Lords Sitting of 19 June 1934

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
DARLINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SHERIFFDOM OF PERTH AND ANGUS ORDER, 1934.
Considered on Report from the Special Orders Committee.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order be referred to a Select Committee.
Moved, That the Special Order be referred to a Select Committee.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRACTION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
ST. HELEN'S CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PRO- VISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to he printed, and referred to the Examiners.
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PRO- VISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (COAL MINES) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
SOUTH WESTERN SUBURBAN WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA- TION (LEEK) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA- TION (WYCOMBE AND DISTRICT JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA- TION (WEYMOUTH AND PORT- LAND JOINT HOSPITAL DIS- TRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA- TION (STOKE-ON-TRENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA- TION (WEY VALLEY WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA- TION (SOUTH MIDDLESEX AND RICHMOND JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

CLERICAL DISABILITIES ACT, 1870 (AMENDMENT) MEASURE, 1934.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP or CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP or CANTERBURY moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House
4
do direct that the Clerical Disabilities Act, 1870 (Amendment) Measure, 1934, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The most reverend Primate said: My Lords, let me say at once that the desirability of this Measure has been fully affirmed by the Bishops and clergy in both Houses of the two Convocations. There was indeed some difference of opinion in the Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury, but when the Measure itself was presented after careful consideration by a Committee to the Church Assembly it passed the stages both of general approval and of final approval without a division. The Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament has recommended that it should proceed and I understand that it has been approved in another place. I think therefore it may be regarded as uncontentious. That fact does not absolve me from the duty of giving a full explanation of its objects and provisions, but I hope its uncontentious character may render it unnecessary for me to make that explanation either long or tedious.
Your Lordships are aware that, I think quite rightly, persons in holy orders in the Church of England are subject to certain civil disabilities. They cannot become Members of Parliament, they cannot follow any other profession—the bar, the law, or medicine. They cannot engage in any other business except teaching, or farming a limited number of acres (that is intended to enable them, if they are rash enough, to farm. their own glebes). Otherwise they are subject to these disabilities. It came to be recognised that certain circumstances might arise in which a man might reasonably claim that relief from those disabilities should be given. Accordingly, from 1864 onwards there were prolonged discussions on the matter in Convocation. Three principles seemed to have been recognised: first, that there should be no question as to what is called the indelibility of holy orders, or the possibility of these orders themselves being relinquished; secondly, that it should be possible by some approved procedure to enable a man to relinquish the exercise of those orders; and thirdly—a point which I would ask your Lordships to note—that some provision should be made by which, with due safeguards and for good reasons, a man who had relinquished the exercise of his orders might be permitted to resume it.
Accordingly an Act, the Clerical Disabilities Act, 1870, was passed. It made provision, under due procedure, by which a man in holy orders could execute and have enrolled a deed of relinquishment of the exercise of those orders, but the Bill originally contained a clause, Clause 7, to which I invite your Lordships' attention. That Clause 7 provided that any person who had executed a deed of relinquishment and desired that it should not be made final could petition the Archbishop, and the Archbishop if he thought fit could cause a. deed of revocation to be similarly recorded, after which the person would become to all intents in law as if he had not executed the deed of relinquishment under the Act. When the Bill came before your Lordships' House in 1870, on the motion of the then Bishop of London that clause was struck out, doubtless because the Bishop persuaded your Lordships to feel that there was a danger lest, if that clause were passed, the clergy should feel at liberty to give up and resume as they pleased the exercise of their orders. The Amendment was agreed to with great reluctance by the House of Commons, and the Bill was passed without the clause.
The situation then was that it was clear that no question of the relinquishment of holy orders arose, only the relinquishment of the exercise; yet the law made no provision whatsoever by which a person who had executed a deed of relinquishment could resume the exercise of his orders. There was no prohibition in the Act, and that is important, but inasmuch as the law made no provision for a man resuming the exercise of his orders, it was regarded as presumed that the law intended the relinquishment to be permanent. The result is that cases from time to time occur which I think your Lordships will agree involve a real hardship.
Let me give only two of which I have personal knowledge. The first is the case of a singularly high-minded man, well known to me, who in the most conscientious and right-spirited manner, entertaining grave doubts about the faith which he was supposed to represent, felt that he could no longer continue his ministry. He had a wife and family to maintain. He had no wish to be idle. He therefore executed a deed of relinquishment. In the course of time his faith was restored to him, deepened
6
and strengthened, and he at once desired, most naturally, that he might resume the exercise of the ministry to which but for that difficulty he was devoted. Or I may give another case of a clergyman who for conscientious reasons felt bound to join the Roman Catholic Church. Being married he had to live as a layman, but he had to maintain himself and his family. Afterwards for equally conscientious reasons he desired to return to the Church of England, but as the law stood it seemed impossible for him to resume the exercise of his ministry.
Now, my Lords, what is to be done in cases of that kind? The principles of the Church of England forbid such a man to be re-ordained, and the provisions of the law seem to contemplate that he may not resume the exercise of his ministry. Consequently, hitherto, when eases like this have arisen, the only thing that such a man could possibly be told is: "You have involved yourself in a situation from which there is no escape; you must abide by the consequences of your act." I think that that is a most unsatisfactory position, and it is the more unsatisfactory because if a man has been convicted by due process of moral offences, even he, by the provisions of the Clergy Discipline Act, 1892, may be restored to preferment if the Archbishop and the Bishop of the diocese allow him to be restored. Can it be just that restoration is permitted to a man who has once been proved guilty of moral offence and deprived, and denied to a man who with the most conscientious motives has voluntarily relinquished the exercise of his orders and desires to resume?
I think your Lordships will feel that that is a most unsatisfactory position. This Measure seeks to put it right. Of course there must be the strongest safeguards against abuse. No one would wish that the profession of a clergyman in holy orders should be regarded as an experiment, a matter which a man can give up or resume as he pleases; but I think your Lordships may be satisfied that the provisions of this Measure, which only reproduce the original Clause 7 of the Bill of 1870 and make it stronger, furnish adequate safeguards. In the first place, a man who desires to revoke a deed of relinquishment must petition the Archbishop. The Archbishop is empowered and enjoined

7
to make the most careful inquiry into all the motives and circumstances, and only after being satisfied by such inquiry is he entitled to allow the man to execute an order vacating his original deed of relinquishment. In the second place, even after that has been done it is provided that he is incapable of holding any preferment, even a licensed curacy, for a period of two years, and after the probationary period of two years he is not permitted to hold any preferment except with the consent of the Bishop of the diocese.
When it is considered that a man who wishes to resume the exercise of the office must satisfy the Archbishop as to his motives and as to all the circumstances and must go through a period of two years probation, and that even then any preferment must be subject to the full consent of the Bishop, your Lordships will realise, I think, that the safeguards are sufficient. No doubt this is a Measure which will only apply to comparatively few cases, but where hardship exists or injustice is done to individuals we must give heed, and moreover, certain principles must be observed. Although it is a Measure modest in character I trust that your Lordships will be pleased to direct that it be submitted for His Majesty's Assent.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Clerical Disabilities Act, 1870 (Amendment) Measure, 1934, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COTTON MANUFACTURING IN- DUSTRY (TEMPORARY PRO- VISIONS) 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.]
Clause 1:
Applications for Orders and proceedings thereon.
1.—(1) If an organisation of employers in the cotton manufacturing industry
8
(hereinafter referred to as "the industry") and an organisation of persons employed in the industry make to the Minister of Labour (hereinafter referred to as "the Minister") in the prescribed manner a joint application for the making of an Order with respect to any agreement made between the organisations as to the rates of wages to be paid to any persons employed in the industry, the Minister shall, unless he is satisfied that the organisations do not respectively represent the employers controlling the majority of the looms in the industry and the majority of the persons employed in the industry of the class or classes which will, if such an Order is made, be affected by the rates of wages provided for by the agreement, appoint a board to consider the application and report to him thereon.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER)THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER) moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "any persons employed in the industry" and insert "persons employed in the industry of any class or description specified in the agreement." The noble Lord said: The object of this, together with other Amendments, is to make it clear that rates of wages can be fixed, if desired, for sections of the industry, provided that the organisation of workers who make the agreement with the organisation of employers is representative, not merely of the section for whom the rates are fixed, but of the whole grade of workers right through the industry.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out from the third ("to") to the second ("the") in line 14 and insert ("persons employed in the industry of any class or description specified in the agreement").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "class or classes" and insert "grade or grades." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next are moved to safeguard the position raised by Lord Askwith on the Second Reading. I then undertook on behalf of the Government to substitute "grade" for "class" in Clause 7 and in anticipation of your Lordships agreeing to that alteration I am moving these two Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("class" or "classes") and insert ("grade or grades").—(Lord Rochester.)
LORD ASKWITH: I am obliged to the noble Lord. The Amendment makes it

9
much more clear and much less likely that there will be dispute, or the possibility of dispute, as to what grade a man belongs to. "Grade," is narrower than "class."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCHESTER: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("class or classes") and insert ("grade or grades")—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE had given Notice of an Amendment to insert at the end of the clause:
"The board in enquiring whether it is expedient that an Order be made under this Act shall have regard to the differentials in wages and piece prices made under any practice, agreement or award in operation in any outlying place or places within the areas specified in the Schedule to this Act."
The noble Lord said: Since I put this Amendment on the Paper I have heard that local negotiations are on foot with regard to coming to a decision on the subject covered by my Amendment and various other matters. If agreement is reached it will be unnecessary to include my Amendment in the Bill. I have no wish to disturb local negotiations and in those circumstances I do not propose to move my Amendment.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Making of Orders.
2.—(1) If the report of the board appointed to consider any application made under the last foregoing section with respect to any agreement contains a unanimous recommendation that an Order he made bringing into force the provisions of the agreement relating to the rates of wages to be paid to persons who will be affected by those rates, the Minister may make such an Order.
2 An Order made under this section shall set out the rates of wages thereby brought into force, and any provisions of the agreement as to the conditions for earning or the method of calculating such wages, and the Order may contain such further provisions, if any, as the Minister considers necessary for making plain who are the employers and the employed persons affected by the rates of wages brought into force by the Order, but no such Order shall modify the terms of the agreement.
LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the provisions of the agreement relating to the rate of
10
wages to be paid to persons who will be affected by those rates" and insert "as respects all persons employed in the industry of the class or description to which the agreement relates, the rates of wages provided for by the agreement." The noble Lord said: This Amendment makes it clear that the rates to which legal effect is given by an Order apply not only to members of the organisations but also to workers of the same description who are outside those organisations.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, leave out from ("force") to ("the") in line 36 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved, in subsection (2), before "no such order," to insert "save as aforesaid." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to ensure that while the Minister of Labour is not empowered to modify the terms of the agreement, he may insert provisions in the Order to make clear who are the employers and the employed persons affected by the rates of wages.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 2, after ("but") insert ("save as aforesaid").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Effect of Orders]:
LORD ROCHESTER: The next three Amendments together raise the same point and are designed to bring out more clearly the intentions mentioned in a preceding Amendment—namely, that when the Order is made the rates of wages affect not only those members of the organisations who were parties to the agreement, but also persons outside those organisations.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 7, leave out from ("industry") to ("and") in line 9, and insert ("as respects whom a rate of wages is provided for by the Order")
Page 3, line 14, leave out ("who is affected by the agreement") and insert ("as respects whom a rate of wages is provided for by the Order")
Page 3, line 21, leave out from ("industry") to ("provided") in line 22 and insert ("as respects whom rates of wages are").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Loan ROCHESTER: The next two Amendments state in rather shorter form what is the obligation upon the employer

11
concerned—namely, to keep conspicuously exhibited in his premises a copy of the Order. The Order, of course, will contain a list of the rates of wages payable.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 23, after ("keep") insert ("a copy of the Order conspicuously")
Page 3, line 24, leave out from ("employed") to ("and") in line 27.—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Revocation of Orders]:
LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
" Provided that if before the expiration of that period the request is, by notice in writing addressed to the Minister, withdrawn by the organisation by which it was made, the Minister shall not make such an Order as aforesaid but shall forthwith cause to be published in the London, Gazette notice of the withdrawal of the request and of the fact that no further proceedings will be taken thereon."
The noble Lord said: Subsection (1) of Clause 4 enables either of the organisations who made the original application for the making of an Order to request the Minister of Labour to revoke that Order either wholly or in part. When that request has been made the Minister has no option but to revoke the Order at the expiry of three months from the date of such request. This Amendment is to give the organisation making the request an opportunity of altering its mind and withdrawing its request for the revocation. Second thoughts are sometimes best and this will give an opportunity for the two organisations to come together again and see whether the Order that is in operation cannot be allowed to remain in operation. The Amendment is obviously a reasonable one.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 6, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Interpretation.
(2) For the purposes of this Act all weavers employed in the industry shall be deemed to form a single class, and other classes shall be determined in like manner by reference to the several occupations of the persons employed.
LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved to leave out subsection (2) and insert:
"(2) In determining for the purposes of this Act whether an organisation was at any date representative of the employers controlling the majority of the looms in the industry, no account shall be taken of the looms in any factory in which during the period of twelve months immediately preceding that date no looms had been used;"
The noble Lord said: I ask your Lordships to consider the next Amendment, as it appears on the Order Paper, in two sections, because I want to safeguard a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, on the Second Reading. By Clause 1 (1) the employers' organisation for the purpose of making an agreement must, represent employers controlling the majority of the looms in the industry, and the first part of this Amendment is designed to make it clear that for the purpose of calculating the majority of employers of that organisation, only active factories are to be taken into account. This method of calculation is almost the only one that can be applied with certainty. An alternative suggestion has been to calculate this majority by reference to looms being used, but this is almost impossible to do; for it is almost impossible to check in a factory that is, for instance, working short time how many looms were idle and how many looms were used, whereas it is a matter that can be reduced to a certainty whether the whole factory has been idle or working.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said words.—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LOUD ROCHESTER LOUD ROCHESTER moved, after the words last inserted, to insert:
"and in determining for the said purposes whether an organisation was at any date representative of the majority of the persons employed in the industry of any grade or grades, all weavers employed in the industry shall be deemed to form a single grade, and other grades shall be determined in like manner by reference to the several occupations of the persons employed."
The noble Lord said: This, the second part of the Amendment, together with the Amendment to Clause 1, page 1, line 13, is intended to make it clear that rates of wages can be fixed for sections of the industry, but that the applicant organisation on the workers' side must represent

13
the majority of the persons employed in the industry of the grade affected by the rates of wages provided for by the agreement. For example, where an agreement provides rates of wages for some weavers, the application must, nevertheless, be made by an organisation representing a majority of all weavers. The object is to prevent the Bill from being used to give legal effect to a local agreement without the assent of the central organisations concerned. This is necessary to ensure orderly and effective negotiation, since the rates in any one group or district may have repercussions on other groups or districts. It is the point raised by Lord Askwith on the Second Reading, when I undertook on behalf of the Government to substitute the word "grade" for "class"; but after looking into it further, as I promised to do, I saw that it did not quite meet the whole of his purpose. If the people making application to the board have not been specifically informed, then the board must make it abundantly clear to whom the award will apply. I think that this second part of the Amendment does cover that point, and I hope that it will meet my noble friend.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, after the words last inserted, insert the said words.—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule [Areas in which cotton manufacturing industry in carried on]:
LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved to leave out the first three lines of the Schedule and insert:

"The Administrative County of Lancaster.

The County Borough of Barrow-in-Furness.

The County Borough of Blackburn.

The County Borough of Blackpool.

The County Borough of Bolton.

The County Borough of Bootle.

The County Borough of Burnley.

The County Borough of Bury.

The County Borough of Liverpool.

The County Borough of Manchester.

The County Borough of Oldham.

The County Borough of Preston.

The County Borough of Rochdale.

The County Borough of St. Helen's.

The County Borough of Salford.

The County Borough of Southport.

The County Borough of Stockport.

The County Borough of Warrington.

The County Borough of Wigan.

In the West Biding of the County of York—"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment and those which follow are purely drafting. So far as Lancashire is concerned, the Bill is to apply throughout the County, including in that expression the county boroughs; accordingly, the County is described as the "Administrative County of Lancaster" and then all the county boroughs are set out by name. This follows the description of the localities in the Local Government Act of last year.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, leave out lines 4, 5 and 6 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 11, leave out ("Luddenenfoot") and insert ("Luddendenfoot")
Page 7, line 20, leave out ("Derbyshire") and insert ("Derby")
Page 7, line 25, leave out ("Cheshire") and insert ("Chester").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

BETTING AND LOTTERIES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOB AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I wish to explain to your Lordships that there are one or two points raised by noble Lords on the Report stage, which I promised to consider further on behalf of the Government, and which are still outstanding. I may perhaps refer, in particular, to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, in connection with the position of standing joint committees to which county councils may desire to delegate their licensing functions, and that raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, regarding bonds redeemable by annual drawings. All these matters are receiving our careful attention, and, on behalf of my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, I can assure my noble friends that, while consideration of these points has not yet been completed, the Government will introduce Amendments to the Bill in another place, where this course is found necessary. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I was not able to be present at the important stage, the Committee stage, of this Bill, owing to public duties, but I have some knowledge of part of the matters contained in the Bill, notably greyhound racing, which I should like to give to your Lordships. As I listened to various speeches on the opening day, in particular a speech from the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London, I rubbed my eyes and wondered whether we were talking about the same thing. Throughout many speeches, especially his, there ran the phrase "social mischief" as applied to greyhound racing. Even my noble friend who is in charge of this Bill, to whose courtesy and patience in this matter I should like to pay tribute, spoke of the social mischief and shook his head.
Now where does the social mischief lie? It is a Very good question to ask to-day. Is it in the amount of betting which takes place? Well, I do not think that can be so. I have been at pains to get what figures are available, and I think there is no doubt whatever—and I challenge contradiction—that there is at least eight times more betting on horse races than there is on greyhound races. But is it not a little amusing to have all this shaking of heads about the social mischief of betting when your Lordships' House is depleted to-day because, as we all very well know, most members of the House are at Ascot viewing the horse races, as I am sure I wish I could be myself? But I have a quotation here which I think is applicable and which I found by hazard, and it seems to me the only proper thing to say about all this wagging of heads over social mischief, when eight times as much betting goes on in connection with horse racing, which I personally love.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: May I ask the noble Lord whether he has studied the Report of the Royal Commission?
LORD MOTTISTONE: I have indeed; I have read every word of it, and if my noble friend will forgive me I hope to make good my case whatever the Royal Commission said. Is it the amount of betting that goes on? That cannot be
16
justified when there is eight times as much betting on horses as there is on greyhounds. I quote Lord Maeaulay's words in his essay on Moore's Life of Byron:
"We know no spectacle so ridiculous as the British Public in one of its periodical fits of morality."
Take out "British public" and substitute some of the speakers on this matter and I think that is a true remark. If it is not the volume of betting, as I think I have proved, then is it the method—is it the presence of bookmakers? They are the same in both cases, but if that be so we ought to give every opportunity for betting with the totalisator, which avoids that evil.
I am at a loss to understand what the meaning of all this talk about social mischief can be. Of course people will bet. It is admitted that they bet far more on horse racing, but if you are going to enquire into the real social mischief of betting, let us look at the loss of money and waste of time involved in playing cards. It does not seem to occur to the Bishop of London, whose friendship I am proud to enjoy, that if he looks round his flock he will see that the real mischief is to be found at card tables and not at horse racing or greyhound racing. That is where the social mischief lies most deeply. It is very difficult to form an exact estimate, but there can be no comparison between the waste of time involved in greyhound racing and in card playing. I know of a case of two people who profess to cut the cards at breakfast time and play right on till two o'clock next morning. We all know of numbers of people who spend nearly all their time, in all classes of society, playing bridge or some other card game infinitely more demoralising than these open-air sports of horse racing and greyhound racing.
I hope that what I have said will do something to prevent people going on with this talk about moral mischief; that it is something you cannot stop, that it is wicked and evil. It is neither one nor the other. I know something about it, because I am Chairman of the Empire Stadium at Wembley. As the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, knows and as the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, pointed out, Wembley is concerned with other things in even greater degree than with greyhound racing—football matches,

17
Empire games, and the rest—but it does not alter the fact that I have to go to Wembley from time to time to see greyhound racing. I have been there very often. Not long ago I took my noble friend Lord Gainford, one of the most right-thinking men I have ever known. What happened? The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, has announced he has never made a bet on a totalisator; I have never made a bet on a greyhound in my life; but Lord Gainford in his kindness of heart made several bets on greyhounds for the benefit of my children. When it was all over I said to him: "Well, what do you think of it all?" His comment was illuminating "Well, it is not so exciting as horse racing, but it is a very pleasant way to spend an evening." "Do you see anything wrong with it?", I asked. "No, good gracious, why should I?" he replied. There is the point of view of a man whom all your Lordships respect, and who has permitted me to quote him. If you go to a well-conducted track you will find people there behaving themselves extraordinarily well. The Police make no complaints. The whole thing when well-conducted is in my considered judgment a good thing for the people.
The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, struck the right note when he said that what was wrong about this new sport was that in many cases there were these hole-and-corner affairs where bookmakers own the dogs. What you want is control. It so happened that I took the chair at a meeting when we planned a greyhound racing track divorced from all the interests connected with the actual racing. I repeat that it is a good and well-conducted sport, and all the Police reports testify to that, but these hole-and-corner race meetings ought to be stepped, and if I may say so, Sunday racing ought to be stopped. That is a bad thing. I hope that when this Bill goes to another place, or even when it returns here, the noble Marquess will use all his efforts to see that these hole-and-corner meetings are stopped and that Sunday racing is absolutely prohibited.
Finally, I wrote to the managing director of Wembley Stadium, who naturally must be more concerned with these great football matches, Empire games, and bicycle racing than he is with greyhound racing. I asked him whether
18
he would tell me candidly what he thought was the social effect after all the years he had been watching greyhound racing. This is what he says:
"My personal opinion on the social effects of greyhound racing after years of first-hand experience is that it is in more ways than one a very definite social asset. The provision of a well-conducted sport, where those who would gamble in any case, can have small bets in the open air—
instead of at the card table—
"under the best possible circumstances, to my mind acts as a tremendous antidote to social unrest of all kinds."
That is a very strong opinion. I would defend greyhound racing from the point of view of the working classes of this country who attend in such large numbers. Are they all guilty of social evils? If you go to see, these things in a well-conducted place you will find the working classes represented there, men and women, orderly and enjoying themselves in the open air without any thought of contributing to social evil.
I have heard it said in the course of these debates that if we had no betting on greyhound racing there would be no greyhound racing. The same thing might be said of horse racing. But if the idea is that the working classes only go to these open air spectacles because of the betting—although I fully admit if you deprive them of the opportunity they will bitterly resent it, whether horses or greyhounds are concerned—I would point out you have a practical answer in the fact that in the case of the sport imported from Australia, speedway racing at this very place, Wembley, where this sport is conducted and where there is and can be no betting, partly because it happens so rapidly but partly because there is no chance, far more people attend bicycle racing than attend anything else there except the great football matches. On behalf of the working classes, if I may venture to speak for them. I would resent the suggestion that in attending this harmless outdoor sport they are contributing in any way to a social evil. I trust that this Bill will pass with Amendments which will stamp out all the bad parts of it and especially Sunday racing, and I shall be prepared to support the Bill.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, we have heard a new aspect of the case from the noble Lord who has just spoken and

19
who was not here during the Committee debates. I was here during the whole proceedings on the Bill and there are one or two remarks I should like to make. I confess that, with all due respect, I have never felt more dissatisfaction with any measure promoted by a Government which I was trying to support. First of all, the Bill is divided into two Parts, neither of which has anything to do with the other, and in neither Part does there appear to be either principle or logic. Members of your Lordships' House who are interested in one Part of the Bill have been obliged to sit through discussions on the other. Part II—I mean the Part relating to lotteries—coming at the end of a very long and contentious Part like that relating to greyhound racing, has really not had a dog's chance of being considered on its merits.
Very few members of your Lordships' House are really interested in dog racing, but many of you have felt it a duty to examine the Bill closely, and if it had been left to a free vote I believe that the measure would have been altered considerably for the better. Personally I think it is a pity that the Government should have troubled to go so closely into the domestic details of dog racing. I think it would have been far better to have made a ring fence round the business and to have told those connected with it that the Government would not interfere so long as they behaved themselves and obeyed certain general regulations. It would have been sufficient, I think, if the Government had dealt with the question of the totalisator and interfered with very little else. I have been unable to understand the attitude of the Government and some of their supporters in the House whom we know to be opposed to dog racing. They have definitely recognised dog racing as a matter concerned with social welfare as it is described in one part and done nothing to stop it, but, on the other hand, they have opposed any measure whereby dog racing could be properly controlled and run as cleanly as it is possible to run it in the interest of all concerned. That the Government have resolutely opposed.
There was a great opportunity to insist on an approved dog racing control board of disinterested persons being set up independently by the organisations themselves, under a single set of rules,
20
which would have seen that betting was properly conducted and that there was no swindling with regard to the dogs themselves. While I had not expected much support for anything that I have to say on the Bill from the right reverend prelate the Bishop of London, at least I had expected that he would have supported me on that particular point instead of giving it his definite opposition Frankly, too, when the noble Marquess who is in charge of this Bill told us that morals did not enter into the question, I found it very difficult to reconcile the fact that it may be moral to bet on Monday and not moral to bet on Tuesday.
Regarding the second Part of the Bill, in which I personally am more interested, I feel that if it had been left to the unfettered vote of your Lordships' House a very different Bill would have emanated. The majority of your Lordships' House support the Government and are not anxious to vote against it. There are very few members of this House, I believe, who do not look upon lotteries, properly conducted, as a somewhat harmless form, perhaps, of sin, and a very large number of them, I should think, are absolute sinners in this respect. To have attended the discussions of the Lotteries Part of the Bill they would have had to sit for many weary hours listening to the debate on the Greyhounds Part and would even then, probably, have abstained from voting, for reasons which I have already given. It also got about, I think with some possible substratum of truth, that the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill had instructions from the Home Office to give way on no single point and, therefore, it was not worth the trouble of attending for a foregone conclusion. One has to remember in this respect that members of your Lordships' House do not all like being thought to be mere sub-labels of the National Government.
We have to remember that there is no organisation behind those who wish to see lotteries run on reasonable terms in this country, whereas their opponents are not only vociferous but thoroughly organised, and with paid secretaries, while the Home Office has been literally honeycombed with anti-lottery ideas for the last three generations. For these reasons the majority of your Lordships' House and the public have only looked

21
upon the recent debates as a means of bringing to the surface the ideas of the Government in order to assist members of another place to be forewarned so that they may have concerted action now that the views of the Government are known. As a test of opinion the public absolutely discount the opposition to lotteries in this House because the extent of that opposition is already known, and is deemed incapable of taking—I was going to say any wider view, but I do not wish to be offensive: at any rate I think their minds are made up on that point.
The sum total of the Bill, so far as I can see, after all the time that has been spent on the Bill, is that small lotteries, like those at church bazaars, are re-introduced and safeguarded for the future with the approval not only of anti-gamblers but also of members of the Church in this House and under enough regulations to rule a continent. Again, innocent domestic lotteries like club lotteries and so forth, which were doing no harm at all, are curtailed, made more difficult and often impossible for the purpose for which they were intended, such as helping charities, golf clubs and so forth. The only redeeming part of the Bill, which would have been sufficient in itself, is that which is designed to stop outside lotteries which are not only not under the control which is wished but which have also robbed the British taxpayer of many millions of pounds. The Government, in my opinion, make a real mistake in not accepting in some form or another the running of a large sweepstake under known and controlled management in this country, for, as I have said already, if they did so they would have the majority of the people on their side and every citizen of good standing would help them in their effort to stop undesirable outside lotteries. In addition, they would have helped to put out of business a large number of undesirable people who at present are making a thriving profit.
So far as I cam see the chief people who have benefited are those who run football coupon competitions. These people are to be firmly entrenched so that they can continue the beneficent work which they now carry on amongst the young. Nothing is done to deal with the question of ready-money betting, which is a difficult one I admit but not incapable of solution. But one thing is
22
assured and that is that in no possible circumstances can the sick and suffering of this country be helped by any species of lottery. That is absolutely cut out, and yet the only way that I can see of helping hospitals and medicine generally is by a lottery of some sort. But an innocent lottery, carried on by that particular body for its own benefit, is now absolutely forbidden. Last but not least I would deprecate a statement made more than once during the debates on this Bill from the Government side of the House and reiterated just now by the noble Marquess himself, that we have got to do these things because the Royal Commission on betting said so. There is nothing sacrosanct about the findings of any Royal Commission, but there is something valuable in the free and unfettered opinion of Parliament in a matter of this sort. In my opinion it would still be wise if the Government were to invite the members of another place, who are more in touch with the people of this country than we are, to give their own views uncontrolled by Party ties on a question which is a matter of concern to all parties.
THE LORD AECHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the last thing I expected when I came here this afternoon was that we should have a resumption of a Second Reading discussion o£ this whole Bill. I am very loth to take up any of the time of your Lordships, but I can scarcely let the speech just made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone pass without a certain good-natured retort. I am not going to follow him into a disquisition upon the rival effects upon public morals of horse racing, bridge-playing and greyhound racing. Nor am I going to consider for a moment what I regard as the irrelevant question of the amount that happens to be spent upon these various forms of social indulgence. The point about greyhound racing is not the amount of betting which goes on but the extent of it. What matters is the extension of betting in this very easy way over an immense multitude of our people. It is mainly in very small bets that betting on greyhound racing takes place, but it is not in the least degree less harmful because the amount of the bets is small. The point is whether or not it increases the habit of betting and gambling among the community.

23
With regard to that, from such experience as I have had I should say that beyond all question the extension of that habit is bad for the industries of this country. It produces a certain recklessness and an impatience of mind in regard to earning wages by honest work which is very serious. More than that, we all know that the time is coming when much will depend upon the use of leisure, and meanwhile anything that tends to extend the habit of gambling tends to poison the way in which that leisure is to be used. As to what the noble Lord called—he almost derided the term—a "social mischief," I agree with the noble Marquess. The evidence taken with immense care, and so far as I know with impartiality, by the Royal Commission established two things—the social evil of the extension of the habit of betting and gambling and the contribution to that habit made by greyhound racing. I know I have not the experience of proprietorship of a greyhound track which the noble Lord possesses, and that may be a disqualification to my expert knowledge but not, perhaps, to my impartiality. I venture to think, having regard to the careful conclusions reached by the Royal Commission, that your Lordships' House would not be justified, even after his admirable and good-natured observations, in supporting the noble Lord.
LORD SANDERSON: My Lords, when I spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill I said that I thought the Bill contained some good points which I should like to see carried, but I also said I thought it was not a good Bill. In the course of its passage through the House the Bill, in my opinion, has not been very much amended in the direction of improvement. There were, of course, two Amendments which I moved with regard to betting with young persons on the course and the employment of young persons on the course which the noble Marquess was good enough to accept. Those Amendments I regard, perhaps naturally, as improvements. There were some improvements made, I think, with regard to the arrangements in connection with the licensing of tracks, but apart from those I think the main Amendments have been disastrous to the Bill.
I begin with the new Clause 3. The Government in that clause went back on their original intention of making football pool betting and other forms of pool
24
betting off the course—except pool betting off the course through the totalisator on; the course—illegal. The noble Marquess himself said that pool betting was a form of betting which was particularly open to fraud of a kind difficult to detect. Pool betting was strongly condemned by the Royal Commission and also by the Football Associations of England, Scotland and Wales in the evidence they gave before the Royal Commission. It is a form of betting which is increasing considerably. It is very popular with young people and I believe it is quite unnecessary to allow it, because if people want to bet on football there are plenty of opportunities for betting where fixed odds are given, opportunities of betting much less open to fraud. This clause opens the door for pool betting or pari mutuel betting on all kinds of sport. I understand it is already creeping into cricket, which I think is to be deplored. Notwithstanding all this the Government have not made illegal this form of betting, which is a very bad form of betting, in a Bill which sets out to be a measure of social reform. They have left this form of betting, which is an extremely deleterious form and likely to increase in the harm it does.
The other main Amendment which I think has been disastrous to the Bill is the Amendment increasing the percentages and the change in regard to breakages in the operation of the totalisator on greyhound courses. With regard to this Amendment I should like to say a few words as to the procedure which was adopted on the Report stage. An Amendment moved in the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, was put down again and appeared on the Marshalled List of Amendments on the morning of the day of the Report stage. That Amendment had been rejected by the Government a week earlier on the Committee stage, and rather firmly rejected, I may say. I naturally thought, certainly my noble friends behind me thought, and a great many other noble Lords probably thought, that the Government would not be likely to give way on that Amendment. Then at the last moment on the Report stage, in a rapidly thinning House, three manuscript Amendments were brought in, and we were told that they had been practically agreed outside the House. I am not saying that

25
there was anything technically wrong in that procedure of your Lordships' House. I know that the procedure of the House is very informal, and rightly so, but I think that the very fact of its informality ought to be sufficient to protect your Lordships from that kind of procedure. I am not in the least saying that it was unfair; I will not use the word "unfair"; but I do consider that it was very unfortunate procedure. I do not think it is an exaggeration when I use the word "unfortunate." It was an important Amendment. We needed time for consideration, and more time should have been given for a fuller discussion of such an important matter. I think, if I may say so, that the noble Marquess was perhaps a little too good-natured in giving way to the pressure which I have no doubt was put upon him for those Amendments to be brought forward in that way and dealt with in that way.
I myself think that those Amendments are disastrous Amendments. I made my protest at the time and I am not going to repeat it now, bat I want to add just one point with regard to that question of the percentages and the question of making greyhound tracks pay their way. I had a paper sent me the other day called, the Greyhound Express. I have it here. Probably many of your Lordships had it sent to you. That, I understand, is a paper entirely devoted to greyhound racing, and it represents the views of most of the people who are supporting greyhound races. In this paper there is an open letter on the Betting Bill from the editor. I do not know what his name is. In the course of that letter he says that there are a large number of existing greyhound racecourses which have no justification at all and that there are many which are dishonestly conducted. In another place he argues strongly for a control hoard on the lines of the Betting Control Board. He lays down certain conditions which that control board should adopt with regard to the licensing of these courses; and he says that at least three-quarters of the greyhound tracks would not qualify for licences under the conditions which he himself lays down. I ask why the Government should go out of their way to raise the percentages and the breakages in order to make these greyhound courses pay their way—greyhound courses many of which are dishonestly conducted and
26
three-quarters of which would not pass a reasonable qualification for a licence.
So much for the Amendments. Passing to what I regard as the bad points in the Bill, most of them unfortunately still remain. The totalisator has been legalised on greyhound tracks with certain safeguards. On the Committee stage the noble Marquess kindly referred me, on the question of safeguards, to the First Schedule. Of course I had read that Schedule before; I always make a point of reading Bills—or having them read to me—before I speak upon them. As I say, I had read it before, but I read the Schedule again, and I still remain unconvinced that those safeguards really are a protection against betting. I still believe that although they may make the totalisator less open to fraud, they will in so far as they succeed in doing that make it a better gambling instrument, and will have the effect of increasing betting on these courses.
With regard to the second Part of the Bill, the Bill certainly makes big sweepstakes not merely illegal but more difficult to carry out, and so far it is good. That is one of the strong points in the Bill, I think; but with regard to newspaper and other competitions, I think the Bill might have gone much farther. The clause which forbids competitions except those in which a substantial degree of skill can be shown is not worth very much, and leaves the matter pretty much where it is. I have been rather surprised that we have not had the pleasure of hearing some of the distinguished legal authorities who are members of your Lordships' House on this very curious and vague phrase—so it is to me—"a substantial degree of skill." I am not a lawyer, but it does sound to me somewhat vague and not worth very much. I should have liked to hear the views of some of the noble and learned members of this House upon it.
I think the noble Marquess has had a very hard task in piloting this Bill through the House. The Bill was necessarily a compromise, and compromises are never wholly satisfactory to anybody. He has had to steer a course between more liberty on the one hand, and more social order, for which I and my noble friends behind me stand, on the other hand. Now of course increased

27
liberty means in this case not merely more liberty to people who want to bet but more liberty to people who want to make profits and exploit the people who want to bet, the gamblers. The Government, I am sure, have had to resist a good deal of pressure on the side of those who are financially interested in betting. There has been a great deal of pressure applied both outside the House and inside the House by people who are determined to make greyhound racing a paying business, and their determination has often been very thinly disguised under a rather flimsy pretext of an interest in the amusements of the working people.
The noble Marquess has gone some way in the direction of opposing that pressure, and I think the reduction in the number of days racing is one of the strongest things in the Bill. Personally I should have liked to have seen the number of days reduced still further, and I hope very much that the Government will not go back on that question, and will not increase the number of days for racing on greyhound tracks when the Bill gets to another place. On the whole, however, the pressure of those financially interested in racing, and dog racing especially, and football people, seems to have been too strong for the Government, and I think it is most unfortunate that it has been impossible for the noble Marquess to oppose some of the Amendments which have been accepted. Looking at the Bill as a whole the Government, after all, have only touched the fringe of the matter, and they have only really tinkered with the fringe in a somewhat half-hearted manner, whereas the Bill might have been a great measure of social reform, dealing in a comprehensive and thorough way with the whole subject of gambling and betting.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has proceeded at considerable length. I am not going to follow him, or any of the other speakers who have made Second Reading speeches, but the noble Lord has thought fit to attack me, firstly by saying that I was unfair, and then withdrawing it and saying that it was an unfortunate proceedure which was adopted on the Report stage of the Bill. The noble Lord is still more unfortunate in his procedure in making such a speech as he has on the Third Reading of the Bill, in a depleted
28
House, when no one could possibly expect it. The reason why a change was made on the Report stage of the Bill was that originally an Amendment to substitute 7½ per cent. was down in the name of the Duke of Sutherland, who had to go away on other duties, and my name was added to it. Certain remarks were made by the noble Marquess during the Committee stage. I think his words were, that he was going to give very careful attention to the question of the "tote," but he said that he could not accept 7½ per cent.
I will read what he said:
"I have a suggestion to make after the noble Duke has finished his remarks, which I have no doubt your Lordships would like to hear. It may guide his remarks if I tell him that there is certainly no desire on the part of the Government to be unreasonable in this matter. We are quite unable to accept the proposal that the deduction should be increased to 7½ per cent., but I can assure your Lordships that if a case is made out for a slight increase in the pools, the Government will certainly consider the matter further at a later stage."
Part of the difficulty of putting down Amendments on Report, after Committee stage, is that there is no Order Paper in this House from Friday morning until Tuesday morning, and therefore if shortly after the Committee stage the Report stage is put down for the following Tuesday morning, unless Amendments are put down almost immediately they cannot be in the Amendment Paper until Tuesday morning. I heard that the noble Marquess was not going himself to propose an Amendment of the 7½ per cent, which was ready to be put down for the purpose of raising discussion and explanation, but that he would prefer that the proposal should be made by myself on behalf of the noble Duke.
Accordingly I handed to him the proposal to be made, and I emphasised it with argument and appeal to the figures which the noble Duke had used after the concession had been made on the Committee stage, and the noble Marquess was able to accept a proposal which was certainly in three Amendments, though practically all one, for a slight amelioration of the amount allowed in percentages and breakages. I am not going into the question whether the concessions given to this industry were sufficient to enable it to be run at a profit, but I merely wish to explain how it was that the manuscript

29
Amendments were handed in on the Tuesday afternoon when the Report stage of the Bill was taken in this House.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Amendments (Privilege) made.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

STATUTORY SALARIES (RESTORA- TION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Stanhope, who usually conducts the business of the Treasury in your Lordships' House, it falls to me to move the Second Heading of this Bill. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech on April 17 last, informed the House of Commons that it was the intention of the Government to restore, as from July 1 next, half the cuts in the salaries defrayed from public funds which were imposed by the second Finance Act of 1931. This Bill, your Lordships may be aware, deals only with salaries which are actually laid down by Statute. In all other cases these half cuts can be restored by administrative action. I think there is only one Ministerial salary among all the Ministers of the Crown which is affected by this Bill, and that is the salary of the Minister of Agriculture, actually fixed at £2,000 a year. In addition there are the salaries of the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and the Governor of Northern Ireland. The cost of restoring the cuts on fixed salaries for the present financial year will amount to £21,000, or £28,000 in a full year. It will be observed that in subsection (1) of Clause 1 the Government have taken power to remove the cuts altogether, thus avoiding the need for further legislation should they, as they hope to do later on, see fit to restore the other half of the cuts. This Bill is a certified Bill under the Parliament Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, as the noble Lord has pointed out, this is a Money Bill, and therefore outside our competence. These occasions are,
30
however, very often used by your Lordships to express criticisms of official policy, and it is in the name of my colleagues who sit on these Benches that I venture to add a few words to the criticisms which the Government will receive during the course of the debate. We cannot congratulate His Majesty's Government, on the generosity which they claim for restoring half the amount of the cuts in the salaries of public servants from the month of July. We maintain that the whole amount of the reduction in the salaries of these public servants should have been restored, and not merely from a future date, but immediately. We agree entirely with the contention of the Government that, owing to the returning tide of economic prosperity, and owing to the fact that the country has proved its national solvency, the moment has come when those who were called upon to make sacrifices during the national emergency in 1931 should have their reward. We agree entirely with the Government on that point, but we maintain that they have not behaved in a generous fashion in giving public servants only half of what they lost owing to the financial crisis, and we urge that, as the Income Taxpayer has received the complete restoration of every farthing of sacrifice that he was called upon to make, the same treatment should have been accorded to those in the public service.
It appears to us, to speak quite frankly, that the satisfactory surplus which the Chancellor showed in his Budget speech has been used to benefit the more well-to-do section of the community, rather than the poorer section. The sum employed in order to restore half the amount of reduction in the payment of Government servants represents a part of the £30,000,000 surplus and a part of the approximate sum of £10,000,000 of that surplus which it is fair to say goes either to the lower middle class, or to the artisan class, or to the labouring class, or even to the unemployed. But we cannot agree that that distribution is in any sense fair—that one-third only of the total surplus of £30,000,000 should have been used to improve the position of the poorest members of the community and that the remaining two-thirds, approximately £20,000,000, should have gone into the pockets of the Income Taxpayer, and, mind you, of the comparatively well-to-

31
do Income Taxpayer as against the man whose income ranges from £300 to £600 or £700 a year. The argument that this is the greatest possible stimulus to industry is not one that we share, because exactly the same benefit would accrue to industry if the distribution of the budgetary surplus had been made in a different fashion and if the middle and lower classes had received a fair share of the national profits. That is our view, and it is a view that we would urge your Lordships seriously to consider.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 21:
Amendments as to arrangements with associations of employed persons.
(2) Any quest ion arising under this section shall be referred to and determined by an insurance officer, court of referees, or the umpire as if it were a question arising under Section seventeen of the principal Act and the said Section seventeen shall have effect accordingly.
LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "to and determined by an insurance officer, court of referees, or the umpire," and to insert "and determined." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the clause as it stands is inconsistent in that it requires questions to be referred to the insurance officer, court of referees, and umpire "as if they were questions arising under Section 7 of the principal Act." But the principal Act requires such questions to be dealt with in accordance with regulations, and it is by regulations, and not by the Statute, that such questions are referred to the insurance officer, etc.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 20, leave out from (" referred ") to (" as ") in line 21 and insert (" and determined ").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25:
Amendment of s. 41 of principal Act, and application of Acts to officers of reserve forces.
2) Any payments made before the commencement of this Part of this Act to the Unemployment Fund in respect of
32
men discharged between the said thirtieth day of June and the commencement of this Part of this Act Shall be increased by such an amount as may in the opinion of the Treasury be necessary, having regard to the foregoing provisions of this section.
LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "to the Unemployment Fund" and insert "under the said Section forty-one by way of employers' and employed persons' contributions." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment designed to carry out what was always the intention of the Bill. The fighting Services make a lump sum payment in respect of each man discharged from the Forces to meet the cost of unemployment benefit to which the man may become entitled. Of this sum a proportion has to be paid to Northern Ireland in respect of men resident there. This payment is, however, made to the Unemployment Fund for Northern Ireland, and does not pass through the British Unemployment Fund. It is, therefore, necessary to omit the reference to the "Unemployment Fund" in Clause 25 (2) of the Bill, so as to make the subsection cover the paymentsto Northern Ireland. I must be quite frank with your Lordships and say that since it concerns payments in respect of men discharged from the Forces the Amendment is undoubtedly a Privilege Amendment. The other House, however, may be expected to waive the Privilege on the ground that the Amendment is necessary for carrying out their intentions.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 26, leave out (" to the Unemployment Fund ") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [Transitory provisions as to benefit]:
LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved to substitute "a claim" for "an application." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another of the Amendments required to remove confusion in the use of the terms "claim for benefit" and "application for benefit," the need for which I explained on the Committee stage on an Amendment to Clause 4, page 4, line 19. There is a great number of these Amendments carrying the same point, and I am sorry to say I omitted this one.
Amendment, moved—
Page 57, line 16, leave out (" an application ") and insert (" a claim ").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor Amendments]:
LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved to add to the reference to (he Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, 1931:
" Section 5.—For the definition of ' prescribed ' there shall be substituted the following definition:
' Prescribed ' means prescribed by an order made under Section one of this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely consequential on the conversion of Anomalies "Regulations" into Anomalies "Orders," which was an alteration effected by the other House.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 35, insert the said new words.—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9:
NINTH SCHEDULE.
Repeals.
PART I.

Session and Chapter, or Year and Number of Order.

Short Title.

Extent of Repeal.

11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 15.

The Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1921

Sections four and ten.

15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 70.

The Widows'. Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925.

In subsection (1) of Section thirty - seven, the words "and to unemployment benefit under the Unemployment Acts, 1920 to 1924."

LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved to add to the reference to the Unemployment Insurance. (No. 2) Act, 1921, "and in Section sixteen the definition of ' the deficiency period.'" The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is desired to add to the repeals. The point
34
is that the deficiency period is defined in the No. 2 Act of 1921, but the term is obsolete and a definition is therefore not required. This should therefore be added to the repeals set out in the Schedules of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 27, at end insert (" and in Section 16 the definition of ' the deficiency period ' ").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, the next Amendment is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 36, at end insert (" and the First Schedule ").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LOUD ROCHESTER LOUD ROCHESTER moved, to leave out the reference to the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is required for the purposes of the Consolidation Bill which it is proposed to introduce. The repeal of the subsection of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, which provides that benefit shall not be payable to a claimant who is over the age of sixty-five, is not required by anything in this Bill, and is therefore unnecessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, leave out lines 4 to 8.—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential on Clause 8, subsection (2), of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 23, after (" two ") insert (" in subsection (1) of Section four the words from ' of six weeks ' to the end of the subsection ").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, the next Amendment is also consequential on the conversion of Anomalies "Regulations" into Anomalies "Orders" which was effected in the other House.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 17, leave out from (" and ") to the end of line 18 and insert (" in Section five the definition of ' regulations ' and subsection (3) ").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, the next Amendment includes in the Repeals Schedule two provisions relating to rates of benefit which are now repealed by Clause 5 of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 21, at end insert (" and Article two and the Second Schedule ").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, the next two Amendments are drafting Amendments to correct the order in which Sections 5 and 14 are mentioned.
Amendments moved—
Page 88, line 34, leave out (" Section fourteen ").
Page 88, line 35, after (" five ") insert (" Section fourteen ").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LICENSING (PERMITTED HOURS) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
House adjourned at five minutes before six o'clock.