Lords Sitting of 14 June 1934

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ACCRINGTON DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1934.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Motion standing in my name regarding the Accrington District Gas Order be agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GREAT WIGSTON GAS ORDER, 1934.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Motion standing in my name regarding the Great Wigston Gas Order be agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (STOCK) REGULATIONS, 1934.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Regulations as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last with regard to local authorities be approved.
Moved, That the Regulations, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LEEK) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WYCOMBE AND DISTRICT JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WEY VALLEY WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SOUTH MIDDLESEX AND RICHMOND JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (STOKE-ON-TRENT) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

STATUTORY SALARIES (RESTORATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the mean-

1085
ing of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1ª; and to be printed.

DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Dundee Corporation.
Bill presented (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Sections 8 and 9); read 1ª; and to be printed.

RENFREWSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (EASTWOOD AND MEARNS) WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Renfrewshire County Council (Eastwood and Mearns) water.
Bill presented (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Sections 8 and 9); read 1ª; and to be printed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (APPEALS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2. [Appeals from County Courts]:
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) The Master of the Rolls with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor may from time to time give such directions as he shall deem necessary as to the sittings and the membership of Courts for hearing the appeals in subsection (1) mentioned so as to ensure prompt disposal of the same without delay of the general business of the Court of Appeal."
The noble and learned Lord said: As those of your Lordships who are interested in matters of this kind are aware, the proposal embodied in this Bill is a
1086
proposal for limiting costs and saving time in respect of appeals in cases decided in the County Court, by giving a direct appeal to the Court of Appeal instead of the existing appeal to the King's Bench Division, with a subsequent appeal in some cases to the Court of Appeal. The body of litigation which is affected here is not very great. I believe there are something like 100 cases in a year as a rule, and it is an interesting fact with regard to them that in a percentage, well over 90 and much nearer 100, the original judgments ultimately stand.
But the proper administration of justice no doubt requires power of appeal, and due regard to economy and to other public interests require that appeals should be limited by reasonable restrictions. That is the object in view here. The two matters about which I am concerned in considering Clause 2 of this Bill are these. It is common knowledge that at the present time the Court of Appeal has no time to spare. It is not a Court which is found rising, as some Courts elsewhere do, at mid-day, and not having to resume. It is a Court which goes steadily on all through the sittings. Not only so, but it deals with business of the very greatest importance. It has been proposed, and proposed not at all recklessly, that the Court of Appeal should be a final Court of Appeal. That is a matter which has had consideration, and no doubt will have consideration from time to time, but the class of business which is in question here is not the class of business which ordinarily goes to the Court of Appeal. The matters dealt with here are mostly smaller ones—matters arising in business transactions or domestic transactions, and of the class in which an appeal, duly heard, will dispose of the dispute between the parties.
The first essential here, I think, is that care should be taken that the general business of the Court of Appeal is not obstructed and the recognised efficiency of the Court of Appeal, as it functions now, is not put in danger of being impaired by the inter-mixture of these small matters which, I dare say, might occupy the Court of Appeal a fortnight in the course of a year. But they are small matters which can be segregated, and in the past have been segregated and dealt with by the Judges of the King's Bench Division who, from the nature of their

1087
duties, have daily contact with the sort of questions which occur in these small cases. I am very anxious that there shall not be an obstruction of the business of the Court of Appeal. There is another thing about which I am anxious, and that is, that having regard to the volume of the business of the Court of Appeal these cases, which are very often the disputes of poor people, shall be put in a position in which it shall be reasonably certain that they shall be promptly disposed of. One fault of the existing system has been that, with the mass of work of the King's Bench Division, and with the varied duties of the Judges there, on circuit, and in London, these cases had to get a hearing when they could, and there have been long periods of delay—an exceedingly undesirable thing. I desire that some security shall be had now, when a new departure is proposed, for dealing promptly with that class of work.
As to both these matters it no doubt would be said by people who are experienced in these things: "Well, there is power now to constitute a supplemental Court of Appeal." So there is, but it is a supplemental Court of Appeal to deal with its old business. It may be said there is power now to fix sittings. So there is, but the character of the business to be dealt with makes it almost impossible to fix them satisfactorily to deal with these little cases. In the pressure that arises the little case has the lesser chance of being immediately disposed of. What I have suggested in the Amendment I have drafted is that the Master of the Rolls may from time to time take counsel with the Lord Chancellor and give directions as to the sittings and the membership of Courts—that is, the constitution of the new branch of the Court of Appeal for the new business—and that the matter shall be so dealt with as to ensure prompt dealing with these little cases without obstructing the general work of the Court of Appeal.
I cannot doubt for a moment that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who has introduced this Bill desires both those objects. I am quite sure that my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls in the ordinary course of his duties will do what he can to secure those objects. But they are, as the Bill stands, subordinate objects.
1088
What I desire is that by some means, whether by a subsection in this Bill or by some public declaration, it shall be made clear that the Court of Appeal shall be so manned in addition to its present strength when it is necessary, and that business shall be so regulated in the Court of Appeal after its enlarged jurisdiction, that the Court of Appeal shall be ready at the proper time to deal with this class of appeal and that appeals shall come on promptly and punctually for the benefit of the poorer classes of the population. It can well be done. Until a little while ago I was President of a Division to which appeals came from subordinate jurisdictions. At the beginning of the law sittings the cases were listed and dealt with to the satisfaction of everybody concerned. I desire that something of that kind shall be rendered practicable by the form in which this Bill is framed and by the policy which is followed with regard to it. With that object, and not with any ambitious desire to take part in the framing of a new code for the Court of Appeal, I have ventured to put down the Amendment which I now move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Merrivale.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for having put this Amendment upon the Paper, for his action in doing so gives me an opportunity of making clear what is the intention of the clause if it becomes law. My noble and learned friend and I have the same end in view, that is that these appeals should be disposed of promptly and that they should be so disposed of as not to interfere with what is now the normal business of the Court of Appeal. For that purpose I think that it will be found possible to deal with them at the beginning of the sittings, that a separate list will be kept of them, and that where it is necessary a third Court of Appeal shall be constituted for the purpose of hearing them.
I trust that my noble and learned friend will be satisfied with this statement and will not press his Amendment to a Division, for these reasons. I have had the advantage of talking over the matter with my noble

1089
learned friend Lord Hanworth, and too, agrees. We are in complete agreement, but it would be a pity if by the insertion of this Amendment a matter of arrangement should be turned into a matter regulated by the rigid forms of the Statute. I am not sure whether it would be wise to compel the organisation of the Courts to be carried out by the terms of the Statute. As things now stand, there is and I hope there will continue to be complete elasticity so long as the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Cheif Justice and the Master of the Rolls are in agreement. I see no reason to anticipate that they will not be in agreement. With their agreement these objects can be easily obtained without friction. That course is followed because of the statutory duty already placed upon the Lord Chancellor under the Judicature Act and the powers entrusted to him by that Act.
That result would not follow if a new statutory duty were imposed on the Master of the Rolls. He could not fulfil that duty which the Statute might purport to lay upon him except by making an arrangement with the Lord Chancellor, and probably also with the Lord Chief Justice and with the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. It would be far better to leave those dignitaries, who have hitherto succeeded in arranging their business without any trouble, to continue in the future as they have done in the past and not to impose upon the Master of the Rolls any statutory responsibility. In the future as in the past the Master of the Rolls will be primarily responsible for the business of the Court of Appeal, and there is nothing in the Bill now before your Lordships' House to diminish that responsibility. I am sure my noble and learned friend Lord Hanworth, who is present and who now holds that office, and to whose labours the improvement of our judicial system is largely due, holds the same view as I do and indeed the same view as my noble and learned friend Lord Merrivale. I hope that after this explanation my noble and learned friend will rest content with the speech he has made and, most important of all, with the fact that he has drawn the attention of your Lordships to this very important matter, thereby emphasising the line upon which administration in regard to appeals should be carried out
1090
and certainly will be carried out as far as is possible under the present rêgime.
LORD MERRIVALE: The Lord Chancellor has given the House an assurance which I regard as a highly satisfactory assurance. I cannot doubt that that assurance, given as it is with the concurrence of my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls, will take effect, and once a proper practice is established in respect of these matters the anxieties which I have had as to the course which may be taken under the Bill will be to a very great extent removed. In those circumstances I think my proper course is to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HANWORTHmoved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) All appeals which under this section lie to the Court of Appeal instead of to the High Court, may be heard before not more than two Judges sitting as Judges of the Court of Appeal; and proviso (b) to subsection (5) of Section sixty-eight of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925, shall apply to appeals so heard by two Judges as aforesaid."
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move the new clause which stands in my name on the Order Paper. The object of Clause 2 of this Bill is to provide that the appeals which hitherto have gone to what we call a Divisional Court of the High Court of Justice, in which two Judges sit, shall in future be heard by the Court of Appeal direct; that is to say that instead of there being an intermediate Court to which they shall have to go, they shall go from the County Court to the Court of Appeal in the same way as appeals in eases under the Workmen's Compensation Acts now pass from the County Court straight to the Court of Appeal. The object of Clause 2 is really twofold. One purpose is to eliminate one step of appeal. It has been pointed out many times by those who have to deal with possible suitors that they feel the danger of coming to the Courts of Justice when they may have to pass through so many stages of Appeal Courts, and it is to obviate that danger that it was decided to eliminate one stage in the appellate jurisdiction of the Courts. The other purpose of the clause is to release as far as possible some of the personnel of the Courts so that their energies may be devoted to other purposes.
The question of whether that step in the appeals should be withdrawn or not was carefully considered by the Committee over which I had the honour to preside. We considered the question of appeals from County Courts. In cases which are dealt with under the Workmen's Compensation Acts the appeal is taken to three Judges sitting in the Court of Appeal, and it has been said, and wisely said, that if you eliminate the Divisional Court and send these other appeals direct to the Court of Appeal, you ought to send them to an Appeal Court manned in the same way and equipped in the same way as the Courts which hear the other appeals which come from County Courts—namely, by three Lords Justices. That is a very legitimate and fair observation. It has also been said that if you send these appeals direct to the Court of Appeal, you are burdening the Court of Appeal with a number of appeals many of which did not go as far as the Court of Appeal previously, for many suitors were content to leave the decision of the High Court of Justice standing.
I feel that there is criticism which may be made on both sides in reference to the proposal to send all the appeals to the Court of Appeal. The Committee over which, as I have said, I had the honour to preside, considered this matter very carefully, and if I may read quite a short paragraph from the Report of that Committee your Lordships will see why I put down this Amendment. The Report says:
'With regard to the latter appeals"—
that is, appeals from County Courts—
"the St. Aldwyn Commission"—
a Commission which sat in 1913 and was presided over by the late Lord St. Aldwyn—
"recommended that those appeals should be dealt with by a single Judge, inasmuch as the facts have all been decided in the County Court and the question on the appeal is one of law only. We do not go so far as this, but while we think that all final appeals should, if possible, be heard before a Court of three Judges, we think that power should be taken to enable a division of the Court of Appeal to sit with two Judges only if necessary. There is power now, if the parties agree, to constitute the Court with two Judges, and of course this is sometimes useful to the parties."
It is in pursuance of that paragraph that I move the addition of this new subsection, the purpose of which is to take
1092
power to constitute a Court with Judges only.
I do not suggest that as a general practice that should be done. I quite appreciate the importance of having three Judges, and indeed the importance of that is illustrated by the proviso to which the proposed new subsection refers, which provides that if there be a difference of opinion between two Judges sitting as a Court, then there shall be power to re-hear the case before three Judges before the parties shall be compelled to take the expensive course of bringing the case before your Lordships sitting judicially. It is only power that I ask to have; I do not suggest that as a rule, or indeed often, the Court of Appeal hearing these cases should be manned by two Judges only.
The reason I ask for power may be illustrated by an incident which has occurred in the course of the last few days. One of the members of the Court of Appeal is slightly indisposed for a day or two only, but that prevents that Court sitting to hear final appeals. It is impossible at twelve hours notice to disorganise other Courts and to get another Judge to come and sit in the Court of Appeal. We therefore endeavoured to carry out the plan of getting the parties to agree to the hearing of the cases before two Judges only. Counsel in the cases were ready to adopt that course, but inasmuch as a signed agreement has to be placed before the Court, it was not possible in the absence of the parties, who could not be swiftly communicated with, to follow that course and therefore the Court had to fail to sit. If power were taken for a Court to sit with two Judges only, I think a valuable possibility would have been given to the Court. I do not at all press it as a matter of practice I only ask for this power on the lines and for the purposes indicated in the Report, and I do not suggest that that course should be adopted as a general practice. It is on those lines that I ask that this power should be given and it is on those grounds that I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 23, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Hanworth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I propose to make an appeal to the noble and

1093
learned Lord not to press his Amendment, to-day at any rate, for reasons which I am about to give. First of all I Should like to say—and I am glad that I have this opportunity of saying it—under what a great debt the legal system of this country is to the noble and learned Lord. For the last two years he has been presiding over a Committee which has been rendering most useful service, not only by creating greater expedition, but by saving cost in the administration of the law. If he will allow me to say so, I know personally that he gave up the greater part of his last long vacation for the purpose of drawing his Report. Anything that the noble and learned Lord says has extraordinary weight with me, and I should think it almost impossible to oppose it. But at the same time this Amendment—I do not complain at all—was put down but a very short time ago. I have only had an opportunity of seeing the noble Lord for about a quarter of an hour this afternoon, and there has not been time to consider it in all its aspects. What I propose to ask the noble and learned Lord to do is to withdraw it to-day in order that it may be rather more fully considered by the experts, and, should he see fit later on, to bring it forward on the Third Reading of the Bill.
There is one other matter which appeals to me most strongly. It is this: we are getting towards the end of the Session. If this Bill goes through without any amendment we can take the Report stage immediately and have the Third Reading next week; I will give plenty of time for it. On the other hand, if it goes through with an Amendment we cannot take the Report stage until later, and the result may be that the Bill may go down to the House of Commons so late that it will not be possible to get it through before the end of July. In those circumstances, having regard to the fact that one would rather like longer time to consider it and would also like to get the Bill through its present stage without any amendment, I appeal to my noble and learned friend to withdraw his Amendment, for the present at any rate.
LORD HANWORTH: A noble Lord would have to have a much harder heart than I can lay claim to if he could resist the seductive appeal made by the Lord Chancellor, opening with a compliment which I do not feel I deserve and re-
1094
inforced by the words which he has used. After that appeal, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very much obliged to my noble and learned friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported, without amendment.

UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Right to, and duration of benefit.
(5) The Minister may by regulations make provision as to the circumstances in which and the extent to which contributions paid in error and sums paid to a person by way of benefit while he was not entitled thereto are to be taken into account for the purposes of this section.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER)moved, in subsection (5), before the last word "section," to insert "and the next following." The noble Lord said: This Amendment gives power to prescribe by regulations the way in which payments by way of benefit which in fact were not justified are to be treated under Clause 4, which deals with the definition of a claimant's "benefit year." Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say on this first Amendment that I am prepared, and shall be only too glad, to defend all the Amendments in the name of the Government in detail, but I know the pressure upon your Lordships' time and I will therefore move them in the fewest possible words, unless any noble Lord expresses a wish that greater details should be given.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, after ("this") insert. ("and the next, following").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Definition of Benefit Year]:
LORD ROCHESTERmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "an application" and insert "a claim." The noble Lord said: I only want to explain on this Amendment that it is intended to remove confusion in the use of the words "claim for benefit" and "application for benefit," and it is effected by quite a number of other Amendments down on the Paper in my name. As I shall have to refer to them so many times, and it is the same point, perhaps your Lordships may allow me to refer to them later on as "my old friends."
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 19, leave out from the third ("on") to the first ("for") in line 20, and insert ("a claim").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCHESTER:The next two Amendments are purely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 26, leave out ("ten")
Page 5, line 27, after ("him") insert ("for ten weeks").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD ROCHESTER: The next Amendment is consequential upon the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, leave out from ("day") to the end of line 30 and insert ("in that benefit year in respect of which he received benefit").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCHESTER: The next Amendment is our old friend—the same point.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 32, leave out from the third ("on") to the first ("for") in line 33, and insert ("a claim").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Amendment as to anomalies regulations]:
LORD ROCHESTER: If I may I will take the next three Amendments together, because they raise the same point—namely, completing and simplifying the substitution of orders for regulations under the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, 1931.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 15, at end insert ("and any regulations made before the commencement of this Act under the said section shall be deemed to be orders;")
Page 9, line 17, leave out ("subject to") and insert ("under")
Page 9 line 33, leave out ("or of this section").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Determination of claims and questions.
(4) A court of referees shall record their decisions in writing and shall include in the record of every decision—

(a) a statement of their findings on questions of fact material to the decision; and

(b) in a case where the court grants leave to appeal to the umpire from the decision, a statement of the grounds on which leave to appeal is granted.

LORD ROCHESTER: My next two Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 31, leave out ("regulations") and insert ("orders")
Page 10, line 35, leave out ("regulations") and insert ("orders").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD ROCHESTERmoved, in subsection (4), to leave out "and (b) in a case where the court grants leave to appeal to the umpire from the decision," and insert: "(5) Where the chairman of a court of referees grants leave to appeal to the umpire from the decision of the court, the chairman shall record in writing." The noble Lord said: This is a matter of rather more substance. This Amendment is consequential upon changes made in the other House. Originally it was the court of referees which was responsible for granting leave for appeals to the umpire. The duty of granting leave to appeal is now placed, not on the court of referees as a whole, but on the chairman of the court. The reason for this is that hitherto leave has only been given only at the sitting of the court. The clause as amended permits the claimant to make written application for leave to appeal after the sitting. The court will then have dispersed, and when it sits again the members, except the chairman, will all be different, and it is hardly practical, and

1097
in any event is not considered necessary to bring the members of the original court together again in order to consider an application for leave to appeal. This Amendment is therefore necessary to transfer from the court to the chairman of the court the duty of recording in writing a statement of the grounds on which leave to appeal was granted. I may add, perhaps, that the chairman is the only permanent member of the court of referees and is of course an expert in law and practice.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 5, leave out from ("decision") to ("a") in line 7, and insert the said new subsection (5).—(Lord Rechester.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In order to save the Amendment of Lord Bertie of Thame I will put the Amendment down to—
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: It will not be necessary to save my Amendment, because it is covered by the Amendment of the Government.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Duties of Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee as respects regulations and advice]:
LORD ROCHESTER: This Amendment is consequential on what we have just done on Clause 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 40, leave out from ("1931") to the first ("the") in line 41.—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Amendments as to schemes]:
LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved to insert:
"(2) For the purpose of securing in the case of a special scheme that like rates of benefit shall be payable to the persons to whom the scheme applies as are for the time being payable under the enactments relating to unemployment insurance, and that the benefits under the scheme shall otherwise be not less favourable than those for the time being provided by the general provisions of those Acts (but for no other purpose), the Minister may, after consultation with the body charged with the administration of the scheme, notwithstanding anything in Section eighteen of the prin-
1098
cipal Act, by order vary or amend the provisions of the scheme and any such order may provide for consequential amendments as to the rates of contribution and otherwise.
This subsection shall come into operation on the passing of this Act."
The noble Lord said: the purpose of this Amendment is to enable the benefits of the Insurance Industry Special Scheme and of the Banking Industry Special Scheme to be brought up to the standard of the improved benefits under the Bill without delay. As your Lordships are probably aware, powers to make these special schemes were contained in the 1920 Act, but they have lapsed since the 1927 Act came into operation.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 34, at end, insert the said subsection (2).—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Amendment of s. 41 of principal Act, and application of officers of reserve forces]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEmoved, in subsection (1), to substitute "for each week" for "per week." The noble Viscount said: I do not think that "per week" is very pure English.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 44, leave out ("per") and insert ("for each").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD ROCHESTER: I accept my noble friend's Anglo-Saxon.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Extension of principal Act to short service constables of the Metropolitan Police force]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: This is the same point.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 6, leave out ("per") and insert ("for each").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD ROCHESTER: I will accept that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Minor Amendments]:
LORD ROCHESTERmoved to insert:
"(2) For all the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Acts—

(a) the expression 'statutory conditions' means the conditions set out in subsection (1) of Section seven of the principal Act, as amended by any subsequent enactment, and references in the said Acts to the first, second, third, fourth or fifth statutory condition shall be construed accordingly; and

(b) the expression 'application for benefit' means an application for benefit made in the prescribed manner, and the expression 'claim for benefit' includes any such application as aforesaid."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment incorporates in the Bill the definition of terms which are frequently used in the Acts, but have never been precisely defined. The absence of precise definitions has led to difficulties of interpretation. Really they are only definitions, but they could not come within the Definitions Clause because they referred to past Acts, and not to this one.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 21, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31:
Interpretation of Part I and construction of references.
(3)For the purposes of determining whether an insured contributor has exhausted his benefit rights in his last preceding benefit year, if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that he has not made an application or claim for benefit in respect of any days in that year in respect of which he would have been entitled thereto if he had made an application or claim therefor, the insured contributor shall be deemed to have received benefit in respect of those days unless there is no reasonable cause to believe that his omission to make the application or claim was with intent to avoid the necessity of proving the matters set out in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section four of this Act.
LORD ROCHESTERmoved, in subsection (3), to leave out "an application or," and to insert "a." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to prevent confusion in the use of the expressions "application" and "claim." It is really a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 26, leave out from "' made") to ("claim") in line 27 and insert ('a").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCHESTERmoved, in subsection (3), to leave out "an application or claim therefor, the insured contributor shall be deemed to have received benefit in respect of those days unless there is no" and insert "a claim therefor, and that there is." The noble Lord said: This Amendment, together with the next but one, is moved really to correct a point on which the clause is not sufficiently carefully drafted. The two Amendments are to the advantage of the insured contributors.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 29, leave out from ("made") to ("reasonable") in line 31 and insert ("a claim therefor, and that there is").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCHESTER: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 33, leave out ("application or").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 35, at end insert ("the insured contributor shall be deemed to have received benefit in respect of those days unless he proves that the omission was not with the intent aforesaid").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved to add to the clause:
"(6) Any approved course of instruction provided by an education authority in accordance with the provisions of Section fifteen of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930, shall, until the proposals submitted by that authority to the Minister under subsection (1) of Section thirteen of this Act have been approved by him, be deemed to be an authorised course, notwithstanding that it has not been provided under or in pursuance of that subsection."
The noble Lord said: This is a little complicated. It is only a temporary expedient during the transitional stage before action under the Bill is in full operation, and it is designed to ensure that there should be no lapse of power to require attendance at courses of instruction for unemployed boys and girls.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 6, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.
Clause 34:
Commencement, extent and citation of Part I.
34.—(1)Save as therein otherwise expressly provided, this Part of this Act shall come into operation one month after the passing of this Act.
LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "one month" and to insert "on the fifth Thursday." The noble Lord said: This is a point of substance. Under Clause 34, Part I of the Bill comes into operation one month after the passing of the Act, except where otherwise expressly provided. Amongst the provisions for which no special date is specified is the provision in Clause 3 for additional benefit to be paid under the ratio rule. It is of some administrative importance that this provision should come into operation on a Thursday, which is the beginning of a benefit pay week in the majority of cases. If it were to come into operation on any other day than a Thursday it would mean that some of the payments made in that week would consist partly of benefit arid partly of transitional payments, and as there are something like 150,000 people involved, and it would mean picking them out of 850,000, we are anxious to provide that it shall commence on the Thursday. I feared that noble Lords might, seeing "the fifth Thursday," think it was longer than a month, but we propose to work to a time-table and to seek the Royal Assent on Wednesday, the 27th, so that it will come into operation on July 26 and thus ensure its coming into operation on a Thursday.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 38, leave out ("one month") and insert ("on the fifth Thursday").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36:
Application of Part II of Act.
An appeal from a decision of the Minister of Health upon a question referred to him
1102
under this subsection shall lie in the same manner as an appeal under Section eighty-nine of the National Health insurance Act, 1924, and the rules of court for regulating such appeals shall apply accordingly and the Minister of Health shall have the same power to refer a question for decision as he has under that section
LORD ROCHESTER: This Amendment is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 42, leave out from the first ('or") to ("a") in line 43 and insert ("at any place at which he is required to be in accordance with a condition attached to").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved to insert after subsection (2):
"(3) For the purposes of the qualification referred to in subsection (1) of this section, a person shall not be deemed not to be capable of work if he is able to undertake employment or to perform work of a light character, including employment or work in a trade or occupation not ordinarily followed by him."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bayford, in whose name it stands. It is tabled in the interests of public assistance authorities set up under the Local Government Act, 1929, and is submitted on behalf of the County Councils Association. A fear has arisen that persons at present in receipt of poor relief and transitional benefit who are regarded as being "capable of work" for the purpose of these payments will no longer be so regarded by the Unemployment Assistance Board to be established under the new Act. This fear arises partly owing to the fact that, while in the past a generous and liberal interpretation has hitherto been given to the phrase "capable of work", in the future a more strict interpretation may be applied to it, due to certain decisions made by the courts of referees. This belief is fortified by certain estimates recently made by officers concerned in the administration of relief and by statements which appear in the Report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance. In the event, as appears not improbable, of a narrower interpretation of the words "capable of work" being adopted, there is justifiable apprehension that the immediate result will be that a large number of persons now in receipt of transitional payments and chargeable to the State will

1103
fall to be cared for by the public assistance authorities. They will in fact come back on the Poor Law and on the pockets of the ratepayers. If this occurs, one of the principal objectives of this Bill, namely, financial relief to the public assistance committees, will fail to materialise.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 6, at end insert said subsection.—(Lord Eltisley.)
LORD ROCHESTER: I confess I do not share the noble Lord's fears. The same expression is used in connection with unemployment insurance as dealt with in Part I of the Bill. The third statutory condition for the receipt of unemployment insurance benefit requires that a claimant shall be capable of and available for work. This condition has since the passing of the 1920 Unemployment Insurance Act been the subject of numerous decisions by the umpire whose decisions are after all final and conclusive. The meaning attached to "capable of work" under the umpire's decisions is a very wide one and, I submit, meets substantially the point which the noble Lord fins raised. I feel that I cannot possibly accept the Amendment on behalf of the Government. But I do agree that another point arises out of the noble Lord's speech—namely, the apprehension on the part of people concerned, and that being so, perhaps with your Lordships' permission I might make a statement on behalf of the Government in reference to that.
While I submit that there is no substantial ground for the fear that a narrow interpretation will be placed on the expression "capable of work," there is, however, another expression which I understand has given rise to some apprehension on the part of some local authorities. I refer to the condition that, in order to come within Part II of the Bill, a person must have, as a normal occupation, employment in respect of which contributions are payable under the Widows' and Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act. A doubt has been expressed lest this condition should be subject to such a narrow construction as to exclude from Part II persons who according to the intention should be included. I think that on that point I can reassure your Lordships. Local authorities, as your Lordships will
1104
be aware, are required under Clause 45 of the Bill to estimate for the year 1932-33 the expenditure which they would not have incurred had the Bill been then in operation. For the purpose of such an estimate it is of course necessary that they should be able to distinguish between those persons who would and those who would not be dealt with by the Board. A Circular has accordingly been addressed to them by the Minister of Health which is intended to afford guidance to them in the performance of this task. The meaning which, according to the legal advice we have received, should be attached to the expression "normal occupation" is set out at considerable length in such Circular.
I shall not trouble your Lordships with a full statement, but it amounts to this, that a man does not cease to have a normal occupation which is insurable merely by reason of long unemployment or a spell of sickness, but he must have definitely transferred from insurable to non-insurable employment or must have retired from active working life altogether—for example, on pension. Moreover, it is not considered that insurable employment has been abandoned simply because the person concerned has taken up some non-insurable work as a stop-gap to help him tide over the period during which he is trying to get employment at his normal trade. I think that in the light of this statement, and of the Circular which is being issued, the fears of local authorities to which I have referred should be entirely removed.
I would point out to the noble Lord, to revert back to the point of his actual Amendment, that there is another reason which occurs to me that would make it difficult if the Amendment were accepted. I suggest that it would have the effect of going beyond the wide meaning which is at present implied in the expression "capable of work." The Amendment would include within Part II persons who would not otherwise be included and so would increase the charge falling upon the Unemployment Assistance Board and therefore upon the Exchequer, and I suggest to the noble Lord that that would have the effect of raising the question of Privilege in another place. In the circumstances I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD ELTISLEY: I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord for the explanation he has been good enough to give. He has, to some extent, allayed my apprehensions in regard to this possible charge on the ratepayers. With regard to the other point, may I respectfully and warmly thank him for the statement he has been kind enough to make, and which I know will be received with satisfaction? I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved in subsection (3), in the last paragraph beginning with the words "An appeal," after the last "decision," to insert "and the same powers as to revising decisions and the same right of appearing and being heard. The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to confer similar powers on the Minister of Health when a question is referred to him under this clause as he has under the National Health Insurance Acts, so that as regards certain types of question the appeal machinery under this Bill and under the National Health Insurance Acts will be identical throughout.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 2, after ("decision") insert ("and the same powers as to revising decisions and the same right of appearing and being heard.")—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38:
Persons to whom and circumstances in which allowances may be granted.
(3) The need of an applicant shall be determined and his needs assessed in accordance with regulations made under this Part of this Act …
(d) all money and investments treated as capital assets shall—
(ii) in so far as that value exceeds twenty-five pounds but does not exceed three hundred pounds, be treated as equivalent to a weekly income of one shilling for every complete twenty-five pounds:
LORD ROCHESTER: All three Amendments to this clause are drafting Amendments, and I ask leave to move them en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 37, line 29, after ("shillings") insert ("a week").
Page 37, line 31, after ("sixpence") insert ("a week").
Page 37, line 37, after ("pound") insert ("a week").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT LEVERHULMEmoved, in subsection (3) (d) (ii), to leave out "a weekly income of one shilling for every complete twenty-five pounds "and insert" the income which would arise from the investment of such an amount in the Post Office Savings Bank." The noble Viscount said: Clause 38 (3) (d) states in effect that in computing the personal resources of an applicant for unemployment benefit all money and investments treated as capital assets shall be disregarded in so far as they do not; exceed £25, but where the value of such capital assets exceeds £25 but does not exceed £300 it shall be treated as equivalent to a weekly income of one shilling for every complete £25. From this it would appear that a person who had managed to save the sum of £300 would be treated as having an annual income from it of £28 12s.—in other words, an income of almost 10 per cent. on his investments. We know that the working man who by by hard work and thrift has succeeded in making a saving of this kind must, above everything else, consider the security of any investment he makes, and the rate of interest he gets is very much less than 10 per cent. In fact, if he were blessed with the ability of discovering a perfectly safe investment yielding 10 per cent. he would not for long remain within the scope of this Bill.
The Amendment which stands in the names of my noble friends Lord Iliffe and Lord Luke and myself proposes to assess the income derived from capital sums above £25 as being the income which the applicant would have if he deposited the money with the Post Office Savings Bank, which is perhaps the most widely-used depository for working-class savings. On this basis a person who had saved £300 would be regarded—at the rate of interest at present being paid by the Post Office Savings Bank (2½ per cent.)—as having an income of £7 10s. I hope your Lordships will agree that this will be a much fairer way of making the assessment. The view of His Majesty's Government may be that an applicant out of em-

1107
ployment should be expected to some extent to draw on the capital sum he has saved, but it seems to me that we should look on this matter as fairly and as generously as we can and not discourage thrift by forcing a man while out of employment to live on the small amount of capital he may have been able to save up for his old age and thus place him at a disadvantage compared with those who have not made this provision.
In these days when the Exchequer makes such heavy demands on people's pockets by direct and indirect taxation many are tempted to say: "Well, what is the good of saving anyway? Let us spend our money while we have got it to spend, because the Government will take it from us in the end." But I am sure it would not be the wish of His Majesty's Government to encourage this state of mind amongst those whom this Bill, as a whole, is intended to help. I may add that when the provisions of this Bill were first made known, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce appointed a special committee to examine it, and this Amendment was one strongly recommended by this committee. It will therefore be seen that it has behind it a very powerful weight of public opinion. This Amendment, together with others having the same effect, was put down on the Committee stage in another place, but it was never discussed owing to the operation of the guillotine. I trust, therefore, my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill may now be able to accept it. Should my hope prove to be a false one, I am afraid, in view of the very strong opinion behind the Amendment, and my conviction that the arguments in favour of it are fair and reasonable, I must ask your Lordships to divide. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 9, leave out from ("to") in line 9 to end of line 11 and insert ("the income which would arise from the investment of such an amount in the Post Office Savings Bank").—(Viscount Leverhulme.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I rise only to say on behalf of the Opposition that we should like to support the Amendment which has just been moved by the noble Viscount. I need add nothing to the admirably clear statement he has made. I think this is a very good instance in which your Lordships should make a necessary Amendment which has been omitted in another place.
LORD ROCHESTER: While sympathising with the desire of my noble friend Lord Leverhulme, I think that his criticism is based upon a mistaken view of the intention of the provision. This provision is really simply nothing other than a mode of expressing in definitive form that a person with such resources shall utilise the presumed interest from whatsoever source, be it from the Post Office Savings Bank or wherever he may have it invested. In addition, the Government feel it is not unreasonable to ask him to encroach to some slight extent upon his capital. It is not the intention of the clause at all to suppose that a big return can be obtained upon that amount of capital. A shilling a week for £25 represents a percentage which we agree only a rash or very fortunate investor could possibly obtain; but I submit it is only equitable and proper that a person who has a substantial sum put by, presumably against a rainy day, should not be put into the position, at the expense of his next door neighbour or other taxpayers, where he has no need at all to draw upon his capital.
I submit that the extreme view would be that until he has used his own resources he has no legitimate claim at all upon the resources of others. The Government do not take that extreme view, but they do say that it is not unreasonable to ask him to encroach to some slight extent upon his accumulated reserve before he comes upon the resources of others. I am afraid, too, that I should be wanting in my duty to the House if I did not point out to the noble Lord in this connection, as I did to my noble friend behind me, that if this Amendment were accepted by your Lordships it would necessarily have the effect that a greater charge would be thrown upon the Exchequer. I suggest that that would raise in a fairly acute form the question of Privilege in another place, and I hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. The Government must resist it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am rather surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, support this Amendment, because I remember him saying once that he never would oppose or go to a Division on the considered opinion of

1109
another place. Now that is what he proposes to do.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: May I point out to the noble Viscount that the considered opinion of another place has not been given on this point? It was not discussed in another place.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I apologise to the noble Lord. I am wrong on that point. But the noble Lord should know, and no one better than himself, that it does affect Privilege, and I am surprised that he should have taken the line he has.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Privilege can be waived.
LORD STRABOLGI: As my noble friend has just intimated, Privilege can be waived. It frequently is waived in another place. This is a very strong case indeed, especially because, as the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment pointed out, owing to the operation of the time-table the point was not discussed in another place. I would ask your Lordships to consider for a moment the use that could be made of this debate and the result of a Division, if this Amendment is not accepted and a Division is forced and the Amendment is defeated. Everyone knows that 3½ per cent. or 3½ per cent. is the ruling interest for money. The case we are considering is that of a thrifty working-man who has fallen on hard times through no fault of his own, perhaps through the rationalising of the industry in which he is engaged and the closing of a factory in his district. He is an excellent man in every way, and he is reckoned to be charged 10 per cent. on his capital. It is all very well for the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to say: "Well, he must live on his reserve." The trouble is this. After the long period of depression that we are going through the savings and resources of the people are depleted and it is just because of that that so much distress is being suffered. Unemployment did not fall so heavily on people in the time before the severe slump which occurred about 1923 because they had resources and savings to fall back upon. It is because they are drained dry now that in cases where a little money is put by we ought to treat the man having a little stun of money with great generosity. I would appeal to the noble Lord to reconsider this matter.
LORD ROCHESTER: By leave of the Committee I would reply to the noble Lord who has just spoken. I have the greatest sympathy for all those who take the opposite view. The noble Lord talks about their resources having been exhausted. In that case this does not arise at all. Take an illustration to bring it home. Supposing a man's resources are reduced, say, to £70. That, in the Post Office Savings Bank at 2½ per cent. would be 35s. interest. Under the Bill as drawn the first £25 of the £70 are ignored. The second £25 carry ls. a week, which is 52s. in the year, and the balance of £20 is also ignored because it is not a complete £25. I suggest that if a man has £70 of his own it is not unreasonable to ask him to encroach to some slight extent upon such a nest egg before he goes to his neighbours. To continue the illustration. If a man has£ in the Post Office Savings Bank he would get 35s. interest. It would be considered 52s. for the purpose of this clause, the difference being 17s. In other words, therefore, he would only have to encroach on his savings of £70 to the extent of 17s. The Government feel that that is not unreasonable in the circumstances. Sorry as I am, I must resist the Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: We are in Committee and I would like to put forward one sentence in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. This is an insurance scheme, this is not a question of charity and of the so-called "dole." Surely, we want to encourage people to save and to look upon themselves as decent insured people who, when they fall out of work through no fault of their own, are able to draw on the insurance fund like any other person who is insured.
LORD ROCHESTER: Will the noble Lord forgive me? May I point out this is Part II, not the insurance section at all? It is unemployment assistance.
LORD STRABOLGI: But all these people have been originally insured, and it is not their fault that they have fallen under Part II. It is not entirely charity. That is the only point I want to make.
LORD LUKE: My noble friend Viscount Leverhulme has given such a full statement in support of the Amendment that I shall say very little. But I should like to put one question to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. Suppose the £300

1111
which Lord Leverhulme spoke of is invested in property, is in a man's own house, the man would not be able to get at that money without selling his house, probably at a sacrifice. He would be in this position, that he could not get at the funds which he is supposed to get at when you suggest he might realise a portion of his capital.
LORD ROCHESTER: I do not quite follow the noble Lord. If the man is living in the house it is not taken into account, unless some portion is sub-let. Does the noble Lord suggest the man living in the house?
LORD LUKE: Whether he is living in the house or not he would not be able to use the money locked up in that house unless he sold the house, and he would probably have to do that at a sacrifice.
LORD ROCHESTER: If he is living in the house that is not brought into account at all, and if he is not living in the house but has money in it as an investment, surely it is not unreasonable that such a man, with £300 invested, should be asked to draw upon some portion of that accumulated capital as being a fund that he could encroach upon to some slight extent before he appeals to his neighbours. I really feel that with the best will in the world I must resist this Amendment on behalf of the Government.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: May I ask the noble Lords who support this Amendment, whether it is worth while going to a Division simply for a matter of 17s., especially, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has pointed out, the question of Privilege is involved?
VISCOUNT LEVERHULME: I thank the noble Lord for the answer which he has given. I am afraid that nothing said by him about the principle raised by my Amendment would have dissuaded me from asking your Lordships to divide, but the point which he raised about Privilege puts an entirely different complexion on the matter. I feel obliged on that account to beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, but in so doing may I ask the noble Lord most earnestly whether something cannot be done either when this Bill comes up at a later stage in this House or when it goes back to another place to get this matter put right?
LORD ROCHESTER: I am obliged to the noble Lord for withdrawing his Amendment, but I am afraid that. I cannot give any encouragement. that his point will be met, either here or in another place. I am sorry.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 39 to 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Issue of allowances]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I have a drafting Amendment to this clause which I understand the noble Lord accepts.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 7, leave out ("direct") and insert ("directs").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCHESTER: I propose to leave out certain words in subsection (2). The Government feel that they are superfluous and I move the Amendment for the purpose of clarity.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 27, leave out from ("allowances") to the end of line 28.—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 and 44 agreed to.
Clause 45:
Contributions of local authorities to Unemployment Assistance Fund.
45.—(1) There shall be paid to the Unemployment Assistance Board by the council of every county and county borough, an annual contribution towards the expenses of the Board.
(2) The contributions to be paid by any such council as aforesaid in each of the years in the period beginning on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, and ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, shall be three-fifths of the sum of the two following amounts, that is to say—
(a) the estimated expenditure (excluding the cost of administration) incurred by the council in the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, on the provision of relief (not being relief in respect of medical needs) to persons to whom this Part of this Act would have applied if it had then been in operation; and
LORD ROCHESTERmoved, in subsection (2) (a), to leave out "(not being relief in respect of medical needs) to persons to whom this Part of this Act would have applied if it" and insert "which would not have been provided if this Part of this Act." The noble Lord said: This is a little more than a drafting Amendment but not much. It is intended to remove any possibility of ambiguity as regards the basis on which the contributions of local authorities will be assessed.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 2, leave out from the first ("relief") to ("had") in line 4 and insert ("which would not have been provided if this Part of this Act").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 46 to 50 agreed to.
Clause 51:
Superannuation rights of officers of local authorities entering the service of the Unemployment Assistance Board.
(2) Any rules made under this section shall be laid before Parliament.
LORD ROCHESTER: There is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 28, after ("entitled") insert ("or qualified").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEmoved, in subsection (2), to leave out "Parliament" and insert:
"each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if either House, within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such rules are laid before it, resolves that the rules shall be annulled, the rules shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new rules."
The noble Viscount said: These rules, unlike the rules under Clause 52, which are scattered about the Bill and are to be made by the Unemployment Assistance Board are to be made by the Treasury after consultation with the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State and are to be laid before Parliament, without, however, there being power to either House to annul them. I do not think that
1114
is quite in harmony with the Donoughmore Report on the powers of Ministers. I only ask that these rules shall be subject to annulment if either House thinks that the Treasury have gone beyond their powers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 41, leave out ("Parliament") and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD ROCHESTER: As I have explained to my noble friend I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment, but I have tried to meet him in the matter of an Amendment which he has on the Paper later, which raises the same point. I do not want to delay your Lordships, but I must say that I really think these rules are so technical and so involved and in such detail that they are not really rules which lend themselves to Parliamentary debate on the floor of the House. I will ask the noble Viscount to withdraw his Amendment because I am meeting him later on what is largely the same point.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I do not wish to press this Amendment, but I note that the noble Lord said, with what I thought was great gusto, that the rules were too technical and involved to be discussed on the floor of the House. In other words, I suppose nobody understands them but the draftsman.
LORD ROCHESTER: Forgive me. I said they did not "lend themselves."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ROCHESTER: There are two further drafting Amendments to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 51, line 2, after ("to") insert ("or qualified for")
Page 51, line 3, at end insert ("includes all such service, whether or not for a period sufficient to render him so entitled or qualified as aforesaid; and").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52:
Rules and regulations.
52.—(1) The Unemployment Assistance Board may make rules for carrying this Part of this Act into effect and in particular (without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision) with respect to all matters with respect to which rules are specifically required or authorised by this

1115
Act to Be made under this Part of this Act (except rules authorised to be made under the last foregoing section), but no rules made by the Board shall have effect until confirmed by the Minister, and any such rules shall, when confirmed, be laid before Parliament.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), to omit all words after Minister and to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) Any rules made under the imrnediately preceding subsection and confirmed by the Minister shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are confirmed by the Minister, and if either House within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such rules are laid before it, resolves that the rules shall be annulled, the rules shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new rules."
The noble Viscount said: I do not propose to move this Amendment, because as my noble friend has indicated to your Lordships he has put down an Amendment to meet my point. I heartily thank him for having done so.
LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved to add to subsection (1):
"as soon as may be thereafter, and if either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such rule has been laid before it resolves that the rule shall be annulled, the rule shall forthwith be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new rule."
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment because, as I have told my noble friend Viscount Bertie, we are anxious to meet him, and moreover besides meeting him the Amendment really covers what was more or less a promise made by my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General in another place. I am obliged to my noble friend Viscount Bertie for permitting me to put this Amendment in slightly different language from that proposed by him. I am assured it covers the same point and our advisers tell us that the drafting is better.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 16, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 [Modification of enactments and saving]:
LORD ROCHESTER: There is a grammatical error to be corrected in this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 8, at end insert ("to"). —(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 54 to 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Transitory provisions as to benefit]:
LORD ROCHESTER: The three Amendments standing in my name are all drafting Amendments, and I think they might be put together because they are inter-dependent one on another. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 56, line 8, leave out ("ten").
Page 56, line 9, after ("him") insert ("for ten weeks").
Page 56, line 15, leave out ("an application") and insert ("a claim").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE

  PART II.
  Reckoning of Credited Contributions.
  1. For the purposes of determining whether the first statutory condition is fulfilled in the case of any insured contribu-tor—
  (b) if the number of contributions actually paid in respect of him before he ceased to receive whole-time education or before he attained the age of sixteen years, as the ease may be, is in excess of the number with which he is so credited as aforesaid, any contributions so paid in respect of weeks before the beginning of the said period shall be taken into account to the extent of the excess; but except for the purpose of determining whether the number of contributions actually paid in respect of an insured contributor is so in excess as aforesaid no such contributions paid in respect of the said period shall be taken into account.
  VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The Amendment standing in my name is a

  1117
  drafting Amendment which I understand is accepted by the noble Lord. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 61, line 28, leave out ("per") and insert ("for each").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved, at the beginning of sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph I in Part II to insert "no contributions actually paid in respect of him for weeks included in the period aforesaid shall be taken into account, and contributions actually paid in respect of him for weeks before the beginning of that period shall be taken into account only." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the one following are designed to remove complexities in the drafting of paragraph 1 (b) of Part II of the First Schedule and simply make sure that the intention of the paragraph is accurately stated. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 61, line 36, at the beginning insert the said words.—(Lord Rochester.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ROCHESTER: There is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 61, line 40, leave out from ("aforesaid") to the end of the paragraph and insert ("and in that case only to the extent of the excess").—(Lord Rochester.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Second Schedule agreed to.
  Third Schedule:

THIRD SCHEDULE. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE STATUTORY COMMITTEE.

  PART I.
  Constitution and Proceedings of Committee.
  1. The Committee shall consist of a chairman and not less than three nor more than five other members. At least one member of the Committee shall be a woman.

  PART II.
  Provisions of Unemployment Insurance Acts of which amendments may be recommended by Committee.
  LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved, in paragraph 1 of Part I, to leave out "three nor more than five" and insert "four nor more than six." The noble Lord
  1118
  said: This is a matter of rather greater substance. I want to be quite frank with the House. Though your Lordships have not put additional work upon the Statutory Committee, the debates in the other House have indicated possibilities of additional work. It is, therefore, felt that we ought to add at least one to the number of the members of that Committee, and the purpose of this Amendment is to increase the membership by one. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 63, line 6, leave out ("three nor more than five") and insert ("four nor more than six").—(Lord Rochester.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL BUXTON EARL BUXTON moved to insert in Part II of the Schedule:

  "The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1929

  Section one

  Exchequer contribution."

  The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment which my noble friend Lord Rhayader and I have put down at the request of some of our friends in the other House, to meet a point which appears to have been omitted, or at all events not properly considered. The point is this. Under Part I of the Act a Statutory Committee is established, and the object of its establishment has always been taken to be to secure the solvency of the Fund. For that purpose it is to advise on questions as to the amount of benefit and questions as to the amount of contribution, which are to be reconsidered from time to time, and the provisions as to which are, if necessary, to be amended in some respects. The general idea when the Bill was going through the other House was that the Statutory Committee had full power under the Bill and the amendments enacted of previous Acts to deal with this matter as they thought best, that is to say, that they had full power of raising or reducing benefits and of raising or reducing contributions. But it now appears that under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1929, the contribution of the Treasury has to be in the exact proportion stated in that Act as compared with the joint contributions of the employer and the workman, and that Act has not been amended or repealed, unlike the other Acts, so that that matter has not been placed in the discretion of the Statutory Committee for them to deal with as they think best.
  I think that must be an omission from the Bill. If this Amendment is accepted it will enable the Statutory Committee to deal with this matter as they think best, and unless they have this power, their opportunity of dealing with the matter from the point of view of the solvency of the Fund will be very much diminished, especially their power of dealing with reductions in contribution. To my mind it is important from the point of view of diminishing unemployment that the question of the reduction of contributions should take precedence even of an increase in benefit, for the reason that the burden of unemployment insurance bears very heavily on the various industries. The various contributions of an employer on behalf of the men amount to between £4 and £5 per head per annum. It appears to me that the best way of dealing with the problem of unemployment is to relieve industry of this heavy burden of taxation, and it is believed that when the Statutory Committee have got the Fund on to a better and more secure basis, the first thing they will do will be to reduce the contributions in order to relieve the burden of these charges upon industry.
  I would point out, too, that the position is materially worse now than it was before the Bill was introduced, because under Part I not only has the general position been placed on a sound basis so that the benefits and the contributions balance one another, but, as your Lordships know, a very large sum has been put on to the Insurance Fund in order to repay the debt which was incurred during the years when money was being borrowed, and the Fund will have to meet something like £5,000,000 a year. It is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has relieved it to a small extent, by about £500,000, but the burden still remains. Many of us think it is an unjust burden that the whole of that is put on the Fund. The result of it will be that for some years to come there will be no possibility of giving increased benefits or reduced contributions, and that is, I think, a very serious matter. I think this point must have been overlooked when the Bill was passing through the other House, because it was certainly stated by the Government that the main object of the creation of the Statutory Committee was to enable it to deal with benefits and contributions with a per-
  1120
  fectly free hand. I have therefore put down this Amendment to meet the point by including Section 1 of the Act of 1929, in order to give that freedom of action to the Statutory Committee. I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 64, line 31, at end insert

  ("The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1929

  Section one

  Exchequer contribution.")

  —(Earl Buxton.)
  LORD ROCHESTER: If my noble friend Lord Buxton will forgive my saying so, I confess that I am not a little surprised at his speech, because it seems to me to have gone a long way to sustain the Government's position in not including this section of this Act in the Schedule. As I understood him, he said that it was thought in the other House that this discretion was in the Bill. The noble Earl agrees. But I would point out to the noble Earl that it could not he in the Bill unless it were included among those things which are enumerated in the Third Schedule, and it was deliberately excluded because so far as the Exchequer contribution was concerned the Government wanted to keep alive the condition that it should be one half of the aggregate of the other two. So far from endangering the solvency of the Fund, it is a safeguard to have it excluded from the Schedule, because if the Statutory Committee thought fit to recommend a reduction in the contributions of the other two, ipso facto they would be recommending a reduction in the Exchequer contribution as long as it remained one half of the sum of the other two. I hope that that is clear?
  EARL BUXTON: Yes.
  LORD ROCHESTER: For many reasons we could not accept this Amendment. May I point out to the noble Earl, too, that if we accepted it, it might have an effect exactly opposite to that which he wants. If this were included in the Schedule the Committee might make a recommendation to the Government, and the Government—not, I suggest, the present Government, but a Government of some future time—might reduce the contribution of the National Exchequer just as it would have the right to increase it

  1121
  on recommendation. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will appreciate that in any case if we accepted this Amendment we should be running the risk of a further charge coming upon the Exchequer. I suggest to the noble Earl—and nobody is more alive to the position than he is, having held positions of such responsibility in previous Governments—that that would raise the same point to which I referred on two occasions already this afternoon, the question of the Privilege of another place. I therefore hope that the noble Earl will see that in any case we could not possibly accept this Amendment, and I suggest to him that it would have exactly the opposite effect to that which he envisaged when he was speaking.
  LORD RHAYADER: The noble Lord in charge of the Bill has taken refuge in the contention that this is a Privilege Amendment which we are not entitled to make.
  LORD ROCHESTER: Forgive me, I said that apart from that altogether we could not agree to it.
  LORD RHAYADER: Let me deal with the latter point first. I think it is perfectly true that neither your Lordships in this House nor any private Member of the House of Commons could put down this Amendment and carry it if Privilege were pleaded, but the noble Lord has not told us, or at least has not sufficiently told us, I think, why the Government do not propose it. It would not be a breach of Privilege if in the other House the Government added this Amendment to the Bill, and then the Statutory Committee would be free to deal with the contributions to the Fund as they saw fit. I do not think that the objections which the noble Lord has put forward are quite convincing. There is a very general impression that the Government have overloaded the Fund with debt incurred in previous years. I regret very much that they were not able to deal more generously with the Fund than to transfer to the Fund the whole burden, or almost the whole burden, of the debt. It may well be that the Statutory Committee may come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when the contribution from industry should be diminished. As the Bill stands they will not be able
  1122
  to reduce the industrial contribution unless they reduce the Exchequer contribution and the double reduction would have the result of depleting the Fund. The net result is that there must be long delay in any alleviation of the payments by industry. I think the Government should take this point into consideration, and I hope the noble Lord will lay the matter before his colleagues.
  LORD ROCHESTER: I am not going to press the point of Privilege, but apart from that I thought I made it plain that in the Government's view there should be no power other than by legislation to change the existing provisions. If the contribution from the employers and employees be reduced then half the sum of that total will ipso facto be reduced in the Government's contribution. More than that I cannot say.
  EARL BUXTON: It is, I understand, a matter of Privilege, and I do not intend to press the Amendment to a Division. I regret, however, the Government's decision. The object of the Amendment is to give freedom to the Statutory Committee to deal with this matter of the industrial contribution, and unless the Amendment is accepted they cannot deal with a reduction in the contribution of the employers and employed unless at the same time they make a reduction in the Treasury grant.
  LORD ROCHESTER: As long as they keep the ratio intact they can make a reduction.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD ROCHESTER: These next Amendments are all consequential upon changes made in another place.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 64, line 50, leave out ("Amendments as to meaning of unemployment") and insert ("Provisions as to rates of benefit").
  Page 64, line 52, after ("to") insert ("disqualifications for benefit and as to").
  Page 65, line 23, at end insert:
  ("Second Schedule.—Weekly rates of ununemployment benefit").—(Lord Rochester.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Fourth Schedule agreed to.
  Fifth Schedule:

  FIFTH SCHEDULE.
  Minor Amendments.

  Enactments to be amended.

  Amendment

  —

  —

  The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923.
  Section 6.—In subsection (1), after the words "eighteen years" there shall be inserted the words" or in connection with the administration of increase of benefit claimed in respect of persons between the ages of fourteen and sixteen sears who are dependent children within the meaning of the Acts relating to unemployment insurance."
  LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved to insert in the references to the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920:
  Section 35.—In subsection (1), in paragraph (c) thereof, for the word 'claims' where that word first occurs, there shall be substituted the word applications; and after paragraph (g) there shall be inserted the following new paragraph—
  '(h) for enabling any insured contributor in whose case good cause is shown for delay in making a claim to benefit or in proving any matter on such a claim, to be treated for the purposes of such provisions of the Acts relating to unemployment insurance as may be specified in the regulations, as if the claim had been made or the matter proved on such earlier date as may be determined in accordance with the regulations.'"
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment, your Lordships will notice, is in two parts. The first part is our old friend and I will not argue it afresh. The remainder of the Amendment enables regulations to he made for authorising something which has long been the practice—namely, antedating a claim to benefit or ante-dating the proof of any matter on a claim to benefit when good cause is shown for delay in making the claim. To cover that point the Government have put down the second half of this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 68, line 49, at end, insert the said words.—(Lord Rochester.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Amendment is drafting.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 71, line 22, leave out ("certify") and insert ("certifies").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Loan ROCHESTER Loan ROCHESTER moved, in the reference to the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923, after "with," to insert "the attendance at authorised courses of persons under that age or in connection with." The noble Lord said: This is a minor Amendment for the purpose of making it clear that those local education authorities in England and Wales who are responsible for dealing with all questions of juvenile employment and unemployment in their areas shall have the duty of acting on the Minister's behalf in regard to the issue of requirements to attend courses of instruction, arid other cognate matters under Clause 14 of the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 71, line 40, after ("with") insert ("the attendance at authorised courses of persons under that age or in connection with").—(Lord Rochester.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ROCHESTER: This is our old friend again.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 74, line 34, at the beginning of the second column, insert:
  "In paragraph (a) of subsection (1), for the word application 'there shall be substituted the words a claim.'"—(Lord Rochester.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ROCHESTER: This Amendment is consequential upon a change made in another place.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 74, line 39, leave out from ("first") to ("respectively") in line 40 and insert ("statutory condition and to the disqualifications for the receipt of benefit") (Lord Rochester.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ROCHESTER: All three of the following Amendments are our old friends.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 74, line 48, at end insert:
  In subsection (5), for the words 'an application' there shall be substituted the words a 'claim.'"
  Page 75, line 11, at end insert:
  "Section 14.—In subsection (2), for the words 'an application' there shall be substituted the words 'a claim' and for the words 'the application' wherever those words occur, there shall be substituted the words 'the claim.'
  section 16.—In subsection (1), in the definition of 'benefit year' for the words 'an application' there shall he substituted the words a claira.'"
  Page 76, line 22, at end insert:
  "The Unemployment Insurance (National Economy) (No. 2) Order, 1931.
  Article 4.—For the words 'an application for benefit' wherever those words occur, there shall be substituted the words a claim for benefit.'"—(Lord Rochester.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Sixth Schedule [Constitution and Proceedings of Unemployment Assistance Board]:
  VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Amendments to this Schedule are drafting.
  LORD ROCHESTER: Accepted.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 77, line 10, leave out, ("their") and insert ("its").
  Page 77, line 11, leave out ("them") and insert ("it").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Seventh Schedule [Constitution and proceedings of Appeal Tribunals]:
  LORD ROCHESTER: My first Amendment is really drafting. It is simply for the purpose of clarity.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 77, line 30, after ("workpeople") insert ("and shall be appointed by the Board").—(Lord Rochester.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ROCHESTER: The next two are also drafting Amendments.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 77, line 37, leave out ("appointed") and insert ("selected")
  Page 77, line 38, leave out the second ("appointed") and insert ("selected").—(Lord Rochester.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Schedules agreed to.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (COAL MINES) BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments (according to Order).
Clause 3:
Effect of certain contracts of insurance.
(3) No agreement between the parties to a contract of insurance to which this section applies, being an agreement made after the commencement of this Act and after any liability to pay a claim to which this section applies has been incurred by the insurer, shall be effective so as to extinguish or diminish that liability.
LORD ROCKLEY LORD ROCKLEY moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "after the commencement of this Act and." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is purely consequential on Amendments made by your Lordships in the Committee stage on this clause. The words which I now propose to leave out are unnecessary because an insurer's liability to pay "a claim to which this section applies" cannot arise until after the Bill has come into operation in view of the definition of that expression in Clause 3 (1).
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 37, leave out from ("made") to ("after") in line 38.—(Lord Rockley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LICENSING (PERMITTED HOURS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee. read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Permitted hours in the evening (validity of directions and decisions as respects parts of the year).
1.—(1) The power conferred on the licensing justices for any licensing district outside the metropolis by sub-paragraph(i)

1127
of paragraph (b) of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section one of the Licensing Act, 1921 (which relates to permitted hours Oil week-days) to make as respects their district a direction that the said subsection shall have effect as though eight and a half hours were substituted for eight hours, and half-past ten at night were substituted for ten at night, shall include power, where they are satisfied that the special requirements of the district during a part of the year only (being a part consisting of eight consecutive weeks or more) render it desirable, to make such a direction as respects that part of the year only.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to add to subsection (1) "and it shall be the duty of any licensing justices to consider, at any time before the first annual licensing meeting subsequent to the passage of this Act, a request for such a direction." The noble Viscount said: The same Amendment was moved in another place by Mr. Pike, and was discussed there and withdrawn in order to allow the Government to bring up a new clause to cover the point. When the new clause was produced, however, it turned out that it still left a flaw. Your Lordships will realise that certain licensees applied for extensions which, it turned out from the decision in the Steyning case, were illegal. These applicants will have the benefit of the new clause. Some licensees, however, who acted on sound legal advice, abstained from applying for licences, and they will be cut out from the advantages of the provisions of this Bill. Surely it is a travesty of justice to say that those who have made illegal applications should be brought within the benefits of the Bill, whereas those who did not make those illegal applications are to be excluded from enjoying those benefits. I hope that I shall obtain the support of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, because on the Second Reading he said:
"This Bill will remove that anomaly without introducing any fresh anomaly."
I have shown him that a fresh anomaly has been introduced. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, has a similar Amendment on Clause 2, which no doubt he intends to have more or less the same effect, but I submit that his Amendment does not go quite far enough, because it is merely permissive while mine is mandatory.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, at end insert the said words.—(Viscounat Bertie of Thame.)
LORD RHAYADER: I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will not accept this Amendment. The Bill has so far proceeded without opposition from any quarter. It deals with an anomalous situation which has grown up owing to the different interpretations of the law given by the justices, and it was felt that a Bill which dealt, as this one does, with the three cases where the justices had granted applications contrary to the existing law, should be passed. An extension was granted in the Steyning case, and that has turned out to be outside the power of the justices. In a second case the application was granted for the full year, and there was a third case when the application was made and "turned down" by the justices, because they had no power to make the order. I do not think it would be wise now to re-open the whole matter and to call on the justices all over the country to hear fresh applications. After all, the matter is of the very smallest importance, because it only refers to this year. We are already in June, and summer time ends, I think, at the beginning of October. If we send the Bill back to the House of Commons with this Amendment we should re-open the whole matter. If this Amendment is accepted others would be moved, and we really have not time to examine them or consider them fully. I hope the Government will keep the Bill exactly in the form in which it has come to us from another place.
LORD CLWYD: I cannot help feeling, as my noble friend has just said, that this is only a question of time. This Bill will not become law for some time, and the ultimate date when the point is to be considered is no later than the first or second week in February, 1935. I feel that there are serious objections to raising the whole issue within the next few months, and in view of the fact that in another place the Bill was passed in its present form without any opposition I also deprecate any alteration of this kind at this stage.
LORD ELTISLEY: I have an Amendment on the Paper very similar to this, and I am not quite clear what line I ought to take. My Amendment is not mandatory but permissive; otherwise I think the ground is covered by my Amendment. It has been suggested by the noble Lord opposite that the whole

1129
question will be raised by this Amendment. I cannot see why this Amendment should raise the whole general issue, because it is a matter of justice which we have to consider—namely, whether or not these licensees who did not make applications to benches because they knew it would be ultra vires should now be put on the same footing as those who ignored the law and did make these applications. It would be a travesty of justice to suggest that those who disobeyed the law should now be put in a favoured position as compared with those who regarded the law strictly.
There are cases of this kind where the licensees, naturally and properly, consulted their counsel. There were other cases where they approached the clerks of the justices with a view to seeing what kind of decision would have to be given under the law, and in those cases the licensees were properly advised that if they made the application it would be "turned down" as being illegal. Therefore the application was not proceeded with. But in view of the proposal in this Bill to enable cases to be reopened, I think it is only fair and right that those who did not make that application for very good reasons, which I have stated, should now be put in a not less favourable position than those who ignored the law. Therefore I venture to support this Amendment, though personally I should prefer to see it permissive rather than mandatory.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment is in the same terms as an Amendment put down in the Commons and withdrawn in view of the new clause, now Clause 2, moved by the Government. Clause 2 enables the justices to hold a meeting subject to two conditions, first, that a proposal for a direction was considered and negatived at the last brewster sessions; and, secondly, that the majority of the justices make a requisition for a meeting. This Amendment would entirely dispense with these conditions. It would take the initiative entirely out of the hands of the justices, and would compel them to call a special meeting on receipt of any kind of request, however irresponsible or unrepresentative. It would be open to any single licenceholder in any district to force the justices to hold a meeting, even though they had previously refused, not on legal
1130
grounds but on merits, to grant a direction, or even where no proposal for a direction had been made at any time since the section in the Act came into operation. The result would probably be a flood of applications for special meetings in cases where there was no possibility of a direction being issued at all. This would entirely alter the scope of the Bill, and in that case it could no longer be described as a Bill to meet an emergency. I have made inquiries into the matter, and I cannot find any statement showing the point which the noble Viscount raised that applications have not been made because the persons concerned knew they were illegal.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: If the noble Earl will allow me. Of course he would not know; the various people who wish to make applications go to their legal advisers and are not likely to have communicated with the noble Earl's Department.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: That is quite likely, but if there had been any large number of people making representations that probably would have come to the notice of the Home Office before now, and no representations of any sort or kind have been received up to now. The honourable Member who moved this Amendment in another place was quite prepared to withdraw as a result of the new clause which the Home Secretary inserted, and I hope in the circumstances the noble Viscount will accept my advice and withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Noble Lords on the Liberal Benches state that there was no opposition to this Bill, but this very same Amendment was moved in another place, and it was withdrawn to give the Government the opportunity of producing a new clause covering the point. My noble friend below me says they did. I am sorry I must disagree with him. When a new clause is produced it is not very easy at once to see whether the point has been covered or not. Whether the honourable gentleman, Mr. Pike, in another place thought the point was covered and allowed it to go through I do not know, but since then this flaw has been discovered. The noble Lord opposite says it is not fair to give these other people the right to apply who have not applied before. I am surprised. I

1131
thought as a Liberal he was in favour of free and fair trade. What is going to happen? Trade will be lost because, human nature being what it is, people will take their holiday at a seaside resort, and when on the one side of the street they will be able to get a drink after ten o'clock and not on the other, they will say to themselves, "Very well, whenever we want a drink we are going to the place that can supply us after ten o'clock." However, I do not think we should get this evening a very representative decision on the point. Therefore I ask your Lordships to give me leave to withdraw my Amendment now and consider whether I should bring it up again at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Power of licensing justices to make a direction or decision at a meeting held on requisition within two months after passing of Act.
2.—(1) Where at the general annual licensing meeting of any licensing justices last held before the passing of this Act a proposal to make a direction under the said sub-paragraph (i) was considered and negatived, then, on the requisition of a majority of them made within two months after the passing of this Act, the licensing justices shall hold a meeting for the purpose of considering whether such a direction or decision as they are empowered by this Act to make ought to be made, and may at that meeting make such a direction or decision as aforesaid.
(2) in relation to a meeting held under the foregoing subsection, tine provisions of the rules made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) of Section twelve of the Licensing Act, 1921, shall have effect as if for references therein to the general annual licensing meeting there had been substituted references to the said meeting, and the clerk shall send notice of the said meeting to the superintendent of Police of the district and to each of the licensing justices.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "two months" and insert "one month". The noble Lord said: I think that the Amendment on the Paper is more or less self-explanatory. The Amendment proposes that any request made by a majority of the licensing justices to convene a meeting for this purpose shall be made within one month after the passing of this Bill. I would like to point out in support of the Amendment that if the justices do not meet for, say, two months
1132
after the passing of the Bill, which is the period provided for in the Bill as it is now before us, that would lead us into the middle of August or to the end of August, and in fact there would not be eight weeks of summer time left. Therefore, I submit, with great respect, one month is quite long enough to give the licensing justices time to reach a decision in the matter. I know the argument can be used both ways and that the more time they have the better, but it seems to me it would be more in keeping with the general question of urgency and emergency represented by the Bill if one month were substituted for two months.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, leave out ("two months") and insert ("one month").—(Lord Eltisley.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment seeks to reduce the period within which the requisition may be made to one month. The intention is no doubt to prevent any delay on the part of licensing benches in putting the special machinery into operation. There are, however, certain considerations which I would respectfully ask the noble Lord to take into account. Firstly, it is not in fact at all likely that where a majority of the bench are in favour there will be any avoidable delay in holding the special meeting. Secondly, the facilities for part-year extensions afforded by the Bill are not specifically confined to the summer months. It may be that in some district or other there is a case for a period of extension in the later months of the year. If so, it would not be altogether reasonable to force the bench to consider the matter before the middle of July. I would impress again on your Lordships that it is important that this Bill should become law at the earliest possible date. As it stands now it is an agreed measure, and it is most desirable not to risk disturbing the balance at all. In view of these considerations, perhaps the noble Lord will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD ELTISLEY: In view of the explanation made I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEMPLEMOREmoved in subsection (2), after "foregoing subsection" to insert "in England or Wales." The

1133
noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, I beg to move the Amendments standing in his name. They are moved in order that this Bill may be applied to Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, after ("subsection") insert ("in England or Wales").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) In relation to a meeting held under subsection (1) of this section in Scotland, the Licensing (Scotland) Rules, 1921, shall have effect as if for references therein to the half-yearly meeting in April there had been substituted references to the said meeting, and the clerk shall send notice of the said meeting to the chief constable and to each member of the licensing court."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 43, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, probably it may be convenient, although I see no one on the Opposition Front Bench to ask me the usual question, if I stated shortly what will be the business for next week. On Tuesday next there will be the Committee stage of the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Bill, the Third Reading of the Betting and Lotteries Bill, the Second Reading of the Statutory Salaries (Restoration) Bill, the Bill restoring the "cuts"; and the Report stage of the Unemployment
1134
Bill and the Licensing (Permitted Hours) Bill, which we have been dealing with this evening.
For Wednesday there are Motions on the Paper in the names of my noble friend Lord Kilmaine and of Lord Arnold. In addition to that, there will be the Third Reading of Bills which have passed their Report stage, I hope, on the day before, and of the Statutory Salaries (Restoration) Bill, which is a certified Bill and probably, therefore, will not have to have a Committee stage. I would ask your Lordships to try and get the Third Reading of these Bills not later than Wednesday next because they are Bills which have to receive the Royal Assent and be brought into operation next week if possible. There will also be the Second Reading of the Trustee Savings Banks (Special Investments) Bill and the Committee stage of the Protection of Animals (Cruelty to Dogs) (Scotland) Bill, which was read a second time yesterday.
On Thursday there will be the Committee stage of the Road Traffic (Compensation for Accidents) Bill, which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Danesfort, the Second Reading of the Palestine Loans Bill, and the Whaling Industry (Regulations) Bill, which received a First Reading yesterday, the Committee stage of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Bill, and the Report stage of the Administration of Justice (Appeals) Bill. Then, although I cannot state it definitely, we are trying to arrange that there will be a pro forma sitting on Friday in order to have a Royal Commission to give the Royal Assent to two or three urgent Bills which we hope by that time will have gone down to another place and received approval of Amendments winch have been inserted here.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past six o'clock.