will see that it has been very carefully drafted to meet the very cases with which he was dealing—those of intermittent employment. I do not see how clearer words could be inserted by any draftsman. The paragraph reads:
"persons who habitually work for less than a full week, and by the practice of the trade in which they are employed nevertheless receive earnings or similar payments of an amount greater than the normal earnings for a full week of persons following the same occupation in the same district."
Surely that is perfectly clear. You have certain employment, which perhaps is for a few days in a week or for very long hours at certain times. It is an abnormal or intermittent form of employment for which, although no full week is ever worked, the workers as a matter of fact receive remuneration equal to that of a normal worker who works a full week.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I think it says "greater than" not "equal."
LORD PARMOOR: I beg pardon. "An amount greater than." Those are the words. I had taken my eyes from the Bill for a moment. Surely that is perfectly clear. I happen to know that these words gave great difficulty to the draftsman. Draftsmanship is difficult, and can only be settled after the very closest examination. I believe that I have drafted—I think I have said the same thing before—more Bills and more clauses than almost anyone else, and well remember a very learned Judge saying "Be sure you are very careful to put down your brains clearly on paper." That is one of the most difficult things in the world, and that is why we find that drafting does not always carry out the desired provisions. In the same way I

1207
think paragraphs (b) and (c) are perfectly clear as matters of drafting. Those are the anomalies to which reference was made in the Interim Report of the Royal Commission.
Th only other matter I think is the widest question of all, and I can only say it is an extraordinarily difficult thing in this case to combine public economy with complete justice to those who have contributed towards the Insurance Fund. We cannot, as a matter of national honour, as it appears to me, say that because the obligation on the State, which is the third party, has become heavier than was expected, that men are not to get the benefit to which they would otherwise be entitled. I cannot understand that attitude being taken; yet that would be the position if some suggestions made to-day were carried out. I do not think the noble Marquess would desire that for one moment. Insurance is in its essence the result of an arrangement whereby a man, by putting aside money—in more prosperous times, in the case of the workmen—ensures his position in periods of unemployment and trade depression. I think myself most certainly that the guaranteeing party in this insurance scheme—that is, the Government—is not entitled, except in cases of abuse or anomalies, to deprive a man of a payment to which, under the terms of the insurance, he is justly entitled. That is really the Bill. I do not want at the present time to go further into the general question of economy. No one feels it more strongly than we do. I am sure that no Government are more desirous, within the limits I have mentioned—that is, the limits of fair treatment towards those to whom they are under an obligation—to do what they can, and I hope that when the full Report is received further progress may be possible.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, with two observations of the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken I entirely agree, and indeed can anyone dispute them? One is that the proper mode of providing for people out of work is by a system of insurance properly so-called, that is, by contributions from insured persons, the State and the employers. The other proposition is that a man so insured is entitled to the benefit towards which he has contributed. The
1208
noble and learned Lord spent a good deal of time in developing and insisting on those two propositions which I should have thought no one would have dreamed of disputing, but I am glad to see—possibly it is a late repentance—that he does give his whole-hearted support to the principle of contributory insurance.
The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill made an interesting speech, and I could not help envying him his cheery optimism. He seemed to think that this was, to use his own words, a very satisfactory scheme of payment to those out of work, but it had some few blemishes. I was reminded of a passage in, I think it is, one of the Roman satirists. I have not had an opportunity of looking it up, but the writer complained of those who quibbled over some really big work of art because it had some blemishes and he goes on to say Velut si egregio inspersos reprendas corpore nœvos. In other words, he complained of people who blamed a beautiful woman because she had a mole on her body. The noble Lord seemed to think that there were nothing but small blemishes in his Bill, and he quoted the case of a woman unknown to me, called Millie. He assured your Lordships that Millie's case was not as bad as it was made out. I have not the remotest notion who Millie was or what her ease was, whether it was good or bad, but let us assume it was bad. He went on to say that that was a type of the criticism which assails this scheme of insurance. I assure the noble Lord he is under a complete misapprehension. As we all know, there are two classes of persons who benefit under the scheme—one of them, those who have contributed and have earned benefit. The other class is that of the men and women who have not paid and earn no benefit and who get what is very properly called the "dole."
If the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill imagines that the Bill is regarded with any favour among the workmen of this country, except possibly those in receipt of the "dole," he is grossly mistaken. I have myself talked to a considerable number of self-respecting workmen in this country who are not in receipt of the "dole." These men, whether they be

1209
agricultural labourers or factory workers—I care not what they are—all expressed he strongest resentment, almost indignation, at the way on which this "dole" is administered. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Marley, will realise that the evils and abuses of this "dole" are not small and slight blemishes, but gross and serious matters, and ought to be immediately remedied. They could have been remedied if the Government had applied their mind to the task. The truth is that, in the matter of this Bill and the insurance benefit, the Government have followed their habitual policy of postponement and evasion. They have postponed the General Election for the very good reason that it is the day of judgment. They have postponed almost every social reform, every economy, everything that will tend to reduce unemployment or to be of advantage to the country. Instead of acting, they appoint Commissions, and as soon as the report of those Commissions are produced they throw them into the wastepaper basket. They have practically done this in the present case. I do not say they have done it for ever; I hope not; but they have acted as if that were what they intended.
I have said that this is a very big question. The Government have admitted that this is a very big question. They urged the Commissioners to make an immediate Report that they could act upon. Now they have decided not to act upon it, but merely to take up some small points to satisfy public indignation. That is what they have done, and the reason, to my mind, why they have not dealt with the real, obvious and flagrant abuses that are incident to the operation of this scheme is that they are afraid of losing votes. No doubt they would lose some votes, but an honest Government does not hesitate to remedy evils because it may lose votes here and there. I am sorry to have to impute that motive, but I tried to discover why they have not acted, and that is the only suggestion that occurs to my fairly impartial mind. The noble Earl, Lord Buxton, who made, if I may say so, a most admirable speech, referred to the extravagance and the incompetence of the Government in dealing with this question, and I suppose I may be entitled to assume from what he said that, were he in another place at the present moment, he would not act
1210
with those of his Party who prolong the unfortunate existence of this Government. That is a matter of inference, and I can only draw my own conclusions from his speech.
There are only two other matters to which I want to refer. The first is as to why some provision was not introduced in the Bill that a man should not get a "dole" unless he is genuinely seeking work. It is within your Lordships' recollection that this House introduced a provision into an Unemployment insurance Bill to the effect that, in order to get benefit, a man should show that he was genuinely seeking work. That provision was moved, I think, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Darling, whom I do not see here at this moment. It was taken from the provisions of one of our great trade unions, which after long experience had decided that such a protection was necessary and right in giving men benefit out of union funds. For some inscrutable reason, the Government refused in another place to insert that provision in the Bill. Since then they have had a good deal of experience, and I should have thought their experience might have satisfied them that some such provision ought to be inserted in this Bill. If they had inserted it, I think they would have removed a certain amount of the objection, and at any rate mitigated a certain amount of the resentment that is felt at the way this relief is administered.
There is only one other point that I wish to refer to, and that is the question of economy. That has been so fully dealt with by my noble friend below me and by Lord Buxton that it is unnecessary for me to say very much about it. I venture to think that it has made a profound impression on the people throughout this country that, at a moment when, by the admission of nearly every person in every Party in the State, of die business men in the country and of all the best economic and industrial experts, economy is the most necessary matter to take up, yet here, when they had an opportunity of effecting some economy—I know not how much, but a substantial economy—instead of doing so, they have brought in this miserable bantling of a Bill, which, I think, has excited contempt throughout the country.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, there is one question that I would like to ask the noble Lord, because it appears to me that an injustice is being done. If the noble Lord will look at page 2, he will see certain exceptions, certain people taken out of the operation of Clause 1. It is stated that Clause 1 shall not apply to married women whose husbands are incapacitated from work or are unemployed and not in receipt of benefit, nor to widows. There is no mention made of women living apart from their husbands by order of the Court. I ask the noble Lord to take that into consideration. I will leave it to him whether he thinks fit to put down an Amendment in Committee to cover this point.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, in regard to the last point, I will bring it to the notice of those concerned, and I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount for putting forward the suggestion. As regards the question of economy, the noble Marquess suggested that I should have dealt more fully with it in my opening remarks. I felt that it was not my task to deal with it. I was concerned with introducing this particular Bill which is not intended to be a measure of economy so much as a measure to remedy abuses of the insurance system. That is why I did not think I was concerned with introducing that topic in your Lordships' House, though I knew it would be dealt with by other speakers. The noble Marquess said that Ministers are fully aware of the position, and therefore they are in a position to deal with the matter in the way in which it has to be dealt with.
The noble Marquess said that loans were a charge on the future. That is true. All loans are a charge on the future. For example, I understand that we are still paying for the Peninsular Campaign and the hostilities which terminated in the Battle of Waterloo. We are paying more than 100 years later. I suppose that is inevitable in any system of borrowing. I feel that in any case economy is necessary, but in effecting that economy one must take into account equality of sacrifice. There must be a measure of equality in the sacrifices demanded from all those members of the community who form our nation, and that is one of the difficulties that has to be dealt with in considering this matter.
1212
The noble Earl, Lord Buxton, put forward some suggestions with regard to the debt of the Fund. I want just to remind your Lordships that the Fund has been in debt now for ten years, and that, in point of fact, the debt had risen between 1926 and 1928—in those two years alone—by over £20,000,000, so that it is not a new fact, though the rate of increase is a serious consideration at the present time. I may say also that the debt of the Fund is not £115,000,000, as the noble Earl said, but £92,000,000.
EARL BUXTON: I did not intend to say that. What I meant was that they had power to borrow up to £115,000,000.
LORD MARLEY: That is true; we have power to borrow to that extent, but the present debt of the Fund is £92,000,000. I am not saying that this is not a serious matter, but it is not so serious as the £115,000,000 which was mentioned.
EARL BUXTON: The Minister of Labour said that under certain conditions the present Fund would be exhausted by October, and that if unemployment goes up it would be exhausted before that.
LORD MARLEY: I was only pointing out in the interest of accuracy that the noble Earl did say that the debt was £115,000,000 to-day, which is not October. I think everyone will agree that abuses must be dealt with. I am certain that that is the opinion not only of every member of this House but of all those throughout the country who consider the Fund reasonably. The question of the definition of those who are involved in this matter contained in the Bill has been specifically referred to, particularly the question of persons who habitually work for less than a full week for more than the normal earnings of a full week. I only want to deal with this matter because if it is understood I think it will remove the necessity of any Amendment on this particular aspect of the Bill being brought forward in Committee.
The point is that if there is a worker who, during a portion of the week, earns more than the normal full wages for a full week of a worker in that occupation, under the present law he is entitled to unemployment insurance benefit for the days when he is not working. That is manifestly an abuse, and the scheme was never intended to cover such a case.

1213
Therefore the Bill provides for that class of worker being dealt with by recommendations of the Committee. The Bill says further that if such a worker in a specific week earns more than the normal rate of wages in the week his employment insurance benefit may not be reduced by an amount greater than the difference between the wages he receives and the normal rate of wages. Let me fry to give an example. Suppose a man habitually earns £3 5s. for three days' work, acid the normal rate of wages for a full week is £3. He has then got more than the normal week's wages. If he is a married man with two children, under the present law and interpretation of the Acts he is entitled to insurance benefit for three days when he has not worked; in other words, he gets an additional 15 s. That is an abuse which must be remedied, and is included in this clause.
That portion of subsection (3) which says:
"this section shall not operate so as to reduce the amount of benefit otherwise payable to any person in respect of any week by more than the amount by which the aggregate of the earnings or similar payments received by him in that week and of the benefit aforesaid exceeds the normal earnings for a full week of persons following the same occupation in the same district"—
means that while the Minister may by regulation alter that anomaly, yet if in any particular week the earnings are less than the normal—say the normal is £3 and the man earn £2 15 s. in a special week—then the benefit must remain payable to the extent of the difference between £2 15 s. which the man receives and £3 which is the normal—in other words 5s which is his share of the benefit fund towards which he has contributed. I hope that that matter is clear, because it is difficult. It has given me a good deal of trouble, and I hope I have explained it clearly to the House.
The other point mentioned was the possibility of alteration in the composition of the Committee, and I hope the noble Earl will not feel it necessary to press that, because the composition of the Committee has been very carefully thought out and it is felt that a Committee composed on the lines proposed in the Bill will adequately fulfil the functions involved. Lord Danesfort complained
1214
that I was optimistic. A few week ago I attended a service in. St. Giles, Edinburgh, and the whole idea of the sermon was the disservice which people did by being pessimistic. I hope the noble and learned Lord is as optimistic as I am. He certainly looks it. It is no good having optimism based on unreality, but I do believe there is no reason for the deep pessimism which surrounds the ideas of so many people. I personally believe in optimism, and I hope your Lordships will not think it is due to art unreal attitude towards the true state of affairs.
I do believe that it is possible to be too pessimistic. Lord Danesfort said that the workers did not approve of misuse of the "dole." I believe it is perfectly true that no one resents more than the workers the abuses of the system of unemployment benefit, but do not let us forget that to millions of the workers the unemployment benefit has proved of the utmost help and assistance in times of stress and strain. On all sides of this House the value of the Fund is admitted. Everybody has paid tribute to its value, and these abuses which are not illegal, not dishonest, but not what the scheme was intended for originally, are what everybody objects to, the workers as much as members of this House. I think the actual details of the Bill have been received very fairly by the House, and with regard to the larger matter I think the Leader of the House has dealt with it far more adequately than I could.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a very clear exposition, but there is one point on which I did not quite follow what he said. We are dealing with an insurance scheme against unemployment. Assume that the normal rate of wage is £3, and the man earns, perhaps working only for four days, £3 5s., or even £3 1s. As I understand it he would not be entitled to receive any benefit, for the purpose of part of this Act is to enable regulations to be passed to cure that abuse. I am assuming that he is not engaged every day of the week.
LORD MARLEY: At present he is entitled.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: If he is, it is more difficult for me to understand.

1215
I understood the noble Lord to say that if the normal rate of wage was £3, and a man working only for three or four days receives £3 5s., he is not to be entitled to receive any benefit.
LORD MARLEY: Let us take three days for the moment. Under the law, as at present administered, he is entitled to and does receive benefit. He is specifically included in this clause, so that in future he will not be able to receive it.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I understood that, and was taking the assumption that he is earning during the week, for a certain number of days of work, more than the normal rate of wages for a whole week, and that consequently the regulations would prevent him from getting the benefit he has hitherto been enabled to draw for the days on which he is not actually working. But what is not clear to me is what happens in such a case as this. The normal wage is still £3, and a man is working, let us say, for three days a week. He earns, let us say, £2 15 s. or £2 10 s. What I want to know is whether it is proposed under this Bill, although certain anomalies have been pointed out in the working of unemployment insurance, that he shall nevertheless be entitled to receive unemployment benefit for the three days when he has not been working, although in fact he has been receiving £2 15 s. or £2 10 s. a week.
LORD MARLEY: In the circumstances which have been outlined by the noble and learned Marquess, if the normal week's wage is £3, and if he has been habitually receiving £3 5s., he will not be entitled to benefit for the days on which he habitually does not work; but if in one week, owing to some special reason, he only gets £2 15 s., he will then be entitled, for the days he has not been working, to receive a measure of unemployment insurance benefit. It will be, not a measure based on the number of days he has not worked, but the difference between the wage he receives in that particular week and the normal wage payable; in other words, in that week he would receive 5s.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BRITISH SUGAR INDUSTRY (ASSISTANCE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Provision for the making of advances to certain manufacturers of British beet sugar]:
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Many of your Lordships no doubt have seen the Report recently issued about this measure—a very admirable and remarkable document it is. It shows that during the last few years the State has spent something like £27,000,000 in subsidy to this industry. One thing that is not mentioned in the Report is the actual factories in which the sugar-making goes on, although there is a number of pictures showing these factories in different parts of the country. The factory, however, is not itself mentioned in the Report. It seems to be treated as if it does not very much matter, so long as the factory is there and does its work. But I know a good many of these factories, and I have studied the pictures of them in the Report, and it would be difficult to find a more commonplace group of factories erected in recent times for industrial purposes. Clause 1 of the Bill contemplates that in the event of the quota specified being adhered to, further factories may be erected in this country. All I want to say to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is that, if he can bring any influence to bear upon the subject, he and his colleagues should do their best to ensure that some attention is paid to the nature and design of these factories.
It is quite out of date to have an ugly, commonplace, badly sited, badly planned, badly designed factory, and in the last few years under this Act we in this country have put up twenty factories, each one of which, I am afraid, comes within the description that I have given. If the noble Lord would use his influence with the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, who is in charge of this Bill, and see whether, in the event of a new factory being required, some of the responsible

1217
people could make a tour in Scandinavia, Germany, Holland, or Northern France, where new buildings have been recently erected, they would learn two things—first, that the manufactory can be a dignified, beautiful building, and, secondly, that it can be erected just as cheaply as one which is designed by the engineer. I hope this matter is worthy of consideration, and, in view of the fact that the State is pouring out millions and millions of money in this industry, I think we are justified in bringing the matter before the Government.
LORD MARLEY: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for mentioning this. I too, have seen these factories, and I am horrified at the look of them. It is not necessary to go as far as Holland, Germany, or Scandinavia to see beautiful factories, because there are really charming buildings on the Kingston by-pass road, and one or two charming buildings on the Great West Road—not perfect, but nevertheless far better than the type of factory that has been put up under this beet sugar scheme. I will certainly bring that fact to the notice of the Minister as soon as this debate is concluded.
On Question, Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

IMPROVEMENT OF LIVE STOCK (LICENSING OF BULLS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for consideration of the Commons Amendments.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, on behalf o my noble friend Earl De La Warr, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Marley.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, there are one or two things in theses Amendments to which I should like to draw attention. On Clause 5 the Commons have inserted Amendments which will make subsection (2) read as follows:
1218
"For the purposes of this section, there shall be constituted a panel of referees consisting of persons appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of such agricultural associations and cattle-breeding societies as the Minister thinks it expedient to consult."
This is how the Bill reads as it has come back to your Lordships from another place. I submit that is very unfortunate drafting. As the Bill left your Lordships' House is was agreed that the Minister should consult such agricultural associations and cattle-breeding societies as he thought it expedient to consult. As it comes back it reads that he shall appoint certain persons on the recommendation of those associations and the associations are still associations which he may think it expedient to consult. The effect of that is that if he consults any association or breed society he is bound, under the new reading, to appoint the persons recommended to him by those particular associations or breed societies. He still has the option to consult or not as he pleases. Once he has consulted them he has to accept the recommendation. The temptation of the Minister would obviously be not to consult at all.
Under the original wording of the Bill, if I may once again direct your Lordships' attention to it, he had a complete option. He might pick out such breed and other societies as he thought desirable and consult with them and make the appointments. He obviously would consult. Now that the Bill makes it obligatory upon him to appoint the persons recommended to him but does not make it obligatory on him to consult, the inclination of the Minister would be, obviously, not to consult at all. It appears to me to be most unfortunate drafting. It cuts clean across exactly what the instigators of this Amendment really wished. The noble Lord sees the point?
LORD MARLEY: I quite see the point. As it stands it would read in this way—that for the purposes of this section, there shall be constituted a panel of referees consisting of persons appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of such agricultural associations and cattle-breeding societies as the Minister thinks it expedient to consult.
LORD HASTINGS: Quite so.
LORD MARLEY: That is as it appears to me to read after coming back from the Commons.
LORD HASTINGS: Yes. I submit that is very unfortunate drafting and that it really defeats the purpose for which the words are inserted.
LORD MARLEY: I do not see that it is so very different from the original drafting, which was that the panel shall consist of such persons as may be appointed by the Minister after consultation with such associations as the Minister thinks fit.
LORD HASTINGS: I do not know whether the noble Lord quite has my point. As the Bill left this House, the whole thing was optional for the Minister; that is to say, lie could consult or not as he pleased. Having consulted, he could appoint or not appoint as he pleased. As the Bill has come back from the Commons he is not to consult if he does not wish to, but if he does consult he has to appoint the persons recommended to him. That is the whole difference, and his inclination would be not to consult. If you are afraid of being made to appoint a person you do not wish to appoint the obvious way out is not to consult at all.
LORD MARLEY: Frankly, I do not quite read it like that. It is:
"For the purposes of this section, there shall he constituted a panel of referees consisting of persons appointed by the Minister"—
persons appointed by the Minister—
"on the recommendation of such agricultural associations"
and so on, as he thinks it expedient to consult. It does not limit it to the recommendations of those associations.
LORD HASTINGS: No; but if lie does consult he has to appoint the persons who are recommended.
LORD MARLEY: I suppose so, but it is not limited to that. Supposing, for instance, he wants to appoint ten people and three have been recommended, he would appoint the three and seven others.
LORD HASTINGS: I hardly think the noble Lord could read it in that way. If your Lordships will pardon me for reading again the words as they come back from the Commons, they are:
1220
"For the purposes of this section, there shall be constituted a panel of referees consisting"
not of persons taken from the general field of the acquaintance of the Minister, not at all, but
"consisting of persons appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of such agricultural associations and cattle-breeding societies as the Minister thinks it expedient to consult."
There is a direct and definite limitation there. He cannot appoint anybody other than those who are recommended to him by the societies, if he once consults them. But the Bill does not lay it down that he shall consult them. If he does not want to appoint persons who are likely to be recommended to him, the only way he can avoid doing so is not to consult.
LORD MARLEY: I think it is a difficulty, and if we can avoid it I think it is very important that we should try to settle it now. If it is not very serious, I do not know whether the noble Lord would wish to press it. I suppose the right thing would have been for him to put down an Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: No, I think not. I do not think I could have done that. The only thing I could do would be to move that the Commons Amendment be not accepted. I could not put down an Amendment.
LORD MARLEY: To disagree?
LORD HASTINGS: I could put down a Motion to disagree.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, my noble friend will forgive me, but I do not think that is quite right. It is perfectly true that my noble friend is not entitled to move an Amendment to the Commons Amendment without having put it down, but he can, if he pleases, put an Amendment on the Paper. I speak with some confidence because I have actually taken that course with regard to something for to-morrow. He is not in the least precluded from dealing with it now though it is not on the Paper—he may move that the Commons Amendment be disagreed with and this House will decide. May I put this point to the noble Lord, Lord Marley? My noble friend Lord Hastings indicated the objection he feels to the Amendment made in another place. Could the noble Lord tell us—I do not

1221
think he has yet done so—what is the advantage and the reason of the Amendment made in another place, and why it is better than the words which left here? Presumably it was moved in Committee and there must have been some discussion and some reasons given why they departed from the language which the Bill contained when it left your Lordships' House.
LORD HASTINGS: That is exactly my point.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think it would help those of us to whom it comes as a new matter and who are a little doubtful of its exact significance if the purpose of the Commons Amendment and the circumstances in which it was made were explained to us.
LORD MARLEY: The position, as I understand it, is this. Under the clause as amended the Minister must consult to ascertain who has been recommended. As the noble Lord says, he must appoint from those recommended, though he need not appoint anybody. I think that was the point made.
LORD HASTINGS: He must appoint those who are recommended to him.
LORD MARLEY: Yes, that is the difficulty. With regard to the question put by the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, it is intended to be only a drafting Amendment. The Government preferred the original wording. It was the Opposition in another place who pressed us to accept the alteration which, they said, was merely a drafting alteration. It was on the pressure of the Conservatives in another place that this alteration was made.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, that is perfectly accurate. But the Opposition, moved thereto by the farming community, were most anxious that the representatives of agricultural associations and breed societies should be the persons appointed by the Minister, and they got those words inserted. But they forgot, apparently, that by getting those words inserted they did not, at the same time, compel the Minister to consult them. The Minister is compelled, under the new wording, to appoint such persons as are recommended, but is not compelled to consult anybody. If he does not wish to
1222
appoint certain persons that he believes are going to be recommended to him his only way out is not to consult anybody at all. That is what I want to get away from.
LORD MARLEY: Surely he must consult them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): My Lords, if you look at the subsection it can be read in this way. It restricts the power of the Minister, and that is its object. The subsection reads:
"For the purposes of this section, there shall be constituted a panel of referees consisting of such persons as may be appointed by the Minister after consultation with such agricultural associations and cattle-breeding societies as the Minister thinks it expedient to consult."
Let us stop there. Supposing he does not consult anybody, then the position is that "after consultation" does not apply. The object of this Amendment is this, he is not obliged to consult them at all, but if he does consult them he is obliged to take their advice. The object of it is to say to the Minister that while it is perfectly true you are not obliged to consult, if you do consult you must take their recommendations.
LORD HASTINGS: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for helping me in that way, but would it not be true to say that the original words "the Minister after consultation" do oblige the Minister to consult?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I doubt it for this reason. He has only to consult such people as he thinks it expedient to consult, and if he thinks it expedient not to consult anybody, it does not mean that he is obliged to consult them.
LORD PARMOOR: May I say one word upon this? I have enquired why the change was made in the other House, and was told that objection was taken that the Bill as it came down to them gave too much power to the Minister, and what they wanted was that the Minister should not have this power, but should merely have the power to recommend. Surely that is an outlook very often pressed in this House.
EARL STANHOPE: With great respect to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is he quite right in his reading of the clause as amended?

1223
As I read it the Minister has to appoint a panel of referees, which must consist, and can only consist, of people recommended by various societies. He can choose which societies he goes to for consultation, but he can only appoint referees who are recommended to him by the societies, and in no other way can be appoint them. I think that is the case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think if you look at it again you will see it is intended to restrict the powers of the Minister. Whichever way you read it, he is not obliged to consult, but if he does consult, and they make recommendations, he must follow their recommendations. Unless you have the Amendment he might consult them, and not follow their recommendations. It restricts the power of the Minister.
LORD HASTINGS: Is it not true to say that as the Bill originally went down the words were "by the Minister after consultation with such agricultural associations"? We all took it that that meant an obligation on the Minister to consult those associations and the noble and learned Lord now tells us that is not so. If that is not so my whole argument falls to the ground.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No. (46).]
Clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out ("twenty pounds") and insert ("five pounds in the case of a first offence, or twenty pounds in the case of a second or subsequent offence.")
Clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert ("but it shall be a good defence for a person charged with such an offence to prove that the bull was not bred by him, that he took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the bull, and that he had reason to believe that the bull—

"(a) had not attained the prescribed age at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed; or

"(b) had attained that age before the appointed day.")

Clause 1, page 1, line 23, leave out ("under his control") and insert ("custody")
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 2, page 2, line 17, after ("defective") insert ("or inferior")
Clause 2, page 2, leave out ("or") and insert ("and")
Clause 2, page 2, line 33, after the first ("the") insert ("owner or the")
Clause 3, page 4, line 1, leave out from ("Act,") to ("a,") in line 6, and insert ("in respect of a bull shall remain in force until one of the following events occurs, that is to say, until—

"(a) the licence or permit is revoked or becomes void under this Act; or

"(b) the bull dies or is castrated; or

"(c) the bull has been outside Great Britain for a consecutive period of fourteen days or such longer consecutive period as the Minister may allow; or

"(d) in the case of a permit, the period specified therein expires.

"In computing for the purposes of this subsection how long a bull has been outside Great Britain, the period of its absence shall be deemed to begin at the time when it is put on board any ship for the purpose of being carried out of Great Britain and to end at the time when it is landed in Great Britain on its return.
"(6) On")
Clause 3, page 4, line 8, leave out ("seven") and insert ("fourteen")
Clause 3, page 4, leave out lines 10 to 14.
Clause 4, page 4, line 24, after ("inspection") insert ("at any reasonable time either at the place where the bull is for the time being or at any other reasonable place")
Clause 4, page 4, line 25, leave out ("at any reasonable time")
Clause 4, page 5, line 9, after ("collection") insert ("or otherwise in the interests of the science of zoology")
Clause 4, page 5, line 20, leave out ("twenty pounds") and insert ("five pounds in the case of a first offence or twenty pounds in the case of a second or subsequent offence")
Clause 5, page 5, line 28, leave out ("within the prescribed time and")
Clause 5, page 5, line 29, after ("manner") insert ("and within such period as may be prescribed (not being less than fourteen days from the date of the refusal or revocation or the service of the notice, as the case may be)")
Clause 5, page 5, line 30, leave out ("three") and insert ("two")
Clause 5, page 5, line 34, leave out ("such")
Clause 5, page 5, line 35, leave out ("as may be")
Clause 5, page 5, leave out ("after consultation with") and insert ("on the recommendation of")
Clause 5, page 5, line 39, leave out ("such")
Clause 5, page 5, leave out ("as aforesaid") and insert ("with the association or society by which he was recommended")
Clause 6, page 7, line 20, leave out ("under his control") and insert ("custody")
Clause 6, page 7, line 34, leave out from ("void") to ("and") in line 35, and insert ("under subsection (4) of Section three of this Act")
Clause 6, page 7, line 37, leave out ("seven") and insert ("fourteen")
Clause 6, Page 8, line 20, leave out ("five") and insert ("three")
Clause 6, Page 8, line 28, leave out ("twenty pounds") and insert ("five pounds in the case of a first offence or twenty pounds in the case of a second or subsequent offence")
Clause 7, page 9, line 6, leave out ("under his control") and insert ("custody")
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendraents.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 9, line 9, at end insert ("within a reasonable time")
Page 9, line 20, leave out ("under his control") and insert ("custody")
Page 9, line 20, at end insert ("within a reasonable time")
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Marley.)
LORD HASTINGS: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Marley, if the words "within a reasonable time" which were inserted in this Amendment were agreed to by the Government?
LORD MARLEY: Yes, they were agreed to.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENMENTS.
Clause 8, page 9, line 29, leave out ("(a)")
Clause 8, page 9, line 39, leave out ("(b) without the authority of the Minister") and insert ("(iv)")
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Marley.)
LORD HASTINGS: May I at this point ask the noble Lord, Lord Marley, if in respect of Clause 9—[Importation of bulls rejected in Ireland]—it is definitely understood that in spite of the
1226
fact that the coming into force generally of the Act is to be delayed, this particular Clause 9 actually comes into force directly the Act is passed into law?
LORD MARLEY: I do not think Clause 9 is amended. I think Clause 9 is as it left your Lordships' House.
LORD HASTINGS: Yes. But there has been a postponement in respect of certain parts of the Act. An alteration has been made in the date upon which it comes into law, which I shall refer to later on, and the agricultural community are particularly anxious that Clause 9 should come into effective force on the date of the passing of the Act.
LORD MARLEY: I think that is a question of interpretation.
LORD HASTINGS: I wonder if the noble. Lord could interpret?
LORD MARLEY: I am sorry I feel I cannot help the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 10, page 10, line 27, leave out ("twenty pounds") and insert ("five pounds in the case of a first offence or twenty pounds in the case of a second or subsequent offence")
Clause 10, page 10, line 30, leave out ("under his control") and insert ("custody")
Clause 10, page 10, line 35, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("five")
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commons Amendments.
Clause 11, page 10, line 40, at end insert: ("(2) The regulations prescribing the ago of bulk for the purpose of this Act may prescribe different ages for different breeds of bulls")
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Marley.)
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord will notice an exceedingly important Amendment has been inserted in another place—namely:
"The regulations prescribing the age of bulls for the purpose of this Act may prescribe different ages for different breeds of bulls."

1227
It produced the greatest consternation in my mind when I saw that particular Amendment. The difficulty that will be occasioned by it is really very great indeed. Can the noble Lord give us some reason why the Minister of Agriculture accepted that Amendment in another place?
LORD MARLEY: The only information I have on this matter is that provision has been made that regulations prescribing the age of bulls may prescribe different ages for different breeds. I assume that it is an agricultural matter which was pressed by the Opposition in the House of Commons and accepted by the Government. Is there any strong argument against it?
LORD HASTINGS: It makes administration extraordinarily difficult. All bulls are not of pure breed; but I must leave it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 13, page 11, line 20, after ("means") insert ("(i) in the application of this Act to England")
Clause 13, page 11, line 21, leave out ("two") and insert ("three")
Clause 13, page 11, line 23, at end insert:
(ii) in the application of this Act to Scotland, such day, not being earlier than one year after the passing of this Act, as may be appointed by the Secretary of State;")
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Marley.)
LORD HASTINGS: All these Amendments are to be read as one. I would like to say a word about them. Can the noble Lord give us any real reason why Scotland should have had different treatment meted out to it from England in this matter? The noble Lord will see from the Amendments which have been inserted in the Bill that in the case of Scotland the Secretary of State for Scotland is to be enabled to bring the Act into force within a period of not less than one year of the date of the passing of the Act, but in England it is to be a period of not less than three years. The period has been extended from two to three years, whereas we know that agricultural opinion differs very much in this matter and there is a considerable consensus
1228
of agricultural opinion in England which did desire postponement or clearly the Government would not have given way in the matter. At the same time, there is a very strong minority that is exceedingly desirous of seeing this measure brought into force at an earlier date. Their feelings are outraged by the fact that Scotland is to be given a pull of two years over England in the bull market. It seems to me most unjust.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, perhaps I can explain to my noble friend what has happened. I have looked up the debate in your Lordships' House, and may I say in passing that the Minister in another place has been much more accommodating than the noble Earl the Under-Secretary in this House, because I observe that a good many of the Amendments which appear on the Paper are those which your Lordships suggested in the course of debate and which have been accepted in another place. This is one of them. It was stated that the farming community generally in Scotland were anxious that the Bill should come into operation at the end of the year, but, on the other hand, the farming community in England were in favour of extension.
LORD HASTINGS: A majority.
EARL STANHOPE: A majority, certainly. They wanted three years instead of two. Many of us wanted to see the Bill come into operation at a very much earlier date, but there was the strongest opposition amongst members of the National Farmers' Union in England. It was pressed on the Minister—briefly in this House because the hour was late, but still it was suggested in this House—that there should be an extension to three years in the hope that in the interval there might be a voluntary scheme in England so that by the end of three years everybody would so much approve that it would be unnecessary to have compulsion. That was the case put forward by the Farmers' Union, and I understand the Amendment was accepted in the other House for that reason. There are many obvious disadvantages. One of them is that the scrub bull in Scotland is going to be sent to England in the same way that in the past scrub bulls have come from Ireland. I personally should very much like to have seen in the Bill a clause on the same lines as Clause 9, to which

1229
my noble friend referred, so that the Scottish scrub bull should not be dumped into England, but Scotland unfortunately has once again got away with it and I suppose we shall have to accept Scottish scrub bulls for two years. I hope my noble friend will not insist because it would mean sending the Bill back to another place with the possibility of losing it.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I suppose I shall have to respond to my noble friend's appeal, but I do it with extreme reluctance. I cannot see why those English farmers who want to see the Bill passed into law should have the disappointment of finding the date at which the Bill can come into operation extended to three years and during two of those years have to put up with the scrub bull of Scotland.
LORD MARLEY: It is not earlier than two years.
LORD HASTINGS: We know that, but the same pressure which had the words inserted will be sufficient to induce the Secretary of State for Scotland to bring it into force in one year. The bull which is not considered good enough for the Scottish farmer is to be put on the market in England in the same way as the Irish bull in the past which this Bill will prevent coming in. It is not right. It is thoroughly bad legislation, and I strongly object to it. I do not quite know what can be done, but so little do I like the new clause that I would not at all mind holding up the Bill. It will be no use to England for three years, so why should we not hold up the Bill? It is no use to us.
LORD MARLEY: Unless there is a voluntary scheme.
LORD HASTINGS: No legislation will stop a voluntary scheme; that is obvious. I was once anxious that the Bill should pass into law, but I am not in the least anxious now. I cannot see that the Bill is of the slightest advantage to the English stockbreeder at the present moment. On the contrary, it is a disadvantage.
EARL STANHOPE: I hope that my noble friend will find that if this Bill does go through there will be more incentive to bring up calves and to have decent bulls. I know that the milk farmer does not care what type of calf he has so long as his cow produces milk, but I think that under this Bill it is much more likely that he will be induced to produce decent calves. The milk market will be such that a voluntary scheme may have far more effect than is anticipated at this moment. Therefore the Bill may come into operation to some extent voluntarily.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I before we part with these Amendments say that, although no doubt it is a very good thing in the circumstances of this Bill that everybody should speak as often as he likes, I hope it will not be taken as a precedent. The fact, as your Lordships know, is that no one can speak more than once on any Motion put from the Woolsack. I only put in that caveat lest on some future occasion the present reasonable latitude should degenerate into licence.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, may I be allowed to concur entirely in what the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has just said? I know it is difficult in particular cases, and it has been a great advantage to have an adequate discussion on this point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (GRADING AND MARKING) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

TO-MORROW'S SITTING.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before we adjourn I should like to remind your Lordships that it is proposed that we should meet at three o'clock to-morrow afternoon.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.