Sitting of 31 July 1919

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Nuneaton Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Huddersfield Corporation Gas Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
Stockton-on-Tees Corporation Bill [Lords]
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
Address for "Return showing the number of Experiments on Living Animals during the year 1918 under licences granted under the Act 39 and 40 Vic, c. 77, distinguishing the nature of the Experiments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 109, of Session 1918)."— [Major Baird.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  IRELAND.

    DISTURBANCES, BALLYCARNEY.
    Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the boycotting of a farmer, Thomas Haslam, of Ballycarney, Maryborough; whether his gates and fences and the windows of his house have been broken, and his cattle turned into the standing crops; whether he himself has been boycotted; whether he has been compelled, owing to this persecution, to sell his farm and leave the district in which he has lived all his life; whether the persecution to which he has been subjected is due to the fact that a Catholic girl in
    2248
    his employ recently married a Protestant; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): The facts are substantially as stated in the question. There was, however, no actual boycotting, but Mr. Haslam was subjected to persecution from relatives.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Are we to understand that this persecution is due to the fact that a girl in the employment of Mr. Haslam married a Protestant?
    Mr. HENRY:I understand that the difficulty arises largely through a family quarrel between Mr. Haslam and some of his relatives.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: And is that family quarrel due to the fact that this Catholic girl married a Protestant?
    Mr. HENRY: I really could not say, but I will inquire.

    NATIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION.
    Mr. DONNELLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many clerical members there are on the National Board of Education in Ireland; whether any of these clerical members of the Board are school managers; and will he give their names?
    Mr. HENRY: There are six clerical members on the Board of National Education, and one of those, the Rev. James Bingham, M.A., D.D., is a manager of national schools.
    Mr. M'GUFFINasked The Chief Secretary for Ireland how many Commissioners were present when the Board of National Education terminated the services of the first director and inspector of drawing and hand-and-eye. training for the offence of being a member of the South American Missionary Society; who moved his dismissal; how many voted for and how many against it; and have Protestant inspectors been instructed not to serve on the committees of missionary and other religious societies; and if he will say if Roman Catholic inspectors have been similarly inhibited from becoming members of the sodalities of the Roman Catholic Church?
    Mr. HENRY: I would refer the hon. Member to replies given to questions on this subject on the 7th December, 1911,

    2249
    and 4th July, 1912. No inspector was dismissed for the reason stated in the question.

    SENIOR INSPECTORS (NATIONAL SCHOOLS).
    Mr. M'GUFFINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that meetings of senior inspectors of Irish national schools are convened from time to time by the resident Commissioner or chief inspector; if at these meetings the senior inspectors are instructed to lower the reports of the teachers, with the view of depriving them of the increments and promotion to which they might be entitled; if at a meeting of senior inspectors in Belfast the inspectors were told that the reports must be reduced; and if he will say if this system of influencing inspectors in their judgments upon the work of teachers has the sanction of His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. HENRY: The divisional inspectors arrange conferences from time to time with the inspectors, but these meetings are not convened by the resident Commissioner or the chief inspectors. The Commissioners of National Education are satisfied that there is no truth whatever in the allegations contained in the second and third parts of the question.

    HOME OF INDUSTRY HOSPITALS.
    Sir EDWARD CARSONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proposal to close the Home of Industry hospitals In Dublin owing to the want of funds to carry on the same; whether these hospitals are under the control of the Government and have hitherto been supported by Grants from the Treasury, but that, in consequence of the increase of prices, it has been found impossible to carry on the work of the hospitals without increased financial assistance; whether the closing of the hospitals will cause great distress to the poorer classes in Dublin; and what course the Government propose to take to prevent: the closing of the hospitals?
    Mr. HENRY: I would refer my right hon. and learned Friend to the replies given to previous questions on this subject asked by the hon. Member for East Douegal on the 9th and 24th instants.
    Sir E. CARSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these hospitals have been closed?
    Mr. HENRY: I am not aware that they are closed, but I am aware that the threat has been made to close them.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: That would be direct action!

    RESIDENT MAGISTRATES (SALARIES).
    Major O'NEILLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can give any further information as to the negotiations with the Treasury in connection with the proposed increase of the salaries of resident magistrates?
    Mr. HENRY: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the question on this subject asked by the hon. Member for North Fermanagh on the 24th instant, and to which there is nothing to add at present.
    Major O'NEILL:Is it not the case that so long ago as April last the Chief Secretary met a deputation of resident magistrates, and agreed to grant them an increased salary of £150? If that is so, how is it the matter has been so long delayed?
    Mr. HENRY: My right hon. Friend did meet a deputation on the subject, but it was not exactly in his power to agree to an increase. He is doing his best to secure an increase, and hopes that lie will be successful.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Do the Government propose to increase the Dog Tax in order to give this increase?
    Mr. HENRY: No, Sir. They are outside the ambit of the Dog Tax.

  CYPRUS.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs if the Order in Council annexing Cyprus to His Majesty's Dominions is still in force; and, if so, whether he is aware that there is an urgent demand among the inhabitants of this island to be accorded the right of self-determination?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): The answer to the first part of the question is, Yes. I am, of course, aware of the views expressed by different sections of the community.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    DISABILITY PENSIONS.
    Mr. ALFRED DAVIESasked the Pensions Minister how many disability pensions are at present being paid to disabled soldiers and sailors; how many widows of deceased soldiers and sailors are in receipt of pensions; how many applications by disabled men for alternative pensions have been made and how many granted; and the number of widows of deceased sailors and soldiers who have applied for alternative pensions and how many granted?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The number of men in receipt of pensions (excluding gratuities) on 30th June, 1919, was 799,180, and of widows of deceased men 216,890. At that date 9,722 applications for alternative pensions had been received from disabled men. Of the men so applying, 3,883 were awarded pensions and 4,637 were refused, and 1,202 cases were then under inquiry; 37,245 widows applied for alternative pensions, and 21,687 obtained them. There were 10,273 rejections, and 5,465 cases were then under inquiry. I should add that a large number of alternative pensions granted to men are temporary awards which lapse as the man's earning capacity increases. The number of alternative pensions to men now being paid is, approximately, 1,000.

    ACTING PAYMASTERS (GRATUITY).
    Major NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether, under Articles 496 and 497 of the Royal Pay Warrant, acting paymasters are entitled to the gratuity therein laid down; whether he is aware that in the Courts on 19th June last, Rex v. Holdsworth, it was decided that acting paymasters were entitled to the same Income Tax relief as a commissioned officer; and whether the Treasury will reconsider the debarring the payment of gratuity to acting paymasters?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): This question is under consideration.

    COMPENSATION FOR INJURY (FORAOE CORPS).
    Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAINasked the Secretary of State for War
    2252
    whether his attention has been called to the case of Miss D. Bogue, No. W/360, W area, baking hand in Forage Corps, who sustained an inquiry to her back whilst on service and was sent back on 15th November, 1918, for treatment by her panel doctor; whether he is aware that Miss Bogue was discharged on the 4th April, 1919, while still unfit for work, having received half wages, for six months but no compensation; and whether he will take steps to remove this differentiation between the treatment of women and men under similar circumstances?
    Mr. FORSTER: The question whether anything more can be done for Miss Bogue is under consideration.

  CONSULAR APPOINTMENTS (LORD HARDINGE'S COMMITTEE).
  Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the names of the members of Lord Hardinge's Committee to inquire into Consular appointments; how many appointments have been made by this Committee; and how many of those appointed have been personally interviewed?
  Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD(Department of Oversea Trade): Lord Hardinge's Committee deals exclusively with promotions and transfers within the existing service. The Selections Committee for the Consular Service consists of representatives of the Foreign Office, the Department of Overseas Trade, the Civil Service Commission, the Federation of British Industries, the Associated Chambers of Commerce, and a former member of the Board of Trade. The Committee does not appoint candidates, but recommends them to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for appointment. Seventy-two have been so recommended, and they have all been interviewed personally by the Committee.
  Sir R. THOMAS: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that Germany's commercial success was due in large measure to her efficient Consular service, and will he give instructions to the Committee that all appointments in future shall be to those people who possess a commercial experience?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: In answer to that question, I agree with the spirit of

  2253
  it, but it is the greatest difficulty to get men of successful commercial experience having regard to the comparatively low salary and prospects in the Consular Service.
  Sir R. THOMAS: Will the hon. Baronet see that the salary is made adequate, because the commercial prosperity of this country in the future will be due very largely to the efficiency of our Consular Service?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: I agree it will be due very largely to the efficiency of our Consular Service. In reference to the increased financial consideration, I hope the hon. Gentleman will address his question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  EASTEEN GALICIA.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any decision has yet been arrived at as to the future of Eastern Galicia; whether the predominantly Ukrainian character of the population will be taken into account in arriving at a decision; whether the policy of creating a bulwark against Soviet Russia will result in this region being handed over to the Poles; and whether he is aware that this course of action is calculated to drive the Ukrainians into the Soviet system?
  The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The reply to the first, second, and third parts of the question of the hon. and gallant Member is that the Council of Foreign Ministers in Paris decided on June 25th that Poland should occupy the whole of the province of Eastern Galicia. In the meantime a treaty is to be negotiated between the principal Allied and Associated Powers and Poland, providing for the establishment of a temporary civil Government in the country, until such time as a plebiscite can be taken to regulate its ultimate status. As regards the last part of the question, I see no reason to anticipate the result suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are the Ukrainian authorities in Paris being consulted as regards the way their country is being disposed of?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should give notice of that question.

  FINLAND.

    RED PRISONERS (DEATHS FROM STARVATION).
    Mr. W. R. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he received any Report from any British Special Mission sent to Finland in the early part of this year; whether any such Report mentioned that it was admitted officially by the Finnish authorities that 11,000 persons had died from starvation when interned as Red prisoners, and that such victims had not been allowed to receive in camp food sent by their friends; and whether any assurances have been given that such events have not been, and will not be, repeated?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am unaware to what Special British Mission the hon. Member is alluding. Numerous Reports have, however, been received from His Majesty's representatives in Finland, but they contain no confirmation of any such proceedings as those referred to by the hon. Member.
    Sir J. D. REES: Can the British Government prevent eases of starvation in foreign countries?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The lion. Gentleman can form his own opinion.
    Mr. RAPER: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the horrible atrocities alleged to have been committed in the early part of last year?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH:Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question.

  PASSPORTS.
  Sir HENRY HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Government of the United States of America are refusing to allow the passports of British subjects to be viséd in England in order that they may proceed to America Jo take possession of land which they have purchased there and propose to cultivate;

  2255
  and, if so, whether he will make representations to the United States Government on the subject?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Further representations have recently been made to the United States Government with a view to the relaxation of the restrictions at present imposed on the grant of the United States visé to persons desirous of proceeding from this country to the United States of America.
  Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended to continue the passport system between this and foreign countries; and, if so, whether he will consider some simplification of the present system, together with the elimination, as far as possible, of the troublesome visé for each and every journey?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understand that it is proposed for the present to continue in force the requirement that persons entering the United Kingdom shall be in possession of valid passports. This matter is, however, rather within the province of the Home Office than of the Department which I have the honour to represent. In the case of persons proceeding abroad the necessity for a passport depends chiefly on the regulations of the country to be visited.
  With respect to the second part of the question, the visé system has already been considerably simplified. British visés, and also those of certain foreign countries, are now made valid, without need for renewal for prolonged periods of time in the case of persons desiring this facility.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the hon. Gentleman take care that in the interval before the coming into operation of the Aliens Restriction Bill passports for Germans entering this country should not be viséd abroad by our representatives?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: As I said, that is rather a question for the Home Office than for the Foreign Office
  Mr. ATKEY: Is it necessary that British subjects desiring to visit Belgium should have to attend personally to have their passports viséd in London? I have received a message from a gentleman at Nottingham who desires to go to Belgium. He has got his passport viséd by the Foreign Office and now he is told he must attend personally at the Belgian Office to have it viséd.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am going to Belgium to-morrow and have my passport viséd without doing that?

  EGYPT (LORD MILNER'S COMMISSION).
  Major HURSTasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Lord Milner's Commission to Egypt will be empowered to deal with the reform of law and legal procedure?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer is in the affirmative.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Will the sanction of this House be required to an alteration in the Constitution of Egypt?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will inquire.

  METROPOLITAN AND PROVINCIAL POLICE (PAY).
  Mr. IRVINGasked the Secretary for the Home Department whether he is aware that policemen holding the rank of acting-sergeants are dissatisfied because they have been omitted from any increase of pay other than that granted to them as police constables; and whether, in view of the fact that acting-sergeants take the same responsibilities and carry out the same duties as full sergeants, he is prepared to increase their pay to that of full sergeants whilst acting in the capacity of acting-sergeants?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I presume the question refers to acting-sergeants in the Metropolitan Police: there are few of this rank in any other force. The question will be considered whether any increase should be given to these men beyond the considerable increase which they share with all other constables. It is proposed to abolish the rank as the existing holders cease to hold it.
  Mr. A. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not confined to the Metropolitan Police, but applies also to borough and county police?
  Mr. SHORTT:I said it was not entirely confined to the Metropolitan Police, but there are very few in other districts.
  Mr. DAVIES: Will they come under the decision?
  Mr. SHORTT: They will all be treated alike.

  ENEMY ALIENS.
  Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary how many uninterned Germans still remain in this country, and whether he intends to deport any of these persons; and how many interned Germans are still in this country, and whether he intends to deport all these persons unless they obtain exemption from the Advisory Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Younger?
  Mr. SHORTT: The figures asked for in the first paragraph of the question are, according to the latest Returns, 5,785 males and 5,965 females. These persons have all been exempted from repatriation on the advice of the Advisory Committees from 1915 onwards Until the Aliens Bill which is at present before the House has become law, I cannot say what my duty in the matter will be. There are 3,256 Germans still interned m this country. I propose to deport those who are not recommended for exemption by Mr. Justice Younger's Committee.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of those Germans who are uninterned now never came up for reconsideration in 1918 when the list was revised, and a largo number of those previously exempted were deported?
  Mr. SHORTT: I said these cases had been considered from 1915 onwards.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is it the policy of the Government to deport every German who was naturalised and whose naturalisation has since been cancelled?
  Mr. SHORTT: Yes, generally speaking, that is so; but there may be special circumstances in some cases. I cannot bind myself in every case, but generally speaking that is the policy.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: If reasons exist for cancelling the naturalisation of a German, surely primâ facie that is ground for deporting?
  Mr. SHORTT: I have said so.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does that apply in the case of Catherine Hebnemann, of Downing Street?
  Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether an interned German, married to a British-born woman, will be released, and, if so, will they be released while the Aliens Restriction Bill is going through? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] In order that they can see their families.
  Mr. SHORTT: When Mr. Justice Younger's Committee have considered their cases, and they decide that they should not be repatriated, then their case will be considered.
  Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to deport all people in this country who are of German blood?
  Mr. SHORTT: Certainly not.
  Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Advisory Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Sankey for advising the Home Secretary what enemy aliens should be exempted from internment adopted certain general rules on which exemption from internment should primâ facie be granted, and that such rules were published in the public Press; whether the Advisory Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Younger for advising the Home Secretary what former enemy aliens should be exempted from deportation have adopted the like, or any similar, rules for their guidance; if not, whether they act according to their uncontrolled discretion in each particular case: whether the Home Secretary accepts the decisions without investigation or whether he personally considers them; and, if so, in what cases he has overruled them?
  Mr. SHORTT: As regards the first throe paragraphs of this question, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. and learned Baronet last Thursday. As regards the last two questions, the responsibility for the final decision rests, with me, but unless very strong reasons appear to the contrary, I propose to be guided by the advice of the Committee which has been examining every case with the greatest care.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question, whether the is aware that the Advisory Committee presided over by

  2259
  Mr. Justice Sankey for advising the Home Secretary what enemy aliens should be exempted from internment adopted certain general rules on which exemption from internment should primâ facie be granted?
  Mr. SHORTT: I have answered that. That was so, but I have not been asked what they were.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what they were?
  Mr. SHORTT: I cannot do so without notice.

  GAMBIA (DISTURBANCES).
  Mr. J. W. WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Governor of the Gambia Colony in January last to investigate certain disturbances and complaints affecting the administration of the Upper Saloum district of the Protectorate has completed its investigation; and whether its Report has yet been issued?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The Secretary of State has received the Report referred to, and has taken such action upon it as appeared necessary.

  PEACE DAY HOLIDAY (WAGES OF WORKMEN).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the First Commissioner of Works whether all workmen, established or not established, employed in Government Departments under his control were paid their wages for the compulsory holiday they had on the 19th instant; and, if not, will he give instructions that all these workmen be treated alike?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): Workmen in the direct employment of my Department were paid for the 19th instant. Those engaged through contractors were paid or not paid in accordance with the practice in the particular trade concerned.
  Mr. WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that where men have been employed by contractors but are to all intents
  2260
  and purposes in the employment of the Government, and that if the Government changes the contractors the men are retained whoever the contractor may be?
  Sir A. MOND: I am aware of all the circumstances. These men are employed by the contractors, and it is very difficult to treat them as if they wore directly employed by the Government. They are not I have considered this case, and it is under my consideration again now. The question does not only affect my Department, but other Departments.
  Mr. WILSON: These men are paid their wages by the Government?
  Sir A. MOND:They are paid by the contractors. The hon. Member is mistaken. The wages are not paid by the Government.
  Captain W. BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to see that all men who are employed by the Government, directly or indirectly, shall receive a day's wage for the Peace celebrations?
  Sir A. MOND: It is not a question for my Department to settle. I am bringing the matter forward again.
  Mr. HOLMES: Is it not a fact that the contractors have received the full cost of the work, including wages and raw material, with commission, and, therefore, in effect the Government are paying the wages?
  Sir A. MOND: The Government do not pay the wages. The wages are paid by the contractors.

  POST OFFICE.

    RECOMMENDATIONS FOR VACANCIES.
    Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the injustice being done to the men who volunteered for service in the War from his Department in consequence of the age limit of thirty-five years placed upon recommendations for vacancies in the administrative, supervisory, financial, and inspectorial sections of the Post Office; and whether he can take into account the time spent in the service by men who have now attained the age of thirty-five years?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The appointments referred to are not in the Post Office, but in other

    2261
    Government Departments, and are understood to be in subordinate grades. I think the younger members of the staff are more likely to adapt themselves satisfactorily to new conditions; and I am moreover bound to take into account the length of service which a candidate is likely to render in a new Department. I do not think it expedient to raise the age limit.

    TELEGRAPHIC SERVICE (LIVERPOOL AND THE CONTINENT).
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the possibility of restoring direct telegraph working between Liverpool and the Continent; whether Press messages to the Continent are given priority over commercial work; and whether, in view of the delay to all Continental traffic, he will consider the possibility of restoring direct working between Liverpool and France and Liverpool and Belgium, and cancel the instructions which give priority to any Press work?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Arrangements are being made with the French telegraph administration for the restoration of direct telegraph working between Liverpool and France. Pending the repair of the Anglo-Belgian cables it is impracticable to arrange for direct working between Liverpool and Belgium, but this question will be pursued as soon as the cables can be restored. Press traffic for the Continent has, to a certain extent, been given priority during the War over ordinary traffic for reasons of national importance, but now that the censorship has been withdrawn I have arranged with the Government Departments concerned that, this practice shall be discontinued.

    PROMOTION.
    Mr. GRAHAMasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Staff Rule No. 86 lays it down that ability to perform not only the duties of the operative class but the superintending and clerical duties of the higher classes is an essential factor in the selection of officers for promotion; whether he is aware that an officer attached to the Edinburgh Sorting Office was recently promoted over eighty-four of his seniors, although he had no experience on these higher duties; whether he will state in what way the provisions of Rule 86 were made to apply in this case; whether it is possible for a man to prove his ability to perform
    2262
    work without the opportunity being afforded him; and whether, in view of the unrest which this type of promotion creates, he will urge upon the Whitley Committee which is about to be set up the pressing necessity to find an early solution of this problem?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The rule referred to is substantially as quoted by the hon. Member. I assume the individual case mentioned is that to which the hon. Member called attention in his question of the 14th May last, and I would refer him to the answer then given. The question of the principles governing promotion can be raised by the staff representatives on the Whitley Committees as soon as these committees are set up.

    BETCHWORTH, SURREY (DELIVERIES).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHSasked the Postmaster- General if he is aware that letters posted in London in the early afternoon are not delivered in the Betchworth, Surrey, area until the evening post the following day; and if, in view of the fact that Betchworth is only twenty-four miles from London, lie will take the necessary steps to see, that letters posted in London by the ordinary country post fire delivered the next morning?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I will have inquiry made and will write to the hon. Member.

    CANADIAN SOLDIERR (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Post master-General whether men who joined the Canadian Army in Canada, but whose homes are in this country, are, when discharged from the Army, ineligible for employment in the Post Office: and, if so, will he state the reason why they are excluded from being so employed?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The number of ex-soldiers applying for established postman ships is so greatly in excess of the number of vacancies available that I have felt obliged to confine eligibility to men who have served in the British forces.
    Mr. WILSON: Does that apply to postmen?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am anxious to give those who served with the British forces the preference.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider specially the case of the men of the Regular Army who put down their names for employment in the Post Office before the War, but hitherto have been prevented from getting it?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: They are being considered.

    TELEPHONE LINES (LONDON AND PAEIS).
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSasked how many telephone lines are in existence between London and Paris, and how many of these are reserved for the use of the Peace Conference?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: There are ten telephone circuits between London and Paris. Six are used for the work of the Peace Conference and four for other Government work. But owing to the damaged condition of the French land lines, all these circuits are seldom available for simultaneous use. I am pressing the French Government to restore the land-lines so that the public service can be reopened.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Have facilities been allowed to the public to use the telephone line from Paris to London which have not been offered to the public in London?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Not that I am aware of.

    TELEPHONE SUBSCRIBERS (COMMERCIAL DIRECTORY).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Post- master-General whether the General Post Office has been considering the publication of a classified commercial directory for telephone subscribers since 1911; whether within the last few days a private concern has filled this commercial want after first offering the production, with a guaranteed profit, to the General Post Office; and whether such profit, which might have accrued to the Department, will now and in the future be lost?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: A classified commercial list has been published in connection with the telephone directory of certain districts and an extension and development of the arrangement is probable. Several private persons have submitted scheme for such lists, which, however, I have been unable to accept pending the settlement of a new contract
    2264
    for advertising in the Post Office Telephone Directory which will shortly be thrown open to public tender.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that the. Government list comprises only ten pages after all this number of years working, while the first commercial list issued by a business firm already comprises 200 pages?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to what 1 have already said.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Food Controller whether be can see his way to amend the Orders under the Defence of the Realm Regulations as to maintenance of food supply, so as to place it within the power of a private individual to set the law in motion against profiteers or other infringers of the food Regulations?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): The proposal seems to be one that might be brought to the notice of the Select Committee of this House which has recently been appointed to consider the question of profiteering.
    Sir H. DALZIEL:Are we to understand that we have to await the result of the inquiry of this Committee before any strong action is taken?
    Mr. ROBERTS: My right hon. Friend must not understand that. Strong action is constantly being taken.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Stronger action?
    Mr. ROBERTS: It does not altogether rest with me. I realise that the strongest possible action ought to be taken, and I have been making representations to that effect.

    MEAT AND MILK.
    Mr. McNEILLasked the Food Controller if he is aware that the view prevails among farmers that owing to the in crease in the price of feeding-stuffs it will not be possible to continue the production of meat and milk except at a considerable increase of price; and if he will say what steps he proposes to take to minimise the shortage of these necessaries?
    Mr. ROBERTS:While I share the anxiety of the farmers as to the increase in the price of feeding-stuffs, there is no reason to anticipate that supplies will be below the normal amount, although the demand will undoubtedly be increased as the result of the recent drought. Crushers have made heavy forward purchases of oilseeds, and the Shipping Controller has promised that adequate tonnage shall be forthcoming.
    Mr. McNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the price of oil cake has increased by £10 a ton during the last four months, and does he think that the measures referred to will be sufficient to counteract that?
    Mr. ROBERTS:I have the matter under the closest consideration. Negotiations are proceeding and arrangements are entered into which I hope will have the effect of checking the upward tendency and securing the feeding-stuffs at reasonable prices.
    Mr. G. MURRAY: Will the tonnage be available at once?
    Mr. ROBERTS:Yes; I have formed an understanding with the Shipping Controller that such tonnage as we require for food or feeding-stuffs shall be placed at our disposal.

    FISH (LONDON MARKET FACILITIES).
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to the Report of the Public Control Committee of the London County Council referring to the inadequacy of the market facilities for the distribution of fish; and if, in view of the importance of the supply of this article of food to the Metropolis, he would appoint a Committee to consider the subject?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have been asked to reply. I understand that the Billingsgate and Leadenhall Markets' Committee have prominently before them schemes for improved facilities of a permanent nature at the market, and that, in order to meet immediate requirements, they have formed a committee, consisting of representatives of the corporation, of tenants of the market, and of the railway companies principally concerned, with a view to facilitate deliveries of fish. I am assured that every effort will be made to relieve the difficulty that exists under the present-exceptional conditions as regards transport generally.

    BREAD SUBSIDY.
    Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Prime Minister whether the provisional trading account of the Ministry of Food for the year ended 31st March, 1919, would be published and made available for Members of the House before the Vote for the Bread Subsidy was taken?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have been asked to reply. The provisional trading account which gives the estimated financial results of the working of the various Departments of the Food Ministry is in the printers' hands, but, owing to the holidays, its publication cannot be promised before next Wednesday. I may point out, however, that the accounts in respect of cereals and sugar will not be included in this return, as the trading accounts of the Royal Commissions on the Wheat and Sugar Supplies have always been kept separately.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: May I ask whether it is proposed to take the Vote for the bread subsidy to-night before these accounts are published?
    Mr. ROBERTS: That is not a matter under my control. I have not yet been requested to regulate the business of the House.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I put this question to the Prime Minister and not to the Food Controller.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he is going to ask the House to pass this Vote without the necessary information being at its disposal?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I think there is some misunderstanding. The Government agreed to give a certain number of allotted days. It was left to those who were interested to select the subjects. In any case there will be an opportunity on the Consolidated Fund Bill to discuss this.
    Major COURTHOPE: May I remind the Leader of the House that repeated demands have been made from all quarters to get some of this information, and that all those demands have been unanswered?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think we could do more as regards the time of the House. That is all I am competent to deal with now. I understand that this subject could be discussed on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

  MUNITIONS.

    SLOUGH DEPOT (WAGES).
    Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if his attention has been drawn to the case of a youth of eighteen years of age, employed as a storekeeper at the motor transport depot, Slough, who was charged last week at Slough with non-payment of Income Tax; whether this lad's earnings were £4 15s. per week, as stated; whether this is the average of wages of unskilled youths at this depot; and whether this post could be more appropriately filled by a disabled or discharged soldier?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): The charge in question was made against the youth in respect of wages paid him previous to his being employed in connection with the Slough Motor Transport Repair Depot. Since 1st June he has been in the service of a sub-contractor engaged on constructional work. He is not now and has not been at any time in the employ of the Government.

    GRETNA GREEK FACTORY.
    Mr. ROSEasked the cost of building, equipment, and working of the Gretna Green factory, including the expenditure upon State-salaried officials and workmen; what was, approximately, the value of the total production of the factory; and what are the intentions of the Government in respect to its continuance or disposal?
    Mr. HOPE: I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will repeat this question in a week's time, as I am not yet in a position to give all the information asked for.

  LONG-TERM CREDIT FACILITIES (EUROPEAN COUNTRIES).
  Mr. G. MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in the position to give the full particulars of the scheme for providing the long-term credit facilities in European countries which are not in the position at present to pay by means of exports for essential imports?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): No, Sir; my right hon. Friend
  2268
  regrets that he is not yet in a position to add anything to the statement which he made on Monday on this subject.
  Mr. MURRAY: When will the hon. Gentleman be in a position to add anything?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid that I cannot say.
  Mr. MURRAY: I will repeat the question next week.

  THAMES BARGES (CONGESTION).
  Lieut.-Colonel WILLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he Is aware of the serious congestion at Tilbury Docks; if it is a fact that 300 barges from the Thames formerly largely employed in the transportation of wool from the lower docks to the wool warehouses, London Docks, were sent to France to assist in disembarkation of troops; if it is a fact that a very small number of these barges have yet been returned; and if he could state when it is expected that these barges will be returned for the continuance of the work they were formerly employed upon?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Wilson): I have been asked to reply. I am fully aware of the state of congestion in London, and every practicable step is being taken to meet the situation. Out of sixty-two Thames barges requisitioned and sent by the Ministry of Shipping to France, three have been lost, forty-seven have been or are being released to their owners, and twelve still remain in France. I am informed by the War Office that no Thames barges under their control have been sent to France to assist in disembarkation. Some twenty barges were purchased in 1917, of which fourteen have been returned. I am also informed by the Admiralty that they expect to return shortly a portion of the seventy barges which they have 'been using for naval purposes.
  Lieut.-Colonel WILLEY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give any definite indication as to when those barges will be returned, and also when an adjustment of coastal lines and railway rates may be expected?
  Colonel WILSON: In reference to the Admiralty barges, perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a question to the Admiralty. The latter part of the

  2269
  question is under the consideration of the Government, My right hon. Friend is receiving a deputation on this question this afternoon, and hopes that an announcement will be made on the subject at an early date.
  Mr. WATERSON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make representations to the Secretary of State for War as to the necessity for liberating the men to work these barges as soon as they get back to the country so as to relieve the congestion on the railways as well?
  Colonel WILSON: That is not a question for me but for the "Secretary of State for War.
  Mr. WATERSON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman make the necessary representations to the Department on that point?
  Colonel WILSON: I am making every representation in order to relieve the congestion which is very serious.
  Mr. WATERSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the fact that many railwaymen and boatmen are held up in the forces, and cannot get liberated simply because they did not join the forces until after 1st January, 1916?

  PETROL (PRICES).
  Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention had been called to the comparative price of petrol in London and New York; whether the wholesale price in London is 2s. 8d. and 2s. 6d. per gallon for No. 1 and No. 3, as compared to a price of 1s. 4d. per gallon in New York; whether his attention had been drawn to the recent rise in value of oil shares; whether there is evidence of profiteering in an essential commodity; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: In comparing the prices of petrol in London and New York it must be borne in mind that the London price includes 6d. Import Duty, freight, and costs of handling in this country. On the information before me I am not prepared to say that the margin of profit is excessive.
  Lieut-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed the large rise
  2270
  in these shares? Can he refer this question to the Committee on Profiteering for consideration?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN:I will convey to my right hon. Friend the hon. Member's suggestion.

  RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

    GOODS IN TRANSIT (DAMAGE).
    Sir N. GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention had been drawn to the refusal of the railway companies to pay compensation for damages caused to goods in transit even when such damages can be proved to be due to negligence or carelessness on the part of their employés; and what action he was prepared to take in the matter?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not sure what cases my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, but as regards the statutory liability of railway companies for injury to goods in transit I would refer him to Section 7 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854 as showing the legal position of railway companies in the matter.

    SELECT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT (METROPOLITAN AREA).
    Major HAYWARDasked the Prime Minister whether the Government had considered the Report of the Select Committee on Transport (Metropolitan Area and, if so, what steps they proposed to take?
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Prime Minister what steps he proposed to take to-carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee on Transport (Metropolitan Area).
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to the recent Report of the Select Committee on London Transport; and whether he was in a position to announce the decision of the Government with regard to setting up a traffic authority for Greater London as the Committee recommended?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Report is now being examined by the Government, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement in regard to it.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that unless the Government act promptly the persons concerned and authorities are not likely to order fresh materials or do anything at all to ameliorate the position, owing to the uncertainty?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government perfectly realise the urgency of this problem. Surely we must have at least a few days to consider it!

    RAILWAY WORKING (DEFICIT).
    Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Prime Minister whether the estimated deficit of £60,000,000 on the working of the railways for the current year was arrived at without crediting the railways with the cost of the services rendered by the railways to the Government; and whether the estimated value of these services for the year 1918 amounted to over £30,000,000?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In arriving at the estimated deficit referred to, allowance was made for the cost of services rendered by the railways to the Government so far as this could be estimated, in view of the changed conditions brought about by the conclusion of hostilities. It is the case that the estimated value of Government traffic in 1918 exceeded £40,000,000, and the figures will be found in the statement on railway working during the War already presented to Parliament (Cmd. 147), but I understand that it is not likely that these figures will be reached during the present year.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the confusion which already existed on this subject has been worse confounded by two speeches in diametrically opposite senses delivered in another place on Tuesday last?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Nothing surprising in that!
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware of that.

    WAGON SUPPLY.
    Mr. LEONARD LYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the serious effect on manufacturers in East London owing to the railway companies' inability to supply wagons; and what is the reason for the inability of the Great Western Railway Company to handle goods traffic at the present time?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am fully aware of the effect on manufacturers of the shortage of railway wagons, and can assure my hon. Friend that such steps as are possible are being taken to meet the present difficult situation. I am afraid I do not quite understand the last sentence of the question. The Great Western Railway Company are suffering from the same disability as other companies, but they are not directly concerned with East London traffic.
    Mr. WATERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that a good percentage of those men from the railway service are being retained in the Army, and will he make representations to the Secretary of State for War so that they may be released, and thus remove the congestion by getting the necessary material?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This is a question of wagons.
    Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that railway men make the wagons in their own shops, and they are now in the Army?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am quite aware of that.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: What steps are being taken to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think it would be better if the hon. Gentleman would allow me to explain to him in conversation.

    CYCLE CARRIAGE (MIDLAND RAILWAY)
    Captain HACKINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can take steps to prevent the District Railway Company (Midland) carrying cycles until the necessary and proper arrangements are provided for their conveyance, as great inconvenience is caused to passengers by way of soiling of clothing and also of blocking up the doors?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am making inquiries into this matter, and will let my hon. and gallant Friend know the result.

  OIL DISCOVERY, DERBYSHIRE.
  Mr. HOLMESasked the Prime Minister whether the Government had come to a decision concerning the payment of royalties on the oil discovered in Derbyshire?
  Mr. HOPE: I am sorry I am not yet able to make an announcement on this matter.
  Captain W. BENN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the surface owner has any property under the surface?
  Mr. HOPE: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will address that question to the Law Officers of the Crown?

  RENT INCREASES ACT.
  Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he was aware that, contrary to the spirit of the Rent Increases Act, the expression standard rent, whether of a house or flat, had been held to include rates and taxes where the same were paid by the landlord; and was it his intention to introduce legislation to give effect to the intention of Parliament that in calculating a standard rent the pro portion due to rates and taxes must be deducted?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Major Astor): I have been asked to reply to the question of the hon. and gallant Member. I am aware that a decision has been given by the Court to the effect stated in the question, but I understand that the Government cannot undertake to introduce legislation at the present time to amend the Increase of Rent, etc., Acts.

  WOMEN'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS.
  Mr. N. CHAMBERLAINasked the Prime Minister whether he was aware that members of Queen Mary's Women's Army Auxiliary Corps who might have contracted tuberculosis during service could not be granted any gratuity or compensation because this disease could not be certified as specifically attributable to the nature; of the work performed, although in the case of a discharged soldier the attribute ability of tuberculosis was admitted without question; and whether he would cause steps to be taken to remove this distinction between the treatment of men and women?
  Mr. FORSTER:I have been asked to reply. I can only refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to him on the 1st April last on the same subject.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the existing state of affairs is consistent with the promise of the Government that there should be equality in legislation between the sexes?
  Mr. FORSTER: I think there is. If my hon. Friend will refer to the answer I gave him, he will see that the provisions for the treatment of these ladies are the same as those governing males employed by the Government in a civilian capacity.

  PENSIONS (DESTITUTE WIDOWS).
  Mr. RAPERasked the Prime Minister whether he would consider the desirability of destitute widows with more than one child being granted the same pensions as were paid to soldiers' widows and of their being included in the same category for pension administration by the Ministry of Pensions?
  Major ASTOR: I have been asked to-reply to this question, but I fear I can add nothing to the replies given by the Leader of the House to similiar questions on the 26th February last and on the 29th of this month.

  FAMILY TRADE BREWERS.
  Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he was aware that Orders and Regulations issued by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) had had the effect of bringing to a stand still the trade done by family trade brewers, and had caused great inconvenience to persons requiring beer for consumption at meals in their own homes; whether such Regulations were imposed as a war-time measure; and could ho say that they shall not be continued without the direct sanction of the House?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have nothing to add to the previous replies on this subject.

  AIR SERVICES.

    ARREST OF OFFICER.
    Mr. ATKEYasked the Undersecretary of State to the Air Ministry whether he is aware that Captain Kenrick Edward Clayton, who served in the South

    2275
    African. War and who rejoined in 1914, and is now an officer of the Royal Air Force serving at No. 15 Training Squadron, Hucknall, Notts, was placed under close arrest on the 24th April last for an alleged offence, and that, although application was made by his legal advisers for speedy trial, the hearing of the court-martial did not take place till the 17th June last, and that since then no promulgation of the finding has yet been made, and that Captain Clayton throughout such period has been, and still is, tinder close arrest; and whether, having regard to the desirability of the popularity of the Army and the Air Force as a profession, some more just and speedy method can be devised of dealing with an officer charged with an offence?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major-General Seely): The inquiries into this case are not yet complete, and I will communicate the result to my hon. Friend at an early date.

    AIRSHIPS.
    Captain W. BENNasked whether the Civil Aviation Department has under its control any airships; and, if not, what steps they take to carry out experiments, in view of the commercial development of this type of aircraft?
    Major-General SEELY: The Air Ministry has not at present any airships under its control. Valuable experience was gained by the Ministry from the flights of the R 33 and R 34, but these vessels have now been returned to the Admiralty.

    UNIFIED CONTROL.
    Captain W. BENNasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in view of the proved value of airships for commercial purposes, the control of the airships could be transferred to the Civil Aviation Department of the Air Ministry; (2) whether the policy of the Government was that there should be unified control over the production of all material and the training of personnel for all aircraft whether lighter or heavier than air?
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the Prime Minister (1) when the construction of airships will be transferred from the Admiralty to the Air Ministry; (2) whether it is intended to divide the Air Service between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry?
    Mr. RAPERasked the Prime Minister whether he could make an announcement in reference to the transfer of the construction of airships to the Air Ministry?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it was the intention of the Admiralty to transfer the manufacture of airships to the Air Ministry; and, if so, when?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It has been decided that the lighter-than-airships shall be transferred to the Air Ministry, and arrangements to carry this into effect are now being made.
    Mr. RAPER: Will they be transferred immediately or only on completion?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The principle has been decided upon; the details are being arranged between the two Departments.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will they be available for experiments in commercial work, or are they only for naval and military purposes?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I could not be expected to answer that question. That will be for examination. One of the questions says, "Value for commercial purposes," but I was not aware of that.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Will they be transferred for operational purposes?
    Major-General SEELY: I could not answer that offhand. When these ships are employed for military purposes they will be under the command of appropriate military authorities, whether of the Navy or Army.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: When arrangements are made will a statement be published here?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We shall certainly make any announcement that we can. Whether it will be necessary to make it when the House is not sitting we will consider.

    AIR. DIVISION (NAVAL STAFF).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether an Air Department is in existence at the Admiralty; and, if so, for what purpose?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): There is no Air Department at the Admiralty. There is an Air Division of the Naval Staff, which advises as

    2277
    to air operations affecting Royal Air Force units working with the Fleet. This division is manned by Royal Air Force officers lent by the Air Ministry.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state for what reasons aircraft, manned by Royal Air Force personnel, are continued under the control of the Admiralty?
    Mr. LONG: All aircraft which work in conjunction with the Navy are under the control of the Admiralty for operations.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the airships allotted for work with specific fleets are under the direct control of the Admiralty Air Department?
    Mr. LONG: No, Sir. Any airships allotted for work with the Fleet are under the direct control of the commander-in-chief.

  IMPERIAL WAR CABINET.
  Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Prime Minister whether there was in being a Cabinet other than the Imperial War Cabinet; and, if so, whether he would state the names of those who composed it?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yeovil on Monday, 14th July.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: I have referred to that answer, but I am asking now whether there is in being any Cabinet other than the Imperial War Cabinet, and, if so, whether we may have the names of that other Cabinet?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no other Cabinet except the one whose names I gave in the answer to which I have referred my hon. Friend.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: May I ask whether there are any Cabinet Ministers who are not members of the Cabinet?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a question I would expect to come from a member of another nationality.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: May I have an answer to it, to whatever nationality I belong?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is obvious that if there is a Cabinet and there are Ministers who are members of it, they are the only Cabinet Ministers for the time being.

  DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES.
  Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Prime Minister at what date the Report of Lord Cave's Committee will be in the hands of Members; and whether an opportunity will be given for discussing it before the Recess?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is in the hands of the printers, but, owing to the holidays and to the amount of work in hand, I regret that I am not in a position to give a definite date. I fear that it will not be possible to arrange for a discussion of this Report before the Recess.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is definitely decided when we shall rise for the Recess?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.

  FLOATING DEBT.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make a statement as to the policy which he proposes to follow with regard to the remainder of the floating debt?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I do not think I can usefully make any statement on this subject at the moment.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will it be available for the House before the Recess, and will some statement be made on this urgent matter of public importance?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly not. I do not think it is a matter which I could be expected to decide in the course of the next few days.

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (DAILY AVERAGE).
  Mr. ARNOLDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of the average daily national expenditure from the beginning of the current financial year, 1st April last, down to Saturday last, 26th July?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The average daily expenditure (including advances from the Civil Contingencies Fund in respect of services to be met from moneys provided by Parliament) for the period from 1st April to 26th July, is £4,442,000. I need hardly remind the hon. Member that expenditure in the early part of this financial year is no safe guide to the total for the year.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does that average include the loss on railways, and, if so, how much is allowed per day for that?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As my hon. Friend will understand, that is not a question I could be expected to answer without notice. It is the average of all expenditure.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the revenue was for the same period?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I have a bad memory, and I am unable to carry all those figures in my head. I must have notice.

  BONUS SHARES.
  Mr. ROSEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the decision of Mr. Justice Rowlatt in the cases of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. John Blott, and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Benjamin Isaac Greenwood, by which bonus shares issued out of profits are exempt from Super-tax; and whether the Treasury propose to accept this decision without appeal?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been called to this decision, against which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue propose to appeal.
  Mr. ROSE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered, or will consider, consulting his legal advisers as to the propriety or possibility of introducing a short measure to legalise the issue of bonus shares?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I certainly could not introduce legislation in order to decide in a particular way an issue which is now before the Courts.

  WATER CHARGES (RURAL DISTRICTS).
  Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the petition of water-users in the rural districts of Thornbury, Kingswood, and Warmley, Gloucester, and Keynsham, Somerset, complaining of an Order made by the Board authorising an increase in charges of 75 per sent upon houses not exceeding £10 annual value and of 50 per cent. where they do, but reserving power to vary such Order; whether the petition points out that such increases will give the company, a return far in excess of any extra expenses incurred by them post-war; whether all the rural district councils and parish councils concerned have passed resolutions of protest; and will he now consent to receive a deputation of the rural councils to put their strong and carefully prepared case before him?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have received the petition to which my hon. Friend refers, and I observe that the case of the petitioners, purports to be based upon the accounts of the company for the year 1917. As the accounts for 1918 are now available I have asked the company to furnish the West Gloucestershire Water Ratepayers' Association with a copy, and I shall be happy to consider very carefully any representations which the association may wish to make after they have received the most recent accounts.

  ENEMY FIRMS (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  Mr. ATKEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of. the inconvenience caused to business firms by the fact that the Government has not yet arrived at a decision regarding the settlement of the claims of British subjects against enemy persons or firms; and that this lack of knowledge is handicapping business firms who require the money owing to them by enemy firms for their business; and will he cause an immediate announcement to be made by the Public Trustee as to the policy of the Government in this matter?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It has been decided to adopt the Clearing Office scheme for the settlement of German debts contained in Article 296 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany.
  Mr. ATKEY: Will the hon. Gentleman say when a decision will be available so that business people can know what the position really is?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It has been decided to adopt the Clearing Office scheme for the settlement of German debts contained in Article 293 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany.

  COAL SUPPLIES.

    SEA-BORNE COAL.
    Lieut.-Colonel THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is a wave that a notice has been sent to the electricity engineer of the West Ham Corporation stating that his Department can no longer be supplied with rail borne coal and they must make arrangements to obtain a supply of sea-borne coal; if he is aware that this will cause a considerable increase in the price of coal in addition to the 6s. which is further proposed by the Government; that the additional cost of sea-borne coal and the 6s. rise take effect immediately; that it will be impossible to immediately recover the cost from the consumers; and if he intends taking action in I he matter?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My right hon. Friend explained in his statement in the House on the 4th June that the reduction of output, in the Midland districts made it necessary to replace rail-borne coal from those districts with sea-borne coal from exporting districts, and that the transport charges on the sea-borne coal were higher than on the rail-borne coal. I understand that the question of freights is at present receiving the attention of the Shipping Controller.
    Mr. JOHN JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of men in the West Ham district are receiving notices because the employers say they cannot afford the extra charges?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I was not aware of that.

  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE COMMITTEE.
  Mr. GRUNDYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the importance of the Inquiry in which the Committee on Industrial Insurance is engaged and of the fact that the public
  2282
  generally are unaware of the Inquiry, further measures can be taken to give it publicity, so that persons able to submit valuable evidence will have their attention drawn to The matter?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The composition of the Industrial Assurance Committee and the terms of reference, as announced by my right hon. Friend on the 5th May, wore widely reported in the Press, and a Departmental notice of the first meeting of the Committee was also issued on the 13th June. The public sittings for taking evidence will not be held till October, as some preliminary Returns are being called for from each of the companies and societies concerned in the Inquiry, and a reasonable time must be allowed fur their preparation, but it is proposed to make a further public announcement as to the probable course of the Inquiry at an early date. The Committee will welcome any information or suggestions from persons interested, and all communications and applications to be allowed to give evidence should be addressed to the Secretary to the Committee, Companies Department, 55, Whitehall, S.W.I.

  HOUSING.

    BUILDING COST.
    Mr. J. JONESasked the Minister of Health whether he has received a resolution from the Operative Bricklayers' Society repudiating the allegation that the present high cost of building is due entirely to the restrictive methods of the operatives, and demanding that an Inquiry be set up, with terms of reference sufficiently wide to make a full investigation into the real cause; and whether he will consider the advisability of setting up such an Inquiry?
    Major ASTOR: My right hon. Friend has received the resolution to which the hon. Member refers. I do not think that the high cost of building can be ascribed to any single cause, and I am doubtful whether the object desired could be attained by the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry.

    NEW ROMNEY, KENT.
    Mr. J. JONESasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there is a great shortage of houses for the working and middle classes in New Romney,

    2283
    Kent, and that, though at Little stone-on-Sea there are a number of large houses and shops vacant, their rent is beyond the means of the working and middle classes; whether, owing to the cost of building houses, the New Romney Corporation and the Romney Marsh Rural District Council have refused at present to consider a scheme for the building of new cottages; and whether he can take any action for the conversion of the large houses and shops into flats, or the huts and cottages at the St. Mary's Aerodrome, which is vacated by the Royal Air Force, into temporary homes for workmen and smallholders and to restore the existing cottages in Romney Marsh, which are in a state of advanced decay and are over crowded?
    Major ASTOR: On the information at present before mo, I do not gather that the position is accurately represented by the statements in the hon. Member's question. The Housing Commissioner for the area is being instructed to make further inquiries in the matter, and I can assure the hon. Member that all possible action will be explored to meet such deficiency as is found to exist.

    BRICKWORKS.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, owing to the prohibition of building during the War, some of the owners of brickworks were obliged to close down their business and dismiss their employés, and are now unable to reopen their works through lack of capital and difficulty in obtaining advances; and whether, with a view to increasing the supply of materials for housing schemes, the Government are prepared to make Grants to such owners of brickworks to enable them to reopen business?
    Mr. HOPE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by me on the 26th of May to the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth:
    "The Government have given assistance to the trade by placing orders with makers at prices ensuring a reasonable profit, and by making liberal payments on account so soon as the bricks were out of the kiln, and before actual delivery. These arrangements have produced satisfactory results, and it is hoped will have the effect of putting the trade on a sound footing."
    2284
    The Government is not prepared to make direct Grants to the owners of disused brickworks to enable thorn to reopen business.

  WIDOWS AND ORPHAN CHILDREN.
  Mr. RAPERasked the Ministry of Health how many children are in industrial schools; how many in orphan homes, such as Dr. Barnardo's, Waifs and Strays, etc.; the number of children and widows in Poor Law institutions; the number of widows, with dependent children, on out relief; and the total cost of Poor Law relief per week at present being given to widows and their children?
  Major ASTOR: As the answer is somewhat lengthy I will have it circulated in the Official Report.
  The following is the statement referred to:
  I am informed by the Secretary of State that the number of children in certified industrial schools in England and Wales on the 31st March, 1919, was 13,209. Information is not available as to the total number of children in orphan homes. As was stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Newport on 29th May last, the number of children in England and Wales in receipt of indoor relief on 28th December, 1918, was 59,761, and the number in receipt of outdoor relief was 124,801. The return for 1st January, 1914, is the latest in which separate particulars are given as to widows with children in receipt of relief, as detailed returns were suspended during the War. On the date named there were 47,774 widows relieved with their children, nearly all being cases of out-relief. The returns in my possession do not show the cost of relief to widows with children as distinct from relief given to other classes.

  LONDON PLAYING FIELDS.
  Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the importance of the healthy recreation of the people, every effort will be made to avoid the curtailing of the playing fields of London when carrying out the necessary housing schemes?
  Major ASTOR: As indicated in the reply given to the Member for North

  2285
  Lambeth on the 10th of March last, the consideration which the hon. Member mentions will receive careful attention in connection, with proposals submitted to the Ministry of Health for the provision of housing accommodation.

  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
  Mr. T. WILSONasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a largo number of women have been discharged from aircraft factories, and that these women are not receiving unemployment donation; and if he will state the reason why they are not receiving out-of-work donation?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): Women discharged from aircraft factories would, as a general rule, be entitled to out-of-work donation while unemployed, subject to their satisfying all the conditions of the donation scheme. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the cases which he has in mind I will have inquiries made.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    APPLICATlON FOR RELEASE.
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that, since Seaman A. B. Waterston, No. 33225, serving on His Majesty's torpedo-boat destroyer "Trident," joined up, his father has died and his mother is a widow with four young children to look after; and, as this is a case of commission, will he grant this man's release from the Navy?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr Macnamara): In order to allow of the demobilisation of all men who joined for hostilities only, it has been necessary to restrict discharge of long-service men to really urgent compassionate cases. This man's commanding officer is being directed to inquire into the circumstances and report whether he recommends release.

    JERRAM COMMITTEE.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can say
    2286
    when he will be in a position to make a further announcement with regard to the finding of the Jerram Committee that men invalided are to be awarded pensions in respect of length of service apart from any award in respect of disability?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Considerable progress has been made in this matter, and it is anticipated that definite proposals will be put forward in a few days for the consideration of the Board.

    CIVILIAN EMPLOYES, PORTSMOUTH BARRACKS.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any decision has yet been arrived at regarding the petition presented on the 21st October, 1918, by the civilian employés employed at the Royal Naval Barracks, Portsmouth, and other naval establishments, in which they ask for similar treatment to that of other Government employés in the district?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The employés referred to in my hon. Friend's question are naval pensioners employed as civilians, and their conditions and terms of service arc not identical with those of workmen employed in the Royal Dockyards and industrial establishments. It has, however, been decided to grant extra pay to some of these employés, and the Admiralty are now in communication with the Commanders-in-Chief at the various ports in connection with the allocation of the extra pay.

  GOVERNMENT SLAUGHTERHOUSES, KENT.
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that the closing of the Government slaughterhouses throughout the county of Kent is causing much dissatisfaction amongst the farmers: if he will say for what reason this step has been taken; and whether, in order to obviate the loss and inconvenience so occasioned to farmers, he will take steps to have the slaughterhouses reopened during the continuance of meat control, or, alternatively, to give authority to market chairmen to allocate cattle and sheep on the application of owners to butchers on the deadweight basis.?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I have been asked to reply. These slaughterhouses were closed because the stock consigned to them by the farmers was not sufficient to justify their continuance, and at present I do not propose to reopen them. I regret that, owing to administrative difficulties, it is not possible to adopt the alternative proposal made in the last part of the question.

  EX-ARMY HORSES AND MULES.
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Secretary of State for War if he has any official in formation showing that horses and mules formerly employed in the British Army and now sold in Persia are treated with wanton cruelty by their present owners; and if he will take steps to see that in future they are disposed of in India or other British Possessions where they will be treated with humanity?
  Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): On the 3rd May last the General Officer Commanding in-Chief in Mesopotamia cabled that he had found it desirable to discontinue the sale of draught horses to local inhabitants, owing to their unsuitability for the work they are called upon to do. Beyond this, no information has been received which would suggest that the animals are cruelly treated. I think the General Commanding and the civil authorities may be trusted to deal with any instances of cruelty should occasion arise.
  Mr. BRIANT: Will my hon. Friend read a letter from an officer in Mesopotamia now in my possession giving evidence of cruelty to horses, if I send him a copy?
  Captain GUEST: I shall be very glad if my hon. Friend will send me a copy.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Secretary of State for War is he aware that Sapper A. Howard, No. 457596, 451st Field Company, Royal Engineers, at No. 5 Camp, Deolali, India, joined up in 1915; is he aware that this man's father has had a stroke and the sapper son is his only sup port: and, on that ground, will he grant his release from the Army?
    Captain GUEST: If Sapper Howard joined the Colours for immediate service prior to 1st January, 1916, he will be demobilised in his turn when demobilisation recommences in India. I regret that I cannot authorise his immediate release.
    Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTS: Can the hon. Gentleman state when demobilisation is likely to reopen?
    Captain GUEST: That depends on the difficulties of transport in the Red Sea during the hot weather.
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Secretary of State for War whether 1 e is aware that Sapper A. Smith, No. 62645, of the No. 2 Wireless Observation Group, Egypt, enlisted in November, 1914; that he has served at the Dardanelles, in Palestine, and Egypt, without home leave; that he has suffered from sand fly fever and malaria, and that his commanding officer has certified him as available for demobilisation without substitution; whether the average task of the three operators at this station is one message per day between them; whether he stated on 30th June that if Sapper Smith's length of service was as stated he was eligible for demobilisation; and whether he will state what steps have been taken to release this man?
    Captain GUEST: A cablegram has been sent to Egypt inquiring into this man's position as regards demobilisation.

  BAKING TRADE DISPUTE.
  Mr. HAILWOOD(by private Notice) asked the Leader of the House if he recognises the serious state the country will be in on Monday next in consequence of the bakers' strike, which is to commence on Saturday next, and is he aware that the deadlock is duo to the policy being pursued by the Ministry of Food, and what steps he proposes to take to avoid the calamity?
  Mr. WARDLE: I have been asked to reply to this question. The Ministry of Labour has been in contact with all the parties to the dispute, and to-day at a meeting in the Ministry the representative of the Ministry of Food made a communication to the employers' secretary which appears likely to remove the difficulty. Further meetings with the parties to the dispute arc being arranged.

  THAMES RIVER PAGEANT.

    WOUNDED SAILORS AND SOLDIERS.
    Mr. RAPER(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that there is a strong feeling of disappointment that no accommodation is being provided for wounded sailors and soldiers to view the River Pageant; and why such accommodation cannot be provided?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I can well believe that disappointment is felt, and, of course, we share it.
    As regards wounded sailors, I am afraid it is not possible to bring those men from the naval ports to London this week-end.
    As regards wounded soldiers, and such few wounded sailors as may be in and about London, the problem of providing accommodation along the river side is by no means so simple as that of providing accommodation in the parks, as was done on the 10th. But I have been in communication with the Secretary of State for War and the First Commissioner of Works about the matter, and if anything can be done in the direction indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend, it shall be done.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Is it possible for the Admiralty to obtain barges, which could be moored in the river, for the accommodation of these men?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That suggestion has already been made to me.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will he not consider the possibility of approaching some of the great trades people who occupy wharves on the route as to whether they will give the accommodation?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The matter is under our consideration in its many aspects.
    Mr. BRIANT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole of Lambeth Bridge is being reserved for the use of wounded soldiers on Monday?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: By the London County Council?
    Mr. BRIANT: Yes.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am very glad to hear it.
    An HON. MEMBER: Is he aware that there are plenty of wharves in the borough of Stepney which would be available?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That shall be considered.

  PROCESSION OF INDIAN TROOPS.
  Colonel YATE: Can he say what accommodation is being provided for wounded soldiers and sailors to view the march of the Indian troops?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say about that. Questions about wounded soldiers are really a matter for the Secretary of State for War to deal with.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask the representative of the War Office what is being done?
  Mr. FORSTER: I really cannot say without notice.
  Colonel YATE: Will he bring it to the notice of the Department that they are taking down all the stands along the Mall, and might they not remain up for the wounded soldiers?
  Mr. FORSTER: I will have that considered at once.

  RHODESIA.

    LORD CAVE'S COMMISSION.
    Captain R. TERRELL(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether a Government Commission comprising Sir William Peat is proceeding very shortly to Rhodesia to decide the Chartered Company's claim; whether He is aware that Sir W. Peat is Chairman of the new Royal Commission on Agriculture; and how Sir W. Peat will be able to carry on the duties of both Commissions, particularly in view of the urgency of the home investigation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that Sir W. Peat will not proceed to South Africa, and that his work as Chairman of the Royal Commission on Agriculture will be in no way interfered with.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Are we then to understand that only Lord Chalmers and Lord Cave will go to South Africa?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes. Sir W. Peat was going, from the point of view of the accounts, but I understand that he is sending a member of his firm to act for him in South Africa.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. T. WILSON: May I ask the Leader of the House what the business for next week will be, and will he also state when the House will adjourn for the Autumn Recess?
Mr. BONAR LAW: I can give the business for next week, as follows:
Monday, Supply (Scottish Estimates).
Tuesday, Forestry Bill and other Orders.
Wednesday, Votes of thanks will be moved to the fighting Services, and at the same time the House will be asked to approve of the recognition of special services.
On Thursday the Consolidated Fund Bill, Second Reading.
I cannot say anything definite as to the time the House will rise, but we have been aiming at about the middle of next month
Mr. HOUSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend the House to sit on Friday?
Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, certainly!
Sir P. MAGNUS: Will the House meet at twelve or two-forty-five on Monday?
Mr. BONAR LAW: At the usual time on Monday
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Debate on the nationalisation of coal mines will be taken?
Mr. BONAR LAW: I said yesterday that I could not give an exact date, but we anticipated it would be discussed before the Recess.
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say that he would give sufficient notice, so that Members who wanted to go away could make arrangements?
Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not say anything of the kind. I said we would take it as soon as we could, and that I relied on hon. Members not going away.
Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the recognition of special military services implies that there will be a Vote of money proposed on Wednesday; and how soon can he give us the figures?
Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; that is in. tended. I shall give the particulars as soon as we can, certainly before the discussion.
Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the Prime Minister that the House will give him a hearty welcome next week if he comes here to answer questions?
Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope it is not necessary to assume that. If my hon. Friend means to press the question put yesterday, I have spoken to the Prime Minister about it. The Government are quite decided that so long as the pressure upon his time, which is as great as it was during the War, continues, there shall be no change of procedure.
Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the Prime Minister that the general feeling of the House is one of satisfaction as regards existing arrangements having regard to all the circumstances?
Mr. MacVEAGH: Especially among the knights and baronets!

HIGH PRICES AND PROFITS
Ordered, That Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland be discharged from the Committee.
Ordered,
"That Major-General Sir John Davidson be added to the Committee."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

CORN PRODUCTION ACTS (REPEAL) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [4th June] to be resumed upon Thursday, 14th August.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Amendment to—
Falmouth Docks Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill,—That they do not insist on their Amendment to the Housing, Town Planning, etc, Bill to which this House has disagreed, and agree to the Amendment proposed by this House in lieu thereof.

AGRICULTURAL LAND SALES (RESTRICTION OF NOTICES TO QUIT) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee E.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 154.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 154.].
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 160.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Tramways Provisional Orders Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Ammanford Gas Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Shoreham-by-Sea Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
East Ham Corporation Bill [Lords],
London Electric Railway Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table.
Blackpool Improvement Bill [Lords],
Leeds Corporation Bill [Lords],
Birmingham Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Clowes Settled Estates Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the third time.
Pembroke Gas Bill [Lords],
West Hartlepool Corporation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
William Morgan Jellett, esquire, K.C., for the University of Dublin.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Navy Excess Vote, 1917–18, and all outstanding Votes in the Civil Services and Revenue Departments Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, 1919–20, except Class 2, Votes 17 and 33, and Class 7, Votes 3, 4, 5, and 10, be considered in Committee of Supply; that on this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Older No.15, the Navy Excess Vote, 1917–18, and Supplementary Estimates for New Services may be considered in Committee of Supply; that no Question be put upon Navy Estimates, 1919–20, Vote 1; that the Question necessary to dispose of any outstanding unclassified Votes in the Civil Services Estimates and Supplementary Estimates be put as if those Votes constituted together a class of those Estimates; and that Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock."— [Mr. Bonar Law.]
  Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I wish to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, who, I understand, is going to reply, one or two questions as regards this Motion. It may save time if I put them now rather than afterwards. I understand that at ten o'clock to-night the Chairman will, under Standing Order 15, put the Question, so that after that hour we shall have no opportunity of raising any questions in regard to these Votes in Supply. Would my hon. Friend tell the House what Votes are included in Class 2, Votes 17 and 33? I understand that Vote 33 is Scottish Estimates," which are to stand over till Monday. Vote 17 is for the English Local Government Board. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why it is brought in here. That also applies to Class 7, Votes 3, 4, and 5, which are also for the English Local Government Board, National Health Insurance, and matters of that kind. Will he also tell me whether I am right in assuming that it is the intention that no Question is to be put upon Navy Estimates, 1919–20, Vote 1, and that that is in order to give the opportunity for these Estimates to be submitted in the autumn, so that they can be fully considered, as was arranged, I think, the other day? I notice also a reference to Supplementary Estimates for New Services. I do not know what is covered exactly by that. Probably this is the only opportunity one will have of asking any questions upon that. Do those Estimates
  2322
  cover the Vote which was the subject of considerable discussion upstairs in regard to the alterations in the House of Lords to the residence of the Lord Chancellor? I am not quite clear on that point.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I am vary glad to have the opportunity of replying to my right hon. Friend, because, although this Motion is in common form at this time of the year, it is in common form with a few variations that make it specially applicable to the circumstances in which we are doing our work. The reason for the exemption of the Votes to which my right hon. Friend alluded is this: Ho will recognise, if he looks them up, that they are all Votes which are closely connected with the services of the old Local Government Board. The Local Government Board Estimate has not been passed. It was debated, but Progress was reported, and the Vote was not taken, because it was understood—and I think a statement to that effect was made—that the Ministry of Health would supersede it, and that the Estimates would be merged to this extent, that the Vote on Account was expected to carry on the Local Government Board for its existing lifetime. There are some surrenders, full details of which are given in the Appendix to the Ministry of Health Vote, which is included in the Supplementary Estimates. Each of those Estimates is connected with the Ministry of Health, either of England or Scotland, and such Votes as the National Health Insurance Commission, which are practically Ministry of Health Votes, are included. That sums up the whole of those Votes. With regard to the point the right hon. Gentleman put about the Navy Estimates, he has put the correct reading upon it. If the question were put on Vote 1, when the total Estimates are. to be introduced in the autumn, it would be impossible to have a discussion on that Vote, which is the most important one, and therefore we do not take any account of that to-night. I may say as regards the grouping together of unclassified services in one Vote, I do not press that. That is put in simply for the convenience of the House, because, under the guillotine, if the House think fit, they will divide against one class, which will take very much less time than if they divide against every individual Vote in the class. If the House feels strongly on

  2323
  that point, we will not press it. With regard to the Lord Chancellor's bath, my right hon. Friend will remember the position that in Standing Committee C, on one of the first days of the Session, the Vote was reduced by £4,800, if my memory serves me, which represents the total sum allocated for the improvement of the residence. When that Estimate was thrown out by the Committee upstairs they were warned that a certain amount of this money had already been spent, because it is obvious to the House that, in a case like that, where there was no expectation of a Vote being rejected, the Office of Works, under the sanction of the Treasury, followed the usual course of proceeding with the work in full expectation of receiving later that sanction. Therefore, we have to come to the House to sanction the actual expenditure before that date under those circumstances. The amount is included in these Estimates. It is a little over £2,000—again I speak from memory. My right hon. Friend alluded to there being some new services. The new services under the Supplementary Estimates are marked. It is always regrettable when these Votes have to be brought under the guillotine, but we have done it before, and I remember very well, I think it was in 1912, several new services were brought in in this way, and Lord Crawford, who was then Chief Whip, objected and we divided; but there the matter ended. The House will remember in the statement I made accompanying the introduction of the Civil Service Estimates this year, I pointed out that in the circumstances this year, from the nature of things, there was bound to be a much larger number of Supplementary Estimates than usual, and it is equally owing to the circumstances of the case that a number of these Supplementary Estimates have been obliged to be brought in at the last moment.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: What are the new services?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I have not got them in my head, but they are all marked "New Services" where they are in the Estimates. There is nothing of any importance except one Vote, on which I want to say a few words. When reviewing these Estimates. I told the Committee that the House would probably desire a discussion on the last Vote of the Estimates—"Unclassified Services Miscellaneous War
  2324
  Services (Foreign Office)"—and I saw my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for State, whose sanction I obtained for postponing this Vote until the autumn, so that it might be discussed in this House. With a view to achieving that result, I have had that one particular Vote put down immediately before the Ministry of Pensions Vote, and I propose, with the leave of the House when it is called, to move that it be withdrawn.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Do I understand from my hon. Friend's statement that, if this procedure be carried out, the House will have no opportunity of discussing the £2,000 which has already been spent on the residence?
  Mr. BALDWIN:The House will have no opportunity of rejecting the Vote unless they are able to defeat it by challenging a Division when it comes up under the guillotine. If my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to discuss the matter, I always understood you could discuss anything on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: It is possible that this is the only opportunity that is likely to arise, to-day at any rate. Would it be in order to have the particulars with regard to this question of the alteration of the Lord Chancellor's residence now on this Motion before the House so that Members could make any comments they wished in regard to it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: This Motion is only as to the order of business. When the business conies on will be the opportunity.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: With reference to the statement as to the reduced expenditure regarding the Lord Chancellor's residence, I should like to ask, for the information of the House, whether it is not the case that the Lord Chancellor has intimated, in view of the decision of the Committee, that he has no intention of occupying the apartments?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, Sir, that is the case. The whole scheme is at an end. The whole work was immediately stopped when the decision of the Committee was taken, and the amount in the Estimate is the amount that was spent up to that date.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: I am not very clear about what my hon. Friend said as to the Unclassified Services. Are we to under-

  2325
  stand that any one of these services may be taken by itself by a vote of the House? For example, among the Unclassified Services is a Vote of a very considerable sum—I think £40,000,000—for the bread subsidy, and I want to know whether it would be competent for the House to take a vote on that, apart from the other unclassified Votes?
  Mr. BALDWIN: As the Motion stands now—no; but I said to the House a few minutes ago that if it be the wish of the House to take the Votes separately, it is for them to decide. We are simply putting these Votes for Unclassified Services together to save time and trouble to the House; but I might remind my hon. Friend that the Vote on the bread subsidy was sent up by request more than once to the Committee upstairs, and it was not proceeded with.
  An HON. MEMBER: The proceedings there were a farce.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: In reference to the remark which has just fallen from my hon. Friend and the reproach which he apparently levelled at some Members of the House, may I remind him that not all the Members of the House were members of the Committee to which he referred? The House as a whole has had no opportunity whatever of considering or discussing that Vote. That is one of the inconveniences attaching to the system which has been set up this Session. Those of us who are not members of the Committee can have no responsibility for not forming a quorum at that Committee.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a matter for discussion now. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to move an Amendment now?
  Mr. MARRIOTT: Not if I understand these Votes are to be put separately from the Chair.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Motion on the Paper, he will see that the proposal is that they shall be put together. If he objects to that being done, the simple way is to move to leave out the words which provide for that.
  Mr. HOGGE: It is preferable to have each Vote put from the Chair?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not sure that, it is practicable, but would it not be possible, by general agreement, if only this Vote is to be taken separately, to have it put separately?
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to move to leave out the words
  "that the Question necessary to dispose of any outstanding unclassified Votes in the Civil Services Estimates and Supplementary Estimates be put as if those Votes constituted together a class of those Estimates."
  Captain W. BENN: We are discussing a Motion relating to the business of the House, and it appears from my hon. Friend opposite that here is a bread subsidy, which could not be discussed in the Standing Committee, and is now going to be put under the guillotine of the House of Commons. Does the Leader of the House think the Standing Committee system is a success?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it follows in the least from this that it is not a success. I have never seen a system of Parliament where the same sort of complaint was not made of things equally important passing without discussion.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the Resolution, as amended, be the Resolution of the House."
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I should like to ask one question. The Navy Vote is going to be taken in the autumn. Will the Leader of the House give us a promise that the Army Estimates will be resubmitted in the autumn?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think I can give that assurance, for it is quite obvious that must be taken some time.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  WEST INDIAN COURT OF APPEAL BILL.
  Order [30th July] committing the West Indian Court of Appeal Bill to a Standing Committee, read, and discharged.
  Ordered,
  That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House for this day."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  SUPPLY.— [19TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER ESTIMATES.
    Considered in Committee.
    [MR. BOWERMAN in the chair.]

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER ESTIMATES.

      BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND
      Resolved,
      "29. That a sum, not exceeding £245,711, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, including certain Grants in Aid and certain Special Services arising out of the War." [NOTE.—£100,000 has been voted on account.]

      PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND.
      Resolved,
      "11. That a sum, not exceeding £2,927,220, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Public Education in Scotland, and for Science and Art in Scotland." [Note.— £1,750,000 has been voted on account.]

      FISHERY BOARD, SCOTLAND.
      Resolved,
      "30. That a sum, not exceeding £1,152,177 (including a Supplementary sum of £l,131,000), be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland, including Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays, and certain Special Expenditure in connection with the Purchase and Storing of Pickled Herrings."

      SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND'S OFFICE.
      Resolved,
      "28. That a sum, not exceeding £23,010 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Offices, Expenses under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, Expenses under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, and Expenses under the National Registration Acts, 1915 and 1918."[Note.— £14 000 has been voted on account.]

      UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,488,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the cost of certain Miscellaneous War Services."
      Mr. BALDWIN: I ask leave to withdraw this Vote.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

    STATEMENT BY SIR LAMING WORTHINGTON- EVANS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "3. That a sum, not exceeding £45,856,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Pensions, and for sundry Contributions in respect of the Administration of the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916." [NOTE.— £27,000,000 has been voted on account,]
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): This is the first occasion upon which the Pensions Estimates have been presented in detail. During the War the expenditure on pensions was made out of the Vote of Credit, but now the Committee has the opportunity of considering Estimates in the usual way. As I desire to put before the Committee a review of the administration and policy of the Ministry, which must necessarily take some time, I shall not deal with the various items of expenditure unless questions are raised in the course of the Debate. I must, however, warn the Committee that the Estimate, which amounts to nearly £73,000,000, is already out of date. Since that Estimate was presented, additional expenditure has been authorised, as I have from time to time announced. For example, there has been added a 20 per cent. bonus to officers' retired pay and to alternative pensions for officers and men and their widows, and certain pre-war disability pensions have been raised to the present rates. These and other alterations will cost this year over £2,000,000. I shall presently inform the Committee of the decisions of the Government upon the recommendations made in the interim Report of the Select Committee on Pensions.
    These decisions will call for an extra expenditure for the remainder of this year of about £11,000,000, so that the Estimates we are considering should be treated as £86,000,000, and not, as presented, at just under £73,000,000. The increased expenditure, however, covers only a portion of this year, and the Committee may like

    2329
    to know that for a full year—at least, as long as the number of pensioners remains at or about the maximum—the rate will be about £96,000,000. This is more than double the estimated expenditure for the previous year ending April, 1919, which was £47,500,000, and more than four times the actual expenditure of the year before—the year ending April, 1918—which was just aver £23,000,000. Perhaps before I proceed with my review I should also give the Committee information as to the numbers of pensions, gratuities, and final allowances in actual payment at the 30th June. I think I had better give round figures. Officers and nurses drawing retired pay numbered just under 20,000; officers' widows numbered just under 9,500; officers dependants, just under 5,000; officers children, just over 9,000—a total of 43,500.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: You say 9,500widows and only 9,200 children?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is quite right. It does not follow that there are only 9,200 children belonging to officers. It is only in certain circumstances that the children's allowances are payable.
    An HON. MEMBER: All under sixteen.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The corresponding figures for other ranks at the 30th June were: Men, 875,000; widows, 216,000; dependants, 279,000; children, 968,000; total, allowing for the odd numbers, of 2,340,000. It is never easy to recognise what figures mean. Perhaps the number of pensioners will be realised when I say that they are almost exactly three times as great as the population of Liverpool.
    If the Committee will allow me, I will first deal with administration, indicating the steps I am taking to bring about improvement. Soon after I took office in January last, I entered into a detailed examination of the organisation of the Ministry. My attention was forcibly called to the almost universal complaints of delay which poured in upon me from every quarter. Members of Parliament wrote forwarding letters from constituents, and, worse still, the constituents wrote also. The local war pensions committees complained that their letters to the Department were not answered, and often that when their letters were answered they got contradictory instructions. I set to
    2330
    work to put my house in order, and I can, truthfully say that the last six months has not been an easy time for me, nor. I think, for the staff of my Department.
    I found that the headquarters staff was organised in ten divisions each reporting to the Secretary, and through him, to myself as Minister. There was an accumulation of detail at the top which could and should have been dealt with lower down in the machine, but the intermediate staff did not exist. I rearranged the work into five divisions each under a responsible head, and I strengthened the intermediate staff, bringing in many experienced administrative officers. I found that there were no proper statistics and no sufficient progress reports, so as to enable the output to be properly measured and checked. I appointed a statistical officer, and an officer in charge of office organisation. Delays can now be traced to their causes, and steps have been taken to remove the causes by simplifying the procedure. In order to cope with the additional work due to demobilisation of the Army, the staff had to be largely increased, and the difficulties were accentuated by lack of suitable accommodation. The staff at the 30th June numbered 14,829, of whom 11,549 are women, and 3,280 are men. Of the 3,280 men 81 per cent., or 2,670, are discharged officers or men. The staff is housed in thirty-three separate buildings or groups of buildings, and this separation makes control extremely difficult, and leads to great extravagance in staff.
    At the same that the work at headquarters was being co-ordinated, Regulations had to be issued under the War Pensions Act, passed last year, governing, the procedure of local war pensions committees and defining the duties of the secretary, treasurer and chief officer of the local war pensions committees. The Committee is aware of the very valuable local work done by the local war pensions committees which act as the Ministry's local agents in direct touch with the claimants for pensions and allowances. The change, however, from war to peace affected these committees—many voluntary workers with great experience felt that the work they had done during the War should now be taken over by full-time paid workers. The appointment of principal officers of these local war pensions committees and the necessary rearrangements of areas so as to secure economic units for administration had to

    2331
    be referred to headquarters. There are 3,200 of these local committees and sub-committees, and the constitution of each of them has had to be reviewed. Congestion and delays at the centre were, therefore, not surprising.
    I felt that no re-organisation of head-quarters would be sufficient, so I appointed a Committee under the Parliamentary Secretary consisting of Members of this House and representatives of local war pensions committees to consider how far it would be advisable to decentralise the organisation. The question was very care-fully considered by that Committee, to which I am most grateful. They reported unanimously in favour of decentralisation, and they drew up a scheme which I have adopted. The scheme provides for setting up a number of regions, either thirteen or eleven, each as a complete self-contained administrative unit under a Regional Director advised by a Regional Advisory Committee. While I shall retain the direction of policy all matters of administration arising within the region will be finally settled at the regional office. The local war pensions committees within the region will communicate direct with the region and all medical boards, and arrangements for medical treatment will be dealt with by the regional medical officer. Awards will also be made by the regional awarding officer, at first the renewals only, but afterwards all the cases which arise locally will be settled locally. I am satisfied that only by a wide delegation of powers to the Regional Director is it possible to remove delays and ensure speedy decisions on the many local questions which arise, in the awarding of pensions and in the administration through the local committees.
    The Scottish, Irish and Welsh regions have already been established in Edinburgh, Dublin, Belfast, and Cardiff, respectively, and the South-East of England region has started in London. It is still for consideration whether two other regions shall not be joined with this region or whether the original proposal of thirteen regions shall be carried out. I hope the North-West region will be inaugurated next week at Manchester, and I shall proceed with the other regions as rapidly as possible. As I have said, the reorganisation of the headquarters and the recasting of the local organisation had
    2332
    to be carried out at a time of great pressure due to demobilisation of the Army, and if the Committee will allow me I will give them some idea of what this pressure was and of the steps taken to meet it.
    Let me first deal with the awards of pensions to men. Before demobilisation commenced, men were discharged from military hospitals, and their discharge documents were sent direct to Chelsea and were awarded upon the fairly complete records then furnished. At Chelsea there was in existence a very laborious system, costly in staff, slow but fairly sure in action. During the last six months about 150,000 first awards have been made in cases of men discharged from hospital, in addition to 274,000 renewals of previous pensions This was the normal work of the division. But with demobilisation two other classes of claimants appeared, namely the Z men and the Article 9 cases.
    As the Committee is aware, nearly 3,000,000 men were demobilised in the first six months of this year. Before being demobilised, all men other than those in hospital passed through dispersal stations and were given an opportunity of making a claim. Those who made a claim were examined either by the medical officer of their unit or by some other Army doctor. About 385,000 men made claims. The claim was made on a Z.22, and this, with the man's papers from the Record Offices were sent to the Ministry, so that pension might be granted. These are the men we call Z claimants, but in addition there were others who for some reason or another, some because they feared that claiming would delay their demobilisation and others because they were then well, did not make claims. They are not debarred from claiming; they can still claim under Article 9. These we call Article 9 cases. In January last I found that sufficient provision had not been made to deal with the claims of the Z men, so I established the Z branch as an emergency branch to deal with these cases only.
    It was organised and directed by Mr. Demetriadi, a business man of great ability, and but for his untiring efforts and for the excellent work of the staff under his direction, there would have been very serious delay in dealing with the 385,000 claims received. All through February and March the arrears increased, but by April the branch was dealing with more claims than it received, and arrears were reduced; by the middle

    2333
    of June arrears had disappeared. The greatest number of awards made in any one week was 35,800, a really remarkable performance, when it is remembered that each claim requires separate and detailed investigation and a decision on the merits.
    Of the 385,000, 303,000 claims were admitted and awards made of pensions, allowances, and gratuities, and 81,403 were rejected. With regard to the Article 9 cases, I am not satisfied with the position, and the local war pensions committees have been authorised, upon the report of the local medical referee, to make full advances pending the decision whether the claim is admitted to pension or not. There is still considerable delay in these Article 9 cases, and a special inquiry is now being conducted to simplify and hasten the procedure. I may add that the experience gained in dealing with the Z cases has convinced me that much greater simplicity can be introduced into the Chelsea procedure, and I am having the matter thoroughly examined, so that an improved system may be introduced when the awarding is done in the region.
    I ought to say a few words about the widows' and dependants' pensions and allowances, about which I have had most complaints. In November last the flat rate pension of 5s. for parents of unmarried sons who enlisted before the age of twenty-six, necessitated a review of all then existing parents' pensions of under that amount. In December last public notices were issued broadcast calling attention to the three classes of pensions to any one of which parents might be entitled. The result was a great flood of applications and a mountain of correspondence. The arrangements to deal with the inflow were hopelessly inadequate. Large arrears soon piled up and there were, very naturally, many complaints. The matter has been taken in hand vigorously; there are capable men now in charge and within a few months I hope that the causes of delay will be removed.
    I do not wish to offer excuses, but I think the Committee should realise that in addition to a continuous process of reorganisation the Ministry has had to deal with the very heavy work thrown upon it by demobilisation and that the task has been one of some magnitude. I can summarise the work of the awards branches for the last six months by saying that during that
    2334
    period 920,000 awards have been made and 94,000 claims for pensions have been rejected or have run out by effluxion of time. The Committee should remember that each case has to be investigated separately and decided on its merits. Men's cases alone amount to about 6,500 awards each working day
    I shall have more to say presently about the policy of appeals against refusals of pension, but I had better perhaps tell the Committee something about the present Appeal Tribunals. In the early part of the year, I found that the complaints of delay in settling appeals against refusals to grant pension were in fact justified. There were cases pending since 1917, and many more which had been unsettled for a year. The two officials in charge of the section dealing with these appeals have both left the Ministry, and the section has been completely reorganised—its output has increased and will, I hope, still further improve, but until decentralisation is completed, the ideal will not be reached.
    In January last there were two Appeal Tribunals hearing appeals. Now fifteen have been constituted and arrears are being overtaken, but even yet I am not satisfied that many more tribunals will not be required.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who these officers were, and if they have gone to any other Department?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I believe not, so far as I know.
    Mr. HOGGE: What position were they in at the Ministry
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: One at least was temporary, but I am not sure about the other. I would like to answer the hon. Member's question candidly, but I do not know. One of them was engaged temporarily and his engagement terminated. Before I went to the Ministry I had heard many complaints that officers were not getting their pensions, so as soon as I became Minister I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to take the chair of a small Interdepartmental Committee with representatives of the War Office and the Pensions Ministry to consider the position. This is only one of the many instances of the great assistance I have had from the Parliamentary Secretary.
    The whole position was reviewed and much useful work was done. The Committee recommended that the officer should

    2335
    be kept by the War Office on pay until his papers were transferred to the Ministry of Pensions to enable his pension claim to be awarded. I observe that the Select Committee have made the same recommendation. The War Office, however, were not able to accept this suggestion, so I adopted the next best plan. I obtained authority from the Treasury to make advances to officers in necessitous cases pending adjudication of pension, and some 7,400 advances have been made to cover the time necessary to obtain the officers' papers or to have a medical board. The Committee reported, also, that, in view of the large number of officers to be demobilised, the staff of the Officers' Branch was inadequate. It then consisted of eighty-five; it has been increased, and now numbers 430, and is capable of dealing with the present inflow of cases; indeed, pension is now awarded within twenty-one days of the receipt of the officer's papers. In the last six months nearly 42,000 cases have been dealt with, including the advances I have mentioned.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman get the papers from the War Office? It is not his fault, but does the War Office send him the papers?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have said that I have instituted a system of advances in cases where it is necessary, pending the receipt of papers, and advances have been made in 7,400 cases. I appointed also a distinguished soldier to act as "officers' friend." He and his staff of twelve officers have had interviews and correspondence with over 10,000 officers and their relatives, and he calls attention every week to any cases of delay which come to his knowledge. He is applied to, not merely in pension cases, but on every conceivable question, and he knows the rules and regulations of other Government Departments, and he gives information accordingly. In addition, I have published a small booklet, giving clearly what officers are entitled to, and there really is no excuse for an officer not getting his full due. In the early part of the year I also set up a small Committee under my Parliamentary Private Secretary, the Member for Altrincham (Major Hamilton), to whom I am much indebted for his strenuous work during the last six months. This Committee considered the "Officers' Warrant." as the officers had been omitted from many of the concessions
    2336
    made to men. For example, no bonus was payable on officers' pensions, and there was no provision for a separation allowance for his wife when the officer was in hospital. These and many other anomalies have now been removed. A bonus of 20 per cent, is payable on that part of the retired pay which is granted for service disability. Thus the minimum retired pay is now £210, instead of £175. A separation allowance is also payable of £50 to a wife, or £40 to a dependant if the officer is in hospital. Children's allowances were formerly only granted if the officer's disablement amounted to 50 per cent, or more. This limit has been removed. Medical treatment can now be given to an officer pending settlement of his claim to pension. Artificial limbs and repairs are now supplied by the State. Pre-war disability retired pay is brought up to the-current rate. Widows' pensions granted in respect of previous wars have been increased to the rates of this war. These are very substantial advantages, and together they remove many grievances. They do not seem to be known, and although, I have already announced these alterations, I think it right to again give them publicity. There is, however, a new concession, and a very valuable one, to which I wish to refer briefly. As the-Committee knows, there is a temporary bonus of 20 per cent. added to officers' retired pay and to the pensions of officers' widows. This bonus will now be added to the retired pay and pensions and cease to be a temporary bonus. The retired pay and pensions will thus be increased, and after three years, if the cost of living falls, it will be subject to automatic reductions in the same way as men's pensions, which I will presently explain. But for the next three years the increased retired pay and pensions will be payable.
    There is one other administrative division to which I must refer. It is the division dealing with the medical services of the Ministry. I have been fortunate in securing as Chief Medical Officer Colonel Webb. During the War he held an important position in the Medical Service of the War Office, and he brings a very special knowledge of the requirements of the serving man who is now a pensioner to the service of the pensioners. The work of this division is probably the most important of any of the divisions of the Ministry. It deals with that primary necessity of the disabled man, namely, the provision of medical treatment both in hos-

    2337
    pitals and climes and convalescent centres. When the bulk of the men were in the Army, the Army did the work, but demobilisation has transferred the necessity for providing hospitals and clinics from the War Office to the Ministry of Pensions. We have already taken over from the War Office two hospitals, and arrangements are practically complete for the transfer of others. The British Bed Cross are assisting the Pensions Ministry as they assisted the War Office, and I have to acknowledge their kindness in offering us the use of some of their hospitals and providing for the conveyance of cot cases by means of their ambulances. As we take over hospitals, we are bound to provide a nursing service, and I am glad to say that Queen Alexandra has graciously consented to be President of the Pensions Nursing Service. I have been fortunate in securing as Matron-in-Chief Miss M. E. Davies, R.R.C., and she will act with an Advisory Committee.
    I am also hoping to have ready very shortly certain convalescent centres at Blackpool, Epsom, and elsewhere, in which men, while suffering from disabilities which require more or less prolonged outpatient-treatment, will be able to employ their time to their own advantage by receiving preliminary training to fit them for their after life. I have been impressed by the large number of outpatients attending hospitals for perhaps half an hour a day, upon whose hands time hangs heavily. I believe that if such men as these are admitted to convalescent centres, they will, while receiving treatment, be capable of much useful training during their convalescent stage, and more rapidly benefit by the industrial training thereafter given them under the Ministry of Labour. Moreover, experience shows that many slightly disabled men, attracted no doubt by the high wages prevalent in the later stages of the War, went back into industrial life probably too soon, and they are likely to break down and they are now in many cases breaking down. They require more or less prolonged convalescent treatment, and I believe that for these men also the convalescent centres are likely to prove of great use.
    I have also to deal with the question of medical boards, which comes under the medical branch of the Ministry. Until recently, the boarding of the men applying for pensions and the re-boarding of men on renewal of pensions was per-
    2338
    formed by the Ministry of National Service, but on the 1st of April last the central and regional staff of the Ministry of National Service was transferred to the Ministry of Pensions, and we became directly responsible for the boarding of all men. On the 4th August we are also taking over from the War Office the re-survey boarding of officers. To give the Committee some idea of the extent of the increase of the work of medical boards, I may inform them that 230,000 men were examined by medical boards in the first six months of this year. There has been a steady and rapid increase right through the year in the number of men boarded owing to demobilisation, and in Juno last 45,000 men wore examined. The Committee may be aware that under the system hitherto prevailing the medical officers at the headquarters of the Ministry, commonly known as the Chelsea doctors, have reviewed the decisions of these boards. They were authorised to alter the amount of a man's assessment, even though they had not themselves examined the man. Many complaints of this system have been brought to my notice, and the Select Committee has recently called special attention to it and has recommended that any case of doubt should be sent for rehearing, either by the same or by a new board, for examination before any alteration is made in the assessment. I entirely agree with that recommendation; indeed, I informed the Select Committee, when I gave evidence before it, that I intended to alter the system as soon as the decentralisation had been completed.
    While is was probably impossible to arrange for Appeal Boards before the Ministry of Pensions had its own medical personnel available to sit on boards and specialists, both surgical and medical, at its hospitals and clinics to constitute the boards, it will be possible to set up the Appeal Boards as soon as the medical personnel in the regions has been completed. Thereafter a definite procedure will be laid down, which will be followed in all oases, namely, that if the medical assessor, on scrutinising the report of the board, is not satisfied that substantial justice has been done either to the pensioner or to the taxpayer, he is not to alter the assessment, but he is to refer the case either back to the same board or to an Appeal Medical Board before any alteration takes place. Similarly, if the pensioner himself is not content with

    2339
    his assessment, if he thinks that he has been assessed too low and wishes to appeal against his pension, he will be entitled to appeal to a Medical Appeal Board, whose decision in the case will then be treated as final, subject to the proviso, which is in the man's interest, that if he falls ill during the final period he will still have the opportunity of going to a medical referee, who may give him temporarily a higher allowance pending the reconsideration of his ease by the board.
    5.0 p.m.
    This arrangement of Appeal Boards while, I believe absolutely necessary in the interests of justice, and to give the pensioner a reasonable assurance that his case is properly considered, will entail a large increase in the medical personnel, which can only be supplied if not only the permanent medical staff of the region is available for boards, but also the specialists attached to the hospitals and clinics, and probably in some cases the medical referees are available. There are some other aspects of the medical service which I must briefly touch upon. The first is the provision of artificial limbs. Soon after I became Minister I wanted to be satisfied that the provision of artificial limbs for both officers and men was sufficient, and that the best limbs were being supplied. I accordingly set up a very strong Committee, upon which several Members of the House kindly served, and they have recently reported. On the whole their report shows that the position is satisfactory. They have made several recommendations which are in the course of being carried out. Perhaps the most important is that an expert Committee should be set up to review all the various forms of artificial limbs at present made with a view to standardisation, by selecting the best from each limb. In future there will be constant requirements for the repair of limbs, and repair will be greatly facilitated if every maker can repair every limb. I might say in this connection that it is proposed that fitting centres shall be established in connection with orthopædic hospitals spread throughout the country, and that in addition repair depots shall be opened in populous centres so that minor repairs can be made in a short time.
    I have also referred to the Committee the extent to which fibre pylons should be supplied and used by men with artificial limbs. I fancy that fibre pylons will take
    2340
    their place alongside artificial limbs much as a slipper does to a boot, and that a man with an artificial limb coming home from his daily occupation will be glad to change it for a light fibre pylon. However, that is primarily a surgical question, and I have therefore referred it to the Expert Committee.
    I was also not satisfied that the provision made for the pensioner suffering from tuberculosis was sufficient, and, in agreement with the Minister of Health, we appointed a Joint Committee for the purpose of thoroughly investigating this question. The Joint Committee has now reported—yesterday, I believe—and immediate consideration will be given to the Report. I cannot close without thanking Sir Arthur Pearson for his continued service for the blind; nor can I omit to mention the splendid work being done in many parts of the country by those who are providing and managing hospitals and homes for the paralysed and the disabled requiring long-continued treatment. I feel very conscious that I have given but the briefest sketch of the work done by the Medical Division of the Ministry of Pensions; it is a subject which alone would provide material for a speech much longer than I can ask the Committee to listen to.
    [At this point for blind male, occupants of the Public Galleries interrupted the right hon. Gentleman, and were immediately removed by the attendants.]
    I propose now to deal with some matters of policy. I will first deal with the question of the discharged disabled man who was resident in one of the British Dominions or in the United States at the outbreak of war. Many thousands of these men rushed forward and joined the Imperial Forces. Many desire to return to the country of their adoption. As at present arranged, a man may return to Canada with, a pension granted on the British scale, which is lower than the Canadian scale, and thus he will appear to have suffered because he joined the Imperial Forces. The widows of men who were killed are even at a greater disadvantage. The British pension rates are much below the rates payable to Canadian widows, and are insufficient to enable the widow to live in Canada. I think it would be a reproach to this country if this disparity were allowed to continue. The case may well happen that one sister married to a Canadian who joined the Canadian Forces

    2341
    may be receiving a widow's pension of 38a. 4d. a week, while her sister married to a man who joined the Imperial Forces will have a much lower pension. I am glad to say the British Government is now in negotiation with the Canadian Government, and if, as I hope, these negotiations can be carried through successfully, pre-war British residents in Canada and the United States who enlisted in the Imperial Forces, or Reservists who joined from these countries, will be given the option of taking pensions and allowances, medical treatment and training, and all other privileges, at the rates and upon the same terms as are provided by the Canadian Orders in Council, instead of the rates of pensions accorded under the Royal Warrants. On the same principle I shall endeavour to negotiate with other self-governing Dominions that pre-war British residents in those Dominions shall be given the option of taking their pensions from the Dominions instead of from Great Britain. This will, of course, add to the expense, as Great Britain will have to refund to the Dominions the cost of the pensions, but it seems to me that this will remove what otherwise might be a great scandal harmful to the best interests of the Empire
    I now propose to deal with the Report of the Select Committee, and to inform the House of the decision of the Government upon the recommendations made. The Report was only published the day before yesterday, but the Cabinet recognised the urgency of the matter, and have given it consideration at two meetings, so wherever else delay may be complained of, it cannot be said that the Government have delayed in coming to a decision upon this important matter. I think it will be better to take the Report paragraph by paragraph, and deal with each of the recommendations.
    In paragraph 4 I am grateful to the Committee for their handsome recognition, of my endeavours. This paragraph contains the three main suggestions. Firstly, that there should be a special inspection and inquiry department. Secondly, that the services of discharged and disabled men should be utilised and special arrangements should be made with a view to training them; and, thirdly, that there should be better co-operation between the various Government Departments dealing with discharged officers and men, and that officers and men should remain on full pay until the necessary papers have been
    2342
    passed to the Ministry of Pensions. First, let me deal with the proposed special inspection or inquiry department. Already a part of this suggestion has been, in operation for several months past. Owing to the large number of complaints, received, both from Members of Parliament and from elsewhere, 1 set up a complaints section, and each one of the complaints received is investigated and a record kept of how long each takes before a proper solution is arrived at. But the Committee's recommendation goes further. It suggests that any case not dealt with within a prescribed time should be automatically reported to the Department and inquired into. This is a very good suggestion, but in order to carry it out it is essential that there should be proper progress reports from each branch of the Ministry. I have already said that I have recently appointed a statistical officer, whose duty it is to see that such progress reports and statistics are forthcoming, and as soon as this is complete it will be possible to work along the lines recommended by the Committee. I will see that it is done.
    With regard to utilising the services of discharged and disabled men and providing for their training, I have already told the Committee that 81 per cent, of our male staff at headquarters is drawn from discharged officers and men. I have laid it down that all of the new appointments of chief officers to the local war pensions committees are to be made from discharged officers and men, and for many months past I have refused to sanction any new appointments except of discharged officers and men. In order that a supply should be available in May last I set up in the Ministry a school for teaching disabled officers and men the work of local war pensions committees. I have had through this school thirty-five officers and men who have been trained or are in process of training, and twenty-eight of these are about to be appointed to posts by local war pensions committees. The Committee will realise that care must be taken to keep the numbers under training within the probable number of vacancies. It would be a very poor recompense if men were trained and there was no work available for them to do. The local committees have been urged by circular to keep us informed of any vacancies about to occur so that they may be filled from officers and men trained at the school. As the Committee is aware, I have no power to

    2343
    insist upon all the employés of the local war pensions committees being limited to this class. I have only power over the appointment of the principal officers, and, indeed, it would not be possible, so long as I have to rely on the local war pensions committees, for me to interfere with the appointments they make of their lower staff. After all they are responsible for local administration, and they must have a reasonable latitude in the appointments they make. I hope, however, the recommendation made by the Select Committee and the statement I am now making will call the attention of the local war pensions committees to the desirability of employing discharged officers and men to the fullest possible extent.
    The next point is the better co-operation between Government Departments, and the keeping on full pay of officers and men until the complete papers are received. I made this latter suggestion to the War Office many months ago, but it was not found possible to adopt it. I will, however, strengthened by the Committee's Report, again bring the matter to the attention of the War Office, and perhaps the endorsement given by the Select Committee will strengthen my hands in that direction.
    Sir MONTAGUE BARLOW: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the number of cases in which papers are now being held up?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Obviously I have not the figures in my mind, but if my hon. Friend desires to put the question I will see if I can give him the information later in the Debate.
    Mr. HOGGE: What was the decision of the Government with regard to the men remaining on full pay?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I did not mean that the Cabinet had specifically considered that point. What I meant was that it had come to a conclusion on the scale of pension recommended by the Select Committee, and I am proposing to announce their decision very shortly.
    The next important recommendation of the Committee is in paragraph 6, namely, the statutory right to pension, and in paragraph 8 of the right to appeal on entitlement, and the recommendation that separate tribunals under the Home Office or some other Department of State should
    2344
    be set up independent of the Ministry of Pensions. I will deal with these two questions together as the one is intimately connected with the other. The Government is prepared to accept the recommendation of the Committee that the Appeal Tribunals shall be set up under an authority independent of the Ministry of Pensions, and I am authorised to say that a Bill will be introduced as soon as possible to empower the Lord Chancellor to set up Appeal Tribunals and to make the necessary regulations in respect, to the procedure. The tribunals will consist of one legal representative, either a barrister or solicitor, who will be chairman of the tribunal, and a disabled officer in officers' cases and a disabled man in men's cases, with a duly qualified medical practitioner. Any refusal on the part of the Ministry to a claim for pension on the ground that the disability is not attributable to or aggravated by military service, or is due to serious negligence or misconduct of the claimant, will be subject to appeal by the claimant to this independent tribunal. Similarly a widow or a motherless child whose claim to pension is rejected on the ground that the death of the officer or man was not due to military service, will be subject to appeal. In this way there will be granted a statutory right to assert a claim to pension, and a statutory Court, independent entirely of the Ministry, will be the sole and final judge of whether the right exists in a particular case. I am aware that this does not entirely coincide with the Committee's recommendation. The Committee seems to suggest that there will be some magic if the words "legally entitled" were inserted in an Act of Parliament, but they take care to say that they do not wish the scales of pensions, and still less the administrative machinery of pensions, to be embodied in the legislation. They appear to have in mind that there should be inserted a Clause under which a man should be declared to be legally entitled to such pension as may from time be settled by a Warrant or an Order in Council. I do not believe that this would give any man any greater security than he will have under his statutory right to appeal to an independent tribunal if pension is refused by the Ministry of Pensions, and though I shall be perfectly willing to consider any form of words which would strengthen the statutory right to pension I do not think that the suggestion of the Committee would have that effect.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to adopt the suggestion of the Committee that the right to a pension should arise out of the Statute instead of the Royal Warrant; in other words, that the naval precedent should be adopted as regards the Army?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVAN S: I think not. Unless you intend to put the scale of pensions into an Act of Parliament, which the Committee itself does not wish to do, there is no advantage gained by any man by saying he is entitled to something which is in another document—a Warrant or an Order in Council. He is given a statutory right to appeal against a refusal. That is in the Statute, and that is a statutory right to appeal to a statutory tribunal. It is no longer in the power of any Minister to say, "This man is not entitled to a pension. He can go as a statutory right to a Statutory Court to get a decision; and I believe that fairly meets the case for a statutory right.
    Paraphaphs 7 and 8 of the Report deal with another aspect of appeals, and in effect it is proposed that a man should have a right to appeal against a decision by the medical board as to the amount of his pension, and they indicate the constitution which they recommend for an Appeal Tribunal on amounts. It is suggested that there should be a lay ex-Service element on the tribunal, but as the assessment questions arc mainly medical questions the medical element, should have a majority, and they advise that this medical element should comprise senior surgeons and specialists in the diseases or injuries causing the disabilities under consideration. I must say at once that this recommendation appears to me to be entirely impracticable. Let the Committee for a moment consider the work of the last six months. During this six months 920,439 awards have been made, or if I deduct from this total awards to widows, children, and dependants, nearly 700,000 awards have been made either for the first time or on renewal to men. These awards are made for varying periods for from six to twelve months. When the man comes up for a fresh board and a fresh assessment of pension what the Report suggests is that each one of these men should have the right to go before an independent Appeal Tribunal and should be able to appeal against the medical assessment. The Select Committee recognises that an appeal would be of no use unless the medical men upon the Appeal Tribunal were more authoritative than the
    2346
    medical men on the original board. I do not know what proportion of the men the Select Committee thinks would appeal, but if even one in ten appeal we should have something like 70,000 appeals in six months, and the delays would be so great that the appeals could not be heard before the pension had expired. Moreover it would be impossible to get the authoritative consultants and specialists in sufficient numbers to form the Appeal Tribunals. I do not believe that a reform is possible upon these lines. I do, however, agree that it is quite wrong for any medical assessor who has not seen a man to alter an assessment made by a board who has seen the man and I have already told the Committee that as soon as the regional organisation is complete medical appeal boards will be set up to which either the man or the Department can appeal in the event of the assessment being challenged. I ask the Committee to believe me that this is the practical way of curing the evil which the Select Committee 'has pointed out. Any outside tribunal dealing with these assessments would cause so much delay as to actually deprive the man of the benefits which the Select Committee desires him to obtain.
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Why an independent tribunal more than a tribunal connected with my right hen. Friend's Department?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is not a tribunal connected with my Department. It is the medical boards all over the country in the regions. In each region there will be appeal medical boards which will consist partly of the permanent staff, partly of the staffs of the hospitals and clinics, and, if necessary, a medical referee. But it is a totally different class of tribunal from that which the Select Committee suggested.
    Sir M. BARLOW: I have been unable to grasp really the difference. To my mind the crucial thing is this: Does the man have a free right of choice? He has a free right of choice under the proposals of the Select Committee. As I understand it, under the Minister's proposal he is to have a free right to appeal when the regional area system is worked out. If that is so, I cannot see why under our suggestion there would be any more difficulty from the point of view of numbers of appeals in working out the system than under the Committee's system.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Our Appeal Boards will be constituted of doctors partly in full-time service and partly stationed and in charge of hospitals and clinics all over the country. They will be carrying on their work at the hospitals and clinics when they are not wanted for a board, but they are always available at any moment for a board. I cannot see how you are going to get consulting specialists, physicians and surgeons, to hold themselves at the beck and call of any independent tribunals to go and serve as the appeals come along. It is a very different thing from tribunals being constituted by specialists who are not otherwise interested except as members of the board. I am advised that it would be quite impossible to get the medical personnel available for the purpose.
    If I may I will deal with the other paragraphs of the Committee's Report which deal with their recommendations for increases in the flat-rate pension scales and for alteration in the basis of alternative pensions. I agree with the Select Committee that we cannot usefully consider the amount of flat-rate pension without taking into account at the same time the alternative pension. The theory of both flat-rate pension and alternative pension is the same. The flat-rate pension is intended to compensate the majority, namely, those whose earnings were normal, and the alternative pension is intended for those whose earnings were exceptional and who, therefore, had been accustomed to a standard of living beyond the normal. I accept the general theory and the reasoning by which the Select Committee arrived at its results, and I agree that it is most desirable to place the scale of pensions and its adjustments from time to time upon a simple and easily understood basis. The Select Committee has based its recommendations for an increase as a consequence of and in connection with the rise in cost of the working-class budget as estimated by the Board of Trade. The Select Committee recommends that the Board of Trade figures should be adopted as a definite standard for assessing automatically the rise or fall of pension, and indicates the manner in which the rise or fall can be gauged. I have only one observation to make upon this part of the recommendations. The Select Committee proposes that any increase made should hold good until March, 1921, when the first readjustment should take place. I think this
    2348
    period is too short. Our object should be to give a sense of security to pensioners. I do not want them to have at the back of their minds that in a comparatively short period the amount of their pensions may be again readjusted. The Government is therefore prepared to go further than the Select Committee proposes in this connection, and to say that the increases shall be for a period of three years, and that the automatic readjustment shall take place, as to 20 per cent, of the pension after three years. The Committee will understand that, while I accept the proposal of the Select Committee for an automatic readjustment, I do not pledge myself to the exact words of the Report. The formula will have to be settled in the new Warrant.
    Let me now come to amounts and let me take the man's pension first. The Government is prepared to accept the new scale proposed—that is to say, the new flat-rate pensions for a totally disabled man will be as follows: A single man 40s, which represents a rise of 7s.; a married man 50s., which represents a rise of 17s.; a married man with one child 57s. 6d., which represents a rise of 16s. 6d.; a married man with two children 63s. 6d., which represents a rise of 16s. 6d.; a married man with three children 69s. 6d., which represents a rise of 17s. 6d., with 6s for each subsequent child. The scale for the partially disabled will be a percentage of the full scale, according to the percentage of his disability. There are, however, certain reactions from this increase which will have to be considered and about which I am not in a position to make a final statement to-day. For example, a single man in lodgings away from home for treatment or training has frequently obtained, besides his present pension, an allowance of 7s, 6d. a week towards his board and lodging. He will now have £2 a week, out of which he will be able to maintain himself. Similarly, a married man under treatment and training at home in certain cases obtained an extra allowance up to 7s. 6d. a week. As he and his wife will now have 50s. instead of the previous 33s., this extra allowance should, I think, be discontinued.
    Mr. HOGGEmade an observation that was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My hon. Friend has made a remark which I must repeat for the benefit of the Com-

    2349
    mittee. He has suggested that I am taking away with the left hand what I am giving with my right hand. That is a curious form of comment—it is almost ingratitude. Take the case in question. The man and his wife will have 50s. a week. Before that, the man and his wife were entitled to 33s. a week, and in some cases 7s. 6d. addition, but even with the 7s. 6d. addition they would only get 40s. 6d. a week. My right hand is giving 50s. a week instead of 40s. 6d. a week. There are also certain treatment allowances for men in institutions', and wives separation allowances and constant attendance allowances, which may have to be reconsidered. I do not wish to do more than indicate that as the substantive pension is being largely increased the allowances which were intended to make up for the previous inadequacy of the pension in certain cases will have to be reconsidered.
    Now let me deal with the proposals as regards widows. The existing rate of widows' pension is 13s. 9d. under the Barnes Warrant or, with the 20 per cent, bonus, 16s. 6d. for widows under forty-live, with an additional Is. 6d. for widows over forty-five. The Government is prepared to accept the Committee's recommendations. The new scale will, therefore, be in the case of a widow under the age of forty without children 20s. a week, and in the case of a widow of any age with children or over forty without children the pension will be 26s. 8d. a week. There will be paid, in addition, in respect of the first child 10s., in respect of the second child 7s. 6d., and subsequent children 6s.
    With regard to the alternative pensions, there is no doubt that alternative pensions for men under the existing methods of assessment have completely broken down. As I told the Select Committee in the evidence I gave before it in May last, the reason is that the pension is assessed by taking into account the earning capacity of the pensioner at the present rate of wages and comparing it with his actual earnings at the old rate of wages prevailing before the War. The effect of this comparison is to prevent almost everyone except the totaly incapacitated man, without any earning capacity at all, from obtaining an alternative pension. Those who are capable of earning receive wages at the present rates, which are higher, notwithstanding their disability, than the
    2350
    wages they earned before the War, and yet the wages which they now receive do not enable them to maintain the same relative standard of living that they had before the War. In my evidence before the Select Committee I put to them two proposals for meeting this position, and one of these proposals has been adopted by the Select Committee, namely, to load up the pre-war wages by 60 per cent, in order to get at figures which could be fairly compared with present figures. The Government is prepared to adopt the recommendations of the Select Committee, and in assessing claims for alternative pensions in future, pre-war wages will be loaded up by 60 per cent., so that a man who was, in fact, earning 50s. a week will be deemed to have been earning 80s. a week, and his present earning capacity will thus be compared with the 80s. and not with the 50s. The Government is also prepared to vary the basis of assessment by loading the full pre-war earnings increased by 60 per cent, up to 100s. a week, so that the maximum alternative pension will in future be £5 instead of £4 10s. This will undoubtedly mean a great increase in the number of alternative pensions, and will entail very heavy work upon the local war pensions committees and upon the Department. I think it necessary, however, to carry out the original intentions which lead to the system of alternative pensions. With regard to widows' alternative pensions, the same principles will apply. The prewar earnings of the husband will be loaded up by 60 per cent., and the maximum of the widows' alternative pension will be £3 6s. 8d. a week instead of the present maximum of £3.
    The Select Committee have also made two minor recommendations in paragraph 17 of their Report. The Government is prepared to accept the first of these recommendations—namely, that a widow with children who at first goes on the flat rate should have the option to take an alternative pension as her children cease to be entitled to children's allowances, but in order to obtain this right she will have to make an application and prove her right to alternative pension within a year. The second recommendation is of less importance, it requires some further consideration, and I will not deal with it to-day. It will be understood that the automatic sliding scale will apply to alternative pensions as well as to the fiat-rate

    2351
    pensions. The Select Committee also call attention to anomalies in the Schedule to the Warrant, and this matter shall receive early consideration. There is only one other recommendation in the Select Committee's Report which 1 have not dealt with, and that is the recommendation that the principle of increasing the pension to the maximum for men undergoing treatment and training should be adhered to. This has been a good plan in the past, and we propose to continue it.
    The Committee will realise that these alterations will throw considerable additional work upon the Department. Many preparations have to be made before so large a change can be brought into operation. It is not an easy thing to change the amounts of pensions and allowances payable to 1,000,000 people. The new rates will, therefore, be brought into operation in respect of the first week ending after the 1st September next. I think it is the 3rd September. This gives about a month to make the necessary preparations, and so it is not probable that the increased payment will actually be made on that date, but any arrears which may accrue will be paid as from that date. I do not wish to invite a deluge of correspondence, so that I give notice to all concerned that it is quite unnecessary to write to the Ministry or to the local war pensions committees claiming the increases. The increases will be made automatically. With regard to alternative pensions, however, claims will have to be made by the claimants to the local war pensions committees, and they will be adjudicated as rapidly as possible. It must, however, be many months before the large number of persons newly entitled can receive settlement of their claims. Meanwhile, they will draw their pensions at the flat rate, and all arrears which may be due to them will be settled as from a date in September.
    I should like to thank the Select Committee, on behalf of the Government, for the great care they have given to the matters referred to them, and for the painstaking way in which they have conducted a most difficult inquiry. I am sure that every Member of the House will feel indebted to them for their able Report.
    I am sure the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Sir Montague Barlow), has had a specially strenuous time. He has not
    2352
    only been Chairman of this Select Committee, but he has been Chairman of the Select Committee on Tuberculosis which has brought in a Report equally able. I regret that I have detained the Committee so long. My excuse must be the importance of the subject, and the desirability of letting everyone, including the pensioners themselves, know that every effort is being made not merely to do justice to-the disabled by adequate pensions, but also by improvement in and quicker working of the administrative machinery.
    Major COHEN: I have listened with very great interest to the speech of the Minister of Pensions, and I do not intend to criticise anything that he has said as regards pensions. I should like to say a few words in regard to the question of artificial limbs. This question affects some 30,000 of us. Though I know that 40,000 is not three times the size of Liverpool, it is, notwithstanding, the population of a fairly large town, and when one considers that every one of these men has lost a limb the figure seems larger still. As a member of two of the Committees referred to, I am quite satisfied that the limbless man is getting his first leg quickly. There art; very few men who have not already obtained one and if they have not got their limb it is probably because their stumps are not ready to have a limb fitted. In regard to the question of the second limb I know that it is under consideration, but as regards the renewal and repair of the artificial limb I think the Committee will agree with me, when they have heard what I have to say, that the position is not as it should be. At the present time the procedure which a pensioner has to follow if he wants anything done to his artificial limb is unsatisfactory. I would ask the Committee to bear in mind that if a limb requires adjustment it cannot be worn, and, therefore, the journeys made by the pensioner have to be made on crutches, with the limb, if it is a leg, slung over his shoulder.
    First of all, he has to go to the local war pensions committee, and with certain exceptions they send him to a medical referee. In the majority of cases the medical referee lives some distance away, and in some cases so far away that a train journey is necessary. The medical referee examines the man and fills in a form, probably recommending him to go to a special fitting hospital. Theoretically this is sent back to the war pensions committee, but

    2353
    I believe that in actual practice it is generally given to the pensioner himself, who takes it back to the secretary, arid arrangements are then made that he is to be sent to a fitting hospital. The Ministry in London is notified, and after some time writes back stating when there is a vacancy, and which hospital the man is to go to. If the committee or secretary is satisfied that it is the case of a defect in an artificial limb it is not necessary then to send the pensioner to a medical referee. In that case the secretary has to sign the form himself, stating that it is necessary to send the pensioner to a fitting hospital. In the case of what is called a minor repair the local war pensions committee gets an estimate locally if possible, and if the amount is under £3 it may put the work in hand at once. If it is over £3 the Ministry in London has to be notified, and as it is frequently impossible to get even minor repairs done in the district, as there is no one in the vicinity to do them. I believe that 75 per cent, of the cases have to be sent to a special fitting hospital. Is it right that the secretary of the local war pensions committee, who in a great many cases is a woman, and practically in all eases is someone with less knowledge of artificial limbs than, the pensioner himself, should have the responsibility of certifying that it is a case for a special fitting hospital? Then there is the question of delay; a man has to wait months sometimes before he can get into a fitting hospital, and the result is extreme discomfort and annoyance. In many cases there is serious hardship, as the pensioner is unable to fill any employment while waiting for the necessary repairs.
    The consequence is that unless it is a very serious case the pensioner makes shift to do with the leg as it is or does without it, if he can, rather than go to all this trouble. This accounts very largely for the many cases which one sees of men going about without artificial limbs. Would it not be possible to adopt some principle like that which is used in France? I believe that 75 per cent, of the cases there are agricultural labourers and therefore live over a widely distributed area. That country is divided into various centres, each with its own fitting hospital. All that a pensioner who requires anything done to a limb has to do is to go to the local police, purely for identification, and they send hint immediately to the nearest fitting hospital, where the limb is repaired and he is sent back to work in a couple
    2354
    of days. This not only saves the man a great deal of inconvenience and trouble, but it also saves a great deal of expense to the State. There is one other matter to which I would like to allude. In answer to a question last week, the Minister of Pensions said that it was decided to extend to officers the generosity hitherto shown to men with regard to repairs to artificial limbs. One exception was that it did not apply to officers still serving. Surely this is unfair. Comparatively few officers who have lost limbs are serving in the Army. The cost of repairs is as a rule small. I cannot believe that it is because of the expense that these men are excluded, and yet I can think of no other reason. If it is thought right, and it is right, that a pensioner's artificial limbs should be repaired, why should a pensioner who happens to stay on in the Army be debarred from that relief? It is only a small matter, but because it is so small I feel that it ought to be brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. HOGGE: Anything which my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Cohen) contributes on this subject, when he addresses, the Committee, is a matter which everyone will agree is worthy of the attention of the Minister of Pensions. One did not anticipate making the customary speech on pensions in view of the announcement that the Pensions Estimate would be on to-day, because at that moment one was not certain that the Report of the Select Committee would be published. The publication of that admirable Report—and incidentally may I congratulate the lion. Member for South Salford (Sir M. Barlow) and his colleagues on that Committee on having persuaded in bulk the Government to do what he and myself and many others have tried to do individually for many years past, and having achieved a very notable triumph—practically knocks the bottom from a great many of the speeches which many of us might have been prepared to make to-day, because it proves that the complaints which we did make were genuine and required to be attended to, and if that required any reinforcement, that reinforcement conies from the speech delivered to-day by the right hon. Gentleman detailing what he had to do in the six months after he took office in bringing order out of the chaos to which he succeeded. I do not know if the Committee realised as he went along the extraordinary number of things which he had to do administratively to get anything done at

    2355
    all, and because of that I should like to remind the ex-Pensions Ministers, who were here at the beginning of the Debate but have gone now, of the value and force of the criticism that used to be delivered in this House about the lack of good administrative qualities in the pensions authorities.
    I suppose that I have been responsible as much as most people for criticising the Pensions Ministry. I have dealt with successive Pensions Ministers, and I am glad to admit that since the present Minister of Pensions took office, if I take my own post-bag as an average indication of the way in which complaints have moved, the complaints reaching me have altered from 75 per cent, on pensions and 25 per cent, on military service matters to 75 per cent, on military service matters and only 25 per cent, on pensions matters, and if my right hon. Friend wishes to take that as a testimony to his administrative ability he can do so. I do consider that the Pensions Ministry has gained enormously by the administrative ability of my right hon. Friend. Of all the Ministers who have touched the Ministry he alone has stayed in the Ministry of Pensions dealing with its administration. In previous cases there was far too much gallivanting about the country, far too many speeches from platforms, far too many conferences that did not matter, and far too little solid work in addressing themselves to the difficulties of the problems with which they were confronted. My right hon. Friend has done that, and what can one say but that one is extremely grateful to the Government for at last seeing the common sense of the situation. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend did the final persuasion or not, but I was amazed that the Government did not long ago do what they are prepared to do now. My right hon. Friend talked of the difficulty which there is going to be in putting those things into operation because of the large numbers that had to be dealt with. The same point was made about the demobilisation of men. I have always said that this is the one kind of case that ought always to be attended to at once. It was always the cause of the greatest dissatisfaction among the men in the country and, knowing that, the Government ought to have been prepared, and from that point of view I do not think there is any excuse. But on the basis of what has been given, I am prepared to say now that the Government seem to have
    2356
    realised the force of the criticisms which have been advanced, and they are doing something like the right thing now.
    On one point my right hon. Friend thought that I was ungrateful in the midst of his great generosity. I am not sure that 1 was, because so frequently the Government spoil what they are doing by refusing to go a little further. My right hon. Friend, in submitting the flat-rate scale of pensions and the rate which had been raised, admitted that that was necessary on account of the increased cost of living. The other allowances to which I referred had nothing to do with the cost of living. They were incidental to extra treatment. The man is only going to be in the place temporarily, and compared with the sum which he is given it is an extra allowance for a particular purpose which is going to make him a better man. I do not see why, having given a man this allowance, you are going to take it from him, just because you have raised the flat rate. There is one point which I think has not yet been covered adequately on which there still exists a great deal of dissatisfaction—that is this question of appeal. The Government say that they admit a statutory right to a pension. I should have thought that that means that a man has a legal right. My right hon. Friend is providing a new Court of Appeal which may be a legal Court of Appeal. I want to get this point quite clear at an early stage in the discussion. He said that those Courts were going to be set up by the Lord Chancellor, that they will be presided over by one legal gentleman, preferably a barrister, and that the other members of the Court will be officers in the case of officers and men in the case of men, with a medical assessor. I have never known a legal Court constituted in that way.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: This is a Court which is to be set up by an Act of Parliament and is therefore a legal Court. There are differences between one Court and another. In the Admiralty Court there are a judge and two naval assessors. The Police Court does not have-that at all, but they are all legal Courts, all established under Acts of Parliament. This will also be a legal Court based on an Act of Parliament.
    6.0 p.m
    Mr. HOGGE: My difficulty is that I do not see how a man who is deprived of all right is going to establish his right before this Court, and I shall be glad to have it

    2357
    pointed out to me how that can be done. This does not constitute a statutory right, because the man cannot go to the Court unless he is refused. My right hon. Friend forgets that in many eases which will arise in years to come a man may want to establish a perfectly legal claim to a pension, but he could not do so.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not want to interrupt. It is very important that the Committee should understand the point. My hon. Friend is contemplating the case of a man two or three years afterwards making a claim. One of two things will happen—either that claim is to be accepted and a pension awarded or else it is to be refused. If it is refused, he has a statutory right to go to a legal Court and to appeal against the refusal, and the Court's decision is final. So he has either a pension or a statutory right to appeal, and in either case he is covered.
    Mr. HOGGE: I leave that, because it is a difficulty as far as I am concerned, and I do not pretend to have the legal knowledge that is necessary. Let me turn to the question of amounts. I am doubtful whether you have there reached a satisfactory position. The average man is assessed and reassessed at intervals of six months. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has in his possession any figures or not, but one's experience proves this, that the average man's assessment goes down very materially, and if you carry that process on sufficiently long you can assess a man off the Pension Warrant altogether. I can understand why the Treasury and the Government should desire that to take place. The figure of £96,000,000 given as the expenditure for a full year probably is an underestimate. I should not be surprised if, eventually, we get over the £100,000,000. When, some time back, we were told that there was to be a Vote of £40,000,000, some of us said that £75,000,000 would be the lowest sum. I notice that a proposal has been made to allow an appeal on the question of amount when the pension becomes permanent. It was reported in the newspapers the other day that the Ministry were prepared to accept that. Is that an alternative suggestion?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have not closed my mind on that matter. I want to get a system which is satisfactory to the men, even if it removes only a senti-
    2358
    mental grievance. At present it is absolutely impossible to have this Appeal Tribunal on amount, as suggested by the Select Committee. If it applied only to permanent pensions, you would immediately reduce the problem by nine-tenths, because permanent pensions are, roughly, only 10 per cent of the whole, I do not want to pledge myself on that at all.
    Mr. HOGGE:I quite agree. Everyone who has touched this subject knows the difficulty of putting these things into operation. The right hon. Gentleman said he does not want to close his mind. There is one point in the process of a man's award of pension which creates more dissatisfaction than any other. The average man feels, and feels very acutely, that it is a descending process, and that when he reaches a certain figure it will shortly be going down a little bit, and again down a little bit. If my right hon. Friend would address his ingenuity to that point, he would be removing one of the greatest troubles. I frankly confess that I had quite another speech in my mind until I heard the position of the Government. I think many of us had other speeches in our minds; but, putting that on one side, as we are all able to do, I am willing, on behalf of those sitting on this side, to associate myself with the thanks and gratitude expressed to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government for the very generous way in which they have responded to this Select Committee's Report.
    Sir MONTAGUE BARLOW: I hope the House will pardon me if I say a word or two in connection with a subject in which I am personally interested, namely, the Report of the Select Committee of which I had the honour to be chairman. May I say at once that as chairman I claim no special credit or privilege in connection with that Report. If ever a Report was the Report of a Committee as a whole, that Report was. Whatever measure of praise it wins from the House the Committee as a whole is entitled to it. May I say a few words, also, about the spirit in which we as a Committee set about our task. About a year ago in this House there was a Debate on a subject which some of us had very much at heart. We feared an unholy alliance of politics and pensions. I am glad to say we carried a Motion saying that that was an unholy alliance. But if there is a proper form of co-operation between political parties in these big

    2359
    pension problems, I think it was well illustrated in the work of this Committee. We had differences, of course. What Committee does not? But those differences never had a political complexion, and we were all animated by one desire—to do the best we could with the very difficult problem entrusted to us. May I say, also, this, that we desired in that Committee not to hinder but to help, to criticise, if you will, and to correct where we saw necessity, but not to do anything of a sensational character or anything that could be considered matter for "cheap copy." The Pensions Minister has been good enough to say something about my work in connection with that Committee. May I say this: It is referred to in our Report, and I wish to emphasise it again—how much the pension administration does owe to his ability and energy. We saw traces of it in all branches of pension administration. If a day comes, as I suppose in due course it must, when inevitable promotion removes him from the Pensions Ministry, I am afraid there is a possibility of the ex-Service man suffering in consequence.
    There are two or three points of view to be borne in mind in dealing with this pension problem. First of all, there is the problem of the man himself; that is the first thing to be considered. No one who contemplates this problem can feel anything but sympathy with the disabled heroes who fought in the War. That is obvious. Nor can any monetary compensation be really adequate to make good the disability from which they are suffering. But if a good pension is a good thing—no one denies it, and I hope the country and the men also think the new scales generous—permanent employment is even a better thing. We have to see to it that apart from the monetary scales training and employment are really satisfactory. This we hope to be able to deal with later on. Then there is the question of administration—the official point of view, if you will. The whole machinery is official machinery; it must be so. I am impressed for instance with the objection on official grounds to the statutory right to pensions. Obviously, it is no good putting such a load on your machine that it breaks down. No one will benefit by that, least of all the ex-Service man. Then there is the last question, the point of view of the public itself. It may be said, "Well, you are kind to everybody except the public." In
    2360
    my opinion, if the public are prepared to foot any bill they are prepared to foot this bill, for it is the kind of bill that no one would for a moment refuse to pay.
    Generally, with regard to most of the recommendations of the Committee, we are delighted and grateful that they are accepted by the Government and without any reservations. But there are one or two things which the right hon. Gentleman dealt with and about which I was not quite so satisfied. First, take the question of statutory right. It seems very difficult in any discussion on this matter to keep two elements of it distinct, namely, (a) the right of access to the Law Courts: this we thought undesirable; and (b) the question us to whether pensions should be paid, or rather, be expressed to be paid, as an act of Royal Bounty, and not under Act of Parliament as a matter of ordinary routine payment by Vote of this House. You may say that in the result it makes uncommonly little difference, but we have had a great deal of evidence that, in fact, though the grievance is a sentimental one, it is a real one, and if you can remove a grievance which is really felt to be so, without either upsetting the whole machinery of Government or imposing an enormous burden on the taxpayer, and this would do neither, then I cannot see why it should not be done. It was suggested by the Minister that one of the difficulties would be that if you put into an Act of Parliament that a man was legally entitled to a pension, you would be bound to put into that Act the scales themselves. For the life of me I cannot see why, and for this simple reason. In the Naval Act of 1865, Section 3, it is expressly provided that a sailor has a right to his pension, and it goes on to say that the scale shall be fixed by Order in Council. On that precedent we suggested that to remove the grievance felt by soldiers and airmen you should, as in the case of sailors, give a legal right. No doubt if the scales were in the Act they could only be amended by another Act, which would mean delay during which the men might suffer. We suggested further adding the words "legally entitled," which were in an old Act passed during the Napoleonic Wars. There certainly does not seem to be any legal impossibility in putting the phrase "legally entitled" into an Act of Parliament and leaving the scales to be settled afterward. Assuming that that difficulty is not made good, I would strongly urge the Govern-

    2361
    ment to make this small change, and in so doing they will be removing a great difficulty felt by the men. That is the effect of the evidence put before us, and a Select Committee can only report in accordance with the evidence it receives.
    There is a point which was not dealt with by the Minister, and the only one, I think, and that is the question as to whether the men are to be informed at once by the board of what their award is. It is a comparatively small point, but a point to which witnesses attached a good deal of importance. At present what happens is this. A board makes an award, and the award goes to Chelsea to be revised by the Chelsea officials, and, in cases where the officials do not agree with the report of the board, the cases go before doctors for reconsideration. That is now to terminate, and if the award is modified and the man is not satisfied, his case is to have reconsideration by another Board. When you have got as far as to say that the man is entitled to another Board and his case to reconsideration, I do not see why you should not tell the man what the first award is at once, so that he may know what it is until it is reconsidered. In that way you would secure an amount of confidence which at the present time you have not got.
    We are glad that the Government have met us about other points. The regional area is an administrative improvement from which we hope great things. It is the first important step along the line of bringing the administration of pensions closer to the man. I want to utter a word of caution on this subject. In my view, with regard to these regional areas, everything will depend on the type of man secured as regional director, and his selection will be one of the great tests of pensions administration. The man you get for these positions has got to be the Pensions Minister of his area. He must be a strong, capable man. He must be a man able to resist pressure; I hope, not political pressure, but pressure from all quarters, of whatever kind. He must be a man of experience in Government administration or he will not be able to work well with Government Departments; but at the same time he must not be hide-bound with red tape. He must, above all, be sympathetic and must be able to work with other people; and at the same time possess his own soul. Those qualities are not easy to find in one man.
    2362
    There are men who can fill these positions, but they can only be secured by taking immense pains in their selection and by offering adequate salaries to make it worth their while to take the posts.
    We have had encomiums lavished, and quite rightly, on the work of most, if not the majority of local war pensions committees. Certainly in the great towns those committees have done admirable service under great stress and very often without very much recognition. We have been materially assisted on the Select Committee by the evidence given before us by the secretaries from great towns like London and Birmingham and Manchester, and it is interesting to mention that two out of the three were ladies. The work of the great local war pensions committees have been self-sacrificing and admirable. But there are many local war pensions committees throughout the country which are not very efficiently worked, and some of them, I am afraid, are really bad. Some of them are run by volunteers who have not up to the present realised that the mere fact that the work is voluntary does not make up for it being inefficient. The sooner the Minister takes steps to deal with those local bodies the better those who have the interests of the discharged men at heart will be pleased. He has powers under the Act of 1018,and I hope he will put them into force.
    With regard to the allowance to married women, as that principle has been accepted I will only say that an allowance to married women exists in most other countries. We had it in our original Warrant. When we began the War, the allowances to unmarried men was 14s. and to married 16s. 6d., so that it is no new principle. In its present shape, I am sure—or, at least, I hope so—that the scale will meet a difficulty which is a real difficulty. As one of the witnesses put it,
    "According to the scale of the Warrant, the wife of a discharged soldier is expected to live on air, because she gets no consideration of a money character."
    That has now been altered, and we are grateful to the Government for doing so.
    Then a word or two about the case of widows. Up to the present the position of the widow has been, undoubtedly, a very hard one, and widows have been treated in a very unsatisfactory fashion. Let me quote a sentence from evidence on this point, and which is printed in the Appendix to our Report. Under the old

    2363
    scale the maximum was 13s. 9d. and with bonus 16s. 6d. This is what the witness said:
    "Up to the present time we have been given a grant from first one fund and then another; now they are all just finished and we are faced with the worry of finding some other means of providing boots and clothing for our families; and only on 16th May last we proved to the Ministry that our income in some cases was only 3s. 9d. per head after paying household expenses. It is this alone which is causing women to lead a bad life. No mother is going to see her children want for anything while she has a way to get it for them."
    That is the kind of evidence which any Select Committee, and which any Government would find very difficult to resist. I am glad that the Government have seen their way to raise the figure.
    There is then the point of the Board of Trade figures and the sliding scale. I am very pleased that that principle has been accepted by the Government, and I venture to hope that it will be a real contribution to the problem of pensions administration in the future. But in order that the sliding scale may be an actuality it has got to satisfy one or two conditions. First of all, the figures relied on must secure general acceptance. We had to take the Board of Trade figures, because they were the only figures available. They were not very satisfactory for our purpose, because they are only given monthly, and we had not at our disposal the actuarial strength of a Government Department to co-relate the figures for ourselves. The figures in the "Gazette" are. I think, generally accepted by the industrial world as satisfactory figures, but it is rather curious that I received from the Pattern Card Makers' Society of Manchester a protest against the Board of Trade figures. I wrote and asked why, and I received the following reply this morning:
    "We, along with four other warehouse trade unions, signed a sliding scale agreement last November, when the figure given in the 'Board of Trade Gazette' of the general increase in the price of all the items ordinarily entering into the working-class family budget was given at 122 per cent, over July, 1914. The May figure in the same Gazette gives 105 per cent. We are at a loss to find any one article which is reduced in price during that period by 17 per cent. As a result of these figures from six to seven thousand working people have been reduced in wages by 2s. 6d. per week for the males and 1s. 3d. females."
    What the true facts may be I am not in a position to say, because I have not had time to examine into them. What is quite
    2364
    clear is this, that if the sliding scale is to be a real asset in pensions administration, as we hope it is, the figures must be such as to secure general acceptance. Secondly, they must be prepared on some plan which is well advertised and easily understood, and then we hope that pension adjustments will become practically automatic.
    I want to say one word about the only important point which is outstanding, as far as I can see, between the Select Committee and the Government, and that is the question of the appeal on amount. Until the right hon. Gentleman's statement, I must say I had a difficulty in appreciating the difference between his appeal on amount and the appeal on amount which we suggested. It comes to this, if I understand him rightly. We suggested independent appeal tribunals on amount, constituted very much like 1ds independent statutory appeal boards on entitlement. The precise constitution of the board does: not matter so much. We wanted a lay element, and we wanted doctors, if possible, of superior authority to the doctors of the ordinary boards. But the difference, as I understand it, between the Minister's proposals and ours is this: We suggested tribunals of an independent character which would sit for the tribunal work alone. He suggests appeal boards which are really the same as ordinary medical boards, but with different names: then they can sit whenever desired, because they will consist of the ordinary medical staffs of the Ministry. If that is the only possible alternative, we must put up with it, at any rate for a time, but what I would put to the Minister is this: that the evidence given us, which I must say entirely accords with my own personal experience, was to the effect that there is nothing to which the men attach greater importance than this question of a free right of appeal to some kind of independent, properly constituted authority. The difficulty I see about the Minister's proposal is this. A board makes a finding with regard to a man, and they assess him, say, at 50 per cent, disability. The man is not satisfied, and he says, "I want to go before another board. I do not think my case has been properly inquired into." Well and good. Under our proposals, assuming them to be carried out, he would go to an outside tribunal, who might find against him, but there would be a lay element, and he would feel he had had all possible consideration. Under the proposals of the Minister, he has to

    2365
    go to another board similarly constituted to the board before which he has already appeared, and not only that, but it is a board which is expressly under the control of the Minister, because it consists of the ordinary medical staffs in the employment of the Ministry, either whole-time men or part-time men. The difficulty about that, to my mind is this. The disabled men will have the satisfaction of a second hearing, but they will not feel the same kind of confidence in the award as the result of the second hearing as they would have felt in the decision if it could have been given by an independent tribunal. The Minister answers that at the moment it is practically impossible. Those of us who are interested in this subject would be foolish if we made suggestions which clearly at the moment would break the machine down if carried out. But let us see whether we cannot proceed along these lines. The regional system is now coming into operation. There is a Clause in our Report dealing with this matter, which says that although there are administrative difficulties about this appeal on amount, they will probably be reduced when the regional area system is set up, and I venture to hope that under the reconstitution of administration which is involved in the regional system a loophole will be kept open for the constitution of proper appeal tribunals on amount of the type which we venture to suggest in our Report.
    The Minister in his speech was kind enough to refer to the work of the Committee on Tuberculosis. He perhaps was too kind. I was not the chairman of that Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Major Astor) was, but I was his deputy, and I think lie has been kind enough to say I had to do most of the work. I am afraid no other opportunity will arise for saying very much about the Report of this Committee. It is a Committee dealing with work which falls under the Pensions Minister, and therefore it is of a character which comes upon the Vote. It is impossible to say anything at large about the Report of that Committee, as the Government are still considering it, but I have obtained leave to say one or two words about the general gist of that Report. As a matter of fact, it has already appeared in the Press, although, as sometimes happens, the account in the Press is probably not quite accurate. I may venture, therefore, to say one or two
    2366
    words about it, though on the understanding that at the moment it is in the nature of a Report which is being considered. Roughly speaking, we found that there were some thirty to forty thousand tuberculous discharged soldiers. There was difficulty in getting at the figures, because they were for a long time all lumped together as chest cases and it was therefore difficult to separate the tuberculous cases, but on the best evidence we could secure that was the result. The first point we desired to make clear was this, that the tuberculous soldier is only one part of the general national problem of tuberculosis. He fits into the ordinary administration of tuberculosis throughout the country. There is the dispensary, there are the various preliminary stages, there is domiciliary treatment, then we come on to the sanatorium and the training colony, but, particularly in the early stages, the tuberculous discharged soldier and sailor must fit into the ordinary machinery of tuberculosis treatment. Then the next conclusion to which we came was this, that the accommodation with regard to sanatoria and hospitals throughout the country was unsatisfactory and insufficient. It was insufficient in this way. Under the present arrangements the discharged soldier has priority of treatment, and generally speaking, within certain limits, the case of the tuberculous discharged man has been dealt with, but I am sorry to say he has only been dealt with at the expense of the civilian population in a great many cases, and the requirement of additional sanatoria is one that has got to be dealt with immediately, as it is very urgent.
    The provision of sanatoria is a question largely for the local authorities, subject to State subventions, and local authorities, it must be remembered, have had a very difficult time in the last four or five years. There were large schemes for new sanatoria well on their way before the War. Money had been provided in many cases, plans had been secured, and buildings had even been begun. The War came, the military seized the hospitals, the Government stopped the buildings, and therefore, if the local authorities are four years in arrears with their sanatoria, I think we must not say it is entirely their fault. We were all of opinion that the sanatoria must be developed, that accommodation must be improved, and that training colonies must be made the natural.

    2367
    adjunct of the sanatoria. Lastly we were faced with this problem. Assuming a man had sanatorium treatment and passed through a training colony, assuming that he has been built up to a position of health and strength where under the best conditions he may look forward to a very fair average length of life in the future, he is then released from the sanatorium and the training colony, where he has been for six to twelve months under the best possible conditions. He takes up work under all the unsatisfactory rough and tumble conditions of the labour market, he goes to live in a house which is probably not very sanitary, the worries of life fasten upon him, and what is the result? Quite inevitably he drifts back, and the scale of his health descends and descends, and in a few years, or even it may be in a few months, he probably dies, and not only that, but before he dies he infects a large area around him.
    The mere provision of sanatoria and training colonies is not enough. We must make some further provision, and we are going to begin by making that provision for the discharged soldier. In our view the only alternative to offer him is this, either the best possible housing conditions in specially prepared houses, or that the Government should provide something in the way of permanent village settlements alongside the sanatoria. There is an institution (on an experimental scale I agree) recently started at Papworth, near Cambridge. Incidentally it is not a very satisfactory state of things, although everybody speaks well of Papworth, to know that it is so restricted for money that it can hardly carry on. The institution consists of the sanatorium, the training colony, and the village settlement. A man passes through the sanatorium, goes to the training colony outside, learns an industry, and then they say to him: "There is a cottage there in the village ready for you. Won't you come with your family and live here? You will have medical help, you can work at an industry under proper conditions, you will be paid the standard rate of wages for the district. We offer you a healthy life. It is possible you may have to give up certain things, but you are secure of your pension as long as you are here. Won't you co-operate with us, not only in making your own life assured and your own health assured, but in securing for your children and for your neighbours this, that you shall not drift downwards and
    2368
    drag them down in your own unfortunate collapse, which may possibly end in death?" That is the kind of proposal which we sketch out as being really, in our view, the only possible one, and I hope it may receive the kindly consideration of the Government. I am much obliged to the Committee for having listened to me.
    Captain HACKING: I am one of those who in the past have been quite content to hear my own views expressed in much more noble language by certain other Members in the House than ever 1 could hope to express them in myself, but I quite realise that that is a state of laziness which cannot continue for ever, so I rise with some reluctance, and with a much, larger amount of trepidation, to address the House for the first time. I know that I can ask for the indulgence of the House without any hesitation, knowing that the House is always indulgent on these occasions. The subject of pensions I always imagine may be approached from two points of view, from the point of view of the soldier, who is naturally, though somewhat unfortunately, a little biassed, and from the point of view of the civilian. I am not a soldier, I never have been a soldier, and I never want to be a soldier. I happen to have had the honour of holding a commission for the last four and a half years of the War, but that does not necessarily constitute, a soldier. Even if I could speak from the point of view of the soldier, I would much prefer to look at this question from the broader standpoint of the civilian, and I would like to consider it as a question of the benefit of the whole community. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) said this afternoon that a great number of his points had been already met by the Pensions Minister, and on that account he found it somewhat difficult to make a lengthy speech; but if he found this difficulty, the Committee will certainly agree that the difficulty is increased in my case.
    I want to look at this subject for a few moments from the point of view of the civilian, knowing as I do that no industry will be the success that it should be, no individual effort will be as it should be, if just grievances with regard to pensions are allowed to continue. A great number of the grievances have been swept away this afternoon. There still remain one or two, and with one especially I would like to deal at a, little length. It concerns the disability pension in connection with Civil

    2369
    servants. In 1918 a booklet was issued by the Ministry of Pensions entitled ''The Disabled Soldier's Handbook, 1918" and a copy of this handbook is issued to every disabled soldier on discharge. A foreword to the soldier on discharge inside the book contains the following words:
    "The cash allowance that the State gives you is simply compensation for the injury or impairment of your health you have sustained by your war service, and the amount of compensation, that is, your pension, will defend on the extent of your disablement as it appears to the medical board, who will examine you from time to time when your disability exists, and it depends on nothing else. It has nothing to do with any wages or salary you may earn after your discharge."
    I admit that that booklet was not issued by the present Minister of Pensions. It was issued by his predecessor (Mr. Hodge), who is sitting on the Front Opposition Bench, but as no booklet has boon issued since, I take it the present Minister of Pensions agrees with, this booklet. If this publication means anything—and, I take it, Government publications do occasionally mean something—it means that a man on discharge, if he is in receipt of civil pay, will not have his disability pension taken into consideration at all when he receives that civil pay. Now, in the case of Civil servants, when sick leave is granted to them within one month of discharge from the Army, the disability pay is deducted from their civil pay; but if, on the other hand, they are in receipt of sick pay at a later period subsequent to a month from discharge, they do not have disability pay deducted from their civil pay. If a, man is sick within a month of leaving the Army, we might naturally assume that his sickness is, at any rate, partly due to his service in the Army. If a man is in good health for a month after leaving the Army, but breaks down in health after that, the probabilities are that his sickness is due to his civil life—probably his own carelessness. But, according to the regulations of the Civil Service, these men who have been discharged less than a month, and whose illness is probably due to war service, are placed in a worse financial position than those people whose illness is probably due, as I have tried to prove, to carelessness in civil life. One would think that if any differentiation is to be made at all, it should be in favour of the man whose illness is probably due to war service. This, I know, is not directly in connection with the Minister of Pensions, but I do hope that, having acknowledged responsibility for this booklet, he
    2370
    will do all he can to influence the Civil Service in order to get them to abide by their general regulation which, I believe, is that on no account will disability pay enter into the calculation when civil pay has been granted. As the Minister of Pensions has accepted liability for this booklet, I hope he will help to press that matter home. I do not know what excuse the Civil Service makes, but I expect it is that if a man is recently discharged from the Army he has not get rid of the habit, which is certainly prevalent to a certain extent in the Army, of malingering. If he is back for a month, they probably think he will have got rid of the complaint of malingering. As a matter of fact, they have to undergo medical examination when they report sick, and they have to have a medical certificate. If that certificate is from a private practitioner, the Post Office doctor, or the doctor for whatever branch of the Civil Service the man is in, has to examine him, and with that safeguard I do not think the question of malingering enters into the case at all.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir J. Craig): Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to point out that there is a Bill being introduced by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury which will cover the whole Civil Service, and that will be a very proper time for my hon. and gallant Friend to raise that point. The Secretary to the Treasury announced a few days ago that a Bill was in progress at the present time affecting the whole Civil Service in regard to deduction of 10 per cent, in the case of salaries over £400, and I presume when that Bill is introduced my hon. and gallant Friend will have a good opportunity of raising that point, over which the Pensions Minister has no control.
    Captain HACKING: I quite appreciate that, but perhaps it will save another speech on the point if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will ask the authorities to read in the OFFICIAL REPORT what I have said. The second complaint, I think, does concern actually the Pensions Minister and nobody else—I hope so, at any rate. It concerns the flat-rate allowance of 6s. 6d., which, I take it is now to be increased, issued to childless wives of serving soldiers by the local war pensions committee under Circular 163. This allowance is payable as from 1st November, 1918, to a childless wife who cannot earn wages.

    2371
    The Committee will remember that, some time ago, a very complicated form was issued which had to be tilled, and, owing to pressure which was brought to bear on the Minister, a much more simple form was printed in which only two questions, I think, were asked. The first was as to whether the woman, was childless, and the second was whether she was capable of earning. Unfortunately, I am told, this old form is still in circulation, and, in any case, some of the committees who deal with this subject do not quite understand its application. Some committee spay from 1st November, which, I believe, is probably correct, and others pay from the date of the application being made. Another point in that connection is that the wife of a soldier with three children, who are beyond the age to draw separation allowance, is also entitled to that rate. A great many thousands of mothers do not know that. I do not think it has been very extensively advertised. Probably, from what the Pensions Minister told us this afternoon, he will be rather chary of advertising anything in future. At the same time, if these people have a right to anything they ought to be informed of that right, and I do hope that the Pensions Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will make a note of that, and see that this is advertised, because on this occasion, at any rate, I do not think it would increase the amount of correspondence. With regard to this flat-rate allowance of 6s. 6d., or the subsequent increase to be made on that amount, in any case I have said that this is only paid to the childless wife of a serving soldier. I would suggest, with all humility, that it would be better if this payment were made by the regimental paymaster in the form of separation allowance, rather than by the Pensions Minister, for this reason: The regimental paymaster has all particulars with regard to the children, and he has at his finger ends all particulars with regard to the man himself. No questions need be asked. It could quite easily be run in connection with the separation allowance.
    A good deal has been said this afternoon with regard to the statutory right to a pension. I have always been in agreement with the statutory right being granted. It has been suggested that it is a question of sentiment. I am one of those who believe that sentiment counts for something. There is very little difference
    2372
    between keen sentiment and a real grievance, and for that reason I am convinced it would make no difference to the Minister or the Government, because it would cost exactly the same amount of money, and I would press strongly upon the Government that they should admit the statutory right to a pension. It would get rid of a great deal of discontent among the soldiers, and it would cost the Government nothing to get rid of that discontent. My next complaint has been met pretty well this afternoon, and it is with regard to the speeding-up of all cases of pension. A great deal of delay, we all know, has taken place in the past. We must not blame the Ministry altogether. The Ministry has had a tremendous task to undertake. We must all appreciate that fact, but I would ask them to do their utmost to try to get to that position when the first payment of pension is made actually on the cessation of separation allowance. Separation allowance is allowed for twenty-eight days after a man is discharged or demobilised, and twenty-eight days ought to be sufficient to allow all particulars to be taken, and cases to be fully investigated, so that the pension can start immediately after the separation allowance has ceased. There should be no gap between the payment of the moneys coming into any house or cottage.
    7.0 p.m.
    My final point is more in the form of a request. A number of Members of this House—I may have ben guilty myself—have at times ridiculed the Ministry of Pensions. It is not necessary for the Members of this House to ridicule that Ministry. There are probably plenty of other people capable of doing that quite as well as we arc. I am certain that ridicule does not help the cause and does not help the Ministry. Grievances, errors, or omissions of an individual character would be far better dealt with by a personal letter to one of the Ministers or to their Parliamentary Private Secretaries than by a question across the floor of the House. I have communicated extensively with one of the Parliamentary Private Secretaries, the hon. Member for Altrincham (Major Hamilton), and 1 hope I am not out of order in mentioning the fact that I have received complete satisfaction. If everybody has had the satisfaction I have had in connection with the Ministry, there ought to be no cause of complaint. Personal grievances mentioned across the floor of the House create general distrust

    2373
    and dissatisfaction by advertisement. Only a few days ago a personal question was asked across the floor of the House by the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley). I am sorry he is not here to hear me criticise him. He asked a question with regard to a certain lieutenant, which i am convinced did not do that lieutenant any good or the Ministry any good. One would have thought it was a question of self-advertisement by the person who was asking the question, had it not been for the fact that I have always been so tremendously impressed by the simple modesty of the hon. Member for South Hackney. I should like to congratulate in my humble way the Select Committee on Pensions for trying to alleviate many complaints treat existed previously to their Report. The smallness of pensions in general was one of the greatest grievances. That I feel will be met in such a way that it will give perfect satisfaction to the majority of discharged soldiers and sailors. Everybody knows that these people who are receiving a, pension have richly earned it. We are told that we must economise. I imagined that when the Ministry asked the Government to adopt this Report they would be met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer telling them that this was not economy, and that he could not agree to the increases suggested. I am glad that the Government have agreed to increase these amounts, for although the Committee must be in agreement with the general policy of economy, it is certainly not right to practise it on these soldiers and sailors or on the dependants of these soldiers and sailors without whose gallantry the very nation itself might have ceased to exist. We ought to see to it that these men and their dependants are in no worse position to-day than they were before the War on account of the sacrifices they have made for their King and country. I thank the Committee for having listened to me so patiently.
    Mr. HODGE: The Minister of Pensions is to be congratulated upon the success he has achieved with the Treasury. Sometimes these shadows show up in front of us. When before the last General Election I placed a miserable 20 per cent, advance on pensions before the Treasury, if it was not refused, there was at any rate many weeks' delay before it was accepted. We were in the throes of the General Election before the concession was made,
    2374
    and then it was only dated to the month of June last. Does this generous contribution to-day mean that we are going to be in the threes of a General Election? It looks very like it. Be that as it may, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success he has achieved, which means a great advance in the scale. When one thinks of the cost of living to-day, even the value of the 50s. that has been promised to married men is only something like 21s. Generous as is the advance on the present scale, when one takes into account the present cost of living, it is not too generous. We have to realise that all we possess to-day is due to the sacrifices of the men to whom we are granting pensions, because without their success we should have had nothing to provide for. I was also glad to hear that, so far as the tuberculosis patients are concerned, that my right hon. Friend was on the eve of some success. There, again, the difficulty was caused because two Government Departments were concerned to get the money necessary to do justice by those men. I am glad that my right hon. Friend is getting that matter into his own hands, because with one Department there is a chance of very much greater success than when you have to deal by and through another Department. The remarks my right hon. Friend made with respect to artificial limbs and the setting up of an expert Committee, caused me to wonder what had become of the expert Committee that was dealing with that subject. I do not believe' that any better Committee could be set up than the one which was in existence when my right hon. Friend became Pensions Minister. We had the greatest engineering experts that the country could give us, the greatest surgical experts, and, in connection with the Ministry of Munitions, we had men who were experts in inventions. I hope that it may be simply a re-forming of that Committee instead of its being scrapped and a new one set up.
    With respect to the new scheme of regional districts, I hope it may be successful in getting rid of many of the delays which have occurred in the past. It must always be borne in mind that this was a new Department created during a war period, with an absolutely untrained staff of women, because we could not get men. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) had exactly the same difficulties. There seemed to be a lack of

    2375
    vision in the early clays as to the magnitude of the work which had to be accomplished. I was glad to hear what my right hon. Friend said about a smooth running of the machinery at Chelsea. Although it is a bit cumbrous; at the same time we have to give credit to the gentleman who reorganised it. Ho has done wonderful work in reorganisation so far as pensions are concerned. It was thought advisable that he should undertake the reorganisation of Chelsea, which had broken down. Where my right hon. Friend might have received tens of complaints, I received thousands. The reorganisation, slow and cumbrous as it might have been, achieved the purpose of getting rid of these delays and of all errors except those which are inevitable with a human machine. My chief object in rising was to express my great personal delight at the very generous advance that has been made in the amount of the pensions. From that point of view alone my right hon. Friend has every reason to be congratulated. The hon. Member for South Salford (Sir M. Barlow), after having got ninety-nine points out of the 100 recommended by his Committee, was supercritical, He might have taken a more generous line and expressed thanks for having achieved so much. The Report of the Committee must have strengthened the hands of the Minister of Pensions. A year ago, when a similar statement was made in this House, very few Members were present. The attendance is rather better this evening. The lack of Members does not show that interest in pensions which ought to animate this House. So far as we on these benches are concerned, we heartily congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the success he has achieved.
    Captain LOSEBY: The action of the Government in holding two meetings since Tuesday last to consider the Report of this Select Committee and the fact that the Minister of Pensions was able to come down here to-day and say that the principle of the recommendations of that Select Committee, involving a sum of £20,000,000 a year, had been accepted, proves what many of us have known for some time, that in regard to soldiers' grievances none feel them more keenly and sire more anxious to right them than the present Government and the Minister of Pensions. I cannot imagine an act of the Government more creditable than the act of being able to make up its mind within
    2376
    two days upon a subject involving a huge sum of money as in the present case. I hope the widest publicity will be given to the act of the Government in this respect. It is so vitally important that the soldiers throughout the country should realise, though there may be grievances, yet the heart of the House of Commons and the Government is most certainly sympathetic. The recommendations of the Select Committee are of far-reaching importance. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions has accepted the bulk of them. Being so often repeated in Committee, it is not necessary to go into great detail, but I believe the right hon. Gentleman is searching for grievances the whole time; not waiting for them to be forced upon, him. These grievances, I am certain, will be rectified, cost what it may! It is vitally necessary at the present time, when unrest is about, that we should have the soldiers as a body in this country right behind us. Knowing full well, as I do, the intense sense of comradeship amongst soldiers, you will, I say, achieve that effectively and completely once they' fully realise that their broken men are being looked after. The right hon. Gentleman, a previous Pensions Minister, who spoke last (Mr. Hodge) said he could not understand why the chairman of the Select Committee, having received so much, had not proved himself to be more grateful. Why should there be quibbling over the last point? But I do, once again, urge the Pensions Minister again to consider this question of an appeal on amount. It is of such vital importance to the soldier himself. Evidence was given before the Select Committee that the findings of the medical boards vary at times as much as from 20 to 50 per cent. It is very largely a matter of opinion. We had one case where, I think I am right in saying, the first medical board assessed the disability of a wounded man at 70 per cent., and this was reduced by a competent doctor to 20 per cent. That was under a system which has gone. I am very glad it has gone. My point, however, remains, that the original medical board may have been utterly wrong in its first findings, which was very largely a matter of opinion. There is ground for dissatisfaction unless this appeal on amount is given.
    The Select Committee—I urge this with all the sincerity with which I am capable upon the right hon. Gentleman, because I am as convinced as I am alive that grievances will remain until an appeal on

    2377
    amount is given—the Select Committee has made certain definite recommendations in regard to the constitution of the medical boards and the constitution of the Appeal Board. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to throw those recommendations right overboard. He can find a simpler method of putting up medical boards which will enable him to give this right of appeal, to which every man who has been tried for his life has a right. Perhaps he will consider the proposition I have put forward before—that a medical board might be equally competent as now if there was only one doctor upon it and two laymen. Ho would thus get over his difficulty of medical personnel. For my own part I believe he will have not only a satisfactory but a more satisfactory board. He would then on the Appeal Board be able to have two doctors—and he has his superior board! It is possible to show by economy an medical men how you can find these Appeal Boards without any further call upon your medical personnel. The great administrative ability of the right hon. Gentleman, which is a fortunate thing for the soldiers will, I think, allow him eventually to get over the difficulty in this manner. I earnestly appeal to him not to rest until he has achieved a recommendation of the Committee in regard to open court, telling the man then and there what toe is going to get, and letting it run, and then if he is not satisfied he may have a full appeal on amount. It should not surpass the wit of man to achieve this reform which is one of vital importance in regard to the machinery for adapting the pensions to meet the cost of living. I do not think that the words were actually inserted in the Warrant, but I presume that these bonuses will operate on every single figure in the Barnes Warrant: otherwise it is illogical. I am told, for example—and it is a most astonishing tiling—that soldiers wounded prior to 1916 do not receive the 30 per cent, bonus, yet living has risen, and it is quite as difficult for soldiers who volunteered to fight and were broken previous to 1916, to live.
    This is the kind of point to which I referred when I said that we in this House trust the right hon. Gentleman to search out grievances and rectify them. In this particular instance the recommendations of the Select Committee are not accepted unless the bonus operates on every figure on the Barnes Warrant and subsequent figures. I would like again to refer to a point referred to by the right hon. Gentle-
    2378
    man, in regard to the War Office paying a man until their medical board has delivered its findings. Why, it is obvious simple justice! You have that broken man. You are going to throw him on his own resources. You acknowledge your liability in regard to him. Surely it must be, as indeed the right hon. Gentleman himself said, utterly wrong to take the man's livelihood until you have given him that pension which is to take its place. The right hon. Gentleman can have the most complete assurance that this House is right behind him if he will continue this fight with the War Office. These trifling grievances mount up until they may become a very serious danger in the country. Evidence has been given in the last two days of the desire of the Government to remedy grievances. The right hon. Gentleman has been voted £20,000,000 and the House of Commons will vote him another £20,000,000 if it is necessary without hesitation. Pledges have been made and, cost what it may, they are going to be redeemed towards the men but for whom we should not now perhaps be a nation at all.
    My last point is: Tell the men. The right hon. Gentleman has not yet given us a complete assurance. The difficulty, I take it, is now completely gone. It. is this atmosphere of open court for the man who has been assessed by a medical board to which I personally attach so much importance. The Select Committee recommended that the Court or the medical board call it what you will£should tell the man then and there what is his pension translated into terms of money, and that pension should operate immediately. The objection to that has gone. Evidence was given before us that only eight out of 120 cases are ever reduced by Chelsea. The right hon. Gentleman himself has undertaken that the pensions shall not be reduced until the medical board has given its decision. I believe the right hon. Gentleman will give the widest satisfaction if he will accept this recommendation of the Select Committee. An hon. and gallant Gentleman who made his maiden speech suggested that we ought not to ridicule the Pensions Minister. Ridicule the Pensions Minister I Why, anyone who has a grievance, discharged soldiers and the like, are most profoundly grateful to him and to the Prime Minister for sparing for this important Department one of the most able of his Ministers. It is important that it

    2379
    should go to the country that in the right hon. Gentleman we have one with all qualifications— imagination, wide sympathy, determination, and energy. With the House of Commons behind him, and his determination that all the grievances of soldiers should be removed, we have little real cause of uneasiness for the future.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Through the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Gorton Division (Mr. Hodge) there ran a vein of rather envious admiration at the success which the Pensions Minister had achieved in gaining this increase which he, unfortunately, had not been able himself to achieve. Though the right hon. Gentleman is now leaving the Chamber I may say this for his satisfaction: Although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester may have reaped the harvest, yet the right hon. Member for Gorton may plume himself in having sown, and also in having reaped where other people have sown. I would like to join in congratulating the Minister of Pensions in regard to the praises that have come from all quarters of the House, but at the same time we must not forget that his predecessors had not the same favourable atmosphere that he has at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge) had grave difficulties to face and so had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Barnes), and therefore I think the Minister of Pensions will be the very first to acknowledge that his predecessors did good work, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to put the top storey on the edifice which they erected.
    May I say how profoundly grateful we are to the Government and to the right hon. Gentleman for the generous way in which the demands of the ex-Service men have been met, and, above all, upon their promptness in coming to a decision? "Who gives quickly gives doubly," and this refreshing decision after forty-eight hours' consideration in the face of months of previous delay will give the discharged men confidence that the Government mean to remedy such grievances as exist, and it is a very important thing to have a large body of ex-Service opinion with you to enable you to reconstruct the country, as they have saved it during the War. I fully acknowledge the excellent
    2380
    work that has been done by the Minister of Pensions, but I desire to put forward a couple of criticisms and some half-dozen suggestions by which the Ministry might complete the edifice and remove one or two minor grievances. In his speech the right hon. Gentleman stated that he employed approximately 14,000 people at the Ministry of Pensions, 11.000 of whom were women. I would like the representative of the Government who is going to reply to explain to the House why in the Ministry of Pensions it is still necessary that out of every fourteen people employed eleven of them should be women? That proportion of women, surely, is not necessary, and some of them, I think, might be replaced by discharged men and, above all, by partially-disabled men. There are hundreds of thousands of discharged and disabled men in the North of England out of a job who want to do clerical work; and although I agree there are many posts in the Ministry of Pensions which disabled men would not wish to fill, and that there are other jobs that women can do better, I think, out of those 11,000 women, there must be some posts which could be occupied by discharged and disabled men. May I congratulate the Pensions Minister upon actually dismissing an official who did not come up to the mark, and if only the War Office had followed his example we might have got on wish the War much better? We have now an official who has actually dismissed two officials—one permanent—and I hope he will continue doing this until he reaches perfection, which he is fast attaining.
    May I bring forward one or two complaints, which would be of importance in ordinary Debate, but which, I am afraid, are only minor points in view of the wide-reaching decisions which the right hon. Gentleman has announced. These complaints affect certain sections of ex-Service men and their dependants, and there is no reason why, because only a small number are affected, that the injustice should not be removed. If there is only one man suffering an injustice, it should be done away with by the House of Commons, which is elected specially for the redress of grievances. In regard to the widows of previous wars, whose pensions have been reassessed to scale for widows of the present War, I think they should receive a pension according to their husband's rank. At the present time I understand that the widow of a private gets 13s. 6d., but the widow of a non-commis-

    2381
    sioned officer or a warrant officer only gets the same amount. I think that must be an oversight in the Royal Warrant, for it cannot surely be the intention that the widow of a man of superior rank, like a warrant officer or a non-commissioned officer, should receive the same pension as a private, and although this affects only some 2,000 widows, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider this point.
    Another matter which has constantly come under my notice is the difficulty which exists of obtaining a man's medical history sheet, and this leads to great delay, and if the right hon. Gentleman would do something to speed up this matter it would be very helpful. I know the case of a man in the Royal Army Medical Corps who was in the workhouse until an ex-soldiers' organisation got him out. Although he is quite unfit for any employment, the Pensions Committee have been unable for weeks to enter an appeal on his behalf, because the information as to his medical history sheets are not up to date. Perhaps I may send the right hon. Gentleman details of this case. In reference to the question of parents' pensions, I consider that where any pension is awarded based on dependence on the son, it should be paid from the date of death instead of from the date of application for the pension. Many parents do not know of the regulations, and when they wake up and find they are entitled to a certain allowance they are only given the money from the date of the application, and not from the date of death. I think it is only fair that these people, many of whom are illiterate, should get their award from the date of the death.
    Another point is that when applications for alternative pensions have been entered I think the Pensions Committee should be empowered to pay the difference between the ordinary pension and the prospective alternative pension pending the decision of the Ministry. I could give a number of cases. I know the case of an Irish Guardsman who has been months waiting for his alternative pension. He is very hard up, and if the Pensions Committee had the power I indicate they would not run very much risk, and it would soften the condition of these men who are being held up by these delays. My next point is that the right hon. Gentleman stated that while awaiting assessment of pensions the men could get advances from the Ministry, and he said that he had asked the War Office to put
    2382
    these men on full pay, and that the War Office had refused. I ask him to press the War Office again on this point, if not for full rates, at least for half-pay. It is undignified for a man who has been in the Service to have to ask the Ministry of Pensions to advance him £10 or £15 in order to carry on, and if an officer knew that he was entitled either to half or full pay, he would know exactly where he was, but now he is dependent upon an advance from the right hon. Gentleman, and that is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.
    May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the case of men who have received specific injuries in previous wars, but whose pensions awarded at the time have lapsed, and they are now debarred from the benefits of the Warrant of 1918, because they are no longer pensioners? No man who has been wounded in this War will come into the position of having a lapsed pension, and it is very hard that these old men, because they were wounded in a former war, should get no increase at all. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider the case of these men, who do not come under the Warrant of 1918. My next point is that of men who received injuries other than on active service, or the widows of men who were so killed, who, I think, should be brought under the Warrant of May, 1918, which brings the pre-war pensions up to scale. I will give the instance of a corporal in the Royal Garrison Artillery, who was blinded by the explosion of a gun. As far as he is concerned he was blinded in the service of his King and country, although the accident happened on parade. Nevertheless, he was under military orders, and if he cannot be brought under exactly the same scale as the others, at least he should have something, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider this point. Would he also consider the case of re-enlisted pensioners in receipt of modified pensions and have them re-assessed at the present time for total service and for higher rank attained during the War. Those are people whom we ought particularly to consider because they have done their service and they gallantly came forward at middle age to train Lord Kitchener's Army, and they arc going to get nothing out of the War. I think they ought to have some recognition by an advancing position for what they have done. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider the various points I have mentioned.
    Major ENTWISTLE: I wish to express my thanks to the Minister of Pensions for having accepted most of the recommendations contained in the Pensions Committee Report. It has been stated that this is very generous treatment on the part of the Government, but I do not quite agree with that, for I do not consider it is generous, although I admit it is a very considerable improvement. For instance, a single man has a rise of 7s. in his pension and the married man has an increase of from 17s. to 18s. a week. Everyone realises that those are considerable improvements. In the aggregate the cost to the country is something like £20,000,000 per annum. The maximum disability pension of 40s. a week, however, represents a pre-war value of about 19s. per week, and no one can say that is an extravagant sum for a man who has been totally disabled fighting for us in this War. Allowing for the fact that it is a permanent pension and that he is not subject to the possibility of losing it as industrial workers are liable to lose their wages, the fact remains that 19s. per week pre-war value is not a pension—

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Whereupon, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod having come with a Message, the Chairman left the Chair.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went, and, having returned,
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

  1.Finance Act, 1919.

  2.Anglo-French Treaty (Defence of France) Act, 1919.

  3. Treaty of Peace Act, 1919.

  4. Housing, Town Planning, Etc., Act, 1919.

  5. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1919.

  6.Sheringham Gas and Water Act, 1919.

  7.Fylde Water Board Act, 1919.

  8. Llanelly Rural District Water Act, 1919.

  9. Falmouth Docks Act, 1919.

  10.Medway Conservancy Act, 1919.

  11.Stoney's Divorce Act, 1919.

  12.Pallin's Divorce Act, 1919.

  SUPPLY.
  Again considered in Committee

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Question again proposed,
  "3. That a sum, not exceeding £45,855,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Pensions, and for sundry Contributions in respect of the Administration of the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916." [NOTE.— £27,000,000 has been voted on account.]
  8.0 P.M.
  Major ENTWISTLE: When interrupted I was saying that although the improvement in the pension scales are very considerable they cannot be characterised as too generous, although they may be deemed as just as can be anticipated in the financial circumstances of the day. As regards the pensions as they exist to-day in reference to both single men and married men there is probably no country, except Italy, which pays a lower pension. I know in regard to single men that in the United States they had an elaborate war risk insurance scheme which made a complete difference to the parent scale. They also had a scale in Australia which gave a man with a wife a pension of as much as £3 a week. I must emphasise the point that, satisfactory as the changes are, they are by no means generous. I want next to raise the vexed question of statutory right. There is a good deal in. what the Minister has said that inasmuch as the right of appeal is included in the Statute that is all that matters, and that the demand for statutory right is largely one of sentiment. At the same time I agree with other speakers that this matter of sentiment is a very important thing. It is one which men think a great deal of. In regard to this question most Members of this House are pledged in favour of giving the statutory right. The Minister could easily concede the point without giving anything away, without any cost and without any trouble. The words which have been suggested by the Select Committee "legally entitled" could easily be inserted in the Act of Parliament, and if safeguards were taken to ensure that it shall not mean wholesale recourse to the Courts, and shall not involve tremendous machinery, there is no reason at all why the sentimental point should not be met in

  2385
  that way. The fact that the pension was given as a legal right could be made declaratory in a sense which would afford general satisfaction. We know that under the Royal Warrant the grant of a pension is as good as if it were contained in an Act of Parliament, Members of the House no doubt realise that, but ex-soldiers and the outside world have a feeling of uncertainty on the point. The Minister may not need to consult the Law Officers of the Grown in view of his own knowledge of the law, but if he will consult them I think he will find there need be no difficulty at all in inserting a provision which will satisfy everyone and which will be declaratory that the pension is a legal right to which the man is legally entitled. In many other countries—in New Zealand, France, and Canada for instance—it is a right declared by Statute, and in France it is so much so that there are various tribunals to which an applicant for a pension can go. First of all, he goes to the departmental tribunal. Afterwards he has n right of appeal to the Regional Court. He has also a right of appeal to the Conseil d'Etat. I do not think that is found to be at all impracticable.
  In dealing with the statutory right, one necessarily has to consider the important question of the right of appeal, and also the question of entitlement. The only difference suggested by the Minister was a slight alteration in the constitution of the Appeal Tribunal. I prefer the constitution as it exists now, though I do not know that the proposed alteration is one of very great importance. What a good many of us feel in regard to this question of entitlement is that the point ought not to have to be gone into at all when a man contracts disease or is injured in the course of his service, whether the injury was developed or aggravated by the terms of his service. It has been suggested, and I fully sympathise with the suggestion, that if a man is accepted by the Army as A 1, at any rate, then any subsequent injury or disease which he contracts during his service shall be deemed to be attributable to or aggravated by that service. I should like to see this question of entitlement swept away altogether. I have had very short experience of the operations of one of these tribunals, and I must say that most tribunals give the benefit of the doubt to the man. An hon. Friend near me dissents from that view, but, at any rate, it is to be hoped that the tribunals will mitigate the harshness of this principle, and I
  2386
  further trust it will be acknowledged that if a man is accepted as A I then the question of entitlement shall not arise. I am not sure that I am not prepared to go as far as to include in the same provision C 3 category cases.
  In regard to the question of appeal as to amount, that is a really contentious point. The right hon. Gentleman says the man will have a right to appeal to a medical Appeal Board, and that this board will be appointed by him. Apparently the whole advantage of this scheme is that these medical practitioners will be men at the hospitals readily accessible, so that it will not be difficult to set up an Appeal Court. I am prepared to accept that entirely, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will include in the Statute which he says he is going to pass as to the right of appeal, this question of entitlement? I think the right of appeal on amount, even to the tribunal he has himself suggested, ought to be included in this Statute, if really the man is to have that legal right to his pension which the right hon. Gentleman says he has given him by the announcement he made this afternoon. With regard to the question of the constitution of this medical Appeal Board, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there will be any great difficulty in having a lay element introduced into it? I mean an ex-Service man whose wishes can be subordinated to those of the medical men. It would not be an expensive matter. The lay doctor could meet the convenience of the other members, and I do not think there would be any more delay if an ex-Service man were placed on the medical Appeal Board, while it would give a great deal of satisfaction and allay a great deal of suspicion with regard to that board. If the right hon. Gentleman will consider that point and make this very small concession, which could be done without any cost and without involving any delay, 1 think it would give a great deal of satisfaction.
  The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with one point in the Report of this Select Committee which has, I think, a paragraph to itself. It is with regard to the man Being told at once when he has his first board what this assessment is, it may be, as the right hon. Gentleman said nothing on this point, he intends that this shall be done. I think it is a most important thing. What has happened in the past? A man has had an assessment of the amount of his disability. He has

  2387
  heard rumours as to the amount at which the disability has been assessed, and it may be that the rumors is inaccurate, but the amount may subsequently have been reviewed at Chelsea. We know, of course, that that review is now to be abolished. It may be when the man gets the official notice he will find that his assessment has not been altered, but, owing to the lack of official information up to that time, and to the rumours which have got in circulation, a, great deal of dissatisfaction and suspicion have already arisen on that matter. It is not a very important point, but one which the Minister might concede
  There is another small point with regard to the sliding-scale adjustment which has been suggested by the Select Committee, and which the right hon. Gentleman said he was going to adopt, and that it would apply to alternative pensions. I should like to ask him how he proposes to adapt it with regard to alternative pensions? It cannot be quite on the same scale as the flat-rate pension, because if the cost of living falls 10 per cent, the flat-rate pension will fall 10 per cent. But as the alternative pension has merely been loaded up 60 per cent., if we can have the cost of living reduced by 40 per cent., I understand that, the loading up being only 60 per cent., the adjustment must be so made as to keep a stable proportion between the alternative pension and the flat-rate pension, which has been the basis, and personally I think that would be the more satisfactory basis. It has been mentioned that the present 20 per cent, bonus did not apply to pensions awarded before 1916. I was also informed the other day, to my great astonishment, that the 20 per cent, bonus did not apply to permanent pensions. I do not know whether that is correct. It was stated in a letter. The members of the Select Committee were very doubtful about it.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It does apply to the disability pension, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman may have had a letter with regard to the service pension, and it very probably was that.
  Major ENTWISTLE: I appreciate that most important distinction, and we considered it. I do not see how it can possibly be so, but if there is anything in that point we ought to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that these proposed new scales will apply to permanent pensions, to pensions awarded before 1916,
  2388
  and in fact they should be applied proportionately to everything which is contained in the Barnes Warrant. An assurance on that point would be very useful to people who have some doubt on the matter.
  I should like to emphasise the appeal made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Ashley) with regard to the date of pensions to dependants, say, a wife who was not in receipt of a separation allowance and had claimed a pension. There the pension only dates from the date of the application instead of from the date of death. That is a point on which there is considerable feeling. It is a very small matter which will apply to a very small number of cases, and the principle ought to be applied that the pension should be paid from the time that the right to it accrues. I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to use all his influence with the War Office on the question of pay being continued until the pension is granted, and also with regard to the great delay there is in the papers being sent from the War Office, whether it is the Record Office with regard to the men or the various departments in the War Office with regard to officers. We had some very interesting evidence given by Sir Douglas Haig, and he mentioned half a dozen specific cases with regard to officers. Correspondence was produced with regard to those cases, and we found that in almost every case the delay was due to the War Office. It took an average of six weeks for the papers to get from the War Office to the Ministry of Pensions, and when we remember that the War Office, which is guilty of these excessive delays, refuses to give a man his pay until he receives his pension, we cannot emphasise too strongly the injustice and the grievance which is justly felt at this intolerable position taken up by the War Office. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will regard it as a personal matter, because he gets a good deal of the opprobrium which ought justly to be placed at the door of the War Office. I again thank the right hon. Gentleman for having accepted the recommendations of the Committee, which is merely a redemption of our pledges, and is merely just treatment to our soldiers and sailors, and by no means too generous.
  Mr. LYLE: Everyone who read the resume of this Committee must have felt the greatest satisfaction at the Report, and I am certain that all Members who have heard the statement of the Minister

  2389
  of Pensions will now feel doubly satisfied in that he has substantially accepted the proposals of the Select Committee. Most of the speakers have felt that the whole question to them was more or less one of the maximum allowance to be granted, and therefore most of them felt that their speeches had been, so to speak, snatched from their hands. While we are all grateful for the increases which have been granted, I do not think that is the only point that arises. What we all want to do is to remove the sense of injustice and grievance which some of these men certainly have. Perhaps the most important point of all is not so much the amount of money which may be granted as a maximum pension, although that is a very important point, but the way this whole scheme is going to be administered. A great amount of dissatisfaction has arisen over the way that the whole scheme of pensions has been administered. I do not wish to gain any cheap credit by advocating enormous expenditure. I know the burden of debt that hangs round the neck of the country, and I do not want rashly to suggest that it should be increased without full consideration. The right hon. Gentleman is giving very substantial increases, but what I have in mind more is the treatment of the medical boards. So many of these medical boards look upon their job more or less in the same way as the big insurance company doctor looks at his job. The point of view of the insurance doctor is to see how little he can give the men. It is his job to act for the insurance company and to try to make a total disablement into a two-thirds disablement, and a two-thirds disablement into a half disablement. Doctors are just as humane as anyone else, but they have got it into their heads that if there is a doubt the benefit of the doubt must not go to the man but must go to the other side. New ideas should be put into the heads of these medical boards. The men are entitled to liberal treatment, and if we err we should err on the side of being liberal rather than niggardly with these people. The feeling of dissatisfaction and soreness amongst these men is too big a matter to be played with, and from the point of view of expediency and of justice it is absolutely essential that there should be no feeling of soreness or harsh treatment left upon any of these men. Some of the methods are inquisitorial to say the least of it. I have known cases where men have come up to a medical board,
  2390
  and one of the first questions they have been asked is what wages they have been earning. It seems to me that is an absolutely wrong question to ask.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member probably knows that question has been withdrawn. The men were always told they need not answer it unless they liked, but even then they allowed it to worry them, and now it is entirely withdrawn. No one has any right whatever to ask the question.
  Mr. LYLE: I am very glad to hear that statement. It will do good that such a statement has been made publicly in this House. Sometimes these doctors do ask this question, although they are not entitled to ask it, and although it is not with the sanction of the Ministry of Pensions.
  Dr. MURRAY: Were they not originally ordered to ask the question?
  Mr. LYLE: If it is not to be allowed any more I am very pleased to hear it. We hear about certain bad employers exploiting men's pensions, and if a doctor or a board are allowed to ask a man what his wage is then in a similar way they are exploiting him in order to set his pension reduced, just as certain employers of labour have exploited men by giving them a lower wage because they were in receipt of pension. It is quite easy 10 criticise, but I do not wish to criticise in any unfriendly spirit. I am certain that the present Minister of Pensions and his assistants are all sympathetic. They have the interests of these men at heart as much as any one of us, and their interest; is second to none. We can only help by giving instances of the cases that come to our personal knowledge. Apart from the question of the Board and giving the men in every case the benefit of the doubt, there is the question of the war orphan. It is not a very big point, so far as numbers are concerned, but the position which arises is deplorable. There are in my own Constituency quite a number of war orphans who arc in Poor Law institutions. I have not the exact figures, because I was not able to get them, but it is a dreadful thing and nothing short of a calamity that the child of a man who has been out and has suffered and has been broken and finally has died in serving his country, should leave behind him a child who has to take refuge in a Poor Law institution. If that man had lived he

  2391
  would have seen that his child was in better circumstances, and he would have seen that it had a chance in life. Perhaps the child's whole future may be blighted by the father's death, and it is intolerable to every right-thinking man that because of the sacrifice this man has made his child has to suffer in this way. I asked a. question on this point on the 16th of July, and I had a most sympathetic answer from the Minister of Pension, who had also consulted with the Minister of Health; but a sympathetic answer is not enough. We must have definite and immediate action, and we must remove this scandal and this dishonour. It is a dishonour to the whole nation that this state of affairs should exist. Whatever the cost, the country will not begrudge it for a thing of this sort. There ought to be an institution set up in the country quickly in order to remedy this crying shame.
  There is another point which I mentioned the other day by way of question, and that is burial charges. The charges in my own district for burial amount to 10 guineas, and all that is allowed by the Ministry of Pensions is £7 10s. I know the argument will be used that the Ministry of Pensions must be careful what they do with their money, and it must not be thought that they will pay increased charges to any extent or the unscrupulous undertaker will soon get more. But if the cost is really 10 guineas for a burial the full cost should be given to the widow or the relatives. In a certain case the local war pensions committee quite recently authorised the people to go ahead, although £7 10s. was all that was allowed, and they expected that the balance of the 10 guineas would be surcharged, but instead of that the money was deducted from the sum which was due to the widow. I am sure the Minister of Pensions will agree with me that such injustices very soon become something more than injustices; they become what is worse, a festering sore which irritates and inflames. A real injustice to a widow or a child of a man who has given his all for his country will do more in a day to create a revolution than all your Smillie's, your Henderson's, or your Maclean's could do in a whole year by windy, wordy vituperation. It is for that reason that with great confidence I put these cases before the Minister, and I hope that he will deal with them, par-
  2392
  ticularly the case of the war orphan, because that does create a most appalling sense of grievance. If he can remedy these grievances he will add yet another item to the debt of gratitude which we owe him.
  Mr. F. C. THOMSON: I endorse very heartily what has fallen from the hon. Member who has just spoken. There can be little doubt that nothing is more dangerous to this country than the feeling of reaction produced in the mind of a man who has done in every way what he could at a time of national crisis, if he feels that somehow or other his services have not been fully requited and his children have to suffer. The Ministry of Pensions are only too pleased when any cases are brought before their notice in which injustice has been suffered. I would like to add my tribute to what has been said in regard to the work of the Ministry. The ordinary Member of Parliament who has to make inquiries about many matters affecting his constituents feels that the Minister of Pensions and his officials do all they canto assist. That is a common experience. Therefore, it is in no carping spirit that any criticisms that are made are offered.
  I should like to draw attention to the case of the skippers of the R.N.R.T. These men are officers, and the local pensions committees have no power to make advances to them. I have heard of a number of very hard cases that have occurred. The wife, after her husband's death, is paid separation allowance for six months, but in many cases a delay occurs before the pension arrangements are completed. The skipper's wife as a rule has no financial resources, and but for the fact that the local war pensions committee have rendered aid, although they have no power whatever to assist, she would have to go to the parish. Numerous cases of that kind have been brought to my notice. In one case there was a delay of six months before the woman was paid her pension. The local war pensions committee came to her aid, although they had no power to do so, and they notified the. Ministry that they were making a weekly payment of 27s. to her, even without power to do so. If it had not been for that assistance this woman, the wife of a gallant skipper, would have had to go to the parish for aid. Probably in the new regional arrangements that are being made provision will be made for the local

  2393
  war pensions committee being able to make advances to the wives of these skippers who, being officers, have hitherto not been afforded such assistance.
  Considerable dissatisfaction exists with regard to the inequality in the administration of parents' pensions. In some cases which have been brought to my notice women who had strong claims have only been awarded the fiat rate. In other cases surprise has been felt that those who were not entitled to more than the flat rate got more. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give attention to this matter. The pensions should be made a statutory right. There is a strong feeling on this point, which is quite reasonable. Medical boards is another point on which the discharged soldier feels strongly. I have considerable experience of medical boards myself. The great bulk of them are very kind. But now and again one comes across a board of very unreasonable people, who, as it were, seem to look upon the men who come before them as always trying to evade the truth. That is a position in which no man likes to be put. The difficulties, in the way at the present time of entirely independent medical boards, difficulties of personnel, and so on, have been pointed out. The hon. Member who has acted as chairman of the Pensions Committee said that it might not be possible to give effect to this idea at once. But it is the goal to be aimed at in future. The ordinary soldier who goes before a board is sometimes tongue-tied and cannot make the most of his case, and in that case there is left a feeling of injustice which the Minister ought to remove in every possible way. If the Army takes a man as fit to be shot at, it must be held to have got a fit man. I heard recently of a man who went into the Army perfectly fit in every way. He went to South Africa, and after eight months was discharged from the Army on account of deafness. He had lain out a lot, but it was held by the boards that his deafness was not due to his war service. But to the ordinary man res ipsa loquitur. Owing to the condition in which he was discharged from the Army he has never been able to get a proper job since. It is a genuine case. It is all very well to be told that this man had a predisposition towards deafness. The fact is that he went into the Army in no way deaf and he came out deaf. That man's case ought not have been turned down. Once the medical authorities pass a man as fit it should be he-Id that they have got a fit man.
  2394
  Then in the case of a 100 per cent, disability man, if he has served in a previous war and got a pension that really counts against him. That is not fair. He got his pension for previous services, and even if he has 100 per cent, disability in this War, he ought to be regarded as starting again, and anything which he got for previous services should not be counted against him. I understand that a recent Regulation has been published that in the case of any grant by war pensions committees being irregular or unreasonable they should be disallowed and surcharged on any member of the committee by whom the payment was made or authorised. I fully concur in what was said as to the necessity of making slack and inefficient local committees do their work well. But on certain large local committees where people at the outbreak of this War did most admirable voluntary work it is considered rather unfair if such people are to be held financially responsible in respect of any irregular or unreasonable grant that may be made. They are quite willing to take all care to see that the Regulations are carried out. I am aware that there is a right of appeal, but if this Regulation, which was published on 19th April, is enforced drastically, it might have the result of producing the resignation from committees of a great number of people who have done very valuable voluntary work during many years since early in this War. Therefore 1 would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should consider whether it is desirable to enforce this Regulation, which is felt to be harsh and unreason able, and may lead to the loss of voluntary workers who have now great experience, and whose services are very valuable. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having accepted in such a generous way the recommendations which have been made by the Committee. In doing so the Government have done one of the best day's work which they have ever done for the great bulk of the population of the country.
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: Hon. Members will agree that there is no difference of opinion between us as to the object we have in view. What has occurred really is a competition in our constructive criticism to try to help, and not to hinder, the work of this great public Department. It is in that spirit that I wish to address a few practical criticisms to the Minister of Pensions. I am glad to think that, to

  2395
  some minor extent, some of us were associated with a scheme for the decentralisation of war pensions administration in this country. We realised almost from the outset, what the right hon. Gentleman and all those who have worked on war pensions committees have realised, that a very large amount of the unrest and dissatisfaction are due not so much to the terms of the Warrant, or even to the scale of the pensions which were in operation, inadequate as they were, but to the weakness and inefficiency of the administration. Very large numbers of both voluntary and paid workers rendered all the help in their power, but they were defeated, largely by a system which was wrong from the roots. Now we have arrived at the establishment ment of regional districts throughout the country. I desire to press this point very strongly on the Minister: that if these regional districts are going to be efficient, we shall have to depend to a large extent on the efficiency of the unit, the local war pensions committee. As long as the War lasted we had the advantage of a large number of voluntary workers. For various reasons, many of which are not within their control, they are now giving up their services, and we shall require to rely in many districts more and more on paid help. Most unfortunately, just when we have reached this stage of decentralisation of war pension administration, we are confronted with the fact that many of the local war pensions committees, even where they have a paid staff of some experience, are not familiar with the ordinary rules and regulations of the Department. One would imagine that at this hour there could be very little doubt or difference of opinion regarding such a thing as the administration of the childless wife's allowance. There were conditions as to inability, from the point of view of physique, for work or employment, but those conditions were modified, and I think I am correct in saying that at the present time either inability to work, or the fact that the applicant has been unaccustomed to work, or mere failure to find employment, is sufficient to entitle an applicant to this 6s. 6d. extra where no separation allowance is available beyond the rate for a soldier who is without children. While those facts are plain, it is true, not so much in the country districts as in some of the large urban centres, that perfectly unreasonable questions are put to these
  2396
  applicants, and in many eases the grant is being refused or withheld on grounds that the Ministry itself could never sanction.
  For example, without giving details of towns, one large local war pensions committee actually required an applicant to fill up an additional form which had reference to a local fund, before they agreed to pay the 6s. 6d. per week. Other committees have asked questions regarding allowances, the general circumstances of the home, and have even inquired into character and so forth. That, I think, can hardly be justified. For this state of affairs I am not blaming the Ministry in any way, still less do I blame some of the paid workers of the local war pensions committees. They have not had great experience of this class of work. On the other side, it is impossible for a large Ministry responsible for thousands, it may be hundreds of thousands of cases, to keep an eye on occurrences of that kind. I am quite content at the moment to take the facts as they are and to try to point to a line of remedy. We have the first remedy in the establishment of the regional district. We have made the Regional Director the Minister of Pensions for the area over which he presides. He is going to rely on the local war pensions committee for the efficiency of his work, and my respectful suggestion is that it may be worth while to apply in the districts throughout the country the device you have adopted at headquarters in London, and to instruct the workers, paid and voluntary, in the regulations and the whole range of duties they have to undertake. That should be possible. Having instructed the workers, the next step would be to make absolutely certain that all applicants and would-be applicants were made fully aware of the terms and the allowances to which they are entitled either under the War Office or under the regulations of local war pensions committees. I think most Members will agree that it is extraordinary, after nearly five years of war and two or three years of war pensions administration on the lines we are now discussing, that it should be possible for any dependant of a soldier to write and ask us if she is entitled to sickness allowance, yet within quite recent days I and other Members have had letters asking such questions. Perhaps a great deal of blame does attach to the, applicant under these circumstances, but at the moment I have more particularly the rural district in mind. I know that in

  2397
  many of these country districts there are not the facilities for bringing within the reach of applicants a general knowledge of the regulations. I know that the Ministry has attempted a very great deal in bringing the benefits to the notice of the people, but probably the hour has come when we should try to put in a very simple form, for the benefit of all concerned, exactly what they are entitled to under local war pension committee regulations, so that there may be no doubt on the point, and to place that information in centres which they are in the habit of using every day, perhaps every hour of most days, in the localities in which they reside.
  Very briefly I desire in the second place to call attention to a very hard class of ease which has come under the notice of all who are engaged in war pensions administration. I refer to that class of case where a pension has been refused to the discharged man himself, or has been refused to a dependant of the discharged man after he has died. Let me give a case in Edinburgh which came under our notice a few days ago. Two years ago a soldier who had rendered very distinguished service in the War was invalided out. It was held afterwards that he had fully recovered from the illness which caused his discharge. Within quite recent times he fell again in ill-health, from a different disease from the one for which he was discharged, and as a result of a very few days attack he passed away, leaving a widow and five young children. The controversy with the Ministry of Pensions then started. I am making no accusation at all, because I can claim to have received a very large measure of consideration at its hands. The Ministry ruled that the illness from which that discharged man died could not in any way be associated either with the illness for which he was discharged or with the service that he had rendered in the War, and the effect of that service upon his health. Against that I put the certificate of a very eminent medical man in Edinburgh, the considered verdict of one of the most outstanding men in his profession, that that discharged man could have resisted the disease with which he was attacked, but for the fact that during his period of service his health had been undermined by the other illness he had incurred, and he was not able to fight this new attack. The present position of that case is this, that except for anything that may be done to the extent of a few shil-
  2398
  lings per week, that widow and her five children, all under fourteen years of age, have to face the future under the darkest and unhappiest possible auspices. The only possible course under existing conditions, unless some friend is forthcoming, for that widow and children is to rely upon the Poor Law for such allowances as are afforded under the Scottish Poor Law administration. I need hardly remind hon. Members that so carefully do we guard our money North of the Tweed that anything she may receive will in no way maintain her and her five children. That seems a very hard and very unjust position. I know that according to the rules of the Department the case may be excluded, although I hope still that it is not beyond the reach of agreement. I want to impress upon, the Parliamentary Secretary the fact that even one case of that kind happening in the locality where the woman resides, and where they knew the man in health and strength at work, and the fact that the woman and her children are compelled to turn to the Poor Law, is sufficient to hinder and to hamper the best activity of a local war pensions committee in that area.
  9.0 p.m.
  I have had rather hard experiences in these matters, but I have no desire to inflict my personal experiences on the House. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Barnes) happens to know that I was responsible for the very large part of this work in the City of Edinburgh, and in the light of that experience I do press most strongly upon the Ministry the consideration that the time has come when within the machinery of war pensions regulations we must establish a compassionate Department of the Ministry or a Department under another name, by which cases of that kind can be considered. I know that it is utterly impossible to frame any Warrant or any set of regulations which will meet all the conditions and all the cases which will arise. It would be idle for anybody to attempt that task when we know that, having made all allowances for elasticity, there will still be the cases of undeniable hardship. Let us try to relegate those cases to a sympathetic Department which will consider them upon their merits and give a Grant under some head, in order that the widow and children of men who have died in the service of the country may not be penalised. Another consideration which I desire to advance is in reference to a very important point raised by the Minister in his introductory

  2399
  speech. We in the South and East of Scotland and, indeed, throughout Scotland generally, have lost a very large part of our population within recent years by emigration to Canada and other parts of the world. That is true also—although, perhaps, not so acutely—of England and Wales. Those men went to Canada and established homes, and many of them married, and many were unmarried men who were rapidly piling up wealth and prosperity in the Dominions beyond the seas. Not forgetting their relatives at home, they made allowances from week to week or from month to month till the commencement of the War, when they joined the Canadian or other forces. A very large number of those men have, unfortunately, fallen in action, leaving those dependent parents behind on this side. Where the dependants were wives they were covered, up to recent times, by the Canadian War Pensions Regulation. Where they were dependants of single men who had served from Canada they were covered by the allowances made. But a very large number of aged parents remained. The aged parents of married sons in Canada, although they depended in many ways to a material extent upon those sons, were refused any allowance under the Canadian War Pensions Regulations, and it was ruled—because we discussed the matter with the Ministry here—that they were not entitled to anything tinder our British Warrants or under what was provided by the local war pensions committees. Quite recently, I am glad to think, there has been some modification of that very harsh and unjust rule by the Canadian pension authorities, but may I mention that the consideration is not yet in any way adequate, nor does it meet the acute and growing needs of those people because of their age at the present time. I would respectfully suggest that it is well worth the consideration of the Ministry of Pensions whether it should not embark on a kind of unified or uniform policy with the Canadian War Pensions Department and with the war pension authorities of other parts of the British Empire, and make it absolutely certain that, if these dependants are not provided for under one set of Regulations, that they will be fully covered under another.
  Let me allude to one or two aspects of the disablement scheme. The training for new occupations has been transferred to
  2400
  the Ministry of Labour, but the duty of providing treatment, which is the preliminary to that training, remains with the Ministry of Pensions. I desire to pay all possible tribute to the work which the Ministry of Pensions has done in this respect, and also to the very large amount of ground which has been overtaken by the joint disablement committees throughout the country. There are, however, one or two difficulties which, despite that activity, we have not succeeded in solving. There is, first of all, the difficulty of providing treatment for the neurasthenics. A very large number of men have been discharged in various stages of neurasthenia as a result either of their experience in France in the firing line or of the hardship through which they have passed. In many cases that neurasthenia was in the incipient or initial stage when they left the Colours, and was not even apparent to the medical men who examined them; but the minute those men are up against the hard grind of daily toil, or the noise of the factory or the workshop, and came back to industrial conditions, neurasthenia or nerve trouble commenced to manifest itself in their lives. So far the disablement committees have afforded help and established centres for its treatment, but I have come, with some regret and hesitation, to the conclusion, in the light of experience in the South-east of Scotland, that we are probably on the wrong lines in trying to treat neurasthenia on what I may call the principle of association—that is, gathering comparatively large numbers of neurasthenics under one roof and treating them there in a kind of colony. The very same criticism applies, and, I think, with far more emphasis, to the case of epileptics. In point of fact, our efforts in that direction absolutely broke down, because we could not get the patients to remain together, and we had to abandon the whole business more or less in deep despair. Now, the difficulty and drawback of this associated treatment is this, that, while it may apply to mild neurasthenia, it is just about the worst thing we could devise for the advanced cases of neurasthenia, because, when these men are herded together—I do not use that phrase offensively—under one roof, ray experience in disablement-scheme work has been that they immediately start to interchange views on their troubles and their anxieties, and one depressed or gloomy man in that colony has the effect of para-

  2401
  lysing the efficient treatment, even from the medical point of view, of quite a large number of his fellows.
  May I make this suggestion, with all respect, to the Ministry? Let them try to devise a system of boarding out, so to speak, the worst cases of neurasthenia. I would like to see these men placed either on farms or with people in the rural districts up and down the country, where they would have the benefit of the association of only a small number of people, and that number of people happy and healthy and generous in outlook. At the same time, let us try to give them the benefit of employment in the kind of conditions I have tried to picture, and we shall find that we are doing far more to effect their recovery than we are doing now by comparatively expensive institutions, no matter how perfect and how thoroughly up-to-date these may be. That applies to the advanced case of the neurasthenic. With reference to the mild case, I should suggest, as I also suggest for the cases of incipient consumption, the wide extension of convalescent treatment on the lines recommended in the Report of the Committee which has inquired into this matter. I believe it would be one of the soundest investments for the Ministry of Pensions as this time to devote its activity as far as it possibly can to the prevention of the disease rather than to its cure after it has emerged, and the value of that convalescent treatment for these men who are on the border-line of their discharge at the present time would be this, that we could take them for one month or two months per annum out of their employment and give them the benefit of the fresh air and the healthy surroundings of a convalescent colony of the kind I have mentioned, and we should find by doing that, that either the neurasthenia, in many cases, or the consumption itself would be arrested or cured, and that investment of public money, which could be used also for the civilian population, would be the means of preventing the expenditure later in the day of very large sums when, I regret to think from rather hard and painful experience, many of these cases arc beyond our cure and care. I feel that, perhaps, I have detained the Committee at undue length, but these are very important considerations, as they seem to me, in war pensions administration. I desire, before resuming my seat, to congratulate the Minister on the very large measure of success he has achieved in the concessions
  2402
  announced. I respectfully appeal to him to back up that success with equal success in the sphere of curative effort, and I can assure him, from the standpoint of the local war pensions committees throughout the country, that if that policy, broad, generous, statesmanlike, is adopted, he may rely upon all our sympathy and all our help and consideration in the days to come.
  Sir JOHN BUTCHER: As a member of the Pensions Committee, I desire to offer my sincere thanks to the Pensions Minister and the Government for having so promptly and sympathetically adopted nearly all the important recommendations of our Committee. This is a matter in which not only the disabled men in the country and their dependants feel very strongly, but it is a matter in which the country itself, without exception, feels strongly, and justly so, and I think the country will be grateful to the Government for having acted so promptly in this matter. A Report was produced on. Tuesday of this week, was accepted on Thursday, and is to be brought into operation next month. I think that is a sample of Government efficiency which might be imitated in all spheres so far as possible. I should like to make a few observations upon two points, and the first is the question of the statutory rights. To some that may seem a small point, but as a matter of fact it bulks somewhat largely in the views of those who are affected by it. They say, "Why should our right to pension depend upon a Royal Warrant? On the face of it, that is a mere matter of bounty. Why should not our rights be founded upon an Act of Parliament which declares our right to be legal?" To a certain extent it is a matter of form, but there is some substance behind it, and the fact that many people think there is some substance behind it and are very anxious to get the matter corrected, ought, I think, to influence the Government in making their decision. As a matter of fact, it will not cost them in administration or in anything else one single degree of efficiency. There is this curious anomaly at the present moment. The naval pensions are founded on an Act of Parliament, the Act of 1865, which says that naval men are to have their rights according to a certain scale to be laid down by Orders in Council. There has been no difficulty in working that Act. The Orders in Council are produced, and the hands of those

  2403
  who administer these naval pensions are not in the least hampered by the fact that the right to pension is found in an Act of Parliament. I therefore beg the Minister to reconsider his decision, to adopt the course which is suggested in paragraph 6 of our Report, and to assimilate the procedure as regards military pensions to the procedure which exists with regard to naval pensions, and in both cases to have the right founded on an Act of Parliament and not upon a Royal Warrant. The other point to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention is the question of the appeal on amount. We found in the evidence that we took that this was a matter which affected the minds of the people very seriously. I gather from the evidence given by the Pensions Minister that he has no real objection to an appeal on amount as regards permanent pensions. If that be so—and I trust that will be put into operation at once—I hope he will, as a matter of administration, adopt the same principle with regard to these temporary pensions, because temporary pensions go on very often for a long time. They may go on for one, two, or even a greater number of years, until finally the disability has got to be such that the doctor says it has reached a permanent stage, and that a pension must be allowed accordingly; and if it is necessary in the case of a permanent pension to have an appeal, I suggest that while they are reaching that permanent stage it would be only reasonable to say to the applicant, "If you want an appeal on the question of amount you shall have it just the same as if your application was now for a permanent pension." I know there may be difficulties, but, knowing the great efficiency and great administrative capacity of the Pensions Minister, and his most able assistant, the Parliamentary Secretary, I hope it is not beyond their power to carry that into effect.
  My last word is this. There have been undoubtedly most serious complaints. I do not suppose there is a Member of this House who has not got letters—almost despairing letters—from men themselves and from their dependants saying, "We cannot get our pensions fixed; we cannot even get an answer to our letters." Those defects, I think, have been largely swept away by the administrative capacity of the present Pensions Minister. He has got rid of a large number of arrears, and I believe
  2404
  in a very short time he will get rid of the rest. But I do impress upon him that this is a matter which very often affects the mind of these people almost as much as the amounts they are going to get. If there is delay, they feel they are being neglected, that their claims are not being heard, that their just claims are not being accepted by the Minister in the way in which they ought to be. Therefore, while I heartily congratulate him upon the vast improvement that has occurred with regard to these delays, I do hope that he will continue to devote his ability to answering letters and avoiding any delay that can possibly be avoided. Some of my hon. Friends have referred to other questions besides those contained in our Report. As to these, we hope to deal with them later on. We have dealt with what we thought were the most urgent ones, but if, as I hope, these reforms are not only set in motion by the Minister, but are dealt with by him promptly and effectively by way of administration, I think that he will give great satisfaction throughout the country, not only to these men and their dependants who have suffered, but to the country at large, who feel most deeply and earnestly that the claims of these men, who have fought for us, and won this great victory, should be the first charge upon the national gratitude and the national consideration.
  Mr. G. JONES: When I entered the House this afternoon, there were quite a number of points on which I thought soldiers and sailors had got a legitimate grievance, and to which I meant to call the attention of the House if I were so fortunate as to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, but after listening to the generous and statesmanlike speech of the Minister of Pensions I found, as many other hon. Members no doubt found, that the ground had been cut from my feet in regard to the main points. But there are some matters which are not mentioned, and it is to emphasise them that I have risen to- night. It would be a lamentable tiling if a great scheme, such as that outlined By the Minister of Pensions, were allowed to be damaged, or prevented from having its full effect, because of certain minor matters which have been overlooked. The hon. Member opposite has already dealt with one of these points, and that is the question of the position of men who went into the Army classified as healthy and who are either invalided or have died, and when a claim

  2405
  is made the doctors say, "Oh, that was not caused or aggravated by war service." I suggest that no doctor can trace the origin of disease with certainty. Doctors differ on the point. One may say it was caused by war service, and another may come along and say it was not. This House and country want the benefit of the doubt to be given in such cases to the men. We do not want the House of Commons to haggle on scientific questions as to whether it was caused by war service or not. A man came forward, was classified as fit, and was fit, before entering the Army. He has been invalided or he has died. We want to regard his illness or death as being brought about by the War. I know of a remarkable case in the constituency of the Minister of Pensions. A comparatively young man went there perfectly healthy and was classified A1. He was engaged on the clerical staff at Colchester, and was working night and day, and then sent with a draft to Russia. His health was undermined by constant and excessive work, and he fell ill and died. The widow put in a claim for a pension, and was told that her husband died of pneumonia, and it was not attributable to war service, but was the sort of thing from which anyone might suffer. I think that kind of case is an absolute scandal and a disgrace, and I am sure the sense and the conscience of the country are against a continuance of such a system.
  The other question to which I want to refer is the question of statutory right to a pension. I had the greatest possible difficulty in following the argument of the Minister of Pensions with regard to it. He is going to concede the statutory right to appeal, apparently, in regard to a bounty, but he will not concede that there should be a statutory right to a pension. When he came to the recommendation of the Committee with regard to an appeal on entitlement he made fun of incorporating such words in an Act of Parliament. If his objection is verbal, let him say what he would like, and we will not quarrel about it. We say that it is wholly against the feeling of the country that men can be given as a bounty that to which they say they ought to have as a right, and the country wants to give as a right. It is a. humiliation to these men that their pension should be given as though it were a charity, when we say they have earned it and saved the country by their valour. What were the arguments of the Minister of Pensions? So far as I could gather,
  2406
  they came to this, that if you give a legal right to a pension you must incorporate in the Statute the scale of pensions. The argument was completely knocked over by the hon. Member for Salford (Sir M. Barlow), who pointed out that in the Naval Act, where there is a statutory right to a pension, the scale is not incorporated, and why we cannot do for the soldier what we have already done for the sailor passes my comprehension. I cannot help feeling that my right hon. Friend was not properly coached, or he would not have put forward such an argument as he did. He apparently did not discover that the scale of pensions was not even in the Naval Act, and I do hope he will go into it a little more fully and concede that which the conscience of the country demands shall be conceded. It would seem that some subordinate official in the Ministry of Pensions has some clever point—they do have clever points in these Departments—and has been pulling the Minister's leg, and caused him to take up this position, which I say is wholly indefensible from a logical point of view. If the right hon. Gentleman has any real reason, I do hope he will tell us what it is. If there is a reason we ought to know it, and if there is no reason I venture to suggest that the whole objection against conceding a statutory right to a pension has entirely disappeared.
  The other point I desire to support is this—it has been put by many hon. Members—that there should be an appeal, not merely on entitlement, but also on amount. They might give a man such a small pension that it is little better than no pension. The Minister of Pensions said, "We have had 926,000 cases in six months. It is too many. We cannot cope with it. It is not practicable." I think the right hon. Gentleman is underestimating his own energy and his own ability. I feel quite convinced that if he took this job in hand, he would carry it through with the same success as he has done with many other things in his Department. To talk of 926,000 cases is misleading. You will only get appeals from those dissatisfied, and if a man gets a proper examination and something near what is fair he will not trouble about appealing, but will accept the award. I would suggest that in regard to Appeal Tribunals we might follow the idea of the, National Service Act. There we had local tribunals of impartial men to whom the applicant could tender his evidence and the Crown could tender their evidence and there could be cross-examination. I

  2407
  know there are objections to that, but we should bear in mind how doctors differ. One doctor will say a man is fit; another will say he will be dead in a few months, and very likely both are wrong. It is most undesirable that there should not be an opportunity of cross-examination of some of the doctors who settle a man's fitness. There could be nothing better than a number of laymen who could hear the doctors cross-examined and come to a conclusion which is the safer to follow. I know one particular doctor who advises the Ministry of Pensions and who has been honoured with a title, who, if he gets a nerve case, starts off with assuming the man is a fraud. It is very rough on a man who comes across such a doctor. If that doctor is brought before an impartial tribunal, he can be cross-examined on his little peculiarities as illustrated by his past history. The tribunal will soon arrive at the truth. We want an impartial tribunal to whom a man can tender evidence and have an opportunity of cross-examination. I hope this great scheme which the Minister of Pensions has brought forward will not be spoiled by these minor defects.
  Lieut.-Colonel WILLOUGHBY: I wish to thank the Minister of Pensions for having agreed to give old soldiers who have served in previous wars the same benefits as will be received by the men who have served in this War. I have always tried to speak for the old soldier in this House, and I know this will be a great benefit to him. During this War, when the state of the country was very serious—late in 1914 and early in 1915—we were largely dependent on numbers of old men who had finished their period in the Army, who were over forty-five years of age, yet who came forward and fought in our trenches and upheld the honour of the country. These men, through age and work, already suffered from certain infirmities. Very often they are refused pensions because it is said those infirmities were contracted before this War. I would like the Minister of Pensions to consider their oases and see whether they are not entitled to pensions. In exactly the same way Naval Reserve men and sailors were called up and went out to fight in the North Sea in the winter of 1914–15. They were invalided out, and because they had, owing to their calling, contracted rheumatics before the War, it stood in the way
  2408
  of their receiving disablement pensions. I maintain that that disability has been aggravated by the War. It is a cause of great dissatisfaction which we all wish to-avoid. Another question in connection with old soldiers is that of disablement benefit for men with some slight heart trouble or something of that sort. Many men I know are anxious to work, but are unable to take it because of their anxiety as to whether the pension will be continued. I hope those men will be given permanent benefit as soon as possible. I put forward the plea for old soldiers and hope that the Pensions Minister will be able to attend to them. I desire to thank him for his kindness in giving the advance in the old soldiers' pension for disablement in previous wars, and also for the very courteous way in which the Ministry have met any case put before them.
  Dr. D. MURRAY: I would join in the congratulations to the Minister of Pensions for the growing efficiency, I would almost say the growing humanity, of his Department, and add my testimony to those who have spoken of the courtesy received from the Department. It is a great pleasure to me that the system of regional areas has been adopted, because it will make for efficiency. The chief point I wish to touch upon is the question of entitlement. A great deal has been said about doctors in this Committee. One of the most cruel duties that can be placed on medical boards is that they should be asked to say whether a certain disease was caused by or has been aggravated by service in the War. It is not a question which should be put to a medical board. Perhaps this would add to the cost, but it would save a great deal of heart-burning and a well-grounded sense of injustice throughout the country if this question did not arise at all, and if the Government came to the conclusion that, if a man were disabled or died on service, from whatever cause, he should be entitled to the same consideration as a man in whose case a medical board had decided that his disability was due to his service. Most of us have come across cases of that sort. I have been in communication with the Ministry in regard to one case recently. It was the case of a young officer—an excellent officer he was—who died on service from a disease. It would be difficult to say that it was caused by service, but it would be just as difficult to say that it was not caused by service. How

  2409
  even a medical man could say that this particular disease was not aggravated by service passes my understanding. In that case the widow has been deprived of a pension for herself and her child because the disease was supposed not to be attributable to the man's service. I know that that is the case with some men that I have examined. I quite admit that the doctors may be wrong. In such cases, of course, the benefit should be given to the man concerned or to his widow or orphans, as the case may be.
  Doctors differ. Lawyers differ upon much simpler matters than those which come before the doctors, which sometimes are very difficult to decide. I strongly support the appeal to have this question of entitlement settled once for all, on the understanding that if a man has been taken into the Army, and has fought for his country, and was physically fit when he entered, that anything that happened to him subsequently should be regarded as due to his military service. This point, I hope, will be settled upon reasonable lines. As it at present stands the position is illogical and unscientific, and may, without difficulty, be accounted an injustice. Medical reports are certainly not perfect, but it must be remembered, after all, it is new work to medical men. The doctors on these boards do not act on their own unaided intelligence. They get orders from above. Many of the criticisms levelled at the individual doctors on these boards and against individual boards should be levelled at the Ministry of Pensions, and those who direct them there. For instance, a man may be assessed at 40 per cent., but it will be according to definite regulations which are laid down, and upon which the members of the medical board have to act. I myself have been a member of a medical board, and I trust, and think, I always gave a liberal interpretation to these various regulations. But, as I say, there are definite regulations on which the percentage, according to loss of limb, or other faculty, is assessed. It is so much percentage for the loss of a leg, so much for the loss of an arm, and so on. The assessment is in proportion to the disability incurred. I think the doctors do their best to adjust their duties, in the first place not losing sight of the interests of the man, and, in the second place, they have in view the fact that they are paid to do their duty to the Ministry of Pen-
  2410
  sions and they must therefore abide by its rules. I think it will be found that; 95 per cent, of the medical men on the boards are inclined to put the most liberal interpretation possible upon the regulations sent from headquarters, so that I hope, in the criticisms which are made, and justly no doubt, on the awards made by these boards, it will be remembered that the doctors are acting under instructions from above. Sometimes these instructions are not inspired from right above, and it may be that sometimes some of them are from below.
  Another point in connection with the medical boards. There is too much clerical work put upon the shoulders of the men who examine. One man may be doing the work whilst the other two are writing up the records. There should be a clerk to do this. If there was, a good deal more work could be done, and more attention could be given by the three men to individual cases, instead of the thing working out as it does at present. That is a practical point. It received the attention of the Minister of Pensions. One; other point—that is, the suggestion that a man should be told at once what he has been assessed at. I must admit that I sacrcely agree with that view. I should not like to be a member of a medical board which did that. In view of a certain humanitarian principle involved, I think that, at any rate, there should be a little interval between the assessment and the announcement of it. Yet, on the other hand, it should be told the man as quickly as it can reasonably be done.
  Mr. J. W. WILSON: I am very glad to be able to join the rest of the House in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Pensions Minister, not only respecting his admirable Report, but I wish to congratulate the Committee on the result of their labours. By common admission and in common experience it is acknowledged that the Minister has quickened up his Department, and that his labours have tended to improve administration throughout. I only hope he may have strength and energy to continue that good work, and particularly in the administration to see the reforms which he has in view are carried out. One of the most necessary wants in regard to the ultimate and permanent benefit of the recipients of the pensions is that they should know at the earliest possible moment consistent with the medical examination the permanent

  2411
  pensions which they are going to get. This from the Labour point of view is most necessary. It is the chief point raised here because it is human nature that the man who feels that the matter is affecting his employment, whilst at the same time he is getting over the strain and his earning power is increasing each week, should suspect that the calculation and assessment of his pension is affected by the fact of his increasing employment. It is human nature to suspect this; therefore, the sooner it can be said to him, "There is your pension, take it, and make the best of the powers you have left," the better. That is the essence of all pensions administration. That leads me to my second point. I hope in carrying out the administration of his Department the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind, not only in large towns and centres of population where it has been comparatively easy to provide war hospitals and other institutions for the permanent treatment of cases of partial disablement, or damaged limbs, or refitting of limbs, or electrical or massage treatment for the partially disabled, and men of partially recovered powers, but over the whole country to spread these benefits with the greatest possible speed. It is more difficult to do this in country districts. On the other hand, there are cases where men have been demobilised, after perhaps many months and even years undergoing hospital treatment, and on recovering so far they go back to their homes and find no arrangement whereby they can have treatment for the rescue of the affected limb or the power they have partially lost. In many instances, owing to the admirable hospital treatment, these men have recovered in a surprising degree. I have had cases brought to my notice in connection with hospital work where we have seen the men losing their powers which they had recovered in hospital in consequence of lack of treatment. That, I think, has arisen, partly, at all events, owing to the transference of supervision from the hospital and the military authorities to the Pensions Department. I know the right hon. Gentleman has had a great deal to struggle against in getting these various systems to work in the country, but I ask his special consideration to these matters, because I feel it is one thing to grant a money pension, but it is a greater thing still to restore the powers which the man has lost in the service of his country.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee, as this Debate stops at ten o'clock, if I endeavour now to reply to several points. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, that it should be and is our desire, as soon as possible, and as soon as individual cases-permit, to get to the final stage, so that the-man may know what his pension is, and then he can build on a pensions foundation the superstructure which really means his-future life. I am equally in agreement with my right hon. Friend that we have got to get the treatment right down to the man. He is aware that in the towns it is probably done with a considerable degree of success already, but in the more sparsely populated districts it is much more difficult. A system has been established, and not with any long delay, by which we hope to have the country properly covered.
  May I express to the Committee my extreme gratitude for the extraordinary chorus of praise that I have had the pleasure of listening to to-day? I begin to wonder whether some evil fate is not in store for me when everybody is so extremely kind as they have been to-day. It seems to me that the more hon. Members realise what pensions administration is the more kindly they are to any faults on our part, and on the part of those who have been in close touch with the work either on the local war pensions committee or on the Select Committee of the House, and I find it is those who arc most forbearing to our shortcomings. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge) I wish to thank for his extremely generous reference to the work which I have been able to do, and I am glad that his large-heartedness has made him give expression to sentiments for which I am very grateful. Many very useful suggestions and questions have been raised in the course of this Debate, and if I am not able in the, short time at my disposal to deal with all of them, the Committee will realise that it is not for want of will but want of time, and I will undertake that no single suggestion that has been made in Committee to-day shall be passed by without the most careful consideration. To-morrow or the next day the Official Report of this Debate shall be brought to me with every suggestion noted, and I will personally undertake to go into the reasons for and against every suggestion that has been made.

  2413
  Let me deal with some of them. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Fairfield Division of Liverpool (Major Cohen) raised a very useful point with regard to the method of supplying artificial limbs. He suggested that the French system was better than our own, but I am not so sure of that The French system necessitated the man with an artificial limb requiring repair or refitment to go to the nearest police station and get instructions from the police. The French have found that some local agency in the village or town or on the spot was necessary to deal with these cases. We find that too, but instead of using the policemen we are using the local war pensions committees, and I think, on the whole, our system is better. That, however, does not preclude the suggestion for a speedier and easier method of getting repairs done, and that point will be very carefully considered. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackpool (Colonel Ashley) made a series of suggestions, as, indeed, one would expect him to do, seeing that he is one of the collectors of all these suggestions, and his great organisation naturally keeps him well informed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that at the Ministry of Pensions he thought too many women were employed, and ho asked me to consider whether some of them could not be replaced by discharged men. I have already told the Committee that of the men employed at the Ministry of Pensions 81 per cent are discharged officers or men, and that is a very large percentage, and I do not mind telling the Committee that wherever I get an opportunity I am pressing on other Ministers that they should follow the same example in the Government service.
  Whether more men can be employed rather than women is a point which must be decided by the heads of the sections and branches and the various divisions. I can only give a general instruction, and I hold the heads of the Departments responsible for the efficient working of the staff, and I can only to a certain extent interfere with the staffing.
  In the pensions issue office, which employs 4,000 or 5,000, it is mostly women's work, and it is hardly work which we should find a discharged man would do. In peace time a great deal of the Post Office Savings Bank and issue work has been done by women, and the pensions Issue Office is very similar work in which women can be very reasonably employed.
  2414
  While wishing not only to be fair to the men, but more than fair, I have also to be fair to the women. These women were employed at a time when we could not get men during the War, and they have qualified themselves for the work. Am I to turn them into the street? Frequently they are widows of men who have suffered in the War, and sometimes they are the children of those men, and no general rule of so much per cent, of men and a reduction of the number of women can possibly be laid down. I must try and do my best at headquarters and through the local organisations for the employment of discharged men, but I feel sure the Committee will not press me more than that.
  The same hon. and gallant Gentleman asked various other questions, but I think I had, better deal with them in a general way, and I will consider them afterwards, because there are one or two other points which I want to deal with. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Lyle) raised the question of war orphans, and he said there were a large number of them in the workhouse. I wish he would let me know where, because at West Ham I heard the same story, and I took a great deal of personal care, and sent people to see how many were there. I found there were eight war orphans in that workhouse, but they are not there now, and they have not been there for three or four weeks. There arc some children there of serving soldiers, but I am not entitled to interfere with them, except under certain circumstances; but in the case of the war orphans I am their official guardian, and if any hon. Member finds war orphans in any Poor Law establishment I wish he would let me know, because it is my duty to see that they are not there, and I will undertake to see that they do not remain there.
  While we have had many useful suggestions, the Debate really has turned upon two main points, namely, the statutory right to a pension and the appeal as to amount. Let me deal with the statutory right to a pension. I believe that by giving the statutory right to appeal and by setting up a statutory Court we do everything in the way of recognising that the men are legally entitled to a pension that you would do if you put the words "legally entitled" into an Act of Parliament, taut, as I said earlier in the Debate, I am quite prepared to consider any words which will strengthen that position. I do not care whether it is sentiment or what it is, but

  2415
  if men trunk that they can get something which is not a bounty or charity but is something which they have earned, then I want to put those words into the Act, so that they may have no false shame about it, but may take that to which they are entitled. I will consider any words that can be suggested. It was proposed that a man should be told the amount of his pension at the first board. The difficulty about that is that the assessment may be altered afterwards by a Chelsea doctor. I do not want to leave the man under the impression that he can get 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. pension when he may find that it is altered afterwards. Contentment would not come that way; it would only lead to disappointment. As soon as the decentralisation is complete and as soon as I have got the Appeal Medical Boards going, the man shall be told at the first board what is his degree of disablement, and he shall be given the opportunity, if he chooses, of appealing to the Appeal Medical Board. I quite agree that it is desirable that there shall be a feeling, not merely of satisfaction, but that justice is being done to him, that he shall be told exactly what is his medical assessment, and that, if he does not like it, he shall be allowed to appeal.
  I cannot meet the Committee to any large extent on the question of the appeal on amount, but I will ask the Committee to take it from me that if this were done the pensions administration would break down. If during the last six months one man in ten had appealed, there would have been 70,000 appeals and not 10,000 of them would have been yet settled. Thus 60,000 men would now be waiting and would not be getting their pensions. I am not going to prophesy, but I dare say that we can keep on improving our machinery, and that under the regional organisation we shall be able to concentrate more than we can to-day. Certainly, when we come to permanent pensions, that which is going to determine a man's future, the case is totally different from the appeal on the question of amount. When we get there, I do not want to close the door, but, if you press this now, you will paralyse the machine and harm the man. If later on we can so improve the machinery that it becomes possible, I shall be the first to welcome an appeal also on amount. I do not think that I need add anything now except to repeat that I will consider all
  2416
  the suggestions that have been made, and to say once more how grateful I am to the Committee for their reception of the Pensions Estimates.
  It being Ten of the Clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose, of the Vote under consideration.
  Question
  "That a sum, not exceeding £45,855,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Pensions, and for sundry Contributions in respect of the Administration of the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916,"
  put, and agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN then proceeded, pursuant to Order No. 15, to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several classes of the Civil Services Estimates and of the other outstanding Votes, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Revenue Departments, and the Navy Excess Vote, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates.

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1919–20.—CLASS I.
    1. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,349,660, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I. of the Estimates for Civil Services—namely:

    £

    4. Houses of Parliament Buildings (Supplementary sum)

    2,310

    9. Ministry of Labour, Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain (Supplementary sum)

    500,000

    10. Public Buildings, Great Britain (Supplementary sum)

    847,350

    £1,349,660"

    Question agreed to.
    Class II.
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,796,403, be granted to His Majesty, to complete

    2417
    the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II. of the Estimates for Civil Servises—namely:

    £

    4.

    Home Office

    152,058

    5.

    Foreign Office

    109,668

    11.

    Board of Agriculture and Fisheries

    378,095

    18.

    Board of Control, England.

    116,650

    19.

    The Mint

    6

    20.

    National Debt Office

    11,236

    21.

    Public Record Office

    17,697

    22.

    Public Works Loan Commission

    8,851

    23.

    Registrar-General's Office, England

    41,459

    24.

    Stationery and Printing

    2,280,442

    26A.

    Privy Seal Office

    3,900

    27.

    Secret Service

    50,000

    Scotland.

    31.

    General Board of Control, Scotland

    29,734

    32.

    Registrar-General's Office, Scotland

    7,514

    Ireland.

    34.

    Household of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland

    2,304

    35.

    Chief Secretary for Ireland

    49,604

    36.

    Department of Agriculture
    and Technical Instruction

    328,588

    38.

    Congested Districts Board for Ireland

    69,750

    39.

    Local Government Board

    100,320

    40.

    Public Record Office

    5,945

    42.

    Registrar-General's Office

    9,595

    43.

    Valuation and Boundary Survey

    22,987

    £3,796,403"

    Question agreed to.
    Class III.
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,850,379, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III. of the Estimates for Civil Services—namely:

    £

    1.

    Law Charges

    135,132

    2.

    Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

    21,314

    3.

    Supreme Court of Judicature and Court of Criminal Appeal

    195,044

    £

    4.

    Home Office

    152,058

    5.

    Foreign Office

    109,668

    11.

    Board of Agriculture and Fisheries

    378,095

    18.

    Board of Control, England.

    116,650

    19.

    The Mint

    6

    20.

    National Debt Office

    11,236

    21.

    Public Record Office

    17,697

    22.

    Public Works Loan Commission

    8,851

    23.

    Registrar-General's Office, England

    41,459

    24.

    Stationery and Printing

    2,280,442

    26A.

    Privy Seal Office

    3,900

    27.

    Secret Service

    50,000

    Scotland.

    31.

    General Board of Control, Scotland

    29,734

    32.

    Registrar-General's Office, Scotland

    7,514

    Ireland.

    34.

    Household of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland

    2,304

    35.

    Chief Secretary for Ireland

    49,604

    36.

    Department of Agriculture
    and Technical Instruction

    328,588

    38.

    Congested Districts Board for Ireland

    69,750

    39.

    Local Government Board

    100,320

    40.

    Public Record Office

    5,945

    42.

    Registrar-General's Office

    9,595

    43.

    Valuation and Boundary Survey

    22,987

    £3,796,403"

    Question agreed to.
    Class III.
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,850,379, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III. of the Estimates for Civil Services—namely:

    £

    1.

    Law Charges

    135,132

    2.

    Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

    21,314

    3.

    Supreme Court of Judicature and Court of Criminal Appeal

    195,044

    2418

    £

    4.

    Land Registry

    32,605

    5.

    Public Trustee

    5

    6.

    County Courts

    189,277

    7.

    Police (England and Wales)(Supplementary sum)

    4,000,000

    10.

    Criminal Lunatic Asylums, England (Supplementary sum)

    7,366

    Scotland.

    11.

    Law Charges and Courts of Law

    64,700

    12.

    Scottish Land Court

    5,798

    13.

    Register House, Edinburgh

    36,314

    13A.

    Police (Scotland) (including a Supplementary sum of £530,000)

    710,000

    14.

    Prisons

    114,772

    Ireland.

    15.

    Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

    37,753

    16.

    Supreme Court of Judicature and other Legal Departments

    91,649

    17.

    Irish Land Commission

    577,335

    18.

    County Court Officers, etc

    75,911

    19.

    Dublin Metropolitan Police

    93,044

    20.

    Royal Irish Constabulary.

    1,285,223

    21.

    Prisons

    102,017

    22.

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools

    65,874

    23.

    Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    9,246

    £7,850,379"

    Question agreed to.
    Class IV.
    4. "That a sum, not exceeding £19,854,570, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV. of the Estimates for Civil Services—namely:

    £

    1.

    Board of Education

    16,353,111

    2.

    British Museum (including a Supplementary sum of £10,000)

    129,714

    3.

    National Gallery

    11,167

    4.

    National Portrait Gallery

    3,211

    5.

    Wallace Collection

    5,315

    6.

    London Museum

    2,400

    7.

    Imperial War Museum (including a Supplementary sum of £37,300)

    48,500

    8.

    Scientific Investigation, etc.

    63,974

    2419

    £

    9.

    Scientific and Industrial Research

    162,815

    10.

    Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

    645,700

    10A.

    Universities, etc., Special Grants

    300,000

    10B.

    Serbian Relief Fund

    12,500

    Scotland.

    12.

    National Galleries Ireland.

    4,887

    Ireland

    13.

    Public Education (including a Supplementary sum of£451,280)

    1,822,636

    14.

    Intermediate. Education. Ireland

    89,000

    15.

    Endowed Schools Commissioners

    492

    16.

    National Gallery

    2,650

    17.

    Science and Art

    155,498

    18.

    Universities and Colleges

    41,000

    £19,854,570"

    Question agreed to.

    Class V.
    5. "That a sum, not exceeding £696,246, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the. Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V. of the Estimates for Civil Services—namely:

    £

    1.

    Diplomatic and Consular Services (Supplementary sum)

    205,885

    2.

    Colonial Services

    482,061

    3.

    Telegraph Subsidies

    7,300

    4.

    Cyprus (Grant in Aid)

    1,000

    £696,246"

    Question agreed to.

    Class VI.
    6. "That a sum, not exceeding 10,327,838, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:
    2420

    £

    1.

    Superannuation and Re-tired Allowances

    469,649

    2.

    Miscellaneous Expenses (including a Supplementary sum of £5,000)

    21,744

    3.

    Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

    738

    4.

    Temporary Commissions

    85,000

    5.

    Repayment to the Local Loans Fund

    5,011

    6.

    Ireland Development Grant

    135,000

    7.

    Government Hospitality

    110,000

    8.

    Expenses under the Representation of the People Act

    200,000

    9.

    Development Fund

    1,000,000

    10.

    Road Improvement Fund

    8,250,000

    11.

    Mission of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to Canada

    5,000

    12.

    Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

    45,696

    £10,327,838"

    Question agreed to.

    Class VII.
    7. "That a sum, not exceeding £25,987,265, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

    £

    1.

    Old Age Pensions

    10,892,000

    2.

    National Health Insurance, Joint Committee

    664,605

    3A.

    Ministry of Health

    6,650,590

    5A.

    Scottish Board of Health

    773,037

    6.

    National Hearth Insurance Commission (Ireland)

    271,745

    7.

    Ministry of Labour (including a Supplementary sum of £4,000,000

    5,935,053

    8.

    National Insurance, Audit Department

    85,400

    9.

    Treatment of Tuberculosis(Special Grants)

    700,000

    11.

    Friendly Societies' Deficiency

    14,835

    £25,987,265"

    Question agreed to.

    MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (ORDNANCE FACTORIES).
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding 90, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expense of the Ordnance Factories, the cost of the production of which will be charged to the Ministry of Munitions."
    Question agreed to.

    MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE.
    6. "That a sum, not exceeding, £47,588, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of National Service."
    Question agreed to.

    MINISTRY OF RECONSTRUCTION.
    7. "That a sum, not exceeding £33,878, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Reconstruction."
    Question agreed to.

    MINISTRY OF LABOUR (CIVIL DEMOBILISATION AND RESETTLEMENT DEPARTMENT).
    8. "That a sum, not exceeding £21,373,593 (including a Supplementary sum of £9,500,000), be granted to His Majesty, To complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Civil Demobilisation and Resettlement of the Ministry of Labour, including Out- of-Work Donation and the Contribution to the Unemployed Insurance Fund, and Re payments to Associations pursuant to Sections 85 and 106 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and the National Insurance (Part II.) (Munition Workers) Act, 1916, and Grants for the training of Demobilised Officers."
    Question agreed to.

    NATIONAL WAR SAVINGS COMMITTEE.
    9."That a sum, not exceeding £65,540, be granted to His Majesty, to
    2422
    complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and. Expenses of the National War Savings Committee."
    Question agreed to.

    WAR TRADE DEPARTMENT.
    10. "That a sum, not exceeding £l,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the War Trade Department."
    Question agreed to.

    RESTRICTION OF ENEMY SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT.
    11. "That a sum, not exceeding £19,164, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Restriction of Enemy Supplies Department."
    Question agreed to.

    COMMISSION INTERNATIONALE DE RAVITAILLEMENT.
    12. "That a sum, not exceeding £45,016, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Commission Internationale de Ravitaillement."
    Question agreed to.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    13. "That a sum, not exceeding £116,350, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), including the cost of acquisition and direct control of licensed premises and businesses and the provision, of canteens."
    Question agreed to.

    IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES COMMISSION.
    14. "That a sum, not exceeding £937,347, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of pay-

    2423
    ment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Imperial War Graves Commission, formed under Royal Charter, 10th May, 1917."
    Question agreed to.

    MILITARY SERVICE (CIVIL LIABILITIES) DEPARTMENT.
    15. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,092,103 (including a Supplementary sum of £2,400,000), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Department, and for the payment of Grants for assisting Officers and Men of His Majesty's Forces in cases of serious hardship to meet certain financial obligations, and Grants to facilitate their reinstatement in civil life."
    Question agreed to.

    ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND.
    16. "That a sum, not exceeding £156,135, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for a Grant-In-Aid of the Royal Patriotic Fund."
    Question agreed to.

    LOANS TO DOMINIONS AND ALLIES.
    17. "That a sum, not exceeding £110,000,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £60,000,000), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Loans to the Government of British Dominions and of Allied Countries, and for Loans and Grants for purposes of Reconstruction and Relief in War Areas."
    Question agreed to.

    CANAL COMPENSATION.
    19. "That a sum, not exceeding £600,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Compensation to Canal Companies and Canal Carriers in the United Kingdom arising out of Government control."
    Question agreed to.

    BREAD SUBSIDY.
    20. "That a sum, not exceeding £30,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Cost of the Bread Subsidy."
    Question agreed to.

    TREASURY SECURITIES DEPOSIT SCHEME.
    21. "That a sum, not exceeding £925,407, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses connected with the Treasury Securities Deposit."
    Question agreed to.

    PROPERTY LOSSES (IRELAND) COMPENSATION.
    22. "That a sum, not exceeding £160,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for ex gratia Grants in respect of Losses and Injuries sustained in the Rebellion in Ireland."
    Question agreed to.

    MISCELLANEOUS WAR SERVICES (FOREIGN OFFICE).
    23. "That a sum, not exceeding £l,835,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the cost of certain Miscellaneous War Services."
    Question agreed to.

    PURCHASE OF HOUSING MATERIALS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
    24. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,500,000, be granted to His Maresty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Cost of Building Materials for the Housing of the Working Classes in England and Wales."
    Question agreed to.

    PURCHASE OF HOUSING MATERIALS (SCOTLAND).
    25. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,500,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in

    2425
    course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Cost of Building Materials for the Housing of the Working Classes in Scotland."
    Question agreed to.

    COAL MINES DEFICIENCY.
    26. "That a sum, not exceeding £26,400,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, to meet the Deficiency arising under the Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act, 1918, and the cost of carrying out the recommendations contained in the Interim Report of the Chairman of the Coal Industry Commission, dated 20th March, 1919, and for kindred purposes."
    Question agreed to.

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1919–20.
    9. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,887,044, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:

    £

    1. Customs and Excise

    2,091,664

    2. Inland Revenue

    2,625,380

    3. Post Office (Supplementary sum)

    170,000

    £4,887,044"

    Question agreed to.

    NAVY ESTIMATES, EXCESS 1917–18.
    10. "That a sum not exceeding £10, be, granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ended on the 31st lay of March, 1918, to make good Excesses of Navy Expenditure beyond the Grants or the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1918."
    Question agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday; Committee to sit again upon. Monday.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    Resolved,
    "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, the sum of £10 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom "—[Mr. Baldwin.]
    Resolved,
    "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, the sum of £613,315,596 be granted out of the-Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS BILL
    Read the third time, and passed.

    WEST INDIAN COURT OF APPEAL BILL.
    Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved,
    "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Sanders.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen minutes after Ten o'clock.

  CYPRUS.
  CYPRUS.
  MARSHAL FOCH.
  MARSHAL FOCH.
  FINLAND (ASSISTANCE).
  FINLAND (ASSISTANCE).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (EARLY ADJOURNMENTS).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (EARLY ADJOURNMENTS).
INCOME TAX.
  ABATEMENT (CHILDREN).
  ABATEMENT (CHILDREN).
  RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS (PENSIONS).
  RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS (PENSIONS).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (CIVIL SERVANTS).
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (CIVIL SERVANTS).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  FRUIT CROP, WORCESTERSHIRE (TRANSPORT).
  FRUIT CROP, WORCESTERSHIRE (TRANSPORT).
IRELAND.
  ENNIS INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL (DENTIST).
  ENNIS INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL (DENTIST).
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (PENSIONS).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (PENSIONS).
  REQUISITIONED PREMISES, HOUTON BAY (COMPENSATION).
  REQUISITIONED PREMISES, HOUTON BAY (COMPENSATION).
DEMOBILISATION.
  ORDER OF RELEASE.
  ORDER OF RELEASE.
  ROYAL ENGINEERS, INDIA.
  ROYAL ENGINEERS, INDIA.
  2/1ST NOTTS ROYAL HORSE ARTILLERY.
  2/1ST NOTTS ROYAL HORSE ARTILLERY.
  COMPASSIONATE CASES.
  COMPASSIONATE CASES.
  DERBY SCHEME MEN.
  DERBY SCHEME MEN.
  TROOPS AT SALONIKA (DYSENTERY).
  TROOPS AT SALONIKA (DYSENTERY).
  SOULTHORPE FEN, NORFOLK.
  SOULTHORPE FEN, NORFOLK.
  SEALE-HAYNE COLLEGE.
  SEALE-HAYNE COLLEGE.
  HOTEL CENTRAL, MARYLEBONE (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  HOTEL CENTRAL, MARYLEBONE (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (APPOINTMENTS).
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (APPOINTMENTS).
  BAND BOYS (SERVICE IN INDIA).
  BAND BOYS (SERVICE IN INDIA).
RUSSIA.
  SITUATION AT ARCHANGEL.
  SITUATION AT ARCHANGEL.
  GENERAL DENIKIN (MANIFESTO).
  GENERAL DENIKIN (MANIFESTO).
  ARMY OF OCCUPATION (PAY).
  ARMY OF OCCUPATION (PAY).
  ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS, WEEDON.
  ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS, WEEDON.
  QUEEN MARY'S WOMEN'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS (INJURIES).
  QUEEN MARY'S WOMEN'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS (INJURIES).
  ARMY SERVICE CORPS (FORAGE DEPARTMENT).
  ARMY SERVICE CORPS (FORAGE DEPARTMENT).
  LABOUR PAY COUPS, NOTTINGHAM.
  LABOUR PAY COUPS, NOTTINGHAM.
  ARMY PAY (PRIVATE MAGINNIS).
  ARMY PAY (PRIVATE MAGINNIS).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  AIR STATION, FELIXSTOWE (DISMISSALS).
  AIR STATION, FELIXSTOWE (DISMISSALS).
  GOVERNMENT POLICY.
  GOVERNMENT POLICY.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  "GASSED" SOLDIERS.
  "GASSED" SOLDIERS.
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT (MISS BEAVER).
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT (MISS BEAVER).
  BOUNTY.
  BOUNTY.
MUNITIONS.
  NATIONAL FACTORY, PEMBREY.
  NATIONAL FACTORY, PEMBREY.
  SIR RABINDRANATH TAGORE.
  SIR RABINDRANATH TAGORE.
BRITISH GUIANA.
  COMMISSIONER OF LANDS AND MINES.
  COMMISSIONER OF LANDS AND MINES.
  AGRICULTURE (DEVELOPMENT).
  AGRICULTURE (DEVELOPMENT).
  COLONISATION (DEPUTATION).
  COLONISATION (DEPUTATION).
  FOREIGN GOODS (HALL MARK).
  FOREIGN GOODS (HALL MARK).
  DENTISTS (REGISTRATION).
  DENTISTS (REGISTRATION).
HOUSING
  LABOUR.
  LABOUR.
  CARE OF THE BLIND.
  CARE OF THE BLIND.
  CENSORSHIP (EXEMPTED CORRESPONDENCE)
  CENSORSHIP (EXEMPTED CORRESPONDENCE)
RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.
  GOODS DELIVERY, BALING.
  GOODS DELIVERY, BALING.
  TRADE POLICY.
  TRADE POLICY.
  IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.
  IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.
COAL SUPPLIES.
  EXPORT TRADE.
  EXPORT TRADE.
  STEAMSHIP "MACEDONIA" (REPAIRS)
  STEAMSHIP "MACEDONIA" (REPAIRS)
  GERMAN SHIPS (SURRENDER).
  GERMAN SHIPS (SURRENDER).
  INTERRUPTED APPRENTICESHIPS.
  INTERRUPTED APPRENTICESHIPS.
  DEMOBILISED MEN (UNEMPLOYMENT).
  DEMOBILISED MEN (UNEMPLOYMENT).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (TRADE UNION ACTION).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (TRADE UNION ACTION).
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (ADVERTISEMENTS).
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (ADVERTISEMENTS).
  HAY.
  HAY.
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

SEX DISQUALIFICATION (REMOVAL) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Removal of disqualification on grounds of sex.
1. A person shall not be disqualified by sex from the exercise of any public function, or from being appointed to any civil or judicial office or post, or from entering or assuming any civil profession or vocation, and a person shall not be exempted by sex from the liability to serve as a juror:
Provided that—

(a) notwithstanding anything in this section, His Majesty may by Order in Council authorise regulations to be made prescribing the mode of admission of women to the civil service of His Majesty, and the conditions on which women admitted to that service may be appointed to posts therein, and providing for the exclusion of women from admission to any branch of the civil service in any of His Majesty's possessions, or in any foreign country; and

(b) any judge, chairman of quarter sessions, recorder or other person before whom the case is heard may, in his discretion, on an application made by a woman to be exempted from service on a jury in respect of that case by reason of the nature of the evidence to be given or of the issues to be tried, grant such exemption.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD) moved, after "or from entering or assuming any civil profession or vocation," to insert "or for admission to any incorporated society (whether incorporated by Royal Charter or otherwise)." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is put down to meet a point which has been taken by certain persons interested in this question in Edinburgh. It was pointed out, and I think justly, that the words of the Bill would not ensure the admission of women to certain incorporated professional societies, such as the Faculty of Actuaries and the Society of Accountants in Edinburgh. On behalf of the former society this Amendment was asked for. The Scottish Office was consulted and they agreed. The words will of course, also allow the admission of women to similar English societies.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("vocation") insert ("or for admission to any incorporated society (whether incorporated by Royal Charter or otherwise)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved, in paragraph (a), to leave out "His Majesty may, by Order in Council, authorise regulations to be made," and insert "in any regulations made by Order in Council." The noble Lord said: If the House should think fit to adopt the Amendments that I have to propose, subsection (a) of the clause would read—
"Notwithstanding anything in this section in any regulations made by Order in Council prescribing the mode of admission to the Civil Service of His Majesty, and the conditions on which persons admitted to that service may be appointed to posts therein, equal consideration shall be given to the suitability of both sexes, and provision may be made as to the admission of women," and so on.
The object I have in view is to introduce into this clause, and so to introduce into the Civil Service, the practice with regard to the appointment of women to posts in the service which was settled after a very serious debate in this House, and after several alternative suggestions had been made in the Ministry of Health Bill. Your Lordships will remember that some words were settled on that occasion, and they are the words which I have put down in this Amendment. The officers of the Ministry of Health will themselves be—many of them are—part of the Civil Service, and if

125
that was the right procedure to prescribe for that part of the Civil Service, it seems to me to follow that it would be right that that should be the proposal for the whole Civil Service. As the two noble and learned. Lords are not here who are proposing the omission of the whole of the subsection, I think I need not say anything about that, but merely submit to your Lordships that it is preferable to put these things upon one footing—one adequate and consistent footing—and that that would be better than to remove the proviso altogether as those noble and learned Lords propose. I beg to move the first amendment that stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 11 to 13, leave out ("His Majesty may by Order in Council authorise regulations to be made") and insert ("in any regulations made by Order in Council").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The clause if amended as the noble and learned Lord desires, would read as follows—
"Notwithstanding anything in this section in ally regulations made by Order in Council prescribing the mode of admission to the Civil Service of His Majesty, and the conditions on which persons admitted to that service may be appointed to posts therein, equal consideration shall be given to the suitability of both sexes, and provision may be made as to the appointment of women to any branch of the Civil Service in any of His Majesty's possessions or in any foreign country."
I do not think that even the noble and learned Lord himself would contend that the clause as I have read it out would be in a very satisfactory form. There are one or two expressions in it which I think a Court of law would find great difficulty in construing with precision, such an expression, for instance, as that "equal consideration shall be given to the suitability of both sexes." That is a phrase Which certainly seems to me to be a little lacking in precision, but I cannot help thinking that the House will on the whole come to the conclusion that the clause as it was drafted in the Bill really gives to women under this branch of their claim all that it would be reasonable to concede, and all that the efficiency of the Civil Service renders it right to concede.
I need hardly point out the supreme importance of reconciling the now universally admitted claims of women to certain considerations which are quite fundamental in dealing with the Civil Service. As I reminded the House on Second Reading,
126
there is a general rule in the Civil Service that women should retire on marriage. I cannot conceive that anyone would desire to alter a practice which is evidently in the interests of the women and their children, as well as of the Service. This is a clause which specially affects the Post Office, but the regulation which the Post Office makes—and, I think your Lordships would unanimously feel, necessarily makes—would become illegal at once if the procedure were omitted. I may mention that women who do retire under these circumstances receive a marriage bounty.
Another point is important and should be borne in mind. Candidates who pass the higher division examination of the Civil Service under the existing practice choose, in the order in which they are placed by the examiner, to which Department they will be appointed, Certainly, if the proviso had been omitted, I think probably under the Amendment of the noble and learned. Lord women might choose the Foreign Service, and the recent scheme of inter-changeability between the Foreign Office and the Diplomatic Service would be rendered nugatory by the extreme difficulty (I put, it very mildly) under existing circumstances, of sending women as Ministers and Ambassadors—and indeed to many of the other appointments—abroad. Under all these circumstances, it appears to me that your Lordships would be well advised at this stage not, to lend support to an Amendment which—as, indeed, I think the noble and learned Lord, after what have said will agree—I think should not be pressed.
I ought to add that I have been asked to receive a deputation, with Mr. Bonar Law as representing the Government in the House of Commons, by a large number of the important women's societies upon this very clause, and, if your Lordships thought that a convenient course, I think that such a deputation might be received and we might listen to what they have to say between the present time and the time when this Bill will fall for consideration in the House of Commons. Careful attention, of course, will be given to any representations that are made, and in these circumstances I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: With regard to these deputations I am well aware of them because, in fact, they asked me

127
to introduce them to the noble and learned Lord. With regard to the language of the Clause which the Lord Chancellor has criticised—" equal consideration shall be given to the suitability," and so forth, as I have said before, those are not my words. Those are the words which were settled in this House when the Ministry of Health. Bill was before this House. I thought, for reasons that I have also already stated, that it was desirable that the same practice should prevail in the Civil Service generally as was settled for that part of it which has been introduced into the Ministry of Health Bill. I need scarcely say that I shall not venture to press my Amendment against the views of my noble and learned friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As Lord Reading is absent, before we pass his Amendment, which stands next on the Paper, if any noble Lord, for the sake of a short discussion would move the Amendment, it would, I think, be an advantage. I do not know whether Lord Muir Mackenzie would move it?
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved, in paragraph (b), after "discretion," to insert "on an application made by or on behalf of the parties (including in criminal cases the prosecution and. the accused) or any of them, or at his own instance, make an order that, having regard to the nature of the case and the evidence to be given, the jury shall be composed of men only or of women only as the case may require, or may." The noble Lord said: I feel some diffidence in moving an Amendment for so high an authority as the Lord Chief Justice. But I have an Amendment of my own which covers a small part of the ground. I put down my Amendment before I had seen that of the Lord Chief Justice, but that part of his Amendment which agrees with my own, of course, I assent to. As for the rest, I think that his Amendment is much more comprehensive, and on the whole, is much better than my own, and it gives me great pleasure to move it.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 23, after ("discretion") insert ("on an application made by or on behalf of the parties (including in criminal cases the prosecution and the accused) or any of them, or at his own instance, make an order that having regard
128
to the nature of the case and the evidence to be given, the jury shall be composed of men only or of women only as the case may require, or may").—(Lard Muir Mackenzie.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment that stands in the name of the Lord Chief Justice, in my judgment, is an improvement on the Bill. There are certain cases in which, not merely in the interests of women, but equally in the legitimate interests of men, they would be unwilling to sit on what we may describe as mixed juries. It is unnecessary to give illustrations because too many of your Lordships are chairmen of Quarter Sessions. But there are such cases, and it is not a sex distinction at all. It is a question of a mutual and balanced sex consideration, and I think that the view of the Lord Chief Justice, who has very great experience in these matters, that it should be in the power of the Judge suo motu to take the initiative in a matter of this kind, is one that will probably appeal to the House as it certainly appeals to the Government. I therefore accept the Amendment.
LORD SHEFFIELD: As I understand, it will be only in cases where, having regard to the nature of the case and the evidence given, the Judge is of the opinion that it is a case which should be tried exclusively by one or the other sex.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: That is how I understood it.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I suppose that is intended to cover cases of rape, or indecent assault, which are disagreeable to deal with?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Or unnatural offences.
LORD SHEFFIELD: If it was left, first of all, to the prosecution or the accused—either of them—to take action and ask for a different jury, I do not see why in ordinary cases there should not be a mixed jury. My own opinion is that women require a much longer training in public affairs before they are fit to serve on juries. However, that is gone by. You have determined that that most embarassing of all public functions should be given to them. In ordinary cases I do not see why men and women should not sit together. As this Amendment is drawn it will have to be

129
either a jury of men or a jury of women. But I do not raise any objection.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Right of peeresses to writ of summons.
2. His Majesty may include in the letters patent for the creation of a peer of the United Kingdom a provision to the effect that where the bolder of the peerage is a woman she shall, if otherwise qualified, be entitled to a seat, place, and voice in the House of Lords.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE had on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of Clause 2, to insert "and in respect of any existing Peerage may, by warrant under the Great Seal, declare that any woman being or becoming the holder of a peerage shall be entitled to a seat, place, and voice in the said House, as fully as if a grant, to that effect had always appertained to that peerage."
VISCOUNT FINLAY: Before Lord Muir Mackenzie proceeds, may I say I was about to make a suggestion. It is that it might be convenient if the question of principle—the question whether anything of this kind should be carried—were determined first. That might be settled if the question were taken whether this Clause should stand part of the Bill. In the event of its being so determined I understand that the Government will be ready to move to re-commit the Bill in order that any necessary Amendments should be made.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I was a few seconds late in the House after three o'clock, believing that there was other business coming on. I was therefore not in a position to move the Motion which your Lordships have seen on the Paper.* If that Motion had come on, I think that the question would have been raised upon which the noble and learned Viscount has just spoken, because it began with the words, "That this House, not being un-
* The Motion standing on the Paper in the name of Lord MUIR MACKENZIE was as follows: On the Motion that the House do resolve itself into Committee, to move, "That as regards clause two, this House, while not unfavourable to the admission of women, is of opinion that the subject is so connected with the constitution of a Second Chamber, that it would be more conveniently discussed when proposals as to the constitution are before the House."
130
favourable to the admission of women." I should like to support the noble and learned Viscount in what he has proposed because I think it would be more satisfactory to have the details of this clause, considered carefully in some Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I welcome the suggestion made by the noble and learned Viscount, because it appears that it would be a very futile performance to discuss, perhaps in great detail, the circumstances in which Peeresses of one class or Peeresses of another class might sit in this House, if your Lordships were in the end to take the decision that no Peeresses of any class should sit here. If your Lordships should take the view that Peeresses in existing circumstances should be made eligible I will, if it meets your Lordships' approval, move to re-commit the Bill so that the Amendments can be reconsidered.
On Question, That Clause 2 be agreed to—
VISCOUNT FINLAY: I hope your Lordships will say that this clause should not stand part, and I desire to offer a few observations on the subject. I do not think it is desirable, particularly at the present time, that anything of this kind should be carried enabling a grant to be made to women to sit as Peeresses in the House of Lords. It will be said, of course, that they are now qualified to sit in the House of Commons and that judgment has been given Upon that point. Yes, but how has it worked? From the opinion of Parliament on the question whether women should sit in the House of Commons, there was an appeal at the General Election, and although there are an enormous number of women voters I believe I am right in saying that only one woman was returned to sit in the House of Commons. That lady was returned in somewhat special circumstances, and I think she has never taken her seat. The decision of the women, therefore, is adverse to women taking an active part in the Legislative Assembly.
I submit-that the present is a singularly inopportune moment for altering the constitution of the House of Lords. We are face to face with a proposal for the reform of this House. When such proposal is dealt with, let us deal with the subject as a whole and not tinker with alterations

131
which interfere with the state of things that has existed so long, I personally believe to the general advantage of the House and, through the House, of the country. No one proposes, as I understand it, that there should be perfect equality of the sexes with regard to the rights of Peeresses to sit in the House, that they should descend to all the children born irrespective of sex and in order of date of birth. No such proposal has been made, and I do not think that if it were made it would be regarded as workable. Then with regard to the House of Commons, a woman, of course, has to run the gauntlet of a constituency before she can sit there. However, why should we, when the whole thing must be overhauled at no distant date, alter things in a matter of detail of this kind and also on a matter in regard to which opinion is very much divided? My opinion is that it would be inconvenient, that it would do no good, and that it would be much better that the clause should be left out of the Bill. Therefore I move that this clause do not stand part.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(Viscount Finlay.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My proposal is to insert a clause which merely gives to Peeresses, who are Peeresses in their own right, a seat in the House of Lords. The noble and learned Viscount says it is inopportune to take any steps because at no distant date there will be a complete reform of your Lordships' House. Ever since I can remember anything I have always been told that your Lordships' House is going to be reformed; but I do not think it will be done in a great hurry. It is about the biggest alteration of the Constitution which you can possibly effect, and when it comes—well, it will come. At the present time the great thing is to know whether your Lordships wish to give those Peeresses—there are not many of them—the right to sit in the House who are Peeresses in their own right. The Amendment standing in my name on the Paper is to omit the clause in the Bill and to insert another clause which will give to Peeresses in their own right a seat in this House, to Irish Peeresses the right to vote for the representative Irish Peers or to be elected direct, and the same with Scottish Peeresses. Therefore I should like to ask your Lordships to adopt my proposed clause instead of the clause in this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I ought to say a word on behalf of the Government in relation to this proposal, although I made it plain on the Second Reading that every member of the Government could vote as he pleased and, of course, the Government Whips would not be employed. If the decision were taken, as it may be, that this Clause at the present stage should not find a place in the Bill, it ought I think to be made clear that your Lordships are not pre-judging the ultimate and extremely important question which will have to be faced one day as to whether or not women are to be made eligible for such Second Chamber as may take the place of this. I think your Lordships would be very reluctant to reach any conclusion in arriving at which it was not made plain that you were alive to the movements and changes which have taken place in the last ten or fifteen years, and that you were prepared to consider with a completely open mind when the time came the arguments which won acceptance in the House of Commons. Also that your Lordships take the view—at a time when it is plait that in the near future considerable proposals for amending the constitution of this House will be forthcoming—that you are fully entitled to a say if all-round changes are about to be introduced within one, two, three, or even five years—because that period is small in comparison with the 600 or 700 years in which we have lived under the old conditions. With that observation, in order that our attitude may not be misunderstood outside the House, I repeat that the members of the Government will vote as they may be advised.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: I should like to say a word, in response to what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, as one of those who have given a most constant and firm opposition to the proposal of including women in the franchise at all. I believe that we ought not to apply that principle in the case of this House; in fact, I endeavoured to convey that view when speaking on the Second Reading. I think that the vote now given will not be given with any view at all in this House towards the permanent exclusion of women, but merely as a statement that we do not consider this an opportune moment, as the noble and learned Viscount has observed, for making a change.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I am sorry to trespass upon the time of the House again upon this Bill, but I should like to say that I am very much obliged to the Lord. Chancellor for what he has said about it being thoroughly understood that this is not giving a decision against the admission of women into this House. The reason why I put down a Motion on going into Committee was to try if possible to get rid of that situation; but if it is perfectly understood that we are not in fact voting against the exclusion of women by leaving out the clause which provides for their inclusion, it seems to me that the proposal of the noble and learned Viscount May very well be adopted.
LORD EMMOTT: I do not want to detain the House, but I should like to add one word. It seems to me that the House is going to vote for the exclusion of this clause. I know of no sufficient reasons why woman should not be qualified even as art interim matter. At the same time I do not consider the matter to be one of great importance, and I do not want to detain the House in argument.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: There are very few of your Lordships here, and therefore I shall not offer any opposition to the exclusion of the clause.
On Question, Amendment to delete Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Title:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have a formal Amendment in the Title involved in the decision which the House has readied.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, delete the words ("and with respect to the rights of peeresses").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to
House in Committee accordingly
[The EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
THE EARL OF MAYO: Lord Oranmore and Browne will be here in a moment I beg formally, on his behalf, to move at the end of subsection (2), to insert "or for giving effect to any provisions of this Act." I think the words speak for themselves and do not require any explanation.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, after ("scheme") insert ("or for giving effect to any of the provisions of this Act").—(The Earl of Mayo.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There seems to be no objection to this Amendment, but it would require to be modified without altering its sense. If the noble Lord will move it in the form after "this" insert "part of this" it would carry out his purpose and would be unobjectionable.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I accept that.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next is only a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, after ("scheme") insert ("or part thereof").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, after ("and") insert ("the payment of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 5 and 6, leave out ("the scheme requires that provision shall be made") and insert ("in the opinion of the Local Government Board it is necessary that provision should be made by the scheme").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, after ("land") insert ("or such part thereof as is specified in the notice").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 29, after ("like") insert ("compensation for the land of which possession is taken and") and after ("awarded") insert ("as would have been payable if those enactments had been complied with").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 22, after ("purchase") insert ("by") and after ("lease") insert ("to them").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO had on the Paper an Amendment to insert the following new clause—
".No land which is or forms part of a home, farm, park, garden or pleasure ground or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house shall be included in any petition for an order authorising the compulsory acquisition of land for the purpose of Part III of the Act of 1890, if sites not less suitable can be obtained on other land."
The noble Earl said: This clause is really to enable those who live in their homes in Ireland to enjoy, without undue interference from the local authorities in building houses, the amenities of those homes. The words "park, garden or pleasure ground or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling house" are words taken from the Act of 1905, Cap. 44, Clause 45, and they come in at the end of the clause. The only word that is added to them is the word "home farm." The home farm means, of course, a livelihood to the person who lives on the farm and it would be a very serious matter if houses were placed on a home farm, because that might interfere with the agriculture of the farm if the Local Government Board exercised inordinate powers. Therefore, I hope that the Government will accept this new clause.
I want to say something with regard to the drafting of the clause. As it appears on the Paper there is a comma after the word "home" and that makes it read differently from the way in which it should read. There ought to be no comma after the word "home." The two words "home farm" ought to read practically as one word. It is a term well understood in Ireland. At the end of the clause I suggest to the Lord Chancellor that, instead of the words "if sites not less suitable can be obtained on other land," there should be placed the words "if suitable sites can be obtained on other land." I think that would make the clause read better. However, there is nothing much in that, but it is important that the words "home farm" should be taken as one. I do not think there is anything more to say beyond this—that that end of the clause is a saving matter. We do not seek to exclude the local authorities from any parts of the park or home farm that are mentioned if suitable sites cannot be obtained on other land. If they cannot be obtained they must step in and take the land, but we wish to be protected to a certain extent.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
".No land which is or forms part of a home farm, park, garden or pleasure ground or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house shall be included in any petition for an order authorising the compulsory acquisition of land for the purpose of Part III of the Act of 1890, if suitable sites can be obtained on other land."—(The Earl of Mayo.)
LORD SHANDON: I would ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment and I shall explain why. The Act of 1890 has been in operation since that year in Ireland. Section 57 of that Act which, of course, will be incorporated in the present Act, provides that any land which forms part of any park, garden, pleasure ground, or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house is excluded. The same section applies to England. It has been in operation in England and has been found sufficient from 1890 to the present time. Accordingly, unless, by some curious construction of the Statute, that section is not carried over into the present Bill, there does not seem any necessity for the alteration. If there be any question as to that, then the remedy is to incorporate Section 57 of the

137
Act of 1890 expressly, but that would also be necessary in the case of the English Act and no one has raised the question. So that, the defect, if defect there be, exists in both Acts.
The Amendment proposed differs in terms from the terms of the existing Statute. It introduces a word which in Ireland has a somewhat undefined meaning. "Home farm" there is not exactly the same as "home farm" in England. Very frequently it is almost the same as a small domain, but, be that as it may, if it is a very small place, it is amply covered by the provision with regard to any land which forms part of any park, garden, pleasure ground, or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling house; and, if it is a large park, it is covered by the existing provision. In addition to that, in the actual draft the clause would seem even to cut down the provision under the existing Act because, even as altered, it introduces the words "if sites not less suitable can be obtained on other land." The exclusion under the existing Statute is perfectly clean cut. Why there should be a distinction made between England and Ireland it is very difficult to see, when the provision, which has been in force in England and Ireland for nineteen years, has been found ample.
You must also remember that there is a Government official who intervenes between the scheme and any person who is aggrieved in any view of it, and that official may presumably, even though he is an Irish official, be allowed to be desirous of preventing anything which would be unfair or unjust. I understand that a proposition of this nature was suggested in another place and that it did not meet with approval there, and I would suggest that really, even in those interests which the noble Earl has at stake, it would be better not to press this Amendment, because it might, certainly not be agreed to. The only Amendment if it be necessary—and I certainly doubt it—would be the incorporation of the existing provision of the Statute of 1890.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The argument of the noble and learned Lord would certainly be on the side of satisfaction to my noble friend, I am sure, if it could be held to be absolutely correct; but, although I cannot profess to be able to interpret the law as the noble and learned Lord can, all
138
the advice I have taken has gone to the opposite view. That is to say, that the section of the Act of 1890, to which the noble and learned Lord alluded, is not incorporated in this Bill—
LORD SHANDON: Well, incorporate it.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON—and if these words are not read into this Bill, it is quite certain that some provision of this kind is specially called for.
LORD SHANDON: I agree. If it is not incorporated introduce the existing words.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I would remind the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill of the great change in Ireland since the 1890 Act was passed. The transfer of a very large portion of the country to the tenants of course minimises the amount of land that can be available, except that which has a tenant right upon it. All public bodies are naturally anxious to take land which has no tenant right upon it, even though their own personal predilections did not lead them to go on the land. It would be really intolerable that the actual surroundings of a dwelling house should be taken.
My noble friend has carefully omitted the word "domain," on which there was a good deal of discussion in another place, as being a word perhaps of wider interpretation. But with regard to the home farm, the park and immediate fields, which are really part of the dwelling house, we feel we have a right to protection, and I hope the noble and learned Lord will see his way to tell us whether the view which Lord Shandon has taken is a correct one. In any case, if we incorporate that section of the Act of 1890 into this Bill, I think the words "home farm" must be added, because, as noble Lords from Ireland know, the protection of the word "farm" is not the same in Ireland as in this country.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This matter requires to be a little carefully considered, because an Amendment similar to, though not verbally identical with, that which has been moved by the noble Earl, was moved by the Chief Secretary in the House of Commons, and meeting with very general opposition was ultimately withdrawn. It was opposed on the Nationalist side, on the Irish Unionist

139
side, both from Ulster and other parts of Ireland, and also by a number of British members. It was withdrawn on the statement by the Chief Secretary that he would issue a Regulation to the following effect, not of course tying himself to the exact words—
"In the selection of sites due regard shall be paid to the importance of interfering as little as possible with the amenities of any private residence or land, and care shall be taken that such amenities shall not be injuriously affected by any scheme if suitable sites which are unobjectionable are obtainable."
I agree entirely that noble Lords who come from Ireland are entitled to point to the circumstances, notorious to all of us, which prevail in Ireland to-day, and they are entitled to claim that they must not be treated in their relationship with the local authorities in the same way as noble Lords who come from Scotland, from England, or from Wales. It is a reasonable claim which nobody can disregard, and before a conclusion is reached I will indicate one or two observations which do not leave out of sight that consideration. There is, in the first place, very considerable protection (which the noble Earl would do well to consider whether it is adequate or not) against the improper exercise of a local authority's powers. Suppose a local authority, in which by reason of its constitution the noble Earl and the noble Viscount have lost confidence, proposes to acquire land compulsorily. The first necessary step is for a local inquiry to be held by an inspector of the Local Government Board, who hears all parties interested. The inspector is bound to consider all objections, and he may alter the proposal as he thinks fit. If he makes an order confirming the proposal any person interested has the right of appeal against the order to the Local Government Board or to the county court judge. It is a little difficult to say what further protection can be given. These are the provisions of the Labourers' Act 1906 as applied by the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Act 1908.
I think perhaps the noble Lords were under a slight misconception as to the non-exclusion of domains and home farms in the present Bill. I have been reading the noble Viscount's speech on the Second Reading and he said that for the first time in an Irish Act protection had not been offered to the domain or the home farm. It is true that the present Bill gives no
140
powers of compulsorily acquiring land. Powers were given by the Act of 1890, and it is to that Act one would naturally look for any exception to this clause provided that any such exception was then considered necessary or proper. I have never heard that any inconvenience or hardship has been occasioned by the fact that no such Amendment as is now recommended was put forward in relation to that Bill on which it would have been relevant and proper. In this case it is hardly consistent with its general objects. I hope for these reasons noble Lords will think that there is adequate protection, but I shall be glad to hear their views as it is the desire of the Government to recognise that they are in a special position and one which requires every degree of reasonable protection. The suggestion I make is, that they are already protected.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: I am sure your Lordships will hear with great pleasure the opinion of the Lord Chancellor that your Lordships who live in Ireland, and anyone who owns land, is sufficiently protected under the Act of 1890, but I cannot help thinking, I may be wrong, that the Amendment which has been moved protects us a bit more. Your Lordships know well the condition of Ireland at the present moment, and it is quite possible that some individual, through vindictiveness, might attempt to get the better of someone who is his enemy for the time being and who possesses land. For that reason the Amendment I believe protects the holder of land a little better than is provided for in the Bill. It is to the interest of everyone to-day to try and induce as many people to remain in Ireland and farm as possible, and many of the domains to-day are farms. If the words "home farm" are introduced into the Amendment, and into the Bill, they would assist to protect those lands. So far as the local authority is concerned I think the owner is amply protected by the last words in the Amendment. As the Lord Chancellor has said he could appeal to a higher authority. On the other hand the local authority is protected, and I would therefore like to support the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is, of course, not the same Amendment as that which was put forward in the House of Commons and subsequently withdrawn. It is an Amendment which meets some of

141
the criticisms which were made in the House of Commons, and the last words "if sites as suitable can be obtained on other land" does, I think, meet some of the difficulties that were felt, I gather that those of your Lordships who have special knowledge of Ireland are of opinion that this Amendment would be of value and I will therefore adopt this course, if it is convenient I will not finally bind myself to accept it now, but I represent to those who have more direct responsibility than I have in this matter the course of the debate and the view I have formed about it. I will not resist the Notion to insert this Amendment at this stage.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I understood the noble and learned Lord to use the words "suitable sites" instead of "not less suitable."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl made some slight alteration. Perhaps he would be good enough to read out the words he proposes.
THE EARL OF MAYO: "If suitable sites can be obtained on other land."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Those are the words I meant to put in.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHANDON LORD SHANDON moved to insert the following new clause:
".When it is proposed to take lands compulsorily for the purposes of the Act of 1800, and it shall have been proved to the satisfaction of the arbitrator or other authority appointed to assess compensation, that for a period of twelve years prior to the hearing of the claim, such lands or part thereof have been permitted to remain derelict such arbitrator or authority shall award as compensation for purchase of such lands or part thereof as aforesaid, a nominal sum only. Lands shall be deemed to have remained derelict if having been originally occupied by dwelling-houses such houses have been permitted during such period to remain in a ruinous condition unoccupied as dwellings and unproductive."
The noble Lord said: Although I have put down this Amendment, I am not at all pleased with the phraseology of it. It is framed to meet a real difficulty, but it is very hard to frame in suitable language the necessary clause. I should explain, my Lords, how the matter arises. The city of Dublin is a city which is unfortunately to a great extent, so far as its houses are concerned, falling into decay, by reason of
142
the departure for residence to the suburbs of the people who formerly lived in houses within the city boundaries. Unfortunately the trade of Dublin has not, as in the case of London, required the use of the sites which are thus abandoned for trade purposes. The position in Dublin is this. There is a certain class of buildings dating from the eighteenth century, and others of the cheap buildings at the beginning of the nineteenth century. These have been allowed to fall into worse and worse repair. They go through all the stages of decay—first as cheap lodgings, then as tenement houses, and then the time arrives when you read in the newspapers of a house collapsing. At the present time—the figures are somewhat extraordinary—there are over 1,000, as I understand, of those gaps in the older parts of Dublin caused by the simple collapse and decay of buildings.
The position is this. You have got a street in which there are one, two, three, and perhaps half a dozen houses which have probably not only decayed but are lying in ruins. The sites are a kind of no-man's land, being covered with dead cats and tin cans, and so they remain for perhaps forty years. I have known such sites for fully thirty years. The result is not only that these wretched heaps of rubbish are an eye-sore, but there is never the slightest chance of the sites being used for practical purposes; but if there is any compulsory scheme for the acquisition of the sites they at once get a site value of exactly the same value as the adjoining sites where there are tumble down houses which have not yet been closed. If people allow their property to remain uncontrolled, and in the possession of others, for twelve years the law destroys their right to recover it. If people leave sites of this kind absolutely derelict, and an eye-sore, and in a sense a public nuisance for twelve years, it seems fair enough that the Municipal Authorities should have at least a right to take them and utilise them for the purpose of putting up decent, respectable dwellings. Some of these rites are an acre in extent, and of hers will take two or three houses. Unless some power is given to the local authorities this thing will continue. You will have more and more decay and no amelioration of the situation.
The proposal which I make is this, that "When it is proposed to take lands compulsorily for the purposes of the Act of

143
1890, and it shall have been proved to the satisfaction of the arbitrator or other authority appointed to assess compensation, that for a period of twelve years prior to the hearing of the claim, such lands or part thereof have been permitted to remain derelict such arbitrator or authority shall award as compensation for purchase of such lands or Rut thereof as aforesaid, a nominal sum only. Lands shall be deemed to have remained derelict if having been originally occupied by dwelling houses such houses have been permitted during such period to remain in a ruinous condition unoccupied as dwellings and unproductive." The last words have been put in to meet an obvious injustice which might be done. The ruins may still be productive in the sense of rent being paid continuously to the head landlord, and of course it frequently happens that leases in Ireland have no clause of re-entry, and all the landlord can do is to receive his rent. Of course in cases of that kind he ought to be compensated if the site is taken, and consequently it occurred to me to put in this provision.
Even so I am not satisfied, but there is a real difficulty to be met, and I suggest to the Government that even though they may not see their way to accept this particular Amendment, on Report they should do something to meet this question. The question was raised in another place, when a proposal which I think was most unfair was withdrawn. The Amendment there proposed was to hand over sites after five years. That would obviously be unfair. I suggest twelve years because it exactly follows the analogy of the Statute of Limitations. I think that the landlord who allows his land to become derelict, useless and unproductive, is in the same position as the man who abandons his property for twelve years and allows someone else to take it.
Amendment moved—
Insert the said new clause—(Lord Shandon.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord who has moved this Amendment told us he was rather dissatisfied with some points of form in the drafting, but I submit to your Lordships that there are defects in the Amendment which are more serious than form and go very much to the question of substance. What in fact does this clause propose to do. It proposes that if this land lies derelict for twelve years it may be
144
acquired compulsorily by the local authority without compensation, or with only nominal compensation. So that the proposal is a definite proposal that if the land has so lain, after twelve years it shall be confiscated. I do not know whether a proposal of that kind commends itself very strongly to your Lordships. The noble Lord has laid stress upon the fact that in Dublin and some other places there are these derelict sites and houses, and he suggests that if the owners have allowed them to continue in this state for twelve years or so they should get nothing for them at all. I should like to point out this, that if this is really the case, and if the land has lain derelict for that time, it will be very difficult when the local authority acquires this land compulsorily for the owners, or those who have rights in the land, to prove there is much value. I submit it would be much better therefore to leave the matter to assessment in the ordinary Way under the Housing Acts—to assess whatever compensation there may be due rather than to draw the knife across it and say there shall be no compensation at all.
I should like to point this cut also, that this proposal is not only very sweeping but it may be also exceedingly unfair, because there may be many reasons other than mere culpability on the part of the owners to account for this land being allowed to be in this position. For instance, we have heard of legal proceedings about lands, which take a considerable time not only in this country but in Ireland. Then there is the case of boycotting, which has nothing to do with the culpability of the individual. Nothing could have been done on the land; further there are, of course, all those difficulties with which we are quite familiar in the matter of building and altering buildings during the war. A similar Amendment—I do not know whether it was quite in the same words—
LORD SHANDON: Not in the same words.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it was somewhat similar. Anyhow, the point made by the Chief Secretary applies also in this ease, that if the land was undeveloped the land which would have been subject to land duty therefore would have been paying some charge to the State. But I submit that the provisions of the Housing Acts, as they are, are not capable of dealing with this particular question, and it is un-

145
necessary and unadvisable to introduce a purely confiscatory Amendment which would enable the State to take land without giving any value for it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Amendment moved—
*Page 8, lines 21 and 22, leave out ("so much of section eleven of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, as") and insert ("section six of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1911, which").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 30, leave out ("the local authority") and insert ("a local authority within the meaning of Part III of the Act of 1890").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 10, leave out ("or council").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14:
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 11, leave out ("from the date").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 36, at beginning insert ("In the case of loans made") and after ("period") insert ("after the passing of this Act").—(The Lad Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Loans to private persons.
16. During a period of two years from the passing of this Act, the money which may be advanced by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland to any private person for the purpose of constructing houses for the working classes on
146
the security of a mortgage of any land or dwellings solely may, if the Commissioners think fit, and if the houses are constructed in accordance with plans approved by the local Government Board, exceed the amount specified in subsection (2) of section sixty-seven of the Act of 1890, but shall not exceed seventy-five per cent. of the value of the estate or interest in such land or dwellings proposed to be mortgaged, and advances may be made by instalments from time to time as the building of the houses on the land mortgaged progresses, so that the total of the advances do not at any time exceed the amount last mentioned, and a mortgage may accordingly be made to secure advances so to be made from time to time.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved to leave out "two" ["During a period of two years"] and insert "five." The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment which I should have thought would commend itself to the Government, but I will not waste the time of your Lordships for more than a moment upon it. This clause limits the period for which money is to be lent to two years, and I should have thought that, considering how long it takes to get to work and how difficult it is at present to get materials and labour, that it would more have met the view of the Government if they had decided to advance the money for five years from the passing of this Act, granted that security was excellent in every case and there being no possible loss to the Government in the transaction. If this were a matter in which the Government were leaking a sacrifice I would not-trouble your Lordships upon it, but that is not so, and I hope the noble and learned Lord will not think that I am doing anything except to forward the interests of the Bill in suggesting that what has been a great concession to landlords—namely, that they should be able when necessary and when they need capital to borrow for five years on giving proper security—should be introduced into this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 9, leave out ("two") and insert ("five").—(Viscount Midleton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I doubt whether the noble Viscount would be wise in pressing this Amendment. Clause 16 authorises the Board of Works in Ireland to lend money to private persons for housing purposes to an amount not exceeding 75 per cent. of the value of the property for two years. The noble Viscount seeks to extend the two years to a period of five years. In the first place this is clearly a case of a privilege Amendment, and unless there is

147
some point of very real and evident substance in a privilege Amendment it may be a question whether it is wise to send it to another place. Here I do not think that the view would be taken, or we could reasonably ask that it should be taken, in another place that there was such a point of substance, because the period has been limited to two years in both the corresponding English and Scottish clauses, and the English clause has actually been accepted by your Lordships.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 26, after ("authority'') insert ("within the meaning of Part III of the Act of 1890, of the district in which the house is situated")
Page 11, lines 28 and 29, leave out ("of the district in which the house is situated").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18:
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 23, leave out ("carried") and insert ("constructed and laid")
Page 12, line 31, leave out ("which are")
Page 12, line 36, after ("authority") insert ("or on appeal, the Local Government Board").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I need only say about the Amendments in my name on this clause that they insert in this Bill the view which your Lordships took on Lord Bledisloe's Amendment to the English Bill.
Amendments moved—
Page 15, line 18, after ("may") insert ("make application to the county court and the county court may")
Page 15, line 30, leave out ("local authority") and insert ("county court")
Page 15, line 32, leave out ("local authority") and insert ("county court")
Page 15, line 33, leave out lines 33 to 36 inclusive
Page 15, line 37, leave out ("subsections (3) and (4)") and insert ("subsection (3)")
Page 15, line 38, after ("thirty-seven") insert ("except subsection (4)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20:
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 15, leave out ("plans approved") and insert ("any regulations made").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to insert the following new clause:".—(1) It shall be lawful for any local authority, public utility society, or housing trust having provided houses under any such scheme as is referred to in this Act to sell, with the approval of the Local Government Board, all or any of those houses to any persons residing or intending to reside therein. Provided that this section shall not apply to ally house of which, in the opinion of the local authority, the market value exceeds eight hundred pounds. (2) Nothing in this Act shall exclude or interfere with the operation of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899 (as amended by this Act), in relation to any such house as aforesaid."
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the House for not being here to move the first Amendment which my noble friend Lord Mayo moved on my behalf. It was perhaps not unsuitable in a Bill concerning Ireland and was a consequential Amendment relating to other Amendments which have not yet been submitted to the House. The first of these I now propose to move. These Amendments are all moved at the request of the Corporation of Belfast, not merely for selfish reasons, but because they believe that such alteration will be of benefit to the Bill as a whole and to Ireland. I am sure that your Lordships will give them that consideration which is their due coming from a body of such importance.
The first Amendment which I propose is a new clause after Clause 20 giving power to local authorities, public utility societies, or housing trusts to sell all or any of the houses to any persons residing or intending to reside therein. I should like to point out that this is subject to their obtaining the approval of the Local Government Board, and that proviso certainly makes it less difficult to grant their request. It is doubtful if the above-mentioned societies and authorities have power to sell or otherwise dispose of houses provided under the scheme, and it is desirable to remove any

149
ambiguity on that point. Section (1) of the Bill provides that a Scheme should be prepared and submitted to the Local Government Board under Part III of the Working Classes Act, 1890, but Part III of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, makes no provision for the sale of houses, and a doubt may arise as to the power to sell.
In the Report of the committee appointed to inquire into the housing question it will be found that they strongly recommended that these powers should be given. I find that in paragraphs 74 and 75 of that Report it is said—
"We desire, however, to point out the advantages of selling to owners for their own occupation. These advantages could be attained to some extent by empowering local authorities and public utility societies, with the approval of the central authority in both cases, to sell the new houses to prospective occupying owners.''
It seems desirable that local authorities should have the power to sell to tenants desirous of purchasing, inasmuch as the sale would be to the obvious interest of both parties. And, in addition to encouraging thrift on the part of the tenant, and ultimately snaking him the owner of the house, the sale would enable local authorities and public utility societies to release a portion of the capital expenditure on a scheme, and would thereby put them in funds for the purpose of further development in the way of building operations.
Amendment moved—
Insert the said new clause.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend has moved a new clause to enable a local authority, public utility society, or housing trust which Elias provided houses, to sell them to any person residing or intending to reside therein. The proposition itself is completely unexceptionable. The only thing which, in his zeal, the noble Lord has omitted to notice is that this proposal is already embedded in a previous portion of the Bill. If my noble friend will look at Clause 10 (1) (b), he will see that among the powers of the local authority are these:—With the consent of the Local Government Board, they may sell or lease any houses on the land; and this quite clearly gives fully that power to local authorities which the noble Lord wishes to give them, with his usual generosity, a second time.
150
As regards the trusts and public utility societies, I submit that that portion of his. Amendment is really unnecessary or inadvisable. It is unnecessary because these societies have power to draw up rules under which they can sell these buildings so erected to their members or their tenants, and therefore they do not want any statutory authority to do it. I would suggest that it is much better to allow them to cleat with their own property in their own way, just as my noble friend would desire to deal with his own property in his own way, and net impose upon them any sort of obligation which they really might find rather inconvenient. I hope, therefore, my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My noble friend tells me that the provision is already in the Bill, and I gladly take it from him that that is so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord must not be under any delusion. My noble friend said that as far as the local authorities were concerned the power was in the Bill. He must not think that my noble friend said that housing trusts and public utility societies are covered by 10 (1) (b). What he said was that these bodies conducted their affairs under rules, which no doubt had been very carefully considered, and it would be desirable to make quite sure that they wanted them altered by Statute before your Lordships did so.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I understood that, but I was speaking principally on behalf of local authorities.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendments on this clause are purely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 16, line 39, leave out ("the lessee of") and insert ("any person interested in")
Page 16, Page 17, line 3, after ("that") insert ("by reason of")
Page 16, line 4, leave out ("do not admit of such conversion") and insert ("or of any restrictive covenant affecting the house or otherwise, such conversion is prohibited or restricted")
Page 16, line 5, leave out ("entitled to any interest in the house") and insert ("interested")
Page 17, line 6, after ("lease") insert ("or other instrument imposing the prohibition or restriction").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22:
Repair of houses.
22.—(1) If the owner of any house suitable for occupation by persons of the working classes fails to make and keep such house in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation then, without prejudice to any other powers, the local authority may serve a notice upon the owner of such house requiring him within a reasonable time, not being item than twenty-one days specified in the notice, to execute such works as may be necessary to make the house in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.
(2) if the notice given by the local authority is not complied with, the authority may, at the expiration of the time specified in the notice given by them to the owner, do the work required to be done.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON had on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of subsection (1), after "habitation," to insert "Provided that the owner may, within twenty-one days after the receipt of such notice, by written notice to the local authority, declare his intention of closing the house for human habitation, and thereupon a dosing order shall be deemed to have become operative in respect of such house."
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Before the noble Viscount moves, may I save a little time? This is the same Amendment as was adopted in the, English Bill, and I accept it subject to a point I have not time to look into, as to whether or not this covers a small Amendment which the Commons made to the Lords Amendment upon this point, and in which the Lords acquiesced last night. I am not sure that this point is raised, but subject to that I accept it.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: In the Commons Amendment it was only where the house required complete reconstruction that the closing order was allowed. Now in Ireland we have a very strong reason for asking for different treatment. The whole circumstances are different. In the first place, I am afraid there are a great number of houses in Ireland which should be rebuilt completely, but which would not, from the Irish point of view, be held to need complete reconstruction, and
152
we are therefore apprehensive of the position which the landlord may be put in vis à vis the local authorities in this respect.
With regard to closing, there is this great difference between Ireland and England. In this country there has been a great increase of population. Ireland has had a diminishing population, and I believe I am right in saying that there is only one town in the south of Ireland at this moment which had a larger population at the last census than at the one before. Therefore there is not the same objection which the House of Commons took to closing a house where it is absolutely necessary in Ireland. The House of Commons refused your Lordships' Amendment on the ground that it was not desirable to close any houses at this moment in this country. And therefore they only took it where total reconstruction was needed. But I would tell your Lordships, in case it has escaped you, that the Minister in charge of the Scotch Bill actually in Grand Committee put down this very clause, and only withdrew it because the question was in debate between the two Houses. So that it was in the mind of the Government, as much as it was in the mind of the noble Lord who moved it here.
I am afraid we regard this Clause as vital. We base ourselves on this point, first that the whole object of the Clause is to get the local authorities to build for themselves where it is needed, and nothing would be more unwise than to give them the loophole of saying "We can go upon the owner of the houses, bad as they may be, and say 'Put these rotten houses (if they are rotten) in better condition and avoid our having to borrow for building property.'" That is most undesirable. But, in addition, we have to remember what the noble and learned Lord said so truly at the beginning of the discussion. The circumstances of Ireland at this moment are such that it would not be fair to leave the owner without proper protection from the local authority. I would add that, in the opinion of all my noble friends with whom I have consulted, it would have been very preferable that this work should be carried out by Commissioners rather than by the local authorities. This is what we had hoped, and I do not think it would have been a greater charge upon the Government.
There is one other remark I should like to make now to save time. The Amend-

153
ment which follows asks for the additional protection of an appeal to the Local Government Board. I think that is most necessary. At this moment the local authority might come in and say, "You have twelve houses put them all in tenantable repair at once; we give you two months to do it." Unless you could go to the Local Government Board who would probably say that nobody could do it under four or six months in the present condition of Ireland you have the local authority putting in their own man with an unlimited power to spend any amount of money they like. For this reason I hope that the noble and learned Lord will realise that we have the fullest possible justification for what we are asking. If it is not possible to concede this, at any rate we feel that the Government ought to establish some intervening authority between the local authority and the owner.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 17, after ("habitation") insert ("Provided that the owner may, within twenty-one days after the receipt of such notice, by written notice to the local authority, declare his intention of closing the house for human habitation, and thereupon a closing order shall be deemed to have become operative in respect of such house")
Page 17, line 19, after ("with") insert ("and if the owner has not given such notice as aforesaid").—(Viscount Midleton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for his clear explanation; in fact, I discovered while he was speaking that what I had before me was the Scottish clause (to which he referred) which was at one time proposed. The Government is able to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next three Amendments are purely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 17, line 22, leave out ("expense") and insert ("expenses")
Page 17, line 39, after ("and") insert ("if recovered from the occupier")
Page 17, line 39, after ("deducted") insert ("by him").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept the next Amendment, which is one-standing in the name of the noble Viscount.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 4, at end insert as a new subsection:
"(6) Any question arising between the owner and the local authority as to the reasonable nature of any notice given by the authority to the owner under this section shall be determined by the Local Government Board whose decision shall be, final."—(Viscount Midleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The clause which I now move is in the English Bill, and was accepted by the other House of Parliament.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
".Subject to any conditions prescribed by the Local Government Board with the consent of the Treasury, any bricks or other building materials which have been acquired by a Government Department for the purposes of the erection or improvement of houses for the working classes, may, during a period of five years from the passing of this Act, be sold to any person who undertakes to use the same forthwith for the purpose of erecting or improving houses for the working classes, and to comply with the said conditions at a price sufficient to cover the cost of replacement at the time of the sale of the materials so sold."—(Viscount Midleton.).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 29 agreed to.
Clause 30:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 22, at end insert ("Provided that any rules with respect to the qualifications or conditions of employment of architects to be so employed, shall be made after consultation with the President of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: All these Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 37, leave out the first ("sell") and insert ("sale") and leave out ("the power to sell") and insert ("sale")
Page 20, line 39, leave out ("sale") and insert ("sell")
Page 21, line 3, leave out ("Act, 1893, or any amendment thereof") and insert ("Acts, 1893 to 1913")
Page 21, line 17, after ("in") insert ("section one hundred and nine of the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, or section forty-three of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, or in")
Page 21, line 18, after ("buildings") insert ("including the drainage thereof")
Page 21,line 19, after ("construction") insert ("and drainage").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32:
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to insert as a new subsection: "(2) Where a local authority being the council of a county borough are satisfied, in accordance with section two of the said Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, as to the value of and title to the ownership of a house in respect of which they have received an application for an advance then, unless and except so far as the Local Government Board may in any particular case otherwise direct, the title to the premises in respect of which the advance is made together with the charge securing the advance shall forthwith, upon the application of the local authority, be registered under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, and the advance may be made without any further investigation of such value or title or any sanction of the Local Government Board."
The noble Lord said: I can understand that the Government may find a little difficulty in accepting this new subsection, because naturally there is very strong feeling that all questions of title in matters of this kind should be absolutely cleared up. But I think I shall be able to prove that there is ground for making an exception in the case to which I refer. I should like to point out in the first place that I only suggest that this subsection should operate in the case of a local authority which is the council of a county borough, and there are only six such in Ireland. The existing practice under the Act is that after investigation of title by the local authority, and valuation made on their behalf by
156
their valuer, further investigation of the title has to be made by the registration authority in Dublin. The registration authority in Dublin who makes this second investigation of title has to investigate the various titles arising out of sales under the Land Acts in Ireland. In consequence of the numerous titles he has to investigate, much delay necessarily ensues in investigating a. title sent up under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act. Furthermore the valuer who is sent down by the Local Government Board to make the second valuation usually waits until a number of valuations accumulate and in consequence the completion of any one franc-action frequently occupies as long as five or six months. It is found in practice that this militates very much against the free working of the Act, as a vendor is not prepared to lie out of the purchase money for six months after making the contract for sale, and the Corporation are not in a position to advance the loan until the title together with the charge is registered. It should be noted that the Treasury are in no way concerned with the transaction as the advances are made out of moneys raised by the corporation, therefore any loss accruing owing to a blot on the title or fraudulent valuation would fall upon the corporation.
I understand that there is some doubt about this point, and I should like to point out to the noble and learned Lord that I believe it is the case under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act that the Government hold the corporation liable to them and can therefore recover from them. In the case of Belfast there has not been an instance where, after the title has been proved to their satisfaction, it has been rejected by the Registration authority in Dublin. The same observation applies to the valuation made by the Valuer of the local authority. When an Amendment similar to this was before the Committee of the House of Commons it was objected to by the Attorney-General on the ground that it made no provision for the registration of the charge. The noble and learned Lord will see that this has been rectified in my Amendment as it now stands. The Attorney-General also suggested that Clause 7 of the Bill enabled the purchaser to enter into possession of the premises, but I understand that, as a matter of fact, neither the purchaser nor the vendor is satisfied with this clause, and that it would be im-

157
possible for the property to change hands under it. In these circumstances I hope the Government may see their way to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 37, at the end insert the said now subsection.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is not a possible Amendment, and it deals with a very important subject-matter—the registration of the title of a house on the security of which a local authority is advancing money to the tenant to enable him to purchase his house under the Small Dwellings Acquisition. Act. Now, that Act requires that the title of a house should be registered under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, which corresponds to the English Land Transfer Act. What is the effect of this registration? The effect of it is that the validity of the title registered is guaranteed by the State—a somewhat important matter. Any mistake in the registration may not only cause grave injury but it may be the subject of a claim for compensation to be made out of public moneys.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: Which will fall upon the corporation to pay.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Lord kindly wait a moment? I am not even clear about that. It is necessary that all titles should be carefully investigated before they ace registered, and this is done by the Central Office of the Land Registry of Ireland, a Government Department which, as the noble Lord knows, is equipped with a fully qualified staff of experts. If it be the fact that the intention of this Amendment is that such charges and claims should be borne by the local authority, it is certainly not the fact that even the local authorities in Ireland specified by the mover are equipped with a staff of experts in any way comparable to those who have collected years, and indeed generations, of experience in doing their registration work. It is proposed in effect that if the county borough council is satisfied with the title it is to be registered without any further investigation on the part of the Land Registry. As the noble Lord will remember, the Chief Secretary said in the debate in another place that he would take immediate steps to expedite
158
the proceedings in the Land Registry, and effect, of course, will be given to this assurance. Your Lordships will not fail to observe further that the Amendment seeks to make the local authority's estimate of value conclusive. That is a very dangerous provision. The value of the premises, of course, is a matter in which the Board of Works are concerned as they may be called upon to advance the money to the local authority. If there were no others, that would be a grave objection to the proposal of the noble Lord, and I hope your Lordships will not give any encouragement to this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to insert the following new clause: "In exercise of the powers of borrowing conferred by Part III of the Act of 1890 and by the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, respectively, any local authority being the council of a county borough may for the purposes of those enactments, or either of them, or for any purposes of this Act to which capital is properly applicable with the sanction of the Local Government Board borrow money by way of overdraft from their bankers and may apply in or towards the payment of interest on and the repayment of money so borrowed such of their funds, rates, and revenues as may be approved for that purpose by the Local Government Board."
The noble Lord said: This clause has also been suggested by the Corporation of Belfast. Its object is to enable local authorities to borrow on an overdraft from their bankers. I should like to point out the safeguards attending this. In the first place, it can be done only with the sanction of the Local Government Board; in the second place, it can be done only by a local authority which is the council of a county borough. This case is limited even further than the former case, because in all cases where the valuation is under £200,000 the money is advanced by the Government, and this is the case with all the urban authorities in Ireland with the exception of Dublin and Belfast, so it would really affect only those two towns. This would enable the local authority to borrow on overdraft at their bankers, and the financing of housing schemes would be greatly facilitated.
It is obvious that the capital expenditure on a large scheme must be spread over

159
a substantial period owing to the shortage of both labour and material. I understand that Belfast proposes an expenditure of something like £5,000,000 on houses. It will generally be found that one large loan can be raised by a local authority on more favourable terms than a series of smaller loans. Thus, by borrowing from bankers, local authorities will be able to avoid the issue of small loans and save the payment of interest on money that might otherwise have to be raised before it was required. Perhaps I might illustrate this. Suppose that Belfast or Dublin decide to raise £2,000,000. Under the Bill as it stands at present they will have to raise the £2,000,000 at once. They would probably only be able to spend about £500,000; and therefore with the other £1,500,000 all they could do would be to put it on deposit at the bank for which they would get 3 per cent, while they would be paying perhaps 8 per cent, on the money advanced. This would not affect them, because I understand the money would be paid to them by the Treasury. Therefore the Amendment is in the interests of the State and not specially of the corporations who may borrow under it. I hope that His Majesty's Government will be able to agree to this new clause being inserted.
Amendment moved—
Insert the said new clause.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The proposal of my noble friend is that instead of borrowing in the usual way the local authorities should be able to borrow by way of overdraft from bankers on the security, I understand, of these houses. I would suggest to my noble friend that that would be bad local finance. The proper way to deal with the borrowing on housing would be to borrow on longer term loans and stock. Moreover, I am not sure, considering the large sums in which my noble friend was dealing, whether he would find the bankers themselves very anxious to lend these large sums on this sort of security. I certainly know that in England the banks would not do such a thing; I do not know what they do in Ireland.
I am not sure whether my noble friend suggested it, but I think it was part of his suggestion that by borrowing for these short terms, say of six months, from the bankers, these county boroughs might be able at a later date to borrow money at
160
much cheaper rates than they would now and to tide over a difficult period. That no doubt is, if I may say so, a plausible suggestion, but the Treasury take the very strong and definite view upon that point that that hope is entirely illusory. I must confess I prefer their view on the subject to the more hopeful and rosier prognostications of my noble friend. I do not know whether my noble friend is aware that these suggestions have been made already in the case of England and Scotland, and that in both cases the Treasury returned a direct negative. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not, in the case of Ireland and of the Irish banks and Irish towns, press this Amendment to an issue.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: In view of the answer of my noble friend, I feel it is useless to press the clause; but as a matter of fact overdrafts were allowed. I believe £800,000 was allowed to Belfast for the purpose of subscribing to the Victory Loan.
VISCOUNT PEEL: But that security is the finest in the country and one which you can always sell. Houses you cannot.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) Bill reported without amendment.
CHECKWEIGHING IN VARIOUS INDUSTRIES BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order).

LAND SETTLEMENT (FACILITIES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, this Bill which I present to your Lordships for

161
Second Reading is largely brought forward in the redemption of the pledge that has been given on various occasions by the Government to provide a settlement on the land of their country for the soldiers who fought for it. Among those to whom preference is to be given under this Bill are included women who worked for at least six months on the land during the war. I do not wish to base the Bill merely on the claims of ex-Service men, because among those who will enjoy the facilities, although they will not get a preference, are others, and the Bill is therefore wider than the Bill for fulfilling this particular pledge, but is a part of the general reconstruction scheme of rural England.
The Bill, therefore, must not really be considered alone. We must take also into our consideration other measures of the Government, such as the Housing Bill, the Transport Bill, and also the Acquisition of Land Bill, with which your Lordships will be dealing in a few minutes. The aim of the Bill generally is to increase the number of small-holders and allotment-holders in this country. I should like to give your Lordships some figures showing the number of small-holders there are in this country. At the present time there are 275,000 cultivators of the soil with holdings of less than fifty acres—that is to say, no less than 65 per cent of all the cultivators in this county. Those, of course, are the figures for numbers. When you take acreage the percentage is very much lower. It represents 18 per cent. of the acreage of the cultivated area. Of those 275,000 cultivators no fewer than 18,000 have been created by the results of the Act of 1908, and I think it is a great tribute to the way in which the County Councils have worked that Act and the skill with which they selected the cultivators that there have only been some 2 per cent. of failures among all those who have been so selected.
As regards allotments, before the war there were something like 1,000,000 in England and Wales; there are now 1,800,000, of which 400,000 have been provided by the Board of Agriculture under the Defence of the Realm Act. This increase in allotments is very remarkable. Under the stress of patriotism a great number of people have found that they can cultivate land in small parcels and enjoy doing so; and they prefer their own domestic home-grown cabbage to the more
162
shop-soiled article. Not only that, but a great many people have made all sorts of discoveries in their gardens and have found that it really is a great enhancement to the beauty of an herbaceous border to plant a few adjoining beds either of Brussels sprouts or of cabbage.
The Government recognise of course to the full, the difficulties that there are in the way of smallholders, and they do not minimise at all the hard work that lies before these cultivators. They recognise that these people will have very little leisure and very little time in which to smoke their pipes and contemplate the landscape, or even to study the book of my noble friend, Lord Ernle, on the history of farming. I should like to say here how very much I regret that my noble friend, through indisposition, is not here to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which is his own, and I am sure the House regrets it also. Further, the Government recognise that much skill must be required for developing and working these small-holdings and that trailing must be given to many of these men who, in some cases, are going into agriculture for the first time. They appreciate, too, the fact that capital is essential, as your Lordships well know, for the cultivation of your thirty, forty or fifty acres of land, and provision is made in the Bill for assisting these small hollers with capital. A scheme is arranged by which, I understand, there will be advances by the local authorities to the smallholders, sovereign for sovereign, on any sums they are able to put up themselves.
LORD SHEFFIELD: At what rate of interest?
VISCOUNT PEEL: That will be settled by the Treasury, of course. It has not been decided.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: And what security?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I believe the scheme is not yet fully formulated.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is not in the Bill?
VISCOUNT PEEL: There is a statement that it will be done, but the Rules are not

163
yet fully drawn up. The next difficulty, with which your Lordships are extremely familiar, as chairmen and members of county councils, is that in this country, unlike more fortunate lands, there are not large territories of good, unsettled land on which soldiers can be placed. It is the intention of the Government, and it will be "up to" the county councils, to apply the Act with the least possible disturbance to sitting tenants. They propose, therefore, to deal rather with such cases as multiple farms—that is, where several farms are held by one man—or with land (of which there is a considerable amount) which has been acquired by the War Office, the Air Force and other bodies, which can be let, or with that lard which has not been farmed in the best way and with which, as your Lordships know, agricultural executive committees have had to deal.
The main changes that are introduced into this Bill—and this Bill, I should say, must be read with the parent Bill of 1908—deals with two points. One is the hastening up of procedure in order that arrangements may be made for these small holders as rapidly as possible, and the second point is in connection with finance. The main changes in procedure will be found in Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. Orders for taking land—and this provision operates for three years—will, during that period of three years, not be confirmed by the Board of Agriculture. That is to say, the county councils will have full power, without the assent or confirmation of the Order by the Board of Agriculture, but they will be subject to financial control in order to see that the land is not bought at an excessive price.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What is the object of that provision?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was going to explain that. The object of the provision is this. The Government are very much impressed with the necessity of dealing with the situation as rapidly as possible. They find that, on the average, something like three months is—I was going to say wasted, but, anyhow, is spent before these Orders can be confirmed, and they think that three months is a very valuable time and they wish, at any rate during the transition period of three years, that it may be saved. The next point may strike your Lordships as drastic. In fact, the proposal is, I think, a drastic one. It is that when the
164
Order has been made the local authority, the county council, will be able to enter upon the land after giving a notice of fourteen days. I am advised that at present, under the Land Clauses Act, where the power to take land has been granted them if the money compensation is deposited, they can enter on the land at once. Therefore, the legal position is not much altered, although, I believe, that particular provision has not been acted upon.
I understand that the desire of the Board of Agriculture is not to turn out harshly the sitting tenants, but to enable the local authorities to enter rather on a part of the land in order to begin to build cottages, and so on, and to shape the land in that way as rapidly as possible for the smallholders. Your Lordships may see that there is a subsection in Clause 2 which, in the case of farm houses, limits the period to three months. That is to say, if any shorter notice is given than three months, there is an appeal to the Board. In connection with this I ought to say something about Clauses 3, 4, and 5, and I ought also to point out that it is not likely that the Board of Agriculture would permit these powers to be used harshly because, of course, it is obvious that would very largely increase the compensation to be paid the farmer for disturbance, crops, and so on, thus bringing up the money to be expended in the development of these particular small holdings to an excessive sum.
Under Clause 3 power is given to the Board of Agriculture itself. Your Lordships know that under the parent Act of 1908 there is a power for the Board of Agriculture to act in default of the local authority, but this power has been found to be a somewhat clumsy one and under this Bill the Board take power to act concurrently in the counties with the county councils. Under Clause 4 there is power for three years for the Board of Agriculture to acquire land for the purposes of reclamation and drainage. Under Clause 5 there is a period of two years from the passing of this Bill during which the Board can acquire land for the purposes of farm colonies, although the total amount of land which they may acquire for this purpose is not enlarged under this Bill.
I come now to what is the mast important part of the Bill, namely, that which deals with finance. The Government are fully aware that, owing to the increased price

165
of land (although it has not increased in the same percentage as the price of commodities) and to the great cost of putting up buildings and work incidental to the development of small holdings, the rent, the economic rent, which would have to be charged to the small-holder would be so high, if it was to be the full economic rent, that it would be a mere mockery to pretend these soldiers were being settled on the land. The rule which obtains under the Act of 1908, under which the land is only to be let for a rent which fully recoups the council for its expenditure, will be swept away; and swept away for seven years.
LORD SHEFFIELD: What clause does that?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it is Clause 26. In another clause you will see that there is a reversion to the old state of things after seven years have elapsed. As the rents to be charged to these persons is to be a reasonable rent, having regard to the general state of the case and the productivity of the land, it is obvious there will be a deficit; and on whom will it fall? The Government decided that the deficit is to fall not on the local authority but on the general taxpayer, and each year during the seven years the bill will be made out and the deficit repaid to the local authorities by the State.
The next point is as to what, happens at the end of the seven years. At the end of that period a valuation is made of the then economic value of the land and holdings, which will be compared with the total cost and with the money that has been borrowed by the local authority for the purchase of the land and its development, and the surplus cost, if I may so call it, or that portion of the loan which is represented by that surplus, will be shouldered entirely by the State.
THE MARQUESS OF SAMSBUEY: That is, it will be written off.
VISCOUNT PEEL: You cannot write it off, but it will fall on the State, and not on the county council. At the end of the seven years the whole of the small holdings in a county will be transferred or left to the county council, who will then be responsible for the holdings without supervision.
LORD SHEFFIELD: The tenant will then pay an economic rent.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The tenant will pay what is called, a reasonable rent.
LORD SHEFFIELD: That is, a rent which will balance with what the Government take over as the extra loss.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes.
LORD PARMOOR: Does the noble Viscount mean that the rents will be put up at the end of seven years?
VISCOUNT PEEL: The rents will then be considered; I do not say they will be increased. There is one more financial proposal which I think I ought to mention, and it is that these loans will not be advanced for the present by the Public Works Loan Commissioners. There will be a separate fund, up to £20,000,000, set aside out of which they will be made. It is quite obvious, and the Government frankly face the position, that in this way a. charge will fall upon the State, but their view is that this position must be faced in view of the necessity of settling more persons on the land and repaying the debt we owe to these ex-Service men; and unless it is faced, and bearing in mind the high price of land and buildings, it will be a mere mockery to suggest that these persons could be settled on these small holdings.
LORD SHEFFIELD: Then £20,000,000 is the whole amount the Government propose to pay?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes, that is for the present. There are one or two changes in the definition of a small holding. Under the present Act a small holding is anything from one acre up to fifty acres, but under Clause 20 that, lower limit is reduced to half an acre, and between half an acre and one acre comes into the definition of a small holding. Your Lordships will see that an obvious relation is thus established between a small holding of that size, with a house upon it, and the Housing Act, and in this particular class of small holding to which I am referring, the house will be built and financed on the "Housing" terms. I do not think I need say much as to the types of small holdings which the Government aim at creating because your

167
Lordships are very familiar with these matters. There is the small holding of from thirty to forty acres, and the type of holding which will not represent whole time work for the occupier, that is, a small holding of two or three acres with a house. Nor need I say anything about the development of farm colonies; another type of small holding with which Lord Bledisloe is familiar.
I come now to the question whether these small holdings so created shall be let or sold to the occupier. There is a provision in the Bill (Clause 11) that during the operation of the financial proposals, that is during seven years, these holdings shall only be sold to the occupier with the consent of the Board of Agriculture. This is a perfectly fair proposal because, as the Government are shouldering this portion of the expense during the seven years, it will be obviously undesirable that people should come in, take advantage of that finance, get hold of the holding, and acquire it at less than the economic value. That must be subject to the approval of the Board.
Then there is an important provision to which I ought to refer, and that is in Clause 16, which removes that absolute protection which existed before from taking for the purpose of small holdings a portion of existing small holdings, or of land which forms part of any park or home farm. As regards the question of small holdings, it has been found that there have been divisions nominally into small holdings just for the purpose of taking advantage of this particular provision, and in some cases it is essential for the development of other small holdings that portions of existing small holdings should be taken. As regards the question of the parks and home farms, your Lordships will see that that provision is carefully guarded, and that they can be taken only if the land is not required for the amenity or convenience of the mansion house. Moreover, there is no power in the local authority to take this land by their own order. That is excepted from the general provision which I have stated, that during the first three years their own order shall be final. Any order which infringes upon an area either of existing small holdings, or park or home farm, must be confirmed by the Board of Agriculture.
There are one or two minor provisions which, I think, I ought to mention. One
168
is in Clause 17, which deals with the power of county councils to acquire land for letting to parish councils for the purpose of allotments. Then there is a power for borough councils and others to buy fruit trees, plants, and other things, and implements, and to sell them to the allotment holders. There is also in Clause 23 an important provision which it is hoped will encourage the provision of allotments, and that is that the landlord is relieved from paying compensation under the Acts to those allotment holders so created. Your Lordships are fully aware that a good deal of difficulty is bound to arise in the near future owing to the creation of a large number of allotments in the vicinity of towns. Many of these allotments will be required for the purpose of housing; and it is considered that it would be very unfortunate if these allotment holders were not able to get fresh allotments to cultivate. Therefore this provision in Clause 23 is introduced for the purpose of substituting, where possible, other land for the land taken away for building purposes.
I have dealt as briefly as I can, considering the width and importance of the subject, with the provisions of the Bill. Of course one can only present a Bill of this kind to your Lordships with the view that necessity does require a drastic alteration in the rules in order to expedite the provision of these small holdings for soldiers and others; and that, again, the financial provision and the assistance given by the State for this period of seven years can only be defended upon the necessity of providing for these men. I hope your Lordships will give something in the nature of a welcome to this Bill, on the ground that in this way we can repay some portion of the debt which we owe to the serving men. This Bill is required further in order to meet those new conditions, growing up in the countryside, with which your Lordships are very familiar and on which I need say no further word.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.(Viscount Peel.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I should like for my part to offer a warm welcome to this Bill, because in my judgment the scheme that it embodies is one which public opinion demands and strongly demands, and which ex-Service men deserve. Personally, I very much regret

169
the absence to-day of the President of the Board of Agriculture, although my noble friend who has introduced the Bill has dealt most dexterously and clearly with it I regret the absence of the President of the Board because, in my judgment, this Bill adumbrates a veritable revolution in agricultural practice, and, if I may so word it, in rural personnel. In my judgment this scheme of largely increasing the occupiers of agricultural land at the expense, to a large extent, of sitting-tenants, is industrially and economically unsound; but at the same time it is in my opinion from a social and political point of view absolutely essential; and I think that the social and political considerations are, more than enough to justify its industrial and economic defects.
May I explain more fully what I mean? The whole trend of our industries at the present time, and this applies very particularly to agriculture, is to conduct them on a, large scale, with every sort of labour-saving appliance and the employment of large amounts of capital. The tendency is, so far as other industries are concerned, to aggregate existing small enterprises in order to achieve their more economic conduct as the result of such aggregation. Here you are deliberately bringing into existence a scheme of an entirely different character, contrary to the whole economic trend of British industry. At the same time in my judgment it can be justified. Not only do we owe this scheme, or a scheme of this description, as a debt to those men who have been fighting for us by sea and land during the last four and a-half years, and who have been led to believe that they would have a chance of at least occupying, if not owning, some portion of the land of this country for which they have, fought, but, from a, wider standpoint still, in my judgment if we are to attain a feeling of contentment in the countryside, and indeed throughout the whole population, we must have a very much larger number of persons both owning and occupying agricultural land than exists at the present time.
I am not at all satisfied that this Bill will sufficiently meet the legitimate aspirations of our ex-Service men. It has been repeatedly represented to them, and it was emphasised during the General Election last winter, that they would have an opportunity of becoming the owners of the land that they would occupy. I think the Prime
170
Minister himself, in somewhat general language which is certainly interpreted in that way, referred to what happened in the case of Augustus and other Roman Emperors. When they achieved great victories they took the opportunity of celebrating them by making grants, or, in other words, giving what we should now call a freehold interest in agricultural land to the soldiers who had so faithfully served the Empire. That, at any rate, is the impression which was left on the minds of a very large number of ex-Service men throughout this country, and that is in fact the process which has been facilitated to a very great extent in our Overseas Dominions. There is no provision in this Bill that I can discover which improves the position of the small-holder in this respect beyond what the existing Small Holding Act contains. Under that no less than 20 per cent. of the purchase price has at once to be provided, and even if that percentage is provided by the intending freeholder it is at the option of the county councils to deny to him a freehold interest. This Bill perpetuates that liberty on the part of the county councils to deny even to an ex-Service holder the privilege of a freehold proprietary settlement. I hope that your Lordships will support an Amendment which I understand will be moved in order to carry out in effect what many ex-Service men regard as having been an undertaking on the part of the Prime Minister and others during the course of the last General Election.
Reference is made in this Bill to small holding colonies. For my part I welcome the extension of the small holdings colony system, where it can be achieved, without removing the men too far from their own home surroundings. I doubt very much whether the small holdings colony scheme is going to be particularly popular throughout the country, because my experience leads me to believe that the majority of men who have served in the war prefer to remain in their own districts if suitable small holdings can be provided for them. The great advantage of the colony system undoubtedly is that it does enable co-operative methods to be developed and extended to a maximum, to a greater extent in fact than under any other system, and what I want to appeal to the Government to do—bearing in mind that they are, as I said, contrary to the present economic trend of the industry putting small men upon small parcels of land, many of them with-

171
out the necessary amount of experience, a considerable number without the necessary capital—is that they should not leave these unfortunate people to their fate, but that they should bring into existence and at once such co-operative machinery in the several localities in which the holdings are provided as will put them upon a securer economic basis than they can possibly be on if left as separate industrial entities. The county councils have not proceeded very far in this connection, and I doubt very much, without some stimulus from the Government, whether in many parts of the country these co-operative developments in connection with small holdings will in fact take place. The Agricultural Organisation Society is doing magnificent work in this connection, but we are still slower in adopting or in applying co-operative methods to our agricultural industry than any other country in Europe, with the possible exception of Russia. In all these countries where small holdings have been an undoubted success, particularly in Denmark and Belgium, their success has been due almost exclusively, but not exclusively, to the sound co-operative basis upon which they have been erected.
I welcome the provision in the Bill for what is popularly called cottage holdings, because I fancy this particular type of holding, between half an acre and an acre, will provide for the requirements of a considerable number of men who do not want or expect to depend upon their holdings for their living. Many of these men no doubt will be disabled soldiers in receipt of an Army pension, who can supplement their pension by working intensively a small plot of land which will adjoin their cottages. I think that is a far less risky process of small settlements than holdings of from 20 to 100 acres in cases where there is but little capital or experience. What I am surprised to note in the public Press is that so far so small a demand appears to be made by ex-Service men for this class of holding. At first sight the displacement of sitting tenants at no more than fourteen days' notice sounds a little drastic, and I cannot help thinking that the period might have been somewhat extended without in any way retarding the process of putting this Bill into operation.
I rather regret that it is deemed necessary, although from what the noble Viscount has suggested I can appreciate the reason, for obtaining beforehand the consent of the
172
Board of Agriculture before any land is purchased during the next seven years by County Councils for the purpose of these holdings, because that will be a retarding factor at a time when County Councils are very anxious to get on with this work, and, if possible, to take advantage of the numerous auction sales which are now going on throughout the country to buy, not with the knowledge that the public purse is going to provide money—or in other words that a public authority is in the market—but to take advantage of the facilities which the public auction provides of obtaining holdings at the lowest market value. This seems to be an impossible or very difficult process if the consent of the Board of Agriculture is a condition precedent to any purchase, and I assume in that connection that the actual purchase price will have to be agreed before any bid can be made on behalf of the county council at an auction sale.
I notice an entirely new provision in connection with small holdings in the provision of loans to county councils to provide live-stock, seeds, fertilisers, and other raw materials of the agricultural industry, and that this provision is to be made to extend to parish councils—an entirely new departure—who are going to be allowed to purchase these requisites assuming that they are satisfied that co-operative facilities in the district are not adequate for the purpose. I do not much believe in trading on the part of local authorities, and it is rather difficult to see where this particular process may lead us if unduly developed, but I do foresee in the case of parish councils—bearing in mind that on those councils in many cases there are a large number of small shopkeepers—a considerable prejudice against the process being carried on by the parish council, and also very little desire on the part of the members of such a council to develop co-operative enterprise which is deemed to be contrary to their commercial interests.
There is no part of this Bill—which is in many senses an omnibus Bill, because it deals with many other matters besides small holdings—that I more warmly welcome than Clause 4, which relates to reclamation and draining. Throughout the whole of this country to-day there is an enormous need for improved drainage of agricultural land, and there are very few landowners who are in a position to undertake this work

173
with their somewhat attenuated resources. And even if they did undertake- it, they would fail in many cases in undertaking it efficiently unless a more comprehensive scheme extending over a larger area than they control is put in hand.
I venture to say that a great deal of land which was inefficiently drained some fifty or sixty years ago is to-day producing far less agricultural produce than it is capable of producing, and germination upon it is undoubtedly seriously retarded owing to its waterlogged or semi-waterlogged condition, as a result of the drains being choked or, in many cases, of their having been laid too far apart, or at too great a depth below the surface. I am sure there is no matter in which the Board of Agriculture can do more uselful work than improving, with the help of Government funds, the drainage of agricultural land throughout the country.
This, of course, applies with at least as much force to reclamation of land. There are large areas of most admirable lard, or potentially fertile land, close to our seashore and on the banks of our estuaries to-day which certainly could, by scientific reclamation methods, be converted into extremely valuable and productive farm land. I have some doubt as to whether the prospects of reclaiming a large amount of down and moor land are going to meet with the success which the Board of Agriculture seems to anticipate. Much of that land, I should have thought, could much more usefully be put under timber than reclaimed with a view to its being agricultural land. There are many cases—one jumps to my mind at this moment, that of Hollesley Bay, Suffolk—where reclamation of this character has been undertaken at very great cost, with no proportionate return for the expenditure involved in that attempted reclamation.
I should like to express the hope that a small provision in Clause 21 which relates to Stamp Duty will extend the benefit of exemption from Stamp Duty not merely to prospective allotment holders, but to allotment holders' societies, which are being constituted in various parts of the country, and which have rendered the cultivation of allotments a more economically sound venture than they would in many cases otherwise have been. In this connection I should like to say that I, for my part—and I doubt whether I shall altogether carry your Lordships with me—
174
warmly welcome the continuation of the allotments policy which has been such a success during the years of war. The more you bring our great industrial population in contact with mother earth, the more they will appreciate the difficulties that agriculturists have to. face, and the more contented, in my judgment, will they become, and, I may also add, to a greater extent will they be carrying out what I believe to be a natural function in which all men should take part.
My own experience in this connection as a Poor Law guardian in days gone by is that not a single man who has a good garden or allotment, and knows how to cultivate it, will ever go into the workhouse, because he always has a reserve upon which he can fall back to provide himself with food to a large extent, and, in ways such as these, possibly to put something upon the market to help out his domestic resources. For my part I trust that your Lordships will warmly receive this Bill as an instalment of a new agricultural policy, with the hope that the Government will not discourage what some of us regard as legitimate Amendments of their scheme.
I should only, in conclusion, like to add that I regret that the noble Viscount who has expounded this Bill to us has made no reference whatever to the particular authority which is going to be the chief Government agent in carrying out the provisions of this Bill—namely, the new County Agricultural Committees, which were referred to in the original Bill, as it was introduced in the House of Commons, and for which, as I understand, provision is now going to be made in an entirely new Bill, the Board of Agriculture Bill, under which these authorities will come to be set up, and which, in fact, while being statutory Committees of the County Councils, will at the same time be branches of the Board of Agriculture and agents for them in carrying out this work of rural reconstruction.
LOAD WITTENHAM: My Lords, I for my part, in common with the rest of your Lordships no doubt, must very warmly welcome a Bill of this kind. Promises have been made to our soldiers and sailors, the men who have fought, and so many of whom have come back mutilated, and those promises have to be fulfilled. I am not going to follow my noble friend into the details of this complicated matter, which he knows so very much better than I do, but

175
there is one subject on which I do claim to have some slight knowledge, and that is the financial aspects of this case.
I hope that some noble Lord will mention this whenever a Bi l is brought forward in this House. We have to remember that before the war we were a very rich country; to-day we are a very, very poor country. It is easy enough—anybody can do it—to pull a string, so to speak, and tell the people that a shower of gold will drop down—from the heavens, I suppose, because that is what the people think: you pull the string, and the money has to come out of the pocket of the taxpayer. It is no good crying for "Economy, economy, economy," if, whenever a matter is brought forward (and it may be necessary—we are between the devil and the deep sea there)—it is no good with one side of the mouth crying out "Economy, economy, economy," and with the other "Spend, spend, spend." Wherever we twin it is "subsidy," and somebody must speak for the taxpayer: bread, £40,000,000 to £50,000,000 a year; the providing of houses, Heaven knows how many millions a year! coal—on the edge of a subsidy; and so on through everything everywhere. Here again the noble Viscount below me made it clear, as indeed it had already become apparent, that Clause 26 meant that the country was going to be involved in a loss, and probably a very serious one, for many years to come.
Let us understand. It has to be done, but do not let us do it with any doubt in our mind as to the result. For the next seven or eight years, both annually and at the end of the eight years, capitally there is going to be a large loss. Why? Because the authority will have to borrow money at, perhaps, a high rate. The bank-rate will not remain at 3 per cent.; the moment it is let loose it wil go higher. The soldier and the sailor, I assert without fear of contradiction, cannot possibly pay an economic rent, whether you take the cost of the land, or of the buildings, or of the equipment. Therefore year by year there will be a deficit, and probably at the end of eight years there will be a large capital loss to be made good. It may be necessary in the common weal; but there comes a point when the nation, like an individual, has to say, "I would give anything to do this; I know it is the right thing to do; but my purse does not allow it." We all know that we are living in a false world; you are not facing the realities. We know
176
that the nation cannot afford half-a-dozen of the schemes which are being brought forward one by one.
What I am going to say now is said in no Party sense. I have no Party. I can speak only what I think. There must be a halt somewhere. I may be wrong (I hope I am) but in Clause 26 (2)—this may be a Committee point; I think it is a Second Reading point—it appears that the draftsman of the Bill has not been satisfied with recoupment for losses which may be incurred by putting our soldiers and sailors on the land, because the subsection seems to be retrospective, unless there is a misprint. Ought this to be tucked in a patriotic Bill? Because it is patriotism to which you are appealing; we should not think of passing this if it were not for the sake of patriotism. Subsection (2) of Clause 26 says—
"The Board shall on the passing of this Act pay to a council of the county the loss, if any, which may be shown to the satisfaction of the Board to have been reasonably or necessarily incurred by the council in the exercise of their powers under the principal Act during the period from the first day of January, 1908, to the thirty-first day of March, 1919."
Have we been running at a loss and the confession has never been made, and row, under camouflage, are you going to ask the taxpayer to pay back the losses from 1908 onwards, if there have been any? It is a serious matter to ask this House to do that. It is difficult enough to meet our future liabilities; are you going to sweep up past liabilities and tuck them into this measure? I am sure that the noble Viscount who introduced this Bill will have a satisfactory explanation to offer for a course of this kind.
I venture with all humility to end on the note on which I began—namely, that you will have to call a financial halt somewhere, and some day soon, or it is as certain as possible that this country must go into bankruptcy. I said two and a-half years ago in the House of Commons that the whole of Europe would be bankrupt. The House of Commons laughed, and the financial papers laughed. Are they laughing to-day? No; because we all see that it is a fact. Facilis descensus when one gets on the edge of the slippery slope; and no one dare face it. I agree with what Lord Buckmaster said; and I told Lord Milner last night, when he said he did not agree with the £800,000,000 Budget for next year, that I felt tolerably certain that it was going to be an £800,000,000 Budget.

177
And all this kind of thing helps. This thing has to be done; you have promised it to the country and you must do it; but do not forget that you are doing it with a purse which is full of holes, and most of the money you have left is slipping away as fast as it can.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, I should not presume to say a word as a financier; I have not the smallest conception whether England is or is not heading straight to bankruptcy. I hope to God it is not; that's all. But I really do not see that we are going headlong to bankruptcy because we are going to extend the system of small holdings. I have been a believer in small holdings all my life. One-fourth of my estate—I have nothing except land upon which to live—is under small holdings, and I have had no difficulty in getting the rents, though I have had the estate for fifty years. In fact in Lincolnshire, where there are three farms let to a Small Holdings Association—they have had it for twenty-five years—they have never asked for one reduction in the rent, and at the present moment the tenants are paying £1 an acre less than they would pay if they were taking up allotments now.
I am very proud to be able to supplement in my humble way the welcome that Lord Bledisloe has given to this Bill. One hardly knows whether one is on one's head or on one's heels in this House. When one remembers ten or twelve years ago the reception that any person got who was insane enough to advocate small holdings and then to listen to the most satisfactory speeches that have been heard this afternoon, one is forced to the conclusion that things have indeed changed. Your Lordships will remember that, in what is called the principal Act of 1908, the county councils were the persons who were told to administer the Act. For the first year very little was done; we had to get into working order. As far as I remember, there were 170,000 acres of land obtained, and then, in the three years after that, somehow it tailed off and only 30,000 acres more were got.
Then came the war, and of course small holdings and allotments were put on one side. Afterwards came the difficulty about getting food for the country, and in 1917 the Government brought forward their agriculture proposals which, as I have said
178
before in this House, did more in twenty minutes for the agricultural population than we agricultural reformers have been: able to do in half a century. In 1918 the agricultural home production increased enormously. A great deal of land was ploughed up and a lot of corn was put in. I am speaking under correction, but I believe something like 1,000,000 small holdings and allotments were added in that year. What was the result? We were told in the old days that the agricultural industry—the oldest industry in this country—was within measureable distance of great if not supreme disaster. We were told then that we could only produce fourteen weeks' supply of home grown food in England. In 1918 what was the result? I believe it is practically accurate that there were forty-two weeks' supply of food grown in this country. The matter really speaks for itself.
I do not think for one moment that we need be at all apprehensive if there is any small loss consequent on this great movement. From the bottom of my heart I congratulate His Majesty's Government on the splendid work that they have done, and I hope will continue to do, as regards agriculture. I congratulate them inasmuch as in this Bill they have done away with a. great number of those so-called safeguards and crippling conditions which were put into the principal Act. I hope they will by their policy be able to fulfil to some extent their promises to the men who fought and bled for this country, and be able to put not only them, but also a large number of practical and deserving agriculturists, on the land of this country.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Viscount who has moved the Second Reading this evening in his expression of regret at the absence of Lord Ernle from his place on that bench. I understand he is absent through indisposition, and we are very sorry to hear that is so. I confess I thought his absence was probably clue to another cause, for I understood that his continuance in the office which he has filled with such distinction was a matter of very short duration; but it is very gratifying to those of us who are interested in agriculture to reflect that Lord Ernle is responsible up to date, at any rate, for the agricultural policy of the Government. I share with others the satisfaction which has been expressed at the introduction of this Bill,

179
because the Bill is the fulfilment of a pledge given publicly on the highest authority and repeated upon every hustings in the country at the late General Election. We all share the wish that those who have given such tremendous services and made such sacrifices for the country should receive any provision of land which they desire to occupy in so far as it is in our power to give it to them.
It is not a question of what may be economically sound so much as what natural patriotic gratitude demands, and we are only too glad to extend whatever powers we can with advantage to these who were members of our forces by sea and land who wish to have small holdings. I am prepared to go a step further and to say that there are others, too, who are entitled to preferential treatment, such as the women who have worked upon the land. I do not pretend to have considered the matter, but I can conceive that that would be very appropriate. I confess, however, I regret that the Government have extended the Bill beyond those limits. Upon the arguments of the noble Viscount—there may be other arguments which he would be able to advance—I do not see why, because we have engaged in a great war in which our soldiers and sailors have conferred upon us immense services and in the course of which many of the women of the country have with great self-sacrifice and public spirit worked on the land, we should extend to everybody else the very special financial provisions which are contained in this Bill. There may be a good reason for it, but I did not find it out when I listened, as I tried to do with the greatest care, to what fell from the noble Viscount.
Like all your Lordships I am familiar, as a member of a county council, with the working of the Small Holdings Act. I do not pretend to be an enthusiastic admirer of the system. I believe it to be a good system as far as it goes, but its value can be very easily exaggerated. Broadly speaking, I do not believe it is the best method in most counties of producing the highest result in the cultivation of the soil. It does no doubt confer upon the country certain political and social services which are of value; but looked at broadly as an industrial and agricultural proposition, in most counties it is not the best way of cultivating the land, and those of us who are very anxious to see the greatest product from the land possible would not like the
180
ordinary process of agriculture—I mean the cultivation of land as we have known it all our lives—to be interfered with so as to injure the result which comes from that system. Up to a point, however, small holdings are a very good thing, and I am very glad to hear from the noble Viscount that every chance is to be given under this Bill for the success of small holdings.
There are provisions, I understand from him, for the encouragement of better agricultural training and, I think he said, better agricultural co-operation. Both those things are not only good, but essential, in my humble judgment, to any wide extension of the small holdings system. It is no manner of use to put people on the land who have no knowledge of agriculture; that only leads to failure. It does not matter whether they are heroes or not; they will not be able to make it pay unless they have some knowledge of the system. It is no kindness to them, but a cruelty to put them on the land. Therefore if you are to increase to a widespread extent the number of soldiers upon the land it is necessary that you should provide some sort of agricultural training for them, and, I may add, some sort of agricultural co-operation, for co-operation of that kind is the only way in which you will get rid of the undue advantage which the large holding system would have over the small holding system. These two things are essential. Even so, the Government are well aware that on the present prices these small holdings cannot be made to pay. Therefore, they provide a system under which, for the next—is it six or seven years?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Seven.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:—the loss upon small holdings will be borne by the taxpayer. That I believe to be shortly the system. I do not mean to say any loss which a small holding will incur but any loss which a local authority will incur by charging the only rent it can get in present circumstances. Any such loss from insufficient rents will be borne, under the Bill, by the taxpayer. I am not afraid of that so far as soldiers and sailors and preferential persons are concerned, because it is of limited duration. At the end of seven years it will come to an end. Even though it may involve a considerable loss, we can see the extent of

181
the loss, or, at any rate, we know it will be limited, and I understand from the noble Viscount that at the end of that time ordinary economic conditions will be restored—he looks forward to that—and the small-holders will be charged a reasonable rent. If that is really done, economic causes will reassert themselves and, if the small-holding system is not a sound one economically, it will come to an end. That is to Fay, the small holding, being unable to compete in the market on economic terms, will gradually tend to disappear. The small-holders, like reasonable, prudent men, will, of course, sell their small-holdings to people who can cultivate them better; so the economic system will be stabilised, and no great harm will arise.
But that is upon the assumption—which I understand from the noble Viscount is the policy of the Government—that proper economic rents will be charged at the end of seven years. If that is carried out, as I say, we need not be very deeply concerned, but if it is not carried out, if, when the end of the seven years comes, it is found that a great many small holdings are not economically sound—what are the Government going to do? It will not be this Government, I presume. What will the then Government do? The noble Viscount is a comparatively young man and he may be I do not know what by that time. What does the noble Viscount contemplate that the Government of that day will do if the small-holdings do not pay? I should be rather happier if I saw a clause in the Bill—there may be one; I will not pretend to be a master of it like the noble Viscount—containing the mandatory provision that economic rents should be charged at the end of seven years.
If we are to go on with the uneconomic conditions there really is no end to it. There is no reason why, at the end of that period, the subsidies to small-holders should not become a precedent extended to any number of other persons at the expense of the State. If the noble Viscount says, "We are only anxious to do it in the case of soldiers and sailors," I have nothing more to say. By all means in the case of the soldiers and sailors who have fought for us I would be willing to dispense with the economic conditions, so long as that makes them happy. If it is to be extended to others, as the Bill contemplates, and if
182
the uneconomic conditions are to be continued at the end of seven years to others, then I say there is no limit to the slippery slope upon which we are proceeding.
I say this with a certain amount of emphasis because I am quite familiar with the particular financial proposals which are made in the clauses of this Bill, and I will tell your Lordships why. I was, for my sins, about two or three years ago, a member of an Emergency Housing Committee, and the financial proposal which is contained in this Bill was precisely the one which we recommended in the case of emergency housing. It is not adopted in the Housing Bill which has just gone through this House—not exactly, although there are certain features which are similar—but the particular proposal in this Bill is precisely what we proposed with one exception—we laid it down that economic rents must be charged at the end of the provisional period. We made it as emphatic as we could that at the end of the provisional period, which corresponds to the seven years in this Bill, economic conditions should be restored, so far as possible. I cannot tell your Lordships with what emphasis we ventured to lay that down in the Report which we presented to the Minister of Reconstruction. I think that, in this respect, I have the singular virtue of consistency in urging upon your Lordships, and upon the Government, that they should put into the Bill some provision which shall make it quite clear and definite that these eleemosynary provisions, in so far as they extend at any rate to others than those who have served as soldiers and sailors in the war, shall come to an end at the end of the provisional period and that economic conditions shall be restored.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I merely desire to say one word on the point which the noble Marquess has developed in the closing passages of his speech. He stated that in his view His Majesty's Government were at the edge of a slippery slope in this matter of endowment from public funds of those who, some years hence, may not be able to satisfy economic conditions with regard to their holdings, and I understood him to urge that Your Lordships should insert a clause in the Bill which would make it clear that, at the end of this period of seven years—so far as Parliament can lay down any rule of that kind—economic rents must be charged and that no future subsidy will be given.

183
I am bound to say that I gravely doubt the wisdom of inserting any provision of such a kind in a Bill of this sort. When the time comes—the close of this period—either general agricultural and economic conditions will have so completely changed as to make it possible for these holdings to be carried on at an economic rent, or some such condition will exist as obtains at the present when, as we know, it cannot be done. In the latter case one of three things must happen. Either the State must continue its subsidy, or the local authority must be prepared to make good the deficit out of county funds, or—and this is the consummation to which the noble Marquess looked forward apparently without any great dismay—the whole system must come to an end and small holdings disappear altogether. I decline to contemplate the last possibility. I do not believe for a moment that public opinion, either here or in the country districts, would tolerate what would practically mean the eviction from the homes they have occupied for a certain number of years, not merely of soldiers and sailors, but of small-holders who have worked hard and done their best at considerable sacrifice of material. The effect would be to throw back into large farms, not requiring the same character of buildings or dwelling-houses, a certain number of small holdings; to produce, in fact, widespread disturbance of the rural conditions which will then exist.
That being so, if I am right in believing that this is an impossible picture of the future, it will then be for the various county authorities to consider whether they are prepared to stand the loss, supposing a loss to be involved, or whether a fresh appeal will be made to Parliament—the then Government may be precisely of the same complexion as the present Government, or of an entirely different complexion—in order to make the country as a whole responsible for the balance of deficit. It is quite impossible at this moment to say what the results will be. By that time we may have advanced very much further on the road to collectivist management and collectivist responsibility. If we have, I have no doubt that the Government of that day will cheerfully shoulder the new responsibility, but in the complete uncertainty which now prevails I hope that your Lordships will not attempt to stereotype, as the noble Marquess desired, the rule that no advance from public funds
184
must be made to meet the deficits that have accrued.
I have no desire to say anything about the Bill as a whole, but merely to add a word of welcome to its main provisions, and to congratulate His Majesty's Government upon having undertaken this further wing of the large structure which they are trying to erect for the benefit, not merely of those who have nobly done their duty in the war (many of whom have suffered for it) but for the benefit of a class, generally speaking, who have not in the past been admitted to a full share in our national prosperity. The Bill will, of course, by unanimous agreement be read a second time, and although some recommendations will undoubtedly be made for its amendment in Committee I am quite certain they will not touch the main principle which is involved in the Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I should like to say one word or two in reply to specific points of criticism which have been raised. Your Lordships have given a general welcome to the Bill, and it may interest you to know that it was welcomed in another place. In fact it had a most remarkable career there, in that there was no Division on any single stage of the Bill; Second Reading, Committee Stage, Report Stage, or Third Reading. I think that is without precedent in the case of a Bill of this importance. We cannot hope, unfortunately, for the same thing here, although I am glad to have the encouragement of the noble Marquess.
Two points were put to the Government by the Marquess of Salisbury. The first was on the financial position, and he said that we ought to know whether these State contributions are to continue after seven years, or whether they will come to an end; if we knew they would come to an end after seven years we should be greatly comforted. I can only state the intentions of the present Government and the provisions of the Bill itself. I cannot make any prophecies such as the noble Marquess was able to make. The position is that after seven years a valuation will be made, a capital valuation, of the farm on the basis of the economic rent at that time. On the other side will be set the total amount expended by the local authority in purchasing and, equipping; that is to say, the money that was borrowed

185
by the local authority for the purpose of establishing these small holdings.
Let me take two figures. Suppose the whole business cost £10,000, and that the economic value of the small holding was £7,000; the difference, £3,000, will fall upon the State entirely. The small holding, and all the small holdings in the area of the county council, would be treated as one property and would be handed back to the county council presumably at that valuation. What then would the county council have to do They would have to charge an economic rent which would meet the difference—it may be £3,000, £4,000 or £5,000, or whatever the amount was. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, asked whether there ought not to be a provision in the Bill that they should charge an economic rent? Surely their own self interest would make them do so; there is nobody else to pay for it. If there is a deficiency it will fall on the rates, and I think the ratepayers can look after themselves. As noble Lords know, at the present time under the Act of 1908 the State bears half the deficiency, but that will not obtain. After the seven years the county councils will be placed upon an entirely self-supporting basis. Therefore they will have to charge such economic rents as will meet the new valuation. I think that is the reply to the point raised by the noble Marquess.
There was only one other point raised by the noble Marquess. He said, We shall be quite ready, I think, to deal with this on a. basis of loss, if it be confined to serving men, and I think he included women who had been working on the land; but he said, Why should these privileges be extended more widely than that? I need not remind him, because I have just stated it, and he knows it perfectly well, that the change is from bearing half the loss to bearing the whole loss. Of course that is a far larger loss than is represented merely by that statement, because of the increased cost of land after the war and also the greater cost of equipping small holdings with buildings. Therefore it is considerable financial assistance, but the Government find it extremely difficult to draw a line between the ex-Service men and these women, and other persons. Your Lordships are very well aware how absolutely essential agriculture and other industries such as munitions were during the war; how under the Military Service Acts certain
186
persons were told that they were to go to the war and others that they were not to go to the war, but that they were considered to be doing their duty, by doing this work at home, just as much as if they went to the war. Therefore the Government feel it difficult to exclude these other persons from these particular advantages; but I would point out this, that preference is given to the ex-Service man, and I think, considering the way those who want to share these advantages are coining in, that the county councils, and the Board of Agriculture if necessary, will be fully occupied for some time in dealing with the claims of these men who have the preference
There is only one technical point further to which I think I ought to reply. It was raised by my noble friend behind me. I always listen to his speeches, especially on finance, with great pleasure but with ever-deepening melancholy. I do not wish to follow him in his general exposition of the evil state of the finance of the country, because I think his statements on this particular occasion were based upon a rather small point. He had read his Bill with great care, and he had ascertained that not only the future liabilities but the past liabilities on these small holdings of the county councils from the year 1908 were to be shouldered upon the State, and he fears that we cannot meet the ever-growing responsibilities. I wish to examine what the weight of this responsibility is, because upon the size of it depends the whole argument of my noble friend. I think it is possible to give a pretty accurate figure as to what those financial responsibilities may be. I have already stated that half these losses are already borne by the State. The losses that are already borne amount to £3,000. If you add another £3,000 you make up £6,000. I am advised that £20,000 will be an absolutely outside figure and that £10,000 will probably be more like the actual figure.
I ask, Is the country going to be ruined by the payment of £10,000? As to the proprietary of these payments, what I have to say is this: It was part of a bargain made with the county councils, who in return for this and as part of their general duty have been content to act in this way as agents for the Board of Agriculture for the ensuing seven years. I think your Lordships will consider that vast as are the fresh responsibilities

187
which will be thrown upon them by this Act, the sum which I have mentioned is not a very extravagant remuneration.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Tribunal for assessing compensation in respect of land compulsorily acquired for public purposes.
1.—(1) Where by or under any statute (whether passed before or after the passing of this Act) land is authorised to be acquired compulsorily by any Government Department or any local or public authority, any question of disputed compensation and where any part of the land to be acquired is subject to a lease which comprises land not acquired, any question as to the apportionment of the rent payable under the lease, shall be referred to and determined by the arbitration of such one of a panel of official valuers to be appointed under this section as may be selected in accordance with rules made by the Reference Committee under this section.
(2) Such number of persons, being persons with special knowledge in the valuation of land, as may be appointed for England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland by the Reference Committee, shall form a panel of persons to act as official valuers for the purposes of this Act in England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland respectively: Provided that of the members of the said panel for England and Wales one at least shall be a person having special knowledge of the valuation of land in Wales and acquainted with the Welsh language.
(3) A person appointed to be a member of the panel of official valuers shall hold office for such term certain as may be determined by the Treasury before his appointment, and whilst holding office shall not himself engage, or be a partner of any other person who engages, in private practice or business as estate or land agent surveyor or valuer.
(4) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to official valuers such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may determine—
(5) The Reference Committee—

(a) for England and Wales, shall consist of the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Surveyors' Institution;

188

(b) for Scotland, shall consist of the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk and the Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Surveyors' Institution;

(c) for Ireland, shall consist of the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, the Master of the Rolls in Ireland and the President of the Surveyors Institution, or (if the President of the Surveyors' Institution thinks fit) a person, being a member of the council of that institution and having special knowledge of valuation of land in Ireland appointed by him to act in his place.

LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1) after' "authority" to insert "or the promoters of any housing scheme under the Housing, Town Planning, &c., Act, 1919, which has been approved by the Ministry of Health."
The noble Lord said: It is a very short point which is raised. This Bill provides for a case in which a valuation has to be made, as between the Government Department or the local authority on the one side, and a private owner on the other. It will be remembered that under the Housing Bill a new body is being brought into existence which is likely to be very freely utilised for the purpose of promoting housing schemes, namely, Public Utility Societies, and I want to be sure that those societies will have all the benefits of the rapid valuation and acquisition of land which the local authorities will have. With this object I move my Amendment. There is no more urgent matter to-day than the early acquisition of land for the purpose of cottage building, particularly in the more crowded industrial towns. As the Local Government Board or Ministry of Health are definitely encouraging these Public Utility Societies to undertake, so far as possible, this work of housing, I suggest that such societies should have all the benefits which the local authorities will have under this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("authority") insert ("or the promoters of any housing scheme under the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, which has been approved by the Ministry of Health").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD PARMOOR: As I have an Amendment down in similar terms, I may perhaps say a word upon this Amendment before the noble and learned Lord replies. My object was to have one system of compensation in force, and one system of

189
procedure, whether the land is to be acquired compulsorily by any Government Department or by any other competent authority. At the present time the general principle would be that where there is no special scheme of compensation the procedure would be under the Lands Clauses Act. I quite agree, from very considerable experience of the working of that Act, that the scheme which hitherto has been in operation under that Act requires simplification and amendment, and particularly I am in favour of what is part of the fundamental suggestion of this Bill, that there should not be any allowance under the head of compulsory acquisition in cases of this kind. My desire is that you should have one scheme of compensation. That can be met in two ways—either by inserting the words which are suggested in the Amendment, or by not putting any special scheme of compensation into any housing scheme under the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1919, and so leaving compensation under that Act to the general provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act with which we are dealing at the present time. My main object and desire is to have one scheme and one only in all these cases, because I know there no more fertile source of expense and trouble than to have different schemes for different cases.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is an Amendment with the objects of which every one will sympathise, but I cannot appreciate that it is really a necessary one. We are asked after "authority" to insert "or the promoters of any housing scheme under the Housing, Town Planning Act, 1919, which has been approved by the Ministry of Health." It becomes necessary to ask, Who are the promoters of any housing scheme under this Act to which this can apply? I am a little puzzled, because the only promoters I can think of are county councils, local authorities under the Housing Act, public utility societies, and housing trusts. I do not know that I have overlooked any in that enumeration. If the promoters then of a housing scheme are the county council, or the local authority under the Housing Act, they would be a local authority authorised under statute to acquire land compulsorily and the Bill would automatically apply to them. It is not in the least necessary therefore to have a special Amendment to meet their case. Let us
190
deal with the other persons. It cannot be housing trusts or public utility societies because neither of these two have the power to acquire land compulsorily for housing purposes. Therefore so far as they are concerned the Amendment would be meaningless. Power is taken by the local authorities to acquire land with a view to a subsequent sale to and development by a public utility society, but in that case the local authority would be the acquiring authority, and the Bill would apply. I cannot really think that if the Amendment were adopted it would add anything, and it would in one respect at least be wholly unacceptable.
LORD PARMOOR: Having regard to what the noble and learned Lord says, that under the Bill as it stands the principle of compensation would apply to the promoters of any housing scheme, for my part. I should not think it necessary to press the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I really have no doubt, but I may add that I will carefully fortify myself before we reach the later stages of the Bill, but it seems clear.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "valuers" and insert "arbitrators." The noble and learned Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to make clear what I understand the purpose of the Bill to be. We are dealing with arbitration, and not with valuation. The noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor, is perfectly well aware that from a legal point of view there is a great distinction between a valuation and an arbitration. An-arbitration is in its essence a quasi judicial inquiry where, in the case for valuation, there is such element at all, and if the object of this Bill is that there should be arbitration to determine what the value of land is, then the proper terminology would be arbitrators and not valuers. I do not want of course to snake any long address to your Lordships on what might appear to be a mere matter of words, but I think it goes deeper than that, and that the word "valuers" ought not to be inserted, but that there ought to be inserted in its place "arbitrators."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("valuers") and insert ("arbitrators").—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: This Amendment also stands in my name, and one reason why I ask that it should be adopted is that unfortunately the term "official valuer" has now a sense which is not very acceptable to a large number of those who are interested in land in this country, having come into existence under the provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act. At the present time the expression consequently means something totally distinct from the meaning intended to be conveyed in this Bill. They are in fact to-day the advisers of the Inland Revenue Department as to the value of land. Those persons who will act under this Bill as adjudicators are not themselves valuers or advisers as to value, but they are the actual adjudicators on contested questions of value. Perhaps the strongest reason for adopting this Amendment is that it is specifically stated in the Bill that the work of these persons, when questions arising on the Bill are to be determined, is that of arbitration and not that of valuation. If your Lordships will refer to Clauses 4, 6 and 8, you will find in every one of them that it is perfectly clear that the function of these gentlemen will be that of arbitration—a judicial function—and not that of valuation, which is a more commercial or professional function.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is a good deal to be said for the view that the functions discharged by these persons are functions which would be more accurately described by the term arbitrations than by that of valuation, and I observe the additional objection stated by the noble Lord who spoke last as to the use of the term official valuers. The Government are by no means wedded to the term "valuer," and especially when it is not used in the most appropriate context. I feel a slight difficulty about the word "arbitrator," because the word official must be used, for reasons into which I need not enter, and the term "official arbitrator" is a little too general for application to a particular Act, or at least it is open to that criticism. It rather suggests a function to discharge duties comparable to the duties, very general in scope, that can be discharged by official referees, but I am not disposed to enter, at any rate at this stage, into any dispute upon the point. I will accept at this moment the term arbitrator in the form of the Amendment moved by my noble and learned friend,
192
subject to this, that if in the interval I happen to think of a better term I shall adopt it.
LORD PARMOOR: Of course, if a better term could be suggested I, for one, would gladly welcome it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved, in subsection (2), after the words "with special knowledge in the valuation of land," to insert "or experienced in the law and practice of arbitrations in cases of disputed compensation for land taken under compulsory powers." The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend, Lord Saltoun, through indisposition, I hope your Lordships will allow me to move this Amendment which stands in his name. It is an Amendment suggested by a number of bodies in Scotland. The noble and learned Lord has been good enough on behalf of the Government to accept the word "arbitrator" in the last clause, and I hope he will also see his way to accept this Amendment. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that these arbitrators are to be persons with a special knowledge in the valuation of land. They are entirely arbitrators, and will have to decide upon all cases which may be brought before them under this Act. Consequently it seems almost necessary that their qualification should be widened, so that they may be selected not for their knowledge of valuation alone but for their knowledge and experience in arbitration matters.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, after ("land") insert ("or experienced in the law and practice of arbitrations in cases of disputed compensation for land taken under compulsory powers").—(Lord Clinton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has really attempted to erect far too elaborate an edifice on an Amendment which was accepted on the pure point of nomenclature. I adopted the word "arbitrator" because it did seem to me that there was something to be said for the view that, whatever you may call him, he had to arrive at an arbitral conclusion, and the word "valuer" suggested a man who arrives at his conclusion without going through the form of hearing persons before him, and arguments, and so forth. But that is a mere question of names. The

193
noble Lord is now requesting me to do a very different thing. He asks that one should add to the panel of persons qualified those who are experienced in the law and practice of arbitrations.
For myself nothing would give me greater pleasure than to accept at once this Amendment, because I accept on principle, and as the result of long habit, any proposal which can obviously enure to the benefit of lawyers and lawyers alone. And nothing could afford me more pleasure than to add to these panels. I have not the least doubt I should be called upon to nominate them, which would be an agreeable addition to my own patronage and I should have the privilege of providing thousands a year for esteemed former colleagues of mine at the Bar. But I doubt whether the proposal would be received with the same general enthusiasm by the public as a whole, or even by your Lordships. The idea here—and it is essential in this scheme of coordinated measures—is as far as possible to strip these things of formality and to bring them to a conclusion with the utmost celerity which is compatible with the doing of justice.
The legal profession possesses many great merits. It possesses, above all things, this merit, that in matters which are proper for delay, and which admit of delay, they ensure that a conclusion is not reached till every point of view has been examined and explored. But where practical knowledge, where extreme expedition are required, where a measure, if it is to be carried through, must be carried through at once, I am sure your Lordships will think the Government are wise in having decided to commit this matter to practical men.
LORD CLINTON: I accept the noble and learned Lord's explanation and his suggestion that this would enure to the advantage of all those who are connected with the law. I have already admitted that the Amendment was put forward at the suggestion of some very learned bodies in Scotland; it is just possible that they may have been animated in their desire to put forward the Amendment, by such a motive. Although I am not going against the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, it is practical men that we require and those who have a knowledge and experience in the practice of arbitration; and it seems to me that if you are to have arbitration, if you are to have men who are to act as arbitrators,
194
it is not so necessary that they should be learned in the actual valuation, but that they should have had an experience in those particular methods which are being brought before them. I rather regret that the Amendment cannot be accepted, but I shall not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (3), to delete all words after "shall hold office for," and to insert "a term of five years," and to delete subsection (4). The noble Lord said: This Amendment would strike out the rest of subsection (3) and the whole of subsection (4). The result would be that powers in this Bill such as those of single arbitrators or the abolition of allowance for compulsory purchase and the power of the arbitrator over costs would not be disturbed. But there would be a larger panel of arbitrators, who would be paid by fees, instead of a small panel consisting of people who would have a vested interest, and who would be paid large salaries.
My points upon the matter are two. One is that to have this small fixed panel of men is unnecessary and undesirable—I would go so far as to say unwise; and the second is that the one method is likely to cost the country far more than the other and to give us a number of place-men with large salaries—considerably larger than the majority of the Civil Service. If this body of eight or less arbitrators are to be popular people and are to have such business as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack appeared at one time to foreshadow in his financial statement, they will have to proceed by lists, and have to deal with cases in a certain order. And they would not be able to cope with their work. You would get the exact delay which the noble and learned Lord has so much deprecated. If, however, they are unpopular you have these men getting £3,000 apiece—I presume with pensions also and with clerks—and they would have little or nothing to do because under Clause 8 (1) if parties are allowed to go to any arbitrator whom they may agree upon or to some other body—another body which was very much pressed upon the Government in the House of Commons as a body which should have control of the whole of the business, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
It is extraordinary how easy an arbitrator may find it to become unpopular from time to time. He may have his periods when be is popular or unpopular, but a very little thing may throw an arbitrator out of popularity for the time being. He may not be popular in that particular part of the country. One of these gentlemen speaking Welsh, for instance, is appointed for Carnarvonshire, but it does not follow that he will be listened to in Carmarthen-shire or Breconshire, and he might receive still less respect in the Rhondda Valley. It might be said that he knew the Welsh language, but he would not know about the agricultural land in the counties I have named or the peculiar situation in the Rhondda Valley.
Then again, this larger panel of arbitrators is not only supported by the Institute of Surveyors (as I know it is from the Press) but also it was supported by Mr. Leslie Scott's Committee, and was advised as the best method of dealing with this matter. I do not know why it should have been changed. But I speak, myself, from experience. I have had during the last few years to deal with scores and scores of arbitrators, and I have found elasticity to be of the very greatest value. You cannot possibly foist an unpopular and undesired arbitrator upon people, or put him before those who will not accept his finding because they do not believe in his justice.
It is much more important with this waxing and waning, as it were, of arbitrators that you should be able to choose from a wider field. You get much more elasticity, you get much less delay. The arbitrators can be chosen extremely quickly; you have a Government list and men consider it an honour to be put upon that list. The names would be before the country, and they would get known by the people. This matter has been successfully proved in cases where a lot of arbitrators have to be appointed.
The observation is made that these men should be ready to give their whole time, and that they should not be doing any private business. I have not heard that there has ever been any complaint in the past with regard to arbitrations conducted by surveyors, yet they are continually doing their own private business; not a word has been said anywhere, of which I am aware, as to the fact that they are influenced because they are engaged in private business. In the legal profession does the
196
noble and learned Lord say that the lawyers are not able to carry on their business because they are engaged one day in their business at the Bar and another in delivering judgment from the Bench? Or is his mind, as Lord Chancellor, influenced by the fact that during two-thirds of the day he is occupied in judicial business and for the other one-third in attending to his business in the House, with unpaid overtime, in dealing with the multifarious duties of his office?
I come now to the question of expense. The Lord Chancellor made the remark that the arbitrator would be appointed for a definite time by what is known as the Reference Committee, and that the cost to the State of their salaries would be entirely or almost covered by the fees which are, of course, properly to be charged to the parties who come before them. It is mentioned that there are to be up to eight arbitrators with £3,000 apiece. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord can produce any list of the number of the cases, but it is a very notable fact that from this Bill all the great trading companies—railway companies, gas companies, water companies, and electric light companies—are excluded. Of the nineteen witnesses heard before the committee not one came from those great companies. What is the deduction? That they will not have anything to do with this Bill. The Bill, therefore, is confined to the Government and to local bodies. What is the number of cases the Government and local bodies have which are to go to this arbitration? I am informed that before the war the number of these arbitrations had been considerably reduced; that the principles on which these arbitrations were founded were becoming established and known; that an arbitrator was far less required, and that there was every prospect of the number growing less. Is there any reason why they should now increase? On the contrary. The objection to the question of cost would mean that they would not like this Bill. The Land Clauses Act dealt with the cost in a way that would rather lead people to arbitration than to lessen arbitration; I think this type of arbitration will be still less because of the fear of the cost.
To raise this money, excluding Sundays and holidays, these eight men would have to work, for, say, 270 days. I doubt very much whether they would average £10 a day apiece. Again, are you going to get

197
£3,000 a year from Ireland, and is it likely that you will get so much from Scotland? You cannot raise the fees above the market rates or people would go and take an agreed arbitrator under Section 8 (1), which would still more lessen the amount of work they would have. To create these appointments of six or eight new arbitrators at a salary of this kind—one-third more than the Permanent Secretaries of some of the great Departments of State, one-third more than some of the Ministers at the present time, double that of the Permanent Secretary of the Office of Works, who has to deal with building all his time; men who would have vested interests, who would probably want pensions, and who would probably have honours also—that they should be created at a time when the amount of work the arbitrators are going to do is uncertain, when it; may lessen considerably, is not in accordance with the Resolution passed by your Lordships, "that the serious condition of the finances of the country calls for the strictest economy in all directions."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 26, leave out from ("for") to the end of subsection (4) and insert ("a term of five years").—(Lord Askwith.)
THE EARL, OF SELBORNE: The noble Lord who has just sat down has put his point with great knowledge and lucidity. I think it will facilitate our discussion here if my noble and learned friend in charge of the Bill would take the opportunity of this Amendment of making a statement to the Committee as to the reasons which led His Majesty's Government to adopt the particular plan embodied in this Bill; a plan which, I think I am correct in saying, is a departure from the universal previous practice of the Government and different from the plan recommended by Mr. Leslie Scott's Committee. It has seemed, as the noble and learned Lord knows, to many people to be a worse plan than the existing one.
The two fears that have been mainly held on this subject are these, Firstly, that the best men in the profession would not be prepared to abandon their practice to take an official post under the Government; and, secondly, that unless the number of official valuers was most unduly multiplied they would not be able to do all the work that would have to be done. I admit that this is a. contradictory argument to the one
198
just made by Lord Askwith, but there certainly are those who do not share his view that the business to be done will be little; who, on the contrary, think there will be a great many cases to be decided by these arbitrators. Therefore the first thing I would ask my noble and learned friend to do is to explain to the Committee carefully and fully, with that perfect command of explanation which he possesses in such a large degree, why the Government have adopted this plan.
The second point on which I ask him to be precise is, what is going to be the position of these gentlemen after appointment? It seems absolutely essential that the arbitrators appointed should be fully qualified persons who know their business thoroughly and that we should not have in these posts only men who have failed in private practice or who have recently joined the profession. Therefore we ask for assurances—and here we are only repeating the views of members of the House of Commons, because this point was repeatedly put before the Government in Committee in the House of Commons and on Report—that the position of these gentlemen is going to be such that a really qualified person will be prepared to take it. It is therefore not only a question of salary; it is a question of the terms of appointment, and also, as the noble Lord who has just spoken said, of pension. I am not one of those who think that this work is going to last for two or three years and then cease altogether. No doubt there will be more work to be done probably in the next two or three years than there will be in an average two or three years; but I believe that this particular plan adopted by the Government, if it passes into law, will find work for competent men permanently. It is therefore of the utmost importance, as I am sure my noble and learned friend will agree, that the attractions of the post should be such that the best men, and not the failures of the profession, will offer themselves as candidates for them.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONBefore the noble and learned Lord replies, I want to put a case to him which has not been put by either of my noble friends who have spoken. By far the largest experience of arbitrations in land values has occurred in Ireland, where the whole of the land has been transferred from one hand to another by valuation by different Com

199
missioners. What I would ask the noble Lord to remember is what has occurred in regard to Irish land valuers who are brought into this Bill. It has been perfectly notorious that certain valuers were trusted by neither party; but if they had a permanent employment it was impossible for the Government or anybody else to remove them. And be it remembered that in all these cases there was an appeal. There is no appeal in this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, there is—to the High Court.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There is only an appeal on questions of law, not of fact.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount said there was no appeal under this Bill; that is the reason I said that.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I happen to know a case in the Midlands in which, almost directly, a question involving hundreds of thousands of pounds must be taken up by one man. It is a single arbitrator, and no appeal. Even if that arbitrator gave a decision which in the opinion of all those concerned was a wrong decision, unless the Government alter the Bill, they will have to put him on to another job at once and he will go on and give similar decisions.
One other point. Two arbitrators may take different views on questions of value, as defined in the section which defines value. Having regard to the existing taxation they may take a wholly different view, and there will be absolutely no power of control of those differences of opinion unless there is a power, as my noble friend suggests, of employing men at the head of the profession rather than keeping a panel of men who must be given a certain period of years in which to operate and who during that period of years may in some instances prove themselves to be quite unequal to the task they have undertaken.
LORD PARMOOR: Before the Lord Chancellor answers, may I say that I have an alternative Amendment to that which has been proposed by the noble Lord, but I think it will be better to take the
200
decision upon his Amendment than upon mine. My alternative Amendment is—
"That those holding the appointment of arbitrator under the Act should be entitled, in spite of being official arbitrators, to carry on their ordinary business, although whilst holding office they shall not give evidence in disputes in connection with the acquisition of land tinder compulsory powers."
There are only three points I should like to add to the arguments which have already been addressed to your Lordships. From a very considerable experience of what are known as compensation cases, I should like, in the first instance, to state that it is most important that the particular arbitrator should have business knowledge of the particular subject-matter with which he has to deal—that is to say, it may be building land, or it may be agricultural land, or minerals, or what not The great advantage of the present system is that when you select a valuer or an arbitrator who is carrying on business you select him because he has knowledge of the particular subject-matter in which you wish him to determine the value. I think that is a very important matter indeed.
Secondly, I should like to say that the difficulty appears to be, as regard the purely official arbitrator, what is to happen to him at the end of his period of service. Suppose he is unsatisfactory. It is a very invidious thing to turn him on to the world, almost into the poor-house; whereas if you left him as a member of a firm, or carrying on an agency in the ordinary way he would not suffer much loss. It should be a matter for other people to consider whether he should continue as an agent or not; but he may be, although a most competent valuer in the ordinary sense, an unsatisfactory arbitrator. I think it is an important matter that you should not cut him off from his ordinary business.
Thirdly, on the score of expense it is quite clear that if you do not cut off a man from his ordinary business, the salary to be provided is less. An illustration was given of a case of a Recorder. The payment of a Recorder would be in effect small if at the same time he could not in ordinary cases carry on his business. With regard to the amount of arbitrations, I take the view of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, that they would be comparatively small in number. I take that view, not because there may

201
not be a large amount of land taken compulsorily, but because at the present time under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, in 999 times out of the 1,000, and indeed in many more cases than that, the matter is settled by ordinary arbitrators with only a nominal expense. Under Clause 8 I am glad to see that a procedure of that kind is maintained in the present Bill. I believe that in nearly all cases the amount will be settled in that way. I feel very strongly, however, that if you are to have arbitrations for the purpose of, say, valuation, they should be held by business people who are perfectly impartial as regards a particular case which is likely to be brought before them, but who have a knowledge of the particular subject-matter in reference to which they have to fix the value of land.
The noble and learned Lord is quite aware that on questions of fact their determination is final. If they go wrong on a point of law their determination may come for settlement before the Courts. The important factor is that their decision on fact should be satisfactory. In order to obtain that, I think you ought to have the choice of men carrying on business and cognisant with the particular subject-matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a very important proposal, and the change which it is desired to introduce into the Bill and which has been recommended in very eloquent and informing speeches, would be a far-reaching one. I should give a wrong impression if I did not make it clear, by every means in my power, that it is an Amendment to which the Government is very strongly opposed. A Committee, which was formed to consider the matter and to advise the Government, held many meetings and examined all the arguments that have been used to day and (if I may say so without giving offence) many arguments, by no means lacking in weight, which have not been used to-day, against the course which they ultimately adopted, and they came—I will not conceal from your Lordships, only after considerable hesitation—to the conclusion which was embodied in the Bill. That conclusion was unanimously approved by those members of the War Cabinet, and several others who were invited in for the purpose, to whom the matter was submitted. It is, therefore, a question on
202
which it must be taken, for what it is worth, that the Government, after the most careful inquiry and deliberation, reached a clear conclusion, and they would be very sorry if that conclusion should be varied by your Lordships. Let me attempt to reply to some of the objections that have been taken. I had already noted what the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, pointed out, that much of the argument he advanced was entirely inconsistent with what bad been pressed—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I did not advance any argument. I asked questions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think they were argumentative questions. I think there was some considerable argument underlying them. If I am right in that view, it is true there was some degree of inconsistency between the points put by the noble Earl and the apprehensions which have been expressed by Lord Askwith. Lord Askwith spoke of the great salary which, he said, was greater than that of some Ministers and greater than that of half-a-dozen other functionaries, whose names or positions he took by way of illustration. He also pointed out that they might have pensions and they might have honours—although I do not know that there is any reason why distinguished public servants should not have honours as a reward for their careers—and he gave the impression that there would not be enough work to justify the appointment of men whose emoluments and other advantages would be so considerable. I disagree, for what my opinion is worth, with Lord Askwith on that point, and I agree entirely with what was said by Lord Selborne. I believe that the number of cases that will be tried and pronounced upon by these arbitrators will be very great indeed. I also agree with what the noble Earl said—and this again was the view of the Committee—that it is not in the least likely that their activities will be concluded when three years are over.
What then is the issue which the Government had to decide and upon which your Lordships must form a view this afternoon? We had to decide between having panels of whole-time arbitrators and adopting the course, which is involved in this Amendment, of allowing those whom we were to employ to continue their private practice—

203
to go from a private arbitration one day to preside over a case in which the Government were concerned on the next. I say quite plainly that when the choice is presented in that way—and there is no other way of presenting it, because those are the only two alternatives—I have no doubt whatever, for the reasons which I will give, that although there is much to be advanced in argument on both sides, the course which the Government have chosen will in the end prove to be more economical of money and will prove, which is even more important, to be immensely more efficient in its results and in the manner in which the work is carried out.
My noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor brings, as everybody realises, remarkable experience to this kind of discussion. Nobody was concerned in more arbitrations than he was. He asked a question which had also been asked by a previous speaker—what is to happen to the arbitrator at the end of his time?—and he said it would be very difficult to cut him off. What would happen to him at the end of his time would depend, I suppose, in the first place, upon how long he had adequately discharged important public functions. If he had discharged those functions efficiently for a very long time I presume he would have the same claim to the gratitude of the State which could be put forward by any other public servant who had served the State for a long time.
If, on the other hand, he had served the State for a short time—the period is at present not decided; the noble Lord puts forward a period of five years, but I should have thought it wiser to leave the Treasury a free hand in such a matter—be it assumed that a period of three or five years was, in the first instance, selected, and let us take the case of an individual arbitrator. His three years are over. The opinion is perhaps formed, without any grave reflection upon him, that it would be desirable to have some fresh blood in the panel. Perhaps some special kind of arbitration is more than usually frequent. Such a man could perfectly well go back to the practice of his profession. There is not the least reason why he should not go back, so far from going with a lessened prestige, with an additional prestige, in the circumstance that he has been for the whole period in heavy practice on behalf of the Government and has had before him great industries and estates represented on matters
204
of importance, the decisions upon which have given some guarantee of his ability.
I confess I see no difficulty there, and so I come to the main question—why have the Government preferred this system? I will tell your Lordships quite shortly. It seemed to those who examined this subject that, when you were dealing continuously with matters in which the Government and the citizens of the State were interested, it was intolerable to have a system under which those who were to give decisions, those who would be appointed as judges in these arbitrations by the State, should very likely next day be advising a landowner against the Government and, in other words, have standards which, I say quite plainly and with every desire not to give offence to those who practice a historic profession, exhibit the most amazing and inexplicable disparities that have ever, I think, been known among any class of witnesses who habitually give evidence on oath.
Let us take one or two illustrations of that. I remember appearing in an arbitration in which the Corporation of Liverpool was concerned. I am not sure that my noble and learned friend was not engaged in the same arbitration; he will remember if he was. It was a case in which the Corporation of Liverpool, by compulsory powers, took a very large estate belonging to a noble Lord who was then a Member of the House of Commons—Lord Leverhulme, who now sits in your Lordships' House. I do not, of course, tie myself to the exact figures, because I have conducted many cases since that day. It was many years ago when I was a member of the Junior Bar, but I should be very much astonished if the disparity between the valuations that were put forward on the two sides was not somewhat in the following proportions. I appeared for the Corporation of Liverpool. I believe that my expert witnesses, who were men of the highest possible distinction and gave evidence on oath, said that the property in their opinion was worth about £70,000, or £80,000. I quote the figures from memory—it occurred twelve or fourteen years ago. The expert witnesses on the other side, again the most distinguished men in the profession, with profound and emphatic conviction, swore that the property was worth something like £500,000. I do not recollect the precise figures, but if the noble and learned Lord was engaged in

205
the case he will recollect that the disparity was something of that kind. This is not, in my judgment, by any means an isolated case.
I had the good fortune in my career at the Bar to be occupied in as many of these cases as any one of my standing who was not a regular member of the Parliamentary Bar, and with that experience I say that the constant disparity between the evidence which was given on oath by expert witnesses, as they were called, was such as could not be explained by any reasonably divergence of view. And the same gentlemen who took so pessimistic a view of the claims of a private owner when they happened to be employed by a corporation had not the slightest difficulty a week later, if they appeared against the corporation in a similar case, in revising every figure and valuation which had been the basis of their finding in the other case.
I cannot believe that it is good for the country or for the subject that there should be this kind of uncertainty of standard. Get your court, your panel, and let those men say, "We have deliberately made a selection, we have given up the greater prizes of our profession, just as those who accept Judgeships make great sacrifices in order to accept the Judgeship, though they have been the most successful practitioners at the Bar. They make this sacrifice for the sake of the position and honourable rank of a Judge, and in no small measure for the possibility of making useful contributions to the fortunes of the State. We will make this sacrifice "; and I am sure we shall obtain a good class of man in return for the security and distinction these positions will confer. No doubt they will lose increment by accepting these positions, but on the other hand they will not have the slightest inducement except to apply all their powers to standardising the conclusions which they reach upon similar or comparable facts.
I lay the greatest possible stress on this. You have eight or ten men. They are ex hypothesi experienced men, because no one will be appointed who is not a man of experience. They will meet together, confer together, and their conclusions will all become, not indeed uniform, but you will attain a degree of standardisation which will be absolutely impossible to obtain under the method, and as I think the dangerous and unsatisfactory method, suggested by the Amendment. I hope I
206
have examined the arguments put forward not in the spirit of a man who does not admit their force. To be quite frank with the House I hesitated between the arguments, but I reached this conclusion. It is a conclusion on which the Government holds very strong views and I should be sorry if your Lordships found it impossible to acquiesce.
LORD BLEDISLOE: In view of the announcement by the Lord Chancellor of the fact that the Government are strongly opposed to the acceptance of this Amendment I suggest it would be undesirable to push the matter to a Division. I do not think, however, that I could sit silent and accept as gospel the Lord Chancellor's expression of opinion upon the possible lapses into undue partiality on the part of what we may call the cream of the surveyors' profession—and we are seeking to obtain the cream of that profession. I suggest that the cream of that profession are just as honourable, just as reliable, and jug, as impartial, when appointed to exercise judicial functions, as the cream of the legal profession. The chief guarantee against the appointment of persons who will act in a partial manner lies in the method of their appointment. It is open to a body of men, whom we all admit are above suspicion, to select these individuals. That is the best possible guarantee that you are going to have men of the highest integrity and men whose judgment as arbitrators can be fully trusted.
The Lord Chancellor has suggested that these men will say, "We are giving up the greatest prizes in our profession in order to become Government servants." That is true. But there is still a danger, if the Lord Chancellor's apprehensions are well founded, that these men may have a professional bias, because having a duty to the Government, and owing a renewal of their appointment to the good favour of the Government, they may act partially in the interests of the Government as against the owner of land. I do not want to press this point, but the fact that the Government have during the last few weeks selected one of the leading valuers, Sir William Peat, to act as Chairman of a Royal Commission composed of sectional interests—a man who has conducted as many valuations as any one—is evidence that, in the opinion of the Government themselves they can be trusted to do justice as between one conflicting interest

207
and another. After the first flush of work these gentlemen will not have very much to do. The deterent effects of the uncertain danger of chargeability in the matter of costs is going to render these compulsory valuations extremely rare after the first year or two. I am inclined to think we shall soon revert to a voluntary means of assessing the value of land in consequence of the serious burden which may be east on either party in the process of carrying out the intentions of this Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had an Amendment on the Paper in subsection (3), to leave out from "appointment" to the end of subsection (3), and to insert "and whilst holding office shall not give evidence on behalf of either party in disputed cases connected with the acquisition of land under compulsory powers."
The noble Lord said: I do not move this Amendment, but I desire to make a statement. I propose to put it down on the Report stage because it seems to meet some of the difficulties which were suggested by the Lord Chancellor.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought the noble and learned Lord would have accepted the decision on the previous Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes. Perhaps that should be so.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I want to explain that this Bill has taken rather longer than I had hoped, and a Royal Commission is fixed for 7.30, to give the Royal Assent to the Housing Bill, which it is desirable to pass into law at once, and to the Finance Bill. I am afraid that that involves my moving that the House do resume, which in turn I am sorry to say involves, in view of the fact that the Government has not the right to rearrange its business—which right will be given if the Motion on Monday next is assented to—that we shall not be able to resume this Bill this evening, because other measures will have intervened.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Cannot you move that the House adjourn till nine o'clock?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No, because there is other business which must be taken. I therefore suggest that I should now move that the House do resume; that Lord Parmoor's Bill, which is a pure formality, should receive a Third Reading; that the Finance Bill should receive its Third Reading; and that we should then adjourn till 9.15, and that on resuming we should continue the Committee stage of the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: When will you take this Bill again?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I shall put it down for Monday.
LORD PARMOOR: I hope it will not be put down for Monday. It is a most inconvenient day.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I agree that it is a most inconvenient day, but there is great pressure of business, and other Peers are pressing that other Bills shall not be put down for that day. Lord Midleton, for instance, does not wish us to take the Transport Bill. We shall not meet before 5.15 on Monday afternoon.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have been making inquiries about trains on Monday, and I can get no information at all.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am afraid we cannot altogether congratulate His Majesty's Government on the course of business, though it may not be entirely their fault. It is, for one thing, surely unfortunate that the Transport. Bill, as we are now to call it, by far the most important in its details of any of the Bills with which we have to deal, has apparently always to be taken in the late hours of the night. That is a marked inconvenience to a large number of your Lordships, and naturally affects the attendance. In the circumstances, we seem to be without any business for Monday; at all events, so far as the wishes of various noble Lords are concerned. There is a strong desire not to take the Transport Bill on Monday, and I understand that my noble and learned friend strongly objects to this Bill being taken. In those circumstances perhaps the noble Earl will tell us what he thinks is the most advisable course for the Government to take.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The business already down for Monday is the Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Bill, Second Reading; the Restoration of Pre-War Practices (No. 3) Bill, Second Reading; and two small measures, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and the Retired Officers (Civil Employment) Bill, and the further stages of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill, of which we have taken the Committee stage this afternoon. I am most reluctant to put down business which is inconvenient to your Lordship, but I would beg you to appreciate that there is a very heavy programme of business before us, and we are anxious to end this part of the session.
LORD PARMOOR: Might I suggest that as the judicial business is soon coming to an end the House might meet each day at an earlier hour.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Can the noble Earl tell us what in fact, is to be taken on Monday?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In the absence of the noble Marquess I stated what our proposal was, and I stated the objections to that proposal in various parts of the House. One proposal was that this Bill should be resumed from its adjourned position to-night, and the other that we should continue the Transport Bill. I understand that Lord Midleton finds it very inconvenient to attend for the Transport Bill, and Lord Parmoor to attend for this Bill—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: And Lord Selborne,
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: And Lord Selborne, and I have no doubt other Peers as well. A further group find it difficult to attend for the Scottish Town Planning Bill.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I have had a pretty long experience of Parliamentary business, and I never remember a Bill like the Transport Bill being taken on a day like Monday, with the difficulties of locomotion and with peace celebrations going on all over the country. Therefore I made an appeal to the noble Earl privately not to take the Transport Bill on Monday, but to take other measures, of which there are numbers before the House.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: May I support that appeal. The Transport Bill is a very important measure, and after to-night we shall have had two nights on it when the Bill has not come on until very late. If we do the same on Monday we shall have had a third such night.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I rose for was to ascertain of the Government what they intended to take on Monday, and the noble Earl was good enough to tell me the objections. Be did not tell me what the ultimate effect of those objections was upon his mind. I confess I do not thigh it is very regardful of the dignity of Parliament—
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Dignity!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry if I used the word disrespectfully of anybody. I think the word may pass without comment from the noble Earl. I was going to say that it is not very regardful of the dignity of Parliament to discuss such a Bill except in the presence of as many noble Lords as desire to attend.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is that the transport Bill to which the noble Marquess is referring.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes. I think the noble and learned Lord will agree that it is a more important matter than the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Bill, and it is very inconvenient that it should be taken at a time when noble Lords have difficulty in attending. It is not a question only of the convenience of your Lordships, for I gather that many are unable to attend because the trains do not run. I think as the process of passing Bills through Parliament is supposed to be by the united wisdom of your Lordships, it is not a good thing to take such a Bill at a time when many of your Lordships are not able to attend.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: We cannot get both Bills and. I suggest that we content ourselves on Monday with getting the last stages of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Bill, but we shall have to finish that on Monday, and make a great effort next week to get through the remaining stages of the Transport Bill. Otherwise we shall get well into the third week in August before the Commons receive the Lords' Amendments.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am not going to ask the noble Earl to reconsider his decision, but he must not be surprised if those who cannot attend on Monday try to make those observations on Report which otherwise would have been made in Committee. It may not, after all, mean greater progress.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: Will the noble Earl say whether it is proposed to sit after dinner every night next week?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I imagine that will be necessary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Transport Bill will be taken this evening?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes.
House resumed.

LOCAL ELECTIONS (PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

FINANCE BILL.
Read 3a and passed.
[The sitting was suspended at a quarter before eight o'clock, and resumed at a quarter past nine.]

MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 3:
Power to control temporarily rail ways, etc.
3.—(1) With a view to affording time for the consideration and formulation of the policy to be pursued as to the future position of undertakings to which this section applies, the following provisions shall, unless Parliament otherwise determines, have effect for a period of two years after the passing of this Act, or where as respects any particular provision a longer period is expressly provided, for such longer period:—

(a) Where at the passing of this Act possession has been taken of any railroad undertaking or part thereof in pursuance of section sixteen of the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, or otherwise, possession thereof shall be retained without any renewal of the warrant granted by the Secretary of State in pursuance of that section, upon the same terms as to compensa
212
tion as those heretofore in force, and the Minister may exercise over all such undertakings all such powers as have hitherto been exercised by the Board of Trade under the said Act or with the consent of the owners of the undertakings or otherwise, and such other powers as may be conferred by this section or agreed to by the railway companies concerned:

(b) The Minister may, after giving not less than one month's notice in writing, take possession, in the name or on behalf of His Majesty, of the whole or any part of any other railway undertaking or of any light railway or tramway (other than a tramway or a light railway used as a tramway belonging to a local authority), canal inland navigation, undertaking, and subject as hereinafter mentioned any harbour, dock or pier undertaking, or of any plant belonging thereto or used thereon (exclusive of privately owned railway wagons), and of any barges, tugs, and other craft owned or held by the undertaking of which possession has been taken:

(c) The directors and other persons concerned with the management, and officers and servants of any undertaking of the whole or part of which, or of the plant whereof, possession is retained or taken shall obey the directions of the Minister as to the user thereof, and any directions of the Minister in relation to any undertaking or part or plant thereof of which possession is retained or taken—

(i) as to the rates, fares, tolls, does, and charges to be charged; subject, however, to the provisions hereinafter contained repecting references to the advisory committee established for advising as to directions on the matters aforesaid;

(ii) as to the salaries, wages, and remuneration and conditions of employment of persons employed on or in connection with the undertaking;

(iii) as to the working or discontinuance of the working of the undertaking or any part thereof including directions as to keeping open or closing of any stations;

(iv) for securing that the permanent way, rolling stock, plant, appliances, or equipment, whether fixed or moveable, are satisfactory in type and design;

(v) as to the carrying out of alterations, improvements, and additions which the Minister considers necessary for the public safety or for the more efficient and economic working of the, undertaking;

(vi) for securing co-operation between undertakings and for securing the common user of facilities, rolling stock and equipment whether fixed or moveable;

213

(vii) for affording running powers over their system, or any part thereof, to the owners of any other undertaking;

(viii) for securing that manufacturing and repairing facilities and auxiliary and ancillary services shall be used, and the purchase and distribution of stores shall be conducted, in such manner as may be most conducive to economy and efficiency:

(d) For enabling any directions given by the Minister under subsection (c) of this section as to alterations, and improvements and additions to be carried into effect the Minister may, by order, authorise the owners of any undertaking to acquire any land (including easements) and to construct any works, and the order may incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order, being modifications of those Acts made or authorised to be made by the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, or any other enactment, and may incorporate or apply any of the provisions of any enactment relating to the construction, maintenance, or working of railways, light railways, tramways, canals, harbours, docks, and piers, and any such order shall have effect as if enacted in this Act: Provided that nothing herein contained shall be deemed to empower the Minister to authorise the acquisition, otherwise than by agreement, of any land belonging to the owners of another undertaking to which this section applies, or of a local authority, or of a harbour dock or pier undertaking, but the Minister may authorise the acquisition of an easement or right of using such land for the purposes of any works the construction of which he may authorise under this section:

(e) In the case of any undertaking of which possession is retained or taken by the Minister as aforesaid any rates, fares, tolls, dues and other charges directed by the Minister shall be deemed to be reasonable, and may, notwithstanding any agreement or statutory provisions limiting the amount of such charges or increases therein, but without prejudice to claims or complaints in respect of undue preference under the provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, 1854 to 1913, be charged in respect of any undertaking during the period for which the Minister retains possession of such undertaking and for a further period of eighteen months after the expiration of the said period, or until fresh provision shall be made by Parliament with regard to the amount of any such rates, fares, tells, dues, and other charges, whichever shall first happen.

(2) Subject as aforesaid, any agreement made between the owners of any undertaking, of the whole or part of which possession has been retained or taken under this section, and any other person shall continue in force in like manner as if such possession had not been so retained or taken, unless the Minister considers that such agreement is contrary to the public interest, and in that case he may suspend or modify the operation of such agreement during the period of such possession and for a period not exceeding eighteen months thereafter, and any party to the agreement who suffers loss or Injury by reason of such suspension or modification, and any person who by virtue of any special statutory provision or agreement, is entitled to the benefit of any special rate, fare, toll, due, or other charge, and whose position relatively to other persons is prejudiced by any direction of the Minister altering such special charge, shall be entitled to receive such compensation as, in default of agreement, may be determined by the Railway and Canal Commission, regard being had to any change in circumstances.
(3).—(a) For the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Minister with respect to and for safeguarding any interests affected by. any directions as to rates, fares, tolls, due, and other charges or special services, a committee shall be appointed consisting of five persons, one being a person of experience in the law (who shall be chairman) nominated by the Lord Chancellor, two being representatives of the trading interest nominated by the Board of Trade, one being a representative of transportation interests nominated by the Minister, one being a representative of labour interests nominated by the Minister of Labour, together with, if deemed advisable, one additional member who may at the discretion of the Minister be nominated from time to time by him.
(b) Before directing any revision of any rates, fares, tolls, due, or other charges, or of any special services, the Minister shall refer the matter to the committee for their advice, and they shall report thereon to him, and where such revision is for the purpose of an increase in the net revenue of any undertakings which the Minister determines to be necessary, the committee shall also advise as to the best methods of obtaining such increase from the different classes of traffic, having due regard to existing contracts and the fairness and adequacy of the methods proposed to be adopted.
(c) The committee, before reporting or advising on any matters referred to them under this section, shall, unless in their discretion they consider it unnecessary or undesirable to do so, give such public notice as they think best adapted for informing persons affected of the date when and the place where they will inquire into the matter, and any persons affected may make representations to the committee, and apply to be heard at such inquiry, and, if the committee in their discretion think fit, the whole or any part of the proceedings at such inquiry may be open to the public:
Provided that, for the purpose of this provision, any city, borough, county, or district council shall be deemed to be persons affected in any case where such council or any persons represented by them may be affected by any proposed revision as aforesaid.
(d) The committee shall hear such witnesses and call for such documents and accounts as they think fit., and shall have power to take evidence on oath, and for that purpose any member of the committee may administer oaths.
(e) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to all or any of the members of the committee such salaries or other remuneration as the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine.
(f) For the purposes of this section, special services means the services mentioned in section five of the schedule to the orders relating to railway rates and charges, and in the corresponding sections of the schedules to the orders relating to canal tolls, rates and charges confirmed by various Acts passed in the years eighteen hundred and ninety-one to eighteen hundred and ninety-four.
(4) Section twenty of the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916 (which relates to the establishment of new routes for omnibuses), shall continue in force until the expiration of two years after the passing of this Act, and shall have effect as if—

(a) the following provision was substituted for subsection (2) of the section (that is to say):—
(2) Except as provided in subsection (4) this section shall not be deemed to detract from any existing powers of highway authorities in regard to omnibuses; and

(b) the following subsection was added to the section (that is to say):—
(4) Where, upon application for a licence to ply for hire with an omnibus, the licensing authority either refuses to grant a licence or grants a licence subject to conditions, in either case the applicant shall have a right of appeal to the Minister of Ways and Communications from the decision of the licensing authority, and the Minister shall have power to make such order thereon as he may think fit, and such order shall be binding upon the licensing authority.

(5) The exercise by the Minister of any of his powers under this section as respects any tramway or light railway used as a tramway which a local authority, or two or more local authorities, have power to purchase under any Act of Parliament or order having the effect of an Act of Parliament shall not affect such right of the local authority, or authorities, and upon the purchase thereof such tramway or light railway shall cease to be in the possession of the Minister.
(6) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to exempt from any rate any undertaking to which this section applies.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection 1 (b), to leave out from "after giving not less" down to "railway undertaking or," and to insert" confer with the owners or local authorities with a view to securing improvements in the service."
The noble Lord said: I do not pretend that the words of my Amendment are in any way perfect; I do not make any claims to be a draftsman, but I think the point to which I desire to call attention is quite clear. My object is to take away from the Minister the new powers which are to be imposed upon hint as Minister of Transport for the first time. In Clause 3 these powers differ from those in Clause 2, because they give to the Minister for the first time powers over railway undertakings, light railways, or tramways, other than those which have already been given during the war to a Minister under the control system under which the railways have been managed recently.
The noble Earl in charge of the Bill used the following words on July 23 in this House—
"There is no question of taking over and managing these undertakings and taking them out of the hands of those in whose hands they are at the present moment. We do not profess to be able to manage railways better than the railway companies."
It is on that issue that I stand; and it is with a view of carrying out the intention of the noble Earl that I move this Amendment to maintain the management in the hands of the railway companies. We all know that the railway companies have been to a very large extent abused by the public in the past, but I am satisfied that in their management they will meet the wishes of the traders and of the travelling community to a far better extent than if they are to be entrusted to a centralised bureaucratic control, even under the control of a man of the distinguished parts of Sir Eric Geddes.
It is on the assurance that the noble Earl gave us that, I think, many of us supported the Government on the Second Reading, and in the vote we gave the other night in support of the Bill. We desire to impose upon the Minister the duty to advise railway companies, and we desire to impose on railway companies the obligation to take into consideration the views which may be expressed by a Minister who is anxious to promote the efficient conduct of the railways of this country, and to establish both efficiency and effective service for the benefit of the public. To give a Minister arbitrary powers to direct, to require, and to obey, seems to me entirely uncalled-for. We do not want to be directed by a Minister of the Crown as to the particular route by which we are to travel either by rail or by

217
road. We want to have liberty; but at the same time we are anxious to see economies effected in the services, and to see that the competition between railways in the interests of special shareholders shall not be prejudicial to the interests of the travelling public. In my judgment it is right that a Minister should be appointed who shall have certain powers of making representation to railway authorities in convection with the management of their concerns; but to be able to direct and to control and to call upon them to obey in an arbitrary fashion is to me un-English and contrary to the necessities of the case. I object to the peremptory direction which is secured under the provisions of this Bill.
The Minister no doubt may be called upon occasionally to look after the interests of the general public, as against, possibly, the interests of special shareholders; but I am satisfied that with the influence that a Minister Possesses he can make representation to railway companies which will enable them to retain the responsibility of managing their concerns without having to obey directions given in an autocratic way. It is necessary, I believe, for Ministers, just as it is for other authorities, to be subject to some limitation and restraint. It is the duty of a Minister to co-ordinate, and to see to the co-operation of the various transport services of the country. I believe that if that power is exercised in a proper and reasonable way he will secure a magnificent response from the railway companies and the other authorities in this country with whom he is going to be associated in the future. The local authorities and the local railway companies have special knowledge connected with their localities. They understand their own districts; the directors are men who are specially qualified to express an opinion as to the policy which ought to be pursued; they are men of large experience and they can be trusted, I think, with the management of their railway systems.
I am opposed to handing over the management and responsibility of railways to an autocrat. It is not because I believe that those powers will be exercised in an undue way by a man like Sir Eric Geddes, whom I have known for a great number of years, but because on principle I think it is undesirable that a Minister should be entrusted with powers which are of an autocratic and dictatorial character. Dictation tends to produce friction, and I am
218
quite sure bureaucracy tends to increase expense. It is with the view of preventing that heavy expenditure on the part of a new Ministry, and in order to promote cordial relations between the Minister of Transport and the various railway authorities in the country, that I move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, leave out from ("may") to the second ("of") in line 39, and insert ("confer with the owners or local authorities with a view to securing improvements in the service ").(Lord Gainford.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The noble Lord who has moved this Amendment is quite candid in the description he has given of the effect of it. He has told your Lordships that the object is to deprive the Minister of the powers of direction and control which are given to him under the Bill—that is, in fact, the effect of the Amendment. It will convert the mandatory hewers given to the Minister into purely consultative powers. If this Amendment is read in connection with others that the noble Lord has on the Paper later on the effect will be that, instead of having the power to issue directions to those undertakings of which he has taken possession, he is merely to be authorised to confer and to consult with the directors of those undertakings. I might point out, in passing, that no such power is necessary. He can confer and consult without being authorised to do so.
I think the noble Lord forgets, in the argument which he has used what is the fundamental fact which governs the whole situation—namely, that the State at this moment is the guarantor to these companies of their net revenue. So long as that situation lasts it is obvious that the State must also have power to secure to the public some advantage.
I would point out that there are a number of matters which the railway companies are quite anxious and willing to do but would be unable to do under their existing powers without a direction from the Minister. Without saying anything for the moment about the directions from the Minister which the companies might be unwilling to obey, there are many directions given in the course of subsection 1 (c) on page 4, notably an increase in their rates, which the railway companies are not able to-day to exercise without a period of

219
time so inserted as to make it impossible that any advantage may be derived within the next two years. I do not confine my defence of the powers in the Bill merely to the ground that there will be no direction from the Minister with which no railway company might disagree. The whole case rests upon the fact that during these two years during which the State stands behind the company in the matter of their finances, it is necessary that they should have some voice in the management of their undertaking. It is obvious that, if the State has got to pay, it must have some voice in the question of wages and salaries such as are mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (1). But it is not merely in the management of one particular undertaking, but in the supervision of the whole question of transport, that these powers are necessary in order to ensure that each undertaking is not managed merely from the point of view of its own interests, and that where possibly the interest of a particular undertaking might conflict with the general public interest in transportation matters, the Minister, who has his eye on the whole field, should come in and say, "This is necessary in the public interest."
We hold that that is necessary but we also admit that if, in the exercise of those powers, he inflicts any injury upon the undertaking, then the owners of the undertaking are entitled to some measure of compensation. That is provided for in another part of the Bill. I do not propose to enter into it now, but the principle is that if the Minister, in the exercise of his powers, causes any injury to the revenue-earning capacity of the undertaking, the owners shall receive compensation. Having provided against that, we hold that the ability of the Minister to exercise control during this period is absolutely vital to the objects we want to accomplish. The situation of the transport services throughout the country at this moment is much too serious to allow us to be satisfied with a mere consultative power on the part of the Minister. That being so, I can only say that the Amendment of the noble Lord strikes a blow at the very root of that principle and, of course, it is quite unacceptable to His Majesty's Government.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL BRASSEY EARL BRASSEY moved, in subsection (1) (b) after "The Minister may," to insert "with the consent of the owners of
220
such undertaking." The noble Lord said: This Amendment has a simliar object to that which was moved by Lord Gainford. The apprehensions which I expressed on the Second Reading of the Bill were founded on Clause 3, because the Minister practically has power to take over such an organisation as the London and North Western Railway Company at one month's notice, and I do not think any such power should be conferred on any Minister.
The noble Lord who moved the previous Amendment referred to the words used by the noble Earl in reply to the debate on the Second Reading. It may be the intention of the Government, and of the Minister-designate, not to interfere in the management of railways, but I think this should be made clear in the Bill. It is not clear now. This Bill is not only to provide for present circumstances but to provide for circumstances in which the noble Earl may not be in charge of a similar measure, and when Sir Eric Geddes may not be the Minister in charge of railways. I wish the noble Earl to understand that I myself believe there is a strong case for establishing a central authority to co-ordinate the system of transport in this country, and helping those who are responsible for the administration of our railways and other means of transport to remedy the disorder into which they have been thrown by the circumstances of the war, and not least by the concessions as regards hours and wages which have been imposed by the Government. Judging from the experience of our coal industry it would be absolutely disastrous for a Government Department, or Government officials, to interfere between employers and employed in the management of railways or any other means of transport. That is what I fear will be the result if this clause is carried in this present form. Divided responsibility is fatal.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, after ("may'') insert ("with the consent of the owners of such undertaking").—(Earl Brassey.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The only difference between this Amendment and the one on which your Lordships have just come to a decision is that, whereas the previous Amendment would have prevented the Minister from exercising control or taking possession of any undertaking and would have confined him solely to consultative means, the Amendment of the

221
noble Earl would have the effect of preventing the Minister from taking possession of any undertaking without the consent of its owners. Therefore all the remarks which I made upon the previous Amendment are appropriate. I do not think it would be of any use my repeating them. The effect is simply that the Minister shall not have power except with the consent of the undertaking; and That, we are unable to accept.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I listened to the very lucid speech which the noble Earl opposite made upon the last Amendment, and I admit with him that from the point of view from which the Government regard the Bill it would have been impossible for them to accept the Amendment which stood in the name of Lord Gainford. This is, however, a much more moderate Amendment, and it suggests that all that the Government desire to accomplish in the matter of this subsection, which is only as regards the railway undertakings already in the possession of the Government, could be done with consent and without coercion. The noble Earl opposite thinks differently. If the Government upon their responsibility declare that it would be impossible to work the Bill from their point of view without this coercive power, I should hardly feel able, after the line which I took upon the Instruction which your Lordships rejected, to go into the Lobby against them on this question of their Amendment; because in the effort which I then made to persuade your Lordships, I stated that for my part I was willing to grant: great powers to the Government with regard to railways, which were in a special position, and which powers I did not think ought to be extended to other parts of the Bill.
I would, however, put it to the Government whether they are quite wise to take this very strong line about railways. Is it not a very Prussian view about treating independent Englishmen? Apparently in the view of the Government you cannot expect railway companies to act in a public-spirited sense unless they are obliged to—unless you have the power to order them to surrender their liberty of action into the hands of the Government you cannot expect them to take that view.
I ask the noble Earl, and his colleagues whether during this war they have experienced that refusal amongst Englishman to
222
co-operate with the Government, even to the abandonment of their own liberty of action, in order to fulfil a great public service. I submit to them that their experience is entirely in the other direction, and that they have not made any demands, of any kind or sort, so far as England and Scotland are concerned, which have not been met in the most generous fashion. Why then should they desire to force people to do that which they show no desire to resist? What is it which has infected them with these Teutonic ideas? Why not leave us to be free, as we always have been?
I admit that the Government have a strong case in one sense, that they are going to find the money and are therefore entitled to call the tune. I do not, however, make an appeal to justice in this matter. I appeal to common sense and to reasonable treatment, and I suggest to the Government that they might confidently rely, if they had any real faith in their countrymen, upon the co-operation of these railway companies if they allowed the words of my noble friend to be inserted. As I have said, I do not propose personally to go into the Lobby against them, because it would be inconsistent with the line which I took on another occasion. But unless the Government change their spirit they will find they will meet finally with the determined opposition of all Englishmen and Scotsmen.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL BRASSEY EARL BRASSEY moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "one" and insert "three." The noble Earl said: This Amendment explains itself. I think it is quite unreasonable to give power to the Minister to take over the management of the North-Western Railway—the illustration I gave just now—on one month's notice. I am not sure that three months' notice is sufficient. But I think that at least three months' notice should be given of the intention of the Minister, and I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, leave out ("one") and insert ("three").—(Earl Brassey.)
LORD ISLINGTON: As I have the same Amendment down I should like to say a word in support of it. This subclause, and those that follow, open up the whole

223
operative powers of this Bill. This clause in all its varying and various sub-clauses empowers the Minister to control and conduct all these great undertakings throughout the country, and all these transport organisations upon which the complete commercial system of the country depends. This clause is perhaps the most far-reaching and comprehensive of any in the Bill, because it not only comprises the whole working expenses of these undertakings but it grants powers of such a character that they must if put into operation, at any rate in many instances, materially affect and influence for good or ill the whole conditions, social, economic, and commercial, of the locality in which they are imposed.
I agree with my noble friend Earl Brassey that one month is a totally inadequate period of notice that the Minister is to give to obtain possession of all or part of these undertakings. The Bill says that it is not to be less than one month. I propose, along with my noble friend, the extremely moderate extension that it should not be less than three months. One month would hardly enable time for the boards of management and for the governing bodies of these great undertakings to be called together. Still less would it enable them to discuss and decide as to the whole course they are to take in regard to the changes that will be effected preparatory to these vital and over-riding alterations that are to come about in regard to their own internal arrangements.
My noble friend may say, in reply to this that there will be plenty of time at a subsequent stage, as proposed in a later clause to the Bill, for the Committee to be set up to give its advice in regard to these undertakings. But, my Lords, I do not gather in the Bill that this committee will have the consideration and advice of all these matters that are enumerated in these various sub-clauses on page 4. The only matters that this sub-committee will have to deal with are such matters as rates, fares tolls, dues and charges. A very important question such as the salaries and wages of the employees, questions as to the working or discontinuance of the undertaking, the securing that the permanent way and rolling stock, plant, and appliances, and equipment should be dealt with or not, the carrying out of alterations and improvements, and the securing of co-operation—all these matters are to be dealt with in an
224
arbitrary manner by the Minister. And therefore I think it is incumbent on the Government, in the interests of all those concerned, to give a longer notice than one month.
I entirely agree with the main conception of this Bill which, as I understand it, is for establishing co-ordination of traffic. I voted against the noble Marquess the other day because I believe that that principle, if it is carried out in a moderate and reasonable manner in this Bill, is a perfectly sound one, and an essential one. But I am sure that many of your Lordships will share my view when I say that this principle should be carried out with due, proper, and reasonable consideration for those who are concerned, No one man, however able he may be and however fair-minded he may be, no one centralised Department, however efficient it may be, can do this successfully, unless the opportunity is offered of weighing the various conflicting effects that may result from this policy.
I think there are two blemishes in this Bill, and I hope, before it has passed through this House, that both those blemishes will undergo, at any rate, modification. In my humble opinion this Bill in many respects aims at too precipitate action. I do not believe that you are going to get any really permanently successful results from over-precipitate action. Secondly, I cannot see in this Bill at present—and I shall use my best efforts, along with your Lordships, to see it strengthened in this direction—that it furnishes a sufficient machinery for due and proper consideration for those vast and varied interests which will be affected when some of these powers are put into operation. Both those aspects of the problem should be given effect to in this Bill.
I have no confidence in a merely attractive and theoretical proposition in the four corners of a Bill. Unless it is coupled with careful and well-thought-out machinery for the consideration that can only be elicited successfully by examination from the interested quarters affected, I am sure that this Bill when it becomes a Statute, far from proving a blessing to this country, as I am sure the Government desire, will only bring about a very great calamity. It is in that sense that I shall address myself to the Bill, and that I support this, to my mind extremely reasonable, proposal of my noble friend for the extension of the time to three months.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: As my Amendment comes next to this and deals with the same subject I will speak now, and perhaps not move my own Amendment. I am quite willing to substitute for the words "twelve months" in my Amendment the "three months" which, I understand, has been moved by Lord Brassey. I think my noble friends made a mistake when they thought the London and North Western Railway is to be taken over. It is under the control of the Government already under different powers. As a matter of fact, taking one month's possession, or whatever the period is, only applies to a certain number of smaller railways, to a certain number of tramways and minor things. I am not saying that it is not important they should have justice, but it would not really affect the great railway companies at all. I think the Government might agree to not less than three months notice, which I think is the wish of the House. There are several smaller concerns—take the tramways round London nut municipally owned; I think it would be an outrageous thing to take them over at one month's notice. We have to think that the day may come when we may have a Transport Minister intent on very rapid and drastic nationalisation, and under this clause he could take possession of any of the privately-owned tramways or smaller railways. For that reason I shall support my noble friends if they go into the Lobby.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The noble Lord who has just sat down has saved me the necessity of pointing out to Lord Islington that he was incorrect in speaking of these great undertakings as being affected by this measure. What we are dealing with are those undertakings not at the moment in the possession of the Government. The large railway companies are at this moment in the possession of the Government.
LORD ISLINGTON: I know that. I was dealing with those in (b).
THE EARL OF LYTTON: They will be a very few railways—the District Railway, and the very small railways not now in the hands of the Government, and tramways, and canals. My argument on this Amendment does not, of course, rest upon that. I point that out merely by the way. I hope that I may be able in explaining this procedure to convince your Lordships that we are not such Prussians as the noble
226
Marquess conceives. If I understand it, the movers of this Amendment consider that it would be reasonable for us, on giving three months' notice to any undertaking, to obtain possession of it there and then without any further action. What I would like to point out to noble Lords who have spoken on the Amendment—
EARL BRASSEY: I had an Amendment on this clause which entirely qualified that. I did not think it was reasonable to take possession even with three months notice.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I do not think that the noble Lord has quite understood the procedure. What we have already given under the Bill is something far more than that. Noble Lords have overlooked the fact that in Clause 21 (at the top of page 23) before the Minister can exercise any of his powers under this subsection he has to refer to an advisory committee which is set up for the express purpose of examining the intentions of the Minister with regard to taking possession of any undertaking. Suppose the Minister decides that it is desirable to take possession of some undertaking not at this moment in his hands. He has first of all to refer this to the advisory committee; the advisory committee has then to hold an inquiry, and all the owners of the undertakings affected will come before this advisory committee and discuss them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They have not got to hold an inquiry; they may do so.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: You said that they had got to hold an inquiry.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Yes, I admit that. "The advisory committee to whom this matter is referred shall, if they see fit, give public notice and permit any person affected to place their views before them."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: "If they see fit."
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Yes. But this committee is appointed for the express purpose of advising the Minister whether or not it is advisable that he should take possession.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They are all the Minister's nominees.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The composition of the committee does not really arise at this point. This committee is appointed for the purpose of advising the Minister as to whether he should exercise those powers. Surely it is inconceivable that the committee can offer any advice at all unless they have consulted the persons who will be affected by it. If any opposition is expressed on the part of an undertaking to be taken over it is obvious they will make representations. Whether a public inquiry will be held or not is, it is true, at the discretion of the Minister. The owners will, at all events, have had notice from the Committee to whom the matter is referred that it is intended to take over the undertaking, and will have an opportunity of making representations to that Committee. All that process of inquiry may take a very considerable time. All that is stated here is that when that Inquiry is complete, and after the representations, if they have any claim it should be made to the Committee. Then, and not till then, shall one month's notice be given. By that time the whole purpose of giving notice will have been obtained, and there will be really no necessity to give any notice at all, because there is no preparation required on the part of these undertakings. The process is simply that the undertaking is taken over, and an official rubber stamp is placed upon their business. They have not to make any preparation for which notice is required. All their interests will be considered much more effectively in the preliminary negotiations than they could be by merely giving notice. By the time all that procedure has been gone through I feel sure the noble Lord will see that the undertakings concerned will have much more opportunity of making representations on matters concerning their interests than they would have by the mere receipt of notice, whether it be one month's, two months', or three months'.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I think we have all heard on this side of the House the speech of the noble Earl with great regret. A most moderate proposal is made, and really the noble Earl gives us the impression that moderation does not produce the result we should have expected in a case like this. What is the proposition of the Government? They have declared that they do not want to control but merely
228
to advise. In this clause the words as to control are as absolute as anything can be. We are not at war; we are not at grips with any crisis, and there is no reason for this extraordinary haste. The noble Earl puts up as a plea that before doing anything the Minister has got to make an Inquiry. What is the Inquiry? An inquiry by his own nominees. It is not necessarily a public Inquiry; it may possibly be secret. We know what the Government think about Inquiries from the Coal Inquiry. The fate of the greatest industry of this country was decided upon under pressure in about three weeks, to the eternal damage of the whole industry and of the country. Under those circumstances the Government do not come before us with clean hands about inquiries. I can quite imagine that a Minister might be appointed who would tell the Committee to consider the matter and report to him in forty-eight hours, and if he did so he would be giving a great deal more time, considering the relative importance of the things, than was given to the Coal Inquiries.
It really seems that the object of the Government is that the Minister should use at any moment powers which might have been tolerable in war but which are quite intolerable in time of peace. This is a Bill with control in every line. In those circumstances, even though the Bill has been brought up at such a late hour, when there is not the same attendance as there would have been at an earlier hour, if my noble friend goes to a Division I shall certainly go with him.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: May I put this case to the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill? I will give an instance which, I think, he will agree is a possibility, and a fair instance of how it would work. Supposing the Advisory Committee were to report against taking over one of the concerns at present uncontrolled, like the Tubes or the London United Tramways, the Minister has a right to override that decision. He then overrides the decision, notwithstanding the report, and he can take over the undertaking at a month's notice. I do not say he would do so, but he has the power to do so. We are not always dealing with Sir Eric Geddes. We may have somebody who is determined on ruthless nationalisation at the earliest possible moment, and if that Minister chose to put his powers into operation he could, even against the advice of the Advisory Com-

229
mittee, take possession of the concern at one month's notice. I do not think any one call say that is fair.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I look at the Amendment, as the noble Earl knows, from a point of view entirely friendly to the Bill, but I hope he will give a little more consideration to the matter. I listened carefully to his argument, based upon subsection (2) of Clause 21. I noticed he said that under the Bill the matter must be referred to a committee before notice is given under subsection (1) paragraph (b) of Clause 3. I doubt very much whether that is the effect of his Bill. If the noble Earl will look at page 23 and subsection (2), Clause 21, he will see that it provides that, before exercising any of the powers in subsection (1) (b) of Clause 3, to the exercise of which the owners of the undertaking concerned object, the matter shall be referred to a committee. I think that implies that notice has been already given to the owners of the undertaking because, until they get notice, they have no opportunity to object. I think the effect of the Bill is that the Minister might on the same day give his month's notice and refer the matter to his Committee. The Committee might possibly meet at once and dispose of the matter in a very short time and the effect might be that really the owners of the undertaking would have no more than a month's notice. I venture to think that the point requires consideration, and, if I am right; in my reading of the Bill, one month is really too short a time in which to expect the owners of a business undertaking to prepare to hand over their concern.
THE EARL OF LYTTON:: Of course, we are really concerned with undertakings that do object, because obviously if an undertaking is willing to be taken over, it does not require a day's notice. In such cases, the undertaking will come to the Minister and say, "Please take us over to-morrow." The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, said a case might arise in which, a matter having been referred to the Committee, the Committee might advise against it. Of course that might happen, but what no speaker in support of the Amendment has shown, is the necessity, from the point of view of the undertaking, of receiving notice. Nobody has said what inconvenience would be inflicted upon any undertaking by the fact that the owners knew that at the end of a month
230
they would be taken over. In what respect would any undertaking be better off if it knew it would be taken over in three months instead of in one month?
I think it is necessary before we are accused of doing something which is unfair, that it should be explained to us what advantage there is in the Amendment. What advantage is there to an undertaking, after its interests have been considered, to know that it will be taken over in three months instead of one? The disadvantage is obvious. It means delay. I did not say anything about the noble Lord's Amendment but it really is ridiculous. The Minister has only power for two years, and the noble Lord suggests that he should wait for twelve months before he did anything at all: I only mention that to show the disadvantage of extending the period, as it is obviously important these powers should be exercised as soon as possible. No attempt has been made by those who support the Amendment to show that any injustice or inconvenience will be imposed by reason of the shortness of notice.
LORD EMMOTT: I appeal to the Government on this matter. Is it quite reasonable that they should insist on only one month's notice? It must be the experience of every noble Lord present that it takes a month in the ordinary way to get an answer from a Government Department, and is it reasonable that the Government, on its side, should ask a commercial undertaking to decide in less than a month whether they are willing, and have no objection, to the Government taking complete control of their concern. I maintain it is not a reasonable time to give.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT: I should like to point out that this period of one month cannot be deemed to have been carefully thought out because when the Bill was introduced there was no period stated at all. A month was inserted while the Bill was before the House of Commons. Secondly, as regards the Advisory Committee. That was not in the Bill when introduced. These are Amendments which have been imposed on the Government during the consideration of the Bill in another place. As regards the statement of the noble Earl that nobody has given any reasons why this month was too short a period, I agree with Lord Emmott that a great undertaking requires time to get the Board together to consider what their

231
action will be. It is perfectly impossible for them to accept the notice and act upon it until they have had some sort of breathing time for consideration. At certain periods of the year it might, indeed, be difficult to get the Board together in a month. If the Government assume that on the mere fact of giving notice the persons affected will fold their arms and surrender that is another story, but that is not their intention, and certainly one month will prove, in practice, to be highly inconvenient. I think the Amendment to extend it to three months is in every way reasonable.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not venture to comment on the criticism made by Viscount Cave, but Lord Lytton informs me that it was not the intention of the Government that the notice should be given on the same day so that the month should actually include the time during which the Advisory Committee is going to act. The Bill says absolutely in clear terms that before the Minister exercises any of these powers he is obliged to refer the matter to the Advisory Committee.
VISCOUNT CAVE: To which the owners object.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: Can they object if they have not received notice?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: Then the giving of the notice is not one of the powers to be exercised.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My noble friend will most readily look into that point and consult his expert draftsmen, and if they agree in what Viscount Cave has said the matter can be revised. I was, however, rather surprised to hear the interpretation of the noble and learned Viscount. What I wanted to deal with is the reference that Lord Montagu, Lord Brassey, and Lord Islington made to Clause 21. I think by some of your Lordships it may not have been fully appreciated that this preliminary step did exist.
It was said, I think by Lord Midleton, that the Committee were nominees of the Minister. I am not quite sure that that is entirely the case. The Statute lays down
232
very specifically the qualifications of these gentlemen, and they are pretty stringent qualifications. They have got to be experts, to be impartial, to enjoy wide commercial and trading experience, and the Consultative Committee cannot be appointed except after a consultation with the various interests and parties concerned, and also with the various classes of undertakings affected by this Act—canals, railways or whatever it may be—and finally with the local authorities and other interests. One can hardly say that an advisory committee formed according to so stringent a Statute call consist of mere nobodies who are going to do whatever the Minister may give them a hint that he desires them to do. Then the Statute says how the Committee is to be formed and that once it is formed the Minister has got to refer to it before he can take action.
Then lastly this advisory panel, or any committee of it, before reporting or advising are entitled—it does not say they shall but are entitled—to give public notice and to permit anybody to appear before them. I think it is impossible to say everybody should have a right to appear before them, because the Committee must have some safeguard about preserving its own views of locus standi. I think, however, with these three provisions nobody can say that the case of these undertakings has not a chance of being placed before the Committee, which, although it may be nominated by the Minister must clearly represent all interests.
LORD ISLINGTON: I am sorry to delay the Committee, but I ant not impressed at all by anything which has been said by the Government. Whether my noble friend is right or not in his interpretation of the Bill I cannot see that it affects this matter. My noble friend Lord Lytton has asked for a reason why we should stipulate three months. The reason which I give is this, that assuming all the arrangements have been discussed at the Advisory Committee, and assuming that that precedes notice, although it is very doubtful if it does, even then there must be all kinds of internal arrangements of administration of these concerns which it is incumbent upon the management of these concerns to consider in view of being taken over by the Government. To ask them to make these internal arrangements within a month is to my mind unreasonable.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I do not think there is really very much between us. What we all, I think, agree about is that any undertaking must have due notice before it is actually taken over. It has always been the intention of the Government that that should be the case. Lord Cave pointed out that no undertaking can say whether it will consent until it has been given notice of the intention of the Minister to exercise his power, and therefore the first thing the Minister must do is to give notice to the undertaking. It was never the intention of the Government that that should be construed as notice to take possession, but if it be so construed subsequent discussion might not be terminated in one month, and in order to make it quite certain that full notice shall be received by the undertakings I am willing if the noble Lord will agree to extend it to two months.
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD ISLINGTON LORD ISLINGTON moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "take possession," and to insert "assume control." The noble Lord said: This may appear to be a mere verbal Amendment, but I think there is more in it than meets the eye. This Bill, as we all understand, is to create a Ministry with power to control and co-ordinate the various forms of transport throughout the country, and, if that be so, why should the Bill be drafted in such a manner as to amount in its impression to nationalisation. "Possession" by a Ministerial Department which has become an integral part of
EARL BRASSEY: For my part I am not prepared to accept the offer. I think three months is the minimum notice required in this case. I did not refer to Clause 21, because I think all reference to that clause, if the noble Lord will excuse my saying so, is completely beside the mark. As pointed out already, the panel set up under that clause are the nominees of the Minister. If the Minister wants them to decide it, they will decide it in a day. It does not afford the least protection to the undertaking that the Government wishes to take over. I therefore press my Amendment.
On Question, whether the word "one" shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 34.

CONTENTS.

Bradford, E.

Peel, V.

Newton, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Craven, E.

Annesley, L.

Ranksborough, E.

Jersey, E.

Clinton, L.

Shandon, E.

Lytton, E.

Cochrane of Cults, B.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Colebrooke, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Harris, B.

Wyfold, E.

Churchill, V.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Devonport, V.

Islington, L.

Hood, V.

Joicey, L.

Salisbury, M.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Belper, L.

Lovat, L.

Brassey, E. [Teller.]

Bledisloe, L.

Montagu of Beanlieu, E.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Ribblesdale, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Morton, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Rotherham, L.

Mount Edgeumbe, E.

Denraan, L. [Teller.]

Strachie, L.

Stanhope, E.

Ebury, E.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Wicklow, E.

Emmott, L.

Sudley, B. (E. Arran.)

Erskine, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Cave, V.

Forester, L.

the Government can only mean, to the ordinary mind, possession by the State, and will undoubtedly be construed as such by all those who desire to consummate the policy of nationalisation.
I am told that these words have been. taken from a previous Act of 1871, the Regulation of Forces Act, that it is merely a technical term, and that it does not, in fact, mean possession, but only control, as it did in that Act. But I do not think that is a very valid reason for its survival in these days. In 1871 there was no question in the country of nationalisation, there was therefore no danger in wording an Act in a somewhat vague form, as that Act was worded. But we live in very different times

235
to-day. Nationalisation of the industries of the country is rapidly veering to the forefront as an issue of the most prominent controversy in the country.
This Bill, when it becomes law, will have to be complied with by a very large number of interests in the country, embracing large sections of the public, most of whom had been brought up to regard a word in the English language to imply what it means and to be recognised as such. "Possession" is a perfectly simple word and every one understands what it means. "Control" means something quite different. I venture to say that it is control and not possession which is the principle of this Bill, and if that be so why should it not be embodied in the Bill? In this Bill we are breaking entirely fresh ground; and in view of what I have said, merely for the sake of preserving an obsolete uniformity of drafting, we should not introduce into this Bill a word which is not really meant, and which, perhaps, in a few years—indeed, in a few months—may be administered by a Government which will give effect to it in its literal sense. I think there is a grave danger in this, and that it is incumbent upon His Majesty's Government to avoid lending assistance to it. Therefore I would ask them to accept the substitution of these words which really embody the principle of their Bill, and get rid of the old phrase which is so vague.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, leave out ("take possession") and insert ("assume control").—(Lord Islington.)
THE EARL OF LYTI'ON: There is no point of substance involved in this Amendment. It is really a mere matter of words. There is, however, a considerable objection to accepting the noble Lord's Amendment, for this reason. At the present time the Government is in possession of the railways, of which they have taken possession under the Act of 1871. No alteration of the words here can alter that fact. Now, if it is said that the Government are in possession of undertakings which were taken over during the war under the Act of 1871, and possession of which is now retained, but that in respect of other undertakings control is assumed under the powers of this Act, then surely it will be assumed that there must be some difference between the powers of the Minister with respect to those undertakings of which he has assumed
236
control and those of which he is in possession. That would lead to considerable confusion and, I think, would be a puzzle.
It really is not a question of substance, because the powers of the Minister, whether you say he has assumed control or taken possession, are the powers contained in the further subsections of this clause. If there should be any doubt that these words "take possession" had vested the property of the undertakings in the Ministry, of course that could be cleared up. It has never occurred to any one that because the undertakings have been in the possession of the Minister under the Act of 1871 the property is vested in the Minister; and it never would occur to any one under the wording of this clause, I think. If it should be necessary to insert words to make that clear I believe it could be done. I am of opinion that it would be a mistake to give rise to the opinion that there will be any difference in the powers exercised between one set of undertakings and another.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Would it alter the position if the Government put in the words as in the Act of 1871?
THE: MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I had always understood that the words "take possession" only meant to give control. I confess that I think it is most unfortunate, if I may say so with respect in the presence of the noble and learned Viscount, that legal language is sometimes very deceptive to the ordinary reader.
VISCOUNT CAVE: May I point out that it is not legal language; it is statutory language.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I live and learn. I did not know that there was a distinction between the two; but I shall remember hereafter, on the authority of a great light of the Bench, that statutory language is not always legal language. I think, at any rate, it is very unfortunate, and I should not perhaps have been called upon to trouble your Lordships with a single word if it had not been that there seemed to be a lingering doubt in the mind of the noble Earl whether there was not possibly some question as to the meaning

237
of "take possession" and as to the way in which the Act of 1871 has been interpreted. He, however, says that if there should be any doubt as to "take possession" involving becoming the owner of the property of the railway, he would take care to clear it up. I think that is a very fair offer. If he would consult his legal advisers and find out whether it is absolutely clear, and, if not, undertake to put it right, I should have thought that would be sufficient for our purpose.
LORD ISLINGTON: In the circumstances I would suggest some such words as, "take possession with the object of control."
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Would it not be better if my noble friend would put in the simple words "as defined by the Act of 1871"
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I think that is covered, because it states that, "Where at the passing of this Act possession has been taken … in pursuance of Section sixteen … possession shall be retained." That is in subsection (1) (a). I think it may be assumed, when the words occur in subsection (1) (b), that it is possession in the same sense. If, however, there is any doubt as to the exact meaning of the words, and it may be thought necessary to define them further, I will consider the matter at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD JOICEY LORD JOICEY moved, in, subsection (1) (b), after "any other" to insert "statutory." The noble Lord Said: There is no definition of what a railway undertaking is in this Bill, and I gather that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government simply to take possession and deal with railways which are what I call statutory railway undertakings. There are scores of railways in various parts of the country which are private railways, which are owned by various industries that are used entirely for the carrying on of those industries. The traffic upon them generally goes at about 8 or 10 miles an hour. There is some anxiety about this matter in the North of England and other places where these railways exist, and I have been asked to have this point properly defined.
238
I gather from the noble Earl that he will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, after ("any other") insert the word ("statutory").—(Lord Joicey.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am quite willing to accept this Amendment, which makes clear the intention of the Government.
Amendment agreed to.
LORD ISLINGTON LORD ISLINGTON moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "other than a tramway or a light railway used as a tramway belonging to a local authority." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment with a view to elicit front His Majesty's Government a statement why this most important link of the scheme of national transportation is to be omitted. I must frankly admit that in moving this Amendment I do so solely on my own responsibility, and I have no authority to do so from any local authorities that possess these tramway or light railway systems.
The tramways and light railways owned by local authorities are extremely numerous in this country. I have not been able to obtain the figures, but I do not think I am incorrect in saying that there are probably more tramways municipally owned than those owned by private companies. Whether that is so or not, the exclusion of tramways belonging to local authorities will undoubtedly dig very deep into the proposals for effective co-ordination as proposed in this Bill. Whole slices of country, and this, indeed, the most industrial and populous, will be bereft of those advantages of central direction and co-ordination which the Bill seeks to grant to the country. It will create a series of transport anomalies and partialities throughout the country. These very links and connections in the chain of transport, especially in relation to tramways, are to depend, not on the necessities of the case, not on the intrinsic requirements of the localities, but merely on the fortuitous circumstance of ownership. These tramways owned by public authorities are in the most industrial localities, most thickly populated, and one of the chief objects of this Bill, as I understand it, is to assure, through this new Ministry, an effective form of co-operation between transport and housing.
These new schemes of housing that are so urgently needed, especially in our thickly populated industrial districts, will require for their success absolutely the best form of regular traffic and transport. It is in these very centres, with vast population now inadequately housed, where great schemes are being projected to supply houses for the population, that it will be found that the existing tramway systems, owned by local authorities, will not have any of the advantages of this Bill. I think that is a very important point, because these housing schemes, for their utility and success, must depend upon the extension of the tramway systems. It is true that there is a provision in the Bill to give the Minister power to establish these lines himself, but that does not appear to me to be a very practicable arrangement. The practical course would be to come to some arrangement with the local authority so that the local authority might extend its own tramway systems. I suppose the reason that influenced another place to omit the tramways owned by local authorities was that they were owned by those authorities, as distinct from private ownership, and that therefore, they should not be interfered with by a central authority. By this Bill the Government are placing roads under the Ministry, and roads belong to and are maintained by—
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Not taking possession of them.
LORD ISLINGTON: I am not asking for this Ministry to take possession of the locally-owned tramways. I am asking them to have the power of direction, so that in co-operation with them the local authorities can extend the tramway systems to meet the demand of fresh housing. I give another instance. Last week in clause after clause in the Housing Bill powers were given of the most drastic character to the Ministry of Health over local authorities in the matter of housing schemes, and I really think there should be no diffidence on the part of the Government in asking local authorities to act under central direction and thus give effect to a complete and perfect system of transport throughout the country. Rapid, regular, and cheap tramway facilities are an integral and indispensable part of a successful housing scheme, and there can be no argument on the merits for the omission of tramways. It must certainly impair the
240
success of the housing schemes and it will also impair the whole system of coordinated traction throughout the country.
Probably the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment in its bald form, because I can quite see that difficulties would arise. I can see that the whole system of tramways in London would have to be dealt with in another fashion, as well as the tramways systems in our great cities. But before passing the Bill I hope the Government will give due consideration to the points I have put forward. I ask them to see that in our industrial centres they must play an important part as a connecting link in the whole traction system and should be brought into closer co-operation with the new Ministry.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 40, leave out from the first ("tramway") to ("canal") in page 4, line 1.—(Lord Islington.)
LORD JOICEY: I support what has been said by Lord Islington. It is most important that there should be a complete system of tramways and that the Government should have some control over municipal tramways. Municipalities sometimes quarrel. I have known a case where two municipalities kept the tramways separate, and unless there is some central authority you will find there will be difficulties in some industrial districts. Now that the housing question has become so important it is necessary there should be a complete tramway system for the people who will live in these houses. This is a very important point.
LORD EMMOTT: I differ from my two noble friends. I do not think it is practical politics to attempt to take out these words. Objections might be made by local authorities. Neither have they brought forward anything to show that the tramway systems would be better worked than by local authorities. The duties which the Bill imposes are vast enough without adding to them the care of all the tramway systems now controlled by local authorities. On the whole I would trust local authorities about these matters rather than give the Government power to take possession. It is not advisable to give the Government power to take possession unless it can be shown that local authorities are making a bad use of them.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: It is rather a novel and pleasant experience to find noble Lords anxious to impose upon us powers and duties which we have not asked for in the Bill. I rather gather from the speech of the noble Lord who moved it that he was not so much anxious that we should take possession of these municipal tramways as he was to make a point at the expense of the Government for not having been consistent in maintaining their Teutonic attitude upon all points.
It is true that in the first draft of the Bill powers were asked to take possession of these tramways, and I do not think the Government would offer any objection if your Lordships once more placed these under their control, but the argument of the mover has really been met by the last speaker. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment is quite right in saying that the real importance of tramways is in regard to housing, and that the Government could not honestly say that these local authorities had in the past shown any reluctance to meet the housing needs of the country by extending their own tramway systems. As the noble Lord has pointed out they have powers under the Bill should that be the case to start or extend tramway systems of their own, but owing to the very strong opposition expressed by various municipalities the Government had to consent to put in these words which the noble Lord now wants to strike out. As I have said, if your Lordships decide to reinsert these words we shall not quarrel, but I can hold out not much hope that they will be reinstated by the House of Commons.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I share the view of Lord Emmott on this matter, but I was very much interested to hear how the dexterous speaker who has just sat down would get out of the logical difficulty put to him. I cannot understand the ground upon which the Government made this distinction between one set of tramways and another, but I am only too grateful that some tramways have been spared, and therefore do not desire to press them at all. These are, however, signs of the battlefields in the House of Commons—the various measures of retreat as the Government have been driven from point to point. This is one of them. As the Bill was introduced all tramways were included, but I think I am not wrong in saying they were
242
induced in Standing Committee to give up the municipal tramways, just as they were induced to give up power to take over other vast undertakings permanently, which was the original Clause 4 of the Bill. Under all these circumstances I am inclined to hope that my noble friend will not proceed with his Amendment, but let us save, at any rate, the municipal tramways.
LORD ISLINGTON: I do not propose to press this Amendment, but I am bound to say I do not think the answer of the Government is a very adequate one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 40, after the first ("tramway") insert ("undertaking").
Page 4, line 1, leave out ("canal") and insert ("or of any canal or")
Page 4, line 2, after ("mentioned") insert ("of")
Page 4, line 3, leave out ("thereto") and insert ("to any such undertaking as aforesaid").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of subsection (1) (b), to insert: "at the end of two years from the passing of this Act the possession of any undertaking possession of which has been retained or taken under this clause shall be restored forthwith to the owners of the undertaking, unless Parliament shall otherwise determine, and it shall be the aim of the Minister to restore such undertakings in such a condition in respect of efficiency and reserve earning capacity that no expenditure of public money shall be necessary for their upkeep."
The noble Lord said: This is a rather important Amendment and is supported by various commercial bodies and others, and it aims at securing that if nationalisation does come we shall not glide into it without Parliament having an opportunity of expressing its opinion. We have heard from the Government that they do not consider this Bill is a step towards nationalisation. I differ from them on that point. Moreover we are told that it is rather the other way, and that if it was not for this Bill we should have to have nationalisation. This is an endeavour to avert what I may call the glide into

243
nationalisation without Parliament or the country being consulted upon it. Although the preamble to Clause 3 says "the following provisions shall have effect for two years," and although this clause, I take it, is governed by those words, these things are, I imagine, a preliminary to consultation about the policy to be pursued. Nothing is done specifically to show that after two years the Minister, if still in possession under the terms of the Act of 1871, is under any obligation to give up these undertakings or return them to their original possessors. I think we ought to make it clear that it should be the Minister's statutory aim to restore the railways in a revenue earning condition at the end of the two years, and that if he runs them on the lines of certain municipal trams—namely, not to pay but to be a public service, merely to earn their expenses and nothing more—then it will be absolutely impossible in my opinion to avoid nationalisation, because the State cannot go on subsidising the concerns at the end of two years; and the companies, in the second place, will not want them back.
I move this Amendment for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Government can give us any clear statement of policy as to what they intend to do at the end of the two years, and to avert as far as possible the gradual and irresistible glide into nationalisation without the previous authority of Parliament or the country. I do not move this in any spirit of hostility to the Bill, but in order that the Government may give us information, and, if they are sincere in their statement that this Bill is not a step to nationalisation, I hope that they will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 7, at end insert ("at the end of two years from the passing of this Act the possession of any undertaking possession of which has been retained or taken under this clause shall be restored forthwith to the owners of the undertaking, unless Parliament. shall otherwise determine, and it shall be the aim of the Minister to restore such undertakings in such a condition in respect of efficiency and reserve earning capacity that no expenditure of public money shall be necessary for their upkeep").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I think the noble Lord has moved this Amendment under a misapprehension The first words of the Amendment I can assure him, are entirely unnecessary. I do not think there
244
is any doubt whatever, under the words of the Bill as they stand, that if power is given to the Government to take possession of any undertaking for two years, that at the end of that two years possession must revert to the owners of the undertaking unless of course Parliament decides otherwise in the meantime. All that the noble Lord is proposing to do in the first part of this Amendment is to say that that shall be the case. I say that the words are unnecessary because that must be the case. With regard to the second part of the Amendment I think the words are objectionable. I really do not quite know what some of them mean, and in ally case I think that it is very undesirable to put into an Act of Parliament the expression of a pious opinion that it should be the aim of the Minister to do certain things; certainly it will not be the only aim of the Minister to do these various things stated in the Amendment. Except on that ground I should have no objection to its being said that it should be one of the aims of the Minister to restore such undertakings in a condition of efficiency. But I have an objection to the last words of the Amendment. As I say, I do not quite know what they mean, and it seems to me that they imply an obligation—
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Will the noble Earl say what words he objects to?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: "No expenditure of money shall be necessary for their upkeep." That seems to me to imply an obligation on the part of the State to give to those undertakings some assistance out of public money other than in the form of compensation. The policy of the Bill is this. The Government is given possession or control over these various transport undertakings for a period of two years. At the end of that time they will be handed back to the owners of the undertakings, and Clause 8, which we shall come to presently, sets out the conditions which shall attach to their being handed back. It is there set forth that, if the undertakings have been improved by the Minister, then the owners are not to have the benefit of that improvement. If, on the other hand, they have been depreciated, then the owners are not to bear the expense of that depreciation. All that is set forth in Clause 8, and that represents the obligation

245
of the Government in the matter of compensation. I really do not know what is meant by the noble Lord in these words. I object to putting into an Act of Parliament words saying that "it shall be the aim of the Minister to restore such undertakings," using the words of the noble Lord's Amendment, and I object to the implication contained in the last words that there is any obligation to spend money at the end of these two years upon the undertakings otherwise than in the form of compensation, which is provided for in Clause 8.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I think that the object of the Amendment is one that the noble Earl cannot altogether deal with, because at present every railway tries to make the best of its undertaking. By hypothesis the Minister, in taking them over, is not going to study the advantage of any particular undertaking, but of the whole of them. What my noble friend wants to avoid is leaving some of the undertakings, one or two, in such a condition that they have really been acting as feeders to others, but not to their own advantage, so that they cannot be taken back except with the greatest possible difficulty by the shareholders. All that, I am afraid, must follow upon the main principle of the Bill, which some of your Lordships disapprove, but which at the same time is the substratum of the Bill, and therefore I do not think it is worth while pressing the Amendment at this stage.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I am not quite reassured by what the noble Earl has said, but I understand him to say that automatically at the end of two years these undertakings are restored, unless Parliament otherwise determines.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Certainly.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: So that I suppose that that is as far as we can get at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved, at the end of subsection (1) (b), to insert: "There shall be paid to any company whose railway undertaking or light railway or tramway or any part thereof may be taken possession of in pursuance of this
246
section, such fall compensation for any loss or injury they may have sustained by the exercise of the powers of the Minister under this section as may be agreed upon between the Minister and the said company, or in case of difference, may be settled by arbitration in manner provided by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to secure that any undertaking at present not controlled and not taken over shall, should it be controlled and taken possession of, receive at least as fair treatment, as the result of the process, as has been received by the undertakings which have been taken over.
A short time ago the noble Earl in charge of the Bill expressed the laudable desire to adhere to and repeat the spirit and the exact wording of the Statute of 1871, under which the great railway undertakings have been taken over. This Amendment adopts verbatim the wording of the third paragraph of the very section under which those undertakings have been taken over. It provides in like manner for full compensation for any loss or injury that they have sustained by the exercise of the powers, and that, if compensation should be agreed upon between the parties, or should agreement fail, it should be referred to arbitration under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845. I think that such an Amendment hardly requires elaboration or persuasion, and a heavy presumption in its favour throws upon those who propose to resist it the duty of showing any reasons why any undertaking, which up to now has been providing for the requirements of the public and which it is proposed to take over in the general interest, should suffer in treatment in any respect worse than the undertakings which with such great advantage to the State have been taken over by the State daring the years of the war under the powers of the Act of Parliament which I propose to make applicable totidem in verbis to the case which my Amendment is designed to meet.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, after line 7, insert the said words.—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I suggest that this Amendment is out of order at this point. This clause deals with the powers of the Ministry and the Amendment deals with the question of compensation. I do

247
not press the point, however. The Amendment seeks to provide a scheme of compensation under the Lands Clauses Act. The Government have in Clause 8 a scheme of compensation, which has been agreed with all the railway companies, whereby the Tribunal shall be the Railway and Canal Commission. I cannot help thinking that hopeless confusion would result if more than one Tribunal were set up under the Bill to deal with the claims for compensation. I cannot discuss the matter in greater detail at this moment beyond saying that the Government's policy with regard to compensation is dealt with in Clause 8, and that this is a clause which meets with the approval of all the railway companies. I cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I must remark that I think it is a little hard, when
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment is in the name of the Earl of Bessborough. I would suggest to the noble Earl whether it is necessary that those words should be moved. It seems to me that if the noble Earl obtains his proviso lower down on page 5, line 5, the words will not be necessary. If he does not, they mean nothing.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I understand that it is purely consequential, and I will leave it to a later stage, and not move this Amendment now.
EARL BRASSEY EARL BRASSEY moved, in subsection 1 (c), to leave out "obey the directions," and insert "give full consideration
I have adopted the exact wording of the old Act of Parliament, that I should be faced with a difference of procedure; and after all, Clause 8 does not apply to this case at all. That clause applies to the return of the undertakings which have been taken over. My Amendment applies to the act of taking over, to the doing of damage in the taking over, and the terms of the agreement under which the undertakings are to be taken over. Clause 8 applies to a later stage of the proceedings, and I respectfully differ from the noble Earl. My Amendment rests upon abstract justice and upon the practice already adopted by the Government.
On Question, whether the words proposed shall be here inserted?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D. [Teller.]

Selborne, E.

Erskine, L.

Stanhope, E.

Forester, L.

Salisbury, M.

Wicklow, E.

Islington, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Brassey, E.

Hood, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midlelon.)

Strachie, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Stuart of Wortley, L. [Teller.]

Morton, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bradford, E.

Annesley, L.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Chesterfield, E.

Belper, L.

Joicey, L.

Jersey, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Newton, L.

Lytton, E.

Clinton, L.

Shandon, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Colebrooke, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Peel, V.

Harris, L.

Wyfold, L.

to any suggestion." The noble Earl said: The part of the clause which my Amendment proposes to alter states that the directors, officers and servants of any undertaking which is taken over shall obey the directions of the Minister. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill, as I and others have pointed out, has asserted that he desired that this Minister should work through the existing management of railway undertakings and not supersede it. What I wish to submit to him and also to your Lordships is that you will get much better service out of any body of Englishmen, whether they be employers or workmen, if you make suggestions to them and appeal to them to put forth their best energies to carry out what you wish them to do, than by placing them in the position in which they would be placed under the clause as it stands. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("obey the directions") and insert ("give full consideration to any suggestion").—(Earl Brassey.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I feel that the point has been already covered by the discussions which have taken place on previous Amendments on which your Lordships have come to a decision. It raises once more the whole question whether the Minister is to exercise his powers under the Bill in giving directions to the undertakings or merely in receiving suggestions from them. I feel that it would be merely wasting the time of the House to discuss the whole question again.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I confess I do feel that that is so—that this point has been already decided in principle by your Lordships, and I think perhaps it would not be right or proper for us to go into it again. My noble friend knows that I have general sympathy with a great deal of what he said, but I hope he will not press the matter.
EARL BRASSEY: In response to the appeal of the noble Marquess I am willing to withdraw the Amendment, but I wish to express again that I do feel that a great mistake is being made by treating Englishmen as they are being treated under this proposal.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH moved, at the end of subsection (1) (c) (viii), to insert the following new paragraph: "(ix) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising the Minister to impose on the owners of the undertaking without their consent the obligation to make any expenditure or incur any liability which in the opinion of the owners would seriously interfere with their finances."
The noble Earl said: I venture to submit to your Lordships that the scheme of this Bill is that the railways should be preserved intact so that they may be handed back, or possibly handed back, to the commercial management of the companies at the end of the two years period of control. It is obviously necessary, therefore, that if they should be so handed back, they should be returned with their financial resources unimpaired. It appears that if the Boards of Directors have some
250
voice in the management of the undertaking that the question of the finances should be under their care. The Amendment provides that the Minister shall not be in a position to oblige the Company either to burden itself with new capital against its consent or be called upon to deplete its reserves. In these matters I submit that the financial control of the Company must be left undiminished in the hands of the Directors.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, at end insert the following new paragraph:
"(ix) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising the Minister to impose on the owners of the undertaking without their consent the obligation to make any expenditure or incur any liability which in the opinion of the owners would seriously interfere with their finances."—(The Earl of Bessborough.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am quite willing to agree in principle with the Amendment. The noble Earl, as I understand it, wishes to make sure that a railway company at the end of two years shall not be compelled, by any action the Minister may take, to borrow capital on disadvantageous terms, or unduly deplete their reserves. It is certainly not the intention of the Government to place such an obligation on the companies. I am not, however, able to accept the Amendment in the words in which it has been moved. The last words "which in the opinion of the owners would seriously interfere with their finances" are rather too vague, but if the noble Earl will withdraw the Amendment I will undertake to consult with him how this point may be met by the insertion of some such words as "capital expenditure," or words which will limit the Amendment to the points he has raised. I am confident we shall be able to find words to meet the point.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I am obliged to the noble Earl. I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The next is a drafting Amendment—
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 6 and 7, leave out ("under subsection (c) of this section") and insert ("the last foregoing paragraph").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Before the noble Earl, Lord Brassey, moves the next Amendment I should like to ask the Government how long they propose to sit to night. The next Amendment will probably take some time. It raises the considerable point as to what the powers of the Advisory Committee are to be. It would not do for me to discuss it now, but I should like to suggest that, as it raises an important question and is likely to take some considerable time, this is a convenient moment for the debate to be adjourned.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: In response to the invitation of the noble Marquess, I think perhaps it would be convenient if at this stage our proceedings were adjourned. In moving that the House do resume, I desire to call attention to a matter, and to offer a personal explanation with regard to a passage in Viscount Devonport's speech on the Second Reading. I do not see the noble Viscount in his place. He was here just now, and I should like to make the explanation I have to make in the presence of the noble Viscount.
As, however, it is a matter of very considerable importance, I feel bound to take the earliest opportunity of bringing it to your Lordships' attention. Speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, Lord Devonport used these words—
"Sir Eric Geddes did not pay any tribute of praise in respect to that management."
He is speaking about the Railway Executive Committee—
"He said that the control was bad. I think I must quote what he said, if I may be allowed to, because it has a very important bearing. He said, 'During the war they were worked under an executive committee composed of the general managers of the principal lines—' "
Then he went on to quote the following from Sir Eric Geddes's speech in the House of Commons—
"I have seen it suggested that the executive committee might go on. Any one who suggests that railways could go on for another two or three years in the position in which they are to-day, working under the executive committee of general managers in the position in which they are to-day, really does not understand the proposition at all. It is quite impossible. That control, which was bad during the war, is trebly bad now. It is almost impossible to expect development under it."
The noble Viscount continued—
"That is an astounding statement. It is one more of those statements which are not true in fact."
252
The noble Viscount, in using those words, did a grave injustice both to Sir Eric Geddes and to the Railway Executive. He informed your Lordships that Sir Eric Geddes did not pay any tribute of praise to the Railway Executive. These are the words which the noble Viscount left out of his quotation. They occur between the two parts which he quoted from the speech. The words omitted are these—
"The executive committee have done a work of which they are justly proud, and for which the country should be grateful, but they were an emergency committee. They did not really run the railways. They have no power over any capital expenditure, and no power to do anything but keep the thing moving. It is quite impossible to go on with that system. Development which is necessary has been dead, and economies on a large scale are really impossible as long as railways have separate interests to consider."
Again, Sir Eric Geddes, speaking on the Third Reading, said, after giving an account of the position in which the Railway Executive is placed—
"Therefore, though they have done most excellent work in a most patriotic way, I think it may be necessary to some extent to modify the procedure and powers and constitution of the Railway Executive Committee."
Those words were precisely the same as were used by Lord Devonport himself when he said that in his opinion there was undoubtedly a case for changing the method of control.
I call attention to the passage omitted because the noble Lord gave an impression to your Lordships that Sir Eric had underrated the work done by the Executive Committee, had condemned their work as bad, and had paid no tribute of praise in respect of it. Yet between the two passages which the noble Viscount quoted occurred these words paying a very great tribute of praise to the Executive Committee. I cannot help feeling that the noble Viscount must have been supplied with the passage from which these words were omitted. I do not believe he omitted them deliberately. I impute no motive to the noble Viscount, but I only feel that, in justice to those affected, I should make this explanation.
House resumed.

MEDWAY CONSERVANCY BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following twelve Bills received the Royal Assent—

Finance.

Anglo-French Treaty (Defence of France).

Treaty of Peace.

Housing, Town Planning, etc

London County Council (General Powers).

Sheringham Gas and Water

Fylde Water Board

Llanelly Rural District Water.

Falmouth Docks.

Medway Conservancy

Stoney's Divorce.

Pallin's Divorce.

SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

BEDWELLTY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
COMMONS REGULATION (COITY WALLIA) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Third Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Monday next.

WAR LOAN BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be printed, and to be considered on Monday next (The Lord Somerleyton).
House adjourned at half-past eleven o'clock until Monday, a quarter past five o'clock.