Lords Sitting of 28 March 1933

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read la, and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TORQUAY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
ASSURANCE COMPANIES (WINDING UP) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)rose to move, That leave be given for the Earl of Ilchester's Notice (now standing for Wednesday the 5th of April next) to be advanced to Wednesday next. The noble Viscount said: The Notice which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Ilchester—calling attention to the pollution of the sea by waste oil discharged from steamers—would undoubtedly be interfered with by the debate on Indian policy if it remained on the Paper for April 5. Therefore I am moving that leave be given to advance the date to to-morrow, which, I understand, is convenient to the noble Earl.
Moved, That leave be given to the Earl of Ilchester to advance his Notice (now standing for Wednesday the 5th of April next) to Wednesday next.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, in connection with this change in the business of the House, I wish to ask the

95
Leader of the House whether he will not consider the advisability of sitting after dinner on the evenings of the Indian debate. I know that the reason given against such a course is that some will not attend and others do not want to speak because there is a very poor attendance, but I think it is a far greater inconvenience for members who live far away from London and who do not know whether the debate will occupy two or three days. Speaking for myself, I think it was two years ago, on the occasion of the Agricultural Organisation Bill, all my arrangements got thrown out because we sat an extra day, four days instead of three. As regards the objection that members do not come down after dinner, I should have thought that nowadays, when there are so many young members in your Lordships' House and so many new members, they would be only too glad to show their earnestness and desire to take part in this debate by coming down and speaking on a particular occasion when the House is thin. They will have the knowledge that their speeches are on record, and they will be able to point out to their sons and grandsons what they achieved when they were very youthful.
I think it is a grave reflection on the earnestness of your Lordships' House if your Lordships cannot take the trouble to come down for a couple of hours after dinner on the occasion of a very momentous debate in which the whole future of the Empire is at stake. I am sure it is not a great deal to ask that on this very rare occasion your Lordships should be put to this trouble and inconvenience. The inconvenience is far greater in the case of those living out of London who do not know what arrangements to make in respect of their own engagements made long before the date was fixed for this debate. I hope, therefore, the noble Viscount will consider the possibility of seeing whether members will not come down after dinner, and curtail thereby the number of days devoted to the debate.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I only heard just now from my noble friend Lord Lamington that he was going to raise this point. Quite obviously it is a matter which is entirely one for the
96
convenience of the greatest number of your Lordships. I am only anxious to make, or concur in making, such arrangements as may best suit the convenience of the majority of the House. So far as the Indian debate is concerned, I do not yet know whether there is likely to be a Division upon the Motion which I expect will be submitted to the House, and if there is to be no Division then it will not be so important for noble Lords to be present right up to the end of the debate. Probably the best course would be for my noble friend Lord Lucan to communicate with the Whips on the other side and at the same time make some inquiries among such of your Lordships as are here to-day and to-morrow, and a little later on report the result of those inquiries. I shall be very happy then to do whatever the majority of your Lordships' House seem to desire.
I do not even know yet how many members are anxious to take part in the debate, although I hope and anticipate that there will be a good number; and I should be very glad to do anything which would encourage those young members, whose enthusiasm for attending your Lordships' House my noble friend Lord Lamington is more sanguine about than I am, to take an interest and to make a contribution which, I am sure, all your Lordships would welcome. For the moment, I think it much better to leave the matter over so that inquiries can be made as far as possible to ascertain what would be to the convenience of the majority of the House, and then perhaps I can report those inquiries a little later on.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I should like to say that the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamington, is one that is worthy of consideration, but I think, on the whole, it would be preferable to allow the debate, if necessary, to extend over three days. The fact that there is not going to be a Division does not mean that it is not a very important debate, and I think that noble Lords should be allowed full time to express themselves on it. So far as the Opposition are concerned, we have no intention of dividing against the Motion, and I think that not more than three speeches from our side may be expected. I believe, however, that a great many noble Lords will desire to take part

97
in the debate, and I do not think the idea of coming back after dinner is one that very many of them will smile upon.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and leave given to advance the Notice accordingly.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHESTER AND LANCASTER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (ETON JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

DONCASTER AREA DRAINAGE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, the object of this Bill is to place the whole lengths of the rivers Don and Trent under the same principle as that which governs all other main rivers throughout the country since the passage of the Land Drainage Act, 1930. Perhaps it may help your Lordships to understand the reason for this Bill if I relate to you as shortly as possible the history of the Doncaster Drainage Board. In 1923 a Royal Commission was set up to deal with the question of mining subsidence. As a result of a Report—I think it was an interim Report—of that Royal Commission, a new Commission was set up to deal specifically with the question of mining subsidence in relation to land drainage in this area. That Commission reported in 1928, and as a result of its report the Doncaster Drainage Act, 1929, was passed. The powers that were given to the Doncaster Drainage Board then were the normal powers that were given to any drainage board, but in addition to those normal powers special provisions were made making the coal-mining industry responsible for damage done as a result of mining subsidence. That is a
98
very important point, because if it had not been for those special provisions and the fear of losing those special provisions, then the main rivers within the area of the Doncaster Drainage Board would have been dealt with in exactly the same manner as were all other main rivers under the Land Drainage Act, 1930. Owing to the fear of losing those special provisions if this area were included within the scope of the General Act, the Doncaster area was excepted from the Act of 1930.
Since then, in September, 1931, and May, 1932, there have been two terrible floods, within the space of only a few months, affecting thousands of families and homes and doing damage both to life and property. It has rapidly become apparent that a small Board such as the Doncaster Drainage Board cannot hope to deal with the problem of draining that area effectively. What has happened is a justification of the general legislation under the Act of 1930, when it was stated that the inter-action of all waters within a catchment area made it essential that all the main waters should be dealt with by one authority. Thus to-day, with regard to the one exception made under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, we are driven back to the principle which was then accepted. Actually under the Act of 1930 it would have been possible to deal with the problem of placing responsibility for the whole of the main rivers, the Don and the Trent, on their respective catchment boards. Under Section 5 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, the Minister is given power to vary the area of the catchment board and add to the main river any additional length of that main river. But if he operated under that Act, and did not have the powers conferred by this special measure, then there would not be the special provisions with regard to responsibility for mining subsidence. Therefore he naturally prefers to operate under this Bill which is now before your Lordships.
Certain local authorities fear this Bill because they say that it will place on them responsibilities for land drainage which are new and which they are not in a position to meet. But these county boroughs and county councils will only be put in exactly the same position as every other county borough and every other county council throughout the country.

99
Moreover, the Bill does not really affect their position to the extent that they fear it will. As the law is to-day, without the passage of this Bill the internal drainage board is in the position of being able to make a request to the catchment board, to which the county boroughs and the county councils have to contribute, for assistance in dealing with the main rivers for which they are responsible. It is a voluntary contribution, but if the internal drainage board are of opinion that the contribution from the catchment board is insufficient they can appeal to the Minister under Section 21 of the Land Drainage Act, and the Minister, after holding local public inquiry, may make such an order in the matter as he thinks just. Therefore, even as the law stands at the moment, important Cities like Bradford and others, who fear the passage of this Bill, will ultimately be in the position of having to meet their share of the expense of draining the area of the main rivers.
Under this Bill the process will be reversed—that is, the catchment board will assess the internal drainage board, and under the same section the county borough or county council, if of the opinion that the internal drainage board has been assessed at too little, which would mean that they were in danger of being assessed at too much, can appeal to the Minister and the Minister, after public inquiry, may make such orders as he thinks just. You may ask why, if so small a change is made in the situation of the county boroughs and county councils, there is need for the Bill at all, but it is at the express request of the two catchment boards which are to take over these responsibilities and on which the county boroughs and county councils are represented, that we are introducing this Bill. Their reason for requesting us to bring forward this measure is that they recognise that if this work is to be carried on as it must be after the terrible floods that have taken place, they will have to make a contribution. That being so, they would rather have control of their own expenses and, instead of having to make a contribution to an internal drainage board, become responsible themselves and then assess the internal drainage board for a fair share of the expense. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with the details
100
of the clauses of the Bill. I have simply tried to lay before the House the main principles that he behind the Bill and the reasons for introducing it. If there are any points on which your Lordships would like any explanations I will endeavour to give them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, in rising to support the noble Earl I should like to ask him one or two questions. In the first place I should like to know what are the objections of Bradford to this Bill. I presume Bradford is in the same position as other urban districts under the Act of 1930, and therefore I cannot understand why it has any objection to the Bill. Secondly, does the eight-foot flood level still remain? Thirdly, has the Government any idea of the difficulties regarding the collection of rates for the drainage areas in the towns and cities? If they are not going to help the drainage board very much in the collection of rates, it would be cheaper if one could make a general collection; otherwise, the new drainage board will have great difficulties in collecting all these small amounts, some of them under 10s., and it will not be worth while to sue to get the amounts.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the first of the points raised by the noble Earl is as to why Bradford should object to the passage of this Bill. I have ventured to try to deal generally with the fear of the boroughs that they would have to find additional money for drainage. It is a little difficult to explain exactly without a map, but Bradford argued that as their waters did not themselves pass through the Doncaster Drainage Board's area they should not be made responsible for the drainage of the Don. That actually raises an issue which your Lordships debated very thoroughly on the passage of the Land Drainage Act of 1930, when you said that all the main rivers in a given catchment area should be apportioned over the whole of that area. It is true that the waters coming from Bradford by the River Aire do not come through the Doncaster area, but equally it is true that the Aire does, just on the boundaries of the Doncaster area, join the Don and the result is that a great deal of water is held back in the Don area.

101
As to the noble Earl's second point, the question of the eight-foot flood level is in no way affected by this Bill. Lastly, the subject of collection is a general question affecting the Land Drainage Act rather than this Bill, but if the noble Earl looks in Section 23, subsection (2), of the Act he will see that the county or borough councils have power to carry out the collection either in the form of a general rate over the whole area or by a special rate limited to the area affected.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Establishment of London Passenger Transport Board.
1.—(1) For the purposes of this Act there shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, be established a public authority to be called the London Passenger Transport Board (in this Act referred to as "the Board"), consisting of a chairman and six other members from time to time appointed by a body (in this Act referred to as "the Appointing Trustees") consisting of the following persons:—
the Chairman of the London County Council;
a representative of the Advisory Committee (as hereinafter in this Act defined);
the Chairman of the Committee of London Clearing Bankers;
the President of the Law Society; and the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
The appointments to be made by the Appointing Trustees shall be made after consultation with such persons as they may think fit.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY had Amendments on the Paper to leave out "and" ["the President of the Law Society; and"] in subsection (1) and, after the next paragraph, to insert "and in the case of appointments to fill vacancies in the Board at any time after the first constitution of the Board, the Chairman of the Board or some other member of the Board nominated by the Board for
102
the purpose." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which in principle I brought up on the Committee stage. As your Lordships know, the general construction of the Bill is that there is a Board which really has to control the whole of the working under the Bill. The members of the Board are appointed by a body known as the Appointing Trustees and it was rather thought that it would be advisable that those Trustees, who are not themselves technical people knowing the actual working of the scheme, should have some link between themselves when they were appointing further members to the Board; and, furthermore, that it would be advisable that there should be some continuity of policy in the Board. In using the word "continuity" I do not mean rigidity, but continuity which would be very likely attained by having some members who are also members of the Appointing Trustees. When I moved the Amendment in Committee I suggested that three of the Board should be appointed to the Appointing Trustees. That was thought, and I dare say rightly, to be too many and as rather swamping the Appointing Trustees. Therefore to-day I am only suggesting that one should be a member of the Appointing Trustees; that is, that either the Chairman or some other member of the Board should be nominated by the Board for the purpose. I rather gather that in its amended form it may be quite possible that the Government will accept this Amendment.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("and")
Page 2, line 11, after ("Wales") insert ("and in the case of appointments to fill vacancies in the Board at any time after the first constitution of the Board, the Chairman of the Board or some other member of the Board nominated by the Board for the purpose").—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, before the Government reply to this Amendment, I may say that I objected on the Committee stage to the inclusion of three members of the Board, because I really could not see any necessity for that at all, for the reason that the Appointing Trustees can consult anybody they think fit. I also thought that three members were too many. However, now that the noble Earl has moved an Amendment to reduce it to one additional member I shall not press my objection. I presume,

103
however, that the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, will be able to tell us that this member of the Board is not to be a permanent member, but only appointed for the one purpose.
THE EARL. OF HALSBURY: He is appointed for the purpose stated in the Amendment.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I am going to support this proposal. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware that these Trustees consist of five members. I am not going to criticise their existence, because I think it is essential under the Bill that there should be something in the nature of a body of that sort, but it happens that of these five four are connected with various associations, and in each case they are only annual chairmen. Therefore it is clear that there cannot be any real continuity of policy or that knowledge of each other which is essential. We hope that vacancies will occur very rarely, but there will be nothing to show on what lines of policy the Board originally worked, and it is essential that there should be somebody connected with the Board to give to the Trustees the views of the Board. After all, if you have a vacancy on a small body it is very essential in selecting members to see that, in the matter of character or knowledge or powers, they are persons whom it is essential to have on the Board. The Trustees will not have that knowledge to start with. Therefore there can be no continuity, and it is very important that this information should be placed at their disposal by the addition of a member on the Board. I desire to support this proposal, which I think would secure a very valuable addition to the strength of the Appointing Trustees, when they have to consider the question later on.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I think the case has been very clearly stated by the noble Earl who has just spoken. The question of adding to the Appointing Trustees, for the purpose of filling vacancies on the Board, was raised during the Committee stage by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and he, as your Lordships may remember, withdrew his Amendment on the suggestion that I made, that the matter might be allowed to stand over till this stage of the Bill, so that the Government would have more
104
time for the consideration of the matter. On further consideration it was felt that while there was substantial advantage in securing that the Board should have a voice in the selection of persons to fill vacancies upon it, the addition to the Trustees of three members of the Board for this purpose was unnecessary, and would tend to make the Appointing Trustees an unduly large body. The noble Earl has now modified his proposal, so that only the Chairman of the Board or some other member of the Board selected by it shall be added to the number of the Appointing Trustees, and in this form the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 2 [Incorporation, proceedings and officers of Board]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), in reference to the Board to leave out "their" and insert "its." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, although I have a very large number of Amendments on the Paper, I shall only detain your Lordships for a very few minutes, because the same arguments will apply to each of the Amendments. Perhaps I may preface my remarks by saying that by nature I am a man of peace, but I am not a man of peace at any price, and when I say that I have in mind what took place on the Committee stage, when I moved the first of a series of Amendments for making the Bill grammatically consistent. I had read the Bill, and I noticed that these nouns of multitude were, in the great majority of cases, used in the plural, and I ventured to move Amendments to make the Board in the plural throughout. I humbly knelt at the feet of Lord Londonderry and asked him whether he preferred to have it plural throughout or singular throughout, pointing out that if he stuck to the plural only seven Amendments would be necessary, whereas if the undertaking given by Lord Lucan a few days before were to be adopted, then over eighty Amendments in reference to the Board alone would be necessary.
In reply I received what, in my view, is an ultimatum or declaration of war by Whitehall. My noble friend said in effect: "Whitehall does not like your
Amendment and does not intend to accept it":
"I do not love thee, Dr. Fell, The reason why I cannot tell."
Of course, they could not tell what was their reason, or my noble friend would have given the reason. He simply said that they had considered the matter, and that was that. I was amazed, and I am still amazed, at the opposition to a really very minor matter, for it in no sense can be said to alter the sense of the Bill. I withdrew my Amendment, and cu consideration I came to the conclusion that the only alternative was to put down this large number of Amendments to transpose all these nouns of multitude into the singular. When they had been circulated, at the suggestion of Lord Londonderry I had an interview with the Ministry, and both the Minister and I thought at that interview that we had come to an amicable settlement. However, after that meeting doubts crossed my mind, and I entered into correspondence with Mr. Stanley, and I found with profound regret that we had not been ad idem.
What he understood was that only clauses where these nouns appear both in the singular and in the plural—even in the same sentence sometimes—which he freely admitted to be inexcusable, were to be amended by the Government. I might tell your Lordships in passing that even if I had moved an Amendment in Committee to correct such a solecism I have reason to know that it would have been resisted by the Government. What I understood from Mr. Stanley was that these nouns of multitude were to be altered so as to be either singular or plural throughout. In consequence of our not being ad idem Mr. Stanley said that he must consider the matter entirely reopened and the Government representative entitled to take what view he thought fit. Of course, I find no fault with that, but I hope that my noble friend on mature consideration may have seen his way to accept the Amendments. If your Lordships decide to reject them I hope it is not asking too much of the Government to do something on the Third Reading to rectify the blots which the Minister himself admits to exist; otherwise what will any member of the public who reads this Bill in its present form think when he
106
knows that it has passed both Houses with their approval?
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, leave out ("their") and insert ("its").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, it will be for the convenience of your Lordships and of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, who has placed on the Order Paper a very large number of Amendments designed to secure strict grammatical uniformity throughout the Bill, if I make a general statement on the attitude of the Government towards these Amendments at this point in our proceedings. Let me say at once that we have been anxious to meet the noble Viscount to the fullest extent reasonable. A considerable number of his Amendments were accepted in Committee, though others with which we did not agree could not be accepted. Since the Committee stage I find that the noble Viscount has discussed the whole question with my honourable friend the Minister of Transport. Furthermore, I am given to understand that he has already secured an assurance that, in the interests of uniformity, instructions have been given that, in future Public Bills, grammatical consistency will be observed in connection with nouns of multitude unless there is special reason to the contrary. I would ask him, therefore, to be content with this practical recognition of his grammatical rectitude and not to insist upon taking up the time of your Lordships' House and of the House of Commons, or upon incurring the expense involved in pressing these Amendments to this Bill. In a, few instances to which the noble Viscount has called attention, where unnecessary inconsistency is found to exist in a particular clause, we are prepared to accept his Amendments. On this basis, I have intimated to the noble Viscount that we shall accept certain of his Amendments on the Order Paper, but further than this I am afraid that we are not prepared to go.
I may, perhaps, explain to your Lordships the reason why there are so many cases of inconsistency in the use of nouns of multitude in this Bill. It is, as you are aware, a Hybrid Bill, and as such it embodies a mass of agreements, protective provisions, statutory references both to Public and Private Acts, and

107
adaptations or applications of references of this nature. Many of its clauses have had to be agreed with the legal advisers of the many interests concerned. It is therefore hardly possible to expect that it could possess that style or grammatical taste which one may expect to find in the ordinary Public Bill. The use of singular or plural verbs or pronouns with nouns of multitude is very largely a matter of taste and is not in all respects uniform in the various Statutes which have had to be amended or adapted for the purposes of this Bill. To alter those Statutes would, I suggest, he highly undesirable. Finally, and I think this may be regarded as the ultimately decisive factor upon the question of the acceptance or rejection of particular Amendments, I cannot find that any single instance of inconsistency to which the noble Viscount objects, involves even in the slightest degree any ambiguity whatever. I beg the noble Viscount to be content with that not inconsiderable number of corrections which he has already secured, or which he is about to secure, in this particular measure. Let him be satisfied with the additional assurance which he has received in regard to grammatical exactitude in future Government Bills. After all, the present Bill belongs to that peculiar class of hybrid measures, and as such is particularly subject to these inconsistencies to which the noble Viscount so much objects. I think his enthusiasm for strict grammatical uniformity may well be satisfied with the measure of success which he has achieved. I regret that I cannot accept his proposed Amendments on page 3, page 4 or page 7, but I am quite willing to accept the Amendment on page 8.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, although I cannot see why a Hybrid Bill should necessitate hybrid grammar, I have already told your Lordships that I am a man of peace and the noble Marquess has offered me a list of Amendments which he is prepared to accept, he has given an undertaking as to future Bills and he assures me, as I understood, that the Amendments which he accepts will get rid of grammatical inconsistencies which occur in the same clause. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5:
Transfer to Board of passenger transport undertakings.
(4) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board, on the transfer of any undertaking, specified in Parts I, II, III or VI of the Second Schedule to this Act—

(a) may exercise and enforce all the rights, powers and privileges which were immediately before the appointed day vested in the undertakers in respect of the undertaking; and

(b) shall, to the exclusion of the undertakers, be subject to all liabilities and obligations, whether arising by statute or otherwise howsoever, to which the undertakers were subject immediately before the appointed day in respect of the undertaking;

Provided that—
(i) no liability or obligation of a local authority in respect of any loan raised for the purposes of a transferred undertaking and further in the case of the Hertfordshire County Council, London County Council and Middlesex County Council no liability or obligation in respect of capital expenditure on work done, services rendered, goods delivered, or land or property acquired before the appointed day shall be transferred to the Board, and any dispute which may arise between the Board and any of those councils under this proviso shall, in default of agreement, be determined by an arbitrator to be agreed or to be appointed by the Minister of Health;
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I understand the noble Marquess accepts the Amendment to Clause 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 14, leave out ("elect") and insert ("elects").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection (4), proviso (i), after "Middlesex County Council," to insert "and in the case of the mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the County Borough of West Ham." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment, which is consequential on the settlement which was made with the West Ham Corporation and the insertion during the Committee stage of the name of that corporation in the Sixth Schedule.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 30, after ("Council") insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 36, after ("councils") insert ("or that corporation").—(The Marques of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved to insert after proviso (xi) in subsection (4):

"(xii) the Middlesex County Council may and, if so required by the Board, shall at the expense of the council lay down, execute and complete to the satisfaction of the Minister the tramways and works authorised by Section fifteen of the Middlesex County Council Act, 1925, within the period limited by that Act as extended by any subsequent enactment and for that purpose may exercise all the powers conferred and shall be subject to all the obligations imposed on the council by that Act in connection therewith;

"(xiii) the powers and obligations conferred or imposed on the Middlesex County Council by any order made by the Minister under the Light Railways Acts, 1896 to 1912, in pursuance of an application made to the Minister by the council on the thirtieth clay of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, for an order authorising the making of a light railway in the urban district of Finchley, or by any agreement made in contemplation of that order, shall remain vested in the council until the railway as defined and authorised by the order is laid down and completed, and the council if so required by the Board shall at the expense of the council complete the railway within the period limited by the order or by any subsequent order extending the period and, if the Minister certifies that the railway has been duly constructed and that all the obligations of the council in connection with its construction have been discharged, the undertaking authorised by the order (except any land acquired by the council under the powers conferred on the council by the order) shall, as from the date of the certificate or such later date as may be specified in the certificate, by virtue of this Act be transferred to and vest in the Board."

The noble Marquess said: My Lords, it was part of the settlement with the County Council of Middlesex as to the terms of transfer of their tramways and light railways that the County Council should complete certain capital works before their light railway undertaking is transferred to the Board. For various reasons, the whole of the works contemplated will not be completed before the 1st July, 1933, the date on which it is proposed to effect the transfer of the undertaking, and it is, therefore, necessary to insert provisions in the Bill to enable the County Council to complete the works at their own expense after the date of transfer.
amendment moved —
Page 11, line 38, after ("authority") insert the said paragraphs.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Payments on account to be made by the Board]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I understand that my noble friend accepts the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 6, leave out ("their") and insert ("its").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE THAME: My Lords, I understand the Government is accepting the next Amendment in its altered form.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 8, leave out ("them") and insert ("the authority").—(Viscount Bertie of Tharne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14:
Rules to be applied in determining compensation.
(9) For the purposes of this section the Underground undertakings shall be treated as a single undertaking.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection (9), to leave out "Underground." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, Subsection (9) of Clause 14, which contains the directions to the arbitration tribunal in determining the consideration for transfers of undertakings, provides that the Underground undertakings shall be treated as a single undertaking for the purpose of enabling the arbitration tribunal to ensure that the standard of consideration payable in respect of the several undertakings or parts of undertakings to be transferred to the Board shall be fair and equitable as between the existing owners. The Underground undertakings include, as will be seen from Part I of the Second Schedule to the Bill, several railway, tramway, omnibus, motor coach and other undertakings. Of these, five companies (the Metropolitan District Railway, the three Tube Railways, and the London General Omnibus Company) constitute what are known as the Common Fund companies. These companies were

111
authorised by an Act of 1915 to pool their receipts and to apportion the pool in certain agreed proportions. This they have done since that year, and the settlement with the five companies was, as stated by Sir William McLintock to the Joint Select Committee, one settlement embracing the five companies which were, by reason of the Common Fund, necessarily treated as one undertaking. The remaining companies in the Underground Group were treated as separate entities.
This and following Amendments are designed to enable effect to be given more closely to the intention of the Joint Select Committee by whom the whole of Clause 14 was prepared. The effect of the Amendments is to substitute as the unit which the arbitration tribunal is directed to treat as a single undertaking the five Common Fund companies instead of the whole of the Underground companies which are being transferred to the Board. While it has been felt by the Government that the insertion of a requirement to treat all the Underground undertakings as one was probably the result of some misunderstanding and did not give effect to the Committee's decision, they were naturally reluctant to propose any alteration unless they could first assure themselves that in so doing they were not departing from the wishes and intention of the Committee. The Government have now had an opportunity of consulting the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who presided over the joint Select Committee and have ascertained that the Committee's decision was to require the Common Fund companies to be treated as a single unit. The Amendments now proposed will give effect to this decision and will facilitate the objects which the Joint Committee had in view when drafting the clause—namely, to secure that the arbitration tribunal should be made aware of the details of any agreed settlements and should be free, in making a compensation award, to apply the same principles to their award as, in their opinion, had been applied to the agreed settlements. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 32, leave out ("Underground").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THEMARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 33, after ("undertakings") insert ("owned by the following companies, that is to say, the Central London Railway Company, the City and South London Railway Company, the London Electric Railway Company, the London General Omnibus Company, Limited, and the Metropolitan District Railway Company").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Restriction on carriage of road passengers on certain journeys in special area]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I understand the noble Marquess is accepting my Amendments to this clause.
Amendments moved—
Page 29, line 15, leave out ("they") and insert ("it")
Page 29, line 17, leave out ("fail") and insert ("fails")
Page 29, line 30, leave out ("their") and insert ("its").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the next two Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 30, line 21, after ("required") insert ("or elects").
Page 31, line 4, leave out ("determine") and insert ("appoint").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 19 [Provision of service of passenger vessels on River Thames]:
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE moved, after subsection (6), to insert:
"() Nothing in, or in any arrangement made under, this section shall prejudice or affect any provision of the said Acts relating to the protection of or the saving of any rights of any person other than the council."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to make it clear that certain rights now enjoyed by the Port of London Authority shall be retained by that Authority. I understand that the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 38, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21:
Restriction on power of manufacture.
21. Subject to the provisions of this section, it shall not be lawful for the Board to manufacture, or apply their funds to the manufacture of any rolling-stock or vehicles except for the purposes of experiment or research:
Provided that, where immediately before the date of transfer any premises were being used for the purpose of manufacturing omnibus bodies by undertakings or parts of undertakings which are transferred to the Board by this Act, the Board may continue to use those premises for the purpose of manufacturing such bodies for use in connection with their undertaking, so however that the number of omnibus bodies so manufactured by the Board in any year shall not exceed the average number of omnibus bodies manufactured annually by the London General Omnibus Company Limited at its premises at Chiswick in the County of Middlesex during the five years last preceding the first day of January, nineteen hundred end thirty-two.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE moved, at the end of the proviso, to substitute "nineteen hundred and thirty-one" for "nineteen hundred and thirty-two." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I trust that as every noble Lord who has moved an Amendment has had something given to him I shall also be in the happy category and get some acceptance of the Amendment I now move. It will be within the recollection of the House that I moved an exactly similar Amendment on the Committee stage, and the noble Marquess then said he would give consideration to the matter. After the passing of this Bill it will not be permissible for the organisations which will make up the Board to continue to manufacture omnibuses and other means of transport. But the Committee which considered it, and the Government, put into the original Bill, or rather into this Bill when it started, that the period of five years previous to the 1st of January, 1934 should be taken as an average, sub-sequently for all time, and that the factory at Chiswick which will be taken over by the Board should be allowed to manufacture omnibus bodies to a number equal to the average number of bodies made there for the five years previous to December 31, 1930; that is to say, the average of the years 1920, 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930. That was recommended by the Committee. That principle was adopted by the Government, and was kept in the Bill during the Second Read-
114
ing and Committee stage in another place, but on the Report stage, on the motion of a private member, it was deleted, and January 1, 1932, was put in instead of January 1, 1931.
The reason given by the Attorney-General in accepting that Amendment was, as far as I can make out, that if you kept in the original date it would be unfair to the Board because you were taking a bad manufacturing year—namely, the year 1926—when there was a general strike and a general upset and when the manufacture of motor bodies at Chiswick was below the normal. That seemed perhaps a not unreasonable view to take, though it is strange the Government never discovered it until a private member moved the Amendment. On the other hand, though that might be an act of justice to the new Board to be set up, is a distinct act of injustice to the private interests which will in the future have to build a certain number of bodies for the Combine, because it takes in the year 1931 when there was a very marked increase of manufacture of omnibus bodies by the Chiswick factory or by the allied factories. Therefore, in redressing the one grievance you switch over to the other extreme and are unfair to private enterprise by including a year when a great number of motor bodies were manufactured. It was suggested as one solution of the problem that you should take four years which would exclude the year unfavourable to the Combine and also exclude the year unfavourable to the private manufacturers, but as far as I can make out the view of the Government is that everything is for the best in the best of all possible Amendments.
They propose, I understand, to resist my Amendment. Of course, if it is resisted I cannot press it, and the matter is settled; but it does seems to me rather strange that there should be this great enthusiasm for the Amendment which was accepted in a very off-hand way in the other House And to persist in it now when it is pointed out that it would do harm to private enterprise. I should like to know, therefore, the reason for the Government taking this attitude. If they have a good reason I will willingly withdraw the Amendment, but I should like to know why what it was right to have in the Bill in the Second Reading stage and Committee stage was eliminated in the

115
Report stage on the motion of a private member, and not on action by the Government itself. I should like the noble Marquess, if he can do so, to say why he proposes to take an unfair average when he could take one which would do injustice neither to the Combine nor to the private manufacturers.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 39, leave out ("thirty-two") and insert ("thirty-one").—(Lord Mount Temple.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I only rise to ask one question of the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment. What on earth does he mean by "private manufacture"? Is sot the Chiswick factory private manufacture? Was not the Chiswick factory established entirely by private enterprise? What does the noble Lord mean by "private manufacture"?
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: "Private manufacture" means omnibus bodies manufactured by a private company.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: By the Chiswick Company.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Chiswick is taken over by the Combine.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, you will remember that my noble friend Lord Mount Temple introduced this Amendment on the previous stage of this Bill, and withdrew it on the undertaking, which I made on behalf of the Government, that we should consider this matter and that I would give him an answer on the Report stage. The noble Lord has introduced his Amendment again and I have armed myself with the reply which I hope will be satisfactory to him. In the Bill as originally introduced, it was provided that the Board should be empowered to manufacture all rolling stock, vehicles, appliances and apparatus for use in connection with their undertaking. After prolonged argument before the Joint Select Committee, Clause 21 was inserted. This clause, as it left the Joint Committee, provided that the Board should not manufacture rolling stock or vehicles except for purposes of experiment or research, but contained a proviso enabling the Board to manufacture omnibus bodies up to the average annual output of such bodies at the Chiswick works of the London General Omnibus
116
Company during the five years 1926 to 1930. When the Bill came before the Committee of the House of Commons it was pointed out that the restriction imposed by the clause would result, on the one hand, in the Board being unable to use to the best advantage a well-equipped property which it would be obliged to purchase under the Bill and, on the other hand, in hardship to employees at Chiswick works whose labour would become redundant. In this event the Government accepted an Amendment moved by the Member for Chiswick (Mr. H. Mitchell)—
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I must apologise for interrupting the noble Marquess. I think he said this happened on the Committee stage. It did not happen on the Committee stage but on the Report stage. On the Committee stage no Amendment was made. It is not an important point but I think it should be mentioned for the sake of accuracy.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I accept the noble Lord's amendment of what I said. I am not aware whether I said the Committee stage, but if I did so, it was a verbal mistake on my part. I was only intending to say that the Amendment was moved in another place and was accepted there as the noble Lord says on the Report stage. It was moved by the Member for Chiswick, Mr. Mitchell, and the effect of it was to bring the year 1931 into the computation of the average annual output of the Chiswick works in place of the year 1926. This Amendment was accepted by the Government after full deliberation and they see no reason to revise the decision then taken.
What are the facts of the case? To-day, the railway companies and the larger omnibus undertakings, as well as some of the tramway undertakings can manufacture their own requirements of rolling stock or vehicles and in many cases do so either at their own works or at works of their associated companies. When the Board comes into existence it will be forbidden to manufacture, even for its own use, except for purposes of experiment or research and except to the limited extent allowed by the clause, the bodies of its omnibuses. This is in itself an unusual restriction compared with such bodies as the great railway companies or the Port of London Authority. The

117
Board will take over, in addition to the Chiswick works of the London General Omnibus Company, admitted to be one of the best equipped works in the country, the works of other omnibus and tramway concerns, such as Messrs. Tillings and Messrs. Birch Brothers. The capacity of the Chiswick works alone in the output of omnibus bodies is about 1,200 a year and Messrs. Tillings' works have a capacity of about 130 a year. All that the clause will allow the Board is the average of the output at Chiswick alone during the five years 1927 to 1931, or about 527 omnibus bodies a year. Nothing whatever is allowed for the other works which will be taken over.
The effect of the Amendment in the House of Commons was an increase of the permissible output at Chiswick from 422 to 527 as compared with its capacity of 1,200. Surely this is a very moderate allowance in the circumstances. It is indeed obvious that the share which the outside manufacturers will receive of the total market in omnibus bodies must be considerably greater than it would have been had the Bill not been passed and the London General, Tilling and other works been left to compete to the limit of their capacity. It may be said that the output of Chiswick in 1931 was considerably in excess of that of previous years. It is true that the output increased in 1930 and 1931, but against that the output in 1929 was far below the average. When he introduced the matter during the Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Mount Temple said that the clause as it left the Joint Committee was practically an agreed compromise. This is contrary to the facts as I think a perusal of the proceedings of the Joint Committee would clearly show the noble Lord. There was no question of a compromise in the matter. It may also be suggested that the Joint Committee deliberately selected the years 1926 to 1930 as the test period. Of course they took the last five completed years, and sitting as they were in the summer of 1931, no figures of output for 1931 could possibly he available to them. The clause as it stands confers a considerable advantage upon the manufacturers in comparison with their present position in the market and does so at the expense of the Board. On grounds of economy and of justice to the Board and the workpeople whom it will take over from its predecessors, the Govern-
118
ment cannot accept an Amendment designed still further to limit the use of the Chiswick works.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 22 [Restriction on power of Board to establish garages]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I understand that the noble Marquess accepts both the Amendments to this clause which I have put on the Paper. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 37, line 2, leave out ("their") and insert ("its")
Page 37, line 26, leave out ("their") and insert ("its").—(Viscount Bertie of Thu see.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 24 [Supply of electricity by local, authorities]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I understand the noble Marquess will accept the first two amendments which I have put down to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 40, line 31, leave out ("serve") and insert ("serves").
Page 41, line 24, leave out ("their") and insert ("its").—(Viscount Bertie of Thane.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, there are two other Amendments which I understand the noble Marquess will accept, in a slightly different form, and I beg to move them in that form.
Amendments moved—
Page 41, line 26, leave out ("them") and insert ("the authority").
Page 42, line 11, leave out ("them") and insert ("the authority").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 31 [Co-ordination, of services of Board and amalgamated railway companies]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I understand that the first two Amendments to this clause are accepted, beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 46, line 40, leave out ("their") and insert ("its")
Page 46, line 43, leave out ("their") and insert ("its")—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 38 [Power of Board to borrow for capital purposes]:
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, there is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 6, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Accounts and Audit]:
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved to insert at the end of the clause:
"(4) Subject to the provisions of this Act the accounts of the Board shall, as soon as practicable, be made to relate to a calendar year."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I may say at once that I am not in love with this Amendment, and I have tried to see whether I could not get it into better form, but I have not been able to do so. The trouble I have tried to deal with is that the Bill at the present time makes tile financial year of the Board end on June 30 every year. That is a most inconvenient date—you have the holiday time coming on—and it is also quite unusual. The ordinary financial year for such undertakings ends on December 31. As I say, June 30 is a most inconvenient date, but at the present time that date cannot be altered because of an agreement with the Metropolitan Railway assented stockholders. It is quite impracticable, I am told, to go back to the Metropolitan assented stockholders and ask them to alter the agreement. Therefore, it is quite impossible from a practical point of view to alter this date now. Nevertheless, the agreement made with the Metropolitan assented stockholders will come to an end at a certain time. When that time comes—or possibly a little later, when we have got the new organisation—it would be very desirable to alter the date and make December 31 the end of the financial year. For that purpose I have put down this Amendment.
As I say, I am not fond of the words of the Amendment but they are the best I could devise in the circumstances. I propose to insert:
"Subject to the provisions of this Act the accounts of the Board shall, as soon as
120
practicable, be made to relate to a calendar year."
Until the question of the Metropolitan assented stockholders is settled by effluxion of time, it would not be practicable to make the change, and as there must be a certain amount of reorganisation I think the matter must be left to the Board. It would be unfortunate if, when that time came, the Board, in order to get a more practicable and businesslike date, should have to come to both Houses of Parliament to get a Bill passed giving them the power to change a very unusual and very inconvenient date to one which would be more convenient and more in accordance with the ordinary business methods of such undertakings. For these reasons I hope the Government will see its way to agree to the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 27, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the noble Earl has moved an Amendment with the substance of which we all are to a large extent in sympathy. It is provided in Clause 107, subsection (2), of the Bill that the financial year of the Board shall be a year commencing on the 1st July and ending on the 30th June. This is a necessary result of the decision already taken that the date of transfer of the Underground and Metropolitan railway undertakings and of the local authorities' tramways is to be the 1st July next. As from that date the transport stock issued in exchange for the existing stocks will rank for interest and it follows that, at any rate at the outset and until the Board is able to make other arrangements with the concurrence of the other parties concerned, the Board's accounts must be made up for a year beginning on the same date. More particularly is this the case in view of the provisions as to the standard rates of interest on the "C" stock (5 per cent. for the first two years and 5½ per cent. thereafter) and as to the main lines guarantee of a minimum return for a limited period to the holders of Metropolitan ordinary stock.
Admittedly this may involve some inconvenience to the Board. It is also inconvenient from the standpoint of the compilation of the official returns and

121
statistics of railway and tramway operations generally. The Government has therefore every sympathy with the object of the noble Lord's Amendment but it is satisfied that as a change over from a year running from July to June to a calendar year would involve some modification, however slight, of the rights of other parties, the object cannot be achieved at this stage. The noble Lord's Amendment would clearly not he effective so as to empower the Board to make the necessary changes and would therefore hardly be suitable for inclusion in the Bill. While therefore it is certainly desirable that, when practicable, the accounts of the Board shall be put on a calendar year basis, my noble friend will perhaps be satisfied with this expression of the Government's view.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 [Alteration of traffic under 20 & 21. Geo. 5. c. 43]:
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Amendment to this clause in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page (69, line 41, leave out ("commencement of this Part of this Act") and insert ("date on which this section comes into operation").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Transitory provisions as to licences]:
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The two Amendments to this clause are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 72, line 37, leave out from ("the") to ("shall") in line 38 and insert ("date on which Section fifty-one of this Act comes into operation").
Page 73, line 5, leave out from ("the") to ("and") in line 6 and insert ("the date on which the said section comes into operation").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 61:
Provisions as to routes for road services within, special area.
61.—(1) It shall not be lawful for the Board or any other person, not being a person using the vehicle in accordance with a road service licence granted to him under Part IV of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to use a vehicle for the purpose of conveying
122
passengers for hire or reward at separate fares on any road within the special area, except on a route approved by the Traffic Commissioner for the Metropolitan Traffic Area (in this section referred to as the "Traffic Commissioner"), and the Traffic Commissioner in approving any route may define the route by reference to the streets or parts of streets which may be traversed and to the terminal points, if such points are within the special area, and may attach to his approval conditions for securing that—

(a) no vehicles, except vehicles of such class or description, or vehicles used for such purposes, as may he specified in the condition, shall be used on that route;

(b) passengers shall not be taken up or shall not be set down except at or between specified points, or shall not be token up or shall not be set down between specified points; and

(c) vehicles on reaching the end of the approved route shall turn at such places, or by using such streets or parts of streets as may be specified.

(6) If any person uses a vehicle for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of this section on a route not being an approved route, or if any person using any such vehicle on a route approved under this section fails to comply with, or acts in contravention of any condition attaching to the approval, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding in the case of a first offence twenty pounds and in the case of a second or subsequent offence fifty pounds:
Provided that a person shall not be deemed to be acting in contravention of this section—

(i) if he is using the vehicle in accordance with a road service licence granted to him under Part IV of the Road Traffic Act, 1930; or

(ii) by reason only of the fact that on occasions of race meetings, public gatherings and other like special occasions he uses a vehicle which is adapted to carry less than eight passengers for the purpose of conveying passengers at separate fares.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved to add to paragraph (c) in subsection (1):
"and for the purposes of this subsection the Minister after consultation with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis may give directions to the Traffic Commissioner requiring him to attach to his approval of any route specified conditions relating to the construction of vehicles to be used on the route either in the case of all routes or in the case of particular routes any part of which lies within the Metropolitan Police District or the City of London."
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, under the existing law London omni-

123
buses are licensed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who is empowered to require that all omnibuses submitted to him for licence shall conform to certain requirements in respect of length, width, clearance, braking-power, etc. Under the provisions of Clause 51 the licensing of the London omnibuses will pass to the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner and the provisions of Part IV of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, will apply. Section 68 of that Act provides that the Traffic Commissioner shall not grant a licence for a public service vehicle (which expression includes an omnibus) unless a certificate has been issued by a certifying officer that the prescribed conditions as to fitness are fulfilled. These conditions are prescribed by regulations made by the Minister, and are at present applicable to all public service vehicles except the London omnibuses
The conditions of fitness prescribed by the Minister differ in some respects from those applied by the Police Commissioner; for example, the maximum length allowed by the Minister's regulations is twenty-seven feet six inches, as compared with twenty-six feet in the case of the London omnibuses. In connection with the arrangements for the transfer of the licensing of the London omnibuses from the Police Commissioner to the Traffic Commissioner it was agreed that the Police Commissioner should be consulted before any alteration is made with respect to the conditions of fitness to be applied to these vehicles. It is therefore necessary to provide in the Bill that special conditions, differing from those applicable to the rest of the country, may, if thought necessary, apply to stage carriages operating in the Metropolitan Police District or the City of London. This object is secured in the Amendment by empowering the Minister, after consultation with the Police Commissioner, to give directions to the Traffic Commissioner requiring him to attach to his approval of any route, under Clause 61 of the Bill, specified conditions relating to the construction of vehicles to be used on routes any part of which lies within the Metropolitan Police District or the City of London. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 14, after ("specified") insert the said new words.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The next four Amendment in my name on the Paper are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 76, line 23, after ("approval") insert ("(other than a condition attached by him in pursuance of a direction of the Minister given under subsection (1) of this section)")
Page 76, line 25, after ("approval") insert ("(other than as aforesaid)")
Page 77, line 8, after ("approval") insert ("(other than a condition attached by him in pursuance of a direction of the Minister given under subsection (1) of this section)")
Page 77, line 11, after ("approval") insert ("(other than as aforesaid)").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in proviso (ii) in subsection (6), to leave out all words after "by reason only of the fact that on" and insert "such special occasions and under such conditions as the Traffic Commissioner may approve, either in relation to vehicles generally or a particular class of vehicles specified by the Traffic Commissioner in his approval, he is using a vehicle for the purpose of conveying passengers at separate fares to or from a specified destination." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the effect of the paragraph in which this Amendment occurs is to exempt persons using vehicles, adapted to carry less than eight passengers, for the purpose of conveying passengers at separate fares on occasions of race meetings, public gatherings and other like special occasions, from the requirement to obtain the approval of the Traffic Commissioner to the route to be followed. The paragraph is unsatisfactory in two respects—firstly, the difficulty of determining what are the "special occasions" to which it applies; and, secondly, the limitation of the exemption, which it would confer on vehicles adapted to carry less than eight passengers, would mean that it would be necessary to obtain the Traffic Commissioner's approval to all routes along which it might be desired to operate

125
omnibus or motor coach services in connection with such events as the Derby, international football matches or similar events attracting large crowds. This requirement would involve both the operators and the Traffic Commissioner in a considerable amount of unnecessary work. The Amendment will obviate the difficulty and inconvenience likely to arise under the clause as it stands. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 33, leave out from ("on") to end of line 38, and insert the said new words.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 62:
Restriction, on number of passenger vehicles using certain streets.
(4) Any push regulations may provide for imposing fines recoverable summarily in respect of breaches thereof not exceeding in the case of a first offence twenty pounds, or in the case of a second or subsequent offence fifty pounds, together with, in the case of a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding five pounds for each day on which the offence continues.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "each day on which the offence continues" and insert "every day, subsequent to the day on which he is convicted of the offence, during which the offence continues." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to meet a point raised by Lord Bertie during the Committee stage, when the Government promised to look into the matter further. The point made by the noble Viscount has accordingly been reconsidered, and while the Government is advised that the words dealing with the penalty for a continuing offence at present in the Bill, which are taken from the Road Traffic Act, 1930, are correct, the somewhat different form adopted in the Pharmacy and Poisons Bill, to which Lord Bertie called attention, is on the whole to be preferred. The Amendment accordingly gives effect to this preference.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 15, leave out from ("for") to end of subsection (4) and insert ("every day, subsequent to the day on which he is convicted of the offence, during which the offence continues").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Marquess for moving this Amendment to meet the difficulty. He has referred to the Road Traffic Act, and I would suggest to the Minister of Transport that he should amend that Act also, by bringing in a clause of this sort, because if he compares this Bill and the Pharmacy and Poisons Act it may lead to some difficulty if the Road Traffic Act is not amended.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68:
Constitution of Negotiating Committee and Wages Board.
68.—(1) The Negotiating Committee referred to in the last preceding section shall consist of—
(2) The Wages Board referred to in the last preceding section shall consist of—
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection 1, after "shall" ["shall consist of"] to insert "subject Lo the provisions of this section." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Amendment is preliminary to the Amendment to be moved in Clause 68, at line 7 on page 83, to add a new subsection. This and the two subsequent Amendments are designed to meet a criticism made by Lord Jessel during the Committee stage, of the constitution of the conciliation machinery provided in Clause 68 of the Bill, and to carry out the promise made by the Government that an Amendment would be moved on the Report stage to enable the constitution of the negotiating committee or of the wages board to be revised by agreement of the Board and the unions concerned. The noble Lord referred to the unfortunate deadlock reached on the similarly constituted bodies under the Railways Act, 1921. These Amendments, if adopted, will enable the constitution of the negotiating committee and the wages board to be varied, upon twelve months' notice being given either by the Board or by the trade unions, by a committee consisting of six representatives of the Board and two representatives of each of the three railway trade unions concerned. It is considered that the Amendment will afford the necessary elasticity in the constitution of the conciliation machinery, and meets the point of substance raised by my noble friend
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 18, after ("shall") insert ("subject to the provisions of this section").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I thank the Government for having adopted the suggestion which I made. It gives more elasticity to the machinery, which may be very valuable.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 82, line 25, after ("shall") insert ("subject to the provisions of this section").
Page 83, line 7, at end insert:
("(4) The constitution of the negotiating committee or of the wages board may upon twelve months' notice being given either by the board or by the trade unions be varied by a scheme prepared by a committee consisting of six representatives of the board and two representatives of each of the trade unions and upon the scheme becoming operative references in this Part of this Act to the negotiating committee or to the wages board shall be construed as references to the negotiating committee or to the wages board as so varied.")—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 71:
Application of Part VI of Act.
71.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the employees of the Board to whom this Part of this Act applies are such employees, being persons engaged on or in connection with the railways of the Board, or in the performance of clerical, administrative, supervisory or technical duties, and not being—

(a) persons who, in accordance with the classification for the time being in force, are comprised within the special class mentioned in the national agreements referred to in the Seventh Schedule to the Railways Act, 1921, or who, if they had been engaged on or in connection with any railway of the Board to Which any of those agreements applies, would have been so comprised therein; or

(b) persons in receipt of a weekly wage and employed under shop conditions, either on constructional or repair or maintenance work, or in connection with electricity generating stations or substations or high tension cables between any such stations or sub-stations

as the committee in making schemes under the last preceding section may from time to time agree to include in those schemes.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or" at the
128
end of paragraph (a) in order to insert a new paragraph after paragraph (b). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment of some importance. It may be said, and the Government may reply to this, that it is an Amendment which is not necessary, because in the clause as originally drafted all that I desire is already there. I do not think it is. The point is this, that there are certain exceptions of people who do not come within the ambit of the wages board. It was quite agreed who these people should be, and who they should not be. The clause does not make it quite clear. It excepts people who are in receipt of a weekly wage, and so far so good, but there are other people whom it was meant to except, such as the supervisory staffs in the shops, who get wages on a monthly basis. They were never to be included in the ambit of the wages board, and that ought to be specifically stated. Also people who were never intended to come within the ambit of the wages board were the supervisory staffs, such as inspectors and time-keepers, employed on the tramways and omnibuses, and the technical staffs solely engaged on tramways and omnibuses. Those were never meant to come in, and as the Bill was originally drafted there is a question whether they do or do not.
I know it may be said that they already are excepted, but already, before this Bill is passed, this question has come up, and there has been a dispute and a discussion as to whether or not they come in. Therefore, surely it is proper that we should have it put in this Bill, one way or the other, so that he who runs may read and may know whether they do or do not come in. For that reason I have drafted the Amendments which stand in my name. Now I learn, if my information is right, that the Government are not inimical to my Amendments but do not like the particular wording which I have adopted, and it may be that they will be more ready to agree if I alter the wording of the proposed new paragraph, so that it will read "or persons exclusively engaged in the performance of supervisory or technical duties in connection with the tramways or omnibuses of the Board." If the Government are prepared to accept that alteration of the Amendments, I shall be only too glad to accept it too.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 12, delete ("or").—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I want to say a word on this Amendment, to express a hope that the Government will not accept it. I think the Bill as it stands rests, more especially with regard to these clauses, on an agreement come to with the various parties concerned, and it would be a very great mistake at the last moment to amend this in such a way. It is, as the noble Earl who moved the Amendment said, an important Amendment. It is excluding certain persons quite definitely. That, I think, would arouse a good deal, and justifiably arouse a good deal, of opposition from the very parties who were consulted when this clause was originally agreed to. I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, this Amendment is preliminary to an Amendment at page 84, line 18, to provide an additional class of persons to be excepted from the generality of the persons to whom Part VI of the Bill is to apply. The staff which Lord Halsbury's Amendment proposes to exclude are persons exclusively employed in a supervisory or technical capacity in connection with the Board's tramways or omnibuses. It appears to the Government that this Amendment is unnecessary, as the class of employees to which it refers is understood to be regarded by the unions concerned as being outside the scheme of Part VI, and in any ease they can only be brought within it if the Board and the unions agree to that course.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, hope that you will insist upon this Amendment. The Leader of the Opposition hopes that it will not be accepted because it is going to alter what was agreed, while the Government say that as it stands it is quite clear. Here you have two people absolutely at divergence as to whether my Amendment makes any difference to the Bill or not. Surely, that is an argument in favour of having it one way or the other. Let everybody know whether the clause is to be read as the Government tells us that it ought to be read, or as the Leader of the Oppo-
130
sition tells us that it ought to be read. If the Government are right then my Amendment makes it quite clear that they are right in what they are saying, and also that the Leader of the Opposition is wrong. If they are not right, then who is to say what this clause as it stands means?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 74:
Transfer and compensation rights of officers and servants occupied in certain other undertakings.
74. For the purposes of subsections (2) to (8) and (12) of the last preceding section any person who—
(c) was on the date of such transfer to the Board or discontinuance, as the case may be, an officer or servant of that company, and solely or mainly so occupied as aforesaid,
shall be deemed to be an existing officer or servant, and accordingly the provisions of the said subsections shall apply in relation to him as they apply in relation to such a person as is mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, subject, however, to this modification that any reference to the appointed day shall in relation to him be construed as a reference to the date of the transfer of the undertaking, or part of the undertaking, or premises or, as the case may be, of the discontinuance of the service.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the next five Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 89, line 34, leave out ("transferred to") and insert ("taken over by")
Page 89, line 35, leave out ("paragraph (a) of")
Page 89, line 40, leave out ("transferred") and insert ("taken over")
Page 89, line 41, leave out ("transfer") and insert ("taking over").
Page 90, line 4, leave out ("transfer to") and insert ("taking over by").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved to insert after the second paragraph (c):
"and any person who—

(a) was on the said twelfth day of March occupied as an officer or servant, in or in connection with an undertaking or, as the ease may be, a part of an undertaking which has since that date been acquired by, or absorbed in an undertaking which is in whole or in part taken over by the Board under subsection (4) of Section sixteen of this Act, or by

131
or in the undertaking of a company specified in subsection (1) of Section seventeen of this Act; and

(b) as a consequence of such acquisition or absorption became an officer or servant of the person or company owning the undertaking either (i) occupied in or in connection with the undertaking or, as the case may be, the part of the undertaking so taken over by the Board or (ii) occupied in or in connection with any premises transferred from any such company to the Board or the running of any service which any such company is required to discontinue; and

(c) was on the date of the taking over by, or of the transfer to, the Board or of the discontinuance, as the case may be, an officer or servant of that person or that company and solely or mainly so occupied as aforesaid."

The noble Marquess said: My Lords, it will be within the recollection of the House that an Amendment was made in Clause 72 (now Clause 73) to provide that persons who, through no fault or choice of their own, but as a result of amalgamations of the concerns with which they were employed, have changed their employment since the introduction of the Bill and who are at the date of transfer employed in a transferred undertaking, should not be deprived of the benefits of the compensation and other rights conferred by the clause upon officers and servants transferred to the Board. The Amendment now proposed is designed to secure that persons employed in or in connection with undertakings, parts of undertakings, or premises taken over by the Board by virtue of Clauses 16 and 17 of the Bill, whose employment has been changed for the same reasons, shall be placed in the same position as regards compensation and other rights as persons employed in or in connection with the undertakings specified in the Second Schedule to the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 26, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the noble Marquess has gone some way to meet the criticisms made on the Committee stage, but I do suggest to him that he has not quite covered the points to which I drew his attention at that time. I apologise for my Amendment being in manuscript form, but my proposal is that after die word "Act" at the end of the noble Marquess's proposed paragraph (a), there should be in-
132
serted the words "or who since the said date transferred his services from one such undertaking to any other such undertaking for any other reason than misconduct." That is to say, I want to include in this category a man who of his own accord has changed his service from one undertaking to another undertaking and has not been guilty of any misconduct. Such a man is not accounted for in the clause as at present drafted. If the noble Marquess, whom I thank for being so accommodating, could go one step further and accept this, I feel that the clause would then be quite satisfactory. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Paragraph (a), after the second ("Act") insert ("or who since the said date transferred his services from one such undertaking to any other such undertaking for any other reason than misconduct").(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the object of the noble Lord's Amendment to the Government Amendment is to confer upon persons who have changed their services from one transferred undertaking to another since the Bill was introduced the full protection afforded by the clause to persons who were in the service of a transferred undertaking before the Bill was introduced and were still in that service at the date of transfer to the Board. The noble Lord's proposal is an extension of the clause, which is already wide in its terms and in the protection which it affords to transferred staffs, which I am sorry to say the Government feel they cannot accept. I think the noble Lord will realise, and I hope will agree, that persons who voluntarily changed their employment after the Bill was introduced did so at their own risk, and cannot claim to be protected from the consequences.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment negatived.
On Question, original Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 33, after the second ("the") insert ("taking over or the").․(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 79 [Provisions as to standing arbitrator]:
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line after ("paid") insert ("in whole or in part").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I understand that the Government does not accept the Amendment I propose in subsection (12) to substitute "its" for "their" in reference to a local authority, but may I point out the grammar of this sentence, in which the local authority is treated both in the singular and in the plural?
"Where a local authority becomes liable to pay and, pays into a local authority's fund any sums, whether ascertained upon an actuarial valuation or otherwise, being sums which, if their undertaking had not been transferred to the Board, would have been payable by them …"
I do not see how the noble Marquess can justify that grammar for a moment, and I would ask him to accept this Amendment, although it is not one of those which he has agreed to accept; or else let him, on Third Reading, put the subsection into proper shape.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 21, leave out ("their") and insert ("its").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I have undertaken that the clauses shall be made grammatically consistent, and if, on looking at this afterwards, I find that the undertaking which I have given him is not upheld in this case, I shall certainly see to it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to communicate with him also with regard to any other inconsistencies which I may have noticed?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 82:
Maintenance of transferred undertakings until appointed day.
(10) Each of the transferred companies shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (12) of this section, be entitled to retain
134
out of the assets of its undertaking transferred to the Board by this Act a sum sufficient to pay the interest accrued up to the appointed day and unpaid on any debenture stock of the company, and the sum so retained shall be applied by the company in the payment of that interest accordingly.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the next four Amendments standing in my name are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 106, line 6, after ("of") insert ("interest or").
Page 106, line 6, after the second ("the") insert ("stocks or").
Page 106, line 9, after ("such") insert ("interest or")
Page 106, line 18, leave out from ("shall") to ("be") in line 19.—(The Marquess of Londonderry).
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection (10), before the first "interest," to insert "net amount of any." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Amendment is preliminary to a series of Amendments to correct a technical flaw in the Bill with regard to the adjustment of Income Tax liabilities between the Board and the companies whose undertakings are being transferred. As these liabilities, so far as they relate to the period prior to transfer, cannot be transferred from the companies, and as their precise extent may not be ascertainable at the appointed day, it is necessary to provide that the Board shall refund to the companies the sums necessary to enable them to discharge their liabilities for Income Tax for any period prior to the appointed day. On the other hand the Board will, when paying over the undistributed profits of the companies for the final period, as certified by the auditor under subsection (8) of Clause 82, deduct amounts equivalent to the sums which the companies would be entitled to deduct in respect of Income Tax if the undistributed profits were distributed as dividends. The effect of these Amendments, which have been agreed with the companies concerned and the Inland Revenue authorities, will be to preserve, as nearly as may be, the position which would have obtained if the transfer of the undertakings had not taken place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 106, line 22, after the first ("the") insert ("net amount of any").—(The Marquess of Londonderry).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 106, line 2.3, after ("company") insert ("after deduction of Income Tax at the standard rate of tax for the year in which the payment of that interest becomes due").
Page 106, line 27, leave out from ("shall") to ("repay") in line 28.
Page 106, line 32, after ("earnings") insert ("reduced by an amount equivalent to the sum which the company would be entitled to deduct in respect of Income Tax if the whole of the undistributed earnings were forthwith distributed by way of dividend then due for payment amongst the holders of the stocks or shares of the company").
Page 107, line 1, leave out subsection (12) and insert
("(12) The Board shall, if so required by any of the transferred companies, pay to the company from time to time sums sufficient to enable the company to discharge its liabilities in respect of Income Tax for any period before the appointed day and shall, if so required by any of the transferred companies, indemnify the company against any costs or expenses incurred by the company after the appointed day with the approval of the Board in connection with any proceedings in relation to the ascertainment of the liabilities of the company in respect of Income Tax for any period before the appointed day").
Page 107, line 16, after ("hereinafter") insert ("in this section").—(The Marquess of Londonderry).
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 86 [Provisions as to substituted stock]:
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 109, line 24, after ("any") insert ("existing").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule:

THIRD SCHEDULE.

  Part II.
  The transport stock issued to the following Companies shall be distributed amongst the holders of the various classes of stocks and shares of those companies at the rates of substitution specified in the following scales:—
  Original Stock. Substituted Stock.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYhad three Amendments on the Paper to substitute "Existing Stock" for "Original Stock" where those words appear at the head of the first column. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the Amendments in my name are drafting.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 150, line 5, column 1, leave out ("Original") and insert ("Existing").
  Page 151, line 1, column 1, leave out ("Original") and insert ("Existing").
  Page 152, line 1, column 1, leave out ("Original") and insert ("Existing").(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Fourth Schedule:
  Amendment moved—
  Page 155, line 3, column 1, leave out ("Original") and insert ("Existing").(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Tenth Schedule:
  VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I understand the noble Marquess accepts my first, second and fourth Amendments, but not the third. I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 167, line 18, leave out ("they") and insert ("it").
  Page 167, line 43, leave out ("are") and insert ("is").
  Page 168, line 4, leave out ("resolve") and insert ("resolves").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Fourteenth Schedule:

FOURTEENTH SCHEDULE.
Provisions as to Determination of Compensation Payable to Officers and Servants.
7. In the case of an officer or servant, of any other undertaking transferred in whole or in part to the Board by this Act (other than the Metropolitan undertaking), the Board or the arbitrator in computing the length of his service for the purposes of the award of compensation shall take into account all his service after the age of eighteen years, being continuous service whether with the undertaking or part of the undertaking, as the case may be, in whose service he was immediately before the appointed day or with any other passenger transport undertaking which has been acquired by, or absorbed in, that undertaking.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in paragraph 7, after "Metro-

137
politan undertaking," to insert "and in the case of any person who is deemed to be an existing officer or servant by virtue of Section seventy-four of this Act." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, it will be recollected that during the Committee stage Lord Ponsonby moved two Amendments to a Government Amendment to the Schedule which now appears as paragraph 7 of that Schedule. The Amendment now proposed by the Government is designed to give effect to what is understood to be the purpose of the first Amendment moved by Lord Ponsonby during the Committee stage. The effect of the Amendment will be that persons employed by an undertaking or part of an undertaking taken over by the Board under Clauses 16 or 17 will, if they become entitled to claim compensation from the Board under the conditions laid down in Clauses 73 and 79, be able to claim that, in assessing the amount of compensation, continuous service, after the age of 18 years, with the undertaking taken over and with any passenger transport undertaking absorbed in or acquired by it, shall be taken into account. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 174, line 14, after ("undertaking") insert ("and in the case of any person who is deemed to be an existing officer or servant by virtue of Section seventh-four of this Act").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixteenth Schedule:
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, these are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved.—
Page 176, leave out lines 22 to 24.
Page 176, line 26, at end insert:

("23 Geo.5. c. 2.

The Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1932.

In Part I of the Schedule the reference to the London Traffic Act, 1924.")

—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
INDIAN PAY (TEMPORARY ABATEMENTS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (GENERAL EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past six o'clock.