Lords Sitting of 12 April 1933

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
Read 2a.
DURHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PROCEEDINGS IN RELATION TO SPECIAL ORDERS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move that the Lords mentioned on the Paper be named of the Committee on Proceedings in Relation to Special Orders.
Moved, That the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury.

E. Lucan.

V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore).

L. Stanmore.

L. Marks.

L. Marley.

—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDIA.
Message from the Commons to acquaint the House that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee appointed by their Lordships, with power to call into consultation representatives of the Indian States and of British India, to consider the future government of India and, in particular, to examine and report upon the proposals contained in Command Paper 4268, do meet the Lords Committee in Committee Room A at three o'clock this day, as proposed by their Lordships.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Message from the Commons be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The reference is to Bill No. (35).]
Clause 15, page 11, line 35, leave out from the second ("to") to the end of line 36 and insert ("those offences").
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the Amendment made by the Commons is in Clause 15, page 11, line 35, and is to leave out from the second "to" to the end of line 36, and insert "those offences." This was done in order to correct an error in drafting which was only discovered after the Bill reached the Commons. I am sorry to say that the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills did not discover the error, but it was discovered in the Commons and the Amendment is to correct that drafting error. I beg to move that your Lordships do agree with the Commons Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Power of Minister to reimburse part of losses sustained under guarantees to building and other societies.
Provided that any proposals made to the Minister under this section shall—

(a) include such particulars as be may direct as to the number and type of the houses intended to be built or acquired and the approximate size of them measured in superficial feet; and

549

(b) make provision for securing that, except in so far as the Minister may in any particular case dispense with the requirements of this paragraph, the number of such houses in relation to the area occupied or intended to be occupied by and in connection with them will not exceed the rate of twelve to the acre.

Except where otherwise approved by the Minister on the recommendation of the local authority, every house to which this section applies shall be provided with a fixed bath.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, my first Amendment to this clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 19, leave out ("them") and insert ("it").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGEhad given Notice of Amendments to make proviso (b) read as follows:
"(b) make provision for securing, except in so far as the Minister may, in any particular case dispense with either or both of the requirements of this paragraph, that the number of such houses in relation to the area occupied or intended to be occupied by and in connection with them will not exceed the rate of twelve to the acre and that each of them will be provided with a fixed bath."
The noble Viscount said: These Amendments are also drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 33, leave out ("that")
Page 2, line 35, after ("with") insert ("either or both of")
Page 2, line 36, after ("paragraph") insert ("that")
Page 2, line 39, at end insert ("and that each of them will be provided with a fixed bath")
leave out lines 40 to 43.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

MANUFACTURE OF RAILWAY ROLLING STOCK.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY THE EARL OF DUDLEY rose to call attention to the accounts rendered by the railway companies under the provisions of Section 77 of the Railways Act, 1921; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is their intention to exercise their powers under Section 16 (2) (a) and (b) of the same Act; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will allow me that consideration and in-
550
dulgence which I know you so courteously grant to one who is addressing the House for the first time. The Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper to-day is one which is, I submit, of considerable concern to industry as a whole, and particularly to those who are engaged in an important branch of it—namely, the manufacture of rolling stock. As your Lordships are aware, the British rolling stock industry has existed since railways came into being, and has always enjoyed a world-wide reputation for inventive genius and good workmanship. Your Lordships will also know that the industry is split up into two sections: first, the contract shops, which are privately owned and manufacture mainly for the export trade; and secondly, the shops owned by the railway companies which supply their own individual requirements and cannot under their charter sell or export their surplus manufacture.
Private manufacturers—and I am speaking both of the locomotive and carriage wagon manufacturers—represent some £20,000,000 of invested capital and nominally employ 45,000 men. However, the position of the trade is so serious that they are probably employing under 11,000 and there is no doubt that the capacity of both the contract shops and the railway companies' own shops is considerably in excess of the potential requirements of the home and foreign markets combined. It seems, therefore, that if anything is to be done to prevent the situation from growing steadily worse a comprehensive scheme should be considered embracing the contract shops and a great part of the railway companies' own shops, and it appears to me that the Minister of Transport has the power under the Railways Act, 1921, and preceding Acts to set such a scheme in motion should he deem it desirable. I feel sure that the noble Earl in his reply on behalf of the Ministry of Transport will not deny the fact that the private contractor, who, by his initiative and enterprise, has in past years brought business of incalculable value to these shores, which has been distributed in the form of sub-contracts to almost every conceivable branch of industry, is fully deserving of all the consideration and support which the Government can give him. I do not believe the noble Lord will deny the fact either that the export trade, which fell to a value of £1,000,000

551
in 1931 from an average value of £8,500,000 a year for the six preceding years, can ever be restored under modern conditions of foreign competition unless and until by some means the manufacturer is granted as a nucleus of manufacture a much greater share of the home market. In fact, the private manufacturer is threatened with extinction in the very near future if he does not get an additional share of the home trade, and that will be a loss not only to national prestige but to many national industries also.
The position of contractors from the point of view of development and design cannot be ignored. The most important developments, both in locomotive and in carriage wagon design, have come from the contract shops. For example, steel coaches, high capacity wagons, ballast wagons, containers, rail coaches, Tube stock for the Underground, Pullman cars, etc.—your Lordships will be conversant with all of these. The contractors have had long experience in designing and manufacturing railway equipment in all parts of the world for many varied requirements and their experience is of great value to the home railways. The shops of the private builders are generally up-to-date, and compare most favourably both in layout and equipment with those in the United States of America and on the Continent, and they have got an abundance of skilled labour which cannot be found anywhere else in the world. The excellence of design and workmanship has been the cause which for three-quarters of a century has brought orders for rolling stock from foreign railways to this country.
On the other hand, it is claimed that the interests of the railways and of the railway shareholders should be fully safeguarded. I submit to your Lordships that it is not possible under modern conditions of manufacture for the rolling-stock shops owned by the individual railway companies to be operated really economically unless combinations are effected, unless costs are reduced, and unless their overhead charges are spread over a very much larger output, a part of which can be absorbed by the export market. What is the position of these railway shops? Are they in fact being operated economically or not? I submit to your Lordships that it is not possible
552
for a railway shareholder, who happens to be interested in the subject, to satisfy himself on that point from the accounts which are submitted by the railway companies annually, or to ascertain what the costs really are and whether the renewals and repairs of the railway companies could not be carried out much more cheaply by private contract, as in the case of most foreign railways. I should like to know whether the Minister himself is satisfied upon that point, and whether he is supplied with any further information as regards costs and overheads which is denied to public knowledge.
Under the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Act of 1911 and also under the Railways Act of 1921, under Section 77 of that Act and its consequent Schedules, the railway companies are required to render to the Minister certain accounts and statistics at varying periods of the year, which are subsequently embodied by the Minister in a White Paper issued annually. I presume that the object of these returns is that the Minister may retain some sort of check upon the operations of the various and manifold railway undertakings, but this White Paper is equally sketchy as regards costs of construction and maintenance of railway stock, and there is nothing more to be obtained from that document than can be got from the annual accounts. If the Minister is dissatisfied with regard to the operations of any of the undertakings, what power has he got to satisfy himself? In the second subsection of Section 16 of the Act of 1921, the Minister may—
"…by order require or authorise any railway company or any two or more railway companies on such terms and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order—

(a) to conform gradually to measures of general standardisation of ways, plant and equipment (including methods of electrical operation, type, frequency, and pressure of current);

(b) to adopt schemes for the co-operative working or common user of rolling stock, workshops, manufactories, plant and other facilities."

Then follow certain provisos.
Subsection 3 states:
"Before making any order under the last foregoing subsection the Minister shall (except as hereinbefore provided) refer the draft order to a Committee consisting of a representative of each of the amalgamated

553
companies (each of which companies shall, on being so required by the Minister, nominate a representative), and three persons of experience in the subject-matter of the proposed order selected by the Minister from the panel set up under Section twenty-three of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, as extended by this Act, and the Committee before reporting or advising shall, if they see fit, give public notice and permit any persons affected or likely to be affected and any authority or body of persons authorised to make applications under this Act to place their views before thorn, either in writing or orally."
What I want to do this afternoon is to suggest to the noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Transport in your Lordships' House that the time has come when the Minister of Transport should make the fullest inquiry into, and give the widest consideration to, this question of rolling-stock manufacture in its entirety.
I believe it to be of real national importance, and I submit to your Lordships that the whole rolling-stock industry of this country, both privately-and railway-owned, should be under a unified control which would then have power, if necessary, to restrict any redundant plant. It may be necessary also to protect the interests of the railway companies as regards price and standards by Statute. It is only by this means that our national export trade, which is of great importance to us, can be restored in the teeth of fierce foreign competition from contractors abroad who have the advantage of a regular flow of orders from their own home railways to help their overhead charges, thus enabling them to satisfy the export market at a very low figure. Surely, this must be in the best interests of the railways themselves, and is on all fours with the policy which has recently been adopted as far as the other manufacturing activities of the railway companies are concerned, and also with the policy of the Government that the British market should be primarily available to British manufacturers?
I suggest that the first step should be taken by the Minister, by exercising his powers under Section 16 of the Railways Act and by issuing a draft order for the co-operative working of all the railway shops. The construction and heavy repair shops of each individual railway company might be transferred to a holding company, which would then have power to tender, not only for the
554
home market, but for the export market as well. This company would invite private contractors to join with them, the penalty of refusal being that they would be denied the right, as they are at present, of tendering for the bulk of the home market. I believe private contractors would accept the offer with alacrity, and that an organisation would ensue which would put the entire industry on a better footing by manufacturing in the most economical and efficient way. Let me say at once that I am a very strong opponent of anything that smacks of railway nationalisation or extends the control of the Government over the transport industry or over any other industry; but, speaking as an industrialist, I am the first to recognise the great service which the British railways have rendered to industry in the past years and their adequate capability of looking after their own affairs to the best possible advantage. But we all know that in every branch of industry certain modifications and adaptations to modern conditions are necessary and desirable, and yet, on account of financial complications or private interests, or for this or that reason, they are extremely difficult to set in motion even by the leaders of industry themselves. In that case, my Lords, I think an indication by the Government would be most helpful and practicable, and would not be interpreted as Government interference.
There is a vast amount of difference between nationalisation and the study of problems from a national point of view. I submit to your Lordships that it is the duty of all of us to study our industrial problems from the national point of view with the object of setting our house in order and extending our export trade to the widest possible advantage. The export trade of the rolling-stock industry has diminished since the War, partly on account of local manufacture, though uneconomical, having been established in such countries as South America, India, Australia, and South Africa. There is reason to believe, however, that with the return of normal trade a much greater share of the export market than even that which we have enjoyed heretofore can be obtained for the rolling-stock industry of this country if manufacturing costs are diminished by such a measure as I have

555
indicated. China alone is a vast field for railway development, and has always been anxious to buy from us. With co-operation between builders here and the home railway companies, which alone will enable the costs to be brought down to a competitive level in the home market, an enormous addition might be made to our export trade.
I think there is a growing feeling amongst industrialists that the railway companies are primarily carriers of goods, sellers of transport, and that it is uneconomical for them from the national point of view to pursue a policy of making themselves self-sufficient at the expense of manufacturers on their system. Sir Josiah Stamp, the President of the London Midland and Scottish Railway, in a speech recently at his annual meeting, made an accusation against the heavy trades in that they bore to a disproportionate extent the overhead charges of the railway companies as compared to the portion borne by the lighter industries. Surely that is an unfair accusation so long as the heavy trades are kept in the dark with regard to these overhead charges, as they are at present, and have no control whatever in curtailing them? To pursue that argument in rather a crude way I would ask Sir Josiah Stamp why, for instance, the freight costs of such an important national basic industry as the steel industry should depend to a greater or less extent on whether the season at Gleneagles happens to be a good one, or whether the restaurant profits at Sir Josiah Stamp's hotels at Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester or wherever they may be, are being diminished by reason of outside competition; or, indeed, whether the cost of replacements and renewals in his own workshops are excessive on account of the restricted output or indifferent production methods.
I believe it is true that the overhead charges of the railways have not increased since pre-War days, and, if that is so, I know your Lordships will agree that the railways are to be congratulated, but that in itself is not an argument against such overheads being still further reduced by means of the railway companies adopting a policy of shedding many of their costly ancillary undertakings and thereby simplifying their organisation and reverting more and more to the rôle of common carriers. I
556
am of the opinion that in the early stages of the development of a new country, or of the industries of that country, by a railway company, the company should be empowered by its charter to take upon its shoulders all sorts and conditions of work outside its normal functions—work such as land and industrial development, shipping, harbours and docks and other public utility works—work such as that undertaken by the Canadian Pacific Railway during the development of Canada. Strict monopolies should be granted to the railway companies, where necessary, by the Government of the country which it is in process of developing, but as soon as the process of development is completed the company should without delay revert to its fundamental rôle—namely, the simple carrying of goods and passengers.
The only criticism I have to make against British railways is that they have failed in sufficiently carrying out that policy. A great many of these ancillary undertakings are costly and unprofitable and no longer attain the object for which they were adopted by the railway companies—namely, an increase of their goods and passenger traffic. In some cases, indeed, such as in the case of many of the railway hotels, they are of greater advantage to the great rival trade, road transport. I see that the total capital expenditure of the railway companies on their hotels is about £10,000,000, and the percentage return on the capital invested is something under 3½ per cent. The hotel restaurant business is the only part of the railway ancillary undertakings that does show such a profit. I think I am right in saying there is no other part which shows a profit of more than 1 per cent., and a great many parts are conducted at a loss, but, even though they make a profit, I submit it is no longer the function of the railways to manage hotels, and if they had adopted the policy of selling them when the market was good the percentage return on the invested capital would be a great deal greater than it is to-day. Likewise, if they had made up their minds some years ago to group their workshops in the manner I have indicated, I venture to say that the capital value of their rolling stock would stand in their books at a very much lower figure to-day. I am grateful to

557
your Lordships for having given me such a patient hearing, especially as I know many of you are much more experienced and more widely informed on railway matters than I am, but in spite of my shortcomings I hope that the noble Lord will convey my arguments to the Minister of Transport for his consideration. I beg to move.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, may I begin by saying with how much interest I have listened to the very able speech which, the noble Earl has addressed to your Lordships. It is the first time he has made a speech in this House, and I congratulate him upon it. I am sure that feeling will be shared by the rest of the House. I do not wish to detain your Lordships, but there is one part of tae noble Earl's speech on which I should like to comment. It is Section 16, sub-section (2) (a), of the Railway Act which states that the Minister may, by order, require or authorise any railway company and so on "to conform gradually to measures of general standardisation of ways, plant and equipment (including methods of electrical operation)." I understood the noble Earl to state that a large measure of standardisation would be important with a view to improving the facilities for the manufacture of railway rolling stock in this country. The question of standardisation is an exceedingly double-edged weapon. It is all very well to standardise simple things like rails and bolts and nuts and things of that kind, and the rails on the whole of the railways of the United Kingdom are, I believe, in process of being standardised with good results. But when it comes to a question of complicated things like rolling stock, wagons, carriages and, in particular, locomotives it is an altogether different matter.
Standardisation, while no doubt economical, is terribly likely to lead to stagnation. Many attempts at standardisation have been made in this country. The best known probably was that introduced by the late Mr. William Stroudley in the 'seventies and' eighties of last century on the Brighton Railway. Mr. Stroudley was appointed locomotive superintendent of the Brighton Railway somewhere about the year 1870. When he arrived at Brighton he found that small company in possession of seventy-two distinct types of locomotives. Mr. Stroudley set to work and by the time
558
that he died, about twenty years later, there were only six standardised types of locomotives on the Brighton Railway. That was thoroughly satisfactory as far as it went, but it must never be forgotten that all the time Mr. Stroudley was at Brighton practically no improvement in the service of the Brighton Railway took place at all. There was never any development or progress. That, of course, fitted in very well with standardisation, but it is not at all in the public interest.
Other attempts that have been made include the attempt of the old London and North-Western Railway Company which once had a scheme for reducing the number of locomotives to about eight, I think, but nothing ever came of that. I imagine it perished in the War. The whole of the railways in India got out standard designs for their locomotives when the matter of superheating, which, of course, is of capital importance, was brought up, and all these standard engines had to be redesigned. After the War the French Government thought that they would go in for standardisation, so they produced a standard locomotive, but most of the French railways flatly refused to have anything to do with that locomotive. Those who did adopt it found it very unsatisfactory and the system has been abolished.
As for the standardisation of electrical locomotives it is almost impossible to imagine anything more hopeless at the present moment. The electric locomotives of to-day are full of the greatest and most elementary defects and it is absolutely necessary that enormous improvements in design should be made before there can be any possibility of standardising electric locomotives with economic success. I believe that only within the last year or two the Paris-Orleans Railway which is in process of electrifying its main line brought over a large electric locomotive of the latest design from the United State's. It was found so unsatisfactory that it had to be shipped back to undergo the most drastic reconstruction. Beyond these few remarks on standardisation I have really nothing to say to justify me in detaining your Lordships longer.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I should like to intervene in this discussion for

559
one moment before the noble Earl replies on behalf of the Ministry of Transport. The speech to which your Lordships have listened from the noble Earl is one of the clearest and most lucid which can ever have been delivered as a first effort in your Lordships' House, and I feel certain that your Lordships will be anxious again and again to hear the noble Earl. I would venture to suggest that the Minister will of course take into account the possibility of the alternative arrangement of transferring the whole of the private contractors' building shops to the railways. It is possible to close all the railway building shops and transfer them to the contractors, but alternatively you may close the contractors' shops and transfer them to the railways.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: May I be allowed to interrupt to say that I did not suggest that course because it seemed pretty obvious that it would not be within the Minister's power to do that? He would not have power over the contractors whereas he might have a certain power over the railways.
LORD MARLEY: Even though he does not actually control the position the Minister might do something, because the railways might omit to give any further orders to private contractors. That is another way of dealing with the matter, and that is a point which I suggest the Minister might take into account when he gives consideration to the points which the noble Earl raised. The other point I wish to mention is one of the utmost possible importance. The noble Earl pointed out that there is an immense market for rolling stock in China. The question arises whether there is in fact any unfair competition by Japan in that market which would prevent Great Britain from receiving a fair share of the orders from China as she should do under the open door arrangement which is supposed to exist as regards trade in China. I hope that the noble Earl will find it possible to deal in his speech with that extraordinarily important aspect of our export trade in regard to this matter of the manufacture of rolling stock.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I should like to add my warm
560
congratulations to those of others to the noble Earl upon the first speech he has delivered to us. He has shown a very thorough and fundamental knowledge of the subject with which he dealt. His type of specialised knowledge is of particular value to your Lordships' House and we shall hope that armed with it he will find many opportunities of joining in our discussions. The noble Earl has raised matters of considerable interest and importance not only to the railway companies but to industry as a whole. He really divided his speech into two parts and, if your Lordships will allow me, I would like first to deal with the second part. In that part of his speech the noble Earl directed attention to the extent to which railway companies are engaged in ancillary or subsidiary businesses, which are not part and parcel of the operation of the railways themselves. He suggested to your Lordships that the time has now come when they might, with advantage, dispose of those ancillary businesses and confine themselves to the business of common carriers.
It is perfectly true that the railway companies are engaged to a considerable extent in ancillary or subsidiary businesses. If you take docks, for instance, you will find that the railway companies own a large number of docks and harbours all round the coast. In the Bristol Channel they own, I think, all the principal ports with the exception of Bristol and Avonmouth. On the East and North-East coasts they own a large number of docks and harbours of which Hull is the most important, and on the South Coast, Southampton, Folkestone and Newhaven are all owned by railway companies. In fact, the railway companies are by far the largest owners of docks and harbours in the country. It is perfectly true that before 1913 it was impossible to find out how much capital railway companies had invested in ancillary businesses, but the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Act of 1911 required that capital expenditure upon these businesses should be shown separately in their accounts. This is now being done, and further than that, under Section 77 of the Railways Act of 1921, the Minister has approved rules as to the manner in which the railway companies' accounts are to be compiled, rules which apply to revenue as well as to capital accounts, with the primary object of obtaining some uniform

561
principle of accountancy. Separate accounts of receipts and expenditure on revenue account in respect of each of the subsidiary businesses are, as I think the noble Earl is aware, published annually in respect of the road transport, steamboat, canal, dock and harbour, hotels and refreshment roams, and collection and delivery businesses carried on by the railway companies.
I freely admit that these accounts are complicated and that it requires a good deal of industry on the part of the research student to ferret out exactly what he wants to know, but I am afraid that is inevitable in the case. The Minister, however, is satisfied that these accounts are reasonably correct and that it is possible to deduce from them the position of these ancillary businesses fairly accurately. These ancillary businesses are, after all, properly related to the conduct of the railway undertakings. They have been sanctioned by Parliament from time to time. I think it only fair to add that some of these undertakings were, one might say, foisted upon the railway companies at various times as part of the price of obtaining the railway powers which they were granted in the early days. That refers, perhaps, to some of the canals. It is true that these ancillary businesses do not show a high return upon the capital sunk in them, but I venture to say that that is due to a very considerable extent to the present industrial depression and, after all, this fall is not peculiar to the railway companies, but is spread over business as a whole.
I think we must remember and give full weight to the fact that these ancillary businesses, at any rate in the estimation of the companies, have a considerable contributory value which is not reflected in the figures. It is obviously impossible, I think, to set a figure on this value, but I feel tolerably certain that the railway companies are satisfied that these ancillary businesses do contribute to the revenue-earning capacity of their undertakings as a whole. May I take as an example the collection and delivery activities of the companies, which are perhaps an outstanding example? These in the aggregate have shown a considerable annual loss, but I do not think anybody would deny that the control of this service is essential to the companies to en-
562
able the collection and delivery of traffic to be properly co-ordinated with the railway services themselves.
Generally speaking, the Government have no reason to suppose that the railway companies have embarked extravagantly or unwisely upon these undertakings. It might be of interest, perhaps, to your Lordships to know the amount of capital which has been sunk by the four railway companies in these ancillary businesses: Horses, road vehicles, garages, £6,000,000; canals, just over £8,000,000; steamboats, etc., about £9,500,000; docks and harbours, £70,000, 000; hotels, £9,500,000. That comes to just over £100,000,000 out of a total capital expenditure of £1,200,000,000. I do not think that is really an excessive proportion if you take all things into consideration. In any case there are safeguards provided in the Railways Act, 1921, whereby, when modifying railway charges on an annual review, the Railway Rates Tribunal must have regard to the financial results obtained from the operation of an ancillary or subsidiary business carried on by the railway company and if satisfied that the net revenue resulting therefrom is, having regard to all the circumstances, unduly low, the Tribunal may make such deductions as they think proper from the railway charges which would otherwise have been fixed. To that extent the railway user cannot be called upon to subsidise the capital invested in the ancillary businesses.
I should like now to say a word about other activities of the railway companies. One must, of course, distinguish between the anciliary or separate businesses in which Parliament has from time to time authorised railway companies to embark their capital and such activities as are to be regarded as adjuncts to the ownership and operation of railways. There are many things which a railway company can do beyond the mere operation of its railways; for example, it must keep in repair running lines, rolling stock, plant, buildings, etc. I agree that they might let out the repairs to contractors, but at the same time I think the railways must have full control of this sort of activity and therefore must be able to do the work themselves, if necessary, in their own establishments. To require that they should keep separate

563
accounts of each such activity would really be quite uneconomic and unnecessary.
In spite of that the noble Earl will find in the Railway Returns special accounts, or abstracts as they are called, showing the cost of maintenance of rolling stock, with locomotives, coaching vehicles and wagons distinguished. He will also find expenditure on complete renewals in the companies' shops and by contractors distinguished under each head. I would like to assure the noble Earl that the Minister has no return which is not available to the public. Of course it is not possible from these figures of expenditure to ascertain exactly what is the profit or loss on these rolling stock shops, but I think it is fair to say that that does not necessarily mean that these shops are not run on economic lines. The railway companies naturally often have under review the advantages or disadvantages of production on their part or purchase from outside, and I am led to understand that this particular matter has received a great deal of attention quite recently. I have figures relating to the statement I have made, but unless the noble Earl would wish me to refer to them I do not think it is really necessary for me to trouble your Lordships with them.
May I now pass on to the other part of the noble Earl's speech which dealt with the powers of the Minister under Section 16 (2) of the Railways Act, 1921? The noble Earl asked whether the Minister is prepared to exercise his powers under that Act for a specific purpose. Your Lordships will see, if you read that section, that the Minister is in a position to require or authorise, under certain specific conditions, the railway companies to embark upon standardisation or to adopt schemes of co-operation one with another. In fact the Minister has already in one case exercised his powers under the Act with regard to the standardisation of methods of electrification—not, I understand, with regard to the standardisation of electric locomotives, but in regard to other matters which are of great importance in connection with this form of development. He naturally thought it highly desirable, when a considerable development in electrification appeared to be probable, that there
564
should be a uniform system of development.
The Order to which I am referring came into operation in October of last year. Beyond that the Minister has not so far considered it necessary or advisable to go, but I should like to say that the railway companies do tend more and more to act in common. I could produce evidence to that effect if necessary, but here again I do not think it necessary to trouble your Lordships. It is quite clear that they have, with their own object and advantage in view, tended much more to co-operate one with another than they have done in the past. What the noble Earl has in mind is not co-operation of that kind so much as a merger or amalgamation of the railway companies' rolling stock works with those of private companies outside. He has very rightly pointed to the present very depressed state of the manufacturing industry; he has pointed to the markets which have been lost abroad and at home; and he has urged that unless private manufacturers are assured of a substantial proportion of the home market they are at very grave disadvantage in competing in foreign markets. These are very forcible arguments indeed. He has suggested a scheme of amalgamation, but such a scheme would obviously be very complicated indeed, and would naturally have to be preceded by long and difficult negotiation. At the same time I would like to say this. In these very critical times for industry any proposal of this kind cannot be lightly brushed aside without consideration, but I must point out that under Section 16 the Minister really has no power whatsoever to compel, or even, I think, to initiate, negotiations for a merger of this kind. His powers under this section are quite clearly confined to requiring or authorising, under certain conditions, the railways themselves to co-operate with one another, but he has no powers to require them to cooperate or amalgamate with outside private companies.
The present difficulties in this particular industry are due, I think, principally to three causes. The first is the general trade depression, especially in the heavy industries which reacts upon the railway industry and the trades dependent on it. Secondly, there are the artificial restrictions upon

565
foreign trade; and thirdly, the effect of road transport competition. The effects of depression naturally are not confined to this country. Germany and America are suffering in exactly the same way. I think it would interest your Lordships to know that I have been informed by the railway companies that in 1932 only 14 locomotives and 3,336 wagons were constructed in the United States of America. Those are remarkable figures, and they show the extent to which the depression has gone throughout the world. Out of the numbers that I have quoted only two locomotives and no wagons were exported from that country. All this has naturally led to the contraction of purchases of railway material.
Until recently the railway companies have placed a considerable proportion of their orders outside with private firms. Now their own establishments are sufficient, and I am sorry to say in many cases more than sufficient, to cope with their own requirements. One naturally hopes that this phase will not last, and will in time pass away. I do not want to weary your Lordships with figures, but I think it might interest your Lordships again to know that during the last ten years the total purchases of complete units of railway rolling stock on renewal account only, made by the companies, amounted to just over £20,000,000, and quite recently financial assistance has been given to a scheme whereby the Great Western Railway are placing orders for 5,000 20-ton wagons, all with outside manufacturers. Quite lately the railway companies have assured the Minister that they intend to make no change in their policy, and that they have absolutely no desire to extend railway manufactures to the detriment of the trade outside. I think in evidence of this one might draw attention to the fact that lately the London, Midland and Scottish Company's steelmaking works at Crewe and Horwich have been closed down. I say that to emphasise this point.
In conclusion I want to assure the noble Earl that I look upon the questions which be has raised as of the very greatest importance, and I feel that in these times they should be very carefully examined indeed. I think, however, he will agree that they are essentially questions of a character which can best be discussed be-
566
tween the railway companies and private manufacturers, in a spirit which recognises the difficulties on each side. I can only repeat that the Minister has no power to compel amalgamation of this kind, and I think the best way to initiate a discussion of that kind would be to get the railway companies and the private interests concerned to come together. Meanwhile I feel certain that this House will be very grateful indeed to the noble Earl for having raised this question to-day, and particularly for the very lucid way in which he has put his case. I certainly will communicate the sense of this discussion to the Minister, who, I have no doubt, will draw the attention of the railway companies to it.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for the sympathy that he has given to the question that I have raised. He stated, quite truly, that he had no powers for forcing a merger of this sort, or even of indicating—I do not quite agree as to indication. He certainly has no power to enforce such a merger, but as I stated in my previous remarks he has undoubtedly the means of taking the first step, that is to say, of setting up a Committee to enquire into the desirability of the amalgamation of these railway workshops. That in itself would be an indication to the railway rolling stock industry as a whole—both private and railway owners—that such a course was desirable from a national point of view. Therefore I do hope that the noble Earl will convey to the Minister the desirability of revising his opinion, and of going very carefully into the question in order to see whether such a course would not be advisable from the Government point of view. The noble Earl rather avoided the main issue, as I think your Lordships will agree. That is as regards the costs of these railway workshops. He told us that he had no further information than we could ourselves obtain from the railway accounts, and he said that he thought that those accounts were reasonably accurate. I think that that is damning the accounts with rather faint praise, but I hope that the Ministry of Transport will take the trouble to find out what those costs really are, for that is the main point of the question, and see whether by amalgamation with private contractors the costs can be reduced, and our export

567
trade built up by reducing the total costs of our rolling stock manufactures. If that is the case, then I submit that it is a course which the Ministry of Transport ought very closely to consider.
As to the question which was put by the noble Lord, Lord Marley, with regard to the manufacture of rolling stock for China, I think I am right in saying that practically the whole of the Chinese rolling stock orders are going to Hungary at the present time. I was very glad indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, quoted paragraph (a) of Section 16 the Railways Act, because it gave the noble Lord an opportunity of telling us some interesting facts about electrification standardisation in the South. But that really was not the point of my argument. I was not so much trying to impress the noble Lord with the importance of standardisation as with the importance of amalgamation. Of course, a certain amount of standardisation would come with amalgamation and would therefore simplify the costs and overheads of rolling stock manufacture. But still I do agree with the noble Earl that a very large measure of standardisation has been carried out.
With regard to what the noble Earl said about the ancillary undertakings, I quite agree with him that it is extremely difficult to know how to dispose of many of these ancillary undertakings, such as canals and docks and harbours; the canals are very costly and the docks not very profitable. I think that they should be dealt with in the same way if possible, and that they should be transferred to a holding company, and those who use them should pay for them. Because I think your Lordships will see the argument which industry puts forward at the present time, that it is very difficult, with all the outside costs that it has to bear, to carry on its shoulders those added costs of expensive harbours and expensive canals. After all, it is industry mainly which is paying for these harbours and docks and canals, and I think the time has come when the Minister ought to consider whether it is not desirable that some of these undertakings should be subsidised by the Government. The docks and harbours are a very important source of receipts for one of the most valuable parts of the Government's revenue. I do not think that the Government pays any rent in that respect. But at any rate I hope the noble Earl will consider that aspect
568
of it. Industry is paying for these expensive ancillary undertakings, and it desires that the railway companies should do everything in their power to simplify their organisation and not forget that their primary function is to be common carriers and the servants of industry, rather than industry being the servant of the railways. I thank the noble Earl for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I am sorry I am not in a position to answer Lord Marley's question right away, but I will make inquiries and if he desires it I will communicate with him.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. Since the Bill was first introduced I have been the subject of a very large number of communications, and never at any time have I known such a universal expression of opinion in favour of any Bill as I have received in favour of this. I have presented to the House to-day in due form a considerable number of Petitions, the signatures to which, so far as I know, have been spontaneously collected, and the general expression of opinion from every class of person has been almost universally in support of this measure. I mention that because I feel sure that, after your Lordships had given it a Second Reading without a Division, it would be satisfactory to know that your Lordships again on this occasion, as on many others, have received the general support of the world outside.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Buck-master.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I might be allowed to explain that the Bill which your Lordships have on the Table is not the Bill which we are actually con-

569
sidering at the moment. We are actually considering the Bil1 to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading, and before we can take the Amendments which are down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, it is necessary that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill should move that tie Amendments made by the Select Committee be agreed to. Then we can go through the Bill in the ordinary way. I have made inquiries and I understand that that is the correct procedure.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I beg to move that the Amendments made by the Select Committee be agreed to. I think it will save time if your Lordships accept the amended Bill as it has come from the Select Committee in place of the Bill that was submitted to it, without asking you to go in detail step by step through each Amendment which is necessary to reach that result. This Committee sat and heard evidence from every quarter and a great deal was done. The result was a unanimous Report and this Bill, which I now ask your Lordships to accept, has behind it the unanimous opinion of the whole Committee, who have considered every kind of argument either for the alteration of its form or for the alteration of its purpose. It is, I think, sufficient to add that the Committee could not have come to that conclusion unless they were satisfied that there was a grave evil which this Bill was designed to cure, and that the cruelty and brutality connected with the capture and occasional slaughter of wild birds demanded urgently to be dealt with.
Moved, That the Amendments made by the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Viscount Buckmaster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1:
Restrictions on the catching and sale of wild birds.
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section any person who—

(a) takes any wild bird, being a bird to which this Act applies, with the intention that it shall be sold alive; or

(b) sells, offers for sale, or has in his possession for sale any live bird, being a bird to which this Act applies,

shall be liable on summary conviction to a line not exceeding two pounds, or in the case of a second or subsequent offence to a line not exceeding five pounds, and the court before which any person is convicted
570
of an offence under this section may further order the bird to be dealt with as the court may direct.
(2) The birds to which this Act applies are the birds specified in the Schedule to this Act and such other birds being birds of species resident in or visiting Great Britain in a wild state as the Secretary of State may by order specify.
All orders made by the Secretary of State under this subsection shall, so soon as may be after they are made, be laid before each House of Parliament, and if either House of Parliament, within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat after any such order has been laid before it, resolves that the order shall be annulled, the order shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order.
LORD BAYFORD LORD BAYFORD moved, in subsection (2), to omit all words after the second "Act." The noble Lord said: I think that perhaps I am paying the highest compliment that can be paid to this Bill when I say that the object of my Amendment is to prevent any authority, however high, from being able to make any alteration in it. The effect of the Amendment is that the list of birds to which this Bill applies should be the list that actually appears in the Schedule, and that no authority, however high, should be able to make additions to that list. If your Lordships will look at the Schedule I think you will admit that it is a pretty exhaustive one. There are birds in it which, I am ashamed to say, I have never even heard of, and there is at least one bird which I cannot find in the dictionary.
A NOBLE LORD: Which is that bird?
LORD BAYFOBD: The waxwing. It is not even in the dictionary. That list being so exhaustive, surely the noble Viscount who is promoting the Bill cannot really have any fear of new birds appearing in this country as to which the Home Secretary would desire to apply the provisions of the Bill. It is quite true that there are many birds well known in England which are left out of the Schedule, and I take it that those who framed the Bill left them out designedly. The object of my Amendment is to prevent these birds which have been designedly left out by the promoters of the Bill being put in by—I should not, accuse the present Home Secretary of such a thing, but by some future Home Secretary. I think there is general agree-

571
ment among the promoters of the Bill and all who are interested in this question that these birds which have been designedly left out ought to stay out. The answer which I know the noble Viscount would give to that is: "Oh, the provision which is made in the Bill as to an Order having to lie on the Table in both Houses is such a stringent provision that it would make it impossible for any Order of that sort to get through which was in any way objectionable." The noble Viscount has had even more experience than I have had in the two Houses of Parliament, and I think he will realise just as keenly as I do how very little that provision really amounts to. I should like to ask him if he ever remembers an occasion when an Order made in that sort of way has ever been defeated in either House of Parliament.
It takes a long time as a rule before anyone even knows that such an Order has been issued. Then whoever is opposed to it has to whip up all his friends, or all who are interested in the subject, to come and support him on the occasion when he is moving what I believe is called a "prayer." When he is doing that he is moving against the Government of the day. He is moving to upset a decision of the Home Secretary, and the Government of the day is therefore of necessity bound to support the Order which their own colleague has made. As a matter of fact, that provision as to Orders lying on the Table, though it sounds very well in theory, in practice really amounts to hardly anything at all. What this Bill is actually doing is giving an entirely arbitrary power to the Home Secretary to make an alteration in an Act of Parliament. As I said at the beginning, I am a supporter of the Bill, and if the noble Viscount wishes this Bill to pass, not only through this House but in another place as well, as I hope it will, he will make its passage very much easier if he agrees to this Amendment, because, quite undesignedly no doubt, this Bill has frightened certain people, and one knows how very difficult it is, even at this time of the Session, to get a Bill through the House of Commons unless it is really unopposed. From all I hear, if this Bill goes to the House of Commons in its present form, it will not be unopposed, and it is because I wish the Bill well, and I wish to see
572
it go through, that I ask the noble Viscount to accept this Amendment, which is really not one of substance but one of form. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21, leave out froth ("Act") to end of clause.—(Lord Bayford.)
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: Before the noble Viscount replies, I wish to say a word in support of the Amendment of my noble friend. It seems to me a very reasonable Amendment. I am a warm supporter of the Bill myself, and I believe it will help in another place if this Amendment is accepted.
THE MARQUESS OF BATH: For the information of your Lordships, I wish to say that when the Bill first came before the Committee this provision was in it, and I think I am correct in stating that we all felt there might quite probably he occasions when it would be advisable to add some bird or other to the list, especially in view of the complicated character of the Schedule. In spite of my noble friend's statement I say we did put in the proviso that any Order should lie on the Table of both Houses for twenty-one sitting days and that it should be open to either House to object to that Order. I do not know whether both Houses act in a simultaneous manner on all occasions, but it is open to either House to object. We felt that probably that would be a sufficient safeguard. I quite agree that the matter ought to be carefully watched, but I may add that the Secretary of State has already, in other Acts dealing with birds, got power to add to or modify Orders, but, I should add, only on the motion, I think, of counties or county boroughs.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: Quarter Sessions.
THE MARQUESS OF BATH: It is a limited power. This is not so limited, but we have limited it by the provision that any Order should lie on the Table.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I be permitted, as the noble Marquess has not mentioned it, to give another reason why certain members of the Committee considered it desirable that it should be possible for the Schedule to be enlarged? We were of the opinion that one defect in the Bill, with which otherwise we all agreed, was that any burden

573
or sacrifice that it imposed would necessarily fall upon one section of the community, and that section the one least able to bear it—namely, the working class. We were entirely agreed that this flaw existed, but we were also so strongly of the opinion that the Bill itself was desirable that we decided that this inequality should be tolerated. Now, supposing a considerable body of public opinion in this country were to resent this inequality, it might be desirable for the Home Secretary to include in the Schedule a bird which affects only the well-to-do—namely, the quail; and for this reason, because by enlarging the Schedule in this manner it would be possible to throw part of the burden or sacrifice upon the well-to-do members of the community, certain members of the Committee did consider it desirable that it should be possible for the Schedule to be altered if in future it proved necessary.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Perhaps it may be convenient if I tell your Lordships the attitude of the Government on this matter. I may say at the outset that I was very glad to hear from the noble and learned Viscount in charge of the Bill how popular this Bill has proved in the country, as shown by the number of letters he has received. I am very glad to hear that because, since the Second Reading, I have had so many letters of quite the, contrary character that I could only have assumed that there was some misapprehension in the country as to the result of the debate. The people who wrote to me did not seem to understand that the Government had assented to a Second Reading and had recommended the Bill should go before a Select Committee. I may say that the attitude of the Government is that they leave this question to be decided by the Committee this afternoon.
It was pointed out, I understand, by the Home Office representative at the Select Committee, that the power to add is open to the criticism that there is nothing in the Bill to indicate the grounds upon which the Secretary of State is expected to act in exercising the discretion proposed to be vested in him. That is to say, it is not clear whether he is to be guided by considerations of cruelty believed to be attendant upon the catching and caging of birds, or by
574
more general considerations that catching and caging are in fact causing a serious diminution of the birds in question. It would seem from that that the power of adding to the Schedule might prove rather difficult to exercise in practice. It was considered that it might be rather a difficult matter for the Home Secretary to decide, but the Government naturally, like everybody else, are in favour of anything that would tend to prevent any cruelty. As regards this Amendment, the Government will leave it to the Committee. With regard to what was said about the prospects of the Bill in another place, I am told by the Home Office that it would probably be very difficult, in the present state of public business, at this time of the year to promise the Bill any safe passage or facilities in another place. Otherwise the Government are entirely neutral on the subject.
VISCOUNT BIJCKMASTER: An Amendment has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, whose eminently reasonable views must always command respect, and that Amendment has been supported by the noble Viscount, Lord FitzAlan, whose views I should naturally regard with the greatest possible attention. I was sorry to hear one or two things that were said. First of all, I think it is not quite right to say that there is no protection given by the Bill as it stands, nor is it really properly representing the position to say that if a bird is added it will be added while a particular Government is in power which would be able to control the action of the House of Commons. That may be so, but has any Government ever been able to control the action of your Lordships' House on such a question as this? After all, it must be borne in mind that as the Bill stands the Order must lie on the Table twenty-one days, and a Resolution of your Lordships' House upon it would wholly defeat it. Consequently the protection afforded by the Bill is really abundant, and I have not myself much doubt that, whoever may constitute the phantom army which stands behind the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, they have not carefully directed their minds to the provisions of the Bill itself. None the less the noble Lord said that these people were determined to vex and harry the Bill unless some Amendment, such as he has moved, were accepted.

575
I myself, I hope, am as amenable to reason as my noble friend. The thing I am most anxious to secure is the passage of this Bill, and if the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, can assure me that his myrmidons will not only not oppose but do everything in their power to make this Bill law, then I should be prepared to consider his Amendment most favourably, for I think it would be worth while gaining any support by the sacrifice of such a provision as that. I understand, in truth, the noble Lord means that so far from having a guerilla army on our flank we shall have an ordered regiment behind us. Is that what the noble Lord really suggests?
LORD BAYFORD: I have no authority to go as far as that. What I understand is that the reasons I have given are the sole cause of any opposition to the Bill on the part of those people who have made representations to me.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I am certain the noble Lord will use his influence with them to help us through with the Bill. Then I will come to what the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said. I am very glad indeed to think that we now have some rather temperate and tepid support on the part of the Home Office. I must say that their zeal for the Bill was not conspicuously displayed when the Second Reading took place. Now the noble Earl says: "Oh yes, but you must not think you are going to get any chance in the other House." My Lords, if the Home Office really believed that this Bill is needed to prevent the repetition of gross acts of cruelty—if they did believe that, as the Committee believed it, and as this House believes it—they have only to urge that on the Government and time will readily be granted.
I have never forgotten the suggestion that there was no time which was made in reference to another Bill of mine for three years, and when that Bill was brought before the House I do not believe it took half an hour. It went through like a flash of light. Yet I had been told over and over again that there was no time, and that the Bill could not have facilities in another place. If only the Home Office would request the Government to give an opportunity for consideration of this Bill, I think its passage would be secured, and I do most sincerely hope they will do so. With that
576
hope, I will even relieve them of the responsibility, which they do not seem anxious to undertake, and accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bay-ford. Finally, there is always a temptation to teach, especially if you think you know something that somebody else does not, and I should like, if the noble Lord will permit me, to explain to him what a waxwing is. It is quite simple. A waxwing is a passerine bird of the genus Ampelis (Bombycilla) especially Ampelis garrulus, the Bohemian waxwing.
LORD DANESFORT: I think the noble and learned Viscount in charge of the Bill has done very wisely to accept the Amendment, provided my noble friend beside me (Lord Bayford) will bring some influence to bear upon what he calls, with what justice I know not, his myrmidons to help in the passage of the Bill. There-for I hope the Amendment will be accepted. May I add one word in support of what the noble Viscount said? If the opposition of the so-called myrmidons is withdrawn, as I trust it will be, I do hope that the Home Office will do their utmost to give facilities for this Bill to pass through the other House. I quite understand that my noble friend cannot give an absolute assurance at the moment, but I hope he will represent to the Home Office that there is a strong feeling in this House that the Bill ought to pass this Session and ought not to take very long in the House of Commons. If my noble friend will tell the Home Office that it would be a most acceptable act if they would give facilities for the passing of the Bill into law this Session it would give the utmost satisfaction among many classes of the community.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

EDUCATION (NECESSITY OF SCHOOLS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (LORD IRWIN.): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, and I think it is sufficiently simple to require only brief explanation at my hands. Your Lordships will be

577
aware that at the present moment the law prevents the closure of any school, whether a council school or a voluntary school, in a case where there is any dispute on the matter, if there are thirty or more children in attendance at the school. It is those governing words that this Bill proposes to repeal. Perhaps I might read the actual words that it is proposed to repeal. They occur in the Education Act of 1921 in Clause 19 (1) and they run as follows:—
"…a school for the time being recognised as a public elementary school shall not be considered unnecessary in which the number of scholars in average attendance, as computed by the Board of Education, is not less than 30."
For those words it is proposed to substitute by this Bill a provision preventing the closure of a school of more than thirty children unless the displaced children can be accommodated in a reasonably accessible school of the same religious character as the school the necessity of which is in question.
Your Lordships will remember that the Committee on Public Expenditure associated with the name of Sir William Ray in their Report recently recommended the repeal of all words safeguarding schools of thirty children without any alteration of the area over which closure might thereafter be applied. That would evidently make possible much larger economies than are likely to be possible under the modified proposal in this Bill which, as I have said, is limited to cases where there is alternative accommodation of the same type of religious education available for the scholars displaced. His Majesty's Government, interested as they are in the cause of economy, have not thought it right to go as far as the recommendations of the Committee presided ever by Sir William Ray. The clause regarding these schools of thirty and more has for long been regarded as, and in fact is, part of what is commonly known as the dual system by which the position of the voluntary schools has been reasonably settled. If the dual system is to be modified it will have to be modified as part of a general resettlement of the whole problem and it ought not to be done by a side issue of administrative economy which might gravely prejudice the position of voluntary schools in the general system of education. Although we shall not, of course, make the
578
economies which the Ray Committee anticipated, we shall, I think, make substantial economies under this Bill.
I may perhaps be permitted to quote a case which is not untypical of the kind of difficulties that confront local authorities at the present time. There is a case that came under my own notice in the North of England where there is a council school housed in a temporary building, erected as long ago as 1913 to meet an emergency which has now disappeared, owing to other schools in the district having become available. The average attendance at that school is seventy-two. Both the education committee and their local sub-committee agree that it would be an advantage on all grounds to close that school since the children could obtain better education in the other schools that have now been established. Closure would result in the saving of about £700, but just because certain persons in the district petitioned against closure neither the Board of Education nor the local education authority were entitled to give any consideration at all to the question whether or not the grounds on which objection was taken were reasonable. Their hands were tied by the fact that owing to there being thirty children and more in the school the school could not be closed where any opposition had exhibited itself. I think it is quite evident that in these days there is not likely to be any evasion of substantal justice between different types of religious teaching, and I think the State is entitled to assist local authorities to overcome such obstacles to reasonable economy.
I do not know, that I need say more by way of explaining the proposals in this Bill. Your Lordships are aware that considerable reorganisation of schools has been taking place during the last seven or eight years, and I think that on the whole experience of that reorganisation leads one to feel some assurance that the reasonable feelings of parents and the circumstances of the locality are taken into proper consideration by local authorities and by the Board of Education to whom an appeal, if necessary, lies. There is in the Bill a financial clause which in accordance, I understand, with general procedure will be omitted in the course of the passage of the Bill through this

579
House in order that it may be inserted in another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Irwin.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, as representing the Opposition I venture to suggest that the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill and who, I am quite sure, every member of this House is very glad to know is restored to health and able to be amongst us this week, was most disappointing in emphasising nothing but the Report, which to us on this side of the House is extremely obnoxious, of the Ray Committee, in emphasising nothing but economy and not dwelling somewhat on the educational efficiency which might result from the closing of these frequently inefficient small schools. I do think it very disappointing that the Minister of Education should rely entirely on economy—that was all that he mentioned in his speech—instead of making it easier for those of us who are immensely keen on educational efficiency to support this measure from the point of view of the greater efficiency which will result from closing smaller schools and concentrating the children in bigger schools,
The Ray Committee made no pretence to consider educational efficiency whatsoever; it limited the whole question to a form of expenditure which was undesirable nationally. Virtually that was the recommendation of the Committee and if it were only on those lines that this Bill was placed before your Lordships I am certain that it would be opposed not only from this side of the House, but on the other side as well. I am sure that is not what is meant, but that there does come an improvement in efficiency when we close down these smaller schools and concentrate the children in schools where they can be grouped in classes based upon age limits. If you get a school of thirty-five, and children from five to ten years and ten to fourteen, all in different stages of advancement, in two classes, clearly that does not mean efficiency. You know you do not get efficiency because you know that the scholarships which are distributed to these schools do not go to the smaller and especially the rural schools.
There are one or two interesting points on which, perhaps, the noble Lord would
580
give me an answer. I wonder if he could tell us—roughly, of course—how many schools the Board estimates may be dealt with under this Bill. On the whole the more of the smaller schools that are closed the better I shall be pleased, provided certain conditions are maintained in regard to improved efficiency, the reception of the children in better schools and, of course, accessibility. In the Act of 1921, the words used are "whether a school is necessary or not." In this Bill the words are "is or is not unnecessary." Would the noble Lord say whether there is any reason for that change of wording—whether there is anything hidden in a change which, unless there is some explanation, sounds a little menacing.
When one turns to page 2 of the Bill we get three conditions which might be worth considering, from the point of view of amendment, because they limit the value of the Bill from the standpoint of educational efficiency. In the first place, under subsection (3) (a), we find that a school may not be closed and the children transferred to another school unless the other is under the same local education authority. There are many cases in the country of a little school by the edge of a county boundary and another school in another county close by; yet under this Bill we cannot close the small school unless the children are transferred to another school under the same local education authority. Surely the Government might modify that so that the children could go over the boundary which, after all, is only an imaginary line and will not trip them up in any way. There could be easily an adjustment of accounts as between one authority and another, as there is in the case of special schools, lunatic asylums and other common services provided for several counties.
Coming to paragraph (b) we have the thorny subject on which I have no doubt we shall hear something in a moment from the most rev. Primate. Far be it from me to reflect upon the quality of the non-provided schools, but it is a fact that three-fourths of the schools on the black list are non-provided schools and that is a very serious reflection upon these Church schools—not all, of course, Church of England schools. In a Report of the Board of Education some years

581
ago it was pointed out that it was notorious that the dependence of the nation upon voluntary efforts for securing an adequate supply of school buildings had resulted in a type of building in which educational efficiency was subordinated to other considerations—for instance, many buildings were intended to be used as Sunday Schools and not mainly as ordinary educational buildings. Unfortunately that is still true because some of the buildings still remain. I personally hoped that there might be some modification of this very strict item (b), but of curse we are not going to press that because it is raising a question of great difficulty which ought to be dealt with on much broader lines.
The last point, raised in paragraph (c), is reasonable accessibility. I very much hope that the noble Lord will just stress a little bit that the Government really means that. I recollect one school-closing case in which I had to take a part, where the local education authority began by saying that the children should walk two and a-half miles to the school which was to replace the one which was being closed, both being Church schools. We said that was impossible because while the children could walk there in the summer, in winter the route became a marsh and the children had to go four miles round. The result of the protest, which was aided by the parents, was that the local authority has provided ever since motor omnibuses to carry the children and, though the parents bitterly resented the closing of the school at the beginning, the children enjoy the motor ride so much—the parents are relieved of the children for the whole day instead of having to provide their dinners at mid-day—that the protest died down and now the children are not only better educated, but their parents are pleased.
This point of accessibility applies in many areas particularly where there is a choice of two schools either of which is available for the children. In a county with which I am connected there are two Church schools, both extraordinarily inefficient—so bad, indeed, that the poor people living in the village, despite the fact that there are the two schools, are saving up their little weekly contributions to provide a private school. They prefer to pay because the conditions of the two Church schools are so bad that
582
they resent having to send their children to them. Neither of them is accessible to many of the children because they were established in places which suited the local landowner rather than the children; also they are old schools built about 100 years ago. I am sure the House, on this question of accessibility, would be very glad to have a definite expression by the noble Lord that they do mean that the children will not have to walk long distances, but that the local authority will not only consider economy but will consider, before economy, improvements in educational facilities and the wishes and desires of the parents.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord the President of the Board of Education, has quite simply and clearly put before your Lordships the objects of this Bill. I do not wish to prolong any discussion about it, but at the same time it is obviously a Bill which will give rise to considerable heart-searchings, and it might be considered strange if no one expressed the point of view of the voluntary schools, which, I may remind your Lordships, constitute considerably more than half of the public elementary schools of the country. I think it is hardly to be expected that the Board of Education should ignore the very clear recommendations of the Committee which the Government themselves appointed to enquire into local expenditure, known as the Ray Committee. The Report of that Committee certainly made in this matter one very great mistake. It considered the redundancy or necessity of a school entirely from the point of view of school accommodation. Of course in a matter of this kind that is most misleading. You must consider the matter from the point of view of not only school places but of the type or character of the school, because it may very well be that a school which was redundant from one point of view would be necessary from another point of view.
I am therefore much relieved that the Board of Education has not seen fit to adopt the Ray Report exactly as it stood. A distinction has been drawn clearly in the Bill between the two types or characters of schools on which our present public elementary education rests. Indeed, if the Bill failed to do so it would have been a breach of faith

583
on the part of the Government to the voluntary schools. I am not concerned, nor do I desire, to take up the moderate and courteous challenge from the noble Lord opposite about these voluntary schools. I will only say in passing that if it be true that a very large number of them are upon the black list, it must be remembered that they have not that recourse to the rates for the maintenance of their buildings which other schools enjoy, and yet the supporters of these schools have at the same time, like other people, to pay rates for the upkeep of other schools. I think, therefore, it is always a little unfair to contrast the structure and condition of the council schools with those of the voluntary schools; but for the present purposes that must pass. Since, however, the Bill makes this clear recognition of the fact that no school can be declared to be unnecessary or redundant unless the children of that school can be transferred to a school of the same denominational or undenominational type, I can see no reason in principle why this House should hesitate to give the Bill a Second Reading.
I would, however, like to make two remarks. The first is that the Bill is put before us without the authorities representing the voluntary schools in the country having had much time to consider it in all its aspects. I do not know about the Roman Catholic schools, but so far as the Church of England schools are concerned those authorities have not had much time in which to consider it, and it is possible that some difficulties may appear on closer scrutiny, that some safeguards may be asked for, and that Amendments may be moved in another place. That I do not know, and I only think it fair to say that at present all I can commit myself to is to support the Second Reading of the Bill. The other remark, which I think might be made, is that it is very difficult to expect many of those whose schools will be affected by this Bill to regard their schools as redundant.
Put yourselves in the position of a manager of a village school. He may be the incumbent of a parish who has given the utmost possible care and self-sacrifice to the maintenance of that school, and he is suddenly told that it is redundant and his children must go elsewhere. I can imagine the feelings of a teacher who
584
has been for a long time part of the social life of the village, and who, whatever compensation may be offered, is told that his school is to be regarded as redundant. We must not expect that this Bill will operate without giving rise to great heart burnings in many quarters. Indeed, considering the disturbance which often will be caused I sometimes wonder whether the economy effected will be worth while. I do not think that the economy will prove to be very great, except perhaps in some of the towns. I do not think it will be very great in some of the country districts, once you have made arrangements for carriage, the provision of canteens, etc. Still there is that point of efficiency to which the noble Lord called attention, and undoubtedly in many cases in the towns, subject to the safeguards of the Bill, it will be educationally better for one or two small schools to be combined. Therefore, although I do not think that much will be gained, and although I think it will give rise to many disappointments, I find it impossible to resist the principle on which the Bill is based.
May I, without trespassing too long upon your Lordships' time, make one further observation, which may be thought somewhat irrelevant? I hope you will not think me another Mr. Dick, always talking about King Charles' head, but I would like to say this. Do not let the economy necessarily go outside the sphere of education, and merely relieve the financial obligations of the country. There are still, as no one knows better than the President of the Board of Education, many advances which are urgently needed in the educational world, for which anything which can be saved in this way might well be used. This is where I come in with King Charles' head—the youthful unemployed, of whom I have more than once spoken. I hope that any economy which may be effected here may be used by the Board of Education to assist the President of the Board and the Minister of Labour in thinking out a really far-reaching scheme dealing with that problem. It is not merely a temporary problem of finding occupation for those between the ages of fourteen and eighteen. It is going to be a permanent problem of very great difficulty. It is calculated that in 1937 there will be something like 430,000 boys and girls, between fourteen and eighteen, thrown upon the Labour market.

585
Your Lordships know very well how difficult it will be in the impending changes in industry to absorb anything like the amount of adult labour that will be required, and therefore the time has come when further consideration must be given to the question as to how far we can at least make a beginning in arranging to continue the school instruction of these young people of fourteen in such a way as to prevent them flooding the labour market at the expense of adults who need work very much more for themselves and for their families. Redundant schools may be wasteful; they are not nearly so wasteful as redundant lives, and I venture to hope that possibly some of the money spared by the closing of redundant schools may be devoted to the prevention of the creation of redundant lives. I apologise for this digression and conclude by saying that for the reasons given I think your Lordships will be well advised in giving a Second Reading to this Bill.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: My Lords, I do not rise to make any remarks on the Bill, because I have not yet had an opportunity of considering it with those with whom I am associated on these matters. I rise simply to make an appeal to my noble friend not to be in any hurry with the Committee stage. I hope he will allow plenty of time before he embarks on that stage.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, there are probably none of your Lordships with much more experience of the difficulties between provided and non-provided schools than I had during the five years when I had the privilege of presiding over the Board of Education, and what impressed me airing those years was not the difficulty of the solution of the almost insoluble problem of how to coordinate the interests of the provided and the non-provided schools, but the fact that the smaller schools were the least efficient as a rule, and the difficulty of maintaining those small schools was always apparent to local education authorities. There was the difficulty of securing a proper teacher for the different kinds of children of varying age, and the fact that you might only have one class of children of all ages is, of course, one of the reasons why these schools cannot be expected to be as efficient as the larger schools in our more populous
586
areas. I have not before me the Act to which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill referred, and what I would ask him is whether there is any power of initiative on the part of the Board of Education in connection with the closing of these schools.
After all, if the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Marley, that the schools on one side of the border should be amalgamated with the schools on the other side of the border was accepted by the Government, it might help to remove some of the inefficient schools which are on each side of the border under two local authorities. It does seem to me in that case that schools should be closed on the grounds of efficiency and economy. But the local authorities only have knowledge of the character of the schools in their own districts, while the Board of Education, through their inspectors, would draw attention to the point whether savings could be effected by getting two local authorities to consider the matter together. I would like to ask the noble Lord whether it would be possible for the Board of Education to make, representations to the authorities where they think the matter might be dealt with jointly between local authorities. It does seem to me desirable if it can be secured, and there might be some initiative on the part of the Board of Education to stimulate local authorities where they were not very anxious to close their schools, but where, in the public interest and in the interest of education, their closure was desirable. I should like to know whether there is any power either in this Bill or in the original Act for that purpose.
LORD IRWIN: My Lords, if I may trespass further for a few moments to reply to the points that have been made, I would first of all say that as Minister in charge of this Bill I have no reason at all to complain of the reception it has met with to-day. It is a Bill which deals with a subject that at one time was one of the most bitter controversy, and although I recognise that the most rev. Primate was not, able to feel enthusiastic on the subject, any more indeed than was the noble Lord opposite, yet I think it is not unsatisfactory that by all those who have spoken it should have been received with what I may perhaps term

587
cautious approbation, or recognition of its necessity. My noble friend Lord FitzAlan referred to a point to which, I think, the most rev. Primate had also referred—namely, that there had not been a great deal of time for consideration of the possible reactions to this Bill, and I can assure both the most rev. Primate and my noble friend that it will be my desire that all reasonable time should be given to those for whom they speak to inform themselves upon the matter. I may indeed point out that one of the reasons that influenced the Government in putting down this Bill for consideration at this stage just before Easter was to afford the opportunity over the Easter Recess for these matters to engage more detailed consideration.
The most rev. Primate expressed the view that it would be regrettable if under this Bill, or indeed under any other Bill, we were to see a large closure of small village schools. I should most unhesitatingly agree with him on that point, and I do not believe that that is what the probable effect of the Bill is going to be. He knows at least as well as I do that in spite of the fact that it has for many years been legal to close schools with under thirty scholars, there are in fact something like 2,000 schools to-day with fewer than thirty on their registers unclosed; which, of course, shows that the small village school has a very much stronger security of tenure, due to difficulties of transport, distance and so on, to which the noble Lord opposite referred. I think that perhaps the main operation of this Bill will be in urban areas where, owing to the shifting population, there are a great many superfluous places in existing schools. I do not think that the most rev. Primate need at all have apologised for making what he termed a digression on the subject of juvenile unemployment. I do not follow him into it beyond saying that I share to the full his feelings about the desirability of tackling the problem, which is not static but is growing, and about the necessity, if possible, of trying to find additional money for the problem, with this among other economies that I might find it within the power of my Department to make, and I feel that that would be a contribution, however humble, to that end.
The noble Lord opposite asked me three or four questions. He took me to
588
task, not very seriously but a little, for having founded my case in part upon economy. But he was generous enough to feel that that was not the whole of my mind, as indeed I think it had not been the whole of my speech, for I devoted not a few sentences of my argument to explaining that the purpose of this Bill was to remove an administrative bar in the way of the re-grouping that local authorities have not infrequently sought to carry out. He asked me how many schools were involved. I am not in a position to give him any exact information about that, but I am advised that the estimate of financial saving involved for rates and Exchequer together—it is necessarily a rough estimate—might be put in the neighbour hood of £100,000. I can assure him there is nothing sinister in the difference in drafting between "necessary" and "not unnecessary"; it is purely a drafting improvement or, at least, drafting amendment. He raised a point about the wording in subsection 3 (a)—"the same local education authority"—a point to which my noble friend who spoke last also referred. It is, of course, always possible for one local authority to make agreements with another local authority, and this Bill, I think, will do nothing to interfere with that; it is done in cases of special schools and the like.
The noble Lord who spoke last carried the suggestion a little further, and, if I understood him, he attached importance to the query whether or not the Board of Education had a power of initiation in the sense of suggesting to one or other of two contiguous local authorities that they might close a school and amalgamate. As far as I understand, they have that power. The noble Lord will, of course, know as well as I do, and probably better, the degree to which the whole educational system is based upon local autonomy; but there is another reason, I think, of a more substantial kind even, that he will perhaps allow me to recall to him. In all these matters one essential part of the machinery is that the Board should be available to adjudicate in cases where local authorities may be thought to be acting adversely vis-à-vis the interests of parents and so on. At first thought it would be impossible to combine that semi-judicial attitude, which the Board must of course preserve, with

589
the duty of themselves initiating an amalgamation on which it might be desired to lodge an appeal: but I should like to examine the point further.
I think that those are all the points, except the last point raised by the noble Lord opposite as to the definition of the words "reasonably accessible." I think his own illustration is the best possible argument for proving the difficulty of finding a precise definition in words in this case, when he said that what might be a reasonable path in summer might be a marshy, boggy walk in winter; and it is for that reason, I think, we must use words that are not unfamiliar to the draftsman or the Statute writer. We must leave the definition of what is "reasonably accessible" to local authorities themselves, who are not impervious to the wishes of parents or to information that may reach them as to the actual local circumstances with which they have to deal. I can certainly assure the noble Lord opposite that nothing would be further from my own wishes than to impose on children such physical conditions of getting to school as would render them semi-incapable of profiting by instruction when they get there.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVI- SIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I trust that your Lordships will forgive me for putting down this Bill for Second Reading at such short notice. The reason for doing so is that the building season is already far advanced, and it is most desirable that the provision which the Bill contains far assisting the construction of working-class houses should be on the Statute Book at the earliest possible date, so that it may be possible to take advantage of it this year. The Scottish Bill is on the same lines as the English Bill, and for that reason it will be, perhaps, unnecessary for me to do more than very briefly run through the clauses indicating any special Scottish provisions.
590
Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill provide for the reduction and abolition of subsidies, and it is here that the only substantial differences between the Scottish and the English Bills are found. The main difference is that whereas the English Bill abolishes the Wheatley subsidy altogether, in Scotland it is retained for two years, but reduced from its present figure of £9 to £3, and retained for one restricted and definite purpose—namely, to deal with the problem of overcrowding among low-paid wage-earners. The reason for its retention is that overcrowding is specially prevalent in Scotland. I would remind your Lordships that the Economy Committee, presided over by the late Lord Lovat, whose untimely death has robbed your Lordships' House of one of its most useful and beloved members, which scrutinised every department of local government expenditure with the closest care, specially recommended that a subsidy should be retained for this purpose. That the subsidy will be used for this purpose, and this alone, is ensured by the provision inserted in the Bill in the other house that the rents of these houses shall not exceed 6s. a week, or in special cases, with the approval of the Department, 6s. 6d. a week. The only other point in Clauses 1 and 2 to which I need direct your Lordships' attention is the abolition of the 1923 Act subsidy to private builders. This subsidy was abolished in England in 1929, and the Lovat Committee recommended that it should now be abolished in Scotland.
Clause 3 is in almost identical terms to Clause 2 of the English Bill; that is to say, it enables the Government to carry out the arrangement which had been come to with the building societies under which the Government and local authorities will guarantee to the building societies a part of the loans which they give for the provision of working-class houses, while the societies for their part will give loans representing an increased percentage of the Value of the houses at a rate of interest 1 per cent. below their normal rate. The building society movement has not in the past flourished in Scotland to the same extent as in England, but there are welcome signs of an extension of the societies' activities in the North, and the Government hope that the provisions of Clause 3 of the Bill will enable the societies to

591
enter the larger field of working-class housing. We have a clear indication that the cost of building houses in Scotland is still falling, and the Government are anxious that the building trade should apply their minds to the question of still further reducing prices, and thereby enable houses to be let well within the means of the working classes. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendment.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Marquess of Londonderry, who is precluded by doctor's orders from using his voice in your Lordships' House, I beg to move that this Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
[The reference is to Bill No. (19).]
Page 71, line 17, leave out ("January") and insert ("July").
The Commons agree to the above Amendment and propose the following consequential Amendment to the Bill:
Clause 106, page 136, line 13, at end insert ("but this repeal shall not, as respects enactments for which other provisions are substituted by this Act, take effect until the respective dates upon which the provisions so substituted come into operation").
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the Amendment is in Clause 106, the old Clause 106, on page 136. The Amendment is purely consequential, and, unless any of your Lordships wish an explanation, I beg to move that the Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FOREIGN JUDGMENTS (RECIP ROCAL ENFORCEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment to the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The reference is to Bill No. (23).]
Clause 5, page 7, line 25, leave out from ("tribunal") to the end of the subsection.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment. The Amendment is for the purpose of omitting the following words:
"and, in any case where the application is adjourned, the Court may order that execution of the judgment shall be stayed until the expiration of the period aforesaid on such terms as the Court may think just."
If your Lordships will refer to the proviso in Clause 2 (2) of the Bill you will see that execution cannot issue under the judgment so long as it is competent for any one to make an application to have the judgment set aside. In the case supposed by Clause 5, that is, an adjournment of an application to set aside, there will obviously have been no final determination of the application within the meaning of the proviso to Clause 2 (2), and therefore execution cannot possibly issue. Thus there is no need to give the Court power by these words at the end of subsection (1) of Clause 5 to order that execution of the judgment shall be stayed. For this reason these words are unnecessary and should be omitted.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, before the House adjourns, I might mention that I understand it will be most convenient that your Lordships should meet at a quarter before twelve to-morrow morning, and there will be a Royal Commission at twelve o'clock. There is no other effective business. I have also to mention that I had hoped that when we met on the 25th of April the meeting would be a purely formal one. I understand, unfortunately, that my noble friend Lord Salisbury, owing to a public engagement in the Indian Committee, was unable to be here to move an Amendment in Committee on the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill which passed through Committee to-day, and therefore he will be compelled to bring up his point on the Report stage. The Bill is one which is urgently needed, as your Lordships will appreciate from the character of its provisions, and we are proposing to take the Report stage as soon as the House meets again on the 25th of April. I think there is controversy about my noble friend Lord. Salisbury's Amendment, and therefore I hope some of your Lordships, at any rate, may find it convenient to attend.