Lords Sitting of 4 July 1932

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
His Royal Highness The Duke of Connaught and Strathearn—Took the Oath.

LINDSEY COUNTY COUNCIL (SANDHILLS) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ISLE OF MAN CUSTOMS (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
AGRICULTURAL CREDITS (MORT- GAGES) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
BRITISH MUSEUM BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
CARRIAGE BY AIR BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
RATING AND VALUATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (HERTFORD) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
GATESHEAD EXTENSION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
WESTON-SUPER-MARE GRAND PIER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WATFORD) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. My task in commending this Bill to your Lordships' House for a Second Reading is neither a pleasant nor an enviable one. No task is pleasant which is confronted with such Herculean difficulties as those in which the country is so unfortunately placed to-day—difficulties that are being gradually, but nevertheless certainly overcome, if one may judge by the success already attendant upon the Conversion Loan campaign. The main object of this Bill is to make certain changes in the national health insurance scheme in order to ensure its financial stability. As the financial provisions of the scheme are somewhat intricate the Bill is necessarily of a rather technical character and not perhaps altogether easy to follow. I must therefore crave the indulgence of your Lordships while I endeavour to explain in some detail its general provisions. Fortunately, when carefully studied in conjunction with the White Paper the Bill is not so complicated as it appears at first sight.
490
The national health insurance scheme has now been in operation exactly twenty years. It covers 17,000,000 insured persons and is administered through 7,500 approved societies and branches. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is rendering a very important and most useful service to the workers of this country in providing cash benefits and medical benefits in periods of sickness, maternity benefits, and in more recent years dental, ophthalmic and other additional benefits for the members of those societies which, on an actuarial valuation, are found to have a disposable surplus of assets over liabilities.
I submit that it would be difficult to exaggerate the value and importance of the national health insurance scheme. In fact, it is not over-stating the case to say that it is far and away the finest, the safest and actuarially the soundest social insurance scheme in the world. I scarcely think the magnitude of the scheme is always realised. Some idea of its dimensions may be gauged from the fact that the amount contributed by insured persons and their employers last year was £25,870,000, while in addition the State paid to the assistance of the fund £6,320,000. The rest of the revenue is derived from interest on accumulated funds amounting to about £5,000,000 a year. I am most anxious not to weary your Lordships with unnecessary figures, but permit me to add just these. In the course of the twenty years that will be completed next week of the scheme's existence the stupendous sum of £434,000,000 sterling has been paid out to insured persons in the form of benefits, and in addition reserves to the extent of £117,000,000 have been accumulated, the greater part of which are ear-marked against the positive actuarial liabilities of the scheme.
Whatever criticism I may have to meet as to certain details of the Bill, so vast are the ramifications of the scheme and so gigantic its obligations that I am sure your Lordships will agree there can be no question as to the absolute and imperative necessity of ensuring not only its solvency, but also the unqualified financial strength and stability of the whole scheme. Up to six or seven years ago the scheme was exceedingly prosperous—in fact, the great majority of societies had a disposable surplus, after making allocations to reserves on a generous

491
basis, and most insured persons were thus able to get additional benefits. Gradually a change has come over the scene. Largely as a result of prolonged and widespread unemployment the contribution income of the approved societies has steadily fallen, while sickness claims, especially among women, and more especially among married women, have steadily risen. A position has now been reached in which, unless some change be made in the financial provisions of the scheme, it will certainly drift into a state of insolvency, and to prevent that is the sole raison d'être of this Bill. The Minister of Health in the late Labour Government, in a praiseworthy effort to grapple with the situation, issued circulars early last year to approved societies and medical practitioners, with a view of securing a more careful supervision of schemes and an improved standard of medical certification. Shortly after the present Government assumed office the Report of the Government Actuary on the third valuation of approved societies was issued. That Report made it abundantly clear to the Government that something more radical than administrative reforms was necessary, if the financial stability of the scheme was to be assured. As a result of careful examination of the whole subject by the Government the present Bill was introduced. It is dictated by sheer necessity. It is designed to protect the interests of those who are contributors to the scheme, and to preserve the contributory principle of the national health insurance system on a strictly actuarial basis.
I want to emphasise, my Lords, that this Bill does not take away one single penny from the moneys available for benefits for insured persons, nor does it, on the other hand, involve any increase in the contributions, either from employers, employees or the Exchequer, so far as the national health insurance scheme is concerned. The Bill falls into three main parts. Firstly, it deals with the heavy expenditure on sickness and disablement benefits of insured women, and particularly married women. Secondly, it deals with the serious loss of contribution income by reason of unemployment among insured persons. Thirdly, and incidentally, it deals with the continuance in insurance of persons who have paid no contribution for long
492
periods by reason of unemployment, and who are due to fall out of insurance at the end of this year, when, but for this Bill, their health insurance and widows' and orphans' and old age pensions rights would cease.
As regards the first point, Clause 3 of the Bill makes certain adjustments in the rates of sickness and disablement benefits payable to insured women. In the case of unmarried women and widows the present rate of 12 s. a week for sickness benefit remains unaltered, but the rate of disablement benefit is to be reduced from 7s. 6d. to 6s. per week. In the case of married women the rate of sickness benefit is to be reduced from 12 s. to 10 s. a week, and the disablement benefit from 7s. 6d. to 5s. a week. Needless to say it is with great regret that the Government have found it necessary to propose these reductions, but they are satisfied that if the solvency of the scheme of national health insurance is to be maintained some such adjustment of women's benefits is absolutely essential.
I have already mentioned that the national health insurance scheme is administered through 7,500 approved societies and branches. Each one of these is a separate, self-governing financial unit. The recent Report by the Government Actuary shows that, taking all the societies and branches together, there was a total surplus on the third valuation of nearly £36,000,000. At first sight this figure seems very impressive, and suggests that there is no need to feel uneasy about the financial stability of the scheme. The Government Actuary points out, however, that the surplus is attributable in very large measure to the reserves carried forward from the previous valuations and the interest earned on those sums, and that if these items are excluded, and also certain other sources of profit which have now ceased to exist, the balance of profit earned over the valuation period was very small, so that in fact many societies may now be said to be living solely on their past accumulations. The Government Actuary in his Report calls particular attention to the very serious growth during recent years in the expenditure of approved societies on the sickness and disablement benefits of their women members, and he reports that the claims of women for these benefits have risen to such an extent as to exceed the actuarial provision made

493
for them by no less than £850,000 a year. The continuance of this state of affairs would inevitably result, in the near future, in the insolvency of the whole scheme so far as women's insurance is concerned, and it therefore becomes a matter of vital importance that there should be, without delay, such a readjustment of the benefits payable to women as is necessary to prevent the outgoings from exceeding the revenue of the scheme.
Admittedly adjustments there must be, and there are three alternatives before the Government. The first would be an increased Exchequer grant, the second an increase in the weekly contributions paid by insured women and their employers, and thirdly, a reduction in the rates of benefit payable to women. The first alternative, I think your Lordships will agree, is absolutely ruled out by the state of the country's finances. As to the second, the Government Actuary has advised that if the present rates of benefit are to be maintained the contributions would have to be raised by 1½d per week. I am sure your Lordships will agree with the decision of the Government that in the present economic condition of the country no increased Exchequer grant is feasible, and that no increase in the weekly contributions, either from the employers or the employees, can be contemplated for this purpose. The Bill accordingly provides for a reduction in the rate of benefit payable to women.
The loss of £850,000 a year to which I have referred is attributable in almost exactly equal measure to unmarried and married women, but as the unmarried outnumber the married in the scheme in the proportion of about four to one, the loss is relatively very much greater in the case of married women than in the case of unmarried, and regard is had to this fact in the proposals contained in the Bill, which provide for rather larger reductions in married women's benefit than in those of the unmarried. It will be remembered that in the case of the insured married woman, the husband, as a general rule, is also an insured person, and a portion only of the family earnings is suspended when the woman ceases to work; added to which the husband's benefits are not being reduced under this Bill.
The reductions proposed in the Bill are the very smallest which can be made in
494
order to meet the needs of the situation. As a matter of fact, they are not in themselves really sufficient on the basis of a continuance of the recent sickness experience amongst women, and the Government Actuary has advised that even at the reduced rates of benefit proposed in the Bill the contributions should be increased by a halfpenny a week. The Government have decided, however, against demanding any increase in contributions, nor do they desire that any reductions in benefits should be made which are not absolutely imperative, and it is hoped and believed that the position will to some extent be met by improved administration and more careful supervision of claims on the part of the approved societies, and in this way such a reduction effected in the volume of claims as will be sufficient to secure financial stability at the rates of benefit proposed in the Bill, and thus obviate calling for any increase in contributions, even to the extent of the halfpenny suggested by the Government Actuary. Before leaving this subject, let me add that although the new rates will become standard rates of benefit for women from January next, any approved society which on valuation is found to be in the position to increase those rates by reason of having a disposable surplus will still be at liberty to do so.
I now pass to the clause in the Bill dealing with the serious loss of contribution income by reason of widespread unemployment amongst insured persons; that is, Clause 4. It has always been a cardinal feature of the national health insurance scheme that the rates of benefit payable to insured persons are graduated according to the number of contributions paid in respect of each person during the preceding contribution year. From the inception of the scheme until the year 1928 insured persons who were in arrear with their contributions were required to redeem their arrears by a cash payment, failing which the rates of benefit were reduced during the following benefit year. I think your Lordships will agree that this was undoubtedly a hardship to persons who were suffering from prolonged unemployment, and in 1926 the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance recommended that provision should be made which would protect an insured person from incurring any loss or penalty by reason of arrears due

495
to genuine unemployment, but no recommendations were made as to how societies were to meet this additional liability.
In 1928 the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, then Minister of Health, when introducing the National Health Insurance Bill of that year, made an effort to grapple with the problem. He found that there was a sum of money available amounting at that time to £500,000 a year from stamps sold at post offices, but not claimed, owing to a certain number of insured persons not returning their contribution cards to their approved societies. In other words, insured persons—through their employers—were purchasing stamps from the Post Office and putting them on the cards, as they were compelled by Statute to do, and then neglecting to return the cards to their societies, because, forsooth, they did not appreciate the value of being included within the scheme. The consequence of that has been that the money which accrued to the Post Office was sent to the Ministry of Health, but they on their part had not to meet the liability in respect of which those stamps had been purchased. Mr. Chamberlain made an arrangement with the approved societies under which, in return for the £500,000 a year being handed over to the societies under an appropriate scheme, all arrears due to proved unemployment would be totally excused. At that time the unemployment figures were falling, and the residual liability to be met by societies out of their own funds only amounted to about £200,000 a year in round figures. Experience has shown that this total excusal of arrears is too generous under present conditions, and the consequent loss to societies is really more than they can bear.
Two things have happened since the Act of 1928. There has been a steady rise in the unemployment figures, and it is found that for the year 1931–32 the grant of £500,000 will only suffice to provide one-fifth of the losses from arrears. The burden to be borne by societies consequent on unemployment will thus amount to no less than £2,000,000 in respect of the past year. Further, the amount of money in the unclaimed stamps sales account is already falling, largely owing to the very interesting fact that the great popularity and attractive-
496
ness of the benefits of the contributory pension scheme, which is interlocked with health insurance, is making insured persons much more careful about returning their contribution cards to their societies. The result is that, instead of being able to count upon £500,000 a year from this source this year, the sum now available is only about half that figure. It is obvious, therefore, that the arrears scheme of the 1928 Act must be recast, and power is taken in Clause 4 of the Bill, under which only part of the arrears due to unemployment need be excused. It is proposed in future that arrears due to unemployment shall only be excused to the extent of one-half; the remaining half, less an allowance of two contributions, is to be met by the insured person himself if he wishes to cover himself for full benefit. I should mention that arrears due to sickness are not counted against the insured person.
The proposal in the Bill will result in a scheme of arrears very much the same as that in operation prior to 1928, when insured persons were enabled to pay arrears penalties roughly of the value of half the missing contributions in order to qualify for full benefit. If, as we all hope, there is an improvement in the unemployment position later on the Bill provides that the arrangement can be varied to give more generous treatment to insured persons by allowing excusal of more than one-half of the arrears due to unemployment. The scheme will have the effect of reducing the total burden of approved societies from £2,000,000 to £1,000,000 a year. In order to protect those societies which find themselves unable to bear their share of the burden of £1,000,000, Clause 7 of the Bill provides that any society that is likely to be in deficiency on valuation, as a result of this liability, will receive a grant from the Reserve Suspense Fund of a sum representing the loss due to excusals of arrears, and this grant will be given in priority to any claim upon the societies' own contingencies fund. I think you will agree that it would be obviously unfair to cast upon a society the slur of being in deficiency, when that deficiency was due to the generous response of societies in giving help to their unemployed members. In order, therefore, to meet this new liability on the Reserve Suspense Fund, Clause 7 of the Bill provides that all future moneys available in the

497
stamps sales account shall be transferred to the Central Fund, which Fund guarantees the solvency of the Reserve Suspense Fund.
I now pass to the third main provision of the Bill, which is a much more pleasing one for me to deal with, as it provides for the continuance in insurance of persons who have paid no contributions for a long period by reason of unemployment, and about 80,000 of whom are due to fall out of insurance at the end of this year. Under the Act of 1928 an insured person who ceases to be employed is given a period of free insurance of between two and a-half and three years. Towards the end of 1930 the late Labour Government introduced a temporary measure, the Prolongation of Insurance Act, 1930, to keep in insurance for another year those unemployed persons whose rights under the permanent scheme of 1928 would have expired at the end of 1930. As the approved societies were unable to bear this further liability, the cost of the extension was borne by the Exchequer. After the present Government assumed office a similar problem arose as regards persons whose insurance was due to terminate at the end of last year, and, pending a detailed examination of the whole subject, the present Government passed a further Prolongation Act extending the insurance rights of these persons until the end of the present year. Under the able advocacy of my noble friend Lord Gage, your Lordships passed that Act, I think I am correct in saying, without even a Division, and I hope your Lordships will be equally as considerate on this occasion.
Unless something further is done some 80,000 men and women will pass completely out of insurance at the end of this year owing to unemployment. They will be losing all their insurance rights, including the right most appreciated and valued of all, the right to widows' and old ago pensions. The Government, in examining the problem, have two objects in mind. First, we must not do anything which will have the effect of inflicting it mortal injury upon the contributory principle, and second, we must remember that the loss of insurance rights, and particularly pension rights, is a hardship to the unemployed, and we ought to go to the utmost limit possible in protecting those rights without sacrifice of the contributory principle and without sacrificing the essential solvency of the
498
scheme. Fortunately, the first provisions of the Bill, which ensure financial stability, justify the Government in stretching a point in order to give some further extension of insurance to all unemployed persons who are due to go out of insurance at the end of this year in order that they may be maintained in health insurance for a year up to the end of 1933, but they will only be entitled to medical benefit during that year.
In the case of last year's Prolongation of Insurance Act, to which I have already referred, the persuasive powers of my noble friend Lord Gage were such your Lordships passed it notwithstanding that it entailed the Exchequer finding the additional money. The Exchequer has been appealed to again on this occasion, but in vain, for the Government is not prepared to put up the £50,000 which is the cost of this concession, and as the approved societies are unable to do so, Clause 2 of the Bill provides that the societies will be compensated for the extra liability by a slight adjustment of the transfer values which are debited to societies when members cease to be entitled to health insurance benefits. The continuance of health insurance for 1933 ensures the continuance of pension rights during that year. In view of the relatively greater importance of the widows' and old age pension rights the Government in addition propose under the Bill to continue the pension rights of those persons during the year 1934 and, if a person remains unemployed throughout that year, the pension rights will be continued until the end of 1935, so that there will be two years of additional pension rights at the end of the additional year of medical benefit.
In the year 1935 the Government Actuary is required by Statute to examine and report to Parliament on the financial position of the pension scheme, and it is fervently hoped that by that time the unemployment position in the country will have so much improved that the great majority of these persons will have returned to full insurance. In view of the fact that the balance to the credit of the Pensions Account is substantial, the Bill makes no provision to recoup the account by way of additional Exchequer grant or otherwise for any loss arising from the extension of pensions rights. It was estimated last year that the

499
annual Exchequer contribution to the Pensions Account fixed by the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act of 1929 would be adequate for at least ten years and the proposals of the present Bill do not involve sufficient additional cost to modify this position.
I have now dealt with the main clauses of the Bill and I do not propose to weary your Lordships further with detailed reference to the minor clauses many of which are of an administrative character. It is proposed that at the end of 1935 we shall revert to the ordinary permanent proceedings of the scheme with some slight modifications. There will be no further special years of prolongation after the transitional period, but it has been found possible, as part of the permanent scheme, to grant the unemployed the continuance of their pension rights for one further year after the expiration of their health insurance rights. Certain other provisions of the Bill will enable persons who resume employment shortly after they have ceased to be insured, to get back to full insurance on somewhat easier conditions than the ordinary new entrant into insurance. In addition, the position of certain elderly persons who have lost employment and find it difficult to get back to work has been eased with a view to preserving their old age pensions at 65 and their medical benefit.
I hope your Lordships will agree that the Bill is a courageous attempt on the part of His Majesty's Government to grapple with a problem which brooks no delay, and that its three main objects have been achieved—the financial stability of the scheme, the unimpaired maintenance of the contributory principle, and the largest possible measure of protection consistent with those principles for the unemployed who, through no fault of their own, are threatened with the loss of insurance rights. In conclusion, let me say it is of course very easy to criticise the reduction in benefits embodied in the Bill, but I would remind the House that the alternative is not between existing benefits and reduced ones, but between reduced ones and endangering all benefits. It is therefore with confidence that I submit the Bill to your Lordships' consideration and move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Rochester.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, the House has obviously enjoyed the emphatic and exhaustive explanation of this Bill which has been given by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, and I think the House is to be congratulated on taking more interest in the Bill than another place. During the Second Reading in another place the House was twice counted out there being only thirteen members present. In this House there are no fewer than nineteen. We on these Benches of course oppose this Bill. We look on it as being an attack on the workers. It attacks the workers' standard of life, by lowering the benefits which they receive from health insurance. It is an attack on the unemployed, who are specially selected to be hit, and it is an attack on women. The excuse given by the noble Lord is that the Government wishes to maintain the solvency of the insurance principle. It would be interesting to have an explanation as to why in 1926 the Government grants were reduced by no less than £2,750,000 a year. Had that reduction not been made then the Fund would have been practically solvent at the present moment.
Of course, the principle of the insurance will not hold water, because in the ordinary sense of the word it is not an insurance scheme at all. An insurance scheme involves equal benefits for equal payments, and in this scheme we do not have that. In the first place we have approved societies coming in, and in the case of a society whose members are in a healthy occupation, that society may have a big surplus and pay considerably increased benefits. On the other hand you may have a society whose members are engaged in an unhealthy occupation and, although their need is greater, they get a less payment because there is no surplus. Dependents—wives and children—have never been included. Therefore, in that sense of the word it is not an all-comprehensive insurance scheme. In particular it is extraordinary that women are so offensively attacked by the measure now before the House. Women are attacked merely because their claims have been higher than those of other sections of the community. You might equally well argue that certain sections of men's occupations show higher claims than other sections. Why not attack them? In any case most of the claims of married women arise as a result of illness due to

501
childbirth, and there is no doubt that women's extra claims are often brought about by economic causes. In a family where the amount of money coming in week by week is reduced, it is always the mother who is first to go without and therefore it is the mother who first falls sick and whose claim on the fund is most insistent.
There is no doubt that sickness will be increased by Clause 3 of the Bill now before your Lordships' House. We believe that the Government should have examined the scheme as a whole. They should have extended payments to dependents and they should have restored the Government grants which were reduced in 1926. Whatever else we may say about economy, it is clearly a false economy to save money on the health of the people. In the end this Bill must mean more bad health for the ordinary people of the country. We have had a number of interesting reports on health recently, including a report by the Archdeacon of Northumberland and six other clergymen who have said that in visiting they have observed that mothers are suffering from under-nourishment, particularly in families where there are several children. This report has been endorsed by clergymen in the Shoreditch rural deanery who have pointed out that many people in their area are suffering from under-nourishment. From that there must arise sickness and therefore this Bill will mean further sickness. Again, the reduction of maternity benefit must tend to check the fall in maternal mortality which has taken place during the last ten or twenty years. I am very glad to see the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in his place because he said in your Lordships' House last Wednesday that of course we must discriminate as to economies. He went on to say:
"I would be sorry if there had to be any grave changes in the health services. They certainly stand first for expenditure."
Therefore we hope that the noble Marquess will be with us in opposing this Bill, which does mean a grave change in the health services of the country by cutting down benefits from national health insurance.
We on these Benches believe that it is only by means of a public medical service, free and open to all, that the health of the individual can be preserved, disease prevented, epidemics controlled and the
502
physical welfare of the community promoted. That is the only way in which you can really secure a healthy population able to carry on their productive work in the interests of the national wellbeing. We are not going to divide the House against this measure, because we have agreed for business purposes not to do so, but that does not mean that we are not entirely opposed to the whole theory of this reduction of health insurance benefits. We realise that if we had a Division we should be beaten, as is usual in this House. We realise that, but we know that while that is the case at present there will come a time when the Tellers in the Not-Contents' Lobby will have a curious crowd of new voters —thousands of children who are not content with the present system, who are not content with reduced benefits and reduced allowances, who are not content with bad health. Tens of thousands of mothers will crowd the Not-Contents Lobby. I do not know what the Tellers will say on that occasion, but that is what will happen in days to come—I cannot say when. Meanwhile we can only oppose this measure which we believe to be unjust, unfair, and not good for the nation as a whole.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord who has just spoken is as anxious as we are on this side to do the very best that is possible within our resources for the beneficiaries of the national health insurance scheme. I listened to his speech with very great care, because I was anxious to know whether he had any constructive proposal to make to meet the undoubted problem that we have to face. As far as I was able to gauge his position it was that if the £2,750,000 had not been withheld by the Exchequer in 1926 then, I think his words were, we should not find ourselves faced with the present problem. That statement, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so is not—I am not quite sure how far one may go in your Lordships' House, but the relationship between that statement and the truth is so distant as to be scarcely recognisable. The fact is that if the Exchequer grant had not been reduced in 1926 the Royal Commission recommended extended benefits and therefore the money would not be available now. What would have happened would have been that insured people would have had

503
that money in additional benefit, either cash or medical treatment benefit.
The Royal Commission set out in full their recommendations under that head on page 276 of the Report. They said:
"the balance of the margin should not be devoted to decreasing the present weekly contribution, but should be applied to its full extent towards meeting the cost of extending the statutory benefits."
And on page 280 of the Report they set out the order of priority of extension of benefits. They said:
"The extensions of statutory benefits, to be made as and when funds are available to meet the cost, should be placed in the following order of priority:—(a) extension of the scope of medical benefit; (b) the provision of allowances in respect of dependants of insured persons in receipt of sickness or disablement benefit."
I suggest there can be no question that if these Exchequer grants had not been withdrawn they would have been used in accordance with these recommendations in extended benefits, so that we should not have the money available now.
In regard to the other point, if the noble Lord will put down on the Paper any Amendment he suggests to meet the difficulty to which he has referred, I can assure him on behalf of the Government that it shall be given the consideration it deserves. But I hope your Lordships will give the Government this Bill this afternoon because time presses, we are getting towards the end of the Session, and we want to secure the remaining stages if possible this week.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RIGHTS OF WAY BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Negligent driving resulting in death or bodily injury.
1. Any driver of a motor vehicle who, owing to his negligence, kills any person, shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years; and any person driving a motor vehicle who, by his negligence, causes bodily injury to any person, shall be liable on conviction to im-
504
prisonment for a period not exceeding one year or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both, and in both of the cases referred to in this section the person driving the motor vehicle shall on conviction as mentioned above, unless the court for special reasons think fit to order otherwise, be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence for such period as the court thinks fit, but not less than twelve months from the expiration of his term of imprisonment, if any, or, where no term of imprisonment is imposed, from the date of the conviction.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE moved, after "motor," where that word secondly occurs, to insert "or other." The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is really immaterial whether I had made this protest against the Third Reading of the Bill or on the Amendment that I have put down because in my Amendment I seek to bring within the ambit of the Bill all those other users of the highway who, under the Bill as it comes before your Lordships, are definitely excluded. I think a protest is necessary in the first place because to my mind this is an absurdly drastic and quite unnecessary Bill and, secondly, because if you are going to put special disabilities on certain people who use the roads I submit it is quite fair that you should extend those disabilities—or obligations, if you prefer so to call them—to all who use the road, especially if, as I hope to prove, those who are excluded from the purview of the Bill are just as dangerous as, if not more dangerous than, motor drivers.
In my opinion, and the opinion has been expressed by the spokesman of the Government, the Road Act of 1930 is amply sufficient to deal with the troubles on the road if that Act were really properly imposed on the users of the road. If the Act were put in operation properly a great amelioration would take place in the conditions on the road. You may say that does not carry us very much further because magistrates and juries, and even Judges, in so many cases do not seem able to make up their minds definitely to punish severely those who obviously transgress good manners or kill and injure people on the roads. But that is really not the matter with which we are dealing this afternoon. What we are dealing with is a proposal to increase the penalties for misbehaviour, and if you do that in my opinion the only result, in the present frame of mind of magistrates and juries and Judges, would be a still further weakening in the

505
application of the law—because if they do not apply the law now owing to a soft corner in their hearts for the erring motorist, then, if you give them no alternative but to apply severe punishment on conviction, I think the last state of the administration of the law will be worse than the first.
I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, is not here, because I was going to say to his face that I think he has a bee in his bonnet on this question and, frankly, that he does not approach it in such a judicial and impartial frame of mind as you would expect from a noble Lord who has had such a long and distinguished career in the law and has occupied such great positions. I am sure he regards every motorist as a motor bandit in esse or posse and the only tribunal he would approve of would be one consisting of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, Lord Lamington and himself, a drumhead court martial from whom there should be no appeal. That is not the view of one who has had experience in these matters and served in the Ministry of Transport with great distinction—I refer to Lord Ponsonby. He said in the Committee stage:
"I have been struck by the insistence there has been in the arguments brought forward by various Lords on the criminality of the motorist and the entire innocence of the pedestrian."
Perhaps that is painting the picture with rather a broad brush, but there is a great deal of truth in this—that so many of your Lordships regard the motorist as almost outside the pale of the law and think that the pedestrian in anything he does is within his rights.
I do not drive myself. I am much too careful a man to do that. I prefer someone else to do it. But anyone who drives about the country and watches the antics of pedestrians is astounded at their indifference to other forms of locomotion on the roads except their own. If you are driving along a narrow lane in the country and there are three pedestrians, it is perfectly certain that two will keep on one side of the road and one on the other. If you provide, as we do in Hampshire, extraordinarily good footpaths, as likely as not one of the three will walk in the road and the other two on the footpath. In London the last thing that pedestrians will do is to use the subway to get to the other side of a
506
street. If they come from behind stationary vehicles they usually do so without looking to see what is coming; and lastly, and not least, they allow oncoming traffic to come up behind them, and turn their backs to it. It is also a fact that in 1930, according to the report of the Chief of the Metropolitan Police, 70 per cent. of the fatal accidents in the Metropolitan area to pedestrians were due to the carelessness or want of judgment of the pedestrians, and I think a protest is appropriate against such a Bill as this, which seeks to saddle on the unfortunate motorist—of course there are some who ought to be punished very heavily—this stigma and this great disability.
Remember, that this Bill does not touch tram drivers, the drivers of horse-drawn vehicles, or the users of pedal bicycles. It is most unjust to take out one road user and saddle him with penalties which you do not impose upon the other users of the road. We are often told to think of the number of accidents which are caused by motor vehicles. I agree. Not an overwhelming majority, but a majority of the accidents are caused by motorists, but that is because the majority of vehicles which use the road are motor vehicles, and if it were not so it would be thought an extraordinary thing. A very considerable principle is involved in your Lordships' decision to-day, and I therefore ask you to consider these figures.
In 1931 755 fatalities were attributed by the Metropolitan Police to horse-drawn traffic and pedal cyclists, an increase of 11 per cent. over 1929. Then why are these people left out of the Bill? If they are increasingly dangerous to the public surely they ought to be included in the Bill. In 1931 there were 2,200,000 motor vehicles in use and 13,000 electric trams and trolley omnibuses. The fatality rate for motor vehicles was 2.6 per thousand and for trams and trolley omnibuses 9.1. Yet trains and trolley omnibuses are not included in the Bill. Then consider this. In 1930 there were 7,305 fatal accidents on the road, of which 861 were due to tramcars and trolley omnibuses, horse-drawn vehicles, horses ridden or led, and pedal cyclists—what I call the "good boys" of the road. In 1931 the fatal accidents on the road had decreased to 6,691–614 fewer people were killed on the roads than in the previous year. That

507
is all to the good, and yet that fact is suppressed by the supporters of the Bill. The excluded people killed 874, or thirteen more, while the total deaths on the road had decreased by 614. To sum up this statement, in 1931, as compared with 1930, there were 614 fewer fatal acidents in this country. The people excluded from the Bill, those using horse-drawn vehicles, etc., killed thirteen more, and the motor car people killed 627 less.
Is this a time to bring in a Bill such as this, when you see that the people excluded from the Bill are killing more people every year, while the motor car people have such a large decrease in fatalities? What do these statistics show? They seem to me to show conclusively that we do not want any more legislation, but we want a continued application of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, with a tightening up of the administration and penalties included in that Act. What I am expressing are not my own opinions only. May I draw your Lordships' attention to what Lord Plymouth, as representative of the Government, said in Committee, because it is well worth recording what he said, and I think it was a very sensible and commonsense speech? He said that the Road Traffic Act was not two years old, and it should be given a proper trial; that you should now deal with the problem by administrative means rather than by legislation. He said that the Ministry and the Government had not been idle, and that the Home Secretary was about to issue a circular to justices of the peace drawing attention to the gravity of the situation in the light of the published statistics, and also that the Home Office in May had issued a circular to chief officers of police on the subject of the enforcement of speed limits for heavy vehicles. That is the official attitude with regard to this question.
May I draw your Lordships attention to a very significant report? It was issued only this week by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. On page 7 of that Report they make a very encouraging statement and do not at all bear out the moans and groans of the supporters of this Bill. They say this:
"In the first six months of 1931 the total number of persons killed and injured in accidents recorded in the Metropolitan Police District was 25,717 while in the cor-
508
responding period of 1930 the number was 28,010."
So in the six months there was a diminution of 2,293 fatal and other accidents in the Metropolitan area. I submit to your Lordships that that is a very considerable diminution in the toll of the road and gives hopes for the future. They go on to say:

"In these circumstances we are inclined to the hope that the attention given to the subject, the safeguards provided in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, the appointment of police motor patrols and the various improvements which have been carried out in traffic signals, road signs, and the improvement of dangerous road junctions and corners have all contributed to greater road safety."
I do not pretend, no one pretends, that all is well upon the roads. Some motorists I feel I should like to shoot at sight. But for heaven's sake do not let us in an assembly like this be carried away by the ill deeds of a minority to do foolish things which would hamper the majority.
Let us remember that this Act of 1930 is not yet two years old. A great deal has been done under it. The Government say that administratively they are convinced that a great deal more can be done, and I feel sure that if you will go on with the policy, within reason and as far as the money goes, of cutting off blind corners and above all having roundabouts where main roads cross in the country, and, last but not least, of helping the Safety First Association, who are doing extraordinarily good work in the London schools to teach the younger generation to avoid the dangers of the streets, then we shall be on the right road.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after ("motor") insert ("or other").—(Lord Mount Temple.)
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I think those of you who have not followed the proceedings very closely would hardly realise to what issue the speech of the noble Lord has been directed. He was moving an Amendment to a Bill which has been read a third time. The Amendment related to this point only, that you should extend the liability for these accidents to other vehicles than motor vehicles.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: If I could have my Amendment I should not oppose the Third Reading.
LORD DANESFORT: But the Bill has already been read a third time, so I see no point in my noble friend's suggestion. As a matter of fact, the speech of the noble Lord has been to my mind of a very singular type. He is nominally moving an Amendment of a very limited character, and a very improper character, but he has made a speech which ought to have been made on Second Reading, a speech directed against the whole of the Bill. It is rather a useless piece of declamation, because the House has already decided against the proposition which he was endeavouring rather irrelevantly to raise. No necessity for this Amendment was suggested either on the Second Reading or on the Committee or the Report stages, and now at this late period he moves an Amendment as an excuse, I suppose, for making a speech directed against the whole policy of the Bill. I put on one side altogether such arguments as he used against the Second Reading of the Bill. I greatly regret that the noble Lord thought fit to make almost a personal attack on my noble friend Lord Buckmaster in his absence. He spoke of him as a man with a bee in his bonnet, and made use of other expressions which seemed to me singularly inappropriate, and not particularly fitted for expression in this House.
I come to the Amendment, on which he said very little, but he did make one astonishing statement, when he said that the persons who drive horse-drawn vehicles are just as dangerous as those who are included in the Bill. Your Lordships had the statement, even from the noble Lord himself, of the vast number of deaths and accidents due to motor vehicles. In 1930 the deaths were over 7,000. He did not mention in his extraordinary statement as to the innocence of motor drivers that in 1930 there were nearly 200,000 accidents caused by motor vehicles, and in 1931 202,000. The whole scope and object of the Bill is directed to the dangers caused on the roads by motor vehicles. Therefore it is rather an unusual experiment on the part of the noble Lord at this stage of the Bill to introduce an Amendment totally outside its scope.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Surely, if it were outside the scope of the Bill my
510
Amendment would not have appeared on the Paper.
LORD DANESFORT: I am not quite sure about that. Amendments get put down sometimes which, if not technically outside the scope of a Bill, are extremely irrelevant and highly objectionable.
LORD RHAYADER: My Lords, while I am not altogether without sympathy with the protest which the noble Lord has made against some of the criticisms of motorists, I hope now that he has made his protest, he will be content to withdraw his Amendment. Lord Buckmaster asked me to move the Third Reading, supposing that all controversy was ended, and I do put it to the noble Lord that it is a little unreasonable after the Third Reading to move an Amendment which so widens the scope of the Bill. It would make it a very different Bill from what it is.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Certainly. In response to the appeal of my noble friend I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I have a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out ("thinks") and insert ("think").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Penalty for failure to stop, &c., after knowingly causing damage or injury]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: There is another drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("thinks") and insert ("think").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSRAM): My Lords, the Bill which I invite your Lordships on behalf of the Government to read a second time this afternoon is in the nature of a compromise, and, in order to

511
make the Bill intelligible, it is, I am afraid, necessary to explain in a few words the history which leads up to the controversy, and which makes some solution essential. The story begins with Section 1 of the Sunday Observance Act, which was passed as long ago as the year 1780, and that section enacted that:
"Any house, room or other place which shall be opened or used for public entertainment or amusement, or for publicly debating on any subject whatsoever, upon any part of the Lord's Day called Sunday, and to which persons shall be admitted by payment of money or by tickets sold for money, shall be deemed a disorderly house or place,"
And there was a penalty of £200 payable to any informer in respect of any breach.
Although that Act is still the law, there has been, I think, a considerable change in the habits of our people since the day when it was passed. In the latter part of the last century a practice grew up of carrying on Sunday concerts, generally of quite a high class, to which the public was admitted free, but in which a charge was made for certain reserved seats, and in the year 1897, in the case of Williams versus Wright, the High Court decided that that was not an infringement of the Act of Parliament. I am not concerned to discuss whether that decision was right or wrong, but the Court of Appeal has since said that it rested on a somewhat slender foundation. At any rate, after that decision the practice of holding concerts became general in London, and not uncommon in other parts of England, especially in the seaside towns.
Cinemas are, of course, a more recent development, but in the early part of the present century some cinemas began to give performances on Sunday in aid of charity. That began about 1909, and in the year 1916 the London County Council, who were the licensing authority under the Cinematograph Act, decided to exercise control over those Sunday performances. The arrangement which the London County Council then began to put into practice was that they made agreements with the cinemas that they, the London County Council, would take no steps to enforce the provisions of the Sunday Observance Act if the cinemas on their part complied with conditions—first of all, that the entertainment should be of a healthy character; secondly, that no performance should begin before six
512
o'clock or continue after eleven o'clock in the evening; thirdly, that none of the employees should work for more than six days in the week; and finally, that an amount determined by the Council as representing the profits from the performances should be paid to an approved charity. There were special concessions for private film societies and for some special occasions when a particular performance was organised purely for charity in the afternoon.
That practice continued for some fourteen years, but in the year 1930 some other purveyors of entertainment did not see why the cinemas should enjoy this privileged position. By way of registering their protest they initiated proceedings against the London County Council for granting licences containing these conditions, and it was held, first in the Court of First Instance and afterwards in the Court of Appeal, that the London County Council had no right to exercise a dispensing power and to excuse people who break the law. The result of that was that all the Sunday performances were declared to be illegal, and anyone who had carried on one of them became liable to the penalty prescribed by the Act of 1780.
That was obviously a position which called for some legislative interference. The Socialist Government of that day brought in legislation which they left to a free vote of the House of Commons. The Bill which was then introduced received a Second Reading by a comparatively small majority, and in the Committee stage there was a good deal of difficulty in making progress. There was an Amendment to include theatres, and that was defeated by a large majority. Before any further stage could be reached the Socialist Government resigned and the National Government came into office in September of last year. They were able only at that time to deal with emergency legislation and matters which were non-controversial. Accordingly, since this obviously was controversial, it was announced that the Government could not proceed with the Bill, but, instead, there was a short Bill passed which regularised the position for twelve months—that is to say, until October 7, 1932.
I think it is manifest that something must be done before October 7, 1932, when the temporary regularisation will come to an end, and when, unless some

513
legislation is passed, all these Sunday performances, certainly all cinemas, probably all concerts, and very likely all the opening of museums and the like, will become illegal. In those circumstances the Home Office in March of this year introduced a Bill on the lines of the Socialist Government Bill of the previous year, but, like their predecessors, the Government of the day made it clear that it was not a Bill which was to be treated as a Government measure, and was one which could be dealt with by the free vote of the House of Commons. The Bill was carried by a very small majority on Second Reading, and in Committee an Amendment was carried on the second day which limited the application of the Bill to London, and which made it quite clear that it was hopeless to proceed with that measure with any chance of success. Since compromise by agreement had failed, and since some legislation was essential, it then became incumbent upon the Government to find a solution which should be fair to both sides. I do not suggest that the solution which we found will satisfy either side completely. Compromises, if they are fair, hardly ever do. On the one side one has the extreme Sunday observance point of view, which would desire to prevent any sort of Sunday performances and would insist on the rigour of the old law, and on the other side you have, at the other extreme, the point of view which would wish that every kind of performance should be allowed to take place on Sunday as freely as any day of the week.
The Government have not thought it right to accept either of those positions. What we have done in the Bill which we are asking your Lordships to read a second time to-day is, in effect, first of all to exempt such displays as museums, zoological gardens and debates from the operation of the Sunday Observance Act of 1708; secondly, to give power to the licensing authorities who have authority to grant music licences to give licences for Sunday concerts and with express power to attach conditions as to the suitability of the entertainment given on the Sunday; thirdly, with regard to cinemas, to allow Sunday performances to go on in those areas in which they are at present going on, which is in effect London and, I think, some ninety-seven other areas in the country, on conditions which will secure that there is no
514
mole than a six-day working week and that a portion at any rate of the profits, and, if the licensing authority sees fit, the whole of the profits, should go to charity; and, finally, to give power for authorities in those areas which have not at present allowed Sunday cinemas to apply to Parliament for such powers by a less cumbersome and a less costly procedure than the ordinary Private Bill procedure, with sufficient safeguards, as we hope and believe, to ensure that, due regard shall be had to the opinion of the people living in the district.
That is an outline of the general character of the Bill. If your Lordships will be good enough to look at the Bill you will find that Clause 1 authorises the grant of licences for Sunday cinematograph entertainment on conditions. The first condition is that no person shall be employed more than six days in the week, and secondly—I am of course stating the matter broadly—that there shall be set aside such proportion of the estimated profits as the local authority sees fit to be devoted to charity. There is an excuse for employing a person on Sunday although he has worked on the previous six days, if the employment is due to an emergency, to meet a sudden mechanical breakdown or some unexpected and unforeseen contingency, provided that the person so employed gets another day's holiday later on.
In Clause 2 there is provision for the establishment of a fund called the Cinematograph Fund. Perhaps I ought to give your Lordships a short outline of the circumstances in which that clause came into existence. It was not in the Bill as originally introduced, but on the Committee stage Mr. Buchan introduced an Amendment which provided that a percentage of the profits should be devoted to a fund for a particular institute recommended to be set up by a Committee which was then on the eve of reporting. The Government did not think that the Amendment in the form in which Mr. Buchan moved it was one which could be accepted, but they undertook to consider the object in view and to introduce a clause on Report. That is now Clause 2. It was left to a free vote of the House of Commons and was carried. The effect of Clause 2 is that there shall be established under the direction and control of the Privy Council a Fund into which there shall be paid a certain per-

515
centage, not exceeding five per cent. at the most, of the amount payable out of the profits to charities, and the money so paid is to be applied as the Privy Council may direct for the purpose of encouraging the use and development of the cinematograph as a means of entertainment and instruction.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What part of the Privy Council is to be called upon to make these directions?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The Fund will be handed over to the Privy Council as a whole, and the Lord President will act as my noble friend knows he acts in various other matters in connection with the Committee over which he presides. Clause 3 makes provision with regard to musical entertainments. Power is given to the licensing authority in any area to allow musical entertainments on Sundays and to attach special conditions in respect of such Sunday entertainments. Clause 4 provides that those who open places of entertainment in accordance with the provisions of Clauses 1 and 3 shall not be infringing the Sunday Observance Acts, and Clause 5 is a definition clause which makes clear what meaning exactly is to be attached to the phrases used in the Bill.
In the Schedule are the powers which I indicated to your Lordships regarding areas in which at present there are no cinemas open. Provision is made in the Schedule, that in the case of an urban district council there shall be a town meeting and a poll taken if necessary. In the case of rural areas, where obviously that procedure would be inapplicable, due advertisement and notice is to be given and power is given to any body of electors, either numbering one hundred or one-twentieth of the total number of electors, whichever is the smaller number, to raise an objection. If an objection is raised then an inquiry is to be held and the inspector holding the inquiry is to make a report as to which way public opinion goes in that particular locality. If the report is in favour of the grant of the power, and the Secretary of State thinks it right to make an order, that order has to be approved by an affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament. In that way it is hoped that we shall retain in Parliament the power to supervise and control the extension of these Sunday entertainments and see that
516
they are only introduced in new areas after due consideration of the wishes of the inhabitants and if Parliament sees fit.
I do not suggest than any compromise is going to prove completely satisfactory, but we believe that in this Bill we have reached a solution which is fair to both sides, and which having regard to the previous history of this thorny question, and especially having regard to the deep feelings—religious feelings and feelings of conviction—which it necessarily stirs up, is one which ought to commend itself to the great body of reasonable people on each side and which is worthy of the sanction of Parliament. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount has given such a lucid explanation of the Bill that I hope he will not find it difficult to answer one or two points which appear difficult to some of us. The first is concerning Clause 1, from which it appears that the licensing authorities are granted power to specify the amounts of money which, when collected, will come into their hands—a certain percentage of the Cinematograph Fund and the rest of the money—and which they will then have to distribute among such charities as they think fit. A very great power is thereby put into their hands. The point on which I should like to have information is whether, supposing it was proposed that the amount that goes to the Cinematograph Fund should be altered or taken away altogether, that would be such an Amendment as would not be within the powers of this House and would be a privileged Amendment, making this Bill as far as the Cinematograph Fund goes almost watertight.
My second question is with regard to Clause 2. This Cinematograph Fund is to be handed over to the control and direction of the Privy Council. The Privy Council, of course, have a Committee for Research. Are they entitled under this Bill to spend part of that money on payments to experts or others? It is not likely that members of the Privy Council themselves will care to examine into this question of the development of the cinematograph as a means of entertainment and instruction. Can they establish a board such as the B.B.C. appears to be and pay it out of

517
this Fund, and under what control, for the purpose laid down in the Bill? There will also arise the question as to what kind of a board. Is it to be outside the industry or composed of members of the industry—experts, producers and exhibitors, and possibly artistes—to consider the question of what entertainment and instruction can be derived? Those are two points on which I should be glad of a little light. I am not saying anything about the great importance of this Bill from the point of view of the use of Sunday and how far it opens the door to a number of entertainments which it may be difficult to control.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, any question affecting Sunday in English life affects the physical, moral and spiritual welfare of the people so closely that I am bound to make some remarks upon the Bill now before your Lordships' House. Moreover, I think the great attention given to this matter in another place, and the very great interest which it has aroused throughout the country, rather demands that your Lordships should give the general principles which underlie the Bill some real consideration and that we should not at once proceed, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, to matters of detail which had better be treated when we reach the Committee stage. One thing is clear, and I think beyond controversy—that the Sunday Observance Act of 1780 can no longer be enforced, depending as it does on the obsolete procedure of the common informer. Indeed it is perhaps worth mentioning that an attempt to propose that the Act of 1780 should be retained, when brought before the National Assembly of the Church of England, found only four to support it out of a company, I suppose, of five or six hundred. The truth is that the mere fact that in many places that law has been completely ignored without challenge for many years proves the futility of keeping on the Statute Book laws which have in the process of time become obsolete and inefficient.
I am only going to speak about the Bill as it affects cinema entertainments. No doubt in this matter there is, as the noble and learned Viscount has admitted, a logical defect in the Bill. It seems very strange that more privilege should be given to places where the law has been
518
ignored than to places where the law has been observed, and it is not my concern either to defend or to attack that obvious logical defect. It is enough that this Bill comes before your Lordships' House as a compromise, perhaps a characteristically English compromise, accepted both by those opposed to allowing any form of Sunday entertainment and those who not only would approve but welcome it.
I am well aware—how can I be otherwise?—that this proposed legalising of Sunday cinema entertainments, and the extension of the permission under certain conditions to places where these entertainments have not yet been given, arouses the very strongest misgivings and fears among those who care most for the religious character of our English Sunday. Your Lordships will not suppose that I am otherwise than full of sympathy with the motives of those who are thus deeply concerned. No one is more convinced than I am of the increasing value to the community of a quiet Sunday. It is perhaps necessary here to remark that there is no question of bringing in the restrictions of the Jewish Sabbath. I am not going to inflict on your Lordships a treatise as to the difference between the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday. There is no identity between them. They differ in many respects. They differ in the day observed, the seventh in the one case and the first in the other. They differ in respect of what they commemorate, the creation of the world in the one case and the resurrection of Our Lord in the other. They differ in the purpose for which they were instituted, the strict cessation of work in the one and the duty of the Christian body assembling for worship in the other. They differ as to the sanctions, as to the degree of authority behind them—in the one case a Divine commandment, in the other the institution of the Christian Church. It is no good confusing, as people often do, the Sabbath and the Sunday, but they have this great principle behind each of them: the principle, which we believe has a Divine sanction, that it is necessary for the good of mankind that there should be one day in seven kept as a day of rest, refreshment and recollection.
Never was there a time when there was more need of that principle being observed in our social life. The increasing haste and rush and hurry of modern

519
life make it more and more essential that people should have one day at least when they can be quiet and have an opportunity of recovering their souls, for I need hardly remind your Lordships that a great poet has said:
"By the soul only is a nation great and free."
If our Sunday is going to become, as it is, not merely not a day of rest, but a day of increasing rush and entertainment, I do not see how this nation is to possess its soul, and if it loses its soul it loses, apart from higher considerations, its capacity to meet the demands and sacrifices of this most anxious time.
On the question of keeping Sunday as a day of rest there is really no controversy and this Bill makes adequate provision to see that, if passed, no employee in a cinema house will be deprived of at least one day in seven of complete rest. That is, however, only cessation from work and Sunday loses its main value if it is not observed also as a day of remembrance and worship, that men may so pass through things temporal that they finally lose not the things eternal. I would with all my heart that all our people would attend some place of worship on Sunday, but the desire that our people should go to church is one thing and it is a very different thing to seek the achievement of that desire by preventing them from going elsewhere. I cannot approve of such a method. I do not think it serves the highest interests of religion. In my judgment those interests are best served by teaching the duty of assembling together for the public remembrance and witness to God by Christian people, and by making the services of religion so attractive and so full of the true spirit of fellowship and worship that men will be freely moved to attend them. In point of fact, I wonder whether there is any proof that the opening of these cinema houses does prevent people, if they so desire, assembling for public worship. It would be very interesting to know whether attendance in church or chapel is worse in London, where these entertainments have been customary for many years, than it is in other parts of the country. In any case let us look at the plain truth, which is this. People go to church because they want to go. They do not go because they do not want to go. If there
520
be any who come because there is no other comfortable place that they can go to, I doubt whether their presence is an acceptable act of worship or of much use to themselves. As to others who do not want to go to church, in their case the alternative is not between the cinema and church, it is between the cinema and the public house or the street.
I know it is sometimes said: Why not let people enjoy a quiet evening at home? No doubt it is possible for us in this House to enjoy a quiet evening at home, if we are wise enough still to make use of it, but that is quite an irrelevant observation as regards the great majority of our people. How can those who are cribbed, cabined and confined in a single room, shared by the whole family, find rest or recreation there? Therefore it is that the older of them naturally find their way to the public house, and the younger of them to the street. In the street, if the weather is bad, they become wet and cold and miserable. I see no moral advantage to the community in that. If it is fine, they roam about and betake themselves to aimless loafing. Among the many sources of evil I believe a very high place must be given to Sunday loafing. There is hardly any form of healthy recreation that is not preferable to that. Therefore I find it very difficult, even in the interests of religion, to oppose the proposals which are legalised in this Bill. It seems to me that the real policy is to endeavour to secure that on Sundays, in these places of entertainment, the films produced are refined, educative, or at the very least whole-some.
I know it is said that it is very illogical to make these special requirements about performances on Sunday; that what is good on weekdays should be good on Sundays. I am not very much impressed by that argument. Sunday has, and I hope will continue to have, in this country, special traditions and associations of its own, and it seems to me most reasonable that the community, which under the Bill will have the right of determining whether and under what conditions licences for the opening of these houses shall be given, should use their opportunity to see that on Sundays at any rate the films produced are refining and not vulgarising, that they have some intrinsic merits of their own. I believe

521
that in this matter the film producers have made a great mistake in estimating the taste of our people. We all know by experience that when our people can have it they prefer the best music to the most trivial. I believe that if our film producers had more courage they would find that our people preferred good films to the rotten ones, if they could only have them, and I believe that the provisions of this Bill, especially in regard to new districts which will desire to come under its operations, will give a very great opportunity to test and educate the public taste, and to stimulate the production of just that sort of film that we feel to be best, whether on Sundays or weekdays.
Under the Bill it is open to the proper authority to impose any conditions which it pleases, in addition to those specified in the Bill, and here is a great opportunity, for those who care that in this respect the special character of Sunday shall in some measure be retained, to influence public opinion, so that the local authorities may impose and require conditions securing that the cinema entertainment shall be of the most healthy and wholesome kind. I may mention, as an illustration within my own knowledge, that in the borough of Croydon special arrangements have been made for the establishment of a committee representing the religious communities, the members of the Borough Council, and the proprietors and managers of the cinema houses, and it has been agreed that no film shall be produced on Sunday which is not approved by that representative committee. There is every prospect of it working well. No doubt it might receive further assistance from any institute established by the Cinematograph Fund, as to the advantage of which I reserve any opinion until we reach the Committee stage.
That is an experiment in being, and I suggest that those who really care about our English Sunday would do well, especially in cases where public opinion is necessary before the Act can come into operation, to do everything possible to secure that a similar arrangement is made, or at least to see that the local authority makes it its business to see that a standard is set for films which will be useful to the whole community. Certainly it seems to me, in the circumstances of modern life, that the best way to keep what we can
522
keep of the special character of our English Sunday is, so far as worship is concerned, to rely upon teaching, persuasion and example and not upon any direct or indirect compulsion; and so far as entertainment is concerned, to see that what is offered is as wholesome and helpful to body, mind and spirit as it can be. No doubt the Bill is capable of amendment. No doubt useful Amendments will be brought forward on the Committee stage. I have only been speaking of the principle which it seems to me ought to be in our minds when we consider this Bill on the Second Reading. I have great reluctance—how can it be otherwise?—to see any further inroads upon the quietness and sanctity of our English Sunday. When I look back upon my early days I am conscious of having received nothing but the greatest benefit from the old English Sunday, with its provision for the worship of the family, for quietude, friendship and reflection, and I naturally cannot view with enthusiasm anything which tends still further to draw the community away from these old and honourable traditions; but, accepting life as it is, and I believe in the truest interest of religion, as one who cares more than I am able to express for keeping all that is best in the traditions of our English Sunday, I am prepared to accept this Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, there is one point of procedure on this Bill to which I think I should draw your attention as Chairman of Committees. If you turn to the Schedule on page 8 of the Bill you will see in paragraph 9 that there is a provision that orders under the Schedule shall not be deemed to be Special Orders
"for the purpose of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament…"
I understand that this provision was included in the Schedule for the purpose of ensuring that draft orders under the Bill should not be subjected to the complicated procedure of the Special Orders Committee. I think that your Lordships would not wish to upset that arrangement, but it is also undesirable that a provision should be introduced into a Bill to regulate the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House, especially as there is a procedure which is quite well known to the House, whereby the same

523
result can be obtained and which I think would be preferable to the one which is proposed in the Bill.
If you would look at Standing Order No. 212 you would see that Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act and Rules under the Government of India Act are exempted by the Standing Order itself from special Order procedure. I think it would be desirable that orders under this Bill should be dealt with in the same way. I believe that the Government are quite ready to accept this proposal, and if they would be good enough to bring forward an Amendment in Committee to delete from the Bill paragraph 9 of the Schedule I would, with your Lordships approval of course, undertake to move an Amendment to Standing Order No. 212 excluding from its operation draft orders under this Bill in the same way as Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act and Rules under the Government of India Act are exempted. If your Lordships would agree to that course I think it would be the best plan. It would follow precedent, and would not create a new precedent.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, it is necessary for me to say, first of all, that, as the noble and learned Viscount has explained, this is a non-Party measure, and that what I have to say represents my own opinions and not necessarily the opinions of those with whom I sit in your Lordships' House. I wish to say how greatly gratified I was at the speech of the most rev. Primate, and especially because he said many things which I should have wished personally to say, I need not therefore on those lines trouble your Lordships at any great length. We may, however, first of all acknowledge that this question does arouse the very greatest feeling in the minds of sincere and well-meaning people, and the first thing we have to do is to learn to respect the opinions of those from whom we may differ. I personally do not share what one may call Sabbatarian views, but I think I understand how sincerely they are held by those who feel bound by them. As I have thought about Sunday and the use of it, it has seemed to me that the Sabbath was made for man and was meant to serve a human purpose: it is our business in every generation to
524
see that it serves the highest human purpose to which we can devote it. If we are to keep the Sabbath day holy we have to realise, as the most rev. Primate points out, the conditions under which we live, and none of us, whether he is a Sabbatarian or whatever he may be, can feel that the loafing around an East End public house, and the crowding into the noisy slums on a Sunday, contributes to keep that day holy as our fathers understood it.
I would wish to say one word on this point because I was for some years a member of the London County Council, and I sat on the Theatres and Music Halls Committee when this great question came up and important matters of administration had to be faced. We have in the County of London 117 square miles of streets, a wilderness of mean dwellings, where people are dreadfully overcrowded, and the result of that is that there is no privacy, distance cannot be maintained between human beings which permits of human dignity, and youths and maidens are thrust out of these small tenements into crowded streets under conditions which can bring them neither physical nor moral good. Therefore, in considering the use that is to be made of the Sabbath we have to consider the conditions under which these young people live. Let me say that those who take another view of this question from that which I take have done their very best to provide some alternative. The amount of devotion that has been put into the organisation of Sunday schools and churches and chapels, where wholesome conditions obtain and a warm welcome is given to young people, is beyond all praise. But to offer to young people a hospitality that they will not accept does not solve the problem, and therefore we have really before us just the alternative of allowing these young people to drift about the streets on Sunday nights, with the temptation of the public house always before them, or of meeting the conditions of our city life by agreeing that cinemas should be opened.
The Sabbatarian would of course wish that they should go to church, and the most rev. Primate has himself expressed a similar wish. May I also—whose orthodoxy is not above suspicion—say that I, too, believe that it would be an

525
entirely good thing if everybody in the community could be persuaded to devote one hour at least per week to the consideration of the higher purposes of life? But the difficulty arises that, if people will not go, what are you to do? The Sabbatarian would say: "Do nothing." But doing nothing in this matter is really doing a very great deal. It is leaving these people exposed to moral, spiritual and physical dangers that I dare scarcely contemplate. I have only one further word to say on this aspect of the matter, though it is intensely interesting to me. It is this. I believe that we have reason to be proud of the growing sobriety of our young people in this country. It is one of the most hopeful things that we have to contemplate, and if you shut the cinema whilst you keep the public house open you are putting a temptation before these young people the magnitude of which I cannot sufficiently emphasise, and about which I am full of fear.
Passing to the details of the Bill, there is one matter of a semi-general nature first of all, that is in regard to Sunday labour. In my judgment the institution of one day's rest in seven would not necessarily be endangered by allowing recreation of this kind. One day s rest in seven is far too precious to mankind for that to happen, and if I may impart a Party note into this matter it is this. So far as its strength allows, organised labour in this country will see to it that one day's rest each week is provided for every worker in the country. I cannot enlarge upon that, but I feel it worth while to say that those of us who favour this Motion agree with preserving one day's rest in seven.
I wish to give this Bill my general support, with some reservations, because I think in some ways it is timid and it is inadequate. It is admitted we are an illogical people, but if Sunday recreation is right in London it ought to be right everywhere, in all its decent forms, and this Bill satisfies neither one side nor the other in that respect. I have the very greatest fear in regard to its provisions for new areas, believing that the result of them will be to stimulate local turmoil of a very unsatisfactory and dangerous character. I believe that at municipal elections civic issues will be submerged under this controversy, and we shall have exhibitions of the clash of temperaments which, for a moment, I will
526
call mediæval on the one hand and modern on the other, but in any case between these opposite points of view, and that will be bad for the general tolerance of the community and it will be bad for the civic issues that are concerned.
There is another point, and that is in regard to theatres. It leaves the theatre problem entirely untouched. I would remind your Lordships that under present conditions what happens is that these cinemas are open, so that you are providing further good profits for Hollywood that it may continue to debase our language, and put before our people views of life which at least are not English, whilst another side of culture on Sunday is forbidden—that is to say, a young girl, or a young man, may go to the cinema and see a film "Her First Affair," but he or she may not go to a theatre to see Hamlet or the dignity and glory of Lear. Now the curse of piecemeal legislation of this kind is that we never get the subject off our hands. Therefore, at no distant time, there will be other claims, rightly made, for other departures, and over and over again this tiresome subject will be before us. One wishes that our love of compromise was really not so persistent as to make this always necessary.
A final word I would like to say in regard to the quality of films. The improvement of the film's tone is a crying necessity. As I pointed out to your Lordships a little time ago, at the time when I was Chairman of the Colonial Films Committee we had the very gravest apprehension as to the kind of film that was sent out into our Colonies and other places for people under the rule of the King in those places. But it is not less dangerous, or scarcely less dangerous, in London on a Sunday or any other night, and it seems to me—I believe the statement could be verified—that precisely because on Sunday there is no competition in the shape of higher forms of artistic presentation the cinema people put on the greatest rubbish they have on Sunday nights—that is, films of a lower quality than those they show on week-days. Therefore to that extent I am entirely favourable to increasing the quality of films that are to be shown.
Whether the five per cent. on the profits of this industry on a particular day is the right way to deal with the question

527
must be reserved for discussion in Committee, but I do support that proposal in principle, because it represents a matter of very real significance. In the House of Commons a Tory Member of Parliament, supported by the National Government, advocated it. They feel it necessary to tell the Primrose League and the Mothers' Union about all the dangers of Socialism, but they here propose to take five per cent. of the profits of a particular industry for the higher needs of the nation. That is a most interesting proposal. I welcome it as a principle that has been too long delayed in legislation, and I shall wish to see it extended as quickly and as far as possible. But in spite of the limitations of this Bill and its obvious attempt at compromise, to the disadvantage I think of the subject in hand, I trust nevertheless the Bill will pass your Lordships' House.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, I am desirous as your Lordships are of proceeding as soon as possible to the important question of Indian affairs, and I will, therefore, confine what I have to say on the Second Reading of this Bill to a very few sentences. I rise solely for the purpose of expressing a view which is not generally held in this House but which is very strongly held in Wales. There is a strong opposition in Wales to the principle of this Bill. I know very well the circumstances under which some kind of legislation became necessary, and I also recognise that the Bill in its present form is a compromise, but the fact that it is a compromise in the form in which it is now presented to the House does not do away with the serious objection by the country which I particularly know and represent here, to the change which it will produce in regard to the conditions of Sunday in that country.
In one or two sentences let me summarise my case for the separate treatment of Wales in relation to this Bill. First of all there is a legislative precedent. This is not the first time that Wales has asked for separate treatment. Many noble Lords in this House will remember one or two cases in point. There is the Welsh Sunday Closing Act of 1881, which I cannot but take a special personal interest in. It is a long time ago, and it happens that. I heard a speech as a boy sitting under a gallery in the other place upon the Second Reading of that Bill, made by the late Mr. Gladstone, who was then
528
Prime Minister. He put my case so well that I will quote just one sentence. Mr. Gladstone said:
"Wales is after all a country with a people of its own, with a language of its own, with a tradition of its own, and especially with religious feelings and associations of its own."
Although that is a long time ago I can assure your Lordships' House that there has been no change in that respect. Then there is another precedent for separate legislation to be found in the Welsh Intermediate Education Act setting up a system of secondary education for Wales and Monmouthshire. In a variety of ways the claim of Wales for special treatment, having regard to its particular conditions and circumstances, has been recognised by Parliament. The point I wish to urge this afternoon is that the House should at all events give sympathetic and, I hope, favourable consideration to the claim which will be made on the Committee stage for the exemption of Wales from Clause 1 of the Bill.
The present state of feeling in regard to the Bill has been very forcibly expressed in another place by the Parliamentary representatives of Wales. When the Bill was introduced in its first form five Welsh members voted for it and twenty-five against. In a Division on the Welsh Amendment to the present Bill eighteen Welsh representatives voted for the Amendment and only two against. I, and everybody else connected with Wales, have received a great number of letters and resolutions on this subject, and I may say after a somewhat long experience of Welsh public life I have not the least difficulty in believing the genuineness of the feeling which has been expressed against this Bill. I know, as the most rev. Primate has already stated, that a great change has come over the attitude of the country generally in regard to Sunday observance. I am not going to criticise in any way the development which has taken place, but I venture to submit to your Lordships that when you have a portion of the country like Wales, where the people have very deep feelings and entertain strong convictions as to what is right in accordance with their conception of the claims of the Sabbath upon thought and conduct, it is only right that this House should favourably consider the request made that from this par-

529
ticular legislation Wales should be exempted. For that reason when we reach the Committee stage I propose to move an Amendment exempting Wales and Monmouthshire from the operations of Clause 1.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I was not in the House when my noble friend Lord Askwith spoke, but I understand that he expressed some doubt as to the value of the Cinematograph Fund that is being created by this Bill. I think it ought to be omitted altogether. It cannot be a vital part of the Bill, because after very lengthy proceedings in another place it was only thought of in the last stages of the Bill. One must imagine that owing to the many difficulties which the Government have had in connection with this Bill they have introduced this provision for setting up a Cinematograph Fund in order to make this Bill more palatable. I think it is a great mistake. It is very vague. No one knows how much money will be allotted to the Fund, and it is left to a very nebulous body. It seems to me to be a bad innovation to try to make a measure palatable—a measure which deals with illegalities—by taking away some of the profits of the industry concerned. I do not see why it should stop there. Why not have horse-racing on Sunday and say that a portion of the takings should be devoted to putting racing on a better footing? If it is necessary to have such a Fund as this then it ought to be provided in a proper way. It may be a good thing or not, but if it is good the Fund ought not to be dependent on Sunday takings. I trust the Government will see fit to drop the clause.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think the Government can possibly complain of the tone of the debate or of the way in which this measure has been received by your Lordships' House. I hope I shall not in any way seem to be derogating from the merits of the other contributions to the discussion if I venture to say how specially grateful we are to the most rev. Primate, not only for the general approval which he was able to give to the Bill, but more particularly for the high level to which he raised the debate. Most of the criticisms directed against the Bill by other speakers were, I think, on points of detail, and I will say only a few words on
530
those points because we shall more appropriately discuss them in Committee.
My noble friend Lord Askwith asked two questions. He asked first, as I understand, whether an Amendment dealing with Clause 1 (1) (b) as to the allocation of profits would come within the rules of Privilege. It is not because I wish to shirk answering the question, but because the subject of Privilege is such a very delicate one and one which it is undesirable to generalise about, that I reply that I would prefer to see the actual Amendment before expressing an opinion as to whether or not it infringes Privilege. Then he asked with regard to Clause 2 whether the Privy Council could set up a body analogous to the British Broadcasting Corporation and pay salaries out of the Fund. I speak without having had the specific point brought to my attention before my noble friend spoke, but I think the answer would be that they could not do anything of the kind. I do not think there is any power to set up a corporation of that kind or to delegate to a special body the powers entrusted to the Privy Council. I think the answer would be "No," but I will have the matter looked into. Then he asked what control there would be over the Fund set up in Clause 2. The answer to that is to be found in Clause 2 (3), which provides that there is to be an annual audit and that the report of the auditor is to be laid before Parliament. Therefore Parliament retains the right to see that the money is properly expended and to criticise the responsible Minister if that wish is disregarded.
My noble friend the Earl of Onslow raised a point about paragraph 9 of the Schedule. You will see from the wording of that paragraph that the Government were very anxious not even to seem to interfere with the right of either House of Parliament to regulate its own business in its own way, because whereas it is provided that no order laid before Parliament shall be deemed, for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament, to be a Special Order, it went on to say,
"unless that House, by Order made after the passing of this Act, directs that such orders shall be deemed to be Special Orders."
Therefore we have been careful to leave it to each House of Parliament to decide how its own affairs should be conducted. But I think the wishes and authority of

531
the noble Earl the Lord Chairman would have very great weight and if, as I gather, the noble Earl thinks that the method he suggests is the more satisfactory, I am sure we shall be able to find means of giving effect to his wishes.
The noble Lord, Lord Snell, and the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, took two opposite views. One said that we do not go nearly far enough and the other that we are going much too far. One said "Put in theatres" and the other "Put out Wales." The fact that we have not completely satisfied both sides shows, I think, that at any rate our compromise is not one-sided. For myself, and I speak here for myself and not for the Government, I should have been very sorry to see the opening of theatres included, but it is sufficient to say, from the point of view of the compromise, that I think it would have raised very acute controversy. The suggestion was heavily defeated in the last Parliament in the Standing Committee. It would also be an innovation, whereas what we are trying to do is to preserve a practice which has grown up. I cannot agree with the suggestion that because there are no theatres open on Sunday, and people who like the high-class theatre entertainment are therefore driven to the cinema, the cinema would for that reason be induced to run a lower class of entertainment. I should have thought the exact opposite would be the logical result of the argument, because the cinemas would have to cater for the class of customer who was driven from the theatre and therefore would be likely to attempt to approximate as nearly as they could to the high level which the noble Lord thinks the theatres nearly always attain.
The noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, says that Wales ought to be excluded and he pointed out that there are precedents in legislation for such an exclusion. All the noble Lord asked me to do was to consider the matter on the Committee stage and of course I will consider any Amendment which may be brought forward very carefully, but I hope my noble friend will not think me unreasonable if I say that he will have to find a stronger argument or one which more persuades my mind, than the suggestion that Wales has sometimes been exempted from legis-
532
lation in the past and therefore we ought to exempt her in the present. As to the suggestion that the people of Wales are going strongly to object to this legislation and object to the sort of Sunday which, I suppose, he fears that this legislation may legalise, I think there is no area so far as Wales is concerned which will be allowed to open cinemas at present because I do not think there is any area in which they are at present open; and it seems hard lines on the people of Wales, if in the future they should desire to make a change in the direction of opening a theatre in any district, that they should be compelled to proceed by the cumbersome procedure of a Private Bill instead of under the more simple procedure of this Bill, which is specially designed for ensuring that the people of the district shall have their way in the decision whether or not any such legislation shall take place or any such area be included. I will of course consider the matter in Committee, but there will be those points for my noble friend to consider when we come to the Amendment which he suggests.
With regard to the noble Lord, Lord Lamington, who reinforced what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, about the Privy Council Fund, it is true that it did not appear in the Bill in its original shape. It was not introduced as a sop to try to persuade the House of Commons, because the question was left to the free vote of the House of Commons, and it is not quite true to say that you are taxing the industry because the Fund is established out of the sum the local authority has already taken from the industry by setting it aside for charitable purposes and the like. It is a sum therefore which in no event would go into the pockets of the industry. I am glad to hear that the standard of cinema displays, on which the noble Lord is much more an authority than I can pretend to be, is so much higher now than it used to be, but perhaps it may be that there is still room for improvement and that such a Fund may serve a very useful purpose. However, these are matters we can debate later on in the week in Committee. For the moment I can only thank your Lordships for the reception you have given to the measure.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDIA'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS WAR COSTS.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, the Resolution which figures on the Order Paper, and which was described by the Secretary of State for India in another place as a very formidable Resolution, need not, I think, detain your Lordships very long. In essence it is a mere matter of bookkeeping. Under the present constitutional position it is not possible for the Legislature in India to vote money for military purposes outside India without the covering authority of Parliament. In the early stages of the War the arrangement was made between the India Office and the Government of India that India should defray the ordinary cost of the Indian Forces when they moved outside India and that this country should defray any additional expenditure which might be incurred on their account. In 1917 the Indian Legislature made to this country the extremely generous gift of £100,000,000 as a contribution towards the cost of the War and in the following year, 1918, the Legislature made a further vote of £45,000,000, a vote to which it attached certain conditions. One condition was that account was to be taken of the economic position of India; another was that account must be taken of any warlike expenditure that might be incurred in connection with Afghanistan. The War ended a good deal earlier than people either in this country or in India expected and the actual sum expended was only £13,600,000, the figure mentioned in the third clause of the Resolution.
In the ordinary course this House would have been asked to authorise that expenditure some time ago, but an acute controversy arose between the War Office on the one side and the Government of India on the other, because the War Office regarded India as liable for a number of other charges—counter claims on other accounts—and was anxious to treat these sums as an advance payment on account of those charges and not as part of the free gift which India had passed in favour of this country. That controversy has been pursued ever since, and it has now been fortunately settled. I believe that if there is an ex-Viceroy in this House he will agree with me in congratulating India, and the Government of
534
this country, upon having at last wiped the slate free from this controversy. It has been settled by the time-honoured method of wiping the slate, claims and counter-claims wiping one another off. Another obstacle has been the well-known controversy about the capitation grant, and that has been referred to an Advisory tribunal, presided over by Sir Robert Garran, who was Solicitor-General in Australia. That Committee is to assemble in this country towards the end of this year. Therefore a controversy which prevented the formal passage by this House of the Resolution authorising the payment of this £13,600,000 has been settled and the Resolution can now be brought before your Lordships' House. This payment does not cover certain additional sums for which India has accepted liability as part of the settlement. Against these there must be set certain receipts accruing to India and arising out of the War. I beg therefore to move the Resolution which stands in my name, which will give the final authority for this payment to be made and end a controversy which has been going on for a very long time.
Moved, Whereas by Resolutions passed on the 16th September and 26th November, 1914, respectively, this House consented to the charge upon Indian revenues, subject to certain conditions, of the ordinary pay and other ordinary charges of British and Indian troops despatched out of India for service in the Great War, as well as the ordinary charges of any vessels belonging to the Government, of India that might be employed in those expeditions:
And whereas, by a Resolution passed on the 14th March, 1917, this House consented to a contribution of £100,000,000 charged upon the revenues of India towards the expenses of the war:
And whereas the Government of India, desirous of affording further assistance to His Majesty's Government, provisionally and subject to the consent of this House met out of the revenues of India in 1918–19, with the concurrence of their Legislative Council, further extraordinary charges in respect of the Indian troops employed in the war to the extent of £13,600,000:
And whereas the Government of India are desirous of bearing finally such further extraordinary charges.

535
That this House consents that the extraordinary charges of £13,600,000 aforesaid shall be borne by Indian revenues.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD SNELL: My Lords, my noble friends desire me to say that they will give every support to the passing of this Resolution.
LORD IRWIN: My Lords, I would like to add, in half a dozen sentences, my word of congratulation to the noble Marquess upon finding himself in a position to bring this Motion before the House. It is, as he has pointed out, technically in the nature of book-keeping, and the discharge of a technical obligation imposed by Statutes relevant to Indian revenue. I am sure that any one who, like myself, has had from time to time the melancholy duty of treading the jungle of controversy which has grown up around these financial questions in India, must be outspoken in gratitude to the noble Marquess, from the point of view both of this country and of India, that he has contrived to render that jungle no longer existant. I do not think anybody could have followed that controversy in any degree without being amazed at the ability and ingenuity of Government Departments, both in India and in this country, in the way in which they have produced new matters of controversy whenever the old seemed to be approaching settlement, and have maintained this question in being, the despair of everybody concerned with it, for the last fourteen or fifteen years.
Therefore no praise is too high for those who have finally brought it to a conclusion. The noble Marquess said quite truly that one of the matters which had delayed the settlement was the fact that it had become connected with the vexed question of the capitation rate. That is not indeed directly referred to in the Resolution, but it is very good news to hear that that old controversy is to be referred to arbitration in the course of the coming autumn. I understand that the arbitration is on an advisory basis only, but I venture to hope that it is reasonable to expect that the award which is likely to be forthcoming will be of such a character that its own merits are likely to win for it acceptance both in India and in this country. Any one who has examined this matter will agree that it is quite unworthy of the arrangement which ought to exist between this country
536
and India. It has taken fifteen years to settle these somewhat petty problems of finance, and I hope we are not to take it as an omen or measure of the time likely to be taken to settle the graver problems that are shortly to come before His Majesty's Government.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices.
The Committee reported as follows:—
1. SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.
The Sub-Committee reported the resignation of Mr. R. C. Vaughan, who has been Controller of the Refreshment Department since April, 1920.
The Committee authorised the Sub-Committee to make suitable arrangements for carrying on the Refreshment Department.
2 YEOMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD (HOUSE ALLOWANCE).
The Committee sanctioned the payment to the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod of House Allowance up to the 28th April, 1931, the date on which his official residence was ready for occupation.
3. RETIREMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL CLERK OF PRIVATE BILLS AND TAXING MASTER OF PRIVATE BILL COSTS.
The Committee heard with regret that the Hon. Edward A. Stoner, who holds the appointment of Principal Clerk of Private Bills and Taxing Master of Private Bill Costs, is about to retire under the age limit on the 16th October next. Mr. Stonor will then have completed 41 years' service in the House.
The Committee sanctioned the payment to Mr. Stonor of a pension of £600 per annum, and supplementary pension, subject to quarterly revision, calculated on the current rate of bonus.
They also approved the payment of a capital sum by way of additional allowance calculated on his present salary, together with 75 per cent. of the current bonus amounting to £1,951 0s. 6d.
These payments are calculated according to the provisions of the Superannuation Act, 1909, under which Mr. Stonor's pension is assessable.
The Committee were informed that, as a result of Mr. Stonor's retirement, the amalgamation of the Committee Office and Private Bill Office, agreed to by the Committee in 1919, will come into force, Mr. Vigors, the present Principal Clerk of Committees, becoming the head of the combined departments without additional remuneration.
The scheme of 1919 provided also for an establishment of 13 clerks in the Parliament Office. A vacancy is thus created by

537
Mr. Stonor's retirement. In the interests of economy, the Clerk of the Parliaments does not at present propose to fill the vacancy, and is arranging to carry on with the existing staff until March, 1933, when he proposes to make a new appointment.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered and adopted.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT (1882) AMENDMENT 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 Danesfort.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Amendment as to cheques drawn by a bank on itself.
1. Sections seventy-six to eighty-two of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (which relate to crossed cheques), as amended by the Bills of Exchange (Crossed Cheques) Act, 1906, shall apply to a banker's draft as if the draft were a cheque.
For the purposes of this section, the expression "banker's draft" means a draft payable on demand drawn by an office of a bank upon itself, or upon some other office of the same bank.
LORD DANESFORT: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Atkin, I wish to move the Amendment standing in his name, to leave out all words after "by" ["by an office of a bank"] down to and including "same" and insert "or on behalf of a bank upon itself whether payable at the head office or some other office of the".
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out from ("by") to ("bank") in line 14 and insert ("or on behalf of a bank upon itself whether payable at the head office or some other office of the").—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

HOPS MARKETING SCHEME, 1932.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the scheme as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that the Earl De La Warr, Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, attended the Committee; that in their opinion the provisions of the scheme raise questions of policy and principle which have been accepted already by the House when passing the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, under which the scheme is submitted for approval; that the provisions of the scheme are not founded on precedent; that the question as to whether the scheme is intra vires is at present the subject of an appeal to this House from the Court of Appeal; that in their opinion the scheme cannot be approved by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision upon the Resolution approving the said scheme: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD SNELL: Is the noble Viscount the Leader of the House able to make any statement with regard to the time of meeting of the House to-morrow?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, in view of some little doubt as to how long the Town and Country Planning Bill may take on Report stage, and in view of the fact that it is very important to get the Bill back to another House in time for our Amendments to be considered properly, I would suggest that this House should meet at a quarter to three o'clock to-morrow. There are two introductions, which will take some little time, and we cannot effectively begin our discussion until a little after three o'clock.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.