Lords Sitting of 20 June 1934

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
The Viscount Hood—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.
The Lord Northbourne—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

SHERIFFDOM OF PERTH AND ANGUS ORDER, 1934.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, at our sitting yesterday my noble friend Lord Strathcona moved that a Select Committee be appointed to consider this Order. The Order came before the Special Orders Committee, who made that recommendation. I therefore beg to move that the Lords whose names appear on the Paper be named of the Committee.
Moved, That the Lords following be named of the Select Committee:—

M. Bath,

M. Aberdeen and Temair,

V. Ullswater,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Mottistone.

—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee to appoint their own Chairman.

HOYLAKE ELECTRICITY (EXTEN- SION) ORDER, 1934.
NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME ELEC- TRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1934.
WALLASEY ELECTRICITY (EXTEN-SION) ORDER, 1934.
FESTINIOG ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1934.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, with reference to the Hoylake Electricity (Extension) Order, 1934, the Newcastle-under-Lyme Electricity (Ex-

41
tension) Order, 1934, the Wallasey Electricity (Extension) Order, 1934, and the Festiniog Electricity Order, 1934, I beg to move that the Special Orders reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO? VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA? TION (WEY VALLEY WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA? TION (SOUTH MIDDLESEX AND RICHMOND JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LONDON TRAFFIC.
LORD KILMAINE LORD KILMAINE rose to call attention to the congestion of traffic in the London streets. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel I owe the House some apology for introducing this subject of road traffic again after a comparatively brief time. Since the institution of the Traffic Control Board there has undoubtedly been very great improvement in the traffic of London, but I still think there is a very great deal of room for improvement. Going about London in recent months I have tried to discover the cause of congestion and the cause of the frequent and very annoying hold-ups one meets with in different parts of the Metropolis. It seems to me that one cause is the enormous number of huge double-deck omnibuses which run in every part of London, although in the middle of the day and in the evening, apart from the rush hours, these enormous vehicles are practically empty.
I have seen omnibuses in the Hay-market at nine o'clock in the evening practically blocking the street from end to end and the average number of passengers in each omnibus was only four or five. I have noticed the same thing in
42
regard to the omnibuses that go round Lords cricket ground. The top decks of the omnibuses are entirely empty in the middle of the day and there are only four or five or possibly six passengers in the lower compartments. This very day coming from Victoria I was held up out?side the station for ten minutes. I saw five of these huge double-decked omnibuses with no one on the top deck and only five or six passengers below. Because of their enormous size and the space that they take up these omnibuses are a serious cause of delay. I quite admit that in the rush hours of the morning and again in the evening, when workers are coming to work or are being taken home after work, a full number of omnibuses is absolutely necessary, but I think that in the hours between ten in the morning and five in the evening, and again between eight and eleven at night, the number of omnibuses on most of the routes might be considerably reduced. When this subject came up for debate some time ago, before the institution of the Traffic Control Board, we were told that things would be greatly improved as soon as the pirate or independent omnibuses had been removed. So far as I can see they have been removed only to make room for the same number of General omnibuses. I know the omnibuses are very useful, but they cause considerable delay.
Another thing I have noticed is that when there is a hold-up in some narrow street or at a crossing, it is often found to be due to some railway delivery van or a coal merchant's lorry drawn by a horse. The average pace of traffic in London is, I suppose, about twelve to fifteen miles an hour. The average pace of horse-drawn traffic is about six miles. In these days of petrol, horse traffic in a city like London in the middle of the day seems an anomaly. I read with pleasure that horse-drawn traffic has been prohibited entirely in Oxford Street during certain hours of the day, and I certainly think it is time for it to be prohibited in all the main streets, except in the early morning or during the night. Surely, a railway company can afford to run a motor van for delivering parcels, and a motor lorry with two or three tons of coal would be much better, especially in the summer, than a van drawn by an unfortunate horse.
Then I have noticed a great deal of delay at crossings, especially those which run north to south, and it seems to me that it would be perfectly feasible to construct light road bridges over some of the crossings to enable traffic to pass both over and under. In the City of New York they have an elevated or overhead railway running all through the town, and it should not be difficult to erect a few bridges in London. I presume they would be of interlaced steel so that they would not shut out light or air to any great extent. Any disadvantage which might be caused in that respect would be amply offset by the enormous advantages given to traffic in London. I am no expert on traffic control. I simply regard the matter from the point of view of the man in the street. It is with all diffidence therefore that I venture to make these suggestions.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I cannot agree with what my noble friend has just said. So far from congestion being due to the number of omnibuses in main thoroughfares, I think the trouble at the peak hours is largely due to the number of private cars and empty taxicabs. One has only to go along Piccadilly to see the large number of empty taxicabs going along that thoroughfare, east and west. Private cars are not very useful to the persons using them when they want to go shopping as they have to park them some distance away. I am sure they would not lose much by not being allowed to go through main thoroughfares at certain hours. At those hours they should only be allowed to cross main thoroughfares and not go along them. As regards the other suggestion made by the noble Lord about the provision of bridges over crossing places, this matter has been often discussed in the Press. I think the objection to them would be the necessity for a very long incline which would reduce the area of the level part of the street and would thereby lead to further congestion. My view is that the main thoroughfares ought to be closed at certain hours to the users of private cars who are not so numerous as those who use omnibuses. Certainly one sees no empty omnibuses in these crowded hours.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, If you will allow me I will say a few words upon this subject, because for the last fifty or sixty years I have
44
taken a very great deal of interest in the traffic of London, and not only in the traffic but in the roads and all that is concerned with them. I venture to disagree with the noble Lord who raised this question when he says that one of the reasons for the present congestion is horse traffic. I venture to say that horse traffic has very little to do with it. There is not very much horse traffic in the streets, and after all the owners of the horses pay rates and have just as much right to go into the streets as anybody who has a motor car and thinks that the whole place belongs to him.
One of the reasons of blocks—I might almost say the chief reason—is cross traffic. I will take Piccadilly as an instance. If you will go down Piccadilly you will see that there is always a block either at Hamilton Place or at Berkeley Street where there is cross traffic. There always have been blocks where there is cross traffic, but they are much worse now than they were before, because in the old days a coachman was a man with some little fellow-feeling, and if he saw somebody wishing to turn across he would steady and allow the man to do it. But not the motor driver. He will go on even though he only gains six inches. He might have stopped and let the person through who wished to go that way, but no, he will go on until he gets to the point where he has got to stop. The majority of them have not the slightest idea of the rules of driving or coaching. I have been a member of the Coaching Club ever since 1877, so that I have had some experience in these ways.
That is one of the reasons of congestion. Another reason is that the police stop the traffic too long. A policeman stops the cross traffic, and instead of letting two or three go and then letting two or three more go, he holds it up until there is a long line waiting, and that of itself creates a block. Then again, there are too many of these traffic rights in the roads. Take Grosvenor Place; I come there every day when I come to your Lordships' House. Across Grosvenor Place by Hubbard Place you can always get across and you do not want to be stopped. If drivers of motor vehicles would only use a little forbearance, you would get across there without any stopping. On one occasion only last week I got there, and the red light was showing and therefore we had to stop, but within the next two

45
minutes I could have gone across fifty times. There was nothing coming either way, but the red light was showing and therefore I had to stop.
Those are two of the reasons. The third reason is that there are far too many vehicles in the streets. Everybody now seems to think that he must go about in a motor car instead of walking or going in an omnibus, with the consequence that there is such a lot of traffic that the vehicles impede one another. You cannot help that; it is one of the misfortunes that we have to put up with, and so far as I can see there is nothing to be done except to diminish all these red lights, inculcate a little more knowledge of road work amongst the police and also try to make the drivers of motor vehicles cultivate some of the courtesy which the drivers of horse-drawn vehicles always had.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I quite agree with what has fallen from the noble Lord who has just spoken with regard to the unnecessary length of time which the police very often take in allowing vehicles to pass. Over and over again, particularly along Piccadilly, they let a long line go instead of breaking it up into short lengths, which would enormously relieve the traffic. Instead of that they get one long line, and then traffic accumulates at the next stop and so makes everything almost impossible. Then they carry it, to the other extreme. I was driving down to the City this morning along a street where there was hardly any traffic at all. We came to a cross street, where were some road repairs going on, so they had put a policeman there. The policeman stood in front of us and he stopped us and held us up for a car which I should think must have been three or four hundred yards away—a solitary car. We waited till that had gone past, and then waited for another one which was three or four hundred yards away in the other direction. By then I was beginning to get rather mad, and I am afraid that I made some strong remarks to him. That is the sort of thing that goes on, and it does cause a great deal of annoyance.
I really rose to call attention to another matter which is the result of the awful congestion of the streets, that is to say, the harm which is being done by the poisonous atmosphere. I do not know how many complaints I have heard this
46
year about the increase of the bad atmosphere, particularly from people who come from abroad. They say that the London streets are becoming perfectly poisonous. So they are. There are all sorts of regulations against cars being allowed to emit visible exhaust fumes, but I have never seen a policeman interfere with a smoking car or heard of one doing it. I came down Park Lane a, few days ago and immediately in front of me were four or five cars, each of them emitting clouds of blue smoke which nearly poisoned us, and nobody said a word. What is the use of having these regulations if nothing is done? I can quite understand that there is a great difficulty for the stationary policeman who is regulating traffic, because he does not realise that a car is smoking until it has gone past him. Then he cannot catch it up, and it is a very difficult thing for him to take the number of a car disappearing in the distance.
But what I want to know is, cannot the Police do something in the way of making use of their mobile men on motor bicycles, or even of their mounted men in some places? Can they not do something to round up the drivers of these smoking cars, to take their numbers and "run them in"? If there were a wholesome amount of prosecution and some healthy fines for the purpose of trying to stop this smoking, which can perfectly well be stopped with a proper amount of care, I am perfectly certain that much good would be done. Smoking is generally caused by over-lubrication or by a bad mixture, and I am certain that a great deal can be done with care to improve it. If something of that sort could be done we should have a much pleasanter and much purer atmosphere in the streets. I also suggest that instead of these ridiculous traps which they have in the parks at the present moment, trying to trap cars going a few miles per hour over the regulation speed, they should trap ears which smoke, should take their numbers and prosecute the drivers. I am sure that they could do a great deal of good by that means. I should very much like to ask the noble Lord in charge of transport whether something cannot be done by way of paying more attention to this question of poisoning the atmosphere.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in a debate in which noble

47
Lords have spoken and I am afraid I have not heard the whole of what they have said, but there are one or two remarks that I have heard since I came into the Chamber about which I should like to make an observation or two. First of all, noble Lords who have so far spoken seem to think that the traffic problem of London is more a question of the West End and what we are to do in the West End, than of all the rest of London. We have heard all about traffic in Piccadilly, but we have not heard much about the traffic in the Mile End Road and Commercial Road East and places like that. The noble Lord, Lord Banbury, for instance, said that horse-drawn traffic was no longer a factor in causing delay and congestion. If he would do us all the pleasure of taking a trip down to the Mile End Road or Commercial Road East he would find a state of affairs existing there very different from what he thinks. Undoubtedly horse-drawn traffic is responsible for a tremendous amount of congestion. From time to time you can find in this area quite half a mile of traffic held up behind one big motor lorry. But then, my Lords, on reflection I remember of course that the noble Lord is a director of a very great railway company, and of course it is well known that they are the worst offenders so far as horse-drawn traffic is concerned.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: We consulted the interests of our shareholders and carried on in the best way we could and at the cheapest rate.
EARL HOWE: I listened with very great respect to the remarks which have just fallen from the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh. Lord Denbigh dealt with a matter which in my submission is of great and growing importance. I do not believe it is realised how much the air in the London streets is poisoned by exhaust fumes. So far nothing very much has been done to deal with this matter. I believe the medical profession have carried out tests, and they have found that there is an appreciable amount—I have heard quite high figures—of carbon monoxide in the blood of policemen who are employed in directing traffic. That will show how serious a factor the poisoning of the atmosphere is really becoming. I believe I am right in saying, though I have never been in New York, that there
48
they have attempted to tackle this matter, and attempted to ventilate their streets through the drains and the sewers. I would like to see something of the sort done here. It might easily become a matter of vital and serious importance, supposing we were involved in war and there were poison gas raids on the capital. There is no doubt that we are suffering very much from this trouble at the present time.
Remarks have been made about the policemen who control the traffic to-day. I cannot help feeling that the police deserve our highest praise, and our best thanks, for the magnificent work they are carrying out. I personally would like to see them do a little more towards encouraging all forms of traffic, horse-drawn, motor-propelled, and bicycles, to keep nearer to the proper side of the road. Other things, of course, cause congestion in the London traffic. One of the most potent forms in the West End is the crawling taxicab. There are certain streets in the West End of London which are completely blocked by these vehicles. They crawl round and have a regular circuit, and if you watch you will see a certain taxicab going round a certain area of small streets. I know of a district where sixty or seventy of the same cabs can be seen going round a circuit between five and eight o'clock in the evening. As they have their cab ranks I cannot help feeling that this is not a reasonable use of the streets, and it causes congestion.
There are other points I would like to allude to, such as the insufficient width of the pavements in certain parts of London, which forces the pedestrian to step out into the street. I do not think we pay half enough attention to the pedestrian, or take enough care of him, and I welcome the experiments in crossing-places and other matters. I hope this matter of the London traffic will be considered not in an atmosphere of prejudice but with a view to discovering what is really best to be done. The suggestion is made in various quarters, from time to time, that we ought to bar the private car from using London streets. I do not think we should restrict the use of any form of traffic until we have made certain that we are using these streets to their full capacity. I do not think that we are doing so to-day. I am of opinion that much more might be done. As I have said, I hope we shall

49
not consider this as a matter of prejudice, but that we shall consider what is best to be done. I am perfectly certain that that will be for the greatest good of the greatest number.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I always hesitate to follow the noble Earl, because he generally says everything that has to be said on this subject. I do think, however, that he has rather missed one or two points. Lord Banbury seemed to put half the trouble of our road congestion in one word, "courtesy." If we could only get a little more courtesy on the road between the various road-users we should be able to use our roads to their full capacity. At the present moment the pedestrian does not seem to realise that it is just as discourteous to step in front of a motor car as it is to step in front of another pedestrian. He does not deliberately block the path of another pedestrian. Why then should he do it to a motorist? The same may be said of the motorist. If he would only slow down instead of making the pedestrian jump out of his way it would then be possible for him, instead of having to drive some four feet off the pavement, to drive quite close alongside.
Another point which I think is certainly very material to road congestion is the question of cars pulling up outside shops. They ought only to be allowed to pull up on the near side. The car which crosses the road and pulls up and deposits its occupants on the other side has to stop the traffic, and when it wants to start again the traffic is again stopped. This leads to two blocks, all because the driver cannot be troubled to go round first. That is a question of courtesy again. What is wanted is a return to the old spirit of the road that we used to find twenty-five years ago, when everyone tried to help everyone else. If we could get that spirit back we should get traffic moving at a reasonable speed, and should not spend our time in hearing other people's views.
THE MARQUESS or ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I cannot help saying one or two words, having been responsible for the administration of affairs in London. I wish to ask the representative of the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement explaining explicitly what the new lines and crossings in London really mean. It
50
seems that everybody has a hazy view as to what really are the privileges and penalties attaching to pedestrians at the present time. I have seen that in Regent Street traffic lights were recently installed, and people are hesitating what to do. There are lights, but there are also policemen on duty. I always thought that one of the advantages of traffic lights was that they released policemen for their ordinary duty of protecting people's property, but in Regent Street there seem to be both policemen and traffic lights. The policemen hardly know what to tell people at these crossings. If the noble Earl will tell us what are the privileges of the motorist, and what are the privileges of the pedestrian, I think he will do a great deal to enlighten the public as to what really is the position. Nobody seems to know what it is. Even the Press, in discussing these things, talk in more than one voice, and if the noble Earl will make a statement it will be of great service to the people of London as a whole.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, some eighteen months ago we had a very full debate on this subject of the congestion of traffic in London streets, and I then laid down what I thought were the main causes of that congestion. I have really no reason, after the lapse of this time, to depart from those main principles which I then laid down. We have ranged over a vast number of points this afternoon in the course of the debate, and reference has been made by several of your Lordships to the difficulty caused on our streets by the lack of courtesy shown by motor drivers. I entirely agree with a great deal of what has been said on that point; but I must remind your Lordships that you cannot make people more courteous either by legislation or by administrative action. Therefore I have to confine myself perhaps to the other points which have been raised during the course of the debate, and which are also of the very greatest importance in trying to solve the problem of the congestion of traffic in our London streets.
I think I ought shortly to explain what the administrative position is. In 1924 the London Traffic Act was passed, which conferred on the Minister of Transport a considerable number of powers to deal with all matters germane to London

51
traffic. The London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee was set up under that Act, in order to advise the Minister with regard to those powers which were conferred upon him, but I want to make it perfectly clear that that Committee was purely an Advisory Committee, and had no executive power whatsoever. I think everybody who has studied the subject will agree that that Act has proved of very great benefit indeed. It has proved of benefit in arresting the rapid and irregular growth of omnibus traffic in London. It helped by bringing traffic under proper control and by mitigating traffic congestion generally. This London and Home Counties Advisory Committee have advised the Minister upon almost every conceivable aspect, I imagine, of London traffic. I do not wish to enumerate the many subjects upon which they have given advice to the Minister, but I should like shortly to say something with regard to what has been done as the result of the advice which they have given.
To begin with, regulations have been made with regard to a number of matters—such as vehicles reversing in the street, the conveyance of exceptional loads, the use of vehicles for the purpose of advertising, the collection of refuse and taxicabs loitering in certain main thoroughfares. Those have all been dealt with up to a point, and they are all measures that are in the interests of creating an easy flow of traffic in the London area. Then there are many other things that have been done as the result of the advice of this Committee. During recent years important works with regard to road improvement and road building have been carried out in the London area. I would only refer to the Victoria Dock Road, which is now approaching completion, and, although it does not directly affect the centre of London, it is at the same time of very great importance to traffic in the London area generally. There is also the North Circular Road from Ealing on the west, to its junction with the Eastern Avenue near Ilford.
Another important work which is about to be carried out is the improvement at Vauxhall Cross. I understand the London County Council have settled upon a scheme there—a scheme restricted compared with the scheme which was, I believe, originally contemplated in connection with that particular point, but
52
they have settled upon this scheme, and I understand that work is to commence upon it very shortly. Then there have been improvements in traffic workings secured by the institution of one-way working in 107 streets, and there have been ninety-two junctions which have been laid out for round-about work. Furthermore, regulations have been made under the London Traffic Act, as the result of which some 224 special parking places have been appointed.
Another matter which is of importance is the progress that is being made with the introduction of traffic control signals. As a matter of fact my noble friend Lord Banbury this afternoon said he thought we had far too many of these light signals. I should have been rather interested to hear what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, would have said upon this particular subject, because I remember well that when we last debated the question of London traffic he made a vehement attack on the Minister of Transport for not introducing these automatic light signals more quickly. But I think the general consensus of opinion is that they have done a considerable amount to reduce congestion in London and to create an easy flow of traffic. Although there may be differences of opinion about particular traffic light systems, at the same time I think that, speaking generally, there can be no doubt that they have done something to help.
I should like to say a word about coaches in Central London. As a result of an inquiry over which my noble friend Lord Amulree presided some two years ago, the Minister of Transport announced his decision. The general effect of that decision is that coach operation in the inner area of London has been considerably curtailed, and a great many urban services are now routed around the inner area and avoid turning into the centre of London. As opportunities arise of trying new expedients they are taken. For instance, quite recently the experiment has been tried of waiting in Jermyn Street unilaterally, that is to say, making it permissible for motor cars to wait only on one side of the street. I think the net result of all this administrative action has been, generally speaking, to improve the position. I am quite prepared to admit that the position is by no means satisfactory, but if we recognise the fact

53
that traffic in London has increased enormously in recent years I think we shall all agree that the improvement is one which, although not entirely satisfactory, has shown that the measures which have been taken have been effective. I should like also to take the opportunity of associating myself with what my noble friend Lord Howe said—namely, that much of the improvement is due to the great efficiency and courtesy of the London Police.
Certain matters have been raised today, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kilmaine, who initiated this debate, for giving me notice of those which he intended to raise, which are no doubt very important. But I should like to make it clear, to begin with, that the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee have, I can assure your Lordships, at one time or another considered all the matters which have been referred to in the course of the debate. One matter of which Lord Kilmaine made a considerable amount was the fact that at certain times there were a number of empty omnibuses upon the streets which did a great deal to congest traffic and to make movement difficult. We must remember that the London Passenger Transport Act has only very recently come into operation, and that measures for the co-ordination or curtailment of redundant services, as far as the London omnibuses are concerned, can only come gradually. But I want to make it quite plain that there has been no increase in the number of omnibuses on the London streets, and that, if anything, there has been a certain reduction already.
But this matter of empty omnibuses is not really so simple as would appear at first sight, because there are a number of matters to be taken into consideration which I think are very often ignored. I agree that to the ordinary person it does seem that there are a considerable number of omnibuses on certain main London streets which can be removed and at the same time leave ample accommodation for the passengers who have to be carried during those hours. There are all sorts of things one has to remember. In the first place there is the point that the peak traffics of London occur at different times in different places. For example, one of the principal causes of difficulty in the City of London is the existence of a mid-
54
day peak in the Whitechapel area to the east. Another point which creates difficulty is the fact that the number of localities in Central London suitable for omnibus turning points is very limited, so that there is no alternative but to allow omnibuses to run through empty. All these various considerations affect in their turn the arrangements of the staff, and it is recognised that a steep grading of services between peak and what are called valley periods would give rise to difficulties in arranging a reasonable rota of duties that cannot be left altogether out of account. I have no doubt that this problem of empty omnibuses at certain times of the day is engaging the attention of the London Transport Board, but I think it would be idle to expect any immediate or drastic action in connection with this particular matter.
We have had references by a number of speakers to horse-drawn and slow-moving traffic. This is a question which we debated at length on the last occasion on which we dealt with this matter in your Lordships' House. I can assure your Lordships once again that the Committee have given constant thought to this particular problem, but in 1929 they came definitely to the conclusion that they were not warranted in advising the Minister to make drastic regulations regarding horse-drawn or slow-moving vehicles by which these vehicles would be prevented from using particular streets all day or at particular times. The Minister agreed with this view, and he has said so on a number of occasions in another place, and I understand the Advisory Committee still adhere to the view they held then. The fact is that not only the railway companies but a number of private traders still use horse-drawn vehicles for the simple reason that they find that form of vehicle the most economical for short journeys.
It is perfectly true that limited restrictions have been imposed in the case of Oxford Street. There is a limitation at certain times of the day on through traffic in Oxford Street, but I should like to point out that if any prohibition of this character was made general it would really have the result of keeping horse-drawn vehicles off the streets. If you were to impose restrictions on horse-drawn vehicles in regard to all the main thoroughfares of London it would really

55
become impossible for them to get from one part of London to the other. I can only conclude by saying that the Minister at present is not prepared to do this and, speaking personally, I am rather doubtful whether horse-drawn vehicles do as much harm as some people would like to attribute to them. At any rate, the number of horse-drawn vehicles upon the streets is decreasing very rapidly. The figures are very striking—I am not going to quote them this evening—but there is no doubt they are decreasing very rapidly, and it is therefore quite clear that this problem is a diminishing one. The Advisory Committee are still watching this particular matter, and they are continuing to make investigations, but, as I said, the Minister at the present time is not prepared to take any drastic action with regard to it.
The noble Lord who opened this debate suggested that we might get over some of our difficulties at traffic junctions by means of over-bridges. This is another matter to which the Advisory Committee have given careful thought. In theory there is no doubt a great deal could be said for over-bridges, but in practice it is found they are almost invariably impracticable. There is this to remember: at a four-way junction there are twelve possible movements of traffic. I think people are inclined to overlook that fact. There are two possible movements between north and south, two between east and west, four right-handed turns, and four left-handed turns. If you want to avoid cutting across through traffic, and it is essential you should avoid doing that if this is going to have any effect whatever, it would be necessary to construct four slip-roads, one at each corner. The round-about systems which have been introduced in various places in London go a considerable way to relieve congestion at cross-roads, and they do so at far less cost than would be entailed in building over-bridges. It is estimated that to construct an over-bridge with four slip-roads, apart from the acquisition of land, would cost nine or ten times more than a roundabout, and for such a scheme, I am told, four acres of land would be required. It is perfectly clear that in Central London such a proposal is quite impracticable. The Advisory Committee have examined all these possibilities, and if they have not been put into operation I can only con-
56
clude that it is because in their considered judgment—and no people have a greater knowledge of the problems of London traffic than the members of that Committee—these proposals are either impracticable or ineffective.
Reference has been made to other subjects this evening. The noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, referred to the evil of the fumes emitted by motor vehicles in the London area. I agree with him up to a point. There are regulations dealing with this subject, but it is extremely difficult to make them effective. As a matter of fact, I do not entirely agree with him, for I myself was in a car, not my own motor car but a taxicab, the driver of which was taken to task for emitting fumes; but at the same time I agree it is difficult for the Police to make these regulations effective. I undertake to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister, and I feel certain he will give it his consideration.
The noble Marquess referred to the question of the new pedestrian ways that have been instituted in London recently. This is not a matter which directly affects the question of congestion of traffic in London, but it has of course an indirect effect upon it. I do not think this is an occasion upon which it would be proper for me to make any authorised statement on the subject—in fact I have not been authorised to do so—but I would like to point out one or two facts to your Lordships in connection with this new system. There is really no reason at all why this new system should fail. It is an experiment of course, but it is an experiment which has been tried in other places—in Paris, for instance—and proved to be of very considerable value. It has not been possible, of course, to operate the system here in quite the same way as it is operated in Paris, for the simple reason that at present these crossing places for pedestrians are very limited in number, and it therefore would be impossible to prevent pedestrians from crossing roads at other places. It would be impossible, because they are so few, to limit pedestrians to the authorised crossing places.
I conclude by saying that if there still exists any doubt or misunderstanding with regard to what procedure should be followed at crossing places, I feel certain that the Minister will consider the advisability and the necessity of

57
issuing a further statement to resolve any doubts that might exist. I feel that it is an experiment with which we must go through, and I am confident myself that, as a result of our experience, we shall find that crossing places of this kind will be of extreme value in lessening the danger to pedestrians upon our London streets. I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised, and I hope that what I have said may have gone some way to satisfy noble Lords on this particular subject.

RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE HOUSE.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD had given Notice that he would move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House, and particularly having regard to Standing Order No. VIII, it is undesirable and irregular that any person, not a member of the House of Lords, should have right of access during the sittings of the House to the Chamber itself, other than the officials of the House and Government Office officials, Privy Councillors, the eldest sons of Peers, and others privileged to sit upon the steps of the Throne, and the personal private secretaries of the Leaders of the three Parties; and that the right of access to the Library during the sittings of the House should be confined to Peers and members of the House of Commons and such other persons as shall have received special leave from the House of Lords Offices Committee.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think it will be necessary for me to detain your Lordships at any undue length in moving the Motion upon the Paper, and also I am happy to think that I need not make a controversial speech. The Motion does not deal with a Party matter; it deals with something about which I should hope general agreement can be reached, and I shall in the course of my observations put forward proposals in the hope of achieving that end. The Motion which I have put down, if I may say so, is not a personal Motion of my own. It has been put down by me after prolonged consideration on behalf of myself and a number of noble Lords who feel strongly about the matter in question. In order to make clear the precise object of the Motion I do not think I can do better than begin by reading to your Lord-
58
ships certain words of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to which he gave utterance in the course of a speech on the 19th December last. The noble Lord was speaking upon the Bill introduced by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, for dealing with the House of Lords, and in the course of his remarks my noble friend Lord Ponsonby referred to a certain group of Peers.
He said:
"I discovered that they"—
that is, this group of Peers—
"were served by a very skilled high official. I tried to find out exactly who this skilled high official was, because he was allowed not only into the libraries, not only into the tea rooms, not only into the Prince's Chamber, but into the House itself, and not only was he allowed into the House but he was allowed a chair in the House, the only other chair here besides that on which His Majesty sits. I found in my researches that there were eight authorities here responsible for the various arrangements and appointments in your Lordships' House. Some of them I found it was not necessary to approach, but I approached those who, I thought, would give this very high privilege to an individual, and I asked exactly who had given him permission. There was blank astonishment on all sides. It was as if I had asked who had given authority for the Woolsack to be placed there."
To any one who knows the House of Lords the meaning of Lord Ponsonby's words is obvious, and the object of this Motion is to debar from the use of the Library and from access to the floor of your Lordships' House and also from access to the Prince's Chamber of the individual to whom Lord Ponsonby referred.
Throughout my observations I will refer to this individual as an expert. I believe that this expert has been accustomed to go where he does and to do what he does for a long term of years, but, whatever may have been the considerations which led in the past to the granting of these tremendous privileges, circumstances are quite different to-day. There are now three Parties in the State as compared with two Parties years ago. With your Lordships' permission I will deal with the Library first. The Library is being more and more used and it will be increasingly used. Let me deal with the access which this expert has to the Library. Not only does he go into the Library and remain there for hours together, even when the House is sitting, taking up room in the Library, especially

59
as he, naturally enough, in the discharge of his duties often has a large number of papers spread about, and when the House is busy there is inadequate table space in the Library. Not only does this happen, but the conversations which this expert frequently has with Peers in the course of his duties are destructive of the close concentration which is needful for political work. Surely it must be agreed that the Library is not the place where this kind of thing should be going on, is not the place for such conferences, consultations and talks. In point of fact I have been compelled on occasions to leave the seat in the Library where I like to work because of the activities of this expert, and have had to seek refuge in some remote and less convenient spot but where, at any rate, I could be quiet.
Let me take a further point. As your Lordships are aware, private talks are an essential part of political work and life, and again and again I have been compelled to ask some colleague either to come out of the Library or to go to another part of the Library in order to get out of ear-shot of this expert. It is, of course, true that on certain occasions I have had, just as other noble Lords have had, to take the same steps with regard to Peers, but surely this kind of thing ought to be reduced to a minimum, and that cannot be done if this expert is allowed to do what he does and to go where he does. I want to make it perfectly clear that I have no personal feeling whatever against this expert. So far as I know he is a gentleman of ability and character, but that does not alter the fact that in the Library he is an inconvenience, nor does it alter the fact that he has somehow or other, and from somebody or other, obtained amazing privileges which, if they were extended to other experts, would soon bring about an impossible state of things in your Lordships' House.
Consider the difference between the practice in this matter in your Lordships' House and what happens in the House of Commons. I can speak on this point as it happens from personal experience. Two or three years after I had, owing to ill health, resigned my seat in the House of Commons, I was for a time in a voluntary capacity doing my best to help the Parliamentary Labour Party in exactly the same way as this expert
60
helps this group of Peers. I was doing what I could to assist them with notes for speeches. For this purpose I used to work in one of the small rooms allotted to the Labour Party near the Terrace. This room had a fair number of books of reference—the OFFICIAL REPORT and so forth—but from time to time other books were required from the Library in order that certain work might be done. In general when those books were required from the Library they were borrowed from the Library by the Labour member himself in whose interest the inquiries were being made. That was not a very convenient arrangement because the member himself was not always about. Therefore it was suggested that perhaps I might secure permission to go, not into the Library itself, but into what I may call the entrance Library—it is well known to most of your Lordships—not to remain there, not to work there, not even to sit there, but to ask the Librarian for such and such a volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT or for some other book of reference.
That seemed a very modest request and that request was put forward not on behalf of a group, it was put forward on behalf of the Opposition, of the whole Labour Party, put forward officially by the Chief Whip, Mr. Arthur Henderson. It was definitely refused. It was pointed out that I had, until quite recently as it happened, for many years been a member of the House of Commons. Nevertheless, no encouragement whatever was given to the suggestion because the desired permission would have been contrary to the rules of the House of Commons Library. I say that what this expert does in your Lordships' House is contrary to the rules of the Library here. Just contrast the practice of the House of Commons in regard to this matter with the privileges which this expert enjoys in your Lordships' Library. Not only does he go into the Library hut he remains there for hours together, day after day, even when your Lordships' House is sitting. That is a definite contravention of the Resolution which was passed regarding the Library many years ago by the House of Lords Offices Committee.
So much for the Library. I now pass to consider the right of access which this expert has to your Lordships' House itself. He has the right to come—or at

61
any rate he does come—into the Chamber itself. Not only so, he actually occupies a chair immediately in line with the chairs upon which their Majesties sit and the chair upon which His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales sits. These almost incredible privileges are entirely contrary to the spirit of Standing Order of the House No. VIII. Standing Order No. VIII is as follows:
"No person shall be in any part of the House during the sitting of the House, except Lords of Parliament and Peers of the United Kingdom, not being members of the House of Commons and heirs apparent of such Peers, or of Peeresses of the United Kingdom in their own right, and such other persons as attend this House as assistants."
I need scarcely tell your Lordships that the word "assistant" there has no kind of relation to the kind of assistance given by this expert to a group of Peers. The "assistants" of the House referred to in the Standing Order are the Judges, the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, and such members of the Privy Council as are called by Writ from the Crown to attend.
I believe as a matter of strict interpretation this Standing Order relates to what is technically known as the House itself, and that a certain portion of the floor of the Chamber is not deemed to be within the House itself. That part of the floor known as below the Bar is not within the House and there is no suggestion that there should be any interference at all with the admission of strangers below the Bar. Again, I understand that even the Woolsack itself is not technically within the House. Similarly, the chairs on which their Majesties sit and on which His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales sits are not within the House. Therefore, I suppose that applies to the chair on which this expert sits. I have, however, no manner of doubt that it was never the intention of those who framed this Standing Order that any individual from the outside should be allowed to come day by day on to the floor of the Chamber in the way this expert does and to sit where he does. The Motion does not actually mention in words the Prince's Chamber, but this expert also uses the Prince's Chamber.
I should like to observe on this point that I attach much importance to the words in my Motion, "right of access." There is, I submit, a vast difference between right of access and simple access.
For instance, certain persons have a right to pass through the Prince's Chamber, and as regards the Library permission is given in rare instances I believe by the Librarian for a stranger to enter the Library for some purpose or other even although the House is sitting. Obviously, there is no objection to that. But, all such happenings are very different from a definite right of access at all times and for any length of time. These words in my Motion "right of access" have an important connotation. If I took up your Lordships' time to the extent of analysing every syllable of the words in my Motion I could not claim, and I do not claim, that they cover every conceivable point and contingency in this somewhat complicated matter. I doubt whether finality of that kind could be secured by any Motion. Whoever framed such a Motion I believe it would still be possible for someone with a high degree of ingenuity to cavil at some of the verbiage employed. I do not contend that my Motion can be submitted to critical analysis syllable by syllable, but the general meaning is perfectly clear and the Motion should serve to raise the whole question and to lead to a settlement satisfactory to all concerned.
It may be asked whether it was necessary to proceed in this matter by way of Motion at all. After long deliberation and numerous consultations among my noble friends with whom I am acting in this matter, we were driven to the conclusion that the method of a Motion was the only effective way of dealing with the problem. Despite diligent and persistent endeavour it was not found possible to locate the authority or authorities responsible for granting these privileges, assuming they all have been granted. So I have resorted to the method of a Motion in the House. May I observe that I have declined to discuss this Motion with the representatives of the Press or with anybody outside your Lordships' House, but it has come to my knowledge that in some quarters there is a doubt as to whether the Motion has not reference to members of the House of Commons. I should like to state emphatically that nothing is further from my mind than that, and I should have thought that that was clear from the terms of my Motion if they are carefully read.
As your Lordships are aware, an Amendment to my Motion appears on the Order Paper in the name of the noble

63
Lord, Lord Hastings, to the effect that there is no sufficient reason to alter
"the present practice of the House as regards right of access to the Chamber and the Library."
Surely the contention in this Amendment is one very difficult to maintain. First of all, may I say that I observe the precise words of the Amendment with considerable surprise, because they amount to a direct negative, and speaking with a now fairly long Parliamentary experience, I say that it is most unusual to meet a Motion of this character, for which at any rate there is a great deal to be said, with a direct negative. The Amendment refers to the "practice of the House." I submit that in this matter there is no practice of the House. So far as the House is concerned there is a clear declaration in Standing Order No. VIII which is entirely at variance with what is going on. There is also the Resolution to which I have referred of the House of Lords Offices Committee which debars this expert from using the Library in the way in which he does use it. Therefore it is surely a bold claim to cite the practice of the House as authorising this expert to do what he does.
My submission is that there is no practice of the House in this matter. It has never been considered by the House until to-day. I further submit that it would be a wholly unsatisfactory result of this discussion if the noble Lord's Amendment were put to a Division and carried. There could be no finality in a proceeding of that kind. If those of us who feel strongly upon this matter and have, as we hold, an impregnable case are to be met only with this direct negative of the Amendment, and voted down by Peers many of whom do not use the Library or do not work in the Library, and therefore have not been subjected to the inconvenience which I have already indicated to your Lordships—if that is to happen, quite clearly that will not by any means be the end of this. Surely it would be much better all round to try to get some agreed settlement of the problem; and that is what I am about to propose. I believe that it can be done.
Let me observe first that it really is not necessary for this expert to have these privileges. No case whatever of necessity can be made out for what has been happening. Other arrangements in your
64
Lordships' House can be made for him to serve the group of Peers whom he does serve. I respectfully urge upon your Lordships that the best way of dealing with this problem is to submit the whole matter to the House of Lords Offices Committee, upon which all Parties and interests are represented, with a request that the Committee endeavour to make arrangements to meet the difficulty. I am satisfied that other accommodation can be found within the precincts of your Lordships' House where this expert can work, and also where other experts can work and give assistance to Peers. Up to the present time, apart from the members of this group, other Peers who want expert help (as we all do at times) have to arrange for it to be given outside your Lordships' House. That is often a very inconvenient way of doing things. In my view the time has come when one or two rooms within the precincts of your Lordships' House should be set aside for experts to work in; and also one or two rooms are needed, and badly needed, where Peers can interview callers. Unquestionably there is accommodation in your Lordships' House which could be allotted or found for experts and other purposes, and I am convinced that the House of Lords Offices Committee could provide a solution of all these difficulties.
I have done my best not to offend any susceptibilities and to put forward a constructive proposal to deal with the situation. It seems to me that in a matter of this kind, where it has not proved possible to locate the authority and responsibility, I am well in order in making an appeal to the Leader of the House, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. He is in a special degree the guardian of the rights and privileges of the House and is in a peculiar degree concerned, I say, to see that the rules of the House are carried out in the letter and in the spirit; and that is far from being done if this expert is to be allowed to continue his activities in the way in which he has been acting. I would therefore appeal to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. I appeal to him not as a member of the Government, because this is not a Government matter; I appeal to him not as Leader of the Conservative Party in your Lordships' house, because this is not a Party matter; I appeal to him as the Leader of the House, with the special duties and responsibilities which that

65
position entails, to help us to get a settlement of the matter. I ask him to support the proposal that the whole question be referred to the House of Lords Offices Committee or else to make some alternative suggestion which seems likely to lead to a settlement of the difficulty. That, I submit, is a reasonable appeal for the acceptance of a most reasonable proposal, and if the noble Viscount will respond I will willingly withdraw my Motion.
What valid objection can there be to the proposal which I put forward? Surely this matter does want investigating and probing, and we want some better way of dealing with the position. It appears to me that no objection of substance can be made to the proposal that the whole matter should be referred to the House of Lords Offices Committee. I do not propose to say very much more because I do not think it is necessary to do so. In my submission the case for some action is overwhelming, and what is happening ought to be stopped, otherwise a position of extreme difficulty and delicacy will arise. If this expert is to be allowed to continue to do what he does, other groups of Peers will claim similar privileges. For instance, some of my noble friends have one or two gentlemen who have for some time been anxious to help them in the work here, and the zeal of those who are desirous of having such a position will certainly not be lessened if an individual from outside is to be allowed to come into your Lordships' House, into the Library, day by day and hour by hour, into the tea room, into the passages, into the Prince's Chamber, on to the floor of the House itself, and occupy a chair in line with the chairs occupied by Their Majesties and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.
It may perhaps be suggested in the course of this debate that an equitable solution of the problem would be to allow other experts for other groups of Peers to do what the present expert does. I think a little consideration will show that any such plan would be impracticable. Let me emphasise that the present expert works for a group of Peers, not even for a Party, and groups of Peers can be, and are, multiplied indefinitely. I have already spoken of the great inconvenience of having only one expert in the Library, but what is going to happen if
66
that inconvenience is to be multiplied two-fold, five-fold, ten-fold or even more? That is a problem from which my mind turns away absolutely baffled. The simple truth is, my Lords, that the table space in the Library will not permit of such encroachments. There is not enough of it. That is so quite apart from other objections. On what I may call physical grounds no such plan would work; the limited space in the Library, the Chamber and elsewhere rules it out. So that a grant of these privileges to other experts would not be a solution of the difficulty; it would really rather be au aggravation of the difficulty. I am sure that some other way out must be found and can be found, and that the House of Lords Offices Committee can find it.
I again very respectfully urge upon your Lordships that the whole problem should be remitted to the House of Lords Offices Committee or to some equivalent body. If that is not done, if this very reasonable proposal is rejected, if the present state of things is to go on, if those of us who are in favour of this Motion are to be voted down, that can only lead to a feeling that inequitable, unfair, and indefensible privileges obtain for a certain section of your Lordships' House, and I am quite certain that that is the last thing that your Lordships would wish to come about. The last thing that you would wish to do would be to give any ground for any ideas of that kind. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House, and particularly having regard to Standing Order No. VIII, it is undesirable and irregular that any person, not a member of the House of Lords, should have right of access during the sittings of the House to the Chamber itself, other than the officials of the House and Government Office officials, Privy Councillors, the eldest sons of Peers, and others privileged to sit upon the steps of the Throne, and the personal private secretaries of the Leaders of the three Parties; and that the right of access to the Library during the sittings of the House should be confined to Peers and members of the House of Commons and such other persons as shall have received special leave from the House of Lords Offices Committee.—(Lord Arnold.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, perhaps it might be convenient if I said a

67
word at this juncture, because when I saw the Motion put down on the Paper I was careful to ask my Department to go into the question and examine the history of the whole matter. As Lord Arnold has said the Motion which he has put before your Lordships has been raised by the presence of a gentleman who has acted for a great many years as adviser to a group of your Lordships. Perhaps I may just explain exactly how that came about. Although I was not a member of the House at the time I happened to know a good deal about it as my father was then Chairman of Committees and was also an active member of that particular group of Peers. It was during his administration that it was suggested that the gentleman in question should have the advantages which have been accorded to him. I looked into the Minutes of the House of Lords Offices Committee to see whether there is any record of that being done. I cannot find any. I do not know whether the matter was referred to them. What really happened was this. The gentleman in question received regularly a permit from the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod and Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain, Sir Thomas Butler, to attend. I understand that no objection was ever taken to his presence and this permit was never refused. I believe that in recent years it has not been considered necessary to issue him a special permit, the acquiescence of the House to his attendance having been informally recognised.
I am informed with regard to the question of the control of the admission of strangers and other persons to the precincts of the House that it rests primarily with the House itself. I do not think that I need refer to authorities. It will suffice to say that in 1901 the Joint Committee on the Presence of the Sovereign in Parliament reported.
"The relation of the House of Lords to the Lord Great Chamberlain has not, as far as the Committee knows, been found inconvenient in practice: his undoubted authority when the House is not sitting, and their obvious and inherent right to make regulations as to the use of that part of the building which they occupy, have been exercised apparently without Friction."
I think that recognises the fact that your Lordships have control over this matter. In 1849 the House agreed by Resolution to arrangements for the accommodation
68
of strangers who were admitted, and again in 1850 for the accommodation for the diplomatic body.
With regard to the question of the admission of other than those mentioned in the noble Lord's Motion I have made inquiry into this matter and I find that on previous occasions other groups of Peers who have been interested in special subjects have been able to enjoy the advantage of the presence of an adviser when required. For example, I am told, that when the Home Rule Bill was before this House a draftsman was engaged by Peers interested in Ireland and attended regularly during the debates on that question. Again, I am told that some thirty years ago a gentleman who is now a member of your Lordships' House acted as adviser to the right reverend Prelates who were interested in an Education Bill. He drafted the Bill and attended here behind the Woolsack, and he advised those Prelates and others who were interested. I do not know of any other instances at the moment though I dare say your Lordships' recollections may be able to supply them, and if the matter is gone into more carefully I have no doubt we should find that it is not a very uncommon thing for your Lordships to obtain the assistance of advisers.
I would proceed to another question. I speak from my own recollection but I think I am right when I say that the late Lord Curzon when he led the Opposition had his private secretary in attendance in the House in the same way as he did when he was Leader of the House. If I am not right in that I am at all events sure that the late most reverend Primate, Dr. Davidson, did have his private secretary attending and assisting him in the House. I remember that quite definitely. As regards the attendance of assistants to individual Lords, I am informed on good authority that when they had to make a speech they have been able to have the attendance of a secretary or adviser to assist them as required. I presume that when they had to attend they obtained a permit. I cannot find any exact recommendation of the House of Lords Offices Committee, but I imagine that if there was any doubt it would be referred to them. The Offices Committee do not meet very often and I do not think it would be possible for that Committee to grant individual ad

69
hoc permits for a day or a longer time without a considerable amount of alteration of the present procedure. It seems to me from researches that the practice of the House has been to allow any of your Lordships who wish to have assistance in the way that has been described by Lord Arnold to have that assistance, but whether it has been actually granted formally I do not know.
LORD ARNOLD: May I ask the noble Earl one question? Is it not the case that these permits were for special cases and special Bills, and also do not apply to the Library?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I have been trying to answer that question. As I said I do not think any formal request had been made, and therefore if no formal request has been made I do not think that formal permission has been granted. What has been done is that application has been made to the Yeoman Usher for admission and that has been afforded in the cases I have mentioned. It must have been, for those individuals who came into the House would not have been able otherwise to come in. With regard to the Library it is rather difficult to ascertain what happened in the past because the late Librarian, Sir Edmund Gosse, is dead, and he was the person who dealt with the matters of which I am speaking. Without referring to him—and that is impossible—we cannot arrive at a definite position. I think I am right in saying that the Library Committee as a Committee is of recent formation since the War, and therefore if formal permission had been granted it would have been granted not by the Library Committee but by the House of Lords Offices Committee itself. I think that is the answer to my noble friend, but the actual method has been that where any group of your Lordships' House or individual members of your Lordships' House desired the attendance of anybody they applied to the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod and got a permit from him. I do not think any formal permission has been asked for from the House of Lords Offices Committee. At least I cannot find a record.
But my researches lead me to this conclusion, that in coming to a decision as to the admission of persons other than Peers the House has been guided by the recommendations either of a Select Com-
70
mittee or by the general recommendations of the House of Lords Offices Committee themselves. Naturally the general recommendations of the House of Lords Offices Committee are more negative than positive and there has really been no objection to the course which has been followed in the past. I think that as far as I can see the House of Lords Offices Committee made no particular recommendation. I hope I have been able to shorten your Lordships' deliberations. I have done my best to find out what the history of the case has been and to put it before your Lordships.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS had given Notice of an Amendment to leave out all the words after "That" in order to insert "this House sees no sufficient reason to alter the present practice of the House as regards right of access to the Chamber and the Library." The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, first rose he undertook not to make a controversial speech and, judged by certain standards, he kept his promise except in two small particulars, to which I will draw attention. He repeatedly referred to the august seat beneath that canopy as a chair. May I remind him that in this House it is known as the Throne? But there was another matter. He attempted to establish an analogy between the practice of the House of Commons and this House. Another place has never governed its practice by the practice of the House of Lords, and it is unusual to require the House of Lords to govern its practice by that of another place. In those two matters alone the noble Lord stepped into controversial areas.
The noble Lord has assured us that he has put down his Motion in no spirit of personal objection to the gentleman of whom he spoke always as an expert. May I assure him that I have put down my Motion in no spirit of personal objection to his Motion? I have put it there because the body which has enjoyed for twenty-eight years the services of the expert whose presence is objectionable to the noble Lord has done me the honour of electing me as its Chairman, and it is therefore my duty as well as my wish to establish the continuity of the right of the expert to enjoy the privileges which have hitherto been afforded to him. The noble Lord did not

71
touch at all in the course of his speech on the desirability or otherwise of organisations existing within the House. If he had done so he would have given me an opportunity of controverting what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, as to that body being one which was composed of Conservative diehards who existed for the purpose of driving the Government in a more Conservative direction than the Government itself wished to proceed. That is an entirely false conception either of the reasons for the existence of that body or of its practice. In point of fact, the body which is known as the Independent Peers' Association comprises the greater number of those noble Lords who accept the Conservative whip who attend with reasonable regularity to the business of this House; and, far from being a hatchery for diehards it is a place where many diehards have received sad reminders that their view is not going to predominate in the debates which are about to take place. That body exists for the purpose of expediting and assisting the work of this House, and I beg leave to state that, under Chairmen far more distinguished than I, for the past twenty-eight years it has most effectively assisted all the Governments to get through their work in this House efficiently and expeditiously.
The noble Lord referred us to the speech which was made by the Leader of the Opposition on the occasion of the First Reading of the Parliament (Reform) Bill in December of last year. Unfortunately, I could not be in the House on that occasion. But, having had the privilege and good fortune of hearing the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on other occasions, notably when he addressed the House on the Second Reading of the Bill, I can well believe that the perfection of phrase and dialectical skill which he then displayed was used with the greatest effect on the occasion of the First Reading. But when I read the speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT I came to the conclusion that what he had to say and the caustic comments he had to make upon the Independent Peers' Association and its draftsman were merely the ornamental trimmings to the solid material of his speech. Not so the noble Lord, Lord Arnold. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, had no doubt whatever that what
72
Lord Ponsonby said he meant; and hence the Motion which we have before us.
I wonder whether it was really worth while to bring this matter to your Lordships' notice. The noble Lord has queried my procedure in moving what he is pleased to call a direct negative, and in upholding that argument he said it was no use referring to the present practice of the House, as the House has no present practice. There is no great value in that. You might say there is no use in paying any attention to the Constitution of Great Britain because there is no Constitution. In the same way this House has been in the habit of adapting its procedure to the convenience of the time, and it seems to me that if a Motion of the kind tabled by Lord Arnold were to be passed he would instantly debar himself and all other Peers perhaps in a week, perhaps in a month, perhaps in years to come, from enjoying certain advantages which they ardently desire at that moment to enjoy, but which they would be debarred from enjoying by reason of the noble Lord's Motion. It is a dangerous thing putting into concise terms what may or may not be done. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, speaking from beside the Woolsack, told us that the House of Lords Offices Committee have from time to time negatived various things which have been proposed, but that there were no records of any of the things that were permitted.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: What I said was that there has never been any affirmative Resolution. I said it was more of a negative authority than a positive one.
LORD HASTINGS: I should be very sorry if I in any way misinterpreted the noble Earl. I certainly did not misunderstand him, but my means of expressing what he said were not perfectly at my command. What it means is that if a thing is done of which you disapprove you say you disapprove of it. If you wish it to continue you do not necessarily put it on paper, but you allow it to go on until you desire to stop it; and that is rather a favourite way of carrying on business all through England. The noble Lord quoted No. VIII of the Standing Orders, and I really do not understand for what purpose because his own Motion has really no relation to

73
Standing Order No. VIII. As he himself correctly said, if Standing Order No. VIII were to be applied nobody would have any right whatever in any portion of the floor of the House except Peers themselves, the Judges and certain other functionaries whom he correctly mentioned in the course of his speech. No Government official, no private secretaries, nobody of any kind would adorn those boxes where we are accustomed to look for assistance in the course of our debates. They would not be there; the noble Lord's Motion would debar all such from attending in this House. Unless he was very careful he would be quite certain to omit the very persons who in a week or two he would like to admit, and the Motion as it stands would be an unwise one to pass.
I was sorry to hear the noble Lord say that the expert whose services as draftsman the Independent Peers' Association have enjoyed for many years had in any way interfered with the convenience of members of the House in the Library or elsewhere, not intentionally of course; but I cannot think he could have, in the extreme discretion he has always displayed, at any time interfered with the liberty of members of the House. The noble Lord qualified his remarks at a later stage by saying it was just as dangerous to hold private conversations in the presence of other Peers as it is in the presence of this expert. No doubt the Library is full of Peers of persuasions different from that of the noble Lord, and I can understand, when he has private conversations on political subjects, he will desire to retire to the uttermost corner of the Library for the purpose of not being overheard, but I can hardly believe that the expert who has been serving the Independent Peers has contributed very largely to that particular necessity which the noble Lord has found pressing upon him so heavily. I am very glad to think that.
For twenty-eight years this particular body which has endeavoured, and I think endeavoured successfully, to expedite and make efficient the work of this House, has enjoyed the services of this particular individual, and I beg leave to state that unless the privileges which during twenty-eight years have been accorded to him are continued it will be impossible for that body to continue to
74
function in the way it has done in the past. Lord Arnold may think that is a very good thing, but I do not think the House itself will think it a good thing. It is of immense value that an opportunity should be offered to Peers to get together other than on the floor of this House, for Peers, after all, do not attend debates with the regularity that members of the House of Commons do, and must do. They come to the House with preconceived opinions, and it is not possible for them, unless an organisation of this kind exists, to acquaint themselves with the views of others and accommodate those views to a condition that makes it possible for them to conduct debates in this House with reason and judgment. That is what this Association exists for, and the Peers require the assistance of a draftsman in order that they may put intelligible and intelligent Amendments, initiate debates, and acquaint themselves with what has passed in previous debates dealing with the same matter.
It is necessary that they should have a draftsman to assist them in this way. It is necessary that that draftsman should have access to Statutes, to the OFFICIAL REPORT, and other books of reference in the Library. It would be impossible for the Association to which I have referred to function at all without their draftsman, and it would be impossible for the draftsman to function without the privileges accorded to him in the past. That is why I have put down a Motion suggesting that the present practice of the House should be maintained. Unless the Leader of the House, in response to the noble Lord's appeal, has some suggestion to make which will make it possible for the Independent Peers to continue to function and for the draftsman to continue to do his work effectively—until such an alternative suggestion is made, of which at present I am not aware, I shall certainly stick to my Motion and invite the House to vote upon it, and I trust it will take the place of the Motion which stands in the name of the noble Lord. If I am in order I desire to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all the words after ("That") in order to insert ("this House sees no sufficient reason to alter the present practice of the House as regards right of access to

75
the Chamber and the Library.")—(Lord Hastings.)
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I hope as the result of this debate it will not be found necessary for the noble Lord to insist on his Amendment or for the noble Lord who has moved to persist in his Motion. I would make an appeal which has been already made, I think, by Lord Arnold to the Leader of the House to assist us in this matter. It has been stated quite correctly that we are not in any way concerned with a Party question. I am not even going to refer to the gentleman who has formed the subject of so much discussion and who has apparently had certain privileges for some twenty-six or twenty-eight years. But I should have thought that this must stand out as the result of this debate: that there is not one of your Lordships in this House, not even including my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, who can tell us really what the practice is. There is the difficulty, and I should have thought it does become desirable that we should have some better intimation of what the practice of the House is to be.
May I just indicate for a moment the difficulties that occur to me? I am in some embarrassment in speaking of it because I say at once I have not been conscious of this difficulty or awkwardness created, inasmuch as I have not found any inconvenience in the Library; neither was I aware, I must admit, that there was a gentleman who had a right to sit, and who did sit, on a seat which was in such close proximity and almost in the same rank as the seating accommodation of noble Lords. The reason for that is, unfortunately, I much regret to say, that I am not able to attend much in the Library; my time does not enable me to do it, and therefore I do not speak from any personal experience. I do attend in this House as your Lordships are aware, and I have no doubt I have seen the distinguished gentleman who has been referred to sitting in the House. All I desire to say with regard to that is I did not realise at the time that he was assisting any particular section of the House or Party in the House. I assumed he was one of the officials of the House or was assisting the Government. I was quite unaware that it was possible to have such assistance in this House.
76
I heard the noble Lord who spoke last expatiate very eloquently on the value of the assistance of an expert draftsman, a learned gentleman, who can assist in regard to Bills and Amendments and in the preparation of speeches. I assure him I have been very conscious of it. At times I have had to employ persons outside to assist me. I never had the idea that it was possible for one of them to enter this House and to sit here and listen to the debate and give his assisttance after he had heard the discussions which had taken place. I am sure those who are Party Leaders in this House will agree that it is inconvenient to attempt to explain exactly what it is that will be required of the person who is assisting them if that person is outside the House. All I would say with regard to it is this, that as I understand my noble friend Lord Arnold's Motion it is that private secretaries to the three Leaders of Parties in the House should have the right which is at present enjoyed by one person. I gather that the noble Lord's Amendment—I am sorry the noble Lord is not present at the moment—would negative that. I cannot understand why.
A NOBLE LORD: No.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I dare say it is not intended to do so, but I myself certainly so understood it. That is why I made the observation I have just made. I do not think for a moment your Lordships would take that view, but I rather understood that the object of the Amendment was that the present practice should continue. The Party I have the honour to lead does not wish it to continue if it is to be confined to one group of Peers alone, neither does the Labour Party. I assume that whatever privileges are open to one side of the House or one section of the House must be open to the other side and to other sections. I certainly thought that the Amendment was open to the objection that the privilege was to be continued for one section only. The moment you arrive at that it must be obvious to your Lordships that we are in some difficulty in knowing exactly where we should be. I would beg your Lordships not to think that I am trying to make difficulties. I have no feeling in this matter one way or the other except that I think whatever opportunity and facilities are given to

77
one Party or to one group of your Lordships' House should be equally given to other Parties and to other groups.
I hesitate to say how many groups are in the Party which I have the honour to lead in this House because I do not know, and I have purposely avoided enquiring. I am not even sure that I should succeed in learning how many sections or groups there are in the small Party which I have the honour to lead. There is a smaller number of members of the Labour Party in this House than of the Party which I lead, but so far as I know, from what I hear from them in debates, and from what I read of the proceedings in the other House and of what takes place at various conferences and councils, there does not seem to be entire agreement among them and there are sections in that Party too. Obviously in every Party there must be groups of Peers. Noble Lords will understand that I do not wish to create any difficulty for the group which has had this advantage for a number of years. All I want to impress upon my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House is that we should like his guidance and assistance in the matter. I wish, as far as possible, to be guided by him.
The suggestion has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, I understand, that this matter should be entrusted to a Committee of this House for the purpose of that Committee dealing with it. I think the suggestion made by Lord Arnold was that it should be referred to the House of Lords Offices Committee. That seems to me a sensible and reasonable suggestion. When that Committee made its Report of course it would be open to your Lordships to raise the question again. If that course were adopted it would get rid of such questions as have arisen with regard to the gentleman who has had the opportunity of being in this House for twenty-six or twenty-eight years. I am only concerned with trying to get some kind of regularity in practice. After listening to the noble Earl on the Woolsack, I do not know by what authority the gentleman in question is sitting in this House, neither do I know whether the person who is supposed to have given him authority had the right to give it to him. I do not know whether any of your Lordships could answer that question.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: May I intervene in order to get this clear? I am relying on my own personal recollection, for I was not at the time a member of your Lordships' House. My father occupied the position I have now the honour of filling, and he told me that he and certain other noble Lords were instrumental in founding this Association, and he took steps to obtain the privileges which were enjoyed by the expert in question. The outward and visible sign of what was done was the granting of the usual permit. I have not been able to find in the records of the Offices Committee any formal statement on the subject. I do not think, from my own knowledge, such a matter would be likely to be included in the records of the Committee because it would not be considered of sufficient importance. It happened a long time ago and I do not know if any members of the Offices Committee of that day are still with us. It may have been done originally with the permission of Black Rod, and it has not been discontinued, and I suppose it has not been thought necessary to ask for a renewal of the permission.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The only point I make is not one of criticism. My desire is to get guidance from the Leader of the House. I gather the effect of what the noble Earl has said is that the privilege was granted years ago by the Yeoman Usher. I am not sufficiently versed in the procedure of your Lordships' House to say whether it is open to the Yeoman Usher to give such a privilege or not. I do not discuss it from that point of view. But since that time this gentleman has been in the habit of attending in this House without apparently going through the formality of getting the permission renewed. I make no point of that. What I desire to do is to ask the Leader of the House, who is the person to whom we must look in this matter for guidance, to consider whether it can be left where it is. I am not objecting to it if others are allowed the same privilege. The only thing I am saying is that there must be somebody who is to exercise an authority of this kind, otherwise we shall be in some danger of falling into chaos. I do not suppose there will be any difficulty in regard to the number of chairs, but there will be difficulties in regard to the Library. I do not want to multiply the

79
difficulties, but obviously they must arise if we are to have more representatives of this kind given similar privileges. The Party to which I belong naturally wants to have someone to assist it and I assume the same thing applies to the Labour Party, consequently the matter becomes more important from the point of view of the difficulties than it would be if there were to be only one person with this privilege, as at present.
For myself I am going to submit entirely to the guidance of my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House. He will be speaking in virtue of the position he holds and he will tell us what he thinks is best to be done in the circumstances. I am quite sure that with the courtesy and consideration which always distinguishes your Lordships there will be every wish to give effect to the possibility of other Parties having the same advantages as hitherto have been enjoyed by one section. I suggest to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that he should take into consideration the question of allowing this matter to be dealt with by the House of Lords Offices Committee.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, perhaps I might be allowed to add a word to what I said just now. I think that it was the practice in those days invariably to consult the Lord Great Chamberlain, the late Lord Lincolnshire. I imagine that was done in the cases which I mentioned to your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a few words before the noble Viscount the Leader of the House replies to the appeal made by the noble and learned Marquess. I need not tell the noble Lord opposite, Lord Arnold, how much we all regret any personal inconvenience to which he may have been subjected. He is a very attentive member of your Lordships' House and he is entitled to every consideration in his efforts to do his work. I am quite sure we should all desire to assure him of that fact. But the matter really turns upon a momentary mistake into which the noble and learned Marquess fell just now when he said that my noble friend's Amendment would prevent the officials of the Government from attending on the floor of the House on the right of the
80
Throne. Of course we at once corrected him. That was not intended.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: If the noble Marquess will forgive me, I never said that and I never suggested it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have no desire to misrepresent the noble and learned Marquess. As my noble friend Lord Hastings has already pointed out, these assistants of the Government who attend on the floor on the right of the Throne are essential to the conduct of the business of the House. If the rigid doctrine of the noble Lord were to be employed they would all be excluded.
LORD ARNOLD: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Marquess, but this is really an important matter. As I understand the rules and practice that would not be so. I pointed out in my speech that technically the House itself is a limited part of the floor of this Chamber and that technically the Standing Order did not apply to this expert and would not apply to the officials of the Government. That is why I said my Motion is not syllable proof.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am obliged to the noble Lord, but I am not proposing to deal with a mere technicality. He is right in saying that that area is outside the House technically. The point I want to make is that the Government could not do their work properly unless they had experts there. What is true of the Government is true of noble Lords, and it is the case, as the noble Earl now sitting on the Woolsack has pointed out, that certain persons have been accorded from time to time the privilege of attending there. I have some experience in this matter because I was for many years connected in an official capacity with this organisation of Unionist Peers. During the time when Mr. Lloyd George was Prime Minister I think the principal part of the Opposition to the Government was conducted from that Bench or rather from this end of that Bench by those who represented this very Association of Independent Unionist Peers. All the debates were originated from that source. Most of the Motions put down were contrived by those Peers. Amendments to Bills were also moved by those who belonged to the Association.

81
We contributed in the highest degree to the business of the House, and what could be more insane for a practical Assembly than to say that those Motions should be made and those Amendments should be written without being properly drafted and properly written in a proper form to become part of the Statutes of this country? I cannot imagine anything more unwise than that noble Lords, who with all their great skill are amateurs, I say it with great respect, in drafting, should have no draftsman on whom they could depend. Even the noble and learned Marquess with his immense legal experience admits, I understand, that a draftsman would be very useful to him. If that is true of the noble and learned Marquess it is perfectly true of the great majority of your Lordships. If we must have a draftsman a draftsman must be where he can be got at. I am speaking to a practical Assembly. The noble Lord said that was not allowed in the House of Commons. Poor House of Commons! I am sorry for it. It appears to me that the House of Commons might in this respect learn a little from your Lordships' House. Why should we be deprived of assistance which is obviously in the interests of the country because the House of Commons does not do the same thing? I am quite sure that your Lordships will think that if it is proper that there should be a draftsman, it is proper that that draftsman should have access to a place where he can hear the debate and where noble Lords can find him.
I go a step further. He must have access to books of reference. He must not be in the position of the noble Lord when he was a member of the House of Commons running from corridor to corridor, and room to room, to try to find the necessary works of reference. That is not the way to do business. That is not the businesslike way of legislating. What you want is to have everything to your hand. In a strictly practical Assembly like your Lordships' House, when you have a body such as this Association—I think it numbers 130 Peers now, a very large element in the working body of your Lordships' House—it cannot be imagined that they should be deprived of the services of a draftsman, or that the draftsman should not be allowed to have access to what is required for the use of the House and for the proper
82
drafting of legislation. It seems to me that that is a proposition which cannot be defended. I hope therefore that the practice which has continued now for nearly thirty years will be allowed to continue.
Of course there is no desire to treat any section of your Lordships' House with unfairness. Even if we were able to do so, which we are not, we would not want to do so. If the noble and learned Marquess wishes to follow our example we should be very much flattered—imitation is the sincerest form of flattery—and if he wishes to have a draftsman and that that draftsman should be in attendance, none of us on this side of the House would wish to prevent him. And what is true in the case of the noble and learned Marquess is true also in the case of any other organised body in the House. Let us be quite practical. The noble and learned Marquess says he wishes he could find out the actual state of the case. I admit there is a certain amount of mystery about it. It is very difficult ever to find out the precise reasons for the provisions under which we are governed. I have no doubt the House of Lords Offices Committee is the proper authority to solve these problems if there is any difficulty. For my part and so far as my humble voice has any influence I should be delighted to learn that the House of Lords Offices Committee were going to consider this subject. Whatever they recommend to your Lordships your Lordships will no doubt consider and will probably consider favourably. But that does not prevent me from saying that in my humble judgment, and I believe in the judgment of many of my noble friends, the arrangement which has continued for the best part of thirty years is a very good and practical arrangement, an arrangement thoroughly becoming to a practical Assembly, and I earnestly hope that it will not be disturbed.
The noble Lord opposite seems to be rather burdened by a feeling that he has not been properly treated. Let me once more assure him that there is no intention whatever in any quarter of the House to treat him or any other noble Lord except on exactly the same footing as we would treat one of ourselves, and hope that he will co-operate with us in carrying out what I believe to be the true spirit of the House of Lords, which is

83
that whether we belong to one side or the other we should help each other so far as we possibly can to carry out the work of the House and of the country.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, I should like in a sentence or two to make an appeal to the Leader of the House in support of that which has been made by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. I do not think that the line which has been taken by the noble Marquess who has just spoken can really be defended. It is not applicable to an Assembly of this sort. Supposing every Party in this House were to make the claim which he has made on behalf of the 130 independent Peers, and supposing that every Party in the House numbered 130 (which it does not), there would then be at least six Parties all of whom were asking for the privilege of a secretary who was to use the Library, the tea room and the Prince's Chamber and to have a seat on the floor of this House. That really is an impossible situation, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is asking for something which is impossible. I therefore suggest quite humbly that the only solution that can be arrived at is one which has been considered, the pros and cons of which have been weighed, and where investigation has been made into the possibilities of the accommodation of the Houses of Parliament. That could be done by a specially appointed Select Committee or by the House of Lords Offices Committee. As to the Independent Peers, I am afraid I know very little about them. I always thought when I came into this Chamber that the only independent Peers were those who sat on the Cross Benches.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, I have listened with great respect and interest to the discussion which has taken place, but even the eloquence of the noble Marquess and of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment has left me in a condition of some doubt as to the present position. I venture therefore to ask the guidance of the Leader of the House. The Standing Order to which reference has already been made says:
"No person shall be in any part of the House during the sitting of the House …"
That seems to be very clear. It is, I understand, true that the Standing Order was made some 140 or 150 years ago and that since then Parliament has been burnt
84
down and rebuilt. That may have some bearing on the Standing Order; but in the course of this debate it has been brought out that apparently the House and the Chamber are not the same thing, and that while strangers are excluded from the House, strangers need not necessarily be excluded from the Chamber; and that while your Lordships have control of the floor of the House at certain times, the Lord Great Chamberlain at other times has control of the House and of the Chamber.
In fact the whole position appears to be very obscure, and I would ask for guidance as to the interpretation of the Standing Order which is printed and circulated for the information of members of the House. There seems to be very little evidence to uphold the suggestion that the House and the Chamber are not the same thing. Is it not conceivable that those who preceded us and who framed that Standing Order had wider considerations in mind and desired that "the House" should mean the Chamber, the Library, the Lobby, etcetera? Perhaps they had had experience of lobbying; perhaps they thought that it was in the best interests of Parliamentary Government that as far as possible only members and officers attending the House should be permitted access to the Chambers of this House. Whether that is or is not the right interpretation of the Standing Order, at any rate the position is so confusing now that I would venture to suggest that it should be reconsidered.
Whatever is done in the matter, it is desirable that all Parties and all sections should receive the same treatment. I desire to lay stress upon the point that if one group is to be allowed to have special privileges, then all groups must be allowed those special privileges. Again I would venture to ask what is to be the definition of a group? Is it to be the National Party, Conservatives, Liberals and Socialists? If so, why not Communists with their chair and their representative? And why not Fascists, who presumably would not want to sit down if they were in their uniform? Those are, I venture to suggest, practical points to which we inevitably get driven when we consider this matter. Surely the position is most anomalous. Some are to be admitted because there is now room for them; others in the future are to be forbidden because there will not be room,

85
although their claims to admission will be quite as good as the claims of those who are already admitted. I venture to urge that the Chamber and the floor of the House should be kept for members of the House and those who are given special passes on special occasions for special business. May I very respectfully support the suggestion which has been made, that this matter should be referred to some special Committee with authority to see what is really the test course to pursue for the government of this House?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I should like to say a word upon a point which has arisen during the debate as to the desirability of referring this question to a Select Committee. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said that investigation of this problem was the only solution. The only solution of what? The only solution of what the practice of this House has been as it has grown up during the last two or three hundred years. The noble Lord who has just sat down has perhaps interpreted this problem, rather like Lord Ullswater, in the light of his experience in the House of Commons. Whatever the House of Commons may think about its own procedure, I think the general view of the country as a whole is that it is so tied up by its procedure, so much bound by its Standing Orders and by its formidable code of precedents, that it frequently finds itself quite unable to move in the direction in which it desires to go.
As soon as you refer this question to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, or to any other Committee that you like to refer it to, you will find yourselves involved in any number of queer technical problems. What is the House? Does it begin at the feet of the noble Earl sitting upon the Woolsack, or at the Mace behind him? Does it extend six feet behind the seat occupied by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, or does it extend three feet, five feet or six feet behind the place where the noble Lord, Lord Daryngton, is standing now? Those problems immediately arise. Every kind of problem of authority will immediately arise. What is the authority of the Lord Chairman when half a dozen members say to him: "We have got a Bill upon which we desire help; may we have assistance?" The status of the Serjeant-
86
at-Arms and of Black Rod immediately arises.
It is useless saying that this is a thing which can be sent to the House of Lords Offices Committee. I do not know whether the noble Lord has ever served upon that Committee. I assure him that that Committee, of which I am a member, could never solve these archaeological problems. The very questions of the geography of this House and of the definition of the House are almost insoluble. When the problem arises, I undertake to say that your Lordships are perfectly capable of settling it. If the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, and his friends desire help, or if the noble Marquess opposite (who has been so little incommoded by this that it was I think quite unnecessary on his part to ask for a Select Committee) wants help, let them ask for it, and I undertake they will be able to obtain it without any difficulty.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: The solution which was in my mind was of the difficulty of finding room, and what was in my mind was that the Select Committee, which had a plan of the Houses of Parliament and could investigate the rooms which were available, would be a body which would be able to assign to the secretary of Independent Peers and the secretary of other Parties in the House rooms which could be used by them for the purposes required.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the noble Lord who moved this Motion said quite rightly that this is a matter which in no way concerns the Government, and it is not in any sense as a member of the Government that I am addressing you this afternoon. Both he and my noble and learned friend Lord Reading appealed to me as Leader of the House, and therefore I am in a peculiar position of responsibility in giving advice to the House on a matter of this kind—to act as custodian, I think Lord Arnold said, of the letter and spirit of the Standing Orders, and to find a solution of the difficulties which were alleged to have arisen. Let me first of all say that I do not think any one would seriously suggest that it is either my responsibility or for the convenience of the House that the letter of the Standing Orders should be carefully observed or maintained.

87
I do not need to go through them all, but one of the first of them provides that the Lords are to sit in the same order as is prescribed by the Act of Parliament. The Act of Parliament is a Statute of Henry VIII, and it enacts that the Dukes, Marquesses, Earls and so forth are to sit in their order of precedence, the Dukes sitting where the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, is sitting; the Marquesses coming where the Front Opposition Bench is, and I think I am myself sitting in a comparatively junior part of the House. Obviously in the course of centuries these things have largely fallen into abeyance, and we only remember which is the Barons' seat when a formal introduction to the House takes place. Similarly, questions have arisen as to what exactly does or does not constitute the actual House within the meaning of Standing Order No. VIII. We all know that it is laid down that the Woolsack on which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor usually sits is outside the House, and it is on that account that he has to take the traditional number of steps to the left before he can address your Lordships, and a Commoner can sit on the Woolsack, as I sat, before admission as a Peer. Then it is said that the Standing Order provides that nobody except Lords of Parliament and Peers, and Judges and others, technically described as assistants, shall be present in the House.
Lord Ponsonby made great play with the fact that there was only one chair, except that which he described as a chair but with which we are more familiar as the Throne, which was within the House. There are two Thrones, and there is the chair which His Royal Highness occupies. There is, apart from that, the chair which is much in debate, to the right of the House, and anybody who takes the trouble to look will see a corresponding chair to the left of the House. The noble Lord has passed it often on coming into the House, and it is generally occupied, I think, by the secretary to the Lord Chancellor. Then there is the chair upon which the Lord Chairman sits. There it is, plain to see, and if we look beyond the Table we see chairs occupied by those who are doing very important work and who take down what we have to say. It is a complete breach of the Standing Order. These are chairs
88
which Lord Ponsonby can hardly fail to observe, and on one of these there is sitting a gentleman who is not a member of the House, in flagrant breach of the Standing Order.
I could pursue the Standing Orders at greater length, but it is not profitable to the subject that we are discussing, because in the course of centuries changes have taken place in the habits of the House. The Standing Orders lay down the general principle on which we act, and we do conform to the spirit which animates the Standing Orders. The difficulty I feel in responding to the appeal of Lord Reading is that his suggestion implies that difficulties have arisen and that the Committee shall examine into the existing privileges in order to consider whether they shall be withdrawn. My hesitation about this is that I doubt whether there are any real difficulties which have arisen. There are difficulties which may arise—
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I raised no question with regard to the gentlemen who have been sitting here. I was calling attention to what must arise now.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: There are difficulties which may arise, and if there was any serious problem to be dealt with, a real difficulty which showed itself, I agree with my noble friend that the House of Lords Offices Committee would be a convenient body to deal with it. In fact this question of access to the House of Lords and the question of who shall control the right of access, have already been the subject of consideration by a Select Committee appointed on the recommendation of the Offices Committee less than thirty years ago. Its Report was made in 1906, which I gather was coincident with the admission of the gentleman who has been referred to as the expert during this discussion. A Very influential Select Committee was appointed, with the Lord Chancellor presiding over it, and I see that Lord Onslow's father was a member of it. That Committee enquired into the power and authority which the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod exercised in order to determine, no doubt, some question which had arisen as to the right of decision on such a point as is raised this afternoon.
That Committee in 1906 made a very detailed and careful Report to the House, and I cannot help thinking that before

89
pressing me too far to ask the House of Lords Offices Committee to investigate these possible difficulties, it would be worth while to look at the Report, which I think contains rather useful material. There was a careful examination into the question as to where the custody of the Palace of Westminster legally resided, and the Committee resolved after careful inquiry that:
"The Palace of Westminster is in the custody of the Lord Great Chamberlain, who is an hereditary Great Officer of State, receiving no salary and in no way under control of the House. When Parliament is not sitting the Palace of Westminster is under his management."
The Committee went on to report that:
"Each House, while in occupation of the part assigned to it, has the custody and service of that part; this control was exercised through officers placed by the Crown at the service of either House, viz., in the Lords, through the Gentleman Usher, in the Commons, through their Serjeant-at-Arms, officers attending personally at all sittings of their respective Houses, appointing all their own subordinates and liable to removal, for
misconduct. …"
The Report goes on:
"All questions relating to the disposition of the Lords portion have been dealt with from time to time by the House of Lords Offices Committee and its predecessor, the ' Committee on the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod '—so called after the two Chief Officers responsible to the House in their respective Departments which comprise the whole machinery of the government and management, of the House."
That Report, accepted twenty-eight years ago, I think does define the authorities through which such points as have been indicated in this afternoon's debate can be resolved.
That is to say, if there were a question of the allocation of rooms, that is a matter which obviously does not only arise when Parliament is sitting, and is a matter which in practice, to my knowledge, is dealt with by the Lord Great Chamberlain. When I was Lord Chancellor, as not infrequently happens in Government Departments, I thought I was not getting enough rooms for the adequate discharge of the duties of my Department, and I had to go to the Lord Great Chamberlain—with much less success than I had hoped—in order to try to get an increase of the rooms allotted to me. Similarly, when there is a question of admitting any particular person to the precincts of the House what
90
happens is that a permit is issued by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, permitting a particular person to have access to the House, either on a particular occasion or during a particular Session. No doubt, if any question was sought to be raised as to the propriety of the action of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, that is a matter which would be referred to and would be considered by the House of Lords Offices Committee, who would, if necessary, make a report to your Lordships' House.
The fact is that the control of this House whilst it is in session rests in the House itself, and I think one of the differences between the practice of this House and the practice of another place is that in our House, both in the conduct of our debates and in the ordinary regulation of our affairs, we act with a greater elasticity and with less regard to the strict letter of regulations and Standing Orders than has been the practice elsewhere. I am not going to discuss which is the better course. I have no doubt that the House of Commons has the rules which it thinks best for the conduct of its own business, but I am profoundly convinced that in this House the rules and the methods under which we work have conduced to a very dignified and orderly conduct of affairs, and I should be very sorry to see us attempt to follow the more rigid procedure in another place.
Now I come to the particular case which has given rise to the present discussion—I do not say it is the subject of the present discussion, because the discussion has taken a wider range. The facts, as I understand them—I do not think they are in dispute—are that there is a group in your Lordships' House which I think is called the Association of Independent Unionist Peers. I may say in passing that sometimes the Government notices their independence more plainly than their Unionism. But it is a body which comprises a very large proportion of those of your Lordships who take a regular part in the conduct of the legislative business of this House. I wish that were not so. I wish very much that there were more Peers who regularly attended and regularly assisted in our discussions; but in fact the Independent Unionist Peers are a body which comprises in its hundred odd members—130, I think, is the number—the bulk of

91
those who, at any rate on this side of the House, take a regular part in our debates.
That body was formed some twenty-eight years ago. It was formed in order that those on the Unionist side who were taking a regular part in the political discussions here should have an opportunity of consulting together, of making up their minds about various measures which came under discussion, and of framing Amendments and bringing forward their particular points of view. I gather that for the more efficient discharge of those duties they have at their own expense employed a very eminent expert to advise them on legal matters, and I suppose on matters of procedure, and to assist them in drafting Amendments and in finding the necessary technical phraseology for the views which they desire to see embodied in Acts of Parliament. He has apparently habitually for twenty-eight years enjoyed the privilege of attending in the Prince's Chamber, of having access to that part of your Lordships' House which is used by officials and by secretaries and assistants of Ministers, and has also had the advantage of attending in the Library.
My noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees has given us such information as he has been able to collect as to the precise way in which those privileges originated. But it is worth noticing, I think, that they originated twenty-eight years ago under a Liberal Government, that they have continued under Coalition Governments, Conservative Governments, Labour Governments, and now under a National Government. I was very sorry to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, that in some way the presence of this gentleman in the Library had caused him inconvenience. I am quite sure that that must have been unintentional, and I am quite sure that every effort would be taken to avoid any such inconvenience.
But, apart from that complaint, which I learnt this afternoon, I have never heard that the presence of this gentleman has given rise to any inconvenience or trouble, to any member of your Lordships' House, or has in any way interfered with the efficient conduct of our business. On the other hand, we have been told—and one can well understand—that his presence has been of material assistance to that very large body of Peers who
92
belong to the Association, and who habitually, I am glad to say, come and assist in our deliberations. Now, I do venture to think that in those circumstances it would be a mistake for your Lordships to pass any Resolution which would seem to suggest that there was any question of the withdrawal of those privileges or the alteration of that practice. I do not think any case has been made out for any alteration in that regard. But I recognise that, apart from the particular instance brought forward, questions may arise, and the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, brought forward one or two of them with regard to which it may be said that difficulties may be created.
Lord Arnold told us that he would like to see one or two rooms allotted for the use of experts whom various members of your Lordships' House might wish to consult, or as rooms in which members of your Lordships' House might interview callers. I can quite sympathise with the desire for more accommodation, but I know that it is a very difficult question. I know the difficulties which arose in my own case when I tried to invite the assistance of the Lord Great Chamberlain, and I know also that when I was performing judicial duties in your Lordships' House and was to some extent responsible for the efficient conduct of that business, there was very great difficulty in finding rooms for the Law Lords and those who habitually attended for judicial work. We had actually to put two Law Lords in one room, which was obviously—I do not say a dangerous, but at any rate an inconvenient practice. There is a real difficulty with regard to that: we have not got anything like the accommodation which they have in the other House, and it would be a very great advantage if some arrangement could be made to meet that point.
My doubt regarding the suggestion made by my noble and learned friend the Marquess of Reading is that I do not think concrete difficulties have arisen which require to be sent to a Select Committee. I cannot help thinking that such a point as that which Lord Arnold has raised might well be considered by the proper authority if it were merely a matter of the allocation of rooms. The proper authority in that case is the Lord Great Chamberlain. If it is merely a matter of somebody attending to give advice or assistance to a group of your

93
Lordships or to an individual Peer, there is no difficulty in asking the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod for the necessary permits, and I have no doubt at all if it did happen that that privilege were too largely availed of, and there was any danger of congestion or inconvenience, the matter could be considered by the House of Lords Offices Committee, but I doubt very much if that is ever going to arise. I am told that it is the practice for the private secretary of the Leader of the Opposition or of any Cabinet Minister to get; a permit as a matter of course. We were told than the private secretary of the most reverend Primate, Dr. Davidson, habitually attended with such a permit. It obviously might happen that there were too many people, and there might be unseemly crowding or jostling or interference with the liberty of access to your Lordships' House. If anything of that kind arose it would obviously be right that such a problem should be dealt with by the House of Lords Offices Committee and brought if necessary to the notice of your Lordships' House; but it has not arisen and, with great respect to my noble friend, I doubt very much whether it will arise.
I do not think we shall find in practice that so many people want to have their experts or private secretaries here that there is likely to be any such interference as the noble Marquess fears. My own personal feeling—and I hope the Opposition will believe I am not consciously swayed by any Party bias in the matter—is that it would not be unreasonable to affirm that we are satisfied with the existing practice, and at the same time we should make it clear, as I am endeavouring to make it clear, that if any difficulty arises at any time then the accustomed officers of the House, whose functions and decisions have been already plainly delimited and set out in. the Report of 1906, should understand that it would be their duty to deal with any such question and bring it to the notice of your Lordships' House. The reason why I am suggesting that the existing practice should be affirmed is that the particular case that has arisen does seem to be one that has been thoroughly thrashed out and with regard to which no substantial case of difficulty or inconvenience has arisen, and, if it is a precedent, it is a precedent which has
94
been repeated over and over again and with regard to which in practice no difficulty has hitherto arisen. If we were not to affirm the existing practice it would look as if we thought this particular gentleman ought to be excluded, and I do not myself consider any case has been made out for an alteration.
I suggest, therefore, the convenient course would be to accept something in the form of the Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hastings. In accepting it we should make it quite clear that we continue the present practice, that we are satisfied with the administration of the present high officers, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod in the one instance and the Lord Great Chamberlain in the other, and are confident that if any difficulties arise in the future regarding any application either for accommodation in the way of rooms or for accommodation in the way of facilities for access to the House, these difficulties will be dealt with by the officers concerned and, in any case of doubt, will be brought to the notice of the House of Lords Offices Committee, which I quite agree would be the appropriate body to deal with the matter. The only difference between myself and the noble Marquess is that he feels there will be a difficulty and that the House of Lords Offices Committee should consider it now, whereas I for my part very much doubt whether a difficulty will actually arise, and unless one arises I do not see why we should refer a hypothetical problem which may never arise to the Committee to deal with.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Arnold replies to the debate I should just like to say a few words. To begin with, I wish to express my regret that the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House has not responded to the appeal which my noble friend made, and which was supported by the noble Marquess on my right and by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, both of whom have had a very considerable experience of Parliament. We are now confronted with what we hoped would not be the result of this debate, which is a direct negative by which the small body to which I belong are going of course to be defeated. In the course of the debate I have learned a great deal. I am afraid

95
it was some phrases of mine in a speech I made last December which has caused all the trouble. But I noticed the individual in question when I first came into the House. I did not notice him particularly, because I am afraid there were a good many noble Lords whom I did not know by sight. I thought he was a Peer. He seemed to be where all other Peers were. Then after a time I was on the Government Bench, and I realised he was the adviser to the Opposition, as I thought. I thought it was perfectly right and natural he should be the adviser to the Opposition and that the Opposition should have an adviser who has access to the various parts of the House and can be ready at hand to advise them. Then, when in 1931 I crossed over to this side of the House, I saw he was still there and I asked some noble Lord on the Government Bench if he were an adviser to the Government. He replied: "Oh, not at all," and then I discovered he was advising a certain group. That does really make a very great difference.
This question of advising a group does open out the whole of the ground which has been covered during the debate. I personally have no intimate knowledge of this Association of Independent Unionist Peers, of which the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, is Chairman, and I think the noble Lord is perfectly justified in coming to your Lordships' House to stand an for the activities of his Association and to insist on the privileges which have been got for it. I did not know that this body existed for expediting and assisting business and the Government. In fact some of the opinions with regard to that body I have heard expressed do not seem to convey that impression to me at all; but, however that may be, the result is that this body which I described not rhetorically but very accurately in my speech in December last is here for the purpose of giving a very strong Conservative bias to everything that is done, and they have got this very able adviser who on occasions floods the Order Paper with Amendments, and very good Amendments too, with the result that the Government themselves are embarrassed. But the present Government would rather be embarrassed by the extreme diehards than that these diehards should renounce their present privileges.
96
When the Leader of the House gets up and says: "There is not going to be any other case, so we are going to keep our man," he knows that my noble friends and I cannot afford to have secretaries who can spend their days here. We have not the money, and it is impossible. Other noble Lords will probably be able to produce experts who can attend here. I do not know, but perhaps they will as a result of this debate. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House looks upon that prospect with complete indifference so long as we keep the present practice that there shall be one expert for these 130 Peers, and that that one expert shall be in the Library and in all the corridors and rooms of this House as if he were a member of the House itself. If the noble and learned Viscount consented to put this matter before the House of Lords Offices Committee I am perfectly certain that some arrangement could be made by which accommodation would be found for advisers. I know the official answer about accommodation—there is never any accommodation. But it is marvellous what they can do when they are forced to. There are a thousand rooms in this building, and if they are properly adapted they can accommodate the right number of people. Moreover, the judicial business of the House is never concurrent with the Parliamentary business of this House, and there is no reason why certain rooms should not be used for a double purpose. That could be gone into by the House of Lords Offices Committee. This is a matter that can be easily adjusted.
Nobody wants to deprive the 130 noble Lords of their adviser. We only ask that he should give his advice in a way that is less disturbing to other Peers. My noble friend Lord Arnold has said that he has been disturbed in the Library. I am perfectly certain he is not the only noble Lord who has been disturbed. I have seen, when we were discussing Bills in which the 130 Peers have been specially interested, Peers sitting round in a ring with the expert holding forth. Nobody can do any work when that sort of thing is going on in the Library. And his zeal is such that no doubt he accomplishes his purpose and does his business with the utmost efficiency. But really these are matters which should be adjusted in an impartial way. It is extremely disappointing to come down to your Lord-

97
ships' House and after a speech delivered in such a calm and moderate tone as my noble friend's was, to be simply met by the Leader of the House with a direct negative, with the statement that Lord Hastings's direct negative is the only way out of this question. That attitude leaves us not only disappointed but with a certain feeling of unfairness in the treatment of this question which we had not expected. However much we have tried hitherto to prevent publicity being given to this question, I am afraid publicity will be given now, in view of the way the Leader of the House has treated the question this afternoon. I do not know what my noble friend feels, but I should certainly advise him to go to a Division.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I should like, if I may say so, to endorse what my noble friend has just said. It is most unfortunate that a matter like this should be forced—that is what it comes to—to a Division by the attitude taken by the Leader of the House and by other noble Lords. I put forward a most reasonable proposal which was supported, and I thank him for it, by my noble friend Lord Reading, who has great influence in your Lordships' House, and also by the great authority of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, who very rarely intervenes in the debates of this House but when he does I think his words should always receive the very greatest possible consideration. Despite this we have in fact been met, as my noble friend said, by a direct negative. That is what it comes to. In those circumstances I do not know that there is very much point in continuing the debate further. The chief criticism I think by Lord Hastings of myself was that I referred to the Throne as a chair. In that regard I was following my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who was born in Windsor Castle while I was born in a suburban house in Cheshire. I thought he was more likely to be right about these things than myself, but in future I shall have to be more careful and be sure of my phraseology in regard to these august matters. But I was quoting the words of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby.
The noble Viscount the Leader of the House referred to precedents and so forth. The permissions which have been given for experts to go on to the floor
98
of the House have been given for special purposes, when special Bills were being discussed. On no other occasion, as far as I know, has such a permission ever been given to any expert to go into the Library. The noble Viscount, if I may say so, is not quite right in his facts. It is not many years ago since the secretary, I think to the Leader of the House, was not able to go into the Library. I think the noble Viscount will find that it is correct to say that the secretary to the Leader of the House had no official permission to go into the Library. Is it really seriously proposed, as apparently it is if we are to meet with this direct negative, that if any group of members—and there may be any kind of definition as to how many there are in a group—is to put forward an application for an expert to come and help in the work here, then that expert is to have the same privileges as the present expert has? It is true, as Lord Ponsonby has said, that certain members of your Lordships' House are not as well off as others, though many of us are not on the bread line, but there are plenty of experts who are willing to come and work for nothing, and they will be only too pleased to come and work for nothing if they are to have the right to go into the Library and into the tea room and on to the floor of your Lordships' House.
This is an impossible position. No adequate reply whatever has been given by the noble Viscount to the suggestion that alternative accommodation should be found to suit this expert. I do not want to take his position away from him. I am sorry for him. What we say is that there is a way to deal with the matter. There is accommodation in your Lordships' House. The noble Marquess says: "You must have someone to help you to draft Amendments." Very well; have your expert; but take him out of the Library and put him into some other room or rooms. There are rooms which are never used in your Lordships' House. That is a fair proposal and it ought to be accepted. It is no reply for the noble Viscount simply to get up and say nothing need be done as there is no real difficulty, and that we should continue the present practice. It has been suggested that I am the only Peer who has been inconvenienced in the Library. That really is not so. The noble Viscount

99
says that if I have been inconvenienced, it has been done unintentionally. It may have been unintentional, but it is unavoidable. It is absolutely impossible for the present state of things to continue. If we are to be voted down, as apparently we are, that is not an end of the matter. In a sense it is really only the beginning of the matter. I am very sorry indeed that the debate has had to end on this comparatively controversial note, but we have no responsibility for it.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend the Leader of the House a question. Assuming that the Motion is withdrawn, and consequently the Amendment also is withdrawn, nothing would happen. We have had a statement from the Leader of the House for our guidance in the future. It was really the suggestion I was making, although I did add that the matter should be referred to a Committee. I understand what the noble and learned Viscount said about that, and have not a word to say about it. I accept what he said in regard to it. What I do ask him is whether, in the circumstances, if my noble friend Lord Arnold is willing to withdraw the Motion and the Amendment also is withdrawn, that is not the right way out for all of us?
LORD HASTINGS: If the noble Lord withdraws his Motion I shall regard it as necessary that I should also withdraw.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: May I point out to the noble Lord that his Amendment comes first? His Amendment is before the House and it is on that that voting will take place, and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House advises your Lordships to vote for this Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: There is a Motion before the House and an Amendment. I was stating what I thought was the right thing to do upon this Motion. It seems to me that if the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, does not wish to press his Motion and is satisfied to leave things where they are, my noble friend Lord Hastings, if he will take my advice, should withdraw his Amendment.
LORD ARNOLD: If I may be permitted to intervene I should like to say that I think it is most undesirable that there should be a Division on this matter.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD ARNOLD: If the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment I will withdraw my Motion and then the matter will be left open for the future.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, Lord Arnold has made a long second speech, but I am not going to follow his example, although I have the right to finish the debate. I was awaiting my opportunity to do so. However, the noble Lord is good enough to say that he proposes to withdraw his Motion, which as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, pointed out comes second, as the Amendment comes first. I am certainly willing to follow the advice of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and to follow what I think would be common-sense procedure—that is, to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that no vote is taken. The result would be that we continue the status quo and that no alteration in the present practice would occur. Does the noble Lord give an undertaking not to proceed to a Division?
LORD ARNOLD: I have given an undertaking that I shall not proceed to a Division but the interpretation placed on the position, which will then emerge, will vary in different quarters.
LORD HASTINGS: In view of that undertaking I ask permission to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ARNOLD: I ask permission to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS (SPECIAL INVESTMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I hope that the business which I now have to bring before your Lordships will not take so long as the business which we have not succeeded in transacting in the last three hours. This Bill consists of only two clauses and I hope that your Lordships will treat it as non-controversial as has been the custom with legislation in the past dealing with trustee savings banks. This Bill deals with the special invest-

101
ment departments of these banks. I may explain to your Lordships that trustee savings banks are the oldest and indeed the original savings institutions in this country. All of them have an ordinary branch, but a great many of them have two blanches. The ordinary department accepts deposits up to £500 a year from any one individual at a fixed rate of interest of 2½ per cent. Both in regard to capital and interest the deposits are guaranteed by the Government. In regard to the special investment department which some of these banks have, deposits can be accepted up to £1,000 provided the depositor has £50 in the ordinary department. In that case neither capital nor interest are guaranteed by the Government and the interest varies in accordance with the transactions of the Bank. In most cases now it varies between 2¾ per cent. and 3 per cent.
The Government for many years have exercised control ever the investments in the special investments branch. In the ordinary departments the whole deposits go direct to the National Debt Commissioners, but in the special investment branch the Government exercise control and the type of investment has to be approved in accordance with legislation which has long been in existence in this country. The main purpose of this Bill is to enlarge the powers of investment which these banks now have. What has happened is that these banks have made most of their special investments in mortgages raised by municipal authorities. Owing to the low rate of interest on capital in general many municipalities have been converting their mortgages and funding them at a low rate of interest and of course for a long period of years. These trustee savings banks have to keep their money in funds which can be readily realised if they should require to call on capital. Therefore it is now proposed to give these banks rather wider powers of investment.
Perhaps it will be sufficient if I put the matter briefly by saying that the term of years is somewhat lengthened in regard to some of these investments. The Bill enables investments to be made in the funds of municipalities with a population of over 50,000 and also in Government securities which have rather a longer life. Your Lordships may be surprised
102
to hear how great is the extent of the funds of trustee savings banks in this country. It is a very remarkable story. At this moment there are exactly 100 banks with 538 offices. There are no fewer than 2,024,000 active accounts in the ordinary department and there are 304,000 in the special investments department. The bank year for these trustee banks ends on November 20 and the deposits at November 20 last in the ordinary department amounted to very nearly £88,000,000 and to £82,000,000 in the special investments branch. The actual amount has increased very materially in the past two years owing to a variety of causes—to the conversion of the 5 per cent. War Loan and for other reasons. It has increased in the ordinary department by no less than £10,000,000 in the last two years and by £17,000,000 in the special investment department. It now amounts, as I have said, to the enormous sum of nearly £88,000,000 in one branch and £82,000,000 in the other.
The purpose of Clause 1, as I have stated, is to increase the investments in which these banks can invest their special investment funds. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 is intended to make it more easy to start a new bank. They have to keep a good deal of their money liquid but they want to earn such interest as is possible. They will be entitled under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this subsection to put their money into other banks and obtain interest on it. They are limited as to the amount they can put into another bank and they are also limited in regard to the proportion of their funds which they can put into another bank. In regard to subsection (2) (b), that makes it clear that the National Debt Commissioners can order these funds to be withdrawn from another bank if they see fit to do so. Subsection (3) of Clause 1 is to make it clear that trustee savings banks have the right to open an account for their special investment branch in any other bank, not being a trustee savings bank. That has, as a matter of fact, been the habit of banks for a great number of years. It is not quite clear that they were in fact entitled to do so, and therefore the power is given to them by this Bill.
The whole of this legislation has been asked for by the Trustee Savings Banks Association, which is the central body of trustee savings banks, and the pro-

103
posals in the Bill are such as the Association have approved. The application from the Association was considered by the Government, who thought that it was a very legitimate one, and that is why it appears in this Bill. I do not know whether there is anything further that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would like me to say on the Bill, but perhaps I may be able to answer him if he has any point to raise. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Earl Stanhope).
LORD STEABOLGI: My Lords, I want very briefly to comment on this Bill on behalf of my noble friends, and the first thing to say is that this is a shockingly bad example of legislation by reference. In the discussion during the last three hours (to which the noble Earl referred as ending in nothing) we heard a great deal about drafting. Here is an example on which that expert we heard so much about earlier in the afternoon might have been set to work. I defy anybody to understand this Bill without going through five Acts of Parliament. Again and again it refers to Acts. The first one is the Trustee Act, 1925; then we come to the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921; then we come to the Trustee Savings Bank Act, 1918; and then we come to an Act which does not exist, for there is no such Act in existence as the one which is referred to in line 18 on page 2 of the Bill as the Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863. At least I have not been able to find it in the Library, with the very able assistance of the courteous officials in the Library. What no doubt is meant is an Act of 1863 which is called the Savings Banks Acts Amendment Act—nothing about trustee savings banks. Then, to continue, it is necessary to refer also to the Savings Banks Act, 1929.
Those are five separate citations, and it is impossible to understand this highly technical Bill, dealing with a subject which is in any case a difficult one for the ordinary layman, without referring to all those different Acts. I would appeal to the noble Earl, and I would appeal if I may to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, on this matter. This is a Bill originating in your Lordships' House, and I repeat that without being armed with five Acts of Parliament, one of them going back seventy years, it
104
is impossible to understand it. It may be all right for the bankers themselves, but we have to think of the many hundreds of thousands of trustees, solicitors and ordinary depositors who may have to refer to this Bill in the future when it becomes an Act of Parliament. Surely the time has come when it is possible to draft Bills to become Acts of Parliament in language which the ordinary layman can understand, and when it is necessary to cite old Acts, to give extracts from them—rubrics if you like, or something of that kind—in the margin explaining what they are. This is really a very serious matter, especially in view of the amount of legislation which has been turned out by both Houses of Parliament during recent years, and it does really need most serious attention. I am sorry to make this complaint, but I do assure the noble Earl that if this matter could be gone into and remedied, it would be of great advantage to the ordinary public.
With regard to the material of the Bill, speaking on broad lines my noble friends and the Party to which we belong are very anxious to see better control over the use of other people's money by trustees or anybody else. We welcome anything which prevents the dissipation of the people's savings by incompetent or careless persons to whom it is entrusted. This Bill simply widens the field of investment, but nevertheless there are very stringent safeguards remaining, and needless to say we offer no opposition at all. But on those broad lines, may I point out to the noble Earl—or rather remind him, for he knows this very well— that the habits of the people have changed a good deal. Whereas in the past the small man invested as a rule only in a savings bank, there has now grown up a class of business known as investment trusts, which take small men's money and invest it on the whole very soundly and very efficiently. The majority of them that survived the recent slump are efficiently and honestly managed, but there are others which have not been honestly or efficiently managed, and people's money has been lost.
While we are talking of the safeguarding of the investor and saver, the Party to which I have the honour to belong believes that this matter should receive equally close attention, and that when you are legislating for the better control

105
of savings banks—and the legislation has been going on for nearly a hundred years—the time has come when the Treasury and the Government should turn their attention to the other form of encouraging saving by the people and the investment of money—namely, the investment trusts. Only a small minority, I repeat, need special attention, but that is always the case. In the old days it was only a small minority of banks that needed special attention in this country, fortunately; but that is why we have the present Bank Acts.
This Bill, I understand, does not apply to the Post Office Savings Bank, and I am therefore spared the necessity of making a few caustic remarks about the use made by His Majesty's Government to-day of Post Office Savings Bank funds, and the extremely unscrupulous scares which were raised at the last General Election. I need not refer to those matters now, although there may be another opportunity; but I would like to ask this question: Are the restrictions which are contained in the Bill, such as those for instance in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of Clause 1, where it is provided that the total liabilities in respect of moneys received in respect of special investments shall not exceed £20,000, and paragraph (c) of that subsection, which provides that the amount which the trustee savings bank may deposit with other banks shall not exceed £5,000, intended in any way to hamper the future development of municipal banks, on the lines of the Birmingham Bank and others?
I would be very glad if the noble Earl would give an assurance on that point, perhaps at a later stage of the Bill if he has to look up the information. That is the only matter about which we think some assurance is needed, because we do not want to support anything which will hamper the development of municipal banks, especially with all the safeguards which exist under the various Bank Acts. I apologise for these few remarks and for delaying your Lordships at this late hour, but this is an important subject, it deals with a very large branch of banking and affects many thousands of people, and my noble friends thought these few remarks were necessary.
EARL STANHOPE: I can assure the noble Lord opposite that the powers re-
106
ferred to in subsection (2) of Clause I have, of course, no connection whatever with municipal banks. As I stated, this Bill deals entirely with the special investment branches of these trustee savings banks, and with them only, and therefore nothing in this Bill would have any connection with municipal banks, which are a different thing altogether.
LORD STRABOLGI: Or with co-operative banks?
EARL STANHOPE: Or with co-operative banks unless they are in fact trustee savings banks. I am not clear as to what a co-operative bank is. Some of them are possibly on the same lines as these, in which case, of course, they would have to come under the ordinary law affecting trustee savings banks.
LORD STRABOLGI: There is only one, I think. I believe that the Co-operative Wholesale Bank is the only one.
EARL STANHOPE: That would come under the same law as all other savings banks in the country. These regulations are put in only because the Treasury and the National Debt Commissioners think they are advisable. Of course, there is no question of restricting banking at all. In fact, we are anxious to increase thrift, but to see that its funds are properly safeguarded. As regards the second point, the noble Lord may be interested to hear that I asked this morning whether there had been any failures with regard to these banks. I understand that although in some cases they had to close their doors, in every case they paid the deposits in full and always with interest as well, having a balance in hand. These banks have very large reserve funds, amounting to over £9,000,000. Therefore, they axe in an extremely safe position.
The complaint he made that this is legislation by reference is one that I am afraid people who stand at this Box hear on almost every occasion, to whichever Party they belong. I admit that perhaps it is rather a bad case, but I understand that the whole of this legislation for trustees savings banks has gone on for so many years that it has a phraseology peculiar to itself, and several instances have been pointed out to me in this Bill of language not usual in legislation in these days. Of course the Bill will not

107
be construed by the ordinary depositor. It is of no interest to him to know that the bank puts money into this or that. The only people who have to deal with it are accountants, who go through the funds and audit, and see that the investments are made in accordance with the Acts of Parliament in force, and to some extent the trustees and managers, who get guidance from the National Debt Commissioners.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (CRUELTY TO DOGS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
COTTON MANUFACTURING IN- DUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVI- SIONS) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
STATUTORY SALARIES (RESTORA- TION) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 33:
Provisions in the event of postponement of coming into operation of Part I.
33.—(1) If this Tart of this Act is not in operation on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, the following provisions shall have effect: -
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER)THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER) moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "If this Part of this Act is not in operation on" and insert "Whereas this Part of this Act will not, save as therein otherwise expressly provided, come into operation until after". The noble Lord said: My Lords, both of the Amendments to be moved to this Bill at this stage cover the same point, and they will ensure that Part I of the Bill will come into operation, except as otherwise expressly provided, on Thursday, July 26. As I explained oil the Committee stage, that was the date we in-
108
tended, but there was a little difficulty in establishing it definitely because we did not know the date on which the Bill would receive the Royal Assent. Therefore, we are putting in these words so as to leave no doubt.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, leave out from the beginning to ("the") in line 15, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Rochester).
LORD STRABOLGI: Before this Amendment is put may I ask whether there is going to be any special national celebration to welcome the Bill and make public holiday?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: NO, I think the gratitude of those who come under it will be sufficient celebration.
On Question, Amendment 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 on the fifth Thursday after the passing of this Act.
LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "fifth Thursday after the passing of this Act" and insert "twenty-sixth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-four." The noble Lord said: My Lords, This is the same point exactly, and is simply complementary to the other, in fixing the actual date.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 37, leave out ("fifth Thursday after the passing of this Act") and insert ("twenty-sixth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-four").—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LICENSING (PERMITTED HOURS) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments (according to Order), and passed, and returned to the Commons.