Lords Sitting of 19 May 1931

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

WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice that he would move after Second Reading, That it be an instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill shall be referred to leave out Clause 22. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, when this Bill was first introduced it contained a clause designed to free all land from restrictive covenants, both freehold and leasehold, already acquired or to be acquired by the West Ham Corporation. Luckily there was a Property Owners' Protection Society in West Ham and they so strongly objected to that clause that a compromise was reached, and the provisions of that compromise are now contained in the clause under discussion. Therefore there is no opposition any longer from that quarter, and therein lies the danger. I wish your Lordships to notice that there is no compensation payable under this clause. Surely such a clause is absolutely without precedent. I am going to submit to your Lordships that the proper course for the Corporation to have taken in order to get rid of the restrictive covenants was to take advantage of Section 84 of the Law of Property Act, 1925.
Subsection (1) of that section says:
"The authority hereinafter defined shall (without prejudice to any concurrent jurisdiction of the Court) have power from time to time, on the application of any person interested in any freehold land affected by any restriction arising under covenant or otherwise as to the user thereof or the building thereon, by order wholly or partially to discharge or modify any such restriction (subject or not to the payment by the applicant of compensation to any person suffering loss in consequence of the order) on being satisfied—
(a) that by reason of changes in the character of the property or the neighbourhood or other circumstances of the case which the authority may deem

1275
material, the restriction ought to be deemed obsolete or that the continued existence thereof would impede the reasonable user of the land for public or private purposes without securing practical benefits to other persons, or, as the case may be, would unless modified so impede such user."
Then subsection (10) defines the authority as follows:
"In this section 'the authority' means such one or more of the official arbitrators appointed for the purposes of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, as may be selected by the Reference Committee under that Act."
That, I suggest, would have been the proper method for the West Ham Corporation to have pursued—going before one of the arbitrators to have the matter thoroughly thrashed out instead of trying to smuggle such an unprecedented clause into a Bill in the hope that it would slip through unnoticed. Your Lordships must remember that such a clause, having once slipped through in a Bill, will be quoted as a precedent in other Bills, and for the reasons which I have stated I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill shall be referred to leave out Clause 22.— (Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EAEL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bertie has moved this instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is referred. There are Petitions opposing the Bill so that in any case it will go to a Committee.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: That clause?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Not the clause, but the Bill. I will come to that in a moment. This clause, as your Lordships have been told, relieved the Corporation from restrictive covenants or stipulations contained in any deed, lease or agreement to which the Corporation were not a party, and made, granted or entered into before the year 1920, as to the nature or character of the buildings to be erected or the purposes for which they may be used. That, I think, was the original provision, and, as the noble Viscount has told your Lordships, that is now very much restricted, and, in the Bill as it now stands, it only applies to buildings occupied by the Corporation
1276
for electricity transformer stations. It limits to some considerable extent the power, although, as the noble Viscount correctly stated, the principle is maintained of waiving restrictive covenants.
As I told your Lordships, this Bill is going to Committee. There are other Petitions, not against this particular point but against other points. I do not know exactly what they are, but the Bill must go before an Opposed Bill Committee, so I would not like to make any observations on this particular point, except one, and it is this. I think it should be left to the unfettered discretion of the Committee of your Lordships' House who are going to examine into the Bill, and who will hear the Petitions against it. Let them pronounce upon the desirability or the justice or otherwise of this particular clause. Under those circumstances, I would hesitate to recommend your Lordships to accept the advice of my noble friend Lord Bertie, but I do not in the least wish to suggest that I deprecate the action of the noble Viscount in bringing the matter before your Lordships' House. By doing so, he will secure that this particular question will receive full consideration by the Committee, and, doubtless, the Committee will take evidence upon it, for and against, and will arrive at a specific decision thereon.
The procedure is this. If this were an unopposed Bill, it could, under the Standing Order, be referred to a Committee by the Chairman of Committees specifically, but that is not necessary, as it is going to a Committee anyhow, and, therefore, if the Chairman of Committees intimates to the Committee that it is desirable this point which has been raised in your Lordships' House should be examined, the Committee will do so and the usual procedure will be followed. I understand that is the usual procedure in cases of this kind. At the same time, I hope your Lordships will leave the Committee a perfectly free hand to do as they think right and proper in the circumstances. If we were to accept the Motion as it stands, it would tie the hands of the Committee. I think your Lordships will agree that the Committees of your Lordships' House should be left as independent as possible and be able to come to a free and unfettered decision. I would further

1277
remind your Lordships that you are not binding yourselves in any way. If you disagree with the findings of the Committee, it will always be open to your Lordships to amend the Bill at a further stage. I rather hope, therefore, that my noble friend Lord Bertie will be content with the explanation I have given and will not press the instruction. So far as the instruction goes, I think everything he wishes will be met, and the matter will be considered and reported upon by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House to whom the Bill will stand referred.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, after the persuasive observations of my noble friend Lord Onslow I will not press my Motion to a Division. I think perhaps I may have attained my object in bringing the matter forward, for the Committee to whom it goes will have full cognisance of the iniquity of the clause.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ROYSTON AND BRODSWOBTH GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE, STALYBRIDGE AND DUKINFIELD (DISTRICT) WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
FELIXSTOWE AND DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The Bill is the result of an agreement which has been reached after full debate in another place. After the debate on the Second Reading conferences took place in private between representatives of the three Parties and effect
1278
was given to the agreement which was reached in Committee. At the Third Reading, although debate took place, there was no Division. Indeed, harmony prevailed to such an unusual degree that members recalled the Prime Minister's appeal to treat Parliament as a Council of State and mutual congratulation was so warm at the Third Reading that other members described the affair as a bouquet-throwing competition.
The Bill deals not with any new proposal but solely with the interpretation of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1925. It repeals subsection 4 of Section 9 of that Act, The object of this Bill is to give effect to the intentions of Parliament as they were understood to be expressed in that Act laying down the conditions entitling to compensation. Paragraphs, (i) and (ii) of the substituted subsection (4) embody the intentions of Parliament as they have been previously understood in a form which satisfies the draftsmen and all Parties in another place. Those intentions as they have been understood for a long period proved to have been inadequately expressed by the operation of the judgment of this House in the case of Bevan versus Nixon's Navigation Company. The Bill merely restores the law as it had been understood until then.
That case itself indicates the nature of this Bill. Bevan was a miner disabled by the disease known as nystagmus, a disease which in itself gives rise to legal difficulties because its effects vary markedly even from day to clay, so that a man may appear one day entitled to compensation on the full disability scale and on the next day to compensation on it different scale. Bevan proved to be unfitted for the work at the face which he had previously fulfilled, but he became fit for light surface work. In that sphere of work there was less demand than at the face and in that new field he found himself out of work. It was a typical case and the judgment was appealed against in order to arrive at a final decision. The judgment laid down that Bevan was only entitled to compensation on the partial disability scale, and as a result in very many cases men have been awarded merely trifling amounts compared to the scale on which compensation had been awarded previous to the Bevan versus Nixon judgment. This

1279
House, by a majority of three to two, held that no account should be taken of the fact that work was not available for the man Bevan in the field to which he had been lowered owing to his physical disablement. The judgment, of course, affects not miners only, but a very large class of men in other trades.
I need not take up more of your Lordships' time on that point, but there is one other point to which perhaps I should call attention. Clause 1, subsection (2), of the Bill deals with retrospective action. It is needed by common consent because there are very many cases which have been otherwise treated contrary to the intention of Parliament and it may be that there are a considerable number of people who will have injustice remedied through the retrospective action contemplated in the Bill. In the absence of expressed provision the Bill would not be retrospective for technical reasons in the light of the Interpretation Act, 1889. The Bill, although it is non-controversial and deals with a simple point, is an important Bill because it should remedy a class of grievance which is large. Probably very many thousands of cases have suffered through the Bevan versus Nixon judgment. Very many are out of work but are receiving compensation based on the assumption that they are at work. For instance, a skilled fitter may be in a grade which earns exceedingly high wages. That man, if partially disabled, may not be disqualified altogether from doing fitter's work, but, though able to earn wages on a somewhat lower scale, he is thrown on to a market of less skilled workers which ends in his being out of work altogether. It is typical of many cases. To sum up, and not needlessly to occupy your Lordships' time, injustice exists on a considerable scale in the eyes of the law as it was understood. The Bill removes it and all Parties in another place cordially agree as to the method which is adopted by the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. (Lord Noel-Buxton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR. (LORD SANKEY): My Lords, I should not feel justified in detaining the House more than two or three minutes upon this matter, but I desire to give the Bill the
1280
same welcome which was given it by the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs in another place. The principle is quite a short one. It stands like this. Your Lordships are well aware that when a man has suffered an injury from accident arising out of and in the course of his employment he may be either totally incapacitated or partially incapacitated, and according to whether he is one or the other there is a different scale of compensation applied. There has never been any difference in the matter of compensation payable for total incapacity, but with regard to partial incapacity there has been a difficulty for many years. Suppose a man who has been injured and has recovered partially so that he is able to do some light work but is not able to do his old heavy work, then endeavours to get some light work, but there is no light work available. On that hypothesis he is out of work.
There have been two schools of thought with regard to that. One school of thought says—it is rather a philosophical point—really this man is still suffering from the effects of the accident. He can get no work and, therefore, he ought to be compensated on the basis of total incapacity. On the other hand, there are people who say: "Oh, no. The real reason why he is out of work is not because he cannot work—he can do some work—but because he cannot get work, and the employer is not liable for the state of the labour market." For many years that second way of looking at the matter prevailed, owing to a judgment in a very famous case called Hall versus the Cardiff Corporation as far back as 1911, pronounced by Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton, as he then was, who afterwards became a member of your Lordships' House. That case has been repeatedly criticised, and I agree with the criticism passed upon it by my noble and learned predecessor on the Woolsack, who said that the case ought to be reconsidered. By an Act passed in 1923 it was thought that the matter had been put right, and that Act was reenacted in 1925; but when the Act of 1925 came to be considered in this House in the case of Bevan versus Nixon's Navigation Company, it was found that, although everybody intended that the law

1281
should be altered, the words in question did not in fact bear the desired interpretation.
The result was that this Bill was promoted in the House of Commons. At first it went too far, and the pendulum swung in favour of saying that the man should always be entitled, in the circumstances which I have detailed to your Lordships, to be compensated on the scale of total incapacity. Then, happily, an Amendment was moved in Committee, and now all interest concerned, including both employers and workmen, are agreed that the terms of the Bill are very reasonable. What your Lordships are asked to do to-day is to assent to the compromise that has been reached, which, if you will allow me to say so, being not without experience in these cases, seems to me to be extremely fair and reasonable. I have great pleasure in supporting the Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY AND LOAD LINE CONVENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, I think Notice has been given, so far as was possible, of the desire of my noble friend the Leader of the House that the Second Reading of this Bill should be postponed. I beg to move, therefore, that the Second Reading be postponed until June 9 next.
Moved, That the Motion for the Second Reading be postponed until June 9 next.—(Lord Passfield.)
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I want to raise only one point on this Motion. No doubt the Government are aware that the first Convention is due to come into operation on July 1 next, and if we take the Second Reading on June 9 it will obviously be impossible to get this long Bill through both Houses by that date, so that it may be necessary to alter some of the dates on which Conventions shall come into operation. Obviously the Bill will not be law by the time when the
1282
first Convention ought to begin to operate.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

WIDOWS', ORPHANS' AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, This is a very brief Bill, designed to deal with two unintentional omissions or faults in the Act of 1929. The first was in connection with the case of a man who died before January 4, 1926, when the pensions scheme was started. Under the Act of 1929, one of the conditions under which a widow was put to obtain the pension was that her husband should have been at some time within three years before his death paying contributions, or should have been in a normally insurable occupation. It was found that certain men had been unemployed or ill for three years before their death, and therefore had not been, in fact, in insurable employment. While it was considered at first that the normal occupation might be considered to extend into the three years, yet subsequently, owing to a case being taken to the High Court, it was discovered that there was a definite doubt in this matter. The first intention of this Bill is to rectify this by ensuring that the normal occupation during that three years may be considered an insurable occupation. This will affect some ten thousand widows, of whom a considerable number are already drawing their pensions, while the remainder are awaiting the decision of your Lordships.
The second point is a pure error in the Act of 1929. In the case of a widow whose husband died after the Act of 1925, it was laid down that he must have been an insured person, but those who framed the Act failed to realise that there might have been men who attained the age of seventy before 1912, when the Insurance Act came in, and the widows of such men, who could not, therefore, have been insured persons under the old Act, have been deprived of pensions. The number involved is very small. It is estimated that some 500 or

1283
600 widows have been deprived of pensions by reason of their position under the Act. Of course, a man who was over seventy before 1912, and therefore could not be an insured person, would be about 90 now, so that there are not very many involved. I may say that the cost of these cases is not a new cost, because in the first case I mentioned the cost has already been provided for in the provision made for the Act of 1929, and in the other case, in which very few additional widows are involved, the cost is based on the fixed Exchequer contribution to pensions. Accordingly no new money is involved. I trust that this Bill will receive a Second Reading without any difficulty. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Marley.)
On Question Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 3 [Constitution and general functions of Registration Council]:
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, my Amendment to this clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 3, leave out ("penalty") and insert ("fine").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
Notice of removal of name from Register.
8. Where the Council cause the name of any person to be removed from the Register, they shall forthwith cause written notice of the removal to be served on that person, and where, in connection with the removal, the Council have determined that the person in question shall, during any period, he disqualified for registration, the determination of the Council shall be specified in the said notice.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, my Amendment to this clause also is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 29, at end insert:
("Provided that nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply
1284
in a case where the Council cause the name of any person to be removed from the Register in consequence of the death of that person.")—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9:
Right of appeal against removal of name from Register.
9. Any person aggrieved by the removal of his name from the Register, or by a determination of the Council that he be disqualified for registration during any period, may, within three months from the date on which notice of the removal or determination was served on him, appeal to the High Court or Court of Session against the removal or determination, and on any such appeal the Court may give such directions in the matter as they think proper, including directions as to the costs of the appeal, and the order of the Court shall be final.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved to leave out "including directions as to the costs of the appeal." The noble Lord said: My Lords, these words were inserted in Committee on the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, because they already appear in the Pharmacy and Poisons Bill. I said at the time that they would unduly limit the effect of the clause and it was better to omit them. They are now going to be deleted from that Bill in another place, and therefore I think it will be better to omit them here as well.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 38, leave out ("including directions as to the costs of the appeal").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, as the noble Lord has been good enough to get these words omitted from the Pharmacy and Poisons Bill in another place, I will not oppose the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10: [Use of title "Registered Architect."]
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 12, leave out ("had") and insert ("has").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.
Constitution of the Board of Architectural Education.
The Board shall be composed of the following persons, that is to say:—
One person nominated by each school of architecture in Great Britain, the passing of whose examinations is or may be recognised for exemption from the final examination of the Royal Institute of British Architects.
Four persons nominated jointly by the schools of architecture in Great Britain, the passing of whose examinations is or may be recognised for exemption from the intermediate examination of the Royal Institute of British Architects.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, my first Amendment to this Schedule is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 4, at the beginning insert ("1. Subject to the provisions of this Schedule").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved to leave out the paragraphs referring to the schools of architecture and insert:—
"One person nominated by the governing body of each of the following schools of architecture:—

The Liverpool School of Architecture, University of Liverpool,

The Bartlett School of Architecture, University of London,

The School of Architecture, Victoria University, Manchester,

The Architectural Association School of Architecture, London,

The Glasgow School of Architecture,

The School of Architecture, Edinburgh College of Art,

The School of Architecture, Robert Gordon's Colleges, Aberdeen,

The School of Architecture, Leeds College of Art,

The Welsh School of Architecture, Technical College, Cardiff,

The Birmingham School of Architecture.

Four persons nominated jointly by the governing bodies of the following schools of architecture:—

The Department of Architecture, University of Sheffield,

The Cambridge University School of Architecture,

The School of Architecture, Armstrong College, Newcastle-on-Tyne,

The School of Architecture, Royal West of England Academy, Bristol,

The Department of Architecture, Northern Polytechnic, London,

The School of Architecture, Leicester College of Arts and Crafts,

1286

The School of Architecture, Municipal School of Arts and Crafts, Southend-on-Sea,

The Nottingham School of Architecture,

The School of Architecture, The Polytechnic, Regent Street. London."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I had better give a, brief explanation of this Amendment. The object is to define more precisely the schools of architecture to be represented. As the schedule is at present drafted the number of persons to be nominated under the third paragraph can be indefinitely increased if the Royal Institute of British. Architects recognises the passing of their examinations as a reason for exemption, from its final examination. The number of persons to be nominated under the fourth paragraph is limited to four, but the number of bodies to join in nominating these four can be indefinitely increased if the Royal Institute of British Architects recognises their examinations. Therefore we thought it better to limit this discretion by specifying by names the schools whose examinations are at present recognised under either paragraph by the Royal Institute of British Architects. I hope that the noble Earl is in agreement with this.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, leave out lines 14 to 22 and insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
THE EARL OP CRAWFORD: I entirely approve of what the noble Earl has said.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 1, leave out ("representative of and to be") and insert ("person"). —(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 24, leave out ("Schedule") and insert ("paragraph").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved to add to the Schedule:
" 2. If it appears to the Board to be desirable that any school of architecture, not being a school specified in the foregoing provisions of this Schedule, should be represented on the Board, then, subject as hereinafter provided, the Board may nominate for membership thereof one person recommended

1287
to it by the governing body of that school, and upon the name of any person duly nominated as aforesaid being submitted to the Council in the prescribed manner, the Council shall appoint that person to be a member of the Board:
Provided that the number of members appointed under this paragraph shall not at any time exceed the prescribed number."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment transfers from the Royal Institute of British Architects to the Board of Architectural Education the power of securing that additional members of the Board shall be appointed to represent new schools of architecture. The question whether any particular school merits this special representation is left to the discretion of the
1288
Board. The effect of the proviso is that the maximum number of additional members to be appointed will be fixed by the Council, and can be varied from time to time if necessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 26, at end, insert the said subsection (2).—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (PUBLICITY) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned at five minutes before five o'clock.