Sitting of 27 July 1920

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS, OMNIBUSES, AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 29th day of April last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 17th day of June next" be dispensed with in respect of this Bill; and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, arid Bill read 2a.

PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 29th day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 17th day of June next" be dispensed with in respect of these Bills; and that the Bills be now read 2a.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bills read 2a.

NORWICH CORPORATION BILL.
MID-GLAMORGAN WATER BILL.
BRIGHTON AND HOVE GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.

HEALTH RESORTS AND WATERING PLACES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I am moving the Second Reading of this Bill at the express wish of my noble friend Lord Roe, who is now 88 years of age. Though quite willing and anxious to be

549
present in your Lordships' House, he has not fully recovered from a recent illness. When I consented to undertake this duty I was under the impression that it was a Bill against which there would be no opposition; that it was only a formal matter, and that I should have no difficulty in getting your Lordships to consent to the Second Reading. But I have been undeceived about that, because I find on the Notice Paper, in the names of Lord Askwith and the Lord Chairman, the Earl of Donoughmore, Motions for the rejection of the Bill, indicating, of course, a very formidable opposition. We all have the greatest possible respect for the Lord Chairman, who, as we know, has great business capacity and fairness, and that will encourage me to hope that after I have made a few observations, and brought home to your Lordships the exact situation of affairs, I may be able to induce him to withdraw his opposition.
With regard to the Bill itself, it gives English, Welsh and Scottish authorities the same powers which Parliament gave to Irish authorities in 1910. The Council of any borough or urban district may advertise the advantages and amenities of the borough or district, or any part thereof, as a health resort or watering place, by the insertion of advertisements in newspapers not published within the borough or district so sought to be advertised, or by placards or otherwise as they may see fit, and may expend money for the purpose, provided that the sums so expended shall not, in any one financial year, exceed the amount that could be raised by a rate of one penny in the £ on the rateable value of the borough or district.
In its application to Scotland the Act shall be subject to the following modifications: "The town council of any burgh or police burgh or the county council of any county within the meaning of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Viet. c. 50)," shall be substituted for "the council of any borough or urban district," and "burgh or police burgh or any special district in the county formed under the Public Health (Scotland) Acts or the Local Government (Scotland) Acts" shall be substituted for "borough or district." I have read that because in the condensed form you get the full object of the Bill.
This Bill was first introduced in the House of Commons by my noble friend
550
Lord Roe, who was then the Member for Derby, in 1914. The Second Reading was carried by 185 to 28. It was then referred to a Committee upstairs, and the only Amendment made to the Bill, which at that time did not include Scotland, was that Scotland was included, and the Bill came back. In consequence of the war no further proceedings were taken in 1914, but this year the Bill was reintroduced in the House of Commons by Colonel Burn, and it passed all its stages without a Division. It was referred to a very strong Standing Committee, consisting of twenty-one members. Not a single Amendment was made, and the Bill was sent down to the House of Commons, where, on the Third Reading, although thirteen members of the House voted against the closure, the Third Reading was carried unanimously. This is the Bill to which I am now asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading. I have referred to the Irish Bill. There was a great contest over that Bill when it came to this House, and Lord Onslow, then Lord Chairman, took a step that I fear my noble friend Lord Donoughmore intends to take to-day, but after a long debate he was persuaded to withdraw his Amendment and the Bill passed. During the discussion Lord Onslow warned the House as to what they were doing, and he said—
"I cannot help thinking that if you allow this to take place, the same thing must be allowed to Margate, Eastbourne and to all the health resorts in England."
He tried to persuade them not to do it, but they did it, and the Bill became law, and it is still law. Later on, before withdrawing his Amendment, he said—
"I have felt it my duty to point out that it will be creating a precedent, and if your Lordships decide to give this Bill a Second Reading and pass it into law I confess I do not see how it will be possible either for me, in your Lordships' House, or for the Local Legislative Committee in the other House, to refuse to allow English watering places and seaside resorts to have the same powers in the way of advertising."
The Amendment for the rejection of the Bill was, by leave, withdrawn, and the Bill was read a second time and eventually became law.
The same things may be said to-day in opposition to this Bill. I do not know whether the noble Lord, notwithstanding the statement of Lord Onslow, will still presevere in his opposition. I hope that will not be the case. We all know how,

551
during the war, our health resorts and watering places have suffered. I think it is admitted that they have had very bad times, and we find our continental friends always advertising in our papers, and their health resorts are so crowded that you will have the greatest possible difficulty in getting accommodation in them. Why, then, should we deprive our own people, in our own country, of the opportunity of making known, not only to people in Great Britain but to foreign nations, that there are places in this country worthy of being visited.
Some critics may say that they will not trust the local authorities. Is it to be all grandmotherly legislation? If we have local bodies, elected by their friends and neighbours, are you going to say you will not trust them? They would not be elected if they wasted money. And, after all, they are not to advertise in their own areas, and so the benefit will not be for local newspapers. Really, I think it will come to this, that it will be a technical point as to whether the Lord Chairman will be able to persuade your Lordships to reject this Bill, or whether some of you will be able to persuade the noble Earl to follow the example of his predecessor and withdraw his opposition. We all know in these days that advertising brings prosperity, and I think it is a very hard thing to deny to our own health resorts and watering places the opportunity of advertising themselves in the same way as similar places in foreign countries are able to do. I, therefore, move the Second Reading of this Bill. I very much regret that the task has not fallen into the hands of Lord Roe, whose hobby this Bill was when he was in the House of Commons, but I hope it will not suffer from the way in which I have asked your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Southwark.)
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH had given notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move that the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to have to differ from my noble friend Lord Southwark in-this matter, but I desire to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months on the ground that it is undesirable, unnecessary and, above all, uneconomical. The Bill is entitled "Health Resorts and Watering
552
Places Bill," but when you come to look at it you see that it states that any borough or urban district may advertise the advantages and the amenities of the borough or district or any part thereof as a health resort or watering place, and it allows this to be done in certain newspapers, or by placards or otherwise, and permits one penny in the £ to be put upon the rates. We have had a penny put on the rates for housing quite recently. Here is a proposal for another penny to be put on the rates for advertising. It is quite contrary to the custom that has appertained in the past, but, apart from that, the Bill, by its very width, defeats itself. It gives an inequality, and an unfair inequality (supposing things are equal) as between the rich borough and the small one. It obliges practically every borough or health resort or watering place to advertise itself if a neighbouring watering place does so. You have advertisements now respecting the amenities of watering places. You may take up almost any daily newspaper, and you will see advertisements about the silvery sea, or setting forth the various amenities of a particular place.
It is not as if the people of this country did not know to which watering-places to go. They may go to the East coast or to the South coast, and they will find from their friends the places that are most suitable for them. It is undesirable to have, say, on the East coast, Sheringham, Felixstowe, Cromer and Hunstanton all advertising one against another, or on the South coast, Littlehampton, Bognor, Worthing, Brighton, Hastings and Eastbourne all advertising against each other. If those places on the South coast advertise you will not prevent Arundel, Chichester, Lewes and Midhurst also advertising, because of their amenities immediately inland. It is, I believe, true that one town in Great Britain about thirty years ago did get permission to advertise—namely, Blackpool. But Blackpool would have been found out by the miners and weavers without any advertisement. Very few other towns have followed this example, with the exception of places in Ireland. Ireland was advertised at the express request of the Irish members, but it was a country that was practically unknown to the British tourist. It was not like our East or South Coasts, which are known to every one, but was a place where there were few hotels, and where it was as well to tell the British tourist that there were hotels.

553
For my part, on those lovely coasts, it might be a good thing if there was an hotel every few miles; it would do more to settle the Irish question than anything else.
To put a penny on the rate for this purpose would be, I think, unfair as between towns. I also think that it would be unfair in a town itself. There are methods now of advertising with money obtained from the amenities of a place. Let the hotel-keepers and the cinema proprietors and, if you like, the donkey-proprietors, advertise. out of their profits if they wish to push their particular wares, but do not let a rate be placed upon all the inhabitants of a seacoast town, many of whom get no advantage whatever out of it, and very many of whom would wish this advertising to be put far distant from them. I see from the Notice Paper that the Lord Chairman of Committees will probably support. me in this matter, and he will be better able than I am to explain the practice of your Lordships' House. I understand, however, that this has not been the custom for years, and that the example of Blackpool has not been followed. This method of putting charges upon the rates, and extra expense upon local and municipal districts, is quite unusual, and at the present time, I think, most unreasonable. I beg to move—
Amendment moved—
Leave out the word "now" and, at end, insert "this day six months."—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD SOMERLENTON: My Lords, I should like to say one word on behalf of this Bill, which is very badly needed in many parts of England at present. It is impossible that our health resorts should be made properly known in these days without advertising. Even in this House we know a good deal of the advertising that is done, and we know how necessary advertising is to ensure success in many'a commercial undertaking. Advertising is very badly needed now in several parts of England with which I have the honour to be acquainted, and I hope your Lordships will reject the Amendment.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, Ireland has been mentioned in connection with this Bill, and it is undeniable that advertising has been very useful in the case of that country, but I do not wish to quote that precedent. Lord Askwith said
554
that there would be undesirable competition between the different watering places, and he mentioned a lot of small watering places that might come into competition. But surely this is a matter for the ratepayers to decide. If they do not like this penny in the £ on the rates they will not re-elect the councillors who have put it on. It is optional to those who live in a town. There are many towns which have had a hard time during the war, and they ought to be, allowed to advertise their amenities so as to make them known to the public. The precedent of Blackpool has been quoted. What is the result? Blackpool is one of the most prosperous and best-run watering-places in the whole of the United Kingdom, so far as one reads and hears of it. Therefore, I think, with the precedent of Blackpool More us, one is right and consistent in supporting this measure. Towns are not bound to put on the penny rate, and I am sure the rate payers of the different places can take very good care of themselves.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I had given notice to move the rejection of this Bill, but I am very glad the noble Lord on my left has done so, and I rise to support him. I know that it is rather an unusual thing for the Chairman of Committees to do, but as the noble Lord, Lord Southwark, has reminded your Lordships, I am following the example of My noble friend and predecessor, Lord Onslow, in the case of the Irish Bill. I oppose this Bill not only for technical, but for other reasons, which I will explain. as briefly as I can. The policy of Parliament in this matter has been fairly consistent for the past thirty or forty years. I will mention exceptions in a moment. If this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, it will reverse what has been the policy of Parliament—the correct policy—in this matter. The Irish Bill is an exception. I note that the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill has studied the debate that took place upon the Irish Bill, in which I took a small part, and I am sure he will remember that my noble friend Lord Onslow was only persuaded to withdraw his opposition on being satisfied that the argument which had been put forward that Ireland was an exceptional case would not be taken as a precedent when we came to discuss this matter in relation to other parts of the United Kingdom. Perhaps I ought not to put it stronger than this—

555
that he hoped it would not be pushed too far as a precedent in future cases.
I have to confess to your Lordships that in all private Bill legislation it is an unwritten rule that Irish precedents are never admitted in English, Scottish and Welsh cases. That is a matter which I am glad to see is received with enthusiasm by my noble friend on the left, but it is not always received with such enthusiasm when I have to mention it to agents who are permitted to do things in Ireland which are not permitted on this side of the Channel. Your Lordships will, of course, understand that this is a matter over which Parliament has always kept complete control—namely, the question as to what subjects are proper subjects to have money spent on them when raised by rates—and Parliament has consistently refused (with two exceptions to which I shall refer) to permit this expenditure out of the rates. I think the reasons are two—firstly, that Parliament has realised that competitive advertising would defeat this object; and, secondly, that very often people in watering places do not want them advertised. Some people find the attraction of such places in their quietness and in their not being kept in the full swing of so-called gaiety with which your Lordships no doubt are familiar in the case of one or two places. But it has been the practice of Parliament to authorise advertisements out of profits arising from certain amenities, and I might mention one or two of the more recent cases.
I should gladly have supported this Bill if it followed recent practice—namely, if it were proposed that public authorities might advertise the amenities of their districts out of their profits, but not out of the rates. Several places in this country have that power, and I should be glad to see something of that kind adopted here; but that is very different from what is proposed in this Bill. What I might almost. call a model clause is the Brighton clause of 1912. Brighton is permitted to advertise its amenities as a health resort out of the revenue from the letting of chairs and the sale of programmes, and to expend in that process a sum not exceeding a rate of ½d. in the £. Your Lordships will see that this clause lays down the precedent of which I have spoken: There are two other precedents previous to that of Brighton. I will not mention them in detail, but they are Buxton (1904) and Margate (1908). Aberystwyth Corporation (1913) is allowed
556
to use its revenue from the letting of chairs and surplus moneys out of the borough fund; but your Lordships are aware that Aberystwyth is not on a par with any other place in the United Kingdom, because it owns half the borough, and therefore the question of rates is on a totally different basis from that of any other town.
Then the Hove Corporation Act, 1913, applies to revenue from the letting of chairs and the amount allowed was equivalent to the produce of a rate of ½d. in the £. Southport Corporation Act, 1913: revenue from pleasure fairs, marine lakes and foreshore, and letting of chairs; again, an amount not exceeding a ½d. rate. The Bill before the House asks for a 1d. on the rates. St. Anne's-on-Sea Improvement Act, 1914; revenue from letting of chairs; amount, equivalent to ½d. rate. Weymouth and Malcombe Regis Corporation Act, 1914: revenue from letting of chairs, tent sites, bathing machines, concert-platform sites, stall sites, charges for admission to gardens, and enclosures, and sale of programmes; again, an amount equivalent to a ½d. rate. Your Lordships will see that you have not allowed advertising out of the rates, but out of certain receipts arising from the amenities. I do not know what attitude His Majesty's Government intend to take on this matter, but I have no hesitation in saying that Public Departments have persistently reported against the powers asked for in this Bill. I have here a copy of a very interesting Report made by the Local Government Board to Parliament in 1912 in the case of the Brighton Bill. I will not read this Report, but I may say that it elaborates in detail that which I have been explaining to your Lordships. It shows the consistency of Parliament in this matter. The Report mentions that similar clauses to that for which Brighton asked in 1912 were struck out of the Cleethorpes Bill in 1902, the New Hunstanton Improvement Bill, 1903, the Appleby Corporation Gas Bill, 1904; the Ilfracombe, Llandrindod Wells, Liverpool, and Whitby Bills of 1905, Pontefract Bill, 1906, Cardiff Bill, 1909, and the Bristol, Hornsea, and St. Helen's Bills of 1911.
There are two exceptions that I ought to mention. The first is the one quoted by my noble friend—Blackpool. That was in 1879, 41 years ago. I have a note in my office, in the book which was then kept in connection with these matters, which

557
informs me that this clause was allowed to go in by inadvertence. More than that I cannot explain to your Lordships, but that is what is stated in our records. It is only right to point out that in the case of Blackpool the precedent is 41 years old, and that there are scores of precedents for a contrary decision. The other precedent I ought to mention is one which has arisen this session—namely, Llandrindod Wells. That is a small town, in a picturesque part of Wales, containing several very valuable mineral springs. The rateable value of the town is comparatively small. This place has gone ahead very much during the war owing to the absence from competition from Continental springs, and the local authority have been given powers this session to advertise out of money received from their amenities and, in addition, if by any chance the receipts from their amenities are not sufficient to make up an amount equal to a rate of 2d. in the £— which is only a few scores of pounds—they are permitted to take the deficiency out of the rates. Therefore, as your Lordships will see, it is not on a par with the proposal in this Bill which unblushingly proposes that 1d. in the £ should be taken out of the rates. In the case of a place like Torquay the amount involved would obviously be a very large sum.
I am glad that my noble friend who moved the rejection of this Bill pointed out that it is not confined to health resorts, but that it gives powers to every local authority in the kingdom to advertise. Under this Bill the London County Council could advertise London as a health resort. I feel pretty certain that they would not do so, but the power would be given to them to do it if they chose. On the other hand, there are places which. will do it. There is an application before Parliament now, in a Bill from Cardiff which has not yet received the Royal Assent, to be considered as a health resort. Before I sit down may I refer to the point made by Lord Mayo, who says this is in the hands of the ratepayers, who need not advertise if they do not wish to do so. Yes, they must. Competition forces them to compete against each other, and that really is the great evil underlying it. You will not do many a watering-place much good, but you will force them all to spend an amount which may be as much as 1d. in the £ in competition with each other, and you are therefore practically putting 1d. on the rates. in every one of these-places. I think
558
at the present time, of all others, it is most undesirable that we should put such a burden upon them. If the noble Lord goes to a Division, which I hope he will, I shall certainly support him.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the opposition of my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees in such a case as this is always exceedingly formidable, and a case has to be strong before your Lordships are willing to oppose the opinion which the Lord Chairman expresses on a matter which is in a sense, although not directly, concerned with Private Business. But, holding the views I do, I feel bound to state the reasons why, if my noble friend opposite goes to a Division, I shall support him, and not the noble Lord above the gangway who has moved the rejection of the Bill. I do not want to dwell on the Irish case, although it interests me, because it was during my term of office in Ireland that the tourist movement had its inception, and I had the pleasure of presiding at the original meeting which was held in Dublin, when it was hoped to persuade the inhabitants of Great Britain that there were places in Ireland besides the Lakes of Killarney and the Giants' Causeway—those being the only two known to the British mind—which were well worth a visit. But the cases, of course, as Lord Askwith stated, are not quite on all fours, because Ireland was then an unknown country, whereas, to a considerable extent, these powers are sought for places which are already well known. But I cannot help thinking that there are some strong arguments in favour of my noble friend's proposal.
The advertising of these places now is mainly entrusted to the railways. It is at the railway stations that we see those marvellous delineations of coasts and other scenes, with seas and skies bluer than the Mediterranean ever could boast of, and children playing on the foreshore in the most Arcadian happiness. With the new propositions about railways, the grouping of railways, and the possibility that their success may depend less on their earnings on the traffic to particular places, is it. quite certain that the railway companies will be disposed to give the same advertising facilities—and, indeed, to spend their own money on advertising—in the way that they do at present? That, I think, is a consideration which is worth hearing in mind when the question of permitting local authorities to advertise the attractions of

559
the places which they represent is under consideration.
Then the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, presented the plausible alternative that advertising of this kind might be allowed out of profits, but ought not to be allowed out of the rates. There he comes into the most direct conflict with the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, who objects to the undue preference which is given to wealthy and established places as against the more struggling places which would be obliged to advertise for competitive reasons. Of course, it is those places—places like Brighton and some of the others mentioned by the noble Earl—which are in a position to earn large profits already and to spend large sums of money in still further advertising their attractions. But that goes entirely against the proposition of Lord Askwith that everybody ought to be placed on equal terms, and that certain places should not be allowed to have a preference as against others. Indeed, it absolutely accentuates that preference to the fullest possible point.
Then the noble Earl has said that there is a danger that other places, not watering places, may take to advertising, and mulct the unhappy ratepayers for the purpose. It is hardly to be supposed, as the noble Earl admitted, that places that have no attractions for tourists will think it worth while to advertise. There is no reason why a great manufacturing centre should spend its ratepayers' money in advertising for visitors. On the other hand, there may be places, not watering places or health resorts, which do possess some particular attraction in the way of ruined buildings, or of a famous cathedral, or whatever it may be, which, it seems to me, are quite equally entitled, if the local authorities so desire it, to spend some money in advertising. Lastly, the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, used an argument which I desire to combat to the fullest extent. He instanced the case of the wealthy ratepayer who, for purposes of his own, has settled in a health resort and desires to keep it quiet, to be relieved of the influx of possibly vulgar and noisy people, and to keep it as private as possible.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I did not say wealthy. I do not think a man needs to be wealthy to like quiet.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: No, but I say wealthy, because those are the people
560
who would be the ratepayers for whom sympathy is sought. If they were the humbler class of ratepayer, the shopkeeper for example, I think it extremely unlikely to object to be over-run by tourists. Nor, indeed, would the wealthiest of the lot, the landowner, be likely to raise an objection, because he would obviously see that the more people came, the more valuable his land would become. But there is a type of selfish ratepayer who, I quite agree, would take that view. But neither he nor she ought to be, as I submit, the subject of the smallest consideration from anybody. For these and other reasons I shall certainly support the noble Lord if he goes to a Division.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY of HEALTH (VISCOUNT ASTOR): My Lords, I had not intended taking part in the discussion, but the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, asked what the attitude of the Government on this Bill was. Our attitude will be the same as it was in another place. There the Government did not officially adopt the Bill, but left it to the free decision of the House as to whether it should be passed or not. They were, however, so far sympathetic that they gave facilities—that is, time—for the discussion of the Bill. As it turned out, there was a considerable majority in favour of the Bill, and it consequently passed through all its stages. Our attitude will be the same here—an attitude of general sympathy, but leaving it to the free judgment of your Lordships. House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire to say a few words to explain why I, for one, shall vote for the Amendment, and against the Second Reading of the Bill. There are precedents. The precedents are overwhelming in favour of the course which is suggested by my noble friend Lord Askwith, and by my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees. I do not dwell merely upon precedent. Everybody must realise that we live in a time of great financial stress. The burdens upon the taxpayers and the ratepayers are almost more than they can bear, and to come at such a moment as this and ask your Lordships practically to throw a penny rate upon all the watering places throughout the country, seems to me to be a course which would be strictly uneconomic and contrary to public policy at the present

561
moment. I put it, perhaps, rather strongly when I said every watering-place, but I was immensely struck by the observation of the Lord Chairman that if you allow it anywhere, the mere force of competition will practically make it universal, or almost universal. You cannot expect a particular watering-place to allow its rival to advertise and not to compete, and so it will spread from town to town until it becomes almost general. It appears to me that the passing of the Second Reading of the Bill would have the effect of forcing a penny rate upon practically all watering-places. Without pronouncing any opinion upon the actual merits of the case, which can be left to a suitable time, I must say that if we mean anything by our cry for economy and by the efforts we are trying to make to restrict the burdens upon the people of this country, this is not the moment to carry the Second Reading of the Bill.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, with regard to the observations that fell from the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, may I express the hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading, and enable the House to consider in Committee any such suggestions as those made by the noble Lord? There is a misapprehension about this Bill. I have heard it said two or three times—and I think Lord Donoughmore repeated it—that it means a penny rate. It is not a compulsory penny rate. It is only to enable these towns to go to a penny rate, if necessary, and in some cases it would not be necessary at all. Nor is it, as the noble Marquess started by saying, though he corrected himself afterwards, a universal penny rate
Resolved in the negative, and Bill to be
562
for the whole country. It is only where the duly elected local authorities think it will be an advantage to their town to advertise and spend their money profitably, that they have the power to raise money up to a penny rate. That is all it is. Then the noble Marquess referred to the necessity, in these days, of cutting down expenses, and so on. The object of this penny rate is to increase the prosperity of these towns. It is to enable these people, who have suffered so much during the war, to have an opportunity of advertising their watering places and remunerating themselves for past losses, and to encourage the growth and prosperity of their towns in the future.
I am very much obliged to those noble Lords who have supported my Motion for the Second Reading. I certainly shall go to a Division. I may say that in the House of Commons the Government really supported this Bill. Scotland was included in it, as your Lordships know, as the result of a suggestion made in Committee, and it had the support of the Secretary for Scotland, of Lord Edmund Talbot, and others. Even the Treasury supported this Bill in the House of Commons, so that your Lordships must not run away with the idea that it is simply a formal matter. I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading, because there will be an opportunity of revising it in Committee, and then, if you do not approve of it, the Bill can be thrown out.
On Question, whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS

Crewe, M.

Astor, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Cawley, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Eldon, E.

Clwyd, L.

Southwark, L. [Teller.]

Mayo, E. [Teller.]

Hemphill, L.

Strachie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Wellington, D.

Cave, V.

Hylton, L.

Goschen, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Bath, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Newton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ranksborough, L.

Bradford, E.

Rotherham, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Stanmore, L.

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

Askwith, L. [Teller.]

Sumner, L.

Balfour, L. [Teller.]

Sydenham, L.

Lucan, E.

Chalmers, L.

Templemore, L.

Lytton, E.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Teynham, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Desborough, L.

Treowen, L.

Morton, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Wavertree, L.

Onslow, E.

Weardale, L.

Forester, L.

Wester Wemyss, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Hindlip, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

read 2a this day six months.

WAR PENSIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, the first two clauses of this Bill, to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading, contain the most important proposals in the measure. Clause 1 amends the parent Act of 1916. It proposes to hand back to the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Air Ministry respectively the ascertainment, award, and payment of pensions for all new disability and service claims which may arise from the appointed date. That date is the termination of the war when officially announced. The reason for this transfer, or rather re-transfer, lies in the fact that these Departments alone are familiar officially with the Service records, the good conduct badges and so forth, upon which pensions are ascertained. They are, in effect, the employers of these men, and as the new candidates for these pensions will, ex hypothesi, all be regular soldiers, it is desirable that their interests should be re-transferred to the fighting Departments rather than continued by the Ministry of Pensions, which, I believe, during the war only dealt with something like 1 per cent. of the combatant Forces who were regular soldiers.
I would like to point out that if this proposal is not accepted every man in future will find himself obliged to deal with no less than three different Departments—the War Office (if he is a soldier) for his Service pension, the Ministry of Pensions for disability and loss of working capacity, and, finally, the Ministry of Health so far as his treatment is concerned. That is a brief exposition of Clause 1. Clause 2 deals with local organisation. It fixes the date upon which local war pensions committees are to come to an end so far as new eases of disability or death are concerned. These committees have done very good work, but as time goes on their functions naturally tend to be reduced. They were set up to deal with cases arising from the recent war. They have nothing to do with pre-war cases, and they will have nothing to do with postwar cases. In this case the date on which these committees come to an end so far as new cases of disability or death are concerned is fixed at the same point as the date upon which Clause 1 comes into operation.
564
Clause 3 empowers the Department to divide county areas into districts and establish committees for these districts. It gives this power to sub-divide and modifies the organisation of the local committees. This will not only tend towards economy, but will improve the machinery as well and give additional convenience to the pensioner. Clause 4 contains minor amendments with regard to the amalgamation of areas. Clause 5 is not unimportant. It empowers the Department to appoint finance officers wherever such a course is thought advisable in the interests of financial regularity. Clause 6 is relatively unimportant, and Clause 7 applies the provision of the Forfeiture Act to the Air Force, which naturally was excluded from the Act passed some fifty years ago, and likewise extends that Act to officers. Clause 8 is formal, as is also Clause 9, which deals with neglected children. The Bill tends decidedly towards economy of administration and it will be valuable for the convenience of the pensioner. I commend it to the favourable consideration of your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BANK NOTES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, this Bill is introduced at the request of the six Irish Banks of Issue—the Bank of Ireland, Provincial Bank of Ireland, Limited, Belfast Banking Company, Limited, Northern Banking Company; Limited, the Ulster Bank, Limited, and the National Bank, Limited—with the Treasury approval, to provide that the notes of these banks shall be made payable only at one office. As the law stands at present Irish banks of issue are liable to pay their notes at any of their branches, and, in consequence, have to keep at every one of their branches unnecessarily large supplies of legal tender. The provision dates from 1828, when the branches of the Irish banks were very few in number and communications between them were difficult. It is quite antiquated now, and the Bill accordingly proposes to assimilate

565
the Banking Law of Ireland to what is already the law of Scotland and to make notes of Irish banks payable at one office only, either the head office or the office at which the notes are expressed to be payable.
It may be added that under the Bankers (Ireland) Act, 1845, Irish banks of issue have to cover any notes they issue in excess of the small issue existing in 1845 by legal tender currency held at their head office Daring the war, as an emergency measure notes of the banks of issue were made legal tender and the banks were allowed to issue in excess of the legal limits on certain conditions. The Proclamation of December 20, 1919, withdrew these special privileges and the banks are now in their ordinary pre-war position. The bill does nothing to change the status or amount of the banks' note issues. It merely deals with the minor question of where the notes should be payable.
Those noble Lords who may be interested in this measure will find that subsection (1) of Clause 1 provides, (a) that notes issued by a bank of issue in Ireland, and bearing date before the date of this Bill shall only be payable at the head office, and (b) that notes hearing date after the passing of the Bill shall be payable only at the place where they are expressed to be payable. The effect of this second condition is to leave the notes to the operation of the ordinary law of contract, under which they will be payable at the place where they are expressed to be payable. In practically every case this will be the head office, but in the case of a hank like the National and Provincial Bank (whose head office is in London), it would no doubt be a suitable branch office in Ireland. The first provision is needed to deal with notes already issued under the old liability. It substitutes for that, payment at the head office. Clause 1 (2) repeals the Act of 1828 (which imposes the liability to pay at branch), and also repeals Section 1 of the Bank Notes (Ireland) Act, 1830. This is quite out of date. In 1830 the Bank of Ireland had a monopoly of issuing notes in Dublin. In 1828 it took legal proceedings against the Provincial Bank because they paid some of their notes at a Dublin agency. The Bank of Ireland won its case, but so great was the feeling against them that they were only awarded sixpence damages. As a result of petitions from Dublin merchants in favour of the establishment of Joint Stock Banks in Dublin a compromise was effected, and
566
ratified by the Act of 1830, by which the payment of notes in Dublin by an issuing bank other than the Bank of Ireland was made legal for the purpose of introducing such notes for circulation only. These provisions are quite out of date and should have been repealed long ago. Subsection (3) of Clause 1 provides that no Irish bank can issue bank notes other than those that had the privilege before the Act of 1845 and have not surrendered it. There are now six such banks—namely, the Bank of Ireland, Provincial Bank, Belfast Banking Company, Northern Banking Company, the Ulster Bank and the National Bank.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OE CRAWFORD: My Lords, this Bill is rather less ambitious in its scope than the Census Bill for Britain, which passed your Lordships' House a few days ago. Under this measure the Irish census will be taken in the month of April of next year. The Bill is more or less in common form, authorising the Lord Lieutenant to appoint such persons as he may think proper to act as enumerators, and to superintend the work. The general object, of course, is to secure uniformity so far as possible between the British and Irish methods of form and assessment. As I say, this Bill only deals with the normal census to be held next year. It does not ask for any of the powers for periodical censuses which were authorised in the English Act, nor, of course, in consequence, does it suggest the establishment of a permanent Census Department. The Irish census, I have been told, has always been extremely good, and is based upon the method laid down by that distinguished statistician, Dr. Hancock. I believe that in Ireland they consider the census extremely good. Upon that I offer no pragmatic opinion to your Lordships, but I should like you to know that the Irish authorities consider that this Bill is drafted in such a way as to continue the census in a thoroughly efficient form.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I am responsible for the administration of the estates of the Duchy of Lancaster, and my notice has been drawn to the fact that, being governed by somewhat obsolete legislation, the freedom of management of that estate is very seriously curtailed. I doubt, indeed, whether there are any great estates in Britain which are so much hedged and limited by old legal obstructions. This Bill is only a short three-clause measure. Clause I, as the Memorandum states, authorises the Chancellor of the Duchy and his Council to invest in any securities authorised under the Trustee Act of 1893. At the present moment we are limited by the Duchy of Lancaster Lands Act of 1855, which gives us scope far too narrow for the investment of such funds as can be set aside from revenue. Clause 2 extends our power of granting mining leases. There again, under an old Statute, it is impossible for that Department to grant mining leases for more than 31 years. Nowadays a good first-class pit costs very little short of £1,000,000 to lay down, and a lease of 31 years is quite incommensurate with the amount of capital expenditure which is involved. This clause enables us to grant mining leases for 99 years. Clause 3 invests the solicitor of the Duchy with the attributes of a corporation sole. That exhausts the provisions of the Bill for which I ask a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Astor).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Contributions by employed persons, employers, and the Treasury.
(3) There shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be paid cut of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of each weekly contribution paid by an employer in respect of a man, woman, or boy or girl, a contribution at the ordinary rate specified in Part II. of the Third Schedule to this. Act as regards men, women, and boys and girls, respectively, and the sums to be contributed in any year shall be paid in such manner and at such times as the Treasury may determine.
For the purpose of calculating the amount of the contribution under this subsection, while and in so far as contributions are paid by means of insurance stamps, the number of contributions paid in respect of men, women, and boys and girls, respectively, in any year shall be deemed to be represented by the number of stamps appropriate to contributions by men, women, and boys arid girls, respectively, sold in that year, after deducting—

(a) the number (calculated in the prescribed manner) of stamps of each class which have been used for the purpose of paying contributions otherwise than under the general provisions of this Act; and

(b) the number of stamps of each class in respect of which a refund has been made; and

(c) such contributions as have been returned in respect of persons believed to be but not being employed persons.

VISCOUNT ASTOR: All the Amendments down in my name are merely drafting or declaratory Amendments, and I beg formally to move them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course everything that the noble Viscount tells us is drafting we accept without comment, and if he will explain what he means by a declaratory Amendment we shall, no doubt, be able to take the same course with regard to Amendments of that class.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: The Amendments to Clause 5 are merely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 13, after the first ("of") insert ("unemployment")
Page 3, *line 26, leave out from ("persons") to the end of line 27, and insert ("in respect of whom contributions were paid under the erroneous belief that they were payable in respect of those persons under the general provisions of this Act").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Power to made regulations as to payment of contributions.
6. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Minister may make regulations providing for any matters incidental to the payment and collection of contributions payable under this Act, and in particular for—

(a) payment of contributions by means of adhesive or other stamps (in this Act referred to as "insurance stamps") affixed to or impressed upon books or cards (in this Act respectively referred to as "insurance books" and "insurance cards"), or otherwise, and for regulating the manner, times, and conditions in, at, and under which insurance stamps are to be affixed or impressed or payments are otherwise to be made;

(b) the entry in or upon insurance books or cards of particulars of contributions and benefits paid in the case of the persons to whom the insurance books or cards relate;

(e) the issue, sale, custody, production, and delivery up of insurance books or cards and the replacement of insurance books or cards which have been lost, destroyed, or defaced.

VISCOUNT ASTOR: The Amendments to this clause are purely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 30, after ("as") insert ("unemployment")
Page 4, line 32, leave out ("insurance") and insert ("unemployment")
Page 4, line 33, leave out ("insurance") and insert ("unemployment")
Page 4, line 35, after ("which") insert ("unemployment")
Page 4, line 37, leave out ("insurance") and insert ("unemployment.")
Page 4, line 39, leave out ("insurance") and insert ("unemployment").
Page 5, line 2, leave out ("insurance") and insert ("unemployment")
Page 5, line 3, leave out ("insurance") and insert ("unemployment").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
(2) An insured contributor who loses his employment through his misconduct, or who voluntarily leaves his employment without just cause, shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit for a period of six weeks or such shorter period, not being less than one week, as may be determined under the provisions of this Act from the date when he so lost or left his employment.
570
(4) Where any person ceases to be an insured contributor and continue; throughout an insurance year to be a person who is not an insured contributor, he shall, unless he ceased to be an insured contributor by reason of sickness, be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit until twelve contributions, exclusive of any contributions paid in respect of him before he so ceased, have been paid in respect of him under this Act, and an insured contributor in respect of whom no contributions have been paid during a period of five insurance years shall, if he subsequently becomes an insured contributor, be treated as if he had not previously been an insured contributor.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 11, leave out from beginning of line to ("be") in line 14, and insert ("Where no contributions are paid in respect of any person during any insurance year he shall, unless the non-payment of contributions was due to his being sick")
Page 7, lines 16 and 17, leave out ("he so ceased") and insert ("that year")
Page 7, line 18, leave out ("an insured contributor") and insert ("a person")
Page 7, line 19, leave out ("of") and insert ("comprising")
Page 7, lines 19 and 20, leave out ("he subsequently becomes an insured contributor") and insert ("contributions are subsequently paid in respect of him").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Question is that Clause 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OP SALISBURY: I have not put down an Amendment to Clause 8, but I waited until the clause was put in order that I might ask my noble friend a question in respect to it. My question has reference to the words in subsection (2) which reads—
"An insured contributor who loses his employment through his misconduct, or who voluntarily leaves his employment without just cause, shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit for a period of six weeks or such shorter period, not being less than one week, as may be determined."
I should be much obliged to my noble friend if he would explain the reason for the elasticity which is imported into the clause by the words "or such shorter period." If I understand the Bill aright that discretion is to be wielded by certain officers—not, I think, officers of very great or very important position—scattered all over the country. There may be very good reason for the provision, but it would seem, upon the face of it, that to allow elasticity in respect of this clause involves a considerable amount of risk.

571
Upon what principles would a shorter period than the six weeks be allowed? It stands to reason that if a contributor loses his employment through his own misconduct certain disadvantages should accrue to him, and it would appear that six weeks' loss is not an undue disadvantage. But on what principle would a shorter period be arrived at? Does not my noble friend think that entrusting a very delicate matter of this kind to the officer he provides in this Bill would involve a considerable amount of risk of inequality of treatment and of injustice? I should like to appeal to my noble friend more upon the grounds of inequality of treatment than of injustice, because we may hope that if the officers are properly appointed they will all do their very best. There will be, however, as you compare district with district, great inequality in the operation of such a clause as this, and anything like inequality in industrial matters of this kind, as my noble friend well knows, gives rise to considerable friction, and may give rise also even to disorder.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: As the noble Marquess has said, it is essential to have absolute equality so far as we can get it. The period could only be reduced through the action of the Court of Referees or the Umpire. It would not be in the power of the officers that are appointed under the Bill. The reduction could only be made in special cases after reference and decision by the Court of Referees or the Umpire. I do not know if that would satisfy the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What sort of reason would apply?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: It is conceivable that a man might change the nature of his industry. If that was a genuine transfer it might be the kind of case where a reduction would be possible.
On Question, Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Decision of questions by Minister.
(6) In the application of this section to Scotland the Court of Session shall be substituted for the High Court and the Lord President of the Court of Session shall be substituted for the Lord Chancellor.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 2, after ("Chancellor") insert ("and in the application of this section to Ireland, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland shall be substituted for the Lord Chancellor").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
Determination of claims.
11.—(1) All claims for unemployment benefit, and all questions whether the statutory conditions are fulfilled in the case of any person claiming such benefit, or whether those conditions continue to be fulfilled in the case of a person in receipt of such benefit, or whether a person is disqualified for receiving or continuing to receive such benefit, or whether the period for which an insured contributor who has lost his employment through his unsatisfactory conduct or who has voluntarily left his employment without just cause is to be disqualified should be some period less than six weeks, or otherwise arising in connexion with such claims, shall, subject to the provisions of this section be determined by one of the officers appointed under this Act for determining claims to unemployment benefit (in this Act referred to as "insurance officers"). Every insurance officer shall forthwith take into consideration any claim or question submitted for his determination under the provisions of this subsection, and shall so far as practicable give his decision thereon within fourteen days from the date on which the claim or question was so submitted.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "misconduct" for "unsatisfactory conduct." The noble Viscount said: This is really drafting, although I think I ought to explain that originally the word "misconduct" was in the Bill. It was then considered that the word would be liable to misinterpretation and misunderstanding when applied to women, so the words "unsatisfactory conduct" were put in. Further study, however, has made the Government believe that on the whole it is better to return to the original word.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 16, leave out ("unsatisfactory conduct") and insert ("misconduct").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Question is that Clause 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
EARL RUSSELL: I should like to ask a question arising out of the reply made just

573
now to the noble Marquess. I see that when an insured contributor, having lost his employment through unsatisfactory conduct, is to be disqualified, the question of whether that should be for some period less than six weeks is to be determined by one of the officers appointed under this Act and referred to as insurance officers. I understood the noble Viscount to say that would be a question for the Court of Referees but it says in this subsection, as I understand it, that it is to be determined by the insurance officers.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I think in every case there is a right of appeal. Just as the person who thought himself entitled to the benefit would have the right of appeal so, I think, those who are responsible for the administration of the fund would also have the right of appealing to a superior tribunal.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Would both sides have the right of appeal? The workman who is refused a reduction would have the right of appeal, but supposing the officer was too lenient or too liberal, would there be any appeal against him? It is perhaps not fair to press my noble friend upon this point at this stage, but perhaps, at a later stage, I may be permitted to do so in order that it may be made quite clear. I understand from his answer to me that in the first instance the officer would be the deciding party, and that the Court, of Referees would only come in upon appeal. I can understand that a man who thought he was entitled to more lenient treatment than he got would say, "I ought not to be disqualified for six weeks, and I shall go to the Court of Referees to get better treatment." But suppose the officer was a very lenient man and said, "I think this fellow ought to have less disqualification than six weeks," would there be any means of bringing his action before the Court of Referees?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Yes, in a case like that the Department would have the power of appealing if they thought an officer was too lenient.
EARL RUSSELL: I still think that perhaps the objections which the noble Marquess raised are hardly met. If I quite understand the answer now, it is that the settlement of this question would in the first instance, be made by the
574
insurance officer. That is what I understand the noble Viscount to say now. I misunderstood him to say before that it would only be settled by a Court of Referees. If it is the insurance officer who settles it, surely you have exactly that danger of a difference between districts, and of a special leniency on the part of a particular officer, to which the noble Marquess referred. You will therefore be liable to get inequality of treatment, and it will hardly be the case that many of these cases will go to appeal. I do not quite know who is likely to be the appellant, The Department will hardly intervene in every case where this sort of thing is done, and they will not take it to appeal if they think the circumstances are at all doubtful. It seems to me that you may get the very danger hinted at with an officer who has the sort of instinct which says, "These funds are provided by the State; nobody in particular pays them, I will not be hard on the man." One insurance officer who takes that view will set up a state of circumstances in his district very different from those that will arise in another district, and I must say that I hope the noble Lord will consider this before Report, and, perhaps, put down an Amend-merit to meet it; because it seems to me that the very dangers lie foreshadows will exist.
EARL GREY: I should like to ask the noble Viscount if be will consider, before the next stage, whether it is worth while keeping this provision in at all. It is a complicated piece of machinery which will be brought into operation in a very large number of cases to which it is not intended to apply. I should have thought that the number of cases to which the remission of six weeks was intended to apply would be few, and an infinitesimal proportion of the total cases under which an appeal would be made by the man for remission.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I will go fully into the points which have been raised, but I cannot imagine any general leniency or laxity existing without being at once detected by the Department. I should think that the cases will be very few and that they will be carefully scrutinised. It is to the interests of those responsible for the administration of the fund to see that it is properly administered. However, if noble Lords have any Amendments to put down on Report—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The kind of Amendment I should like my noble friend to consider is whether he could provide that in no case should there be a relaxation, except upon the decisions of the referees. He has told us that the cases will be rare. If that is so, he might also provide that it should take place only upon reference to the superior authority. If it is going to be a common case no doubt that would not be a feasible plan, but if it is going to be common it would be a feasible one. Perhaps lie will consider that.
On Question, Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Appointment of umpire, deputy-umpires, insurance officers, inspectors, etc.,
Provided that such sum as the Treasury may direct, not exceeding one-tenth of the receipts paid into the unemployment fund established under this Act on account of income, after deducting, so long as regulations made under this Act provide for the payment of contributions by means of insurance stamps, any sums which have been refunded on account of any such stamps or on account of contributions paid (whether by insurance stamps or otherwise) in respect of a person believed to be, but not in fact being, an employed person within the meaning of the Act, shall, in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury, be applied as an appropriation in aid of the moneys provided by Parliament for the purpose of such salaries, remuneration, and expenses as aforesaid, and also, if and in so far its may be prescribed, for the purpose of any expenses incurred by any other Government Department for the purposes of or in connection with this Act.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: The next three Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 1, after the second ("of") insert ("unemployment")
Page 12, line 3, leave out ("insurance")
Page 12, line 4, leave out from ("person") to end of line 5, and insert "under the erroneous belief that the contributions were payable in respect of him under the general provisions of this").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Provision for securing solvency of unemployment fund.
15.—(1) If it appears to the Treasury at any time that the unemployment fund is in all the
576
circumstances of the case in danger of becoming insolvent, the Minister shall, if the Treasury so direct, by order make such temporary modifications in any of the rates of contribution, or the rates or periods of unemployment benefit, and during such period, as the Minister thinks fit, and as will on the whole, in the opinion of the Treasury, be sufficient to secure the solvency of the unemployment fund:
Provided that no order under this section shall—

(a) come into force unti one month after it is made; or

(b) reduce the weekly rate of unemployment benefit below the sum, in the case of men, of thirteen shillings, and, in the case of women, of ten shillings; or

(c) increase the rates of contribution by more than one penny from the employer and one penny from the employed person per person per week; or

(d) increase those rates unequally as between employers and employed persons.

(2) An order under this section shall not be made so as to be in force at any time while any previous order made under this section is in force.
(3) On an order being made under this section the Minister shall cause the order, together with a special report as to the reasons for making the order, to be laid before Parliament.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Question is that Clause 15 be agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have no doubt that it is owing to my own insufficiency, but I do not quite understand the exact operation of these financial clauses. If my noble friend would look at page 14, paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 15, he will see it is provided that where the Treasury have reason to think the fund is likely to be insolvent they may "reduce the weekly rate of unemployment benefit below the sum, in the case of men, of 13 s., and, in the case of women, of 10 s." That seems very plausible and right. But supposing the fund is insolvent, from what source are the payments of 13 s. and 10 s. to come unless the Treasury reduce the benefits? What is going to be the remedy? Supposing the thing were such a financial failure that there was no money left to pay the 13 s. and the 10 s., whence would the money come to meet the charges? Does my noble friend contemplate another Bill, or that the charge should come on the Annual Estimates, or in what way does he propose to meet it? Though, of course, there always will be a remedy by means of another Act of Parliament, this does not seem to me to be very efficient drafting.

577
Perhaps one of us poor independent critics of the Government would never contemplate the possibility of this fund being insolvent; but the Government does contemplate it, therefore they ought, on the face of the Bill, to provide a remedy. They do not do this. They leave (as it were) a lacuna in the provisions of the Bill. In this connection may I call my noble friend's attention to proviso (a), in Clause 16, which says—
"Where a revision of tie rates of contribution Las been made under this section, no further revision shall be made before the expiration of seven years from the last revision."
How does he read that with Clause 15? Clause 15 says that whenever the Treasury find that the fund is going to be insolvent they may revise the rates; then, immediately afterwards, we are told that the rates can be revised only once every seven years. Unless there is an explanation there is evidently a contradiction. If the rates can be revised only once in seven years it is not possible that the Treasury can revise them whenever the fund seems to be insolvent. I hope that my noble friend will explain how he reads the two clauses together.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Previous to this Bill being placed before your Lordships, obviously the most careful actuarial calculations were made. As I explained the other day, we anticipate that there will be a surplus of just under £250,000 every year. We believe that the fund will be solvent every year—that there will be a credit balance. But it is possible that something might happen, and it is necessary to have slight elasticity. If, however, the contingency contemplated by the noble Marquess should arise, and the whole financial basis of the Bill is a failure, we should then propose to come to Parliament. We do not think that such a situation should be dealt with merely by administrative action.
On Question, Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Periodical revision of rates of contribution.
16.—If at any time after the expiration of seven years from the commencement of this Act it appears to the Minister that the unemployment fund is insufficient or mom than sufficient to discharge the liabilities imposed upon the fund under this Act, or that the rates of contribution arc excessive or deficient, or if at any time after three years it appears to the Minister that an
578
equalisation of contribution and benefit between men and women is desirable the Minister may, with the sanction of the Treasury, by special order, made in manner hereinafter provided, revise the rates of contribution of employers and employed persons under this Act, and, where any such order is made, the rates prescribed by the order shall, as from such date as may be specified in the order, be substituted for the rates prescribed by this Act:
Provided that—

(a) Where a revision of the rates of contribution has been made under this section, no further revision shall be made before the expiration of seven years from the last revision, and

(b) No order under this section shall increase the rates of contribution by more than one penny from the employer and one penny from the employed person per person per week above the rates specified in the Third Sehedule to this Act; and

(c) No order under this section shall vary these rates of contribution unequally as between employers and employed persons.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Question is that Clause 16 be agreed to.
EARL GREY: By this clause power is taken by the Minister, in the periodical revision of rates, to consider an equalisation of contribution and benefit between men and women as being a legitimate change; but if we turn to the Second Schedule on page 40, in paragraph 6,
we see that it says—
"The power conferred by this Schedule on the Minister of prescribing rates and periods of unemployment benefit shall not be exercised so as to increase the rate of benefit above 17 s. per week for men or above 17 s. per week for women …"
It seems to me that it would be impossible, if the Schedule remains as it is at present, to have equalisation of rates between men and women. I do not know whether that is intentional or whether I am reading it wrongly.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I will look into the point and, if the noble Earl desires it, I will make a statement on Report. So far as I know, it is possible to equalise the benefits and the contributions as between the two sexes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think that my noble friend has answered my difficulty about proviso (a) which I have already read to your Lordships. I presume it means no further revision under this clause, but what is said is that

579
no further revision is to be made. This would cover all the revision which is contemplated in Clause 15. It is too late to move an Amendment now, but I can foreshadow one which I shall move on Report if my noble friend will allow me. I will move, in line 35, after "revision," to insert the words "under this section," so that it would read—
"Where a revision of the rates of contribution has been made under this section, no further revision under this section shall be made before the expiration of seven years from the last revision."
Otherwise, the words are absolute, and whenever a revision had been made under Clause 16 no further revision could be made for seven years under any part of the Act.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I thank the noble Marquess for giving me notice of the Amendment which he proposes to put down on the Report stage.
On Question, Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Arrangements with associations of employed persons which make payments to members while unemployed.
17.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, the Minister may, on the application of any society approved under the National Insurance Act, 1911, or bodies ancillary thereto, or any other association of employed persons (other than industrial assurance companies and collecting societies, or their separate sections, or societies organised by them either solely or jointly with other bodies), being a society or other association the rules of which provide for payments to its members, or any class thereof, while unemployed, make an arrangement with the society or other association that, in lieu of paying unemployment benefit under this Act to persons who prove that they are members of the society or other association, there shall be repaid periodically to the society or other association out of the unemployment fund such sum as appears to be, as nearly as may be, equivalent to the aggregate amount which those persons would have received during that period by way of unemployment benefit under this Act if no such arrangement had been made:
Provided that the Minister shall not make or continue an arrangement with a society or other association under this section:—

(a) Unless he is of opinion that the payments authorised by the rules of the society or other association to be made to its members when unemployed (inclusive of any payments in respect of which a refund may be made to the society or other association under this section) represent a provision for unemployment as respects such of its members as are employed persons which during the-period between the commencement of this
580
Act and the thirty-first day of July nineteen hundred and twenty-one exceeds the provision represented by un-employment benefit at the rate payable under this Act by an amount which is equal to at least one-third of the provision represented by unemployment benefit at the rate payable before the commencement of the National Insurance (Unemployment) Act, 1919, and which thereafter is at least one-third. greater than the provision represented by unemployment benefit at the rate payable under this Act:

(b) Unless the society or association has such a system of ascertaining the wages and conditions prevailing in every employment within the meaning of this Act in which its members are engaged and of obtaining from employers notification of vacancies for employment and giving notice thereof to its members when unemployed as is in the opinion of the Minister reasonably effective for securing that unemployed persons competent to undertake the particular class of work required, shall, with all practicable speed, be brought into communication with employers having vacancies to fill.

(2) The council or other governing body of any society or other association of employed persons which has made such an arrangement as aforesaid shall be entitled to treat the contributions due from any of its members to the unemployment fund under this Act or any part thereof, as if such contributions formed part of the subscriptions payable by those members to the society or other association, and, notwithstanding anything in the rules of the society or other association to the contrary, may reduce the rates of subscription of those members accordingly.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: There are three drafting Amendments to this clause.
Amendments moved—
Page 15, line 9, leave out ("bodies") and insert ("body")
Page 15, line 10, leave out from ("than" to ("solely") in line 12, and insert ("any such society, body, or association being an industrial assurance company or a collecting society, or a separate section of such company or society, or a society organised by such company or society").
Page 16, line 19, leave out ("of employed persons ").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18:
Power to provide for insurance against unemployment in any industry by means of special scheme.
(2) The Minister may by special order approve for the purposes of this section, and whether with or without amendment, any scheme which is

581
made in respect of any industry by a joint industrial council or an association of employers and employees and which provides for the insurance against unemployment of all the employed persons in the industry, or all those persons other than any specified classes thereof, and the benefits under which are in the opinion of the Minister not less favourable on the whole than the benefits provided by this Act. Provision may be made by a special scheme for insuring the persons to whom the scheme applies against partial unemployment as well as against unemployment.
(4) A special scheme shall not apply to any persons other than persons who are employed persons within the meaning of this Act.
(4) Where a special scheme is in force, the employed persons to whom the scheme applies shall not, subject to the provisions of this Act, be liable to become or to continue to be insured under the general provisions of this Act, or be entitled to unemployment benefit.
LORD ASKW1TH LORD ASKW1TH moved, in subsection (2), after "thereof," to insert "or other than persons employed by any specified employer or classes of employers." The noble Lord said: This is an important clause. The Bill itself is a sort of stopgap Bill, which does not deal with unemployment, but only mitigates it for a time, and I dare say will give rise to some disputes between trade unions and friendly societies. In some parts of the country there will be a race between the friendly societies and the trade unions, in which probably the trade unions will win. But as the Ministry has taken considerable power to look after friendly societies before they are permitted to deal with the Bill, it may prevent their interference in industrial matters, with which the trade unions are more accustomed to deal, and which are much more within their province.
This clause permits schemes to be made between trade unions or other employees and the employers, enabling them to take the question of insurance from under the Bill altogether. It was spoken of in another place as being a clause which would be of importance in the future if unemployment and insurance is ever to be dealt with by an industry itself. According to Clause 18 (2) the Minister may approve schemes providing for insurance against unemployment of all the employed persons in the industry, or all those persons other than any specified classes thereof, and, if the benefits are not less favourable, then there will he a special scheme, and these insured persons go out of the Act.
582
My object in putting in the words "other than persons employed by any specified employer" is that, as had to be admitted by the Minister of Labour himself, a single employer objecting in an industry to an insurance scheme might hold up the whole scheme. I want, if possible, to prevent that happening, so that, if there was an employer who said he would not have insurance, or if he said that his particular class of firm was not suitable for an insurance scheme, them, if the other employers and the employees, with the approval of the Minister, were willing to allow him to be left out, that could be done and they would be able to have their scheme without this employer who objected to it.
In the same way you might have classes of employers who, in many industries, are on the border line, part of the business being in such and such an industry, and part in another, or they might not be quite sure to which business they belonged. In the same industry you may have instances where it is clear that particular employers can form an insurance scheme and the employees may want to have an insurance scheme with them. Let them have an insurance scheme, let them specify the class of employers, and let them be left out. Therefore I make the suggestion that there really should be more latitude given to the Minister to approve schemes, and that there should be more opportunity for classing groups of employers and employees to make an insurance scheme which should be better than the general insurance scheme, and for taking them out of the Bill, so that they should not be stopped by any one objecting employer, or by certain classes of employers.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 20, after ("thereof") insert. ("or other than persons employed by any specified employer or classes of employers").—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR: So far as it is feasible to meet the wishes of the noble Lord I believe that the Bill, as drafted, does so. I do not know whether the noble Lord has studied in this connection the definition of an industry on page 19. It says—
"The expression 'industry' means any class or classes of establishments or undertakings, or any class or classes of establishments or undertakings in any area, which the Minister may determine to be an industry for that purpose."
If the noble Lord will now turn hack to Clause 18 (2), which we are discussing, he

583
will see that specified classes may be omitted. I believe, therefore, that the last part of the Amendment, dealing with classes of employers, is already covered, and that it is possible under the Bill, as drafted, to exclude special classes of an industry. You can so define an industry as to do so.
As regards the case of a special employer, and the desirability, or the feasibility, of omitting one man from a special scheme, I do not think it is possible to do so in a workable manner, and, in any case, I am advised that these words are not necessary. The whole essence of special schemes is that the industry should found its own scheme as an alternative to the insurance scheme under the Fund. If any employer or group of employers have any objections you have a public Inquiry, and any objector to the framing of a special scheme may object at a public Inquiry. After that, it is considered necessary that the special scheme should apply to the whole industry as defined by the Minister, unless of course, special classes of persons are omitted. But it would be unwise to omit one employer because he disapproved of the proposal.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I confess I am a little surprised that my noble friend does not accept this Amendment, because it is not a mandatory Amendment. It does not force the Minister to do anything. It only gives him greater latitude. I can understand that an independent critic might think a Minister had too great latitude, but I cannot understand that a Minister should think so. It would appear to me rather to free his hand than anything else. The mover of this Amendment is a great expert in matters of this kind, and if he says that there really is a case for giving a Minister elastic powers in this respect. so that he can establish a scheme leaving out one, or two, or more employers, then I should have thought it was eminently reasonable to give the Minister power to do so.
It may be, of course, that the omitted employers belong to one particular class, and my noble friend says in that case that, under the Definition Clause, the Amendment would be unnecessary. I do not think it is very satisfactory to use the Definition Clause for that purpose. Probably the obvious meaning of the Definition Clause is that where there is
584
a very real distinction between a particular class or sub-class of the employers and the rest of the employers, then a scheme may be made independently of that particular sub-class. But it does not mean that the Minister may exercise a sort of arbitrary discretion as to what he admits and what he leaves out. However, that is a matter of interpretation, and I come back to the original point. I am for the greatest elasticity. I am for giving the Minister the greatest discretion in this respect. It seems to me that these schemes are very valuable, and we ought to take away every possible obstruction to the Minister using the clause whenever he can. It is not mandatory on the Minister, and I do not understand why my noble friend does not accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I am afraid I cannot accept it. The essence of the special scheme is that it shall cover the whole of an industry, unless it is thought desirable to exclude any group or subgroup within the industry. I am afraid it would not be feasible to omit a special employer. If a special scheme is adopted, it will not be the child of the Minister alone; the initiative will generally come from the industry itself. It is then necessary that it should apply to the whole industry.
LORD ASKWITH: I do not propose to press the Amendment, if the Government do not desire to accept it. It really is for the assistance of the Minister himself, and I should not be in the least surprised, when some of the schemes come forward, if he finds he is held up by an employer who was left out at the time and brought in afterwards. It does not show very much intention of making these schemes outside the Bill effective, which was apparently the object of the Government as expressed in another place.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does the noble Lord desire to withdraw his second Amendment to this Clause?
LORD ASKWITH: My second Amendment is on the same lines. It is to add a new subsection after subsection (4), to the effect that "two or more industries may unite for the purpose of effecting jointly a special scheme." It might come under the Definition Clause?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the noble Viscount accept that Amendment?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I am prepared to accept the second Amendment in principle, and to see whether these words will meet the case or not. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to move these or other similar words on the Report Stage of the Bill.
LORD ASKWITH: Certainly.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22:
Offences and proceedings for recovery of contributions, etc.
(4) Every person who buys, sells, or offers for sale, takes or gives in exchange, or pawns or takes in pawn, any insurance card, insurance book, or used insurance stamp, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and in any proceedings under the foregoing provisions with respect to used insurance stamps, an insurance stamp shall be deemed to have been used if it has been cancelled or defaced in any way whatever, and whether it has been actually used for the purpose of payment of a contribution or not.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: The Amendments to this clause which stand on the Paper in my name are merely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 22, line 17, leave out ("insurance") and insert ("unemployment")
Page 22, line 18, leave out the first ("insurance") and insert ("unemployment") and after ("used") insert ("unemployment")
Page 22, line 21, leave out the first ("insurance") and leave out ("an insurance") and insert ("a").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Clause 25:
Repayment in certain cases of part of contributions paid by employed persons.
25.—(1) If it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister by any person who is or has been an insured contributor or by his personal representatives that that person has paid contributions in accordance with the general provisions of this Act in respect of not less than the required
586
number of weeks, and that he had, or had before his death, reached the age of sixty, he or his representatives shall be entitled to be repaid out of the unemployment fund the amount if any by which the total amount of those contributions exclusive of any contributions refunded under any of the provisions of this Act or of any regulations made thereunder has exceeded the total amount received by him by way of unemployment benefit, together with compound interest at the rate of two and a half per centum per annum calculated in the prescribed manner and as if a proportionate part of the amount of the excess had become due at the end of each insurance year next after the date on which the first contribution was paid by him:
Provided that where any insured contributor has at any time ceased for a period of five insurance years to be an insured contributor, no account shall, for the purpose of the foregoing provision, be taken of any contributions paid in respect of him before the last such period.
For the purpose of the foregoing provision the expression "the required number of weeks" means in the case of an insured contributor who, at the time when contributions being contributions of which account is to be taken for the purpose of the foregoing provisions, first became payable in respect of him, was over the age of fifty-five, five hundred weeks reduced by fifty weeks for every year or part of year by which his age at that time exceeded fifty-five, and in the case of any other insured contributor, five hundred weeks.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), to leave out "any insured contributor has at any time ceased for a period of five insurance years to be an insured contributor," and insert "no contributions have been paid in respect of any person for a period comprising five insurance years." The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to improve the drafting of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 33, leave out from ("where") to ("no") in line 35, and insert ("no contributions have been paid in respect of any person for a period comprising five insurance years ").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27:
Outdoor relief.
27.—In determining whether outdoor relief shall or shall not be granted to a person in receipt of or entitled to receive unemployment benefit or benefit under a special or supplementary scheme, the authority having power to grant the relief shall not take into account any such benefit except in so far as it exceeds ten shillings a Week
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Question is that Clause 27 be agreed to.
EARL GREY: Will the noble Viscount kindly explain the object of this clause? If a man is in receipt of 15 s. a week unemployment benefit, the authority which has to grant outdoor relief has no right to take any cognisance of the first 10 s. of that amount. I should have thought that any applicant for outdoor relief would stand on his total receipts, irrespective of their source. I do not quite see the object of the clause.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: This proposal was really contained in the previous Act, except that the figure has been altered from 5s. to 10 s. in view of the change in the value of money. This clause merely carries on the provision contained in the previous Act.
EARL GREY: That does not explain the object of the clause. What is the object of it?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble Earl is justified in asking this question, because I really do not see what the relieving authorities are expected to do. Supposing a man in poor circumstances comes to a Board of Guardians and asks for outdoor relief, how can that Board of Guardians exclude from their consideration the fact that he is getting 10 s. a week unemployment benefit? They cannot say: "We are going to obliterate from our minds the fact that this man is in receipt of 10 s. a week." It is impossible, and they must consider it in coming to a decision. Personally, I do not see how it is to operate, but if my noble friend says that as it appears already in an Act of Parliament, he is not called upon to defend it, we must, of course, accept that from him at the present stage, but he must not—I am sure he will not—complain, if we raise the question at a future stage. If I may venture to say so, I would like him to consider whether the law ought not to be altered in this respect. He may be able to tell your Lordships that no difficulty has been found in working the provision in the present Act of Parliament, and that would have great weight with the House. But I expect, if it is in the present Act of Parliament, he will find it has been a dead letter.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: If the noble Lord desires it, I will go into this more fully on the Report Stage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If you please.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: As I say, there is nothing new in the provision.
On Question, Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28:
Provisions as to return of contributions and as to rewards for lost insurance books.
28.—(1) The regulations made under this Act shall provide for the return to a person who is not an employed person within the meaning of this Act and to his employer of any contributions paid by thew respectively under the belief that that person was an employed person within the meaning of this Act, subject, in the case of the employed person's contributions, to the deduction of any amount received by him in respect of unemployment benefit under a similar belief:
Provided that no return of contributions shall be made under this provision except on an application made in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed period, not being less than one year from the date on which the contributions were paid.
(2) Where under regulations made under this Act any sum has been paid out of the unemployment fund by way of reward for the return of an insurance book or card which has been lost, the person responsible for the custody of the book or card at the time of its loss shall be liable to repay the sum so paid, not exceeding one shilling in respect of any one occasion.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Amendments on Clause 28 are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 26, line 30, leave out from the first ("person") to ("and") in line 31
Page 26, line 32, after ("the") insert ("erroneous")
Page 26, lines 32 and 33, leave out ("that person was an employed person within the meaning of") and insert ("the contributions were payable in respect of that person under the general provisions of")
Page 26, line 36, leave out ("under a similar belief") and insert ("to which he would not have been entitled if those contributions had not been paid").
Page 27, line 3, leave out ("insurance") and insert ("unemployment").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 29 and 30 agreed to.
Clause 31:
Provision with respect to persons engaged through employment exchanges.
31.—The Minister may, in such cases and on such conditions as he may prescribe, make an arrangement with any employer liable to pay contributions under this Act or under the National Insurance (Health) Acts, 1911 to 1919, whereby in respect of persons engaged by that employer through an employment exchange or in the employ of that employer at the date of the arrangement the performance of all or any of the duties required under this Act or under the National Insurance (Health) Acts, 1911 to 1919, to be performed by the employer in respect of those persons, whether on his own behalf or on behalf of the employed persons, shall be undertaken on behalf of the employer by the employment exchange.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, at the beginning, to insert: "Unless and until a special scheme is approved or made under this Act." The noble Lord said: This clause enables payment to be made by a labour exchange in cases where an employer has made an arrangement with the Labour Exchange, and I suggest that the words on the Paper be inserted at the beginning of the clause. I do not want this insurance scheme to be used as a means of maintaining labour exchanges in places where they ought to be got kid of, and, if the scheme is to be an insurance scheme for industry, between employers and employed, there is no reason for bringing in the Labour Exchanges or keeping them for the purpose of carrying out arrangements between the employer and the Government. The employer and the employed in the industry ought to make arrangements themselves without bringing in the Labour Exchanges.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 33, at the beginning insert ("unless and until a special scheme is approved or made under this Act").—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Clause 31 applies to general schemes and special schemes, and before examining in detail the noble Lord's Amendment I would ask him to look at Clause 18, subsection (6). He will find, at the end of the subsection, that the general provisions of this Bill, including the provision contained in Clause 31, "shall not, except in so far as they are applied by a special scheme, apply to, or have effect in relation to, or for the purposes of, any special scheme or the persons insured thereunder." That is to say, that the Labour Exchanges could not be used or the administration of special schemes
590
by any group of employers unless it were specially provided that the special scheme should be set up and was agreed to by those in the special scheme. It does not seem fair to deprive industries covered by special schemes of the advantages of using the exchanges. The noble Lord may not think there is an advantage in using the exchanges, but there should not be any discrimination against industries which set up schemes, and I hope he will not press the Amendment but will allow us to have the exchanges available for employers under special schemes if the persons concerned in the industry desire to do so.
LORD ASKWITH: As I understand the noble Viscount the Labour Exchanges could not be used without agreement between the parties.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: It would have to be specified that it was part of the special scheme.
LORD ASKWITH: In those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: The Amendments standing in my name are purely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 28, line 36, leave out ("1919") and insert ("1920")
Page 28, line 41, leave out ("1919") and insert ("1920").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33:
Provisions as to insurance stamps.
88.—Insurance stamps shall be prepared and issued in such manner as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, with the consent of the Treasury, may direct, and the said Commissioners may, by regulations made in accordance with the provisions of this Act relating to regulations made by the Minister, provide for applying, with the necessary adaptations, as respects insurance stamps, all or any of the provisions (including penal provisions) of the Stamp Duties Management Act, 1891, as amended by any subsequent Act, and section sixty-five of the Post Office Act, 1908, and may with the consent of the Postmaster-General provide for the sale of insurance stamps through the Post Office.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: The Amendments On the Paper are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 29, line 21, at beginning insert ("Unemployment.")
Page 29, line 26, after ("respects") insert ("unemployment")
Page 29, line 31, after ("of") insert ("unemployment").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 34 to 40 agreed to.
Clause 41:
Special provision with respect to discharged seamen, marines, soldiers and airmen.
41.—(1) For the purpose of qualifying seamen, marines, soldiers and airmen to receive unemployment benefit on their return to civil life, the Admiralty, Army Council, and Air Council, respectively, shall, subject as hereinafter provided, out of moneys provided by Parliament for Navy, Army and Air Force services, respectively, pay to the unemployment fund by way of employers' and employed persons' contributions in respect of all seamen, marines, soldiers, and airmen discharged from the service after the thirty-first clay of July, nineteen hundred and twenty, such sum as may in the opinion of the Treasury be sufficient to enable those seamen, marines, soldiers, and airmen to be credited on discharge with the fixed number of contributions, and every seaman, marine, soldier, and airman who is so discharged shall, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as though he were on the date of his discharge an insured contributor in respect of whom the fixed number of contributions have been paid, and who ceases to be employed on that date:
Provided that no such payment shall be made in respect of any person who is, after the commencement of this Act, entitled to receive any sum out of public funds under any scheme for making payments to discharged seamen, marines, soldiers, or airmen in respect of unemployment
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I beg to move the Amendment in my name which is a purely drafting one.
Amendment moved—
*Page 33, line 11, leave out ("this Act") and insert ("the provisions of this Act relating to the rights of an insured person with respect to unemployment benefit but not for any other purpose").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42:
Reciprocal arrangements with Isle of Man and Channel Islands.
42—The Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, make arrangements with the authority
592
administering any statutory scheme of unemployment insurance in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands for the payment of unemployment benefit in the Isle of Man or Channel Islands, as the ease may be, to persons entitled to unemployment benefit under this Act and for the payment of unemployment benefit in the United Kingdom to persons entitled to unemployment benefit under the statutory scheme.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, after "persons," where that word first occurs, to insert "who would, if they had been resident in the United Kingdom, have been." The noble Viscount said: This is a purely drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 20, after ("persons") insert ("who would, if they had been resident in the United Kingdom, have been").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 43 to 46 agreed to.
Clause 47:
Interpretation and application.
47.—(1) For the purposes of this Act—

(a) Contributions made by an employer on behalf of an employed person shall be deemed to be contributions by the employed person:

(b) A person engaged in temporary work provided by a central body or distress committee under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, or towards the provision of which any such central body or distress committee has contributed under that Act, shall not be deemed to be an employed person within the meaning of this Act:

(c) The expression "trade dispute" means any dispute between employers and employees, or between employees and employees, which is connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of employment, or with the conditions of employment, of any persons, whether employees in the employment of the employer with whom the dispute arises or not:

(d) The expression "the Minister" means the Minister of Labour:

(e) A person shall be deemed according to the law in England, Wales, and Ireland, as well as according to the law in Scotland, not to have attained the age of sixteen until the commencement of the sixteenth anniversary of the day of his birth, and similarly with respect to other ages.

(2) In determining any question as to whether any occupation in which a person is or has been engaged is or was such as to make him an employed person within the meaning of this Act. regard shall be had to the nature of the work on

593
which he is or was engaged rather than to the business of the person by whom he is or was employed.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, after paragraph (d) of subsection (1), to insert the following new paragraph:
"(e) The expression 'insurance year' means such period of not less than fifty-two or more than fifty-three weeks as may be prescribed:
Provided that—

"(i) the period commencing on the eighteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty, and ending on the third clay of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, shall be an insurance year;

"(ii) as respects the period prior to the said eighteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty, the expression insurance year' means any period which was an insurance year under the provisions of the enactments repealed by this Act; and

"(iii) for the purpose of meeting any change in the insurance year or for the purpose of making provision for any period which may elapse between the date upon which contributions commence to be payable under this Act and the commencement of the insurance year next following the third day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, the Minister may make such corresponding reduction as regards the number of weeks of benefit which may be received within that less period as appears to him to be proper:"

Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 17, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
First Schedule:
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, after paragraph (d) in Part II of the First Schedule, to insert:— "(e) Permanent employment under any local or other public authority otherwise than by way of manual labour. For the purpose of this provision an employed person shall be deemed to be in the permanent employment of a local or other public authority if he has been appointed by resolution of such authority for life or without limit of time."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is moved at the request of the Rural District Councils Association and the Urban District Councils Association. The
594
reason why action was taken arises from the fact that the National Association of Local Government Officers approached the District Councils Association and asked them to take up this matter. The National Association of Government Officers practically represents the whole of the officers of local authorities, and it is a body which has a right to speak for its members. They ask your Lordships to exclude them from the operation of this Bill. In the Bill itself there are provisions for exempting certain. classes of persons under certain, conditions, and in Part II of the Second, Schedule persons employed "under any local or other public authority" are excluded. At first, sight that would seem to carry out the wishes of these local officials, but if you read further down you will find that it says "where the Minister certifies that the employed person is not subject to dismissal except for misconduct or for neglect in the performance of, or unfitness to perform, his duties."
The officials of county councils have permanent employment, but like all officials of local authorities, they are subject to dismissal. Practically, except for-misconduct or abolition of the office, they have a permanency, and there does not seem any reason why they should come under this Bill. They do not wish it themselves, and local authorities do not wish it, because it means a considerable-increase of rates. For every one of these, officials, who will never be unemployed, the local authority will have to pay 4d. per week, and the officials themselves do not see why they should be fined 4d. per week for the benefit of someone else; they will never get any benefit from it themselves. To sum up the objections to the proposal, they are, that there will be little unemployment amongst the permanent staff of local authorities; there is no desire on the part of these officials to be included in the, scheme, and the Bill would place an unnecessary burden on local officials and upon local rates. Your Lordships have already supported the view that this is not the time to increase local rates, and I hope the noble Viscount in charge of the, Bill will see that this is not a proper course to take, especially as the officials themselves, ask to be excluded.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, after line 12, insert the said newparagraph.—(Lord Strachie.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I understand that the object of the Amendment is to deal with the permanent staffs of local authorities. The Amendment, as drafted, would enable local authorities to pass a resolution which would cover their temporary staffs also. I do not wish to suggest that a local authority would be likely to do this, but I think it would be a bad thing to allow such a possibility in the drafting of an important Act of Parliament. I think I can meet the noble Lord. If the local authorities will guarantee to keep on their employees; that is to say, if they will pass a resolution expressing their desire to cover, or in this case to exclude, certain specific employees, then in that case I am authorised, on behalf of the Minister of Labour, to say that the Ministry would grant a certificate. I think that will meet the noble Lord.
LORD STRACHIE: Of course it is very difficult to give an immediate answer on a very complicated point like that, but I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount. Perhaps he will allow me to consider his offer. and if it is regarded as satisfactory I will put down words on another occasion, but it would be better if he himself would put down an Amendment.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I was not suggesting that any words should be added to the Bill, but only giving, an undertaking. If the noble Lord will ascertain whether those whom he is representing are satisfied with the offer perhaps the matter can be raised again.
LORD STRACHIE: Perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to consult them between now and the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in paragraph (j) of Part II of the First Schedule, to substitute "National Insurance (Health) Acts, 1911 to 1920 "for" National Insurance (Health) Acts, 1911 to 1919." The noble Viscount said: This is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 5, leave out ("1919") and insert "1920")—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule:
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved to omit the following from the Second Schedule—
In this paragraph the expression "insurance year" means such period of not less than fifty-two or more than fifty-three weeks as may be pie-scribed:
Provided that for the purpose of meeting any change in the insurance year or for the purpose of making provision for any period which may elapse between the date upon which contributions commence to be payable under this Act and the commencement of the next ensuing insurance year, the Minister may substitute for the insurance year such less period as may be necessary and make a corresponding reduction as regards the number of weeks of benefit which may he received within that less period.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 31, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 2 on page 40.—(Viscount Astor)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL GREY: Before the Question is put that the Second Schedule stand part, I should like to draw the attention of the noble Viscount to the words in line 23 on page 40. which appear to limit the power to create equal rights.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
The remaining Schedules agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  A FRIDAY SITTING.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the House I beg to inform your Lordships that the Finance Bill should reach us from the House of Commons to-morrow, in which case I think probably it will be most convenient for the Second Reading to be taken on Friday next, in the afternoon. There are two other important Bills which it is hoped may leave the House of Commons during the present week—namely, the Ministry of Mines Bill, and the Indemnity Bill. I should imagine that if they reach us on Thursday, July 29, we should take the First Reading forthwith and proceed with the Second Reading as early as possible next week. There are also several small Departmental Bills about to reach this House—namely, a Telegraph Money Bill, a Post Office and Telegraph Bill, Bills dealing with Early Closing, with

  597
  Irish Resident Magistrates, and with Dangerous Drugs, an Increase of Pensions Bill, the Overseas Trade (Credits and Insurance) Bill, and another measure with a very solemn title which I believe is a very small Bill, the Representation of the People (No. 3) Bill. In addition to that the Ministry of Food (Continuance) Bill is now under discussion in the House of Commons and it is impossible at the moment to forecast when it will reach your Lordships. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
  LORD JOICEY: Can the noble Earl say definitely when the Second Reading
  598
  of the Ministry of Mines Bill is likely to be taken?
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My difficulty is that I do not know when it is going to reach us. If it reaches us the day after to-morrow and is read a first time at once, I should hope on Monday or Tuesday to take the Second Reading. I shall know more about that to-morrow, or the day after, when we will communicate with Lord Joicey.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at half-past six o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
[From Minutes of July 27.]
HOUSE OF LORDS.

  DOVER HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
  Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 3).
  The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

  INVERGORDON HARBOUR (TRANSFER) BILL.
  Reported, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK (FINANCE) BILL.
  Reported, with an Amendment.
  YEOVIL CORPORATION BILL.
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments.

    BANK NOTES (IRELAND) BILL.
    CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL. [H.L.]
    DUCHY OF LANCASTER BILL. [H.L.]
    Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

    JUVENILE COURTS (METROPOLIS) BILL. [H.L.]
    Committee (which stands appointed for this day) put off sine die.