Sitting of 11 August 1921

Preamble
The Muse met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
NUNEATON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the. Commons.
BURNLEY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
WIGAN CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
BATLEY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
IRISH NEGOTIATIONS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, since I addressed your Lordships yesterday on the subject of Ireland a development has taken place of which it is proper you should be apprised. After I had spoken yesterday, Mr. Barton, Mr. McGrath and Mr. O'Brien reached London conveying to the Prime Minister a message from Mr. de Valera in relation to the offer of which I had previously- spoken to your Lordships. As the House is aware, the Prime Minister is at the present moment in Paris. The communication has been sent on to him by aeroplane, and, so far as one may conjecture, has been received at the moment I am now addressing the House. In those circumstances, though I am not in a position to say more as to the tenour of the reply, I ought to modify what I said yesterday by making plain that in my view, having regard to what has happened, a statement will necessarily be made both in this House and elsewhere on Tuesday next.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the First Commissioner of Works a question as to business. There was sonic doubt at the adjournment yesterday as to what day would be fixed for the Committee stage of the Railways Bill which we shall probably read a second time this afternoon. I have not been able to get in touch with many of those upon whom I greatly rely, but I think that Monday will be unduly soon for the Committee stage. I do not desire for a moment to stand in the way of the convenience of noble Lords, if it is the general opinion that Monday is a convenient date, but I would remind the noble Earl that the Leader of the House, when we were discussing business on the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition, entered into what I think was an engagement—certainly an assurance—that there would be the fullest time granted for the discussion of the Railways Bill. That was one of his points, and I do not think anything in the nature of an undue hurrying of the Bill—a great deal, of course, depends upon the adjective—would be reasonable or right, having regard to the previous history of this question. I speak merely in the interests of your Lordships. I do not pretend to know the Bill, though, of course, I have read it, but I see Lord Emmott in his place and his advice as to whether the Committee stage should be taken on Monday or at a later date will be very valuable.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I should also have to call upon noble Lords opposite to justify the possibility of taking the Committee stage on Monday if the noble Marquess is going to call upon Lord Emmott to support him. However, I think I can meet him. As regards to-morrow, we propose to take the Committee stage of the Licensing Bill and the final stage of the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Bill. I suggest that the House should meet at 2 o'clock tomorrow. It was proposed that your Lordships should meet at twelve, but in that case there must be an adjournment for luncheon and perhaps it would be as expeditious to meet at 2 o'clock. I propose, subject to the approval of your Lordships, to move the adjournment to-day until 2 o'clock to-morrow.

451
It will be necessary, although I regret it, for the Leader of the House, or myself acting on his behalf, on Monday next to move the suspension of Standing Orders with regard to taking more than one stage of a Bill at a given sitting, and giving Government Bills precedence. I hope that that proposal will not be treated as though it were tyrannical on the part of the Government. As to the general outline of business next week, it is extremely difficult to lay down hard and fast lines which will meet the views of all your Lordships. I certainly am strongly pressed by influential Peers to take the Committee stage of the Railways Bill on Monday. One desires to defer to those who wish for a postponement of this Bill rather than to those who desire a prompt and expeditious dealing with the measure. If your Lordships will agree we will put down the Committee stage for Tuesday next, August 16, and take the remaining stages of the Bill, if possible., on Wednesday, the 17th. That would give no interval between the Committee and Report stages. Our proposal, originally, was to take the Committee stage on Monday and the final stages on Wednesday, so as to give ample time for another place to deal with any Amendments that are made here. However, that is our proposal, and if it meets with the general wish of your Lordships' House we will postpone the Committee stage from Monday until Tuesday and take the final stages on the day originally proposed—namely, Wednesday, the 17th.
The Safeguarding of Industries Bill should receive its Third Reading in the House of Commons to-morrow, and I should like, if the Committee stage of the Railways Bill is postponed from Monday to Tuesday, to take the Second Reading of that Bill on Monday next. Another measure with which many of your Lordships are concerned, the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, has actually reached us, and is down, I am informed, on the Order Paper for Monday. I believe the House, as a whole, will desire that this Bill should be dealt with as soon as possible. That would mean rather a heavy day for Monday—the Safeguarding of Industries Bill and the Commons Amendments to the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, which are important. Beyond that I cannot go. The only other important subject on the Paper is the Motion standing in the name of Lord Salisbury for Friday, August 19. Perhaps further informal conversations will be
452
required, but I press on your Lordships the desirability of taking the Safeguarding of Industries Bill on Monday, on the assumption that we conform to the wishes expressed—namely, that the Committee stage of the Railways Bill should be postponed until Tuesday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not want to take up the time of your Lordships, especially as the Leader of the Opposition is now in his place, but perhaps you will allow me to recite the situation as regards the Railways Bill. This Bill was urged upon us by the Government, and we were told that it was essential that it should be passed before the adjournment, although many of us were reluctant to take that course. We asked certain noble colleagues of ours, sitting in all parts of your Lordships' House, to meet the experts of the Government, and they were convinced that it was necessary that this Bill should be passed before the holidays. But it was agreed on all hands that the House had shown, if I may say so, great self-restraint in not vindicating its power of postponing the Bill. Having regard to the public interests, we all thought it was our duty to give way. Then came the debate upon the Motion of my noble friend, the Leader of the Opposition, who is now in his place. Your Lordships decided that there was no reason why all the business which has to be transacted in the present session should not be transacted before the adjournment. We took a different view, and urged it very strongly upon your Lordships, but we accept, of course, the decision of the House. We were overborne by the majority of your Lordships.
In the course of the debate, however, the Leader of the House explained to us in detail that we had no grievance, that there was plenty of time in which to discuss everything properly, and that, so far as the Railways Bill itself was concerned, your Lordships should have full opportunity for discussion. I have not his words, and, if I have misquoted him, I apologise; but though I have not had the opportunity of furnishing myself with the exact words he used, that, I think, was their effect. I should like the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, and all your Lordships to realise how that assurance is going to be implemented. The Second Reading is going to be taken the day after the Bill reaches your Lordships' House. To this we made no objection. The Com-

453
mittee stage is to be taken on almost the very next possible Parliamentary day—namely, on Monday. If, as a great concession, the Government give way on Monday and defer the Committee stage until Tuesday, then this enormously important Bill, involving all sorts of interests of His Majesty's subjects, with every conceivable difficulty—of detail, not of principle—is to be hurried through on the very next day, August 17. This Bill was months in the Commons; it was discussed at great length by a Standing Committee—
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Two Standing Committees.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: By two Standing Committees. I must say that if the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, required a justification for his Motion, which was unfortunately unsuccessful, he is abundantly avenged by the account which the noble Earl gives of how business is to be transacted in the ensuing days of the session. As I have said, we were in a minority, and it is no business of ours to do more than enter a respectful protest. But as to the revising power of your Lordships' House, it is gone.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am sorry that I was not in my place in the to hear the noble Earl opposite make he whole of his statement, but I have been able to gather the purport of that statement from what has fallen from the noble Marquess behind me. I cannot help thinking that His Majesty's Government are trying to have it both ways. When I made the suggestion that it would )e wiser, while dealing fully with the Railways Bill at present, to defer until later in the autumn consideration of the other important measures before your Lordships' House, I understood that the choice was this—that either we should teal with the Railways Bill, and then be able to rise at a date convenient both to ourselves and to another place; or, if my Motion were defeated, that we should give full consideration both to the Rail-rays Bill and to the other measures, with he probability of sitting well into the month of September. Now, apparently, he theory of His Majesty's Government 3 that it is possible to do what we on this side considered as possible only if there were a postponement of important measures until the autumn session, and at the same time to do without an autumn session.
454
That, surely, is not a reasonable course for the Government to ask the House to take. It seems that we are invited to run these measures through without anything that can be called adequate discussions. We are pressed to abdicate our functions of revision. Our functions of rejection, as we know, are limited, and that is a terrific grievance with the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and, I suppose, with the noble Earl opposite. But why that impediment to our full freedom of action should be accompanied by a rigid curtailment of our powers of discussion, revision and debate, will be found, I think, to pass the comprehension of everybody. I am bound to say that we on this side shall do what we can to get these measures fully discussed, and, if it involves the inconvenience of sitting for a day or two more than His Majesty's Government hope, or than the House of Commons would think convenient, I am afraid that that inconvenience must be submitted to as a consequence of the strong action which His Majesty's Government took the other day.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to say one word, and one word only. The noble Marquess missed only two moments of what I had to say, but during those two moments I pointed out a feature which he must not ignore, and that is, that I am strongly pressed by noble Lords sitting on both sides of your Lordships' House, by noble Lords of influence, to take this Bill very early. In consenting, therefore, as I now do, to postponing the Committee stage until Tuesday, I know that I am doing what well qualified Peers desire me not to do. But I must ask your Lordships at least to begin, if you do not consent to conclude, the Second Reading of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill on Monday. I cannot force your Lordships to come to a decision, but I must beg your Lordships to be so good as at least to begin the Second Reading of that Bill on that day. If, as Lord Crewe says, it is found that the measures are of such importance as to preclude their being properly discussed by your Lordships, of course the remedy lies in your Lordships' hands, and the timetable will have to be protracted.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I be permitted to say one other word upon a different point? The noble Earl was

455
good enough to mention the Motion which stands in my name for Friday of next week. The announcement which has been made from the Woolsack may, of course, make a very great difference, but in any case I suppose I may rely upon the Government not to interfere with that debate, having regard to what has passed? On Monday a Motion will be moved by the Government, a very reasonable Motion, to take the whole time of the House, which will have the effect of killing my debate on Friday, unless the Government make an exception, as I think they ought to do, having regard to the importance of the subject—unless, of course, new developments render it unnecessary.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I will give an undertaking that nothing shall be put in front of Lord Salisbury's Motion except such business as may be mutually agreed upon.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl.

ADMIRALTY PENSIONS BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read la, and to be printed.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read la, and to be printed.
LAND SETTLEMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read laa, and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BARNSLEY EXTENSION) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
MANCHESTER (POLICE, &C.) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a, (according to Order), and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 1) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
ZION CONGR ELATION AL CHAPEL (FRAMP- TON COTTERELL) CHARITY BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

WAR PENSIONS 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 Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Establishment of war pensions committees.
(3) A committee established by a scheme under this section shall consist of such number of members, not exceeding twenty-five, as may be specified in the scheme, and every such scheme shall provide for the inclusion, so far as practicable, in the committee of representatives of—

(a) disabled men who have been discharged from the naval, military, or air service of His Majesty during the present war: and

(b) women who are in receipt of pensions as the widows or dependants of men in the said naval, military, or air service who have died from causes arising out of service during the present war; and

(c) such of the local authorities whose districts are situate wholly or partly within the area for which the committee is established as are specified in the scheme; and

(d) employers and workmen in industry in equal numbers; and

(e) voluntary associations engaged in the care of ex-service men and their families in the area;

Provided that—

(i) the persons appointed as representatives of the persons mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection shall together constitute not less than one fourth of the total membership of the committee, and the persons appointed as representatives of the persons mentioned in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) respectively shall in each case constitute not less than one-fifth of the total membership of the committee, and where one fourth or one fifth of the total membership is not an integral number, the nearest integral number to one fourth or one fifth, as the case may be, shall be substituted therefor; and

(ii) not less than four members of the committee shall be women.

(4) Every scheme made for the establishment of1 a committee under this section shall provide for the appointment of the members of the committee by the Minister, and for the periods for which the members shall hold office, and the conditions under which they can be removed from office and on the first constitution of such a committee the Minister shall have regard to the desirability, subject to the provisions of this section, of selecting, so far as possible, for appointment to the committee, persons who are members of the existing committees in the area to which the scheme applies.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Amendments on this Clause are drafting Amendments
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 16, after ("fifth") insert ("of the total membership").
Page 3,line 17, after (" and ") insert:
(" (ii) where the number of the members to be appointed as representatives of the persons mentioned in paragraph (d) as ascertained in the manner aforesaid is not an even number, the number so ascertained shall be increased by one; and ")—(Viscoant Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
TIER EARL OF DARTMOUTH TIER EARL OF DARTMOUTH moved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection:—
"(5) A member of the staff of a committee, whether the committee is constituted under the War Pensions Acts, 1915 to 1920, or is established by a scheme under this section shall not be required by the Minister to be removed from the employment he holds under the Committee against the wish of the Committee without the Committee and the member of the staff concerned being given an opportunity of showing cause to the Minister why he should not he so removed."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on the Second Reading of the Bill, I indicated that I had rather a personal grievance in this matter, and I have put down an Amendment which, if accepted, will, I hope, prevent a recurrence of an incident which came within my own experience. I do not wish in any way to interfere with the powers of the Minister, but I want to secure that where the Minister feels called upon to terminate the appointment of an official of the local committee, that appointment shall not be terminated, if the committee so desire, till after the official has had an opportunity of answering the charges made against him. I do not think that it is a very unreasonable request, because, although I am not going fully into my own particular case, there are one or two points which I think will explain how the difficulty arose.
We had, like other local committees, our secretary. The secretary was a man on whom we largely relied, and he had done very valuable service. He was a man on whose knowledge of the scheme of War Pensions I relied very completely. The first intimation which I had that there was any trouble was a request from the Minister to inform hint of the charges made against him. I was flabbergasted by the gravity of the charges which were made. Next, it was understood that under the Regulations the Minister has power to require the local committee to terminate an appointment within a fortnight, and I received a letter from the Minister requesting me to terminate the appointment. After what had passed I took the difference between "request" and"require"as the difference between"may"and"shall." I found afterwards that I was wrong, and I was accused of quibbling. Although there was no quibbling in the first instance, when I found that I was unable to get a hearing for the secretary by other means, I quibbled as much as I could. Subsequently, my general purposes committee had a meeting to go into the matter, and we were firmly convinced that the officer charged had not had a hearing, and we passed a resolution asking that nothing be done until he had had a hearing.
The next step was a meeting of the general committee to deal with the whole question, and I informed the Minister that this meeting was going to be held. He telegraphed to the Regional Director to be present. I was under the impression that the presence of that official meant that the secretary was going to have an opportunity of answering the charges made, but that again was not the case, and after I had made my statement, and the Regional Director had made his, the secretary asked that he might be allowed to put some questions to the Regional Director. That was absolutely refused, and. I was told by the Regional Director that he was only there for the purpose of telling me that I was acting unconstitutionally. It was unnecessary to tell me that, because I was acquainted then with the facts, and was acting with my eyes open. If charges are made and the termination of an appointment is requested within a fortnight, without giving the accused a hearing, it seemed to me so hard that I resigned my position as chairman as a protest. The object of my Amendment

459
is simply to prevent any recurrence of such cases in the future, and to provide that if the Minister finds it necessary to terminate the appointment of any official of the local committee, if the committee so wish the official should have an opportunity of answering the charges that are made against him. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 30, at end insert the said new subsection (5).—(The Earl of Dartmouth.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, my noble friend, Lord Dartmouth, seems to have been labouring under some error as to the meaning of the word "request." I understood that when the word "request was used by a Minister it was usually equivalent to the word"require," although it was possibly an act of courtesy to express it in that way. It shows the danger of being too polite. I will not go into the full merits of the Amendment which he has put on the Paper, because it raises really a rather wide question as to whether a matter of that kind is really a matter for legislation and not one of administration, and whether it would not be rather unwise to give statutory rights of re-hearing to officials of a public authority.
I dare say my noble friend also will not think it necessary for me to go into the details of the precise case which he has mentioned. I could do so if it were necessary, but I do not think my noble friend requests or requires me to do so. I think that this new subsection is really unnecessary. It is put down, I think, under some misapprehension as to the nature of these new committees. The new committees, as I stated on the Second Reading, will be purely advisory and not executive. They will not have any staff of their own. If they require any staff to do any work that staff will be lent by the Ministry; that is to say, I suppose, by the Regional Director. The staff, therefore, will be entirely a Ministry staff. Therefore, no question arises as to the appointment or dismissal of the staffs of the local committees, because they will not have any. The subsection, therefore, as I think my noble friend will see, is really unnecessary, and deals with a state of things which will not arise.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: I believe sonic of the local committees will be con-
460
tinued, but if they are really advisory there is no reason for pressing the Amendment. I understand, however, that under the Bill there are a certain number of the old local committees who will continue in the same position as now.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Not with executive powers.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: All their executive powers disappear?
VISCOUNT PEEL: They disappear.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: Then all their officials disappear at the same time?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: I do not wish to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 (Functions of War Pensions Committees):
VISCOUNT PEEL: The small Amendments on Clause 2 are all drafting amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 10, leave out ("such committee") and insert (" the committee; and ")
Page 4,line 14, leave out (" such committee ") and insert (" the committee; and ")
Page 4,lines 37 to 39, leave out paragraph (h)
Page 4,line 43, at end insert (" and
(" (i) to perform such other duties in relation to pensions, and to any other matters, as the Minister may by regulation prescribe.")—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 (Constitution of Central Advisor, Committee):
VISCOUNT PEEL: The Amendments to Clause 3 are also drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 4, leave out (" the ") and insert (" this ")
Page 5,line 5, leave out (" appoint ") and insert (" constitute ")
Page 5,lines 7 and 8, leave out (" the War Pensions Committees ") and insert (" any committees constituted under the War Pensions

461
Acts, 1915 to 1920, or under this Act, and for the time being in existence ").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Final awards.
4.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in any Warrant, Order in Council, or Order administered by the Minister, the Minister may, subject to the approval of the Treasury, make regulations providing for the making of final awards in the case of any officers or men to Whom pensions in respect of disablement due to causes arising out of service during the present war have been granted or who claim such pensions, and prescribing the principles on which any such awards are to be made and the classes of pension to which this section is to apply.
(2) The case of every such officer and man as aforesaid shall, with a view to making a final award, be taken into consideration not later than four years after his discharge from the service or after the first award of a pension to him, as may be prescribed by regulations made under this section.
(3) If any person in whose case a final award has been made under this section is dissatisfied with the award, he may, at any time within one year from the date on which notice of the making of the award is given to him, appeal to a Pensions Appeal Tribunal established under section eight of the Act of 1919, and the Tribunal shall, if they are of opinion that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the final award ought not to have been made or that the proper amount has not been awarded, as the case may be, either set aside the award or increase or decrease the amount thereof as they think proper, and shall in any other case disallow the appeal:
Provided that—

(a) a Pensions Appeal Tribunal in exercising their powers in relation to appeals under this section shall have regard to the provisions of any regulations made under this section; and

(b) for the purpose of hearing appeals under this section the constitution of the Tribunal shall be modified by the substitution for the legal representative of a second medical practitioner having such qualifications as may be prescribed by regulations made under the Schedule to the Act of 1919, and that schedule shall have effect accordingly, and regulations may be made under that schedule with respect to appeals under this section.

The Minister shall in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by him under this section bring the provisions of this subsection to the notice of persons having a right of appeal thereunder.
(4) Where a grant of a permanent pension or of a gratuity or a final weekly allowance or an award (other than the grant of a conditional pension) has been made before the commencement of this Act, the grant or award shall for the purposes of this section be treated as a final award made thereunder, and this section shall apply
462
accordingly with the substitution of one year from such date (not. being earlier than the commencement of this Act) as may be fixed for the purposes of this subsection by regulations made under this section for one year from the date of notice of the award.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next Amendments are also drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 22, leave out (" then ") and insert (" than ")
Page 5,lines 34 and 35, leave out (" has not been awarded ") and insert (" of pension or proper rate of disablement was not fixed by the award")
Page 5,line 36, leave out (" thereof ") and insert (" or rate so fixed ")—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, on behalf of LORD HABRIS, moved to omit all words in subsection (3) proviso (b), except"regulations may be made under that schedule with respect to appeals under this section." The noble Marquess said: I am moving the Amendments which stand in the name of my noble friend, Lord Harris, at his request, as he is unable to be present. This is a matter to which my noble friend referred on the Second Reading. The subsection proposes that the existing Appeal Tribunal, which now consists of a lawyer, a doctor, and an ex-Service man, should be varied by the elimination of the lawyer and his replacement by another doctor; in other words, that there should be two doctors and an ex-Service man. My noble friend's Amendment seeks to restore the lawyer and eliminate one doctor; that is, to restore the present position.
I confess I think it unwise to get rid of the lawyer from the tribunal. After all, there are Regulations to be interpreted, and there is evidence to be taken. It was rather suggested on the Second Reading that there would be no point really in issue except a medical point. I think that will be found not to be the case. There are to be Regulations. With what sort of things will these Regulations deal? A case was mentioned to me the other day of a man who was wounded, and has been disabled in consequence of his wound. His disability is at this moment compensated to the extent of eight shillings a day. Supposing that question comes up for review and it has to be determined what this disability really comes to, that is not merely a medical question, it is a question

463
of which a doctor is not the nest judge. No doubt the doctor is the best judge of the physical condition of the man but the question of what he can earn, of what in his enfeebled state he is capable of doing, is not a doctor's matter, surely. It is a matter of general evidence, and one upon which it would be extremely valuable to have the trained mind of a lawyer to judge the evidence. I do not say that you do not want a doctor. Of course, you do, but let the Committee remember that under the Amendment we retain a doctor. The question is whether there should be two doctors and no lawyer. It is not merely a question of the earning capacity of the man, for much depends upon a number of considerations—for example, his position in life, the circumstances of the place where he lives, the kind of trade which is available—and these are not doctors' questions at all, but general questions.
Further, a body of procedure will grow up in the practice of these Tribunals. Certain decisions to which the Tribunals will come will govern their future decisions. Therefore, the form in winch they are drawn, the limits to which the words shall go—all difficult matters of that sort are things with which a lawyer is infinitely better qualified to deal than a doctor. I want to speak with the greatest possible respect of doctors, for I owe a great deal to them personally, and I dare say many of your Lordships do. But they are not always men of very clear judgment in matters which do not appertain precisely to scientific subjects, and even on scientific subjects they occasionally get a strong view which they ride almost to death. Your Lordships know the history of the Lunacy Law. That is exactly what happened. It was found that to trust doctors alone was not safe, and under the recent Lunacy Acts a magistrate's order has been substituted for the absolute power which the doctors enjoyed before, for the very reason that it was not safe to trust the doctors to give a perfectly reasonable and fair decision upon matters of difficulty of this kind.
I have some little experience of tribunal work—a different kind of tribunal, I know, but tribunals in connection with the Military Service Acts during the war—and I say with confidence that the presence of lawyers on the Central Tribunal was absolutely essential in order to make it work properly. I do not know what I
464
should have done if I had not had two first-rate lawyers as my colleagues. I feel quite sure that the Government would be entirely safe if they allowed the lawyer to remain. It would create public confidence, and that is the great thing. You want people to believe that the Tribunal is quite fair, and I am sure they will trust a Tribunal which has a lawyer on it more than they will trust a Tribunal which is mainly manned by doctors.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 1, leave out from the beginning of line 1 to ("regulations") in line 8.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I thought I was familiar with most of the views of the noble Marquess, but I did not know what a strong passion he was going to develop for lawyers, or how certain he was that the presence of a lawyer—of any lawyer, apparently—on a committee—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: On a Tribunal.
VISCOUNT PEEL:—gave such confidence o the public.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not on a committee but a Tribunal, which is a different thing.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am going to say a word as to whether it is a Tribunal in the ordinary sense or not.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is called a Tribunal.
VISCOUNT PEEL: First of all I had better say a word as to how the new proposal arose to eliminate a lawyer and substitute a second doctor. It arose out of the investigations and Report of a Select Committee of the House of Commons that sat during 1919–20, looked into the whole question of pensions awards and examined the question of the right of appeal on the assessments. In their view, which was strongly stated, I understand, in their Report, there should be a majority of medical men on the committee as well as an ex-Service representative. Clearly, if the medical men are to have a majority in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee, it would be necessary to increase the number of medical

465
men to three, making three medical men, One lawyer and one ex-Service representative. The noble Marquess will see that, with the number of these Appeal Tribunals, that would seriously increase the cost of the administration.
The next point is this. The noble Marquess said that the Tribunal would have to consider all sorts of questions as to what a man can earn, what his trade is and all the circumstances of the case on which, according to the noble Marquess, a lawyer is a better judge than a doctor I think that he rather based his observations on past practice and not on the system which, I understand, will be inaugurated under this Bill. The old practice certainly was not based on the principle that compensation for war disablement must be uniform for all disablements of the same kind and degree; that is the present practice. The old practice, on the other Land, was to award a pension according to the extent of the loss of a man's earning capacity. If you are going to award a pension according to the extent of the loss of a man's earning capacity, it is clear that that is a point on which I will not say that the opinion of the doctor would not be valuable but it certainly could not be final, and upon which the opinion of other people would probably have more value than that of the doctor. But as the present principle is based on the degree of disablement uniform for all disablements of the same kind and irrespective of earning capacity, we get, in the view of the Ministry, into purely medical questions on which only medical men can really have a view.
Let me point out that the old system resulted in this kind of thing. Two men, one of whom was a clerk and the other a navvy, having perhaps the same disablement, received different rates of pension because the disablement had a different effect upon their respective occupations; the clerk was hardly interrupted in his business, whereas the navvy could scarcely carry it on at all. Therefore we are not now dealing, as I say, only with these trade matters, these outside matters on which the noble Marquess rightly says that a lawyer might pronounce, but with a purely medical assessment of the scale of disability. I understand that the normal man is taken and you work out how far below the normal a disabled man may be said to be. The system has worked
466
with justice, I understand, and with far more satisfaction than was obtained under the pre-Ministry awards.
This method of assessment depends on a technical medical judgment, and unless that basis of assessment is maintained there is some danger that appeals, as suggested by the noble Marquess, might cause great difficulty in differentiating between two cases of disablement. We have first of all the recommendation of the Committee and, secondly, the fact that a new method of assessing these disabilities has been undertaken. Is there any parallel between the class of questions which the present Appeal Tribunals under the Act of 1919 have to determine and those with which the modified Appeal Tribunals provided by this clause will have to deal? The existing Appeal Tribunals were set up to determine a question of fact—whether a disability claimed by a man to be due to his war services was, in fact, so due. That, of course, is a matter of evidence to decide which a lawyer is useful. The legal member, as chairman, was in the position of saying whether what was alleged in the man's favour was evidence or not, and what was the value. of that evidence.
But the Tribunals set up under this clause will not have to deal with questions of fact turning upon evidence other than purely medical evidence as to the extent to which a man suffers from his disability. I understand that it is the view of the Ministry of Pensions that the lawyer is not necessary, that the question to be settled is a matter purely within the ambit of the knowledge and the discretion of these medical gentlemen, and that to them, therefore, it should be left. In those circumstances, I do not know whether the noble Marquess is satisfied with the explanation I have given or whether he wishes to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 (Amendment of a 8 of 9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 53. 11 Geo. 5. c. 23):
VISCOUNT PEEL: The Amendment to this Clause which stands in my name is of a purely drafting character.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 3, leave out from (" considering ") to (" shall ") in line 5, and insert (" such an appeal as aforesaid ")—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Regulations to be laid before Parliament.
9. Every order and every regulation made under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such order or regulation is laid before it praying that the order or regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the order or regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to leave out Clause 9 and insert the following new clause—
"Before any order or regulation is made under this Act a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament, and if a resolution is passed by either House within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such draft is laid before it against the draft no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of any new draft order or regulation."
The noble Marquess said: I am not wedded to the actual words of my Amendment. The point I wish to raise is a very familiar one. It is as to whether the objection of both Houses of Parliament to a Regulation should be effective, or whether, in the case of the House of Lords, it should not necessarily be effective. In the form in which the approval of both Houses of Parliament is provided for in the Bill the governing word is "may." If an objection is made by either House of Parliament the proceedings may be varied. The words are:"His Majesty in Council may annul the Order or Regulation." We have often discussed this point, and it has now been settled under legal advice in your Lordships' House that it means that the Government are not bound to annul the Regulation but may do so if they please. That being so, the effect is that as the life of the Government depends upon the House of Commons, if a Motion is carried in that House it is effective and does annul the Regulation. But if it is carried in the House of Lords it may be ignored; there
468
are precedents for that which will be within your Lordships' recollection. The drafting of my Amendment may be open to criticism, but the words I seek to substitute for those in the Bill provide that where either House objects the Regulation shall be annulled.
You have to avoid His Majesty's name, and this Amendment is drawn rather on different lines, but that is, in practice, what I seek. I would ask the Government whether they would not make that concession. These Regulations are important, and we are very much concerned for the welfare of these unfortunate pensioners, men who have suffered so acutely for the country. All we ask is that the Regulations which are to be made governing their fate in matters of pension should be kept within the control of both Houses of Parliament. If you retain the word "may" there is no certainty of the power of your Lordships' House being effective. If you change the "may," and use some such phrase as I have ventured to suggest, then it will become obligatory on the Government, when a Resolution is carried, if your Lordships' House thinks it necessary to carry one. That is not likely to be very often the case, but should you wish to do so, your action would be effective.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 9 and insert the said new clause.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I hope the noble Marquess will not press so drastic a proposal as he has made. His words are—
"Before any order or regulation is made under this Act a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament, and if a resolution is passed by either House within the next subsequent twenty-one clays on which that House has sat next after any such draft is laid before it against the draft no further proceedings shall be taken thereon."
The Ministry, I understand, is very anxious in the next few weeks to set up these committees and make Regulations, and if the clause of the noble Marquess were carried, there would have to be great delay.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps the noble Viscount will address himself to the point which I submitted.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was addressing myself to the proposal as put on the Paper by the noble Marquess. May I not do that?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am perfectly willing, if the noble Viscount thinks the form too drastic., to alter it, provided the Government will say that they will consent to a form of words which shall make the annulment positive instead of permissive whenever it is done by either House of Parliament. I will not say another word, but will bring up the proper form in co-operation with the Government on Report.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will consult with the Minister of Pensions before the Report stage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In that case I will not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed. to.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM): My Lords, this is a measure which, I think, is entirely non-contentious, and, indeed, is so small that it must be the exception which proves the rule—de minimis non carat lex. The only point arises in connection with Clause 4 of the Greenwich Hospital Act of 1872, under which the Admiralty may provide for the education and maintenance of daughters of warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Navy and Marines, subject to the following restriction:—" The amount expended under this section on the education and maintenance of any girl shall not exceed the rate of £20 a year." Since that Act was passed, as we are all painfully aware, the cost of living and everything else has gone up considerably, and the authorities concerned state, and I think fairly state, that it is impossible to provide for the education of a girl under proper conditions for £20 a year. Therefore, they ask that this restriction may be removed. This is not a case of calling for any assistance from the taxpayer, because the money is available ii the hands of the Greenwich Hospital Commissioners, and all they ask is that they nay be allowed to spend a little more of their money upon this purpose. There is no charge upon the Exchequer It is
470
simply a matter of removing a small Statutory restriction which prevents the education of these children being proceeded with. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a—
(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

RAILWAYS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this important Bill, I think it desirable that I should begin by making a brief survey of the conditions which led up to its introduction, and explain to your Lordships, if I can, how it happens that a Bill of this magnitude, which ought to come into operation on August 15, or, at any rate, as near that date as possible, is presented to your Lordships for the first time on August 11. I would ask your Lordships to carry your minds back to the debates which took place on the Ministry of Transport Bill in this House at the end of the session of 1919. Your Lordships will remember that I commended that Bill to your acceptance on two grounds. By an agreement made between the Government and the railway companies in 1911, the railway companies were guaranteed their net revenue of 1913 for the period of the war and for two years after the declaration of Peace, and the Government held that, as the State had guaranteed the cost of the railways for the next two years, it was necessary that the State should also possess the power of effecting economies and exercising control over administration.
The first object, therefore, of that Bill was to continue the general State control of railways for the period of two years during which the guarantee continued. The second purpose of the Bill was to enable the Government during those two years to think out, and to submit to the consideration of Parliament, a permanent scheme of railway administration which should take the place of the temporary scheme of control. Your Lordships will remember that the Bill was fiercely attacked in this House, mainly on the

471
ground that, in the opinion of its opponents, it was certain to lead to the nationalisation of railways. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, who is not in his place to-day, told the Government that they had by that measure already given away one of the most important outposts in the struggle that was bound to take place between private and national ownership of the means of wealth. I submit that this Bill is the complete vindication of the arguments which I ventured to address to your Lordships on that occasion, and a refutation of the prophecies and the criticisms which were then made by our critics.
The period of two years is now over, and the Government is submitting to Parliament its considered policy. It is not a policy of permanent Government control. It is not a policy of nationalisation. It is, as I foreshadowed, the only alternative to a policy of nationalisation. All through those discussions in 1919, it was assumed that the Government would have two years in which to formulate its new railway policy. As a matter of fact, only half that period has been available, because not only had the policy to be prepared during that time, but it had also to be submitted to and discussed in Parliament before August 15 of this year. I hope I shall be able to show to your Lordships that the Minister upon whom this duty was imposed has not lost any time in preparing his scheme and submitting it to Parliament.
The Ministry of Transport Act passed on August 15, two years ago. The powers of the Board of Trade were transferred to the Ministry on September 23. Three days later the railway strike was declared, which necessarily occupied the attention of the Minister and his officials for about two months. As soon as the strike was over, the Minister invited the Railway Companies' Association to appoint a committee with whom he could negotiate. A committee of nine, with the late Lord Bessborough as chairman, was appointed, and they first met the Minister on December 17. On February 22, 1920, the general line of policy prepared by the Minister was given to this committee, and at the same time the Rates Advisory Committee was asked to consider a general revision of rates and rate-fixing machinery. By June 24, 1920, that is to say, less than a year since the passing of the Act, the policy of the Government was complete. It was
472
embodied in a White Paper, which was published on June 28 last year. In July, the Minister met the Railway Companies' Association's committee and the Federation of British Industries, and several meetings between the officials of the Ministry and the general managers of the railway companies took place in the autumn. In the months of October and November the first coal strike occurred, and it was not, therefore, till December 8, 1920, that the considered views of the Railway Companies' Association were received, and the Report of the Rates Advisory Committee was not received until December 22.
You will see, therefore, that it was not until the beginning of this year that the Government was in a position even to draft its Bill, and at that stage there was an important point in the negotiations which has not been completed. It was apparent throughout that no settlement as to the future administration of railways could take place without an adjustment of the claims of the railway companies against the Government arising out of the period of State control, and to advise upon these claims a Committee, under the Chairmanship of Lord Colwyn, was appointed on September 24, 1920, and the Report of that Committee was not received until February 8, 1921. Early in March a draft of this Bill was in the hands of the representatives of the interests concerned. On April 1 the coal strike took place and work was again delayed. On May 3 a financial agreement with the railway companies was finally reached, and an agreement with the railway workmen was arrived at, and on May 11 the Bill was introduced into the House of Commons. From that time the Bill has been debated continuously in the House of Commons, and in order to get it through even by this date to your Lordships' House, the Government took the unusual, I believe unprecedented, step of dividing the Bill and submitting it to two Committees of the House of Commons who sat simultaneously.
I have given you this résumé of the facts to show that there has been no avoidable delay on the part of the Government in preparing this Bill, and certainly no disregard of the claims and rights of your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, it is true that the prolonged and complicated negotiations which have taken place ever since the passing of the Transport Act have resulted in the fact that this long and complicated

473
Bill, which I am now submitting to your Lordships, is of such an urgency that it could nut, be postponed for further consideration to later in the year. Your Lordships, I know, had some doubt as to that fact a few weeks ago, and appointed a Committee of your Lordships to communicate with the Minister to ascertain whether or not it really was the case that this Bill could brook no delay. I think I am right in saying that those who came to the Ministry to represent your Lordships on that occasion were satisfied that it really was necessary, in the public interest, to pass this Bill without any further delay.
It is, of course, obvious that in the few days remaining it will not be possible for your Lordships to examine carefully and in detail every clause and line of the Bill, but I submit to your Lordships that the Government has some justification for -asking you on this occasion to dispense somewhat with your undoubted rights of criticism with regard to this Bill, and that justification is this. There are two features of the Bill. First, there is its main policy for the re-organisation into groups of the railway companies of the country. That is a policy which is chiefly contained in Part I of the Bill. That policy represents an agreement which has been arrived at after long discussion and negotiations with all parties concerned, and that agreement having been arrived at it is now submitted to Parliament for confirmation. Not only was the policy announced, but it was actually published a year ago in the White Paper, and since that time no serious objection has been raised to it from any quarter. To this must be added the minor agreement with the railway workers' unions which is embodied in Part IV of this Bill, and which, it is hoped, will prevent the recurrence in the railway industry of the disastrous industrial dispute which followed the decontrol of the coal mines. These clauses, which contain the main policy of the Bill, therefore represent a balanced agreement between a great many different persons and interests, and while it is open to your Lordships to disavow the agreement which the Government have arrived at, and to reject it altogether, it would not be possible materially to amend it without upsetting this carefully adjusted balance.
The second feature of the Bill is the highly complicated and technical machinery for fixing rates which is contained in Part III of the Bill. That machinery,
474
which occupies the greater part. of the Bill—42 clauses out of the total—represents the recommendations of the Rates Advisory Committee, a body of specialists which sat for many months and heard evidence from all parties and interests concerned, and whose recommendations have been embodied practically as they stand in the Bill. It is no disrespect to either House of Parliament to say that the procedure adopted by such a body of experts in preparing the policy which is embodied in these clauses does, to some extent, diminish the necessity for a careful scrutiny of every line by Parliament. In the discussion which took place between the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Ea, I, the First Commissioner of Works, as to the future stages of this Bill, it was pointed out that very little time would be available for minute criticism. So far as I am concerned, I desire that your Lordships should have all the time that is necessary for the purpose of making Amendments in Committee. But I submit that the circumstances I have mentioned make it probable that the number of Amendments your Lordships will desire to move will be much less than it would have been had this Bill not gone through already the stages I have explained. I apologise for making this long preliminary statement, and I now turn to the Bill itself.
For the first time in the history of the railways of this country the Government is now submitting to Parliament a settled policy towards railway transport. The system which has hitherto prevailed of leaving the railways of this country and the provision of railway' transport entirely to private enterprise, with no Government Department possessing any powers or duties except in relation to matters of safety, has not been altogether satisfactory. I have here a list of ten Committees or Commissions which have been appointed to examine into the question of railway administration since 1840, and every' one of these Committees or Commissions has recommended changes in the direction taken by this Bill, although up to the present nothing has come of their recommendations. That being so, it was not conceivable that when the period of control necessitated by the war came to an end, the railways should be allowed to revert entirely to pre-war conditions.
There were, as I have indicated, only two alternatives. One was a policy of

475
complete nationalisation, and the other a policy of grouping and amalgamation between the various railway companies. In this Bill the Government has chosen the latter alternative. This policy of grouping is embodied in Part I, Clauses 1 to 9, and the first three Schedules. The existing railway companies are to be amalgamated into four groups which are set out in the schedules. Smaller lines within the area assigned to each group will be acquired by the amalgamated companies. The companies in these four groups are called constituent companies. As soon as the Bill becomes law these companies may agree upon the terms of their amalgamation. If by January 1, 1923, they are unable to agree then the Amalgamation Tribunal, which is constituted in Clause 8, has to settle the terms of the amalgamation for them, and all amalgamations, whether obtained by agreement or by a decision of the Tribunal, are to become effective by July 1, 1923. The same process, either by agreement or a decision of the Tribunal, will apply to the terms of acquisition of the smaller companies, which are called in the Bill subsidiary companies. The details of this machinery are contained in the first nine Clauses and the first three Schedules.
Clauses 10 and 11 deal with the agreement which has been reached between the Government and the railway companies for the settlement of all claims upon the Government for the period of State control. This agreement provides for the payment of £60,000,000 by the State to the railway companies in two instalments of £30,000,000 each, to be paid on December 31, 1921, and 1922 respectively. This agreement represents the foundation and basis of the whole Bill, and it has only been possible to arrive at that agreement because, by other clauses of the Bill, every party and interest concerned has received something with which it is satisfied. Therefore, although this agreement is inserted in Part I of the Bill, it is only there because of what follows in Part II, Part III and Part IV of the Bill. I will return to that important consideration in a moment, when I deal with the Amendment which has been placed on the Paper by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor.
Before I do so, may I complete my survey of the remaining parts of the Bill? The details of this settlement, in consideration of which a sum of £60,000,000
476
was agreed on, are set forth in Part II, of which Clause 15 is the most important provision. It is essential, now that the railway companies are to be secured in the monopoly of railway facilities in their districts, that the powers of the State should be more definite than they have been hitherto. At present the State can intervene only in matters of safety. It has no power to require the provision of railway services. In Part II of the Bill the State is now given powers to secure the benefits and avoid the evils of monopoly. Under this part of the Bill the responsible bodies are given the right to apply to the Railway and Canal Commission for an order requiring any railway company to provide services and facilities which may be considered necessary, and the companies may obtain an order from the Minister for the carrying out of those services.
The companies may also be required to conform, gradually, to common standards, adopt schemes of co-operative working and common user facilities. All these new powers are in the interests of the public, whilst the companies are protected against misuse of them if they can show that the capital expenditure that is involved, or that would be involved, would be prejudicial to their stockholders. Clause 18, the last in this Part of the Bill, prohibits the making of agreements between the amalgamated companies for the allocation of traffic or the pooling of receipts without the consent of the Minister.
Part III of the Bill deals with the machinery for fixing rates. Clause 19 constitutes a new Tribunal, called the Rates Tribunal, which will supersede the Rates Advisory Committee, and it will be the function of this new tribunal to fix the actual rates which the companies may in future charge. Hitherto, it has been the practice for Parliament to fix the maximum up to which the railway companies may raise the rates, but to leave the actual rates charged to the railway companies themselves. In the opinion of the Government, this system would not be fair to the public if it were continued under the new conditions which are set up by this Bill, and it is provided, therefore, that the Rates Tribunal shall fix the actual fares which shall in future be charged by the coin-panics. The system which will be adopted is, first, to fix a rate which will give to the companies what is described in the Bill as a standard revenue. The standard revenue

477
is the 1913 net receipts,plus 5 per cent. of any capital which the railway companies may have expended during the period of control. The 1913 receipts are to be standardised, and are henceforth called the standard revenue. Any sums over that standard revenue which the companies may earn by economies are to be divided and apportioned between the public and the railway companies, to the extent of 80 per cent. to the public in the form of reduced charges, and 20 per cent. to the companies in the form of increased revenue.
Part IV deals with the relations between the new companies and their employees. These clauses give effect to an agreement which has been arrived at between the companies, the Government and the railwaymen's unions, and deal with wages and conditions of service in the future. All questions relating to rates of pay and conditions of service will, in future, be referred to a Central Wages Board, with an appeal to the National Wages Board. It was originally intended, and was embodied in the White Paper published last year, that there should sit on the boards of the amalgamated companies directors representing the railway workers.
That provision, however, was not inserted in the Bill, because, in the discussions which took place between the Government and the railway companies, it found no favour with any of the boards of directors of the companies; and, though the representatives of the men would have been glad if that provision could have been inserted in the Bill with the consent of the railway directors, they were not prepared that it should be put into the Bill against their will, believing that without the good will of the boards of the companies such a system would not work in practice. For myself, I regret very much that it has not been found possible to insert a provision of this kind in the Bill by agreement, because I believe that by some such system of joint management of this kind industrial disputes can best be avoided in the future. It is obvious, however, that you would not have joint management in any condition of harmony unless it were welcomed and accepted both by the directors and the men, and, since that consent was not obtained, the provision does not appear in the Bill.
The agreement arrived at between the railwaymen's unions and the directors provides instead for a system of councils
478
of officers and men, which are to be set up in each railway company, and also for the submission, as I have already said, of matters connected with wages and conditions of service to a Central Wages Board, with an appeal to the National Wages Board.
Part V of the Bill deals with Light Railways, and transfers the powers of the Light Railway Commissioners to the Ministry of Transport. Part VI contains some general provisions, of which perhaps the most important are Clause 75, which ensures the continuance of all existing exchange facilities as between the amalgamated companies, and Clause 77, which deals with the provision of adequate statistical returns in the working of the railways. Those are, in outline, the main provisions of this Bill.
1 notice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, has put upon the Paper a Motion asking your Lordships to pass only Part I of the Bill, and to postpone Parts II, III, IV, and, V, including them in a separate Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl that I propose to move that Motion only as regards Parts II and III.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I understand, therefore, that he proposes that Parts I, IV and V should be passed now, and that Parts II.and III should be deferred and included in a separate Bill in the future?
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, that is so.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I think the noble Lord does not, perhaps, quite realise the extent to which this Bill is, as I have said, a nicely balanced agreement between a number of persons and organisations which have considerably divergent interests. There is, first of all, the State which is mainly interested in Part I of the Bill, and the settlement with the railway companies which is referred to in Clauses 11 and 12. There are also the railway companies, who are interested, indeed, in Part I, which secures the amalgamations and the payment of the £60,000,000, but who are also vitally interested in Part III, and who would never have agreed to take back their railways on August 15, or to accept any

479
settlement of their claims by a sum of £60,000,000, unless thay had at the same time obtained the new provisions contained in Part III, which guarantees to them their standard revenue in the future. I may equally say that the Government would never have agreed to the settlement at £60,000,000, unless they also had been satisfied that the provisions in Parts II and III of the Bill would go along with it.
In addition to the State and the railway companies, there are the bodies of traders who represent the general public, or users of the railways. All these persons are vitally concerned in Part II of the Bill, that Part which I understand my noble and learned friend would still wish to see deferred; and they are also interested in that portion of Part III which deals with the rate-fixing machinery, which holds out to them some prospects of a reduction of rates in the future, and which also secures to them 80 per cent. of any future economies which may be effected. Part II of the Bill is, very probably, of less interest to the railway companies, but it is really the charter of the traders, and those who represent the various bodies of traders in Parliament would never have agreed to the passing of this Bill unless Part II went along with it. Then again, there are the railway workmen, who are interested in Part IV. I understand, however, that the noble and learned Lord does not wish to postpone that part of the Bill.
The fact is that the Government have already endeavoured to do the very thing which the noble and learned Lord is suggesting that you Lordships should do. When it became apparent that this Bill could not be prepared without leaving very little time for its discussion in Parliament the Government endeavoured to divide the Bill and see whether it could not put some portions of it into another Bill, which might be held over until a later occasion; but when they came to discuss such a proposition with the various bodies concerned, they found that it was quite impossible to do so. They could not secure their consent to the passage of the Bill unless it went through as a whole. They approached the railway companies, who said they would be satisfied if they got Part I and the revenue clauses of Part III. The traders, on the other hand, said they would not he satisfied unless they got Part II of the Bill, and that if
480
got Part II and the rate-fixing clauses of Part III they would be satisfied. Labour, on the other hand, said they would be satisfied if they got Part IV of the Bill; but they all agreed that, unless they got those parts of the Bill in which they were vitally interested, they would bring the most strenuous opposition against the Bill as a whole.
Finding, therefore, that it was impossible to make a division on these lines, the Government had no alternative but to go forward with the Bill as a whole. I mention this to show your Lordships that the different parts of this Bill hang together, and must hang together—that they represent an equipoise, and that if you take out any one portion of the Bill then the balance is disturbed and the whole thing falls to pieces, like a house of cards from which you have extracted a single card. Desirable, as undoubtedly it would be, to give further time for discussion, it is not, therefore, possible to do what the noble and learned Lord suggests and divide the Bill into separate parts.
I have explained to your Lordships what were the proceedings and negotiations which led up to the introduction of this Bill, and I have tried, quite shortly, to describe some of its main provisions. I am afraid that most of its details are so technical that they would require the skill of a Parliamentary counsel to expound, and the patience of a Private Bill Committee to listen to the exposition. It is a subject of which I cannot claim to have any expert knowledge, and since I am speaking for a Department with which I am not myself connected. I must ask for a very special measure of your Lordships' indulgence. I have also dealt briefly with the Motion which the noble and learned Lord has put on the Paper, and tried to show how impossible it would be to do what he suggests, and divide this Bill into separate parts.
In conclusion, I have only one thing more to say, which, however, I think it is due to the Government should be stated. It is this: It is customary to regard the Ministry of Transport as the most costly/of the Departments of the Government, and the Minister who presides over it as the most extravagant, the super-spender, of all the Ministers of the Crown; and when I remember the hostility which was shown in this House to the establishment of the Ministry of Transport I conclude that that

481
popular idea is probably shared by many of your Lordships. Yesterday I read in the newspapers large headings which described how the taxpayers' money was being poured away on hordes of officials in the Ministry of Transport. Now, the Bid which I submit to your Lordships to-day is the best answer that can be made to criticisms of that kind.
I would ask your Lordships to consider for one moment what was the situation with which the Government was confronted at the termination of the War? There were ninety controlled railway companies in this country and thirty-two in Ireland. The capital invested in those undertakings was. I believe, £1,300,000,000, and the number of employees engaged in them was 737,000. At the end of the period of control the Government were liable to meet claims from those companies which, according to the Report of the Colwyn Committee, which looked into the matter, might have amounted to £150,000,000, and the document upon which these claims would have been based was a mere half-sheet of notepaper, drawn up in 1911, without any legal or technical assistance. I would challenge any one of your Lordships to show how it would have been possible for any Government to deal with a situation of that kind without establishing a special Department with a highly trained and official staff of experts. That was the case for the establishment of the Ministry of Transport. That Department has been in existence now for two years, and it has cost the country, in salaries and administrative expenses, during the whole of those two years, about half a million pounds sterling. To the extent of half a million pounds, in two years, the taxpayers' money has been poured away oil hordes of officials.
I ask your Lordships to consider what the State has gained by that expenditure of half a million. The first duty of the Department was to certify the annual net deficit on the working of the companies over the 1913 standard, and in order to arrive at that figure the income and expenditure of the companies which had to be investigated amounted to £500,000,000 a year, and I would ask your Lordships to realise what, in such a sum as that, is the margin for possible error. I am not suggesting anything in the nature of fraud or conscious mis-statement, but in figures of that kind the margin for accidental error alone is so enormous, that sums
482
amounting to between £15,000000 and £20,000,000 have been challenged by the Department in their close scrutiny of these accounts, and already over £6,000,000 has been actually returned by the companies and paid into the Exchequer as a result of this scrutiny. That is on the annual cost of running the railways. Now, when the period of control conies to an end, there are the claims ill final settlement which have to be met—claims which, I reminded your Lordships, were stated by the Colwyn Committee to be in the region of £150,000,000. Those claims have been settled in this Bill, by this Department, as a result of negotiations, at £60,000,000. Lastly, by the agreements with the railwaymen's unions, contained in Part IV of the Bill, the danger of a costly and dangerous industrial dispute, such as followed the decontrol of the coal mines, has been avoided. Thus, in cash alone, to say nothing of the increased efficiency and the economies which it is hoped may be realised in the future as a result of this Bill, this horde of officials has saved the cost of the salaries many times over.
I know that diplomatists are very rarely credited with the wars which they save, though they have to bear the responsibilities of those which they have been unable to prevent; and equally, no doubt, Departments are very rarely credited with money which they save, though they are very freely criticised for expenditure which they incur. And so I have not the least doubt that this wholly unjustifiable legend about the Ministry of Transport will survive, in spit e of what I have said. But only those who actually had to grapple with the gigantic problems which were the legacy of the war can estimate the extent of the savings which have been effected on behalf of the taxpayers of this country by that most abused and least understood Department of Government, and only they can gauge the advantages which, as the result of two years' strenuous work by that Department, are now embodied in the Bill which I ask your Lordships to read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
LORD PARMOORhad given Notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move, "That Parts II, III, IV, and V be postponed and included in a separate Bill." The noble and learned Lord said:

483
My Lords, I have put down this Motion on the Paper, not with a desire of delaying the effective operation of any portion of. this Bill, but in order, if possible, to make the revision power of this House something more than a farce in relation to this Bill. The noble Earl, in his admirable and lucid speech, has said that the portions of the Bill to which I object could not be dissevered from the rest without contravening a bargain which had been come to between, I presume, the railway companies and the Government. I am going to give sonic reasons why I think he has over-stated that part of the case. But I am glad to recognise that, if the portions which I desire to be separated from the rest of the Bill could have been so separated, the Government realise it would be desirable so to separate them. In that I entirely agree with him, and therefore I need not go further into that matter.
It was my misfortune, or good fortune. to be a Parliamentary counsel for a large number of years, and afterwards a great part of my professional life was spent before the Railway and Canal Commission, and I entirely agree with the noble Earl that it is really impossible, at any rate on the Second Reading, to deal at all effectively with the extraordinarily complicated details which we find, especially in Part III, in this Bill. But that was one of the main reasons why I hoped that those clauses might have been postponed until a future occasion, in order that there should be an effective criticism of their provisions, which, in my opinion, is most necessary and ought to be carried out by your Lordships' House. I will point out one or two matters in reference to which I make a general statement of that kind. The noble Earl has said, quite accurately, that the main policy of the Bill is contained in Part I. I agree with him in what he said with regard to Part IV—that it is a great advantage to have come to an arrangement under Part IV. But, so far as railway matters pure and simple are concerned—considerations such as the interests of traders, matters of railway user, the question how far it is possible to continue competition, and all subjects of that kind—those really come in the main for consideration under Part I.
Now, what is Part I? In my view it is necessary to appreciate what Part I means in order to appreciate the necessity of a most careful criticism of Parts II and III.
484
Part I is a reversal of the whole policy of railway legislation in this country. Railway legislation in this country has been founded on the competitive principle. It has been founded on a series of competitive lines, introduced on the theory—and I think the right theory—that by means of competition the public get a maximum of railway facilities and a proper lowering of railway wages and fares. I agree that in the course of time some re-arrangement was probably necessary in order that you might have maximum efficiency and economy in railway administration. But it appears to me that the grouping in this case has been fixed on such a basis as to make monopoly as wholly monopolistic as you could possibly make it. One feels that the Minister in charge of the Bill—I do not say this in any way to his disparagement—was an old official of the North Eastern Railway Company; I think he was assistant general manager at the time the war broke out, and I have often had the pleasure of meeting him over railway questions. But the North Eastern Railway is the apostle of the monopoly doctrine, and you could not select anyone more immersed in monopoly doctrines as regards railway traffic and railway management than the present Minister of Transport, Sir Eric Geddes.
I will give an illustration of what I mean. I remember very well when the North Eastern monopoly was attacked by the promotion of the Hull and Barnsley Railway. That railway was promoted by the merchants and the Corporation of Hull, and by the coalowners in the Barnsley coalfield; it was promoted for the very object of putting an end to the severity of the North Eastern monopoly in that district. For a very large number of years the traders and others who found the money for the working of that railway got no return on their capital at all. I believe that in recent years their affairs have been more prosperous. Now, what is the effect of this grouping? In the future this line, promoted by traders and coalowners in order to get an element of competition against the North Eastern Railway, is to be incorporated in the North Eastern group. You are doing the very thing which destroys all possibility even of potential competition in the future.
There is no necessity, except in the interests of railway companies possibly, why this severe form of monopoly should be

485
introduced. Take the ease of the Hull and Barnsley Railway, for instance. Why should it not be grouped with the. Midland, the effect of which would be to have effective competition in the North-Eastern I districts and Hull, and probably other adjacent parts. But one cannot help seeing that whoever made this bargain made it a monopoly bargain, to prevent the railway company from being subject to any competition in the future. I do not believe in the destruction of all competition. I do not think it is necessary to have monopolies in order to prevent what the noble Earl called nationalisation. In fact, I think the most effective opposition to nationalisation is a healthy form of; competition, and the essence of private management is that you should have corn-petition as against State monopoly, which is so dear, of course, to all officials, and which has generally the result of giving power of administration to official bodies.
Let me say another word about this grouping of railways in Part II. I very much object to the form of the Amalgamation Tribunal. Do not let it be thought that I object to the members of it—that is a different matter altogether. It is not a Tribunal which I think would be fair in the interest of the public. It is not so constituted. Why should you constitute a Tribunal of this kind at all? If it is constituted I think it should be given much wider powers as regards the grouping principle. There are two bodies I can think of which would be much better bodies to deal with a matter of this kind. In the first place, there are the Railway and Canal Commissioners. Why should not they be charged with a matter of this kind? They are presided over by a Judge. They are selected in such a way that one of the other members has legal knowledge and one has commercial knowledge. They are entirely independent, and are not in any way mixed up with railway companies.
There is another alternative and one which I should prefer as regards matters of amalgamation. There is more experience among what I may call the railway chairmen of the two Houses than in any other body that could be found. Hitherto, all questions of amalgamation have come before Private Bill Committees, presided over by what I may call experienced railway chairmen, and if you want a really independent Amalgamation Tribunal in order that all interests may be properly
486
protected—and it is almost always a legislative matter—why not set up a Joint Committee composed of the railway chairmen of both Houses? It would not interfere with the effective power of the two Houses. It would keep within the power of the two Houses what ought to be so kept—an effective control in relation to amalgamation and the statutory powers which railway companies have at the present time.
In reference to the question of compensation which was dealt with by the noble Earl, I do not say a word. In my opinion it is a most fortunate matter that the sum has been agreed. And not only has the sum been agreed but I understand that the allocation is also largely a matter of agreement. It would have been a terrible misfortune to have had the kind of lengthy proceedings which must have been undertaken at enormous cost, if the sum had not been agreed upon, and I think it is greatly to the credit of both parties that an agreement has been conic to and that lengthy and expensive legal proceedings may be avoided.
Turning to Part II, I am afraid it is rather late to do so, but I should like to try to convince the noble Earl that there is no reason whatever why this part of the Bill should not be postponed while at the same time Part I comes into full operation. What is Part II? I do not think it can be really understood except by those who have had considerable experience of all this class of railway questions. Part II is headed "Regulation of Railways," and power is given to the Railway and Canal Commissioners to make certain Orders against railway companies in the future. It is not a matter of immediate concern. By that I mean that it is a matter of making future Orders against railway companies. In almost every respect the same Orders could be made at the present time, even though Part II had no existence.
May I explain what the difference is? The difference is that whereas in old days the Railway and Canal Commissioners were held not to have power to put capital expenditure upon railway companies against their protests, they are given power under Part II, to a very small extent, to put this capital expenditure upon railway companies in future. That is all it comes to. It is a very slight enlargement of the powers of the existing body, and surely

487
if is preferable, when you are giving powers of this kind, which cannot possibly be exercised to-morrow, or in the next day or two, to postpone the matter for six weeks or two months in order that it may be freely and fully discussed.
It would be out of place for me to discuss in detail the provisions of Part II, and I agree with the noble Earl that one would weary the House beyond all hope of a patient hearing by going into details upon Second Reading going I would like to give an illustration of what I mean. The whole bearing of Clause 18 of the Bill appears to anyone who has dealt pretty frequently with matters of this kind to be the safeguard of the monopoly. You will find that the public is the stalking horse, but nothing else. Power is given to companies and groups to enter into agreements with one another.
The marginal note of Clause 18 is "Restrictions on combination." It is really a restriction for the purpose of making monopoly unattackable. The words of the clause are—
"it shall not be lawful for any…"
I will call them amalgamated company because groups of companies are referred to—
"without the consent of the Minister to enter into agreements with any constituent or subsidiary company in another group or with any other amalgamated company, as the case may be, for the allocation of traffic"
and so on. In other words, not only do you create the monopoly, but you prevent a monopoly from even entering into an agreement with another in case, perchance, under the terms of that agreement, the monopoly may be made less permanent or less rigid. I can see no possible justification for a provision of that kind. I am only dealing with matters generally; it is quite impossible to go into detail.
Then Part III is headed "Railway charges," and in the first place, as the noble Earl has pointed out, provision is made for the appointment of a new Railway Rates Tribunal in Clause 19. What is the Rates Tribunal? This multiplication of tribunals is very bad as a matter of principle, and is by no means likely to conduce to that economy which the noble Earl has so much at heart. It is provided in subsection (4) that
"Of the permanent members of the rates tribunal one shall be a person of experience in com-
488
mercial affairs, one a person of experience in railway business, and one, who shall be the chairman, shall be an experienced lawyer."
What is the constitution of the Railway and Canal Commission at the present time? One member is a person of experience in commercial affairs, one a person of experience in railway business and one, the chairman, is a Judge of the High Court, and, therefore, a person whom one might call an experienced lawyer. What is the good of duplicating tribunals of this kind?
It has been alleged against the Railway and Canal Commission that in proportion to their official salaries the work they have to do is almost nominal. It has been so for a series of years. Any one who reads the Reports which they make from year to year will know that they have ample leisure and time to deal with questions of this kind. Why, therefore, is it necessary to constitute a new Railway Rates Tribunal? It is a re-duplication of the Railway and Canal Commission with this small alteration in constitution—that in place of a Judge of the High Court the chairman shall be "an experienced lawyer "—to quote the words of the Bill. I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in his eulogy of the legal profession at an earlier stage in the proceedings of your Lordships' House this afternoon, but I do not see why positions of this kind should be multiplied. I cannot understand, when you have a tribunal which was established in 1873, on the very same basis and in the very same way as the one proposed, why there should be a new tribunal set up under the railway charges portion of this Bill. It may be that the existing tribunal is too strong, and too independent. I am inclined to think that that may be so, but my view is that a strong and independent tribunal is absolutely essential to deal with these questions of railway fares and rates.
I must pass quickly over these matters. Coining to the jurisdiction of this new Tribunal I find that there are transferred to it practically the powers of the Railway and Canal Commission in respect of charges. As regards general provisions dealing with railway charges, nothing practically is transferred to them except what the Railway and Canal Commission now have. The next question is the classification of merchandise. The classification of merchandise is already provided for. It was originally settled by Sir Courtenay Boyle and the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh many

489
years ago, and can be revised from time to time. But if you want a further power of revision you have the expert body appointed for this very purpose—namely, the Railway and Canal Commissioners.
I want to make my position clear. The postponement of this clause would not mean any effective postponement of the principles which the noble Earl was anxious to bring into operation as soon as possible. If you look at the standard charges under Clause 29, you will find that they have to be submitted to the Tribunal not later than December 31, 1922. That is a year and a quarter ahead of the present time. What delay could there be if, in order to have those provisions properly discussed and revised, as I should hope they will be by your Lordships' House, the matter was postponed, as it would be, for six weeks or two months. We are dealing not with matters of immediate urgency, but with future matters, which, in their effect, may have a vital influence one way or the other upon the trade of this country.
Under the head of standard charges there is a matter which is most vital and important. The noble Earl spoke as though this Bill were an antidote to nationalisation. I have always been a great opponent of nationalisation, but what do these standard charges mean? If I followed the noble Earl, and if I follow the Bill. you do not leave the railway managers in their own house at all. The actual charges which they are to make are fixed for them by an outside authority, and they cannot alter them, either up or down, without going to the Minister or to the Rates Tribunal. What do you mean by nationalisation? I very much object to nationalisation, as I said, but suppose, officially, you leave the railway companies in the position that they cannot alter a rate one penny one way or the other without official authorisation, you are certainly going a very long way from the principles which make private administration and private enterprise of the enormous advantage which they have been to this country. At the same time, in order to make this principle effective—a vicious principle, as I think it, and a bad principle which ought not to be allowed—you scrap every statutory provision which deals with the rates at the. present time. I want to know why that is done.
The protection for the trader, which Parliament imposed many years ago, was
490
on the principle of what was known as the maximum rate. You scrap that entirely. In the old days the railway companies got their charters on the basis of a certain level charge. That was a condition under which they got their powers for charging the public for the use of" their railway lines. That is scrapped from top to bottom. Every single statutory provision which now exists as regards the railway companies is swept away by this proposal of standard charges. In order that the noble Earl may see what I mean, I will ask him to look at Clause 34. As was pointed out, the appointed day is not the day when the Act passes. It says:—
"As from the appointed day all statutory provisions, and the provisions of all agreements with respect to classification of merchandise and with respect to charges for or in connection with the carriage of merchandise or passengers by any railway which becomes a railway of an amalgamated company, or of a railway company to which any schedule of standard charges is applied, shall to the extent to which these provisions relate to the matters aforesaid he repealed and cease to be operative."
At one fell swoop, in the case of every railway company in this country, you take away the protection which Parliament has provided in order, no doubt, that too high charges shall not be made. I can understand some people bargaining for a Bill of this kind. The noble Earl did not tell us exactly between whom the bargain was made. I think that these clauses have all the evils which you find where a bargain is made between competing people whose last thought is the interest of the general public. That is the sort of logrolling agreement which you reach under conditions of this kind.
Coming to the exceptional charges, I would point out that exceptional charges can be made now. There is nothing novel in exceptional charges. Our railways are largely under the common law principle that the carrier shall only make reasonable charges. That was the old principle, and reasonable charges, of course, tend to be equal charges. All that is swept away. In reference to these exceptional charges, I will read subsection (2) of Clause 41. These exceptional charges, and through charges, were for the benefit of traders, and in order to maintain competition as between the railway companies. I ask your Lordships to look at this subsection (2):—
"If the Minister is of opinion that any company has granted exceptional fares in such a manner

491
as prejudicially to affect any other class of users of the railway, or so as to jeopardise the realisation of the standard revenue of the company, he may refer the matter to the rates tribunal—"
That means that the company cannot give the trader a low rate if, in the opinion of the Minister, it jeopardises the realisation of the standard revenue of the company.
What is the effect of that as regards private enterprise? It means that you may wish to meet your customer, but an outside official will say: No, you must not do that, because you may possibly diminish your own revenue." To meet your customer is the essence of private enterprise and private efficiency; yet you actually have a provision here, in favour of this severe monopoly, as I call it, by which, if the Minister can say that by lowering your charge to a trader you possibly jeopardise your revenue, you are not to be allowed to lower that charge. Is that a matter for the Minister to decide, or is it a matter for the railway companies to decide? In my opinion every line of Part III requires revision and reconsideration. I can only call your Lordships' attention to one or two matters, and I am sorry to have taken up so much time.
As regards the conditions of traffic and miscellaneous provisions as to charges, all these matters can be dealt with now. I have looked very carefully through Clauses 42 and 43 and so on, down to Clause 52, and I cannot find anything that you could not deal with by the Railway Commissioners of the present time. These clauses are introduced, apparently, as a kind of "window-dressing," as far as I can understand. There is no differentiation between the real matters which are introduced, which are all in favour of monopoly, and the residue still left over of the statutory provisions in favour of the traders and users of the railways. I have come to the conclusion that that is the substance of this Bill.
Clauses 58 and 59 refer to the adjustment of charges to revenue. That is a most complicated matter and ought to receive full consideration at the Committee stage. It is a new provision which would enable companies, in certain circumstances, to put up their charges almost ad infinitum so long as they could get any traffic to carry. The first consideration is the railway revenue. It is not the trader, it is not facilities for traffic, it is not the conditions
492
for traffic, but it is that such a charge may be made as shall keep up the revenue of the railway company. When you have a provision of that kind what becomes of the inducement to economy and efficiency? I know perfectly well that the Rates Tribunal, or the Minister, is said to have regard to economical and efficient management. How can they do it? There is no safeguard as regards economy and prudent management except the self-interest of the trader, or the manufacturer, or the railway company, as the case may be.
I cannot go further because it would be trespassing too much on your Lordships' time. I did hope that this House would have a fair opportunity of considering these extremely important questions as regards railway regulations and railway charges. It becomes a farce if we have to consider this in Committee either on Monday or Tuesday. It is a farce in which I decline to take any part whatever, and I say that not that I should not be desirous of giving what assistance I could to your Lordships' House, but because it is utterly futile, on one afternoon late in August, that you should attempt to deal with these complicated problems. The noble Earl has recognised the complication of the provisions of this Bill; they are full of masses of detail, and every line ought to have careful consideration and revision. If I am in order, I move that Parts II and III be postponed and included in a separate Bill.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of what Lord Parmoor has said on the monopoly side of this Bill. Before doing so, I must say I hesitate to speak in the presence of so many railway directors, because I cannot help thinking that the railway directors, or the railway managers, and the Government have made a very good bargain for themselves in this matter, and that the public has been left out, especially the traders. Take the case of the Hull and Barnsley Railway, which has been mentioned by my noble friend, Lord Parmoor. Why have they been put into a monopoly group? The people of Hull do not want that railway put in that group. It is true that the Hull Chamber of Commerce and the Hull Corporation have done what they could to oppose this Bill. The people of Hull are universally opposed to it with the exception, perhaps, of one or two railway directors who happen

493
to be connected with the companies who are going into these groups.
We intend to put down Amendments in Committee to maintain the freedom of the Hull and Barnsley Railway. We feel that a big industrial area like Hull which serves the Midlands and a great portion of industrial England should be allowed some portion of (to use a modern phrase) self-determination. I hope your Lordships will allow that freedom to remain which is threatened to be cut away by the Bill. We in Hull cannot help thinking that the Hull and Barnsley Railway has been put into this group because Sir Eric Geddes happened to be a former official of the North Eastern Railway. At the same time, I should like to take this opportunity of saying that the people of Hull fully recognise the great expenditure of money that the North Eastern Railway have made in that port, and the extensive facilities which they have given, but it is thought by the people of Bradford and the centre of Yorkshire, by the colliery companies, by the coal shippers, and all the other traders who use the Hull and Barnsley Railway, that this particular railway company should be cut out of the Bill in the same way that similar companies have been cut out of other groups in other parts of England.
Before I sit down I should like to protest at the port of Hull being subjected to the monopoly of one group of railways only, when they have to compete with ports like Bristol and Liverpool, which have more than one group serving them. Both those ports have two groups of railways, and other private lines in addition, such as the Cheshire lines. I hope that we shall be given more time to discuss this Bill next week, and to go thoroughly into all these matters.
LORD FARRER: My Lords, I wish very briefly to ask one question on the arrangement of the railways. The main point of the Bill is Part I; that is to say, the re-arrangement of the railways of England into great groups. But there is one railway, of which I was a director for a good many years, the Somerset and Dorset Railway, which does not appear in the schedule. I know from the figures of the noble Earl and of the Government generally, that they always think in millions and Empires, but after all in the case of a railway line that runs from Bristol to Bournemouth, and where it is really a
494
question of competition versus monopoly, I think the matter ought to be put to this House in some concrete form before we are asked to consider the Bill. I should like to know why that railway has been left out of the Schedule.
VISCOUNT CHURCHILL: My Lords, I think it possibly may be of advantage to your Lordships if, as chairman of the Railway Companies' Association and claiming to speak for a very large majority of the railways of the country, I make now the very few remarks which I wish to make to your Lordships. If I may respectfully say so, I cannot help thinking that the points raised by the two noble Lords who spoke last are points essentially for Committee rather than for Second Reading. However that may be, I have no doubt that when we get to that stage they will be considered.
There was one remark made by the noble Earl who introduced the Bill, which I want to qualify to a certain extent. He described it as an agreed Bill, I should rather prefer to describe it as a compromise—a compromise that has been arrived at after months and months of hard work and negotiations carried on by the Government, the railway companies and traders, and by Labour—and the Bill is now in a very different form from that in which it would have been had it followed the exact lines of the White Paper published some fourteen months ago. I know there are some railway directors and others who wish that the Bill had never seen the light of day. If it had been in the form originally suggested in the White Paper I am not sure that I should not have felt so myself. But such a difference has been made in it that I consider, taking all things into consideration, that it represents a very reasonable compromise.
Your Lordships are well aware that at the commencement of the war the railways were taken over by the Government. During the period of control, which still continues and comes to an end next Monday, August 15, vast concessions have been made to labour in the shape of wages, conditions, and hours of service, and they entail on the railways an increased expenditure of something like £120,000,000 per year. These concessions, as you will realise, could never have been made by the railways if they had been managed on

495
commercial lines. Consequently, when the railways are handed back at the end of control, a very serious national situation would have been created had not the provisions brought forward in this Bill been arranged.
The noble Earl has explained to you how the Bill has been before Lord Colwyn's Committee where the financial arrangements were most carefully considered. It has also been considered by Sir F. Gore Browne's Committee, and on its recommendations the rates clauses of the Bill have been drafted. Before that Committee the interests of the traders and agriculture, as well as those of the railways, were most carefully considered; they were represented by counsel. I do not think, therefore, it is fair to say that this part of the measure has not received sufficient consideration, especially after all these months have been occupied over it.
With regard to the financial settlement—namely, the £60,000,000—this, again, is essentially a compromise. The claims which the railway companies had under the control arrangements were vast, and. it was felt on all sides, by the representatives of the railways and the Government, that, having in view the huge cost of litigation had we been obliged to go to litigation, the long period over which it would have lasted (the most conservative estimates gave from three to four years) during which period financial chaos would have reigned on the railways, it was eminently desirable that some settlement should be arrived at which was fair and satisfactory to all parties. As far as that is concerned, I think scant justice has been done to the railways, but, taking into consideration all the difficulties I have described, I think a wise course was pursued in coining to the settlement in the Bill.
The details of the Bill have been so very ably described by the noble Earl, as I am sure the House will agree, that it is not necessary for me to go into them. There is only one point to which I desire to refer, and it relates to those clauses which deal with management, and which are the result of agreement arrived at between the railway companies and the trades unions. In the White Paper, although it was never in the original Bill, it was foreshadowed that working men might he placed on the boards of railway companies, but every practical man in the railway world, members of the unions included, knows perfectly well that that would not work. The con-
496
sequence was that the railway companies got into communication with the representatives of the trades unions, the matter was thoroughly thrashed out, and the scheme as embodied in the Bill is the result. It is a scheme which both parties consider ought to work smoothly and for the well-being of all parties.
I should like to take this opportunity of acknowledging the great help which I and those who were negotiating on behalf of the railway companies received from Mr. J. H. Thomas and the representatives of the trades unions. They were most helpful, and I am perfectly certain they are satisfied that working con amore, as the councils will be worked, will tend more to what we all have in view—namely, a closer co-operation of labour and the directorate. There are, of course, points which will have to be raised in Committee, but this is not the moment to discuss them. As far as our business this evening is concerned, I can only say that I sincerely hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
LORD KNARESBOROUGH: My Lords, I did not intend to say anything on the Second Reading. but as two noble Lords have thought fit to attack the North Eastern Railway Company, of which I happen to be chairman, I think it is necessary for me to indicate that we shall have plenty to say, but this is not the proper time to say it. The noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, has told us that he intends to put down an Amendment to carry out his views with regard to the Hull and Barnsley Railway. If I were to go into that question now it would mean inflicting two speeches on that subject, and I shall be consulting the general convenience of your Lordships if I say that the observations we have to make on that particular subject will be reserved until the Amendment is brought forward in Committee.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill one question—and may I most sincerely congratulate him on the able way in which he explained the Bill? He mentioned that responsible authorities could go before the Railway and Canal Commission if they had any complaints with regard to the railways.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Is the noble Earl speaking of Clause 15, in Part II?
THE EARL OF MAYO: I am speaking of Part II generally. The noble Earl went on to say that Part II was the charter of the traders. I want to know what is the charter of the passengers, because I do not know what body of passengers with a grievance has any chance of getting that grievance dealt with under this Bill. Lord Parmoor dealt very clearly with monopolies. Let me give the noble Earl in charge of the Bill a clear conception of what a real monopoly is. Let us take the London and North Western Railway from Chester to Holyhead, and from Holyhead to Kings town. That is absolutely a monopoly, with which nobody can interfere, unless by making a line to run alongside it in competition, which is impossible. Now that that railway has got a monopoly, they can do exactly what they like for the convenience or the inconvenience of the passengers. I do not complain very much about it, but there are certain inconveniences which might be put right, and I should like to ask the noble Earl how passengers can possibly be heard in this matter. I should be very glad if he could, tell me that, because this particular monopoly has existed for a long time.
Let me give a little instance of the pressure that was brought to bear on this railway at one time. There was no third class a great many years ago, and the Nationalist Members said that if a Were, not put on the Irish mail they would oppose every London and North Western Railway Bill that came before Parliament. A third class was put on that train, and they did not oppose the Bills. There is no chance of that sort of thing happening now, and the London and North Western Railway with their monopoly from Chester to Holyhead, and from Holyhead to Kingstown, can practically do exactly as they like.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, is going to press his Motion, but if so, I should fail to agree with him on that point.
LORD PARMOOR: I am told that, in form, my Amendment is out of order, and therefore I could not press it.
LORD ASKWITH: Then it will not come up at all?
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think so
LORD ASKWITH: I should have opposed it for this reason: if this Bill goes through, it might just as well go through in a short time as he postponed to some later date. Lord Parmoor has pointed out very clearly that the principle of competition practically disappears under this Bill. That is the principle upon which our railway legislation has been based. Competition is mentioned only in one clause of the whole Bill—namely, in Clause 52, where, upon new circuitous routes, if the Minister considers that the proposal involves unreasonable competition, he may refer the matter to the Rates Tribunal. Further, the control of the railways by Parliament largely goes by the board. The control of Parliament appears only in Clause 31, dealing with the standard charges and also with the limit beyond which an increase in those charges shall not be levied without reference to Parliament. Lord Parmoor mentioned that the maxima had gone, but, as I read the Bill, it rather retains the maxima, which have to be brought before Parliament in a Report which the Minister has to submit to both Houses of Parliament, and which then have to be based upon Resolutions of both Houses.
The reason why competition goes by the board in the Bill has been clearly expressed by the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading, and by the noble Viscount on my left. It is that, instead of competition, in the future we are to have a compromise, and to trust that compromise. No doubt it is a speculative element, but perhaps it was necessary in the circumstances. A compromise has been made—a balanced agreement, I think the noble Earl called it; a balanced compromise, as the noble Viscount called it—by the railway companies with the Government, with the employees, with the shareholders, and presumably with some of the traders; although at the time when I was head of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, I was not aware that the railway companies always saw eye to eye with the traders. But however that may be, the chances of the Bill in the future depend upon the spirit in which it is worked. There is to be a review at the end of every year for three years of a great many of the charges under this Bill. There is then to be another review, if the Minister so directs, in every third year after. In fact, the whole question of the incentive of the railway companies to improve them-

499
selves and the incentive to reconstruct the rates, entirely depend upon these reviews, and the spirit in which the four bodies that I have mentioned work together.
What I fear in this Bill, and its actual method of working, is the enormous amount of red tape and the Committees connected with it. Every railway company will have to keep some experts, whose whole time will be engaged in attending Committees and Tribunals, or, unless the spirit is extremely good, in arguing out various questions of rates and charges. So far as I can make out, fourteen (Efferent Committees are established by this Bill. We have the Amalgamation Tribunal; the Rates Tribunal; the present Railway and Canal Commission; a committee on standardisation and co-operation; local committees at the instance of the Rates Tribunal under Clause 21; a Committee on Classification; two Committees dealing with the wages of the workpeople; a Committee for schemes of councils; a Committee for settling the affairs of the railway police; a Committee on Accounts; local inquiries when ordered by the Minister; an advisory panel advising the Minister; and, lastly, in certain cases, a body dealing with the compensation of existing officers, arbitrators to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
Of those Committees, that which has to do the most work of all is the Rates Tribunal. The Rates Tribunal is mentioned in 24 out of the 86 clauses of this Bill, as having control over the various parts of the business of the railway companies; and, as if that were not sufficient, at the end of the Bill, in the Fifth Schedule, there are eleven new duties added to it, new matters upon which it has to give its decision. At the end of the first year, any of these decisions that are questioned may have to be reviewed. At the end of the second year, they have to be reviewed again, and at the end of the third year they have to be reviewed once more. These perpetual examinations and decisions may be necessary to some extent for settling the affairs of the railway companies at the present time, but, as I have remarked, one can merely guess how this system will work in replacing the system which has worked in the past. It entirely depends upon the spirit which exists in the country with regard to the working of the railways, as to whether they will be in a state of chaos or whether peace is established among them.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I have no reason to complain of the reception which your Lordships have given to this Bill. Indeed, the only critical speech was made by Lord Parmoor, and, as I see he is not in his place, I do not think it is necessary for me to reply in any detail to his criticisms have, however, been asked one or two questions to which I think it right I should reply before the Motion is put. My noble friend, Lord Farrer, asked a question about the Somerset and Dorset Railway, and he was afraid, I think, that because this was a small railway it had somehow or other been overlooked by the Government, and was not provided for. The facts about that railway are these: The railway is a joint railway now between two companies, and it will remain under the Bill a joint railway between two groups. It is not the only railway in that position. All railways which are joint railways between two companies that will in future be amalgamated into one group will, of course, be absorbed, and are mentioned in a schedule of the Bill, but all lines which will continue to be joint lines between two groups are not absorbed into either one or the other, but will continue in the future, as in the past, to be joint lines, and for that reason are not mentioned in a schedule of the Bill.
Then I was asked a question by Lord Mayo. He pointed out, what is true, and had I been called upon to reply to Lord Parmoor I should have reminded that noble and learned Lord, that there is to-day no competition, in the matter of railway facilities, in many parts of the country. There are many places served to-day by one line only. I might also have pointed out that under the Bill there will, in future, be competition, in spite of the grouping and amalgamation, in many parts of the country where competition exists to-day. Lord Mayo asks me what are the provisions of the Bill which enable groups of passengers to make any representations in support of their interests. If the noble Lord will look at Clause 15, which is the first clause of Part II, he will see that"any body of persons"representing certain interests may make representations; and if he will look at Clause 78 he will see there a definition of the persons who may make representations, and among those he will see is included"the council of any county or

501
borough or district "; and will he possible—
THE EARL OF MAYO: I eludes England, does it not?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: does not apply to Ireland.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Can any body of persons in Ireland make representations with regard to the monopoly between Holyhead and Chester?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Any body of persons may make representations with regard to the manner in which their interests may be affected by the railway administration, and call upon the companies concerned to provide facilities, and, the Minister giving the Order, the application will then be heard in the case of passengers exactly in the same way as in the case of any body of traders. It is in those two clauses that the interests of passengers are provided for.
THE EARL OF MAYO: May I ask this: The noble Earl said that in parts of England there would be monopolies and that provision was made for competition.I do not see what provision possibly can be made for competition against the London and North Western railway between Chester and Holyhead. We are entirely in their hands from that station to the harbour of Kingstown at present.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I was pointing out to the noble Earl that the existence of monopoly, and the absence of competition, exist not only in the case of Holyhead but on a number of routes from London to many parts of the country, and therefore it is not a new thing to find parts of the country where there is no competition between different railway companies. There will, in future, under this Bill, when all the amalgamations have taken place; be competition in places where there is competition to-day. For instance, the noble Lord can travel to Scotland by the East Coast or the West Coast group, and that competition will exist in the future under the Bill. Therefore, it is not true to say, as Lord Parmoor said, that all competition was being swept away by this Bill, and it was only in consequence of that remark that I have given this explanation.
THE EARL OF MAYO: England is an island; we have to get across the Irish Sea, and there is a monopoly there now.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: These are points which would be better raised in Committee, and I will deal with them then if they are raised. I can only thank your Lordships for the reception that you have given to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SALE OF CROWN LANDS.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, I desire to ask the Questions which stand in my name on the Paper, namely:—

1. What is the area of the agricultural land of the Crown already sold or to be offered for sale?

2. How much has been realised by such sales, and how has this money been invested?

3. What is the estimated value of the land to be offered for sale?

4. How much agricultural land still remains the property of the Crown after the completion of the contemplated sales?

5. How much of the Crown Lands have been let to ex-officers, non-commissioned officers and soldiers who have fought in the Great War?

6. Is it proposed to offer for sale any land in the occupation of ex-Service men?

I shall not detain the House with any attempt to make a speech, but I hope I may be allowed to say one word in congratulation of the noble Earl opposite upon the decision that has been taken, and announced in another place with regard to Runnymede.
As regards the Questions of which I gave Notice I have only this to say: It may be said, and probably will be said, that the Government are only carrying out the line of conduct adopted by many private persons, and that they are selling land so as to increase the income. It is unfortunately true that, owing to the very heavy taxation and the cost of repairs, and other reasons, it has been obligatory on some persons to sell portions of their estates, but I very respectfully submit that the two cases are

503
not on all fours. What is perfectly justifiable in the case of a private individual has quite a different aspect when it is done on public grounds. The Crown lands, as I understand, are a national trust, and they ought to be administered from a national point of view, especially at this time, when, after the Great War, the men who fought for the country have come back hoping to be put on the land, which they were under the impression they would be able to share. It is very necessary that this national land should be used for a national purpose, and that these men who have done so much for the country should be allowed to have some land on which to settle on their return to the country.
I have congratulated the Government on their action with regard. to Runnymede, and I venture very respectfully to hope that it is not too late for the Minister of Agriculture to reverse the policy of his predecessor and to restore the confidence which for so many generations has existed among the tenants of the Crown Lands. Though I am told it is within the law I hope that we shall never hear again of large blocks of Crown Lands, which contain cottages and small holdings and allotments, being sold without the knowledge and consent of Parliament.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OFANCASTER): My Lords, the answers to the noble Marquess's Questions are as follows:—

(1) The Commissioners of Woods are empowered by an Act in the reign of George IV to sell any part of the land revenues in their charge except Royal forests, parks, or chases, and, under Section 60 of that Act, no sale of a property of a value in excess of £100 shall be made without the previous authority of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury for the time being, signified by Warrant. Since that Act was passed in 1829 many sales of Crown Lands have taken place. The area of the agricultural land, under the charge of the Minister of Agriculture as ex-officio Commissioner of Woods, sold during the financial year 1919–20 was 2,419 acres. We were not quite certain whether the noble Marquess required the total sold since 1829. Of course, those figures would take a good deal of getting out,
504
but they are available if any one wishes to look up the Reports.

(2) £95,665 was realised by such sales, and the money has been invested in the name of the Treasury in long-dated Government securities by, and on the advice of, the National Debt Commissioners. Contracts have been entered into during the current financial year for the sale of 470 acres for £49,675, and a farm of 264 acres has been sold to the Cheshire County Council under Section 9 of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, for a perpetual annuity of £720.

(3) A further 10,109 acres have been scheduled for sale this year, the estimated value of which is £202,200.

(4) About 70,000 acres of agricultural land in England and Wales will remain the property of the Crown when the above sales have been completed.

(5) Upwards of 9,000 acres have been let either directly or indirectly to ex-Service men who served their country in the Great War.

(6) In the case of the comparatively small acreage of the scheduled land occupied by ex-Service men as small holdings, particulars of sale are sent to the county councils, the statutory authority for land settlement purposes, with an intimation that any of the land would be sold on the basis of a perpetual annuity, and it is hoped that by that means none of the ex-Service men will be dispossessed.

I may add that during the last ten years more agricultural land has been bought than sold. I do not know whether the noble Marquess wishes to initiate a general discussion on this matter, but I should like to make the statement that, of course, the trustees who administer the Crown estates are acting in a fiduciary position, and, although they should administer them in a businesslike and, I might almost say, in a generous manner, I do' not think it right or proper that they should act entirely on sentiment, or as philanthropists. The noble Marquess rather hinted that some pledge should be given by the Minister of Agriculture that in the future he would not sell any more of the Crown Lands. I do not think I can give that promise, because it is really a question for the trustee. As a trustee one really ought to act in the best interests of the trust.
THE MAHQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, this is an interesting matter, and there is, of course, a considerable question of policy involved, upon which it would not be fair to press the noble Earl at this moment. But I think that on some occasion or other it would be interesting to learn what the general policy of His Majesty's Government is on this question of Crown Lands. It is not, I think, quite reasonable to put the whole matter on the shoulders of the Minister of Agriculture; it is a question of Government policy, and I take it that anything like the general sale of agricultural Crown Lands would be a matter riot to be decided by one Minister, but by the Government as a whole. I have no doubt that there are arguments which could be used both ways, particularly with regard to what has fallen from my noble friend who asked the Questions.
I think the whole matter of the relation of State lands to those who have deserved well of the State, such as those who took part in, and suffered in, the war, demands very careful consideration. Of course, it might be argued that the settlement of men on the land ought to be left to local authorities, and that it is not a matter for the consideration of the central authority at all. I could quite understand that being argued, but on some occasion it would be interesting to find out, as I have no doubt could be done by Motion or Question, what the general policy of His Majesty's Government is regarding Crown Lands as a whole.

FAMINE IN RUSSIA.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether any reliable information has been received and can be published as to the extent of the area and the approximate number of people affected by failure of crops and famine in Russia; whether cholera is known to have ensued; whether they are aware of any steps being taken for the consolidation of efforts to assist the people in the famine-stricken areas and the districts and States menaced by famine-stricken immigrants; and whether any measures are being considered or taken for the prevention of the spread of cholera to His Majesty's Dominions.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not know whether His Majesty's Government can give a reply to this Question, or whether they have the facts in
506
their possession. But, if they have any facts, I feel sure they would be very interesting to the country as a whole. One has seen the area over which this famine exists described as twenty-one Governments of Russia, and in another account as being in a comparatively narrow country. Again, as regards population, one has seen estimates that 30,000,000 people are dying of famine, while from other sources we are informed that the number is 9,000,000. People talk of millions very glibly. Few people would be aware that the war lasted less than two and a half million minutes. With that huge difference arises the question of whether, supposing that something can be done, the famine can he kept within hounds, or whether you are to have a vast number of the human race perishing and leaving huge tracts of country desolate,
Then there is the question of the consolidation of effort. This question has been discussed in Paris within the last two or three days. At the same time, proposals have been made by America, by the Red Cross Societies, and by His Holiness the Pope. And half-page advertisements about saving the children have begun again to appear in our own papers—all this without consolidation of any kind with any other particular agencies. People who know anything about famine must know the immense importance of the consclidation of effort in dealing with it. My noble friend, Lord Mac Donnell, probably knows from his experience in dealing with famine in India, how important are consolidated efforts.
I must also raise the question of cholera spreading from these people to those outside Russia—and perhaps one ought to add typhus to cholera. Every one knows that those diseases are spread not only by direct contact but also by what are called human carriers. Whether the States on the borders of Russia have sufficient medical comforts, disinfectants and doctors to prevent the breaking of the first line of defence by diseased persons and by carriers of disease I do not know, nor do I know whether it is possible that any assistance should be given those States. There is, however, the question of the steps that should be taken in our own country and elsewhere in His Majesty's Dominions to mitigate the chance of the people of this country, and possibly of India, running the risk of these dreadful diseases being brought

507
from the vast tracts of Russia where the population are said to be suffering from cholera and typhus. I beg to ask my Question.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, for a good many months during last year and this I was engaged in presiding over a Committee of Inquiry into the conditions of Russia. That brought me into touch with Russians in this country, with sonic of whom I have communicated quite recently with reference to this question of famine. If your Lordships will allow me I should like to make one or two observations in regard to one point raised by my noble friend, Lord Askwith—namely, the efforts to assist the people in the famine-stricken areas. After the discussion, reported in today's paper, which took place at the Supreme Council yesterday, there is no need for me to emphasise the urgency of the question. The Prime Minister of this country stated that it was important to consider measures of relief on the largest possible scale, not only for the sake of Russia, but for the sake of the world. I think everybody must agree with that proposition. Russia undoubtedly is face to face with a terrible catastrophe, and there must be reactions on Europe and on the world from the condition of things which exists in Russia to-day.
I have seen a report from the Volga area which states that in the Governments of Samara and Simbirsk, which are among the fertile districts of Russia, the deficit of cereals is tremendous, although as a rule, of course, those districts are part of the granary of Russia. Hay is almost nonexistent, and in many districts where there has been a little rain and sonic growth in consequence, the locusts have descended and eaten all the ears of corn and grass that were left. Grasses, whether they are edible or not, are being used for food by the population, and pies are being made of the leaves of linden trees and the supply of the leaves is growing short. Peasants are killing their cattle for meat, of which they eat some and sell the rest, and they are eating, and naturally must eat, the corn that should be reserved for the sowing of the next harvest. One important fact that appealed to me very much was that the Kirghiz, who are known, of course, as a pastoral people, are selling their cattle wholesale, and that the markets at Orenburg and in other districts of the Kirghiz
508
country are glutted with meat, so that these people must obviously be faced with absolute starvation in the future.
In the circumstances stated, a Russian Famine Relief Committee has been formed in Russia. It is composed of a minority of members of the present Government and a majority of social workers, university professors and writers enjoying respect throughout Russia, men of very varying political views, mostly, I imagine, very far removed from those held by the present Russian Government. I do not know whether I should weary your Lordships if I mentioned the names of one or two of these people of known moderate views. Kishkin was formerly a supporter of the Cadet Party, but has abandoned politics. He has a great reputation as a social worker, was a member of the Provisional Government, and is respected throughout Russia. Gorovin, who was formerly President of the Duma, is well-known throughout the country and is a man of repute. Kutler is a wealthy industrialist who supported the Cadets. The President, the Vice-President and the Secretary of the Academy of Sciences, the last-named being a former Minister of Education, all of them men of great scientific position, are members. Prokopovitch, a professor, a prominent supporter of the co-operative movement, and a former Minister of Trade and Industry, is also a member. There are several other members of the Co-operative Society besides a dozen or more professors and writers, some of great distinction, on the Committee.
Kishkin made a speech the other day at a meeting of the Russian Famine Relief Committee which is well worthy of study. In the course of that speech he said that events in Russia had created insurmountable barriers between citizens and cast them into irreconcilable camps, but he pleaded for unity and co-operation in the work of relief in regard to the famine. He stated also that the participation of representatives of the Government was essential to deal with the famine, as without the complex mechanism of State institutions the Committee would fail in its objects. That point was also very strongly emphasised by our Prime Minister in Paris yesterday, but Mr. Kishkin stipulated—and I think this point is of very great importance—for freedom of movement for this Russian Famine Relief Committee, for liberty of action and protection in any

509
activities they undertook, and for the immunity of all supplies and offerings destined for famine-stricken areas.
The Government representatives on this Committee are ten in number, with the addition of Kamenev and Rikov, who are appointed President and Vice-President respectively. They practically all belong to the moderate section of the Bolshevik party. Litvinov is one of them, but he has joined the moderates, and although unpleasant recollections hang about the name of Kamenev in this country he has always been a relatively moderate member of the Bolshevik party, and so has Rikov. Lunacharsky and Semashko, both Ministers, are also men of extremely moderate views who have shown great devotion to their departmental work ill Russia during the tenure of office of the present Government. Shliapnikov, one of the other members on the Russian Famine Relief Committee, is one of the few genuine working men in the Government, and he is also leader of the Workers' Opposition in the Communist Party. The presidium of this Russian Famine Relief Committee consists of seven people, two Communists and five non-Party men. Therefore, there is a large majority both on the committee itself and on the presidium, which corresponds to our small executive committee, of those who are non-Party men.
The Decree of the Government setting up this Russian Famine Relief Committee gives wide powers of action and all Government Departments are charged to assist the Committee in their work. The Committee is free from supervision by the Workers and Peasants Control, an organisation whose supervision is quite as formidable, and which has a. good deal wider powers, than the Treasury has in this country. This Committee has the control and distribution of its own funds, and it can start public works. In Russian papers issued at Riga it has been stated that a delegation is being sent over from this Committee to this country, consisting of Gorovin, Prokopovitch, Avsarkissov (a banker), and a lady named Kuskova, and also a daughter of the great Tolstoi. I do not know whether that is correct or not, but I hope, if such a delegation is being sent here, that His Majesty's Government will welcome them, because I think they will be able to throw a good deal of light on the situation.
510
Undoubtedly, this new Russian calamity needs our active assistance on the mere ground of humanity. All the support that the Government car give, and all that can be given voluntarily, will be needed, and even with all that the world can give the amount of misery and death in Russia during the next few months will be something terrible to contemplate. But in this—and here I come to a point of some importance—as in all Russian matters, it is not very easy and simple to see how it can best be done at the present time. Some people, of course, would say that we ought to make political conditions in regard to any relief that we give. The best information that I have been able to obtain from Russians is that it would not be wise so to do, and that no real good would be gained by it. Mr. Hoover naturally stipulated, on behalf of America, that American prisoners should be released before America gave assistance. But our prisoners were released a good many months ago. He further stipulated that relief should be in the hands of his own agents. Any country supplying relief will certainly need to feel assured that the relief goes to the famine areas, and is not diverted to other less deserving objects.
On the other hand—and here my noble friend, Lord MacDonnell, will know much more of this question than I do—the actual superintending and distribution of relief in a famine so widespread as this will need thousands of people speaking the Russian language. It is quite impossible for foreigners, I think, to send the enormous staff required to deal with the whole of the situation, and I am advised—and I put forward the suggestion for consideration by His Majesty's Government—that the Russian Famine Relief Committee is a body that may, on the whole, be trusted, so long as it retains its present personnel, and its real freedom of action, as appears to be intended under the Decree that has been published. It would be far better than a purely Government organisation. Government organisations are apt to be too rigid and wooden in emergency, and I do not think that in any country in the world bureaucracy has gone so far as it has gone recently in Russia. I think that public confidence can be reposed in a Committee of which such men as Kishkin, Gorovin, and Prokopovitch are members, along with members of the Government working with them.

511
I suggest that there are two stipulations which it is reasonable to make. The first is that representatives of other countries—the countries who are giving assistance—should be on the Russian Famine Relief Committee, or at any rate in a position to know what is being done by that Committee. In the second place—and this is a matter regarding internal organisation in Russia—the co-operative organisation in Russia should be in the closest touch with the Russian Famine Relief Committee. The co-operative organisation in Russia was one of the greatest and most beneficent organisations that existed in the country in the old days. It extends to-day all over Russia, but the central body of this co-operative organisation, and some of the local bodies, are dominated at present by official representatives of the Government. I think it is necessary, if these co-operative associations are to do the work they can do that complete freedom in the election of representatives should be accorded to them, so that they may choose whomsoever they please to put at their head, instead of it being necessary that representatives of the Government should have control. I earnestly hope that freedom of election may, if possible, be stipulated for.
On the actual problem of relief the need, of course, is colossal, even if the money can be found—and an enormous amount of money is required, or goods, which really mean money. Transport presents immense difficulties. An American calculation of one pound of bread per head per day for 25,000,000 people would mean about 10,000 tons of wheat per day. That means about 1,400 wagons. I suppose it would mean 4,000,000 tons in a year. At two pounds a head—and that is not too much for people that have nothing else to eat—the amount would be doubled. The figures which I have seen recently show that the number of wagons available for all purposes in Russia, including fuel, was something like 13,000 in the latter part of last autumn, 9,000 in January, and 9,000 in June; but, besides these, there were 1,500 to 2,000 used for moving troops. For three months longer the waterways of Russia will be open, and would assist considerably, but it is calculated that 85 per cent. of the food required will have to go by rail. With management and organisation, and a curtailment of military movements, there seems some reason to suppose that something like a thousand,
512
or perhaps rather more, wagons a day can be spared for the purpose of supplying food to the famine-stricken districts. But even that must depend more or less on the amount of coal that can be obtained from the Donetz mines, which some months ago had decreased their production to about a fifth of what it was in 1907, and the production is still falling.
I maintain, however, vast though this problem is, that we are bound in duty to do our best on the mere ground of humanity, but also on the ground of our future relations with the Russian people. We really cannot, and ought not, to allow America to bring succour without doing our best also to give help, so far as we can In the background there is Germany, and in my opinion Germany must inevitably play a large part in the reconstruction of Russia, but unless we do our share Germany is there ready, as I happen to know, to exploit the situation to her advantage and to our discredit. On every ground, therefore—firstly, on the ground of humanity; secondly, as a world problem affecting the future of other nations and of ourselves; and, thirdly, from the narrower point of view of our own interests—I hope we shall do all we can, both by Government help and by voluntary agency, to bring such succour as we are able to the victims of this awful famine.
LORD MAC DONNELL: My Lords, at this late hour I hesitate to detain you, but as I have been referred to by name, perhaps you will allow me to say a few words. I do not think there is any Government in the world which is capable of coping with the calamity which threatens Eastern Europe, but if any Government or if any system is capable of coping with it, that system is the one which was elaborated in India during the years that I was there. The main object of the system is to preserve intact the framework of rural society so that when nature resumes her activities the people may be there to play their part.
In order to do that the Government of India have laid down the following programme—(1) Provision must be made in convenient localities for the employment of the working population; (2) provision of sufficient food, through private trade or through Government agencies, to be sold for a wage which is not higher than a

513
living wage; (3) provision for the people who are unable to work of gratuitous relief in their villages; (4) provision of temporary hospitals for the relief of the sick; (5) provision of a pure and unadulterated water supply. The last-named provision is the most important provision, for as cholera is a water-borne disease it immediately affects the progress of a famine.
The information which we have received in the newspapers to-day makes it perfectly clear that the calamity which is impending has already begun. Already the framework of rural society in Russia is dissolving. We bear of the wanderings of the inhabitants of large villages, and the slaughter of their cattle which can have no fodder. Nothing is more difficult in dealing with famine than reckoning with people who are wandering in large crowds, with their women and children, and such cattle as they can take with them. When that state of affairs arises the difficulty of dealing with it is enormous. Looking back upon my own experience in India, if I were face to face with such an emergency, the only method by which I would endeavour to deal with it would be to establish large famine camps on the great lines of migration, keeping the people there until measures were taken to bring them back to their villages, and then endeavouring to establish in those villages, or in the neighbourhood, the system of administration which the Government of India has already embodied in a Code.
That will be enormously expensive. Whether you can get in Russia the food necessary is a matter upon which I cannot speak. But so far as my own experience in India went, I found it infinitely better to rely upon private trade for the supply of food than to rely upon the efforts of Government. You may do much more than a hundred private traders, but you cannot do as much as all the private traders of the country. With regard to water supply, it is absolutely essential that sanitary officers should be attached to the large depots or camps in order to take possession of all the water supply in the neighbourhood and to keep it free from pollution.
I agree with what Lord Emmett has said, that there is an obligation upon us, not only from the point of view of humanity but from the point of view of high policy, to do what we can for the Russian people,
514
but I am more than doubtful whether anything sufficient can be obtained from private charity. I believe the proper thing to do would be that a Government grant should be given of £30,000,000 or £50,000,000 sterling. If that were done, then possibly a Committee such as the noble Lord has mentioned might assemble in London, and people who knew the locality might be able to elaborate a scheme which might be effective.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I have listened with great attention and interest to what has fallen from the three Peers who have spoken. I am afraid that the official information at the disposal of the Government is rather meagre, but it is clear that Russia, which in a single year before the war was able not only to feed herself but also to export no less than 14,000,000 tons of cereals, is now in a position of the utmost danger.
From the reports which have reached his Majesty's Government it is clear that either a partial or actually a complete failure of crops has occurred in the whole of the middle and lower basin of the Volga. According to a circular issued by wireless by the Soviet Government to all Governments, a state of distress has been recognised in ten provinces—namely, Astrakhan, Tsaritsin, Saratov, Samara, Simbirsk, Tam Republic, Tehuvash territory, and certain districts in the Ufa and Viatka Provinces and in the Mairi territory. The term "Mairi" is defective in the wireless, but that is the nearest reading which can be given. It is said that severe and continuous drought in these provinces has either destroyed the harvest entirely, or will reduce the yield to only 10 or 15 per cent, of the average.
These provinces are inhabited by approximately 18,000,000 people, who will require a minimum of 41,000,000 poods in addition to food supplied from outside -to sustain the rural population on a basis of 50 per cent. of the usual ration, excluding cattle, and 18,000,000 poods to feed the urban population. In the absence of exact data the Soviet Government are at present unable to determine what proportion of the above-stated requirements can be furnished by Russia herself. The foregoing information is, I would emphasise, exclusively taken from the circular issued by the Soviet Government. No reliable data on the subject have yet reached his

515
Majesty's Government, but Mr. Hodgson, the British official agent at Moscow, has been instructed to furnish a full report upon the subject. Reports of cholera outbreaks in certain parts of Russia were received as early as last year, and it is believed that a severe epidemic has broken out in the famine area. According to figures quoted in the Soviet Press, up to July, 27,000 cases have been reported.
The question of the steps to be taken for the consolidation of efforts to assist the people in the famine-stricken areas is now, as the noble Lord will be aware, being considered by the Allied Supreme Council in Paris. I am afraid, therefore, it is premature to make any statement at present upon the organisation of relief work outside Russia. Any such relief will undoubtedly have to include measures for the prevention of the spread of cholera and other infectious diseases, not only to His Majesty's Dominions, but especially to all countries which are in contact with Russia.
My noble friend, Lord Onslow, informs me that measures to deal with the possible importation of cholera are undertaken in this country in accordance with the International Sanitary Convention, 1912, under Regulations of the Ministry of Health, and are administered by port sanitary authorities and their medical officers. The Minister of Health has already called the attention of port medical officers of health to the possibility of the occurrence of ship-borne cholera at the present time, and any necessary action will be closely supervised by his medical staff. Information as to the prevalence and spread of cholera obtained by the Ministry is systematically communicated by cable to the Dominions, all of
516
which possess well-organised port sanitary services.
In addition to making an appeal to the Governments of the world, the Soviet Government have taken certain administrative steps to deal with the crisis, of which the principal is the formation of a Russian Famine Relief Committee, with full powers to collect and distribute all available supplies. A delegation from this Committee will shortly be sent to Europe, to open branches outside Russia.
align="center">[From Minutes of August 10.]

TAF FECHAN WATER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
RHYMNEY VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.[H.L.]
SOUTH ESSEX WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
HASTINGS TRAMWAYS (EXTENSION) BILL.[H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.

NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments to be considered on Monday next.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock until to-morrow, two o'clock.

BARONY OF BEAUCHAMP.
Petition of Ulric Oliver Thynne, of Muntham Court, Worthing, in the County of Sussex, Esquire, to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty may be graciously pleased to determine in favour of the Petitioner the abeyance now existing in the Barony of Beauchamp, with all privileges, prerogatives, precedencies, rights and immunities thereto belonging, and to direct a writ to be issued to summon the Petitioner to Parliament, by the name and style of Baron Beauchamp, together with His Majesty's reference thereof to this House, and the report of the Attorney-General thereon thereunto annexed: Presented (by command); read, and referred to the Committee for Privileges to consider and report.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL—(UNOPPOSED ORDER).
Reported, without amendment.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL—(BRISTOL. AND GLOUCESTER ORDERS),
Reported from the select Committee, with Amendments.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
MINISTRY OF HEALTII PROVISIONAL ORDER (STOKE-ON-TRENT EXTENSION) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ABERAVON AND NEATH EXTENSION) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

TAF FECHAN WATER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ABERDEEN CORPORATION (ELECTRICITY WORKS RAILWAY) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
BRIDGE OF ALLAN WATER. ETC. ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
To be read 3aon Tuesday next.

JURIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (RENEWAL) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

DOUPE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL.
COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL
LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (DRAINAGE) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

COUNTY OF LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
SLOUGH TRADING COMPANY, LIMITED (CANAL) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
LICENSING (No. 2) BILL.
Petition for amendment of, by excluding the County of Monmouth for Sunday Closing purposes; of inhabitants of the County of Monmouth; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.