Lords Sitting of 20 June 1939

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR PLACES OF HISTORIC INTEREST OR NATURAL BEAUTY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BARMOUTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MACCLESFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.

GLASTONBURY GAS ORDER, 1939.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My, Lords, I beg to move that this Order be agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TIENTSIN.
4.18 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government if they are able to make a statement on the present position with regard to Tientsin.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, on April 9 Dr. S. G. Cheng, manager of the Federal
550
Reserve Bank at Tientsin and newly appointed Superintendent of Customs, was assassinated in the British Concession. This was the first case of violence which had occurred in the Concession since the outbreak of hostilities. The assassin, a Chinese, escaped. The municipal authorities invited Japanese co-operation and carried out a number of raids in the Concession, as a result of which several arrests were made. The Japanese authorities alleged that four of these were members of a terrorist gang connected with this murder and with the death of three Japanese soldiers. These men were handed over to them for questioning and two made confessions implicating themselves, which, however, they later retracted when returned to the custody of the British municipal authorities.
In the course of the lengthy negotiations which followed, the Japanese authorities failed to produce independent evidence connecting the men with the crime, and in the absence of such evidence His Majesty's Government did not feel justified in giving instructions for them to be handed over to the local District Court. This attitude is in accordance with the practice followed for the past twenty-two months. His Majesty's Consul-General accordingly informed his Japanese colleague on June 6 that the four men would be held by him pending the production of further evidence, failing which they would be eventually expelled from the Concession, that two other men found in possession of bombs would be handed over, and that in future any breach of neutrality would be dealt with either by handing over the culprit to the de facto authorities for trial or by expulsion from the Concession. A proclamation to this effect was issued in the British Concession on June 7.
The Japanese authorities, however, indicated that they considered this reply to be unsatisfactory and demanded that the four men be handed over. In pursuance of their efforts to find a just and amicable solution, His Majesty's Government then proposed that the available evidence, and any other evidence which might be secured, should be submitted to an Advisory Committee consisting of one British, one Japanese and a neutral member. The United States Government agreed to nominate a member and the

551
United States Consul-General at Tientsin was at the same time authorised to use his good offices. The Japanese military authorities at Tientsin rejected the proposal for an Advisory Committee and initiated a blockade of the British and French Concessions at Tientsin at 6 a.m. on June 14.
The British military authorities have taken all precautions possible for the maintenance of order, and His Majesty's ship "Lowestoft" is moored alongside the Bund of the British Concession. Barrier restrictions have since been enforced with extreme rigour. While foreigners other than British appear to have been allowed through the barriers on production of passes, all British subjects have been held up and closely searched and in four cases have even been subjected to considerable indignities. Three British subjects have been arrested—Major Law, Mr. Mayell, and a Mr. Smith. Of these the two former have been released but the third remains under detention despite the requests of His Majesty's Consul that he should be handed over. The entry of perishable foodstuffs, including vegetables and milk, and ice into the British Concession has been delayed by rigid search carried out at the barriers, and arrivals therefore continue to be spasmodic. Normal supplies are reported to be reaching the markets in the adjoining French Concession. As regards shipping, it has been announced that all ships arriving at Tientsin will be stopped and inspected, and this has been carried out against British vessels including tugs and lighters. On June 18 two British coasting steamers however came up river to Tientsin without stoppage or search, and another vessel was stopped and subjected only to perfunctory search.
Protests have been addressed by His Majesty's Consul at Tientsin to his Japanese colleague concerning the indignities inflicted on British subjects and the search of British ships and against the interference with food supplies, and strong representations have also been made by His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo to the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs who has taken note of them and undertaken to make inquiries. Sir Robert Craigie has also further drawn attention to the serious implication of the statement made by the Japanese military spokesman at Tientsin to the effect that the questions
552
at issue cannot now be settled by the handing over of the four suspects but that the objective of the blockade is to secure a much wider form of co-operation from the British authorities in North China.
The general position is not yet clear. It would appear that the original demand for the handing over of the four men has been confused by the introduction of larger issues of general policy. No formal representations have been received from the Japanese Government on this subject, and it is still hoped that a local settlement will be found possible. His Majesty's Government have expressed their willingness to discuss measures to secure what has always been their aim at Tientsin—namely, that the neutrality of the Concession should be maintained and that it should not be in any way the base for hostile activities. His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo is endeavouring to clarify the situation with the Japanese Government and I discussed it yesterday with the Japanese Ambassador. His Majesty's Government trust that the Japanese Government will not desire, any more than do His Majesty's Government, to widen the area of disagreement or to complicate a situation that is already extremely difficult. At the same time, they are fully alive to the reactions of the present dispute on the position of other British and International Settlements in China. His Majesty's Government are maintaining the closest touch with the French and United States Government.

THEIR MAJESTIES' RETURN: WELCOME BY PARLIAMENT.
4.24 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I have really no observations to make on the clear statement about Tientsin which has been made by the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, further than to express the hope that His Majesty's Government will continue to take the firm attitude which they have been taking in desiring to separate the local incident which has occurred in Tientsin from the wider questions of the whole relation of our interests in China with which it has been, apparently, endeavoured to complicate the situation. I really rise to ask an entirely different Question of the noble Earl

553
who leads the House, and that is to inquire whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to move an Address to His Majesty the King on his return in order that we may express our appreciation of the marvellous success which has attended Their Majesties' visit to Canada and the United States.
4.26 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess opposite for giving me an opportunity of informing the House of the measures which His Majesty's Government propose to ask Parliament to take in giving a welcome to Their Majesties on their return to this country. I propose to move a loyal Address when the House assembles on Thursday next, and it is proposed that both Houses of Parliament shall adjourn in order that they may take a personal part in the welcome to Their Majesties as they pass from Waterloo Station to Buckingham Palace. It is proposed that the pavement on either side of the road facing New Palace Yard shall be reserved for members of both Houses of Parliament, and that we should assemble there to give Their Majesties welcome. The time at which the House will adjourn for that purpose will, of course, depend on the time Their Majesties arrive at Southampton, but if it is in accordance with the programme—and I have no reason to think that it will be otherwise—it is proposed that this House shall adjourn at a quarter past five o'clock. Their Majesties will probably pass somewhere about 5.35 p.m. Then we shall reassemble at six o'clock to carry on with our business. As the House will meet that day at the normal time of a quarter past four, I shall be able to inform your Lordships of the time when the adjournment will take place, because by then we shall know of Their Majesties' arrival at Southampton. So far as I have had reports up to date, the "Empress of Britain" is steaming at a lower speed than that of which she is capable because she has passed the ice zone and is already well on her way back to this country.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BURNHAM AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HEMEL HEMPSTEAD WATER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HEYWOOD AND MIDDLETON WATER BOARD) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SLOUGH) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SWAFFHAM WATER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
NORTH WEST MIDLANDS JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (OXFORD) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (CONGLETON) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MARGATE) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MATLOCK) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
CROYDON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
SAINT PETER'S CHAPEL STOCKPORT BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
OSWESTRY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
ADOPTION OF CHILDREN (REGULATION) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HAILSHAM WATER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LUTON WATER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOUTH KENT WATER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (NORTH LINDSEY WATER BOARD) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WEMBLEY) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BACUP) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.34 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, this Bill seeks to effect an amendment of the law in Scotland relating to the disqualification of councillors either for membership of local authorities or in some cases for voting, and is a matter of some urgency owing to difficulties which have arisen in an acute form in a number of areas in relation to the conduct of housing business and to the placing of contracts with co-operative societies. Under the Housing Acts a member of a local authority is precluded from voting upon any housing question if it relates to any house, building or land in which he is beneficially interested. In a number of burghs in Scotland the administration of housing business, particularly in regard to such matters as the fixing of rents, has thereby been impeded owing to the large proportion of councillors who are occupants of council houses. The difficulty with regard to contracts placed by local authorities with co-operative societies arises out of the terms of the existing law which disqualifies a person from being or continuing a councillor if and while he has, directly or indirectly by himself or his partner, any share or interest in any contract with, by or on behalf of the council. The effect, therefore, of the present law is to disqualify for membership of a council any member of a co-operative society with which the council enters into a contract. In a number of areas where such con-

557
tracts are in existence many councillors are affected by this disqualification and they are liable to vacate office.
The Bill is based on the recommendations of the Local Government and Public Health Consolidation (Scotland) Committee. This Committee, which is under the Chairmanship of Sir John Jeffrey and includes representatives of the local authorities in Scotland and of the different Parliamentary Parties, was appointed by the Secretary of State some eighteen months ago with a view to the consolidation of the law in Scotland relating to local government and public health. The effect of Clauses 1 and 3 of this Bill is to repeal the provisions of the law relating to disqualification on account of an interest in a contract and the provisions of the Housing Acts to which I have already referred. Clause 2 substitutes a provision that if a member of a local authority has any pecuniary interest in any contract, proposed contract or other matter, he shall disclose the fact and shall be precluded from taking part in any discussion or vote upon that matter. Provision is also made for the removal of any disability by the Secretary of State where it is in the interests of the inhabitants of the area for him to do so or where the transaction of any particular item of business would be seriously impeded.
The principle of disqualification for voting in place of disqualification for membership of an authority has been followed, as regards housing business, in the various Housing Acts since 1890 and provisions similar to those to which I have referred were extended to local authority business generally in England by Section 76 of the Local Government Act of 1933. This was done on the recommendations of a Departmental Committee appointed by the Minister of Health. Clause 2 also provides that the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the council, himself transact any particular item of business on their behalf. This provision has been framed with those cases in view in which the whole or practically the whole of the members of a council might be disqualified from discussion or voting upon a matter under the Bill, particularly in relation to such matters as the fixing of rents for council houses. The provisions of the Bill have been universally accepted, I think, as desirable for placing Scotland in this matter on the same footing as England. I beg to
558
move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
4.41 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, amongst my noble friends on this side of the House I have the closest connection with Scottish matters although in regard to most other matters I qualify as an English resident. As, however, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India is in charge of all Scottish matters in your Lordships' House, I think I can claim nearer relationship with the people of Scotland than he can with any of the inhabitants of India for whom he is responsible. Therefore I think your Lordships will not object to my saying a few words on this Bill. As the noble Marquess said, this Bill is urgently needed to meet a ridiculous state of affairs on certain Scottish councils. Not only, I understand, was anyone living in a council house precluded from taking any part in housing business, but any member of a co-operative society—and, as your Lordships know, co-operative societies are very strong north of the border—was precluded from taking any part in proceedings relating to contracts which co-operative societies might hold and might not even be allowed to sit as a member of the council. Obviously that was never the intention of the Acts of Parliament. This Bill was accepted, and indeed supported, by my right honourable and honourable friends in another place, and therefore we on these Benches have no desire to do other than accept it. At the same time we realise that in bringing in this Bill the Government have no intention in any way of weakening the safeguards against possible corruption in local government, any more than they have, I understand, any intention of turning a blind eye to possible breaches of contracts in national government where special interests may arise. Therefore we desire to support the Bill.
4.43 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State a question on this Bill. The provisions of the Bill have now been put into the London Consolidation Bill and made applicable to the borough councils in London. These provisions, though part of the general law in England, did not

559
apply to borough councils in London. That is my excuse for intervening in this debate. I should like to ask the noble Marquess a question with reference to the latter part of subsection (8) of Clause 2. It says:
"… the Secretary of State may also on any such application or otherwise and subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose remove the disability in any other case in which it appears to him that it is in the interests of the inhabitants of the area that he should do so."
The first part relates to the members of co-operative societies, but it is the latter part about which I am in doubt.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, that would cover the case of housing business. As the noble Lord himself pointed out, the first part refers to contracts with societies, but provision is also made to enable the Secretary of State to take action in the case of difficulties arising in the administration of the Housing Acts.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I would like to begin by reminding your Lordships that on March 4, 1937, the Minister of Labour announced that he proposed to appoint a Committee to investigate the extent to which holidays with pay were being given to employed workpeople, and the possibility of extending the provision of such holidays by statutory enactment or otherwise, and to make recommendations. Your Lordships will remember that the Committee, under the Chairmanship of Lord Amulree, reported early in 1938. The Committee, amongst other things, recommended that the provisions in the Insurance Acts respecting unemployment benefit and payment of contributions during the period of paid holidays should be reconsidered with a view to amendment, as well as the question of benefit during an unpaid holiday. Following upon that, the Unemployment Insurance
560
Statutory Committee were asked, in April, 1938, to consider and advise upon the question whether any change should be made in the Unemployment Insurance Act in relation to holidays and periods of suspension from work. That Committee presented its Report on October 7 last.
The Committee, after a description of the present law and practice and of the many complicated problems arising in connection therewith, said:
"It is not, we are sure, in accord either with the purpose for which unemployment insurance was established or with responsible public opinion that unemployment benefit, directly or indirectly, should become a form of holiday pay. … Holidays in our view should not count as unemployment either for benefit or to maintain continuity. On the other hand, they should not be allowed to break continuity of unemployment. The way to a satisfactory solution of the problems … lies in drawing a sharp distinction between holidays and unemployment. The principle is clear and should now be embodied in the statutory conditions defining unemployment."
They therefore recommended legislation to secure that insured persons on holiday should not be treated as unemployed and to empower the Minister to deal by means of regulations with points of detail. Further, in view of the fact that one effect of their recommendations would be to prevent holidays from counting as part of a continuous period of unemployment, they suggested a relaxation of the rules governing the requirement of a fresh waiting period after a spell of employment. I will deal with that in rather more detail in a moment. As regards the point of suspension from work, the Committee recommended that payments made by employers during suspensions should not be a bar to the receipt of benefit, provided the payments were made in accordance with rules approved by the Minister. These recommendations are given effect to in the Bill.
Clause 1 starts by laying down the principle that an insured contributor shall not be deemed to be unemployed for the purposes of the principal Act on any day on which he is on holiday. Of course your Lordships will be aware that it has long been the position that an insured contributor cannot get benefit in respect of any customary or recognised holiday, or in respect of any holiday for which he receives payment, but there are cases in which, under the present law, benefit can be drawn by persons who are actually on

561
holiday. I could give your Lordships many examples. In the absence, for example, of a specific agreement between the employer and the workers, it may and very often does take some time for a period to become recognised as a customary holiday. Then there is the case where a holiday is governed by express agreement but in practice additional days are observed as a holiday. The additional days (if unpaid) can count as unemployment. In addition to the fact that persons actually on holiday can draw benefit, there is the fact that unpaid holidays, even though they may not count for unemployment benefit, may nevertheless be treated as a period of unemployment for the purpose of preserving continuity of unemployment.
The Statutory Committee summed up the effect of the present law and practice thus:
"The position revealed by our inquiries is in many ways unsatisfactory. … The extent to which, under the present law, holiday leisure can be converted into unemployment for the purpose of insurance is already producing many anomalies and is bringing the insurance scheme into disrepute. Both the disrepute and the anomalies will be accentuated in time to come by the contemplated and highly desirable development of holidays with pay. The report of the Committee on Holidays with Pay has rightly called attention to the necessity of redefining the position in regard to unemployment insurance as an accompaniment to the recognition of paid holidays as a normal incident of employment. Obviously a workman in receipt of pay for the holiday ought not to be able to draw unemployment benefit as well. But to allow decision for of against unemployment benefit in a holiday period to turn directly on Whether or not the workman is receiving any pay from the employer for that period would set up undesirable reactions. First, it would act to some extent as a deterrent to the grant of paid holidays, or at least as an excuse for evading such a grant. Employers unwilling to meet the expense of holiday pay would leave their workmen to draw benefit; other employers of more public spirit would be at a disadvantage. Second, it might lead to arrangements designed to give pay for holidays in substance without doing so in form. … There are indications already of movements in this direction. … Unless the position is defined there is likely to be continuous pressure upon employers granting pay for holidays to grant it in a form making possible the drawing of unemployment benefit as well. And there will be a sense of injustice if employers giving holiday pay from their own funds find other employers giving holidays without pay, in reliance on the benefit which their workmen may contrive to draw. In order to clear the ground for the development of holidays with pay from the employer as an incident of employment, and
562
to forestall the undesirable developments suggested above, it is essential to secure that holidays, whether or not they are paid for by the employer, cannot be taken with pay from the Unemployment Fund, on the plea of being unemployment."
The Committee, my Lords, recommended that the necessary legislation should take the form of laying down the general principle that holidays are not unemployment, while leaving details to be worked out in regulations to be made by the ordinary procedure involving Report by the Committee after receipt of representations from employers and workers and their representatives. The Bill goes upon these lines.
Clause 3 of the Bill contains a relaxation of the rules governing the requirement of a fresh waiting period after a spell of employment. At present a fresh waiting period is not necessary provided that the interval between the two periods of unemployment does not exceed ten weeks. This Bill provides that a fresh waiting period should not be necessary if the interval between two periods does not exceed twenty weeks. This extension of the interval will, it is estimated, cost something in the nature of £600,000 a year. There will, however, of course, be a saving of some £400,000 a year under the rule that henceforward holidays are not to count as unemployment. The net result of the two provisions will be that insured contributors will benefit to the extent of some £200,000 a year. These two provisions which I have just dealt with are not to come into operation until January, 1940, so as to give plenty of time for the framing and preparation of the necessary regulations, including consultation with persons and bodies concerned.
I should like to say a word on the question of suspension from work. There are, of course, a number of firms or groups of firms who, during temporary suspension from employment or for a period after the termination of employment during which the employee can be looking for fresh work elsewhere, make a payment to the employee (or ex-employee), sometimes of an amount which, with benefit, would bring the weekly income up to the same level as his previous weekly wage, and in some cases of less. The general rule has been that where these payments can be said to form part of the terms and conditions of

563
the employee's service, benefit is not payable. This is rather a difficult question, and it might be well to quote the words of the Statutory Committee upon this point. They say:
"The question thus raised is one of considerable difficulty. On the one hand it may be argued that it is against sound policy to arrange that men when out of work shall get exactly the same as when in work, since this will discourage men from seeking work elsewhere and increase unemployment. On the other hand unemployment benefit has never been regarded as necessarily a sufficient income during unemployment. … On the whole, we believe that there is a case for amendment of the law in the direction of providing that supplementary payments during suspension, made in accordance with regulations of the Minister of Labour, should not be treated as wages so as to destroy a claim to benefit."
Clause 2 of the Bill makes the necessary provision for giving effect to this recommendation.
Clause 4 confers further advantages upon the insured contributor. There are, for example, cases where insured contributors who have no dependent children within the meaning of the Act, have residing with them, and are maintaining, a grown-up daughter or sister, who runs the house for them. Under the present law the insured contributor could not get dependant's benefit in respect of such a person. Clause 4 will enable him to. Secondly, under the existing law, if the wife of an unemployed man has one lodger who lives as a member of the family and is provided with board and accommodation, the fact that the wife is doing the work of looking after this lodger is not a bar to dependant's benefit. There are cases, I understand, however, where, although only a single lodger is taken, he is provided only with accommodation, not with board. Under the existing law this is a bar to dependant's benefit in respect of the wife. It does not seem that this is right, and the clause makes the necessary amendment. It is estimated that Clause 4 will benefit insured contributors to the extent of some £100,000 a year.
I would ask your Lordships to turn now to Clause 8, which is rather an important clause. Clause 8 makes certain amendments as regards training courses, and has two main objects. The first is to give the Minister power to provide training courses for unemployed juveniles
564
between the ages of sixteen and eighteen in special circumstances which are defined in the Bill. The existing training provision for juveniles under eighteen, while it has been shown to work excellently in the ordinary run of cases, does not entirely meet the needs of certain of the older boys in areas of severe juvenile unemployment. Their best chance of employment is to acquire some kind of skill in a particular occupation in which they can obtain employment in another area. In the older age group—sixteen to eighteen years—there are some boys who at the junior industrial centres have been introduced to craft work and have shown considerable aptitude for it. For such lads the best hope of employment would be by means of a vocational training course, such as is given to young men in the Government training centres.
Another but less specialised form of training is given in the Ministry's local preparatory centres. The power of the Minister to provide direct training in centres of this kind is limited to persons who have attained the age of eighteen, and the chief object of the subsection is to permit such training for juveniles of sixteen years and upwards. It is proposed to limit the experiment in the first instance to selected boys of over seventeen years of age who are suitable for immediate training in one of the courses provided at the centres. This extension of the Ministry's training scheme to boys under eighteen will not require any enlargement of the centres, as they will be admitted only as vacancies are available within the present programme. The method of recruitment will be the same as that now applied to adults, and it will be limited in the first instance to boys resident in the Special Areas, and certain other areas of heavy juvenile unemployment. The scheme is, of course, entirely voluntary. The second and the minor object of Clause 8 is to give the Minister of Labour express statutory authority for the training of serving soldiers. The Ministry of Labour took over the training of serving soldiers from the War Office during last year, but the Ministry so far has been acting on an agency basis for the War Office, since the Minister of Labour at present possesses statutory powers only to give training to the unemployed.

565
The remainder of the Bill consists of what may be described as minor amendments. Most of them relate to relatively small points of detail, mainly of a technical nature, and call for no comment beyond a brief reference to their contents. Thus, Clause 5 corrects an interpretation of the existing Acts which permit the receipt of benefit in certain cases in excess of the periods mentioned in those Acts. Clause 6 amends the law relating to special and supplementary schemes. Under the 1920 Act industries were empowered in certain circumstances to contract out of the general scheme. Later this power was abolished. Only two industries had contracted out before it was abolished—namely, the insurance industry and the banking industry. These two industries have their own unemployment insurance schemes, which are known as special schemes. The Acts also contain provisions for making supplementary schemes, that is, schemes for payments in respect of unemployment, in addition to payment of ordinary benefit, or for periods for which ordinary benefit is not payable. There are not at present any supplementary schemes in existence, but on more than one occasion the possibility of making a supplementary scheme has been discussed with the industry concerned, and the National Joint Council for the building industry has submitted a draft scheme for payments in respect of wet-time. In discussions which took place with the flour milling industry and in the discussions with the building trade it was seen that the present definition of the scope of a scheme in the Act: caused difficulty, and other difficulties have emerged in connection with the building trade scheme. It is desired to remove these difficulties and to make certain other slight improvements.
Clause 7 deals with the crediting of unemployment insurance contributions to children aged fourteen, who are receiving whole time education. Without this clause, owing to the differences of school attendance law, children in Scotland would be at a disadvantage as compared with children in England when the school leaving age is raised next September. Clauses 9 and 10 bring the Unemployment Insurance Acts into line with the Health Insurance Act in the matter of legal proceedings for non-payment of contributions, and evidence at statutory inquiries. Clause 11 makes more suitable provision for reciprocal arrangements with Northern
566
Ireland in connection with unemployment insurance. Clauses 12 and 13 make certain adjustments and corrections of the provisions governing the scope of the unemployment insurance scheme and, in particular, bring into insurance canteen workers employed on His Majesty's ships by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes.
The only remaining clause which calls for comment is Clause 15. This gives effect to a recommendation made by the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee in their latest Report on the Financial Condition of the Agricultural Account of the Unemployment Fund at the end of last year, that the existing provision under which farmers and their workers who enter into long hirings can obtain a rebate of unemployment insurance contributions, should be abolished. The Statutory Committee have pointed out that experience has shown that the administrative cost of giving the rebates appreciably exceeds the amount of the rebates themselves and that, in any event, the reason which led them originally to propose the concession has ceased to be valid: so far from Scotland having a lower risk of agricultural unemployment than England, it has a higher risk. Also the experience of the North of England, where, too, long hirings are common, confirms the experience of Scotland that the system of long hirings does not lead to a low rate of unemployment among agricultural workers as a whole. The Committee say:
"This greater temporary security of employment for some of the employees is now shown to be accompanied by a rate of unemployment among other workers in the same industry so high that the unemployment percentage over all employees taken together is actually higher in Scotland and in the North of England than it is in England and Wales as a whole."
Clause 15 gives effect to the Committee's recommendation to abolish the system of rebates, but provides for a period of grace. To sum up, the Bill aims at placing unemployment insurance in relation to holidays upon a satisfactory footing, at making a number of changes in favour of the insured contributor, and at effecting certain minor amendments where experience has shown that the present law is capable of improvement. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
5.9 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends, I wish to say that I think the whole House will agree that one is warranted in congratulating the noble Earl upon the clarity with which he has presented so highly technical and detailed a Bill. So far as the Party which I represent is concerned, we do not wish to offer any opposition to the Bill. Many of its provisions, as the noble Earl has explained, will confer real benefits upon the unemployed and remove many existing anomalies, but I would just like to draw attention to the announcement which the noble Earl has made on the proposed scope of Clause 8. The proposal, as I understand, is that those who are to have the benefits of training between the ages of sixteen and eighteen are to be limited to those who come from the Special Areas, where there has been long continued unemployment, or to persons who have been long out of work. I think those are the limitations which the noble Earl says should be applied to this clause.
If noble Lords read the clause they will see that it gives very welcome and wide powers to the Minister to set up vocational training, and I think it is exceedingly unfortunate that the Government should propose to attach so narrow an interpretation to it. There is no doubt at all, as was revealed in our debate on unemployment, that there is a real need for an extension of vocational training for young people, and that it improves their opportunities and value afterwards very greatly. There is one industry particularly that I would like to mention, and that is the industry of agriculture. There you have had an exodus of workers taking place on a very large scale, and now we are asked by the Government to support them in exhorting farmers to plough up more land. The fact is, as will I think become much more evident during the coming months in many places, that farmers will be quite unable to plough up as much land as they would like, because there is no labour left. It is exceedingly important therefore that vocational training should be extended to land workers. I believe myself that the future recruitment of workers on the land will largely depend upon the attractions that are offered to young people, and the increased improvements of education that are provided for. It is exceedingly unfortunate therefore that the Government
568
should propose to limit this opportunity in the very narrow way they are doing. With that exception, we wish to offer a welcome to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS BILL.
5.13 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 3 [Provisions as to making, variation and revocation of orders as to application of this Act]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had on the Paper an Amendment, in subsection (10), to leave out "may" where that word last occurs, and insert "shall." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have had an opportunity of seeing the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, before the debate commenced, and he has given me good and sufficient reasons for not moving the Amendment. I therefore propose not to do so.
Clause 8:
Saving of rights.
(2) In respect of injury sustained on land to which this Act applies by persons being thereon in consequence of this Act, the rules of law relating to injury sustained on land by persons trespassing thereon shall have effect:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as authorising the owner or occupier of land to which this Act applies, or any person having an interest therein, to do or cause to be done thereon anything involving a contravention of subsection (1) of Section one of this Act.
5.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "by persons being thereon in consequence of this Act, the rules of law relating to injury sustained on land by persons trespassing thereon shall have effect" and insert:
"neither the owner nor the occupier thereof nor any person having an interest therein shall be under any greater liability than he would have been under if the land had not been land to which this Act applies and persons allowed in consequence of this Act to have access thereto had been trespassers thereon."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is put down following on the discussion that your Lordships had on an

569
Amendment to this subsection, which I moved and your Lordships agreed to, during the Committee stage. We had an interesting discussion, and two points were put forward which I think merited further consideration. As a result of that consideration I have put down the Amendment which is now before your Lordships. The particular points that were at issue were principally raised by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who suggested, first of all, that the word "trespassing" should not be included in this subsection, because those who go on access land will not be trespassers; and secondly, that the wording could be very much simplified. This particular subsection deals with the liability of the landowner, so far as any injury may accrue to those who get on the land which is the subject of an Order under the Bill, and, as I think was made perfectly clear on the Committee stage, that particular part of the law is extremely involved and indeed, for the layman, very difficult to understand. But in the Amendment that is now before your Lordships I hope that I have met the second point of the noble and learned Lord by putting it in more general terms and leaving the liability of the landowner where it is.
With regard to the inclusion of the word "trespassers" in the Amendment, the reason for that is that, though I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that these people will not of course be trespassers if this Bill becomes an Act, it is most desirable to make clear where the landowner's liability for any injury sustained begins and ends, and it is desirable—and it is intended—that that liability should be the same as his liability is to trespassers. I find it necessary to include the word because I have been told of an extract from a book, which I have never read, nor am I likely to read, which is Winfield on the Law of Tort. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack knows much more about that book than I do, but my source of information makes me feel that Winfield on the Law of Tort is an authority at any rate worthy of some consideration. He says, on page 605:
"It is often hard to say whether a person is a trespasser or a licensee, …."
Your Lordships will remember that the noble and learned Lord made it perfectly clear on the Committee stage that the liability, so far as the licensee is con-
570
cerned, is considerably different from the liability so far as the trespasser is concerned. Winfield goes on:
"but it would appear that no one is a trespasser who enters either by authority of law, or by express or implied permission of the occupier, or by the occupier's acquiescence in continued acts of trespass."
Note the words "who enters either by authority of law." If this Bill becomes law people will enter upon the land by authority of law, and they will apparently cease to be, in law, trespassers, and therefore presumably the liability of the landowner, if they come on the land, will be somewhat different from his liability to a trespasser. In those circumstances I feel that it is desirable to make it perfectly clear in this clause that these people are, for the purposes of any injury which they may sustain, and for that purpose only, to be treated as trespassers, and as nothing else.
The only other point that arises on it is the point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Phillimore, as to the frequency with which people will go on the land. Of course, there will presumably be a great many more people on the land under the operation of this measure than there have been hitherto, and the liability is therefore the greater. I hope that that has been dealt with in the Amendment in the words which state quite clearly that the landowner or the occupier shall not be under any greater liability than he would be if this Bill were not passed. I do not think I can explain any more clearly the purpose of this Amendment. I know that on the Committee stage your Lordships agreed to put into the Bill an Amendment on the same subject. It has been pointed out to me that it was contrary to the usual practice of your Lordships' House that when the promoters of a Bill promised to consider a matter on Report the Amendment should be agreed to. I think, however, it has performed a useful service in that the Amendment that was then put in included the word "trespassing" which is a possible source of contention among a certain number of people who are actively interested in the Bill. In spite of that word having been put into the Bill there has been, so far as I can ascertain, no unfavourable reaction, and I hope therefore that in consequence of that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will not object to its continued inclusion in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 38, leave out from ("applies") to the end of line 40, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for paying attention to the suggestion I made with regard to the drafting of this clause, because it is clearly only a question of drafting. I frankly admit I can understand some members of the House thinking it was a little bit in the nature of pedantry to accept the substance and desire a certain amended form, but, after all, it is the sort of thing I am here to assist your Lordships in if I can. I think the present form in which the clause stands as a result of the Amendment of the noble Earl removes the difficulty and objection I felt to it in its original state, and it only remains for me to say that I am happy to approve of the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

WATER UNDERTAKINGS BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT BRIDPORT: My Lords, I beg to move that the Motion that stands in my name on the Order Paper be agreed to.
Moved, That a Committee of seven Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider the said Bill. That the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:
V. Bridport,
L. Darcy (de Knayth),
L. Teynham,
L. Derwent,
L. Faringdon,
L. Kenilworth.
That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(Viscount Bridport.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint seven members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.

PROCESSED MILK (IMPORT REGULATION) ORDER, 1939.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) DRAFT ORDER, 1939.
MILITARY TRAINING (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) DRAFT ORDER, 1939.
MILITARY TRAINING AND RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (INSURANCE) DRAFT ORDER, 1939.
5.22 p.m.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, in moving that the three Draft Orders that were reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday be approved, it would be to the general convenience of your Lordships if I were to enlarge on the explanatory memorandum which accompanies each of these Draft Orders and to explain quite briefly the principal points of interest in order to show the House the intentions of His Majesty's Government in their consideration of the matter in question. The House will recall that on the Second Reading of the Military Training Bill, I reminded your Lordships that a number of Orders in Council would have to be made dealing with the very large variety of complicated matters that would materialise as the result of the passage into law of that Bill and of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill. If your Lordships would permit me, I shall deal with the last Draft Order on the Paper first—namely, the one dealing with the consequential insurance provisions.
This Draft Order is made under Sections 11 and 4 of the Military Training Act and the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act respectively. The first Article of the Order makes provision for the protection of industrial assurance policies, the premiums of which are payable by militiamen or by reservists or by their depen-

573
dent wives and children. The second Article provides for ordinary assurance policies and friendly society assurances. These two classes of insurances differ in many important respects, and it is therefore necessary to deal with each of them quite separately. The premiums for the industrial assurances are, I understand, collected at short intervals and are generally relatively small amounts, and such policies are held almost entirely by poor people. My advisers have informed me that they believe there are in existence some eighty-five million industrial insurance policies in this country at the present time.
Your Lordships will observe that both Article 1 and Article 2 of this Draft Order protect persons from forfeiture of their policies during their period of service and for a certain time thereafter. Under both of these articles the period of relief consists of the actual period of service under either Act plus an equal additional period. Thus, if the period of service is six months the period of relief would be twelve months, and the period of grace another six months, making eighteen months in all. It will be further observed that the period of grace is an additional period after the period of relief which the insured person is given to pay up any arrears without interest which may have accrued during the period of relief. If any claim should arise before the period of grace, the claim will be paid in full less any premiums unpaid. There is an important limitation which your Lordships will observe—namely, that the benefits are not to apply in the case of policies the premiums on which exceed L25 during the year in question. We have purposely inserted this provision to rule out larger policies which may be taken out by the richer classes or by other people on their behalf.
I come now to Article 3 which contains the provisions for ascertaining the period of relief and the period of grace. By this article relief from forfeiture under the Order is restricted to policy-holders whose policies were effected before June 15 this year. In the case of policies effected on or after that date no relief is given unless a year has elapsed between the date when the policy was effected and the date when the policy-holder began his period of service. The period of relief on this class of policy is the actual period the
574
man serves either as a militiaman or is called up as a reservist under the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act. Your Lordships will agree that it is right and proper that a restriction of this kind should be inserted for we can clearly envisage a situation arising in which a man called up for service might conceivably effect a number of insurance policies with no intention whatever of paying more than the first premium, and thus enjoying free cover on each insurance during the whole period of his service.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask the noble Earl how he avoids the danger of fraud in that way? I do not understand how it is provided for.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I thought I had made it clear that relief from forfeiture under the Draft Order is restricted to policies which were in existence before June 15. After that date no relief is given unless a year has elapsed between the date when the policy was effected and the date when the policy-holder began his period of service. That appears to me to be quite clear, but I am perfectly prepared to admit that the provisions are somewhat complicated. I have endeavoured to explain to your Lordships the principal points, and perhaps I might deal with any others that arise in my reply, or my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will deal with them in my place.
I turn from that Draft Order to the first Draft Order appearing on the Paper, which is made under Section 4 of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act and gives protection to men called out, and to their dependents, in respect of their civil liabilities. Under this Order no step can be taken, except with the leave of the Court, to enforce during a man's period of service and for a similar time thereafter, (1) any judgment for the recovery or for the possession of any premises of which he was in occupation before his period of training began; (2) for the payment of any rent or mortgage; and (3) for the matters connected with hire-purchase. We make further provision for a case of hardship caused to some person who was unable to meet his obligations due to the calling up of some other man. The second part of the Order deals with civil remuneration and superannuation rights and your Lordships will observe that special protection is afforded to

575
clerks of the peace and deputy clerks, coroners and justices' clerks who may be called out, and it provides that they shall receive their salary less the amount of their service pay. I am advised that the necessity for all these three cases being particularly mentioned is due to the Act of Parliament dealing with their appointments whereby the liability of obtaining deputies to act is placed upon the persons in question themselves.
Article 7 provides that while an employee of any local authority or any other body mentioned in the table which will be found at the top of page 16 is serving, he shall be deemed to be absent on leave. In this case the pay that he will receive is that less the difference between his service pay and allowances and his civil remuneration. Article 10 is designed to secure that any person called up will not lose or forgo his superannuation rights, but that he will be treated in exactly the same position as if in fact he had never been called out at all. Articles 11 and 12 safeguard teachers in this country and teachers in Scotland. Article 13 deals with police and firemen's superannuation and Article 14 with superannuation schemes of employers owning private undertakings. Article 20 deals with the billeting of Army Reservists and Territorials called up for service under the Act, and Article 21 permits the use of requisitions for the provision of vehicles and stores in consequence of the passing of the Act. Article 22 deals with billeting for members of the Air Force and Article 24 with the billeting of Naval Forces. Article 26 secures that those persons called out will continue to be insured during their period of service under the National Health Insurance Act, and Article 28 provides that any scholarship which has been won may be prolonged if the person who has won it is called out for service.
I come now to the last of the Draft Order made under Section 11 of the Military Training Act, and your Lordships will observe that protection is afforded to militiamen in a similar fashion as under the previous Draft Order which I have just explained, with one exception, that any payment due under an obligation entered into will only operate if that obligation has been entered into before the 15th of June last. The House will observe that we have protected the rights
576
of militiamen under the National Health Insurance Act and under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and, further, under the Contributory Pensions Act. All these rights are safeguarded by Articles 9, 10, and 11. Article 12 makes it clear that, as no reductions are to be made from the pay of persons to whom the Military Training Act applies, no contribution under the three Acts which I have mentioned is recoverable from the militiaman. The remaining articles of this Draft Order are practically similar in every detail to those which I have endeavoured to explain to your Lordships. I beg to move that the special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be now approved.
Moved, That the Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved—(The Earl of Munster.)
5.35 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, so clearly has the noble Earl explained these very complex measures that I hope His Majesty's Government will, as soon as possible, send him round the country to the different depots and camps, and wherever these young lads are being trained in the Territorial camps, to explain them there. The noble Earl, the First Lord of the Admiralty, has been a soldier and he has read these Orders. I wonder how many of his troopers would have understood them. They are most complex; in fact, I would like the Government to send the noble and learned Lord Chancellor himself to explain them to the officers so that they in their turn could explain to their men the real meaning of the Orders. They are full of ambiguities, and I shall venture to draw your Lordships' attention to one or two of them in a moment.
First of all I must apologise for having interrupted the noble Earl, though I notice the interruption did not in any way disturb the sequence of his explanations. The point I wanted to elucidate is this. This is retrospective legislation; it must be. There is no complaint about that. You seek to protect the militiaman who is called up unexpectedly under this emergency legislation, or the Territorial soldier called up for his period of service, on account of certain obligations in respect of insurance, hire-purchase and matters of that kind, but only for transactions

577
entered into up to June 15. Now the Bill with which we are dealing, and to which these Orders are consequential, is, I understand, to last for three years, but, if circumstances demand it, it will, of course, be extended. I ventured to suggest to your Lordships in the debate on the Bill itself that this legislation would now become permanent. The emergency may continue if His Majesty's present advisers remain in office. The longer they remain in office the worse things seem to become, and I can see no possibility of this emergency legislation ceasing, so long as this Government is in office. Therefore you will have a series of classes of young men called up. Now surely it is public policy to encourage thrift, and insurance is a form of thrift. Are you to say to all young men liable in future to serve under the Conscription Bill: "You must not enter into any insurance policies—it does not matter if you want to be married or whether you have aged parents dependent upon you, you must not enter into insurance policies after June 15, 1939." Is that the intention of the Government? If the men do enter into insurance policies, or insure themselves, it means that out of their scanty soldiers' pay they have somehow or other to struggle to keep up the payments. I suggest that the Government ought to look into this matter still further.
That brings me to my next point. These Orders—I suppose it is unavoidable—are being rushed through Parliament. I know the last thing the Leader of the House would wish to do would be to hustle your Lordships in any way, but we sat as a Public Bill Committee most unexpectedly yesterday afternoon to go through these Special Orders so that they might be taken to-day on the floor of the House. They are being taken in another place to-morrow. This is, I suppose, our only opportunity of discussing them. I suggest to your Lordships that it is really asking a great deal of us to deal with these highly complicated matters this afternoon. I will go so far as to say this—and here I am not expressing my own opinion only, but the opinion of my friends who have closely examined these Orders—that the Government are bound to amend them later on. We consider them unworkable, at least in parts, and indeed we are not sure that they are altogether legal. I say that with full respect to the noble Earl the Chairman of
578
Committees and the very distinguished body of Peers who examined the Draft Orders yesterday.
Dealing with the Draft Orders as they appear on the Paper, and not in the order in which they were taken by the noble Earl who spoke for the War Office, I will take first the Draft Order made under Section 4 of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act, 1939. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to something which I think is a curious anomaly. I refer particularly to Articles 4 to 8 which deal, broadly speaking, with public servants. Employees of local authorities and certain other officers who are called out as Territorials or reservists to do their turn of duty are picked out as a special class of citizens to receive special treatment. They are to have their pay made up, because they are, I suppose, employees of local authorities. I am not sure, but I understand that ordinary civil servants will not have that privilege. I would like to have that point made clear if the noble Earl will be good enough to enlighten me. I understand that employees of local authorities are to have their pay made up, but that Government civil servants are not. That seems to me extraordinary.
Why do not the Government try to induce all employers of men called up for these short periods of service as Reservists or Territorials to make up their pay? I dare say it would perhaps create great hardship in certain cases, but you could have a fund to compensate the small man—"the little maister," as they call him in the Midlands—who would be required to make up the full pay of the few men he employs who might be called up. You can have a pool and draw on that. At present it is proposed to pay some men, such as justices' clerks or coroners, while others serving side by side with them will just get their ordinary Territorial soldier's pay. I suggest that that will create a certain amount of ill-feeling amongst men serving in the same units. It would have been far better if the Government had grasped the nettle and had said that no man called up for the defence of the country for a short period should suffer in his pocket, whether he be a clerk to the justices, or a coroner's clerk, or in ordinary employment. That is the main criticism I have to make on this first Draft Order.

579
It is explained that you must pay their remuneration to the clerks of the peace, to coroners and to justices' clerks because they, poor fellows, have to pay deputies to do their work. But then you go on to say—I am not attempting to deal with the Draft Order, I am only trying to understand the Explanatory Memorandum, and even with the noble Earl's explanation that is rather a hard task—
"In each of these cases also the officer is required to appoint and pay out of his own pocket for the services of a deputy so far as may be necessary but the authority concerned is empowered to recoup him for the amounts paid to his deputy."
In that case, why not pay the deputy right away? Why go through this complicated business in order to pay a clerk of the peace in order that he can pay a deputy, and then reimburse him for the amount paid to his deputy—less, of course, his Army pay. Unless I am mistaken in my reading of the Draft Order, these people are to be put in a privileged position. There may be good reasons for that and I am very glad they will not suffer. I am sure they are worthy citizens; but it is not right that these legal gentry or semi-legal gentry should receive preferential treatment over other persons called up as Reservists or Territorials. So much for the first Draft Order on the Paper.
Now, if I may, I will draw attention to the second Draft Order which deals with the case of the young militiaman unexpectedly called up as a conscript. It seeks to preserve him from hardship in respect of perfectly proper commitments he has entered into, such as rent, the hire-purchase of furniture, insurance premiums and so on. My Party—for whom I am speaking—take very great exception to the meagreness of the protection provided. The only protection really that you give to the young militiaman is the mercy of the Court. I think I am right in saying that. He has to prove hardship and then the Court, if satisfied, has to show clemency. I am told that the numbers affected are astonishing. There are young men who in perfectly good faith have entered into all sorts of commitments—sometimes in conjunction with their widowed mothers or their parents—for the hire-purchase of furniture, for rent and one thing and another, who are going
580
to be very hard hit. I am told there will be about 100,000 families affected. It is an enormous subject that we are discussing.
What my Party say should have been done was to have created a pool of compensation from which, where hardship was proved, you could provide the necessary means to meet these obligations. Then you would not have robbed—I use the word not in its literal sense—you would not have caused hardship in turn to the small landlord or to the person engaged in a little business as creditor of hire-purchase schemes and others who are bound to suffer under the present Draft Order. You could have compensated them directly and have relieved the militiaman at the same time. Now in any case you are only postponing the burden of debt. The young militiaman comes out of the Army, gets a year and a half grace added to his six months' training, and then he has to pay large sums. When he is struggling to replace himself in civil life he has this great debt over him. It would have been far better to have relieved him of all such obligations.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: He is not struggling to get himself back into civil life. That is specially protected under the Military Training Act. He will go back to the position he occupied in industry before being called up.
LORD STRABOLGI: He has got to get back into civil life and resettle himself. As I read it, he has to pay arrears. Is not that the case?
EARL STANHOPE: Only the arrears when called up.
LORD STRABOLGI: We understood that these arrears could mount. They are completely suspended in the case of insurance, but what about rent and hire-purchase payments and so on? What happens then? If I am being over-tender for the young conscript I am very glad. Perhaps he is better off than one thought, but that is our reading of the Draft Order—that he will come out of the Army with a burden of debt. If he does not, all the better; but in any case somebody is going to suffer and accordingly we hear a great deal of complaint from insurance companies and I do not blame them. We shall hear about that presently from the noble Viscount on the Liberal Benches. As I understand

581
the position, insurance companies, both industrial and ordinary, are going to be very hard hit and they are asking for special treatment. But what about all the other people—landlords who have to do without their rent, and the people who have supplied goods on hire-purchase? Obviously the anomalies created are numerous, and the losses created will be numerous as well. With regard to the third Draft Order, which deals with insurances more particularly and the period of grace and the arrears of premiums, I am only asked to say on behalf of my friends and my Party that, while we do not want to see any injustice to the insurance companies, we cannot see any reason why they should be specially singled out for relief. I am sure that is not the intention of the noble Viscount. There are other businesses which are affected as well, and what might be held to apply to insurance companies we suggest should also apply to others who may be consequential sufferers as a result of this Act.
We are dealing here with emergency regulations; that we understand. We always thought that the Government had a Military Service Bill ready in the pigeon-holes in case war came. Well, they have had to bring in a modified one for the state of twilight war or twilight peace in which we live; and this is the result. They had to deal with an entirely novel situation; we appreciate that, and we do not want to complain too much about it. But we consider that these Draft Orders are only provisional, and the opinion of certain of my friends, who have gone very closely into the matter, is that the Orders will have to be amended in the very near future. Now they cannot be amended in either House of Parliament; they can only be discussed and either accepted or rejected. We do not intend to oppose them; we have no intention of doing so either in the other House or in your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, though they give substantial reliefs, the reliefs are not sufficient, and they create with the reliefs a good many hardships.
5.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, the few observations I am obliged to make are only directed to the third of these three Orders. I do not know whether it is quite convenient to take them all
582
three en bloc, but we are in the hands of the noble Earl and we must adapt ourselves to what he has done. These Orders came before the Special Orders Committee yesterday afternoon. As the noble Lord on the Opposition Bench said, we had very short notice of them and Monday is a very unusual day for a meeting. A number of noble Lords who happen to be connected with insurance companies and whom I have seen this afternoon had never heard of the Orders until to-day, and the Orders were flung at the head of the House at what seems to some of us unreasonably short notice. I know that the Orders have been lying on the Table for about six days, but they were not six working days. However, I will not pursue that point.
The Special Orders Committee had these Orders before them. The Government were represented by learned counsel and by a host of officials from the Departments concerned. The duty of the Special Orders Committee, as your Lordships know, is to determine three points: Do the Orders raise questions of policy and principle? Are they founded on precedent? Is any special inquiry necessary? Having heard what your Lordships have heard, and perhaps having looked at the Orders, I think your Lordships will be somewhat astonished to hear that learned counsel submitted first of all that the Orders did not raise any special question of policy; secondly, that they were founded on precedent—and I need hardly tell your Lordships that the Special Orders Committee unanimously found against the Government on that point. On the third point, whether a special inquiry was necessary—which means, as your Lordships know, a Select Committee—those of us who were interested from the insurance side did not ask for it, because we realised that these consequential Orders are founded on really important Acts, that they, or something of the same nature, are really necessary, and that the Government alone can judge, from the timetable on which they have to go, how quickly the Orders have to be got through.
I should like to submit that it is not necessary to pass these Special Orders to-day. It would be very undesirable to reject them, but it is quite open to the Government to bring up other amended Orders in a short time. I am able to say on behalf of the Association of Life

583
Insurance Companies that they would be ready and anxious to co-operate as quickly as possible with the representatives of the Government in agreeing upon an amended Order this week. We have been told again and again, and I believe we shall be told again this afternoon, that the Government recognise that these Orders, and many other Orders which are consequential on the two Acts, are merely provisional and will probably have to be amended very shortly, because the Acts themselves and the Orders following upon them have been brought forward in a great hurry. We recognise that, and we think, therefore, that it might be better to do this now rather than to wait for some indeterminate time. I am quite sure that the Government will not wish to antagonise at this early stage the large interests which are concerned with insurance—and when I say "large interests" I do not mean finance, I mean the whole body of the people who are insured.
The only thing that gives me a little hope is that I notice that the original—if I may say so without any aspersion—light batteries of the Government have been supplemented by some heavy artillery this afternoon. I understand that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is going to reply, which does not make it, of course, any easier for those who criticise the Orders. What the insurance companies feel is that this is a wrong principle altogether. You are throwing the whole onus of the risk upon the insurance companies when it is really a matter, they contend, which should be thrown upon the general taxpayer. You are not following the precedent of the Great War, when the Government took the risk; you are asking the insurance companies to do that. You are not giving them any time limit: in fact they do not know how long this is going to go on. It is supposed to be going on only, as we are at present situated, for a certain time, but there is no reason to believe that it will not be extended. What you are really asking the insurance companies to do is to lend money without security. You are making no differentiation between the people who are able to pay their premiums and the people who are not. Some method of inquiry as to this would surely be a good thing.
584
Various minor points arise. For instance, the noble Earl talks about the £25 limit. Does that mean one policy, or half a dozen policies taken out by one individual? As I read the very complicated Order—because it is complicated—that is not clear. What one is afraid of is that the policy which has hitherto been followed by the insurance companies of making every possible concession to the Fighting Services and giving the most generous terms they can will be modified. Only quite recently they gave an additional facility—reduced premiums, in effect—to aviators. You will cause the insurance companies to reconsider the whole of the question of insuring soldiers, sailors and aviators—and that, I am sure, would be a very undesirable thing.
I am not attempting to go into the detail of the Orders, but I would suggest one of two alternatives. If this debate were adjourned to-day, it would give the Government time to see if they could not put forward an amending Order, or it would make the insurance companies a little more content—there is no doubt that they have had very hard treatment—if the Government could tell us definitely when they would be prepared to bring up an amending Order. Once these Orders have been passed the Government will have a great many other things to do and that is why we have not pressed very much harder for a Select Committee, which I am sure the noble Earl will admit is the normal way of dealing with these matters. We do not want to embarrass the Government, or to give the impression that the insurance companies are not as ready as any other interests to help in these matters, and I would ask the noble and learned Lord, who I understand is going to reply, not to leave the insurance companies suffering from what they consider to be a real grievance.
6.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I do not propose to detain you for very long, because I have not had time to consider these various Orders and from the very brief study which I have made, to be candid, I very much doubt whether I should understand them even if I had been able to give them longer consideration. I must, however, echo the complaint of Lord Strabolgi about the very short time that we have had these Draft

585
Orders before us, because they are extremely complicated. They deal with a very large number of activities—not only insurance but other activities—and none of the people whom they concern have had an opportunity of considering what effect the Orders may have upon their business. The noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, has dealt very fully with the question of life insurance, but I understand that these Orders deal with mortgages, rents, hire-purchase payments, superannuation fund payments and the like. Those are all matters which concern a very large number of people, and it is difficult to understand what will be the situation of persons who depend for their living upon the rents of a few houses, if the rents of one or two of those houses are going to be suspended during the time when the occupants are serving a military term, or are called up to the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces.
Further, what will be the actuarial situation of superannuation funds if there is a suspension of payment for a period of six months, while people are still going to derive the benefits? It must upset the position of such funds, and I feel that those things want a more careful consideration by all the people concerned. Similarly with hire-purchase payments. It is true, of course, that the man who sells on hire-purchase has his security, which is still unpaid for, but it must affect his position.
LORD STRABOLGI: He is not going to be able to get his security back under this Order.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Still it is presumably there, although he may find himself in difficulties. I am not going into details, became of course one cannot amend Draft Orders such as these, but I would like to put before the noble Earl in charge of the Orders this consideration: It is quite true that we all want to make it as easy as possible for those called up under the Military Training Act, or who have to do an extended period of training in the Reserve or Auxiliary Forces, but it seems to me that sentiment may be inclined to go a bit too far, and that these people who will be so called up may even be better off, as a result of these Draft Orders, than they would be if they had not either served under the Military Training Act or been called up to the Auxiliary Forces. That in itself
586
would not be a desirable object nor, I am sure, one which the Government wish to further. We do not want them to be worse off, but it seems to me that it is undesirable to put a premium upon their serving. I do not know that that will in actual fact be the result of these Draft Orders. I think that the reverse may likely be the case. Those who are concerned, so to speak, on the other side, that is to say, the insurance companies, those who hope to receive rent, the mortgagees, and so on, will be disposed as a result of these Draft Orders so to alter the conditions that they impose in the future, that those called up under the Military Training Act, or those who have to serve in the Reserve or Auxiliary Services, may find themselves in a worse position than they would be in if they had not been so called up, because of the tightening up of conditions.
Finally, there is this point. I think, as was pointed out by Lord Mersey, there is no precedent for anything of this nature; but if these Draft Orders come into force they become presumably a precedent for future action. I would ask the noble and learned Lord to state specifically whether or not they will be a precedent for similar action in the event of war. Is the person who is a receiver of rent, in the event of war to receive no rent so long as the war lasts? Are no further mortgagors to be paid, or hire-purchase payments made? What is to be the effect if that is so? It would be, of course, a very useful precedent, and a precedent likely to be used in the event of war. It will be very helpful if a definite pronouncement can be made on the subject. May I add that, while I cannot oppose the Draft Orders at this stage, I do hope that the Government will be able to say, quite definitely, that they will further consider these Orders, with a view to amendment, and that they will state as definitely as possible when they will be able to put forward some such amended Orders?
6.9 p.m.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, there is just one other point to which I would like to draw the noble Earl's attention, and it is a difficulty that will arise under these Orders. I asked a particular industry how many men would be affected, and they told me 180. I asked what their position was going to be. I was told that they would get about 30s. a week, and I think food, in the Militia during their

587
six months training. With regard to the men in the Territorials I do not think there will be very much difficulty, but in regard to the men, called up for six months training, who are in this industry receiving from 60s. to 65s. a week, they have already committed themselves to money payments to carry on, and many people are dependent upon them. It seems to me quite impossible for an industry which has to find other individuals to replace these people, to make good the difference between what I call the 30s. received from the Government and the 65s. which they have been receiving from the industry. This matter is, of course, engaging the attention of a great number of employers as to what is the position of their men during the period of training. When they come out of training it is quite simple for them to carry on, but they will very likely be in great debt, and they may fail to meet many of their obligations of a financial character incurred during the period of their training, and we all want men, in joining up, to feel that they are not going to be in a much worse position. On these grounds I hope the Government will see if they cannot, at any rate for a few days, postpone the carrying out of these Orders, so that the matter may be gone into with the insurance companies especially who are interested in this matter.
6.12 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I want to support the plea that has been put forward from all quarters of the House that this matter should not be proceeded with without just a little bit of delay. In the case of every one of us, in a matter that is going either to facilitate the arrangements about the Militia or to remove the fears of people who are called up for service, our first instinct must be, of course, to support it and do all we can to assist. But in the exuberance of our patriotism we must be a little careful not to inflict very severe injustice. I suppose it will be admitted that these Orders do open the way to the possibility of very considerable loss for the insurance companies. Insurance companies are either insurance companies under the Companies Acts, in which case they have shareholders, many of whom may be poor people, or they are mutual insurance companies, in which case the loss is going to fall on the policy
588
holders. I am not going to endeavour to describe the anomalies and difficulties which arise out of these Orders, but I can assure your Lordships that they are very great.
One matter which I think is of great importance does emerge, and that is the complete lack of realisation, or apparent lack of realisation, that it causes an insurance company to afford cover, even if the assured person does not die in the period of cover. As far as I can see, from a fairly cursory perusal of these Orders (because I have not had time to do anything else) it will be quite possible for a person to secure cover by paying one premium, and remain covered for two or three years without having any further payments to make to the life assurance company.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I definitely said that it would not be possible.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Earl may have said it would not be possible. The Government's advisers may be right, but it is also possible that they are wrong, and if a little further time can be given to satisfy us that they are right, I think we should all be more comfortable. The offer has been made by the noble Viscount opposite, speaking for the life assurance companies, that they will do everything to expedite this matter, and a matter of days was mentioned. I cannot believe, in view of the great anxiety that has been expressed, that it is really impossible to postpone the passage of these Orders for the two or three days, or a week, that have been asked for from all quarters of the House.
6.15 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have some difficulty in answering the various points raised, for the very simple reason that, in attempting to pick up the threads of the debate, I have no table on which to put my papers, and I should like to have them spread out. If, therefore, I omit anything, I hope your Lordships will not think that it is from any desire not to deal with the points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who dealt first with this Motion, stated that the Orders are doubtless full of ambiguity, and I agree that they are not devoid of ambiguity here and there; and I think many of your

589
Lordships have stated (and again, I am afraid, with truth) that the Orders are very difficult to understand. I should like to say with reference to those criticisms, that I have to admit that it would have been much better if the Orders could have been considered in much greater detail, and if they had been the subject of a great deal more criticism than they have received before they emerged in the form in which they now are. But your Lordships will remember, I am quite sure, that not only the Ministers, but the draftsmen and the staff, have been engaged, in the last month or more, in work so great and so continuous that it really is not an exaggeration to say that some of those gentlemen have not had enough time to sleep. The amount of work of a kind analogous to the work embodied in these Orders has been without parallel during at any rate the last hundred years. I think, therefore, that before you condemn the form of the Orders, which you are perfectly entitled to do if you are condemning them, so to speak, in vacuo, you must remember that the persons who are responsible for the Orders as they now stand have got an excuse which no critic can fairly afford to disregard.
And this much is true, as several of your Lordships have already pointed out: these Orders will require to be amended by later Orders, and before very long. I am not in a position to give your Lordships a pledge on such a matter. There will be an ample opportunity in another place to ask what the Government can promise on that point. But obviously I cannot make any promise. To-morrow I think the matter will be in another place, and will be considered with great care, and criticisms will no doubt be made on the form of the several Orders. But I am perfectly sure there must be amending Orders at some not very distant date, and when these Orders are put forward all these criticisms which your Lordships have made will be most carefully borne in mind, and no doubt many of them will be met. One other thing I think I should say by way of preliminary, and that is that your Lordships have said, and said truly, that the Acts under which these Orders are made are for three years, and it is said the Acts may well be extended. But long before the expiration of the three years any defects which may be proved by experience to exist in these Draft Orders will be dealt with by the
590
two Houses. Accordingly that fact ought not to affect the view your Lordships should take at present.
More than one of your Lordships has said that it is possible these Orders will apply in war. It has already been published on behalf of the Government, in the Command Paper dealing with the provision of monetary assistance to persons liable to training, that this is not so. In that document it is stated with regard to these Acts:
"The proposals are applicable to peace-time conditions and are not to be taken to apply in the event of war."
As all your Lordships are aware, immediately war broke out there would have to be legislation of the most elaborate character brought into force. We should live once more under the influence of D.O.R.A. A great many Orders in Council would be made under D.O.R.A., and all these things, or nearly all of them, would have to be replaced by Orders of a very serious and drastic character such as those which noble Lords who are no longer young will remember quite well were made from 1914 right up to the end of the War.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, suggested that there were a number of things which might be done under these provisions, and the hope was expressed by him that the provisions would not be made to apply in the event of war. Provision would be necessary. An endeavour would be made to do justice as between all these people who were going to be affected by war—landlord and tenant, mortgagor and mortgagee, the hirer of hire-purchase goods and so on, and, of course, as between debtor and creditor. On occasions like that, as your Lordships are well aware, you cannot do more than achieve approximation to justice. Both parties have suffered, and the only thing the Government can do by Act or Order in Council is, as far as possible, to do substantial justice between two people, both of whom are overwhelmed by an unexpected and unavoidable calamity.
So far as these measures are concerned, which are intended, as I said, to apply to times of peace, the object of the Government has been to do that—to provide as far as possible justice between persons, both of whom are affected and both of whom may suffer considerable

591
hardship as the result of a necessary measure. Obviously, dealing as the Government are here doing with times of peace, there is not the faintest idea in the mind of any member of the Government to discourage thrift. That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. Thrift will not be discouraged in any way. I for my part am of the opinion that there is nothing in these measures which would prevent a man from entering into a policy of insurance. On the contrary, some noble Lords think he may enter into such a policy in the belief that he is doing better than he would be able to do if he were not called up. When I come to deal with that point, as I shall do before long, I hope to persuade your Lordships that the Government once more have discovered in this matter a via media which is not unfair to the person called up under these Acts or to the insurance companies.
The first question that arises is with regard to Articles 4 and 8 in the Draft Order with reference to the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was—and I can quite understand his making it—that something more might be done for the people who are called up under that Act. He is not content with the provisions which are contained in Articles 4 and 8. He also asked who the people were who were to be subject to these Articles. Let me answer the last question first. If the noble Lord will kindly turn to page 16 of the Draft Order he will see a list of all the persons to whom Article 7 is intended to apply. It is a long list, and I will not take up your Lordships' time in reading it, but it covers a large number of persons. The noble Lord wanted in particular to know why a much wider measure of protection could not be given to the persons who are liable to be called up. His complaint was that the protection is meagre as regards the militiamen, at any rate, and that it is to be sought only with the assistance of the Courts. The answer to that is that there is an infinite variety of cases to which the articles in question are intended to apply. There is the case of rent, there is the case of sums due, mortgage interest, sums payable under hire-purchase contracts and there are the liabilities which the man may have be-
592
come subject to in respect of what are described as other obligations. It is impossible to provide that there shall be a general pool collected in some way and that the men who suffer a disadvantage in one or other of these directions by reason of being called up shall be indemnified out of the pool. There is, I venture to think, no way in which the latter can be dealt with—I am not dealing with details for a moment—except that which is adopted in the various Orders in Council.
In the first place there are judgments or orders which existed at the date when a man was called up, and they may be judgments or orders for recovery of possession of premises, or for the payment of rent or mortgage interest, or payments due under other obligations. Well, in respect of those things the leave of the Court has to be obtained before anything can be done. Then there is protection for the case where a man is called up who is residing with a person wholly or partly dependent on him in a dwelling-house, or part of a dwelling-house. The Court has power to give relief in those matters, and the Court, under paragraph (4) of Article 1 of the Order in Council, is given a wide discretion to refuse leave or to grant leave, either conditionally or subject to such conditions as the Court thinks just. The order which the Court would make would differ in almost every case in accordance with the nature of the circumstances and the sort of relief that had been applied for. There are cases where very little relief ought to be given. There may be, for instance, a person seeking relief who is perfectly able to comply with the obligations. Why should the Court interfere in such a case? If, however, a man cannot comply with his obligations, then the Court will have to give relief, and a wide discretion is given. I would remind your Lordships that under the Hire-Purchase Act, which became law not long ago, there may be cases in which hardships would occur. We know that very often cases of hardship do arise under hire-purchase agreements. A man may lose his job, for example, and therefore cannot pay his instalments. In this case, the Legislature thought fit to leave to the Courts discretion as to the order that ought to be made. I must confess that for myself I see no other method of dealing with matters of that sort except in that way.

593
A question was asked as to whether the justices' clerks are treated, as the noble Lord suggested, in a way much more favourable to them than the other employees of local authorities. I doubt very much whether that is the case. If you are dealing with the clerk of the peace of a borough you must remember that he may be paid by fees or by salary, and, in practice, he has to appoint a fit person to act as deputy for him in case of his illness or incapacity or absence from any cause. There is no statutory provision in regard to the remuneration of a deputy so appointed. Such a clerk of the peace is treated in a different way to the local government servant because there the provision says that the proper authority may make up his service pay to the level of his civil remuneration, and there is no question of his having to appoint a deputy to act on his behalf. He is simply treated as if he had leave of absence, and the authority can make up his service pay to the level of his civil remuneration so that he gets exactly the same as before.
LORD STRABOLGI: Will the noble and learned Lord forgive me if I ask him this question? The same argument was used yesterday by the Crown counsel, but I did not see that it made sense then. How can you say that a man has to have his pay made up because he has to pay a deputy when it is laid down here that the local authority is empowered to recoup to him the amount that he pays to such deputy?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope I was not guilty of an inaccuracy. I was stating what the position was with regard to the servant of the local authority. In his case, the proper authority may make up the servant's pay to the level of his civil remuneration. That is not the case, I agree, with regard to the clerk of the peace. Now the effect of the provision with regard to him is that where the clerk's service pay is less than the amount he pays the deputy (which may or may not be the case), the clerk may have the difference made up to him by the local authority. He will also continue to receive his emoluments as clerk. Where the clerk's service pay exceeds the amount he pays to the deputy, he is going to receive his service pay less what he pays the deputy. He will also continue to receive his emoluments as clerk. But the real distinction between the two cases
594
is this: that the clerk of the peace has in the normal case got a deputy who has to be appointed to do the job and that has to be brought into account for the purposes of the provision for preventing the clerk of the peace suffering any grievous hardship on his being called up. I may add to that, that in all counties except the County of London the office of clerk of the peace is held by the clerk of the county council. He is not going to be called up, and, therefore, in his case there is no need for any provision at all. I hope that, to some extent at any rate, I have removed the doubts of the noble Lord.
Now may I pass to what was said by my noble friend Lord Mersey? The first thing that he referred to was a matter of importance and I have to deal with it. He urges that the insurance companies have got some points that they wish to urge and he asks that the Motion should be adjourned till next Thursday. You must remember that we are not alone in considering this matter. In another place the same matter is being considered and if we were to adjourn this until next Thursday it would mean that in the other place this matter could not be dealt with till after the adjournment, if there is to be any amendment here on Thursday next. The whole object of the adjournment, as I understand it, is to enable some amendment to be made here. That holds up the whole thing. I earnestly press on your Lordships that, although these measures are not—and no measure is ever likely to be—perfect, and although there are amendments that may be made as a result of subsequent Orders in Council, it is of vital importance that these Orders in Council should become part of the law of the land without the very smallest delay.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, frankly and candidly admitted that there are a great many things in these Orders in Council that are very much for the benefit of the men who are called up, whether as militiamen or whether as reservists or whether under any other right to call upon them for service. It is in order that that may be done immediately that I am earnestly pressing your Lordships to deal with the matter forthwith. If there were amendments they would have to be considered, and I doubt very much if it would be possible to consider them on Thursday next. In

595
the other place there is so great a claim on Government time that I am perfectly sure there would be very great difficulties in getting these measures reconsidered, if there were amendments, in any short period of time. I do not know how long; that is a thing that I cannot tell your Lordships; but there is a grave risk that if we were to put off these matters the delay might be very serious and might do incalculable harm. Therefore, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, I am quite unable to accept that solution, although, as I have already said, I think it is quite possible that further Orders will be put before your Lordships' House before very long and then the noble Viscount's observations will be considered.
But I do not want to shirk the point as regards the period of relief, which now exceeds twelve months. It is fifteen months in regard to the ordinary policies of life insurance, with which my noble friend is concerned. The importance of that is that a militiaman who has done his six months training which entitles him to twelve months relief ought not to be deprived of further relief in respect of subsequent service in the Reserve. It is necessary in the view of the Government that he should have that further relief, and I doubt very much whether in another place it would be possible to persuade the Government to agree to a limitation of that kind which the insurance companies are desirous of having. There is a limit, as your Lordships have been told, in these Orders of £25 as being the kind of policy to which the Orders apply. That is to say they do not apply to a case where the premium is over £25 per annum. The noble Viscount asked me whether that meant one policy. It does, and it does for this reason, that it would be extremely difficult to make the limit apply to a case where a man had a large number of different policies of different kinds and different sums. It would be almost impracticable to alter the limit in that respect. Therefore the Government have adopted the principle of one policy one maximum relief. I agree that the limit selected is arbitrary, but that cannot be avoided in these circumstances.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: May I interrupt the noble Lord? Does that mean that if a man has ten policies for which the premium is £25 each he would not benefit, that he would have to pay the premiums?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is not my view of the clause in the Draft Order as it stands. In respect of each policy there is one maximum relief.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: He would benefit in each case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: He would benefit in each case. I agree, if I may say so, that the noble Viscount is right in saying that the case he mentioned is one which would result in injustice and great and unintended benefit to a person who had a number of policies of that sort in one society, but the possibility is so remote that I think it really may be disregarded. A man wealthy enough to take out a number of policies of that kind would in all probability not require to take them out in different forms in a series of different policies. After all, he would save himself a lot of trouble in having a single policy with a single society. However, that is the clause as it stands. It may be that in an amending Order in Council something may be done to meet the noble Viscount's objection.
Those I think are the main points raised by the noble Viscount, but I intended to say one thing in reference to the provision that no protection is afforded to policies which have not been in force for at least a year in reference to post-Order policies—policies, that is to say, taken out after June 15, 1939. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, did not quite get the explanation he wanted on that point. The reason that that makes a difference is this. Apart from that clause a man after that date—to-morrow, for instance—might take out a policy, pay a single premium and then get cover for the next three years. Of course that would be grossly unjust and in the nature of a fraud. It is for that reason that the provision which I have referred to is in the Order, because it does not seem to us likely that anybody will not only pay the first premium on the policies so taken out but also the premiums for the whole of the first year after taking out the policy in order to get the advantage in question. The noble Lord will appreciate that at the end of the first year if he is a militiaman he will have served his period and will not be able to get any grossly unfair alvantage by having taken out such a policy. Of course it will be remembered that the advantages he gets quite apart from that, it being a post-June 15 policy, are by no

597
means those which apply to a person who has taken out policies before June 15, 1939.
I am afraid I am wearying your Lordships, but I have nearly finished what I have to say. I appreciate, I think, the point raised by my noble friend Lord Gainford and I appreciate the fact that there may be special hardships in certain cases. The Government are at the present time unable to provide for any special hardships other than those to which I have just referred—existing orders and judgments, mortgagee and mortgagor, rent, hire-purchase payments and other obligations; and there may be some others which have not been included. All I can say is that it is impossible to provide for everything, but if it is found that there are certain things which can be defined and put in an Order in Council, then I am perfectly convinced that His Majesty's Government will be very glad to do so on the introduction of an amending Order. But how it can be done I do not know, and I am not able to give any pledge on behalf of the Government, because I feel that there is the greatest difficulty in dealing with the case which the noble Lord is considering. One must hope with regard to cases of that kind that people who are in the position of creditors will act with reasonable fairness and justice to the men who have served their country and been called up under these Acts.
I think that is all I need deal with, except some remarks of my noble friend the Earl of Radnor. He said, and I frankly admit it, that the time has been very short for the purposes of considering these provisions. That was inevitable in the circumstances of the case, but if he is willing to spend the next day or two in reading the provisions of these various Orders, I think he will find that the cases of superannuation, hire-purchase and landlord and tenant are reasonably well and properly treated in these Orders. Though I agree with him that there are cases in which men may be better off as a result of being called up, and also in which men may be worse off, I do not think that that is avoidable in the circumstances with which we are confronted here. In dealing with the enormously complex problems that have arisen in connection with these Acts and with the millions of people who will ultimately be affected under them, the difficulties are
598
such that it is quite impossible to hope for more than fair and reasonable justice. You cannot do more. You will not be able to settle every problem with complete equity. You are dealing with a great number of different people in different circumstances and related by different obligations. All you can do is to do your best as between persons roughly in the position of creditors and persons roughly in the position of debtors.
In conclusion, I would say for myself that I believe that these measures are really, considered in the light of practical working, not ungenerous to the men who are being called up under these Acts, and that on the whole they will give substantial justice. Because I believe that that is true, although I frankly admit that amendments may be necessary in the future, I ask your Lordships to vote in favour of this Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
London Passenger Transport Board.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
The King's Consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
BREAKING UP OF STREETS BY STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS.
Report from the Joint Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee) made (yesterday), and to be printed. Minutes of Evidence laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I understand that there are a number of speakers to-morrow on the Motion which is on the Paper in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I therefore suggest that the House should meet at three o'clock.
House adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock.