Sitting of 8 December 1927

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Grampian Electricity Supply Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Royal Edinburgh Hospital for Mental and Nervous Disorders Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Heriot-Watt College and George Heriot's Trust Order Confirmation [Stamp Duties].
Considered in Committee.
[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. James Hope): I beg to move
"That in lieu of the Stamp Duties which would have been payable upon the deeds or instruments which, in case the Heriot-Watt College and George Heriot's Trust Order had not been confirmed, would have been required to pass to and vest in the Governors of the George Heriot's Trust or the Governors of the Heriot-Watt College, as the case may be, certain property, interests and rights, there be charged a Stamp Duty of £5, and such duty shall be impressed upon a copy of the Act confirming the Order to be produced to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under the seventy-second section thereof."
This is a small matter of a like nature to the Motion which I made in regard to the Perth Bill the other day. There is an institution in Edinburgh called the Heriot-Watt College which is carried on for educational purposes and is an amalgamation of a very old foundation with a modern institution which was known as the Watt School of Art. They were amalgamated in 1885. As time has gone on, the governors have deemed it expedient to give representation to various outside bodies and the extended order proposes that there should be a number of elected or appointed representatives by certain bodies such as the
1538
Edinburgh Corporation, the University of Edinburgh, the Edinburgh Trades' Council, the Edinburgh Education Authority, the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce, and so on. This entailed a new governing body being set up, and consequently there had to be a transfer of the property of the old trust to the new body. If the strict law ran its course, a heavy Stamp Duty would have to be paid on the transfer from the old governors to the new, but, as it is a matter of general public interest, this is one of those cases where the Treasury sees fit not to insist upon the payment of the whole Stamp Duty, but to allow a nominal token duty to be paid instead. Although the amount is larger in this case, the principle is exactly the same as in the Perth case. What I have to propose is that we allow the property to be transferred to the new governors on a Stamp Duty of £5.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    HOSPITALS (SCOTTISH PATIENTS).
    Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Scottish patients who are undergoing treatment in hospitals situated in the South of England have fewer opportunities of visiting their homes than the majority of English patients; that long distance travelling, even when leave is granted, is more expensive than the average patient can be expected to bear; and if he will consider the possibility of modifying the existing regulations so that Scottish patients, whose disabilities allow of their being granted leave, may be enabled to visit their homes at Christmas and the new year by the grant of free railway warrants?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The leave arrangements already include the free grant of either two return tickets or four single tickets in the course of 12 months. Moreover, where the journey is one of exceptional dis-

    1539
    tance involving overnight travelling, two additional nights absence are allowed. I regret that I do not find it practicable to make any special exception to the general arrangements for the grant of leave from all our hospitals.

    SEVEN-YEARS' LIMIT.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in the case of a man suffering from war wounds and who has to undergo operative treatment, full treatment allowances are paid to him and his family even though no claim has been made for pension; and whether he will take action to remove the seven-year limit in respect of claims to pension arising out of wounds received during the War?
    Major TRYON: The special arrangements whereby, as I have more than once explained to the House, cases of the type referred to are given operative treatment, and special allowances are paid to the man's family during such treatment, are satisfactorily meeting the needs of this class of case, and I see no ground for taking the action suggested in the last part of the question.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are thousands of cases outside the seven-years' limit suffering from shell-shock or physical disability due to war service?
    Major TRYON: No, Sir, it is absolutely inaccurate to say that there are thousands of cases. Under our procedure any such cases are immediately reported to us, and there is no foundation whatever for the hon. Member's statement.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the Minister of Pensions not aware that, apart from those suffering from physical disabilities, there are thousands of people who come outside the seven-years' limit?
    Major TRYON: The hon. Member's figures are equally inaccurate.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a large number outside the seven years' limit which, in very few cases, have been dealt with by the Department.
    Major TRYON: I have already answered a question on that point. I
    1540
    have met, and the Parliamentary Secretary has also met, the Chairmen of Pensions Committees all over the country, and there is no foundation whatever for the exaggerated statement of the hon. Member.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give approximately the number of cases?
    Major TRYON: I had the answer ready for a previous question, but unfortunately the hon. and gallant Member for Fairfield (Major Cohen) is not here.

    CONDITIONAL PENSIONS.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Pensions the number of officers, nurses, and men, respectively, in receipt of conditional pensions; how many of these have been in force for four years or more; and if he will consider the desirability of granting permanent pensions at the present rate to such pensioners as have been in receipt of a conditional pension for four years or more?
    Major TRYON: The number of conditional pensions in payment to officers, nurses and men on the 30th September were, respectively, about 9,000, 500 and 150,000. In the large majority of these cases pensions have been in force for four years or more. I fully appreciate the desirability of making final awards as soon as this can fairly be done in these cases, but to make such awards on the lines suggested by the hon. Member, without further medical consideration of the individual cases, would not be in the best interests of pensioners.
    Major McLEAN: May I ask the Minister of Pensions if it is not a fact that the question of final awards was settled by the Government of hon. Gentlemen oposite?
    Major TRYON: The whole system of final awards was undoubtedly challenged by the Opposition, but the previous decision of the House of Commons was maintained, and this has enabled me to give security of assessment for life to more than 37,000 pensioners since the decision was reaffirmed by this House.

    FINAL AWARD (L. BAKER).
    Mr. MACKINDERasked the Minister of Pensions whether the assessment of a final award in lieu of pension has

    1541
    been notified to Leonard Baker, late private 25,287, Loyal North Lancashire Regiment; and, if so, whether he has been afforded the right of appeal usual in such cases?
    Major TRYON: A final award was notified to Mr. Baker on 25th October, 1922. He appealed against this final award to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, and the case was decided by the tribunal on 3rd January, 1924. There is no further right of appeal.

    LORD TERRINGTON (EXTRADITION).
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the cost to date of the extradition proceedings in the case of Lord Terrington?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): A small sum has been spent on telegrams and other expenses, but I cannot give the exact amount.
    Colonel DAY: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to get this amount?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It would mean going through the petty cash book for several months past and extracting shillings and half-crowns for telegrams.
    Mr. HAYES: Is it really worth spending all this money on this individual?

  POLICE.

    MOTOR CARS (WIRELESS).
    Colonel DAYasked the Home Secretary whether he will state the country of origin of the four motor cars fitted with wireless that are used by the flying squad of the Metropolitan Police?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: These, like other Metropolitan Police cars, are of British make.

    FIREARMS.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the increase in the number of crimes of violence, involving the safety of the police, and the extent to which these crimes are facilitated by the use of motor vehicles, he will consider as to arranging for police officers
    1542
    to carry firearms when on duty in circumstances, as to locality or otherwise, which appear to justify that course?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This is a matter within the discretion of the chief officer of police concerned, and no special instructions on my part appear to be required.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would it not be possible to suggest that some small shot should be used, capable of marking the cars that are escaping, so as to identify them?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will consider that suggestion.

  TRANSPORT.

    ROAD VEHICLES (ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary whether his Department is furnished with reports by the police of all accidents to vehicles in England and Wales which involve personal injuries, and, if so, whether these reports are analysed with a view to discovering the principal causes of such accidents?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir; street accidents are not reported in this way. The police furnish returns which give the number of accidents in the several police districts and the vehicles by which they were caused, and form the basis of the returns presented annually to Parliament, but I have no further details as to the causes of such accidents generally. In the Metropolitan Police District, however, and certain other areas the returns are subjected to further analysis on the lines indicated in the question.

    STATIONARY TRAMCARS (ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the in creasing number of accidents to passengers from or entering tramcars within the Metropolitan area, he will issue regulations prohibiting other vehicles from passing stationary tramcars when so engaged, as is done in Glasgow and other cities at home and abroad?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to answer this question, and would refer the right hon. Member to the answer which

    1543
    I gave on 6th December to the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Gardner), of which I am sending him a copy.

    ROUNDABOUT TRAFFIC, PARLIAMENT SQUARE (ACCIDENTS).
    Sir COOPER RAWSONasked the Home Secretary whether he is able to give any figures with regard to the annual reduction of accidents, if any, in Parliament Square since the roundabout system of traffic was adopted?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This year there is a definite reduction in the number of serious accidents, as there has been only one, as against five in 1925. The number of slight accidents is about the same.
    Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House which was the first town in Great Britain to adopt this system?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid I must have notice of that question.
    Sir C. RAWSON: Is it not the fact that Brighton was the first town to adopt this system?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Knowing the activity of my hon. Friend in both municipal and political affairs, I think that perhaps it was.
    Mr. B. SMITH: Is it not correct to say that there have been fewer accidents with the roundabout system in London than anywhere else in Great Britain?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That also is a question of which I must have notice.
    Sir C. RAWSON—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We must move on.

    OXFORD STREET RESTAURANT (PROSECUTION).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a cloak-room porter employed at an Oxford Street restaurant who, on Friday last, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment at Marlborough Street Police Court for taking a few shillings from the staff gratuity-box, to which apparently he considered himself entitled; and whether, in view of
    1544
    the Magistrate's comment that money given to and intended for the staff was retained by the proprietors, he will consider the propriety of reducing the man's term of imprisonment?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have seen the report and made full inquiries into the case. The man was not a cloakroom attendant and had nothing to do with the cash taken. He robbed the till with a false key in the early morning when he was cleaning. He admitted a continuance of the robbery for two months. The staff in the cloakroom are paid by wages and not by the cloakroom fees. I see no reason to alter the sentence.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: If it be the case, as stated in the question, that this restaurant keeps a box into which money for the staff is put, and then the proprietors appropriate it instead of giving it to the staff, are they not guilty of obtaining money under false pretences, and should they not be prosecuted?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That may or may not be the case. I am informed that it is not the case. This man, however, had nothing to do with attending in the cloakroom, but with a false key he deliberately stole the money, whether it belonged to the employers or the employés.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the Home Secretary able to take action against the employers for having a bogus staff box there and extracting money from their customers under the pretence that they were giving it to the staff?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. and learned friend has no right to make an allegation of that kind.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is that not stated in the question, and is that not the Magistrate's finding?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have made full inquiries into the case. I sent one of my inspectors to see the cloakroom, and he inquired into the whole system. Really the statement in the question and that of my hon. and learned Friend are not founded on fact.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: From whom were the inquiries made as to the truth or

    1545
    otherwise of the statement? Were inquiries only made from the proprietors who are supposed to have appropriated this money, or were they made of the employés also?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A police inspector was sent to examine into the whole system, and his report is perfectly clear. I know exactly the wages paid to the men. The fees paid are put into a separate box, and out of that the insurance for coats, hats, and other things that are lost is made up. It is not the money of the employés at all.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that these sums which are apparently contributed for the employés are utilised by the proprietors for insurance and so forth?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The word "apparently" used by the hon. Member is not correct, and he has no right to use it.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: May I say, as a matter of explanation, that the use of the word "apparently" was based upon the comments made by the Magistrate.

    LIQUOR TRADE (CLOSING HOURS).
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Home Secretary whether the Government propose to take any steps in the near future to remove the existing anomalies in the closing hours of licensed premises and to restore the privileges of bona fide travellers?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 6th instant to my hon. Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor).

    MILK TRADE (STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS).
    Mr. LAMBasked the Home Secretary if he will publish a statement giving the statutory requirements, including those relating to workmen's compensation, so far as they are administered by his Department, governing the production and manufacture of milk in this country in parallel columns with the corresponding statutory obligations existing in all countries from which condensed skimmed
    1546
    milk is imported into Great Britain, showing in each case the measures taken to enforce such statutory requirements?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The preparation of a statement on the lines indicated would demand much time and labour, and I regret that I should not feel justified in undertaking the task, I think my hon. Friend would find most of the information he wants given in a convenient form in the Reports published by the International Labour Office in 1925 on "Compensation for Industrial Accidents" and "Compensation for Occupational Diseases," and in 1923 on "Factory Inspection." The last-mentioned Report contains a survey of factory legislation in the various countries, and the two Reports on workmen's compensation include detailed comparative statements.

    PRISONERS (COST).
    Mr. RITSONasked the Home Secretary, for the latest convenient date, the average cost per head per week of persons in His Majesty's prisons in England and Wales and in the County of Durham, respectively?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There are no separate figures for Durham Prison, but I am sending the hon. Member a statement of the average cost per head in the several classes of prisons in England and Wales for the year ended 31st March last.
    Mr. RITSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us why he cannot give a separate figure for Durham? Surely he ought to know it.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My answer was clear, namely, that there are no separate figures for Durham.
    Mr. BATEY: Would it not be possible to get the figures separately?

    HABITUAL CRIMINALS.
    Sir JOHN POWERasked the Home Secretary whether he contemplates any changes in the penal methods applied to habitual criminals?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The matter is always in my thoughts, but no change of importance can be made until after exhaustive inquiry.

    RUSSIA (BRITISH DELEGATES).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the oath of allegiance to the Soviet republic taken by a number of British delegates to the recent Bolshevik anniversary celebrations in Moscow; and whether these persons will be allowed to return to this country?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have seen Press notices somewhat to the effect suggested in the first paragraph of the question.; but nothing in those notices nor any information that I have obtained otherwise affords any basis for the suggestion that the persons in question ceased to be British subjects.
    Sir F. HALL: If a British subject swears allegiance to a foreign country, is not that tantamount to being treasonable to his own country?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think it could be made the subject of a prosecution for treason, nor do I think that it would deprive him of his rights as a British subject.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the photograph of the Foreign Secretary giving the Fascist salute in Italy?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I shall be much obliged if the hon. and gallant Member will send me a copy of it for my scrapbook.
    Sir F. HALL: Does my right hon. Friend think that those who pose as British subjects should any longer be allowed to be British subjects if they swear allegiance to a foreign Power?

    STAGE PLAY (UNLICENSED PRODUCTION).
    Mr. ROSEasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to a case of the public production of a stage play by a provincial theatrical management without obtaining the necessary licence or submitting the manuscript for censorship; and if he is referring the matter to the public prosecutor?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have at present no information other than that given to me by the hon. Member, but I
    1548
    am in communication with the Lord Chamberlain on the subject, and will let the hon. Member know the result.
    Colonel DAY: Should not the managers or proprietors of the theatre see the licence before a stage play is produced, and are not they also responsible?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have told the hon. Member's colleague that I am in communication with the Lord Chamberlain on the subject, and, until I get the report, I think it would be unwise to make any statement.

    COAL INDUSTRY (RESEARCH).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Education what practical results have been derived from the reports of the researches and experiments of the Department of Scientific Research into methods of extracting oil and other by-products from coal?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): As the House is aware from the statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education on 11th May last, and by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade yesterday, the practical result of the Department's work on hydrogenation has been to establish that British coals available in quantity can be converted into oil by methods which I understand are now being thoroughly investigated from the commercial point of view by prominent British firms; and the practical result of its work on low temperature carbonisation has been to develop a process which is shortly to be tried out on a manufacturing scale. As regards other processes on which the Department has reported favourably from a technical point of view, I can only say that reports in the Press indicate that some of these are being extended in practice. As my hon. and gallant Friend will realise, the business of the Department is to increase our knowledge of the laws and processes which are likely to have an industrial application, and to publish the results in a form easily available to all who are interested. The Department has no machinery for following out all the practical results to which their investigations may lead; nor, in the opinion of my

    1549
    right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, should the responsibility for doing this be thrown upon it.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Noble Lord consider engaging a good advertising expert to write up the results in an attractive form and send them to the people who might benefit from them?
    Lord E. PERCY: I think that any Government Department would probably find advantage from the services of a publicity agent, but, quite apart from the question of expense, I do not think that it would be altogether desirable to indulge in such methods in the case of a Research Department.
    Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: When very valuable work has been done by the Department, is any charge made to the company that benefits by the research?
    Lord E. PERCY: In regard to details of that kind, I must ask the hon. Member to put down a question.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is the President of the Board of Education aware that yesterday the President of the Board of Trade said that the Government had spent money in purchasing a process, whereas to-day the Noble Lord says that there is something that is being experimented with? Is it not the fact that commercial plants were working before we heard about the Bergius process in this country, extracting oil from coal, as long ago as 1920?
    Lord E. PERCY: I think that if the hon. Member will read my answer, he will see that his supplementary question is answered by it.
    Mr. WILFRID PALING: Is a report likely to be published soon as to the results that are being achieved by this new process?
    Lord E. PERCY: I do not know to which process the hon. Member is referring.
    Mr. PALING: I mean the reports that are issued from time to time.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it possible, in the experimental stage, to get metal to resist the strains involved in the Bergius process?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of questions on technical points.

  EDUCATION.

    MEDICAL INSPECTION.
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education how many medical men and inspectors (education) are allocated to the Special Services Department of the Board of Education; are special schools generally inspected by medical men or by inspectors (education); what is the number of medical men and inspectors (education), respectively, engaged in visiting and/or inspecting special schools in the country; whether the Board of Education, in approving of the appointments of school medical officers, has laid down any minimum qualifications as to a training in psychology or a knowledge of schools and educational organisation; and what qualifications, in addition to ordinary medical qualifications and experience, are required by the Board when approving the appointment of certifying medical officers?
    Lord E. PERCY: In addition to the chief medical officer, seven medical officers (five men and two women) are employed in the Medical Department of the Board. These officers, under the direction of the chief medical officer, are responsible for the inspection of all special schools, but the inspection of day special schools for physically defective children is also part of the duty of His Majesty's Inspectors. The latter also visit day schools for blind, deaf and mentally defective children from time to time, but the special problems presented by these schools necessitate regular inspection by medical experts. Special schools of all types are, in addition, inspected by the inspecting staffs of local education authorities. The answer to the fourth part of the question is in the negative. As regards the last part, before approving a medical officer as a certifying officer, the Board satisfy themselves that he has had special experience in the examination of children for conditions of mental deficiency.

    SPECIAL SCHOOLS.
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education whether it is the intention of the Board of Education

    1551
    to hand over the special schools to the board of control; and whether, having regard to the anxiety caused in the minds of teachers and of the difficulties of local education authorities, if such is the intention of the Board, he can make a statement on the subject?
    Lord E. PERCY: If, as I assume, the hon. Member is referring to special schools for mentally defective children, there is no present intention of transferring such schools to the Board of Control, but I should prefer to await the Report of the special Committee which is considering the problem of the mentally defective child before making any definite statement on the subject.
    Mr. HARRIS: How many months will it be before the special Committee issues a Report? It has been sitting a very long time.
    Lord E. PERCY: I know it has been sitting a long time. I hope it will sit as long as necessary to deal with this very difficult subject, but I think it probable that I shall receive, at any rate, an interim Report before long.

    TEACHING STAFF (WASTAGE).
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education whether any estimate has been formed and, if so, what is such estimate, either in totals or percentages, of the annual wastage in the teaching profession in the three departments, elementary, secondary and technical; what are the totals for the last three years for which figures are available; what are the totals, if figures are available, of the wastage during the last three years owing, respectively, to retirement on pension, retirement on disablement allowance, deaths, and leaving the service owing to marriage or other causes; whether the Board has formed any estimate of the wastage in the teaching profession each year of women retiring compulsorily or voluntarily upon marriage; and whether the Board has any statistics to show the number of women teachers required to resign upon marriage?
    Lord E. PERCY: I gave some statistics upon these points in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Romford Division of Essex (Mr. Rhys) on 3rd March last. The Board have
    1552
    collected some additional statistics but they require further analysis, and I should, therefore, be glad if the hon. Member would communicate with me and put his question down again in due course.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    BLIND PERSONS (PENSIONS).
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health whether any municipalities have decided to award pensions to blind unemployable men and women; and will he give the House the particulars?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The information in the possession of my Department shows that 24 local authorities have accepted responsibility for bringing the income of blind unemployable men and women up to some fixed amount. In many other areas provision has been made for this class of the blind by arrangement between the authorities and voluntary agencies concerned.
    Colonel DAY: Could the right hon. Gentleman take steps to recommend the other local authorities to carry out the same principle?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The matter is left to the discretion of the local authorities.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIESasked the Minister of Health if he has any evidence of any cases of foot-and-mouth disease in human beings during recent years; and, if so, will he give details of such cases, showing the source of infection and the result of each ease?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: So far as I am aware, no case of foot-and-mouth disease in a human being has occurred in this country in recent years. The only two cases of suspected foot-and-mouth disease of which I have any record were investigated by a medical officer of my Department, and in neither case could any confirmation, either clinical or biological, be found to support the suggestion that the patient was suffering from this disease.

    SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACTS.
    Dr. DAVIESasked the Minister of Health if he will give a list of the

    1553
    common articles of food which are analysed under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts; and the number of samples of each class so analysed during the years 1924, 1925 and 1926?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: These particulars are contained in a Report which is prepared annually by my Department. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of the Report for the three years mentioned.

    OFFICES (INSPECTION).
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Health if in view of the health conditions prevailing in many offices, he is satisfied that the inspection of offices at present carried on, and the powers of local sanitary authorities in London and elsewhere, are sufficient for the purpose?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no evidence that the health conditions generally prevailing in offices are such as to call for special action. The present powers of local authorities in the matter have not been shown to be insufficient, but the measure of inspection at the present time cannot but be conditioned by financial circumstances.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is it not a fact that health rates and sickness rates in offices are worse than among the general population and therefore justify inspection and inquiry?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no evidence of that.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: If I give the right hon. Gentleman that evidence, will he look into it in conjunction with the Standing Joint Committee of the Metropolitan Boroughs, which have had this matter under consideration for a long time?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall certainly be glad to consider any evidence which my hon. and gallant Friend produces.

    TUBERCULOSIS.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Minister of Health what is the mortality during the last five years of persons suffering from tuberculosis?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The crude death-rates in England and Wales from all forms of tuberculosis for the years 1922 to 1926 were respectively 1,121, 1,062,
    1554
    1,058, 1,038, and 961 per million persons living. The hon. Member will find further information as to the decline in the mortality from tuberculosis in recent years on pages 42 and 43 of the last Annual Report of my Department.

  AGRICULTURE.

    HEALTH INSURANCE.
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Minister of Health whether the incidence of insurable sickness, etc., affected by the National Health Insurance Act is lower among insured contributors in the agricultural industry than in other insured industries; and, if so, whether he is able to give any comparative figures?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Though there are special agricultural and rural societies, agricultural workers are also to be found in the large number of approved societies and branches which are not in general organised on an occupational basis, and it is impossible to give figures as to the incidence of sickness amongst such workers throughout the country. There is reason to believe that the incidence of sickness amongst persons engaged in agriculture is below the average for the whole insured population, but there are other occupations in an equally, or even more, favourable position in this respect.

    INCOME TAX.
    Brigadier-General BROOKEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will instruct inspectors of taxes not to demand payment of the first instalment of Income Tax under Schedule B assessments in all cases where the farmer has notified the local inspector that in all probability a loss is being incurred during the year current?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): It has not been the practice to press for payment of Schedule B tax in the circumstances described by my hon. and gallant Friend if there is no undue delay in the presentation of accounts by the farmer. In view, however, of the present condition of agriculture, the Board of Inland Revenue are taking steps to draw the attention of inspectors of taxes to this matter.

    VILLAGE FARM, HORBLING.
    Mr. PALINGasked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether the village farm at Horbling, Lincolnshire, will be let to a tenant who will reside in the farmhouse or to a farmer who intends to put a foreman in it;
    (2) the number of applicants for the occupation of the village farm at Horbling, on the Crown estate?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The present tenant of village farm, Horbling, recently asked to be released from his tenancy, and recommended Mr. A. J. Allen, who has a small freehold farm adjoining, as his successor. Two other applications were received subsequently. All the three applicants were well qualified, but the Commissioners of Crown Lands, after careful consideration, decided to accept Mr. Allen on the grounds that (1) his was much the earliest application in point of time, (2) the holding could be more conveniently and profitably worked in conjunction with Mr. Allen's freehold farm, and (3) the farmhouse is better suited for occupation by a foreman than by a tenant farmer.
    Mr. PALING: Are we to understand that the man there has already another farm, and that this farm has been in the occupation of a tenant who already had two or three other farms and who put a foreman on this farm, and in view of the number of applicants is it not time that this policy was stopped?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I think we must consider the Crown revenue. As this farmhouse is more suitable for occupation by a bailiff, I think we ought to avoid capital expenditure. Besides that, the selected tenant was in the field two months before the subsequent applications.

    COTTAGE AND SMALL HOLDINGS, LANCASHIRE.
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Lancashire County Council, having an opportunity of securing four well-situated farms for the purpose of establishing cottage and small holdings, requested the land valuer, in connection with the Inland Revenue, to value the property; that the property
    1556
    was accordingly value at £14,000, and the county council agreed to purchase at this price; and that, although three independent valuations of the property arrived at a figure in excess of £14,000, the Department have refused to give sanction for the purchase on the ground that the real value is only £12,000; and whether, in view of the importance of encouraging county councils to promote small holdings, he will have the Departmental decision reconsidered?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I would invite the attention of the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar question put to me on Monday last by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), to which I will only add that the statement that three independent valuations of the property were in excess of £14,000 is not in accordance with the facts as reported to me. While I entirely agree as to the desirability of encouraging local authorities to provide small holdings, I do not consider that it is necessary to attain this object by approving purchases at prices in excess of current market value.
    Mr. RILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the tenants were already promised the occupation of holdings on this estate by the county council, and that they have made arrangements to enter, and will he expedite a settlement?
    Mr. GUINNESS: It is very unfortunate if the county council have been exciting further expectations before the scheme was finally approved, but we are doing all in our power to encourage a settlement on the basis of a fair valuation.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: Did the right hon. Gentleman reject the valuation of the Inland Revenue officials in this matter, and on what ground has that rejection taken place?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The usual practice is that we get two valuations, one by the Inland Revenue and one by our officials. The Inland Revenue valued this farm in October, 1926. It was then in the hands of a syndicate, who, apparently, had not kept up the cultivation very satisfactorily, and when the farm was valued in June of this year, nine months later, it was found to have

    1557
    decreased considerably in value. The last value, which was £2,000 below the original one, was owing to the further letting down of the land.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the price would come down from £14,000 to £12,000 quickly enough if the owners had to pay their rates and taxes on their land value?
    Mr. LUNN: Would the right hon. Gentleman state definitely whether his attention is being kept on this piece of land, and are they trying to come to a settlement for small holdings?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Very much so; I have been bombarded with questions on the subject. But I do not think it desirable, while negotiations are going on, for me to intervene, because I am quite convinced, on the advice of the officials of the Department, that the value which we have put before the County Council is a fair one.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, makes no provision for the payment of pensions to the women aged 65 and under 70, wives of insured men who have reached the age of 70 prior to 2nd January, 1928, he proposes to take any steps to place these women on an equal footing as regards pension with the wives of insured men who are between the ages of 65 and 70 on 2nd January, 1928?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's reply to his question on the same subject on 23rd November.

  POOR LAW.

    RELIEF.
    Mr. RITSONasked the Minister of Health for the latest convenient date the average cost per head per week of persons maintained on indoor relief in Poor Law institutions; and the most frequent rate of charge per head per week for pauper inmates in county mental hospitals?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The average weekly cost per head for the year ended 31st March, 1926, including the cost of buildings and loan charges, of the persons maintained in Poor Law institutions in England and Wales was 27s. 8d. The rate of charge per head per week for pauper inmates in county mental hospitals would approximate to 22s. 6d.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Minister of Health if, in the case of able-bodied men performing work for a local authority in return for Poor Law relief, such relief is estimated on a standard rate of wages; and whether his Department recognises or advises a minimum rate for such work?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The arrangements made between the local authority and the board of guardians in cases of this kind vary according to the circumstances and the agreements made between the bodies concerned. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. WELLOCK: Would the right hon. Gentleman sanction the paying of 7s. 10d. relief in return for two full days' work given to a local authority?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not my practice to attempt in any way to fix rates of wages.
    Mr. THURTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think 3s. 10d. for a full day's work is a satisfactory rate of pay?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it the intention to interfere with the giving of varying rates of wages under the Audit (Local Authorities) Bill?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That Bill does not provide for the settling of any rates of wages.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Health his grounds for objecting to the grant by boards of guardians of outdoor relief to men who have been convicted of criminal offences and served sentences in connection therewith?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Unconditional outdoor relief can only be given to able-bodied persons by way of departure from the Relief Regulation Order, 1911, and I should have thought it would be obvious to the hon. Member that cases such as he describes would not generally be cases

    1559
    exhibiting special features of a kind which justify the making of departures from the Order in their favour.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by the very nature of things these men experience extreme difficulty in finding employment? Is he not aware that to refuse them relief is to drive them into further crime?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member did not ask about refusing relief nor did I say that they were refused relief. He asked about outdoor relief.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a special report of an officer of his Department has censured the Shoreditch Board of Guardians for granting relief to men of this character?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, that was outdoor relief. To offer them indoor relief is quite another matter.
    Mr. JOHN PALINasked the Minister of Health if he will issue a circular to all boards of guardians calling their attention to the statutory provision that 7s. 6d. of any payment of national health insurance shall be deducted before an estimate is made of the income of an applicant for relief?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The statutory provision to which the hon. Member refers is very well known to boards of guardians, and I have no evidence of any tendency on the part of guardians to disregard it. I do not think, therefore, that it is necessary to issue a special circular on the subject.
    Mr. PALIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this statutory provision has been ignored by the Newcastle Board of Guardians?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was not aware of that fact.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is also ignored by other boards of guardians?

    EX-SANATORIA PATIENTS.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Minister of Health how many ex-sanatoria patients have become chargeable to the guardians in the last five years; and what is the cost per year of an ex-sanatoria patient who becomes chargeable to the guardians?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret this information is not available.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Has the right hon. Gentleman no means of obtaining it?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I have not, because there is no distinction made between ex-sanatoria patients and others.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be advisable in the national interests and in the interests of health to see that this information is collected by the boards of guardians,
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not see what bearing that has on the subject.

    NECESSITOUS AREAS.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the fact that the county boroughs of East Ham and West Ham have passed resolutions urging him to review the whole position of the incidence of local taxation, and asking, further, that he shall review the whole position of the repayment of loans granted to the West Ham Board of Guardians; whether he will take steps to obtain greater assistance from the national Exchequer to necessitous Poor Law areas, i.e., those areas where the rate for the relief of the poor is in excess of the average rate of the country; and what steps he proposes to take to give effect to these resolutions?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The position of what are known as the necessitous areas has been the subject of repeated discussion in this House, and I can add nothing to the statements made on behalf of the Government in those discussions.

    REFORM.
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to introduce next Session a Bill to reform the Poor Law?
    Mr. EVAN DAVIESasked the Minister of Health if he can now inform the House if it is his intention to introduce legislation in the near future to carry into effect the declared intentions of the Government to abolish boards of guardians throughout the country?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to a question on the same subject by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) on the 10th ultimo.

  HOUSING.

    RURAL WORKERS ACT.
    Major GLYNasked the Minister of Health how many dwellings have up to the present been reconstructed under the terms of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, in the counties of Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, Buckinghamshire, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Returns of progress under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, are obtained quarterly, and according to the latest returns, to 30th September last, no dwellings had actually been reconstructed under the Act in any of the counties referred to. The Gloucestershire County Council, however, had received applications for assistance in respect of the improvement of 14 dwellings.
    Mr. HURD: In view of the very unsatisfactory reply which the right hon. Gentleman has given the House, is he taking any steps to spur county councils to do their duty in the interest of the workers?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have that under my special consideration.
    Mr. PALING: Does that mean that applications have been sent in to county councils, and that they have taken no notice of them?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. It must not be assumed that they have taken no notice of them. I said applications had been received and were under consideration.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any cases that have been turned down where the tenant of a house in a rural area received wages of £3 a week?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I could not answer that question without notice.
    Major GLYNasked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that a large number of rural dwellings could thereby be made sanitary and thoroughly suitable
    1562
    for habitation, he will consider extending the grant to include general repairs to cottages, where considered necessary, at a minimum cost of, say, £30, and allowing the local authority responsible to reduce the grant to one-half instead of two-thirds?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question of the extent to which financial assistance under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, could be afforded to works of ordinary repairs or upkeep was fully discussed during the passage of the Bill through this House, when it was decided that works of such a nature could only be included for the purposes of assistance where they were incidental to and connected with the reconstruction and improvement of the buildings. I do not think that the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend would prove sufficiently attractive to induce landlords to take advantage of it if they were thereby tied up for 20 years by the conditions laid down in the Act.
    Major GLYN: If evidence can be brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice that many houses would be put in order if the Act were extended in that direction, will he consider it?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be glad to consider it.
    Major GLYNasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider introducing legislation, or making regulations, that will enable the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, to be made applicable to all dwellings in rural and urban areas up to a value of £400, and that the stipulation that it only applies to dwellings to which the agricultural rent is 3s., or thereabouts, weekly should be modified so as to be governed by the Rent Restrictions Act, with power to the local authority to see that the stipulated rent is not exceeded, since at present the Act is only of use to cottages attached to farms, and under existing circumstances neither owners nor occupiers of farms can afford to spend money on the reconstruction of their cottages; and whether, as a further encouragement to the owner of a cottage to make use of the Act, a charge of 5 per cent. instead of 3 per cent. may be allowed on the amount expended by him?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The proposals of my hon. and gallant Friend would entirely alter the scope and intentions of the

    1563
    Act, and I am afraid that I cannot undertake to introduce the legislation which would be necessary to give effect to his suggestions.

    TRANSFERRED HOUSES.
    Mr. B. SMITHasked the Minister of Health what local authorities in England and Wales have been granted permission to transfer houses built under the Housing, &c., Act, 1923, to the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924; and what changes, if any, were made in the rents at which the transferred houses were let?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards) on the 18th and 23rd of last month. There is no power to transfer houses built and let under the 1923 Act to the 1924 Act.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the information was withheld?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The information was not withheld; it was given in the answer.
    Mr. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last few months one local authority has made application to transfer the incidence of the rate under the 1923 Act on the loan to the Wheatley Act of 1924? Can he give us the name and the amount?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not without notice. That is not the question on the Paper.
    Mr. EDWARDS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names now?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They were given. I beg the hon. Member's pardon. there were two questions, and I was looking at the other one. I do not gather that the names were given, but I will give the hon. Member the names with pleasure.

    SUBSIDY.
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Minister of Health whether he will give an estimate of the saving of the taxpayers' money arising from the reduction of the housing subsidy as from the 1st October last?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The capital value of the reduction of the annual Exchequer subsidy for houses completed after 1st October amounts to £25. The actual saving to the Exchequer will depend on the number of houses built while the reduced subsidy is operative.
    Mr. PALING: Is there any evidence that owing to the reduced subsidy the number of houses to be built will be larger next year?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no evidence yet as to how many houses will be built next year.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Would it be possible to get an estimate of how many people have been thrown on to unemployment insurance as a result of the subsidy being reduced? I know of 50.

    ARTERIAL ROADS (LAND VALUES).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that land skirting the new arterial road near Manchester is selling at £800 per acre; and will he give powers to local authorities to rate this betterment value in lieu of subsidies from the Government?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The local authorities already have power to increase the assessment to rates of any such land, if and in so far as that course is justified by an increase in the rental value.
    Mr. HARDIE: Are we to understand from that reply that if the owner of the land skirting the road raises the price above what it was before the road was made, the local authorities have power to raise the assessment?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, they have power to raise the assessment.
    Mr. HARDIE: Why has not the right hon. Gentleman replied to what I had in my question regarding the increased value of the land? Why does he always come back to the word "assessment" instead of dealing with the value which has been made by public expenditure?
    Major PRICE: Have the local authorities power to purchase any of the land on these arterial roads?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give any information regarding the betterment taxes which may have been charged by this corporation? Has he any evidence of such taxation having been imposed?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Obviously, that is not a question which I can answer without notice, and it is not the question on the Paper.
    Mr. B. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider in any future laying out of arterial roads that sufficient land on either side can be purchased, so that the betterment value can accrue to the State?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a subject for another question.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Is it not a fact that when municipalities, such as Manchester, have bought land on the side of new roads, they have distinctly depreciated its value by putting up bad houses?
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take the necessary steps to secure for the community the increased site values created by the new arterial roads built by public money as the result of public enterprise?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health on the 30th November.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of this growing scandal, and would it not be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inquire into the methods employed in our Dominions overseas to meet precisely the same thing?
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider the fact that many arterial roads are lowering the value of certain property and will he consider the question of compensation in those cases?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to which reference has been made was as follows:
    "If the hon. Member's question is to be interpreted as an inquiry whether the Government propose to introduce a Bill for the purpose of taxing site values, the answer is in the negative."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the Government consider making inquiries as to the methods adopted in our Dominions for meeting this growing scandal, which exists not only in this country but elsewhere, in regard to the increased site value brought about by the construction of these new roads?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the last time he taxed site values we lost money on it?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is there not some legislation in existence in connection with one of the Transport Acts that permits the Minister or local authorities to acquire land bordering on arterial roads and so secure any increased value?

    IRISH GEANTS COMMITTEE.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the case of one of the late Irish Crown Solicitors, a man over 60 years of age, who was dismissed from his office by the Free State authorities after the truce with only a small gratuity and who was driven out of private practice in Ireland, solely because he had acted as Solicitor for the Crown and has now had to emigrate and take employment as a clerk at a weekly wage, was considered by the Irish Grants Committee recently; is he aware that the Grants Committee refused to make any further compensation for the dismissal from his position but made an award on account of the loss of his private practice; has any portion of this award yet been paid, other than a small advance to meet his immediate and pressing necessities; and will he state why the amount recommended should not now be announced to this man and immediate payment made of the reduced sum recommended, to enable him to restart in life?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have been asked by the Prime Minister to reply to this question. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which the Financial Secretary gave him yesterday.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there would be no need to ask these questions if these unfortunate people had been

    1567
    treated half as well as certain deportees were treated some time ago?
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately when these final awards will be made? Is he aware that if they are not made soon, many of the applicants will be dead before they receive the money?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The matter is receiving the attention of the Government, and I am not in a position to make any further statement.

    BASLE MISSION TRADING COMPANY.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the French and British Governments during the War sequestrated certain commercial properties belonging to Swiss subjects, and known as the Basle Mission Company, trading in India and Africa, under the belief that these properties were largely enemy controlled, his attention has been drawn to the findings of the French court of inquiry which established to the satisfaction of the French Government that no enemy influence or capital was employed; whether he has any information as to the action of the French Government on this question; and what steps he Intends to take in the matter?
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he is aware of the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Basle Mission and the Commonwealth Trust; that an offer has been made by the Basle Mission to resume their properties in the Gold Coast on certain terms; that these terms were refused by the Commonwealth Trust; and what steps does the Government propose to take to make the directorate of the trust comply with the wishes of His Majesty's Government;
    (2) whether, seeing that the Swiss Government has drawn the attention of His Majesty's Government to the sequestration in India and Africa during the War of the properties of the Basle Mission Commercial Company, and that the French Government has ordered a complete restoration of its portion of the pro-
    1568
    perties so seized, and that the Swiss Government has asked for the restoration of these properties sequestrated in the belief that they were enemy-controlled, he will say when he expects to be able to assure the Swiss Government that these properties will be returned to the original owners?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have been asked to reply to the questions. I have not received any official information as to the actions of the French Government, but I understand that the facts are as stated. The properties of the Basle Mission Trading Company in Africa were sequestrated during the War on the ground of enemy association not of enemy control. I am well aware that negotiations have been proceeding with the Commonwealth Trust, Limited, as well as with the Basle Mission Trading Company. Negotiations are still in progress, and I do not propose to prejudice them by premature statement. I am not aware of any steps by which the Government can make the directorate of the Commonwealth Trust alter its policy.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to get the Official Report of the French inquiry?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, I will ask for it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are in the trust deeds of the Commonwealth Trust, powers reserved to the Government to change the directorate, if necessary, and so change the policy of the Trust?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is hardly the question. The inquiry in Question 87 is not whether there is power left to the Government to get rid of the directorate but to make the directorate comply with the wishes of the Government.

    RATES, POPLAR.
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Health what contribution to the local rates in the Poplar area, in the last available year, is made from, the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, the Equalisation of Rates Fund, and Exchequer

    1569
    grants; and what steps his Ministry is taking in relation to the rates in this area, in view of their effect upon industry?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the financial year 1926–27 the Poplar Borough Board of Guardians received £520,095 from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, and £22,007 from the Exchequer Contribution Account of the London County Council or from Government Departments. In the same year the Poplar Borough Council received £26,095 from the London (Equalisation of Rates) Fund and £30,879 from the Exchequer Contribution Account of the London County Council or from Government Departments. As regards the last part of the question, it is not clear what kind of action my hon. Friend contemplates that I could or should take.
    Mr. HURD: Would it not be desirable for the Commissioners to see whether the work cannot be done elsewhere?

    BRITISH FUNDS (SCOTTISH HOLDERS).
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Chancellor. of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the Bank of England refuses to recognise the rights of Scottish holders (under age) of British funds to transfer, with the consent of their curators (guardians), their holdings, thus disregarding a right conferred on such persons unconditionally by the Imperial Parliament, he will take steps to establish control over the proceedings of the Bank of England where it is acting for the Government in respect of loans made to the Government?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer is in the negative. I am not aware that the Bank of England is bound by any Act of Parliament or otherwise to apply different laws in regard to the transfer of stock held by Scottish and English holders under full age, and there are practical difficulties in the way of any such differentiation. The question whether these difficulties can be overcome has been considered in the past without success, but I will have it further looked into.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under Section 2 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1920, the husband of a woman under 21 is a
    1570
    curator, he has absolute title, and in the circumstances every time an application of this kind is made the Bank of England requires a judgment of the court, which makes it prohibitive for the small investor to invest?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, of course, I carry all these matters in mind.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not a case where the assistance of some eminent Scottish lawyer is desirable?

    PALESTINE LOAN.
    Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the terms offered on the occasion of the flotation of the recent Palestine loan, guaranteed by the British Treasury, represented a yield of £4 19s. 6d. per centum, whereas the present yield of British Government long-dated securities is approximately £4 15s. per centum?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Palestine Loan is redeemable in 15 years, at the option of the Palestine Government, and on that ground alone, apart from other considerations, it is not comparable with the British Government long-term stocks, which my hon. Friend has in mind, which cannot be redeemed for 30 or 40 years or longer. The actual yield of the Palestine Loan, on the basis of redemption in 15 years, is £4 19s. per cent.
    Sir A. KNOX: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that prior to the issue of this loan the London County Council 5 per cent. loan stood at 103¾ on the market, and is the London County Council security a better guarantee than that of the Treasury?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I should not like to answer that question at Question Time. All these matters are extremely complicated, and if, in the ordinary course of the financial business of the year, it be desired to raise a Debate on our conversion policy, or loan policy, I shall be quite ready to give a reply.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not the fact that on the issue of this loan our own Conversion Loan fell substantially? Are not these matters that should be looked into before further issues of this kind are made?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: These matters are considered by the authorities on whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to rely, and every consideration is taken into account. In this case, it appears that this loan has received a measure of support on sentimental grounds on which the Treasury could not possibly count beforehand.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have not the Treasury also to count on the anti-Zionist sentiment and propaganda of the party opposite?
    Sir A. KNOX: Does not this loan represent the presentation of a large sum of money to Stock Exchange speculators?
    Sir FRANK NELSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost of issue of the recent Palestine loan, including cost of underwriting, brokerage, advertising, etc.?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Treasury is not responsible for the expenses incurred in connexion with the issue of this loan, which are a matter for the Palestine Government.
    Sir F. NELSON: May I ask on whom the responsibility lies as to whether or not a loan of this description is underwritten; a loan in which the principal and interest is guaranteed by the Treasury?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like to have notice of that question. I understand that the arrangements for this loan were not in any way out of the ordinary.
    Sir F. NELSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great body of opinion has arisen which holds the view that, as very favourable terms were offered, it was quite unnecessary to underwrite it at all?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that probably the profits of the loan will go into the pockets of the same people who go out to Palestine?

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    GIFTS.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the
    1572
    total amount of the gifts made by individuals to the Exchequer during and since the War?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The figures are as follow:

    Cash received by Treasury (including dividends surrendered).

    Stock, etc. donated to Exchequer.

    £

    £

    From outbreak of War to 31st March 1919.

    341,920

    26,674

    From 1st April, 1919 to 19th November, 1927.

    132,341

    577,431

    474,261

    604,105

    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: In view of the gratifying and more than remarkable additions to the Exchequer, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer take this opportunity of telling us what remissions of Income Tax there will be next year?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these gifts were made by members of the Socialist party?
    Mr. THURTLE: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say whether all the money represents gifts, or whether a part of it represents conscience money?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think a proportion of it does represent conscience money, to which the hon. Member likes to draw attention.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Was there any gift from the Lloyd George Fund?

    GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS.
    Mr. B. SMITHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what investments have been held by the Government since 1914, showing for each investment the Department concerned, the date and cost of acquiring the investment, the amount received as gross interest or dividend for each year since 1914, the date of and the amount received on disposal, and the present market value?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The information covering the whole of this period is not readily available, and I do not think the

    1573
    labour of examining into the War period would be justified. For information covering the years 1920 and 1921 I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a question by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) on the 20th February, 1922, of which I am sending him a copy. I will, if he desires, have the information in that answer brought up to date and circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT in due course.
    Mr. SMITH: Has not the House a right to know the total amount of investments in the years mentioned, and, if not, what is the reason for obscuring them from the country?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no reason for obscuring them from the country, but, when questions are asked which call for immense labour and expensive research, and very costly returns, it is very often legitimate for the Minister to point out to the House that it would probably not be in the public interest to make special researches. If the House considers that the matter is so important that the expense should be incurred, the Government would, of course, facilitate the wish of the House.
    Colonel DAY: Does that apply to all questions and all answers given at the same time?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I never generalise unduly from the particular.

    SINKING FUND.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the statutory amounts payable to the Sinking Fund in the years 1925–26 and 1926–27, together with the amounts actually paid, less Budget deficits involving additions to the National Debt?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: For the financial year 1925 the new Sinking Fund was £50 millions, and for 1926 £60 millions. If the Budget deficits are deducted, the net amounts available for reduction of debt may be stated as £35,961,880 and £23,306,206, respectively. I should explain that, in accordance with the law, the Sinking Fund was paid in full in each case and the Budget deficit covered by fresh borrowing.

    ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.
    Sir F. NELSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of the royalties paid by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company to the Persian Government for the year 1926; and whether there is any likelihood of a revision of the agreement between this company and the Persian Government?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is £1,341,963, and to the second part that I understand that no question of revision has arisen.
    Sir F. NELSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the original cost of the holding of His Majesty's Government in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and the value to-day at approximate market prices; and whether His Majesty's Government have, by virtue of voting power, a controlling interest in this company?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The original cost of the holding of His Majesty's Government in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was £5,200,000 and the value to-day at approximate market prices is £23,600,000. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative but the Government are pledged not to interfere in the commercial management of the company.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman very glad now that he has not sold them?

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT (OVERTIME).
    Mr. VIANTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the number of hours overtime worked by Customs and Excise departmental clerks employed in London Central collection during the period January to October 1927, inclusive, indicates that there was sufficient work in that office to merit the employment of a further six clerks; and, seeing that it would appear that the average length of overtime worked during each month by departmental clerks tends to show that overtime is not caused by a seasonal rush of work will he make early arrangements for the appointment of additional clerical staff to that office?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I am aware of the position referred to by the hon. Member. It is intended to appoint additional clerical staff as soon as the necessary additional office accommodation is available.
    Mr. VIANT: Has the Financial Secretary to the Treasury any idea as to when the accommodation will be ready?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is this extra work due to the Safeguarding of Industries Act?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: May I ask whether it is intended to appoint some of the ex-service clerks who have been discharged from Kew?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I should like to have notice of that question.

    MUNICIPAL BANKS.
    Mr. B. SMITHasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what local authorities have resolved in favour of powers to be given by Parliament for the establishment of municipal banks within their areas?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I obviously cannot say what local authorities have passed resolutions on the subject. The only direct representation received, additional to those named in my predecessor's reply to a similar question on the 19th November, 1925, has been from the Walthamstow Urban District Council; but five authorities have included proposals in Parliamentary Bills or given notice of their intention to do so.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is there not a Treasury Committee inquiring into the matter, and, if so, when can we have that Committee's Report?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, the Committee's deliberations are now drawing to a final stage.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Would the Prime Minister kindly state what is to be the business next week?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The business will be:
Monday: Report and Third Reading of the Audit (Local Authorities) Bill; Mental Deficiency Bill; Nursing Homes (Registration) Bill.
Tuesday: Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; Report and Third Reading of the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Bill; Third Reading of the Road Transport (Lighting) Bill.
Wednesday: Committee stage of the Supplementary Estimates for the Army and the Beet Sugar Subsidy.
Thursday: Debate on the Prayer Book Measure.
The business for Friday will be announced later. If there be time on any day, other Orders will be taken.
Mr. MACPHERSON: Does the Prime Minister propose to take the discussion on the Resolution for the Additional Judges before Christmas?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot answer that question yet. I cannot say anything about the time.
Major PRICE: What other business will be taken on Wednesday if the Lords throw out the Prayer Book Measure?
The PRIME MINISTER: I think we might wait.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  As amended, considered.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The new Clause on the Paper, relating to contributions in respect of temporary employment abroad, in the name of the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) is out of order, because it will involve a charge. The same remark applies to the second new Clause—(Employment in ordinary staffs of Ministry of Pensions hospitals)—in the name of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and other hon. Members. The first Amendment I select is that in the name of the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), to leave out Clause 2.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Rates of Contribution in case of young men and young women.)
    Mr. T. SHAW: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    This Clause is one of the most important in the Bill, because it sets up absolutely new classes and deals with them most inadequately. It proposes to separate young men and young women of the age of 18 to 21 into a definite and separate class. It appears to overlook altogether the actual condition of working people in this age, and to make conditions for them quite unsatisfactory for the necessities of the case. Let me give an illustration from a question that has been asked this afternoon. What the Clause will do will be to give the young man of 18 years as benefit, in case of unemployment, about one-third of what that young man will cost the country if he has to go to the guardians and as an able-bodied young man has to go into the workhouse. Could madness go further than to offer, roughly, one-third of what will be given quite freely and without any trouble if the boy goes to the guardians and has to enter the work-house? What is still worse, it is less than one-third of what it will cost the State if, through being short of money, the lad yields to temptation and becomes a criminal. It is such a foolish way of going to work that I cannot understand it.
    1606
    I am not going to whip the argument, nor shall I appeal to the Minister. I am fairly stating the facts as I see them without making any appeal at all. I have made enough appeals; I intend to make no more. If a young man is over 18 years of age he is called upon, in cases of emergency, to risk his life. There is no question about that. Under our industrial law when a youth passes the age of 18 he is considered to be outside the range of special protection. Our industrial law, as far as I know, regards a boy over 18 as a man and in this case, for the mere purpose of saving a few paltry thousand pounds this extraordinary proposal is being made concerning such young men. The proposal is not only bad but it is vicious in principle and I think it will be mean in execution. It will be mean, because, in connection with this subject, we must take into account what the contributions are intended to mean in the shape of benefit. I will not go outside the bounds of order by referring in extenso to the financial provisions that follow. I speak only of the financial provisions in regard to these particular benefits and I raise the most earnest protest of which I am capable against the system which the Minister is introducing. Under that system the boy who is asked to go to war in case of emergency is taken from his position under our present industrial law and put into a different category. This proposal, if it is not intended deliberately to make boys and girls over 18 parasites on their parents and friends, will, at any rate, achieve that end.
    As a matter of fact, in our industrial life, generally, the boys and girls over 18 belong to families who have had to struggle very hard to keep them up to that age. Generally speaking, it is just at that age when young persons in working-class families are expected to become the staff and support of their parents. Yet just at this period, if they should fall into unemployment, this scheme is so devised as to make them continue to be parasites on those who have already borne the heat and burden of the day in keeping them up to that age. I believe that, wittingly or unwittingly, a vicious principle is being introduced. I have some acquaintance with the young man over 18 in industrial life, and, as a general rule, he is a self-respecting, decent young man far more grave and

    1607
    serious than those whose education is still proceeding at that age. To take a boy of that kind, ordinarily independent and self-supporting, ordinarily proud of his personal appearance, and to put him into a special class of this character, is a great mistake. In that belief, I propose the deletion of the Clause.
    Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: I would like, if possible, to strengthen the plea which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw). I would like the Minister to realise the position that will be created by the operation of this Clause. Having, in all probability, paid contributions during the two years between the ages of 16 and 18, these young persons are then to be entitled, if, unfortunately, they should be thrown out of work, to 10s. a week in the case of lads and 8s. a week in the case of girls. Between the ages of 19 and 20 those rates will be raised to 12s. and 14s. The Minister cannot have foreseen the difficulties which are going to arise under those conditions. At the period of life between the ages of 18 and 20 the normal youth not only requires better food, but, in other respects, it is a period when domestic expenditure in regard to young people is considerably higher than at other periods. Young people of that age are often growing out of their clothes. The prospect of being deprived of the ordinary employment which otherwise would keep them fit and contented is a serious one to them. They are now more likely than ever to be made discontented by the application of such conditions as are proposed in this Clause in the event of failure to find employment.
    I put it to the Minister that these young men and women, of all the classes who come within the Act, are most entitled to his consideration. If they are thrown out of industry with this inadequate provision and with little opportunity of receiving any training, they are likely to become a burden on the community in future. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is not prepared to do something to look after their physical and mental development between these ages. I ask him to consider that they will be the breadwinners of future years. To prepare them for the work of the future will be to act in the best interests
    1608
    of the race and will be for the betterment of the insurance scheme. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his position upon this point, even if it costs the Insurance Fund a larger amount to provide a fair and adequate maintenance for these young people. I ask him to go into the matter again, having in mind the betterment of these young persons, the breadwinners of the future.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) in pointing out to the Minister the unfairness of the suggested scale of contributions to be paid by these young persons. Under the 1920 Act four-pence was the contribution of the insured person for a benefit of 15s. per week. That contribution gradually increased until at one stage it became ninepence. It has a particular significance to-day in connection with the creation of this new scale of contributions for a new class. The Minister's original intention was to have, in the case of male persons between 18 and 21, a uniform benefit of 10s. for a uniform contribution of sixpence. That has been revised, but the modification only makes the anomaly more plain. The proposal in this Clause means that whereas a male person between 18 and 21 in 1920 paid fourpence for a benefit of 15s., he will now be called upon to pay sixpence for a benefit of 10s.—that being, of course, the commencing scale. But, as I have said, the Minister has 4.0 p.m. since revised his scale though he has kept the contributions at the same level. The contribution proposed is 6d. for a person under 19 years of age for a benefit of 10s. a week. The same contribution, however, from a person above 19 and under 20 carries 12s. a week benefit, and the same contribution from a young person from 20 to 21 years of age carries the benefit to 14s. Then, for the extra penny, they go up to 17s. The fact, however, remains, that under this new scale there are to be three varying sums in benefit for the same contribution. Quite apart from the unfairness of the proportion of 6d. for 10s. as against 7d. for 17s., one can see there is a great unfairness in the distribution of the contribution. I know it may be said that it is one of the incidents of insurance that you must expect this dispro-

    1609
    portionate amount from the young person in order to make the fund solvent and more secure, and able to meet its benefit demands as time goes on. But is that so? Is a young person between 18 and 21 better able to pay 6d. a week for this varying amount of benefit than a person over 21 to pay 7d? I very much question it. I think all the handicap is in the direction of the younger person, particularly between those ages, because one cannot say that there is any difference in ability, physical and mental equipment, as between those of 18 and 21, and, say, those between 21 and 30. I would rather take it, from the point of view of equipment and physical and mental energy, as better between 21 and 30, possibly, than between 18 and 21.
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I interpose only for the convenience of the hon. Member, and, I think, for that of the whole House, and I do so in order to ask Mr. Speaker a question on a point of Order. This Clause strictly deals with contributions, but, as the hon. Member's argument proceeded, he naturally raised the question of benefits in return for contributions. That, of course, strictly speaking, is a matter for Clause 4. I would ask you, therefore, whether, if hon. Members opposite also wish it, you would allow a Debate on the whole subject of the 18 to 21 classes, benefits as well as contributions to be taken together? I am only suggesting this because it seems that it would be difficult for hon. Members to develop their argument unless free to take both sides of what is really one question.
    Mr. TINKER: Clause 2 and Clause 4 must hang together, and I think the Minister's suggestion is quite a good one, and I would like to support it.
    Mr. HAYDAY: If that point is to be raised, I think there are two quite different arguments, one being as to the adequacy of the benefit on the purely benefit side when it is reached. At the moment, it is a question of contributions, but one must speak of the amount of contribution set down in relation to the amount of benefit, without encroaching on the argument as to whether the amount of benefit is adequate or not.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Surely the question of the adequacy of the benefit could be argued now, and the vote taken
    1610
    separately. Certainly it would be for the convenience of the House to have the whole thing in one picture.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the suggestion which has been made by the Minister is a very reasonable one. Hon. Members, I think, would be hampered too much if they had to discuss contributions without discussing benefits. At the same time, I must say that on Clause 4, it is my intention to call upon the Amendment in page 3, line 28, to leave out paragraph (c). I think that would be suitable if hon. Members desire it, and that it would be desirable to have the wider discussion on the present Amendment.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Of course I raise no objection, but it might have altered the trend of the discussion at the opening had my right hon. and hon. Friends known.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, say on this point of Order, and without reference to my right to speak later on, that if the right hon. Gentleman who spoke first would have wished to take a different line had the course of discussion been wider, I think that on this side of the House there would be no reluctance whatever to his having leave to speak again to enable him to develop his whole position.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Keeping for the moment to the point of the relation of the contribution to the benefit, it does strike me that, as regards the new class between 18 and 21, the disproportionate reduction in the amount of benefit in relation to the contribution asked, is open to very grave objection from the point of view of reason and fair dealing. As to the proper proportion of the contribution, certainly it does appear to me that the flat rate contribution of 6d. from the whole of this new class, notwithstanding the varying amounts of benefit for the contribution, does require some re-adjustment. Then, if 7d. is to be the contribution for a person in receipt of 17s. a week benefit, it seems to me that 6d. is too much to ask of a person in receipt of 10s. per week, if one takes it on that particular basis. But I would like to go a little further. The Minister well knows that the evidence submitted upon this point to the Committee, upon whose Report this Bill is assumed to be based,

    1611
    was that the contribution should have been about one-half. In this case, if it were worked out in proportion to the benefit suggested, the contribution should have been about 3d., but if you work it out now in proportion to the 7d. in relation to 17s., and the 6d. in relation to 10s., it ought to be more like 4d. or 4½d., certainly 4½d. at the very outside in relation to 7d., when 7d. carries 17s., and 6d. only carries 10s. If you desired further to have a range comparable to the rate of benefit received, you would have complications, because you would have to set up another two scales of contributions. Therefore, I do urge the House to give consideration to the matter of the contributions.
    As to the measure of benefit provided for those contributions, I know that the general theme running through the minds of those who have promoted this Bill is that, between the ages of 18 and 21, there must be 6uch benefits as are not likely to encourage young persons to think more of drawing benefit than of seeking work. That is one point which has emerged in our discussions as a guiding principle of the Government, but there appears to be another one, from our point of view, that has entered into the calculation, that is, the fund being in deficiency to the extent of £22,000,000, it is necessary to assist or accelerate the recovery of the fund to a more stable or solvent condition, and that can only be done, or can only be assisted in its accomplishment, by reducing the benefit of this class of insured person. As to whether 10s. can, by any measure of imagination, be said to be a deterrent against young persons seeking diligently some form of employment, or sufficient to maintain them in board, assuming their parents are able to give them all the shelter and the clothing that are necessary, I am certain there is nobody in this House who would ever attempt to justify that, because the experience of most of us is that when a youth enters into young manhood at the age of 18, he can generally consume twice the amount of foodstuff—and he wants nutritious food to help in his physical development—as the man between, say, 40 and 50 or 55. It is at that early stage when he requires most, and if you lower to any extent the measure of sustenance required for building up the physique of a
    1612
    young person in those circumstances, then you are really committing an injustice. Young persons cannot go to boards of guardians like older persons can. If a young man between 18 and 19 comes into contact with the Poor Law administration, it is really a bad start for his career as a useful citizen, and I really believe will indelibly brand itself upon his mind, and may handicap all his future endeavours and aspirations to keep himself a free citizen of this Empire.
    I do not know whether it is too late now, but I would urge that there should be some readjustment of the contribution, and some further readjustment of the benefit. Eighteen years of age, of course, is manhood's estate. Eighteen years is the age covered for an adult workman. I believe last week negotiations were taking place in which an employer endeavoured to reduce the adult age from 21 to 18 in connection with an agreement. To what extent that was suggested by the creation of a new class of manhood in this country I do not know, but if that idea is going to gain ground, there will be seen the ill-effects of a Measure such as this upon industry in general.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Until you gave your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I rather wondered what the speeches of the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) and the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) had to do with the Clause we are discussing, which relates solely to contributions; and if the Amendment is carried, the only effect will be that the contributions in question will go up by 2d. a week. We discussed this point in Committee, and only a few days ago we discussed the relationship of contributions to benefits. I believe it is a matter of sound insurance that the young people should be paying in as much as they can possibly afford in the early years of life, so that there shall be built up a reserve later on to enable those same people, when their risks of unemployment are greater, to be in a position to draw benefits. If we delete Clause 4, or that part of it governing what we are now discussing, the amount of benefit drawn by these young people will be greater, and the Fund will be in deficiency to that extent; and, if we are to balance that deficiency, we shall have to cut down some other rates of benefit. Throughout these Debates hon. and right hon. Mem-

    1613
    bers opposite have discussed the question as if there were unlimited sums available. They never seem to judge it on the same basis as they judge their own personal finances, or to say: "If I buy this, I cannot buy that." If you make the rates of benefit for these young people much higher, you will have to find so many hundreds of thousands of pounds a year more, which can only be obtained by a general increase in the rates of contribution or by a general reduction in the rates of benefit.
    There are several reasons why the younger people should have lower rates of benefit. First of all, there is, broadly speaking, a lower level of remuneration for these young people, and, therefore, if you attempt to observe some proportion between remuneration and benefit, so that benefit is not going to be a stimulus to avoid seeking work, you have to remember that. Another reason is that the responsibilities of these young people are very much less than those of older people. The right hon. Gentleman opposite tried to draw some conclusions from calculations he had made as to the cost of maintaining young people in Poor Law institutions. It is quite conceivable that those institutions, being publicly managed, spend far more in maintaining people than an ordinary housewife would do, but we are not dealing with people in Poor Law institutions, but with what it is necessary for a housewife, admittedly under difficulties, to do to enable these young people to keep going; and, therefore, the argument with regard to what it might cost in a socialised institution has no particular bearing on the point.
    Another reason for treating these people rather differently is that their opportunities of obtaining employment are substantially greater than the opportunities of those in later years. That argument was challenged in Committee, but ultimately it was generally agreed, after the figures had been looked into, that unemployment is substantially less among young people than among old people, and some further information in support of that view has been obtained by means of a question asked by the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day), who wanted to know
    "the number of registrations at Employment Exchanges, the vacancies notified and the vacancies filled in Great Britain for the
    1614
    12 months ended to the last convenient date."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1927; col. 516, Vol. 211.]
    The reply shows that the average number on the register at any one time was 60 per cent. in excess of the total number of vacancies filled through the medium of the Exchanges in the period of a year. The ratio was as three to two in the case of men, but when you come to boys, the vacancies filled in the course of a year were nearly four and a-half times as great as the number on the register at any one time. That means that the chances of those described as boys of getting a job were six times as great as the chances of the older men, and I think that is a fact which we have to take into account. If hon. Members will consult yesterday's Press, they will see that on Monday last week there were 30,000 boys on the register, and the number of vacancies which the Exchanges filled among boys in the 12 months ended 24th October was 136,000. When we bear in mind that a large proportion of them got jobs without the assistance of the Exchanges, the total number of boys who obtained jobs in the course of the year must have been vastly in excess of 136,000, but even on the basis of the vacancies filled by the Exchanges the ratio is four and a-half to one. If that condition prevailed with regard to the men, the problem of unemployment as we see it to-day would not exist, and I wish hon. Members opposite would realise the difference which exists between the chances of the young and the chances of the old in the matter of obtaining employment.
    Further, I am satisfied that a great many parents will be very pleased indeed when the change which we are considering is made. They feel that there is being developed a certain sense of irresponsibility among some sections of the young people, because they can go to the Exchange when they are out of work and draw a man's benefit. Their ideas have become rather enlarged, and their parents in many cases have had great difficulty in obtaining a reasonable amount of discipline at home.
    Mr. TINKER: Was that your idea when you were a young man—to shirk responsibility if you got the chance?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: When I was a young man I worked fairly hard. There were odd days when I took a little time off

    1615
    when I could. Like the rest of us, I liked a holiday and I liked a bit of fun, but, on balance, I think my point of view was very similar to that of the great mass of young men to-day. I wanted to do my job fairly and squarely.
    Mr. TINKER: That obtains now.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, but not with regard to 100 per cent. of the young people. Why have we in this insurance system a variety of safeguards and checks? It is not to deal with 90 per cent. of the population, but with the 10 per cent. that are different. We have laws in this country against murder, not because the majority of us indulge in it, but because a small fraction do so.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: But you do not punish the non-murderers.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: You provide a law to deal with all.
    Mr. HAYDAY: What a comparison, between an unemployed young man and a murderer!
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I have heard many sane things from the hon. Member for West Nottingham and a few things that are not in that category. His last interjection falls into the latter category. You have coercive laws to deal with the general mass of the people. I was using only one argument, but I have presented four arguments, whereby the change provided in this Bill is justified. I was pointing to the difficulties which some parents experience, which every Member of this House knows they experience, and about which complaints are constantly reaching various people. I am entitled to put that forward, not as the sole argument, but as one which is true of a certain number of these young people, and I think it would be very unwise not to take that fact into account. The truth is that many of these young people live at home, they contribute to the home in various proportions, and when they are out of work some of them may think they are relieved of their obligations to contribute at home, and so they spend far more on amusing themselves when unemployed than when in work. But that is not true of the mass, and it would be grossly unfair to suggest that it is. We are considering a small proportion of the total, but we are entitled so to draw our
    1616
    Bill that it will deal with the case of these people as well as fit the case of the great majority.
    Mr. A. GREENWOOD: We have just had a speech from one whom we now regard as our chief mentor. Clause 2 is really important from our point of view, because it introduces a new class of contributor. That is the fundamental question about this Clause; but, in point of fact, what the Bill originally did was to create a new class of contributors and a new class of beneficiaries. As the Bill now stands, it gives us a new class of contributors and three new classes of beneficiaries, and that change has arisen very largely because, I think, the public at large were shocked by the right hon. Gentleman's intention to pay such low benefits to young men and young women between the ages of 18 and 21. I do not believe that anybody in the House, unless it were the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) and the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth), felt that the orignal rates of benefit were satisfactory, but by bowing to the storm of public opinion the Minister has increased his difficulties.
    The first case that we made against the new contributions for the new class was that they were much too high, having regard to the benefits which were receivable in respect of those contributions, and that still holds, with an even greater degree of force, because the right hon. Gentleman has now introduced certain injustices, in that while everybody between 18 and 21 pays the same rate of contribution, there are three different rates of benefit, in each case separated by one day. On a young man's or a young woman's birthday the rate to which he or she is entitled goes up, and that seems to us most unfair, but we are against the establishment of this new class at all. If there had to be a new class, we should have preferred it to be a new class for those under 16, which would have brought within the insurance field a very large number of people who to-day become unemployed, but who are under no sort of supervision by the community. It is urged that the new system enables the younger people, where the incidence of unemployment is lower, to build up a fund to enable them to get benefit when they are older, but that is nonsense. This Bill is not going to be

    1617
    in existence when those people are grown up. By the time those who are now between 18 and 21 are beginning to suffer from the heavier incidence of unemployment among elderly people they will come under an Act vastly different from this Bill, and all that it means is that the younger people to-day are subsidising the benefits of the older people to-day. That seems to be a most monstrous thing. Having regard to the fact that these young people are regarded as irresponsible, why should they be called upon to pay a higher rate of benefit in order that older people should to-day be able to receive their somewhat meagre benefits?
    A further argument—and we have had it from the hon. Member for Reading—is that these young men and women between 18 and 21 have no responsibility. It is within the knowledge of Members of this House that there are considerable numbers of young men and young women between those ages who are living in lodgings. That is so particularly in the big centres of population, and especially in London, and these people obviously have the sole responsibility for their own maintenance. Our case against the benefits to be paid for these contributions is that they make it utterly impossible for these people during hard times to maintain themselves in lodgings. Apart from that, the assumption that all these young people have nobody to care for except themselves is again untrue. A very large number—I do not say a large proportion, but, in the aggregate, quite a large number—of these young people are the mainstay of the family, where the father is dead, and where the mother or elder sisters or invalid members of the family have to be maintained. Such a burden in thousands of cases rests upon young people between 18 and 21. Even where the bread winner is alive, there are scores of thousands of families where the direct contributions of the young people are essential to the maintenance of even a modest standard of life in the home. It is, therefore, preposterous and absurd to pretend that the benefit to be given to the new class of contributors is going to be spent in cinemas and public-houses, and that it is a sort of pocket money and should be restricted.
    The benefit is utterly inadequate to keep body and soul together. As I understand the Government point of view,
    1618
    it is that they are not interested in keeping body and soul together. They admit that the benefits are not sufficient for the maintenance of the people who receive them. That has been admitted specifically in definite terms on the other side of the House. Our view is that they are utterly inadequate, and that they ought to be sufficient for maintenance; otherwise, it means a degradation of the standard of life in the home or recourse to the Poor Law. We have been told on many occasions that we are assuming that there are unlimited funds. The difficulty that we have been in is that we have not been able to deal with the question of the State's contribution at all. It is not within our power to deal with that. Really, all that is implied in our Amendments is that the State should pay a heavier contribution towards unemployment insurance. I have said it here, and it has been the burden of many speeches. We feel strongly, and a large number of people outside feel strongly, that the contributions made by the State ought to be more substantial, and that the burden which falls upon industry, whether through the employer or the worker, should be less. Clause 2 and the first Sub-section of Clause 4 represent the Government point of view, which is to put the maximum burden upon the insured person and his employer, and the minimum burden upon the State. I do not wish to use extravagant language about the scale of benefits, but they are grossly inadequate and are bound to mean that certain families will just tip over the edge into the Poor Law as a definite consequence of the institution of this new class of contributors, because in the working-class home 2s. a week may make all the difference between keeping away from the Poor Law and being driven to it.
    The right hon. Gentleman has reduced rates of benefit by as much as 7s. a week, and it is clear, therefore, that in many cases the effect of this new proposal will be to thrust people upon the local rates. We have had a good deal of sympathy expressed during the course of the Bill with the local ratepayers, but the whole purpose of this Bill is to enlarge the responsibility of the ratepayer and to diminish, as far as possible, the responsibility of the State. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not gone further. The concession that he has made

    1619
    with regard to benefit really gives away his own original case and accepts our case. He has now admitted that 8s. per week is too small. Why should we believe that 10s. is right when a girl reaches the age of 19, and 12s. is right when she reaches 20? These figures can stand the test of criticism no better than the original 8s., and we submit that the right hon. Gentleman is flying in the face of all industrial practice by setting up this special class.
    I wish hon. Members would realise that it is the common practice in all the trade boards of this country, with only one exception, to give adult rates of wages when boys and girls reach the age of 18. That principle is found to be embodied in hundreds of industrial agreements between employers and trade unions. There have been countless reasons in the past why that should be so. In so many occupations—I do not say necessarily in the highly skilled ones—at 18 people become adults from the point of view of efficiency, and they never can earn better wages than they are earning at 18 in a very large number of cases. If these people receive adults' wages, and in consequence establish a certain standard of life for themselves, the unemployment benefit that is paid to them ought to have regard to that standard of life. But the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals in this Bill is to refuse to allow these people to receive the privileges of adult persons, and to be allowed to pay full contributions and obtain full benefits. There are many unfortunate Clauses in this Bill, but for pettiness I think the establishment of the new class is the worst. I only wish it were possible at this stage to move the right hon. Gentleman to abolish the new class, and to re-establish the system that has been in operation since we have had unemployment insurance in this country, and treat any man and woman of 18, having regard to their position in industry, as an adult person who should be eligible to receive the adult rate of benefit.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and can only find that he has used one argument. He has been arguing that there was no justification for setting up a different class of person from the age
    1620
    of 18 to 21. The chief fact on which he based his argument was that in the industrial world there was little differentiation in regard to wages made between the class of 18 to 20, inclusive, and those from 21 and over. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has taken the trouble to establish the facts. I have taken a good deal of trouble in order to find out the rates which are actually paid. I ask the House to note that this is the principal point on which the hon. Gentleman's case is based. Here are the rates. I will take, first of all, the rates for women, and then I will take the rates for men. It is perfectly true that in the majority of the trade boards the rates for women of 18 and over are equal to those of 21 and over. That applies in 32 out of 39 boards. In seven of the 39, the rates are lower for women from 18 to 20 than for those from 21 upwards.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Are those in the same industry?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No. When it comes to women's trades that are not under a trade board—again I have had the occupations and wages tabulated—those in which there is a recognised difference—there are only two where there is not—number 34. Eighteen of them have a different rate for those from 18 to 20, as compared with 16, in which the rate is the same for the younger class as for the adult class. But the hon. Gentleman based his argument primarily on the case of men. I ask the House to note what is really the case with regard to men. His argument was, that, of course, in the skilled trades there might be a difference, but that, at any rate in the unskilled trades, what he said held good, namely, that at the age of 18 the average man got an adult wage. I will take both the skilled and the unskilled trades. He admitted that so far as the skilled trades were concerned there was a difference in payment between the class 18 to 20 and the adult class. Of course, that is perfectly true. It is true as regards the trades in which there are apprenticeships; 90 per cent. at least of all the young people of 18 to 20 in those trades have a different rate of wages from those of 21 and over. In all the other craft trades, where there is not actual apprenticeship, but an acquisition of craft skill, the same thing holds good, namely, that in the great majority of

    1621
    cases there is a difference of earnings between those from 18 to 21 and those from 21 onwards.
    I will come to his main question last of all and the foundation of his case. He said that he based the whole of his argument on men's rates in unskilled trades. What are the facts? I have taken an analysis of the whole category of trades about which we have information—39 trade board trades and 40 other main trades. Of the 39 trade board trades, there are 38 in which lower rates of wages are paid to males at 18 than at 21; in only one are the rates the same. Of the 40 other trades, there are 36 in which lower rates are paid at 18. There are four in which there is no recognised differentiation betwen rates at ages from 18 to 20 and at ages from 21 and over. The number of trades in which there are specifically the same rates for both ages is nil. I would say this to the hon. Member before he bases another argument on a statement of that kind—neither he nor I have been handworkers in our lives, but at any rate I took particular trouble, after the, allegations that have been made, to find out the real facts.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I attach no importance to numbers of trades; will the right hon. Gentleman give the numbers of workpeople?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have not got the number of workpeople, but I will read him the trades if he wishes. I will first mention the four trades which do not specify whether the wages should be the same or different. They are big trades: coal mining, iron and steel, engineering and dock labour. In those trades it is not specified whether the rate should be either the same or different, but I put it to the practical knowledge of any man engaged in it or having a close practical acquaintance with the coal mining industry that in the skilled occupations, the main occupations, in that industry, it is only a very tiny proportion of men who do the heavier work before they are 21; for instance, only a small proportion who become hewers.
    Mr. WHITELEY: Putters do the same work and get the same wages; and it is heavier work than hewing.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The proportion of those under 21 is not large.
    Mr. WHITELEY: Yes, quite large.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In the iron and steel trade the same thing is true; and if I could take a census of dock labourers I am pretty sure I should find that the proportion of people under 21 doing the heavy work is a small one. Those are the four excepted trades. Now I take the trades in which rates are lower at 18 than at 21: building, civil engineering, light castings, heating engineering, electric cables, lock, latch and key, needle making, wool textile, silk, textile bleaching and dyeing, boot and shoe, gloves, dyeing and dry cleaning, railways, printing, paper making, pottery, brick, chemical, metal, paint, colour and varnish, soap, furniture, flour milling, baking, brewing, cocoa and chocolate, jam making, electricity supply, gas works.
    Mr. HAYDAY: That is wrong—gas is wrong.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have made inquiries. If I have made a mistake I will say so at once.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted whole trades. What he says may operate in certain sections, but not in all sections—not in textiles, for instance.
    Mr. SHAW: May I call attention to the fact that in weaving a piece rate is paid and the operative, whatever his age, gets the piece rate.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As I have said, I was referring to the unskilled portions of those occupations. I am dealing with the statement of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood); it is on the unskilled portions of the trade that he based his case.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I happen to be the secretary of the workers' side of the Joint Industrial Council for Gas and all our agreements for general labourers carry the same rate. It is the job which carries the rate and whoever does that job, whatever his age, gets the rate.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will make inquiries and tell the House, but what I have been saying is the result of the specific inquiries which I asked should be made. If there is a mistake in any one item I shall be perfectly glad

    1623
    to admit it, but the overwhelming case is against the contention of the hon. Member. That is the chief point on which he based his whole case, and the overwhelming proportion of the facts is against him.
    I will take the one or two other arguments which he put forward, dealing first of all with the insufficiency of the rates. He said it was not a maintenance rate. That is a fundamental difference in the point of view of hon. Members on that side of the House and upon this side. On the opposite side of the House hon. Members aim at full maintenance. The rates they have proposed in Committee are only a step towards full maintenance, and I may assume, and perhaps hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong, that in the end full maintenance comes to full wages, too. I do not know whether they would say I was wrong in assuming that their ultimate object is full wage-rates as being the only proper full maintenance, but at any rate what they ask is full maintenance.
    To hon. Members on this side of the House I would point out that it has never been our belief that unemployment benefit should mean full maintenance. We have always said that it should be an exceedingly valuable help to those who are out of work, and are anxious to get work and entitled to get it, in order to tide them over hard times. Full maintenance we have never asserted that it should be. If anyone asks me whether the inadequacy of the rates for juveniles is particularly evident, I would say that it is not. The hon. Member puts the usual sort of conundrum, "If you did not think the 10s. rate was a right one, you have given away the whole case for a rate that is greater." If we applied that argument to his own statements, his 20s. rate would be inadequate, his 25s. rate would be inadequate, he would have to get up to at least full wage-rates, and I fancy that from his point of view those, too, would be inadequate. That type of contention leads no one anywhere.
    I put the original rates in the Bill for this reason. I have an immense respect both for the authority of the Blanesburgh Committee and for the proposals it made, and I put those rates into the Bill because they were the rates pro-
    1624
    posed by the Committee, unanimously; but when I looked into the rates I thought they ought to be graded, that there ought to be a better gradation between the rates for juveniles and the rates for adults. Of my own volition and on my own initiative, and apart from any pressure outside, I put this grade of rates before the House in order that hon. Members might consider them. Let us take the grade of rates for young men to start with—10s., 12s., 14s. Compare the average figure with what was the rate not so long ago for adult men with families. To-day 12s. is worth more than the 15s. was in 1921.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Is it worth the difference in contribution which they have to pay?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am coming to that point. The hon. Member is trying to leap two stiles at once instead of taking one at a time. Let us take the value of the rate of benefit. In those days there were not so many complaints against the rate of adult benefit, at least no one levelled the kind of general stream of modest invective that we hear in the House against these rates to-day.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Modest?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Well, fairly restrained in the present circumstances. Possibly with continued repetition the violence goes out of it. The average rate for a young man to-day, which is being so much criticised, is greater in value than the rate for a full adult in 1921.
    Mr. STEPHEN: When the Minister says there was no great general criticism or invective in those days about the rates, is he aware that there were special Labour party conferences called in consequence of the inadequacy of those rates, and that the invective was greater?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At any rate it was not so vocal in this House. I will take only one further particular in stance and that is the case singled out as one of hardship by the hon. Member who has just spoken, the hard case of the young man who has a wife or mother to support. I would point out that the hardship of this particular type of case, where a young man may have a mother to support, has not been put forward previously

    1625
    from any part of the House. I considered that case myself and tried to put myself in the position of a young man who might have a mother to support, and I am meeting that case by an Amendment which will come on later. That is the most reasonable case which could be put forward. The number of such cases is small, however. As I say, I thought over these rates carefully and tried to put myself in the position of a young man with such responsibilities, and I thought that here was a real hard case and I have met it with an Amendment.
    I pass from that to the rates of contribution about which the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) has asked me. He says the rates of contribution are unfair. We are told that because benefit has been graded, rising from 10s. to 12s. and i4s. in the case of a young man, with similar grading for a young woman, that therefore contributions ought to be graded too. I do not think that follows for a moment. While I introduced the same contributions as were recommended by the Blanesburgh Committee, just as I introduced the benefits they recommended, I have increased the benefits but I have not asked for any increase in contributions. I have charged the increased expense to the comparatively small balance of income over expenditure which is calculated to exist under the system which is proposed. To make a graded rate of contributions would in fact be perfectly impossible if it were to be tried. It would be difficult to increase the number of different stamps for different classes. I inquired and found that it was possible to introduce a third grade, but to introduce two additional grades as well at intervals of a year would be impracticable.
    Mr. HAYDAY: The alternative is to make the benefits uniform.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member would prefer to have a uniform 12s. now rather than a graded rate of benefit?
    Mr. HAYDAY: Oh, no, 17s.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As soon as the hon. Member is challenged we see what he says. Let me see what his real meaning is.
    Mr. HAYDAY: It is quite clear. I do not want to be misrepresented. All the
    1626
    time we have been opposed to the new classes. That is our contention.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perfectly true, but, supposing there is a new class, I say to the hon. Member "Would you like to have the new class simplified or would you like to have the benefit graded at 10s." 12s., 14s.?"
    Mr. HAYDAY: Fourteen shillings, if we have to have it.
    5.0 p.m.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member has been asked whether he would like to have the average of 12s. or the grade 10s., 12s., 14s., and, smiling, he has put the question by each time. I take it, given that answer, that he would grade it within these limitations just as we have done. On the other hand are the contributions too high? I take the average for young men, 12s. I take the adult benefit under this scheme of 17s. If I were to have the proportionate contribution paid by the employer for a young man, it would be nearly 6d. He is paying a penny more. I say at once, that, broadly speaking, in any system of this kind, it is perfectly right that a rather larger proportion should be paid by persons at the earlier ages. To use the argument that we cannot expect that the present scheme will be enforced when the young man of 18 to-day becomes the older man of 55 is not—I do not like to use a worse adjective—worthy of the hon. Member who brought it forward. Everyone knows, when schemes of this kind are instituted, that you must take people in a group especially in cases where there is less unemployment at an earlier stage in life, when a slightly larger proportionate contribution should be paid. Those are the merits both of the new Clause and of the benefits and of the contributions. I repeat again finally before we pass from this stage of the Bill that I certainly think that the preponderating opinion in the country which was in a good position to judge was in favour of the establishment of this new class. I was received with cries of dissent from Members on the opposite side who said that it was only certain selected chairmen of local committees. I say it was not so. There were provincial gatherings of the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the Local Employment Committees, many of whom were far from being Con-

    1627
    servative in their opinion, and in the vast majority of cases these chairmen and vice-chairmen had had meetings of their whole committees beforehand in order to consult them. It was after those consultations that they gave the preponderating opinion that this class should be etablished. The case has been perfectly clearly made out, and I have every confidence in asking the House to vote in favour of it.
    Mr. SHAW: We have had rather remarkable arguments. We have, on the one hand, been lectured on the virtues of a common-sense business-like insurance scheme, and we have had it explained to us, on the other hand, how easy it is to have a scheme which will insist on the same contribution and pay three different kinds of benefit. We cannot square the two arguments. The arguments with regard to this being built on sound and well-accepted business insurance are amazing. As a matter of fact, it is built upside down. I know of no insurance system in the world that says to the young, "You must pay a bigger price for your insurance than the old." It is the only system in the world that says, "If you are young and you are a good life, you must pay a higher price, because some day you will get old." It does not matter a row of pins to me what is the ordinary business of insurance. I want some system of proportion used even by those who argue against us. As I have said before, the arguments on this insurance system have been upside down and contrary to every system of insurance of which I have ever heard. All insurance of which I have heard, whether it be employment accident insurance, fire insurance or life insurance, is built on the principle that the less risk you have the less the premium you have to pay. I know of no private institution which is different. I am going to leave that and come to the point as to whether a graduated scale of benefits is good.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the right hon. Gentleman has challenged me, will he, before he passes from this, state clearly that in what he says is the system of insurance there is not a greater proportionate payment by young people in health insurance as compared with the risk of ill health?
    Mr. SHAW: I said quite plainly that there was no private business system of insurance built on the lines about which the Minister has spoken.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Then the right hon. Gentleman admits this case?
    Mr. SHAW: Quite plainly, I do not admit anything. The Minister may take it for granted that when I want to admit a thing I shall do so for myself and that I shall not let him do it for me. The Minister has not faced this fact. He has argued that the Blanesburgh Committee state that stages of benefits were permissible, but he has never argued that what he proposes is a fair thing for the people who are going to receive benefit. He has never tried to prove that 8s. for a girl up to the age of 19 is a reasonable sum to offer under circumstances which are inevitable, namely, that that girl is not likely to have savings upon which she can depend. Under the most modest condition of living, if you live on oatmeal and water, and if you pay for the smallest and cheapest room in the world, if you keep yourself clean, if you keep boots on your feet, you cannot make double that sum keep you alive. Where is the rest to come from? That is a question the Minister has never answered. Neither the Blanesburgh Committee nor all the talk about insurance schemes can solve the problem until that question is answered.
    Take the young man of 18 years and 6 months. You are going to give him a sum of 10s. Why an ordinary healthy young man can almost wear 10s. off his boots in the course of a week. Does anybody suggest that any young man in this country living in the plainest possible way, if he lives decently, can live on less than 25s. a week? Where is the other 15s. to come from while he is unemployed? What is he going to do? Do you want our young men to grow up with a burden of debt on their shoulders which will take a lifetime to shake off? Do you wonder that some of us feel keenly on this point? I was a working man myself. I had a burden of debt on my shoulders, not through any crime that I had committed, but because I contracted rheumatic fever through walking about in boots that no one ought to have been obliged to wear. I know what it means to work for years and years in order to work off an enormous deadweight of debt.

    1629
    Are you going to build on the shoulders of our young population these mountains of debt that will take them years and years, in times of good trade, to work off? Will the Minister or any Member of this Government explain, when talking about full maintenance rights, how they expect these differences between what it costs to live in the meanest possible way and the benefits which are being provided to be made up? That is the problem which I put to myself. I can see several answers to the question, all of which, I say frankly, fill me with dismay. I can see no reasonable answer that will give me a feeling of satisfaction. If I could see a way in which this problem could be met without doing irremedial harm to our young people I should feel easier in my mind. I ask the Minister to devote his attention, not so much to precedents and to talking about scientific insurance, not so much to the general principles, but to the hard concrete fact that in 1927 a young man or a young woman cannot keep clean and decent and live in the meanest way on which he proposes. There is such a gap between what he proposes and what is needed that it must be filled by someone else. Who is that someone else to be? Is it to be the parents who themselves are badly off? Is it to be filled in ways that are questionable? That is the problem as it presents itself to me.
    There is another thing that presents itself to me. It is the absolute inability to see through the same spectacles as the Government. I have asked myself sometimes: Is it that my views are so twisted that I cannot recognise what the other person's point of view is, or is it that perhaps something escapes my mind altogether which to them is quite clear? I look upon this question—and this question of the girls affects us in my native county of Lancashire, I think, as much as anyone in the country—from the point of view of the people I know so well and love so dearly. They are genuine, decent, straightforward people possessing desires similar to those of hon. Members on the opposite benches, possessing the desires that all of us have. All of us have a desire for good things. We have a desire for good clothes. We all have desires, more or less, for good books. All of us like amusements and all of us like a reasonable chance of a brighter life. But this Bill is based on trying to crush every bit
    1630
    of brightness out of the life of every unemployed worker or working woman. The young people are treated as if they were dogs. "Get it where you can. What responsibility is it of ours to see that you have maintenance. We wash our hands of responsibility. We do not believe in it. We never have believed in it, and we hope that it never will be the case." I cannot understand the position. I said that in my opinion the first duty of the House is to see that no decent person in this country willing to produce shall go without a sufficiency of food and clothing. This Clause will not give it, and because it will not give it we shall go into the Lobby and vote against it.
    Mr. TINKER: There is a considerable conflict of opinion between hon. Members on the opposite side of the House and ourselves on this question. Take the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams). His argument was that the reason why these benefits should be reduced in respect of persons between 18 and 21 was because these people would not attempt to get work if they received adequate benefit from the Employment Exchanges. If that argument prevails in the Tory party, it is quite a different point of view from that which we hold. We think that every man and woman, given equal opportunities, will give of his or her best and not try to dodge responsibility. I would appeal to hon. Members on the opposite side of the House to remember the time when they were between 18 and 21 years of age and ask themselves the question: Did they resort to that kind of thing? I know the answer will be that they did not. If that is so, why not give the same amount of confidence to the other people belonging to our class who are between those ages? People who attain the age of 18 should be treated as having attained the standard of adults, because their needs are equal to the full grown man and woman. It is upon those lines that we claim that whatever benefit is paid to the adults should also be paid to the boys and girls between 18 and 21. That is our point of view, and I put it to the Minister of Labour that even he has admitted that the amount of benefit under this Bill which goes to an adult is not one that can keep a man decently. Having admitted that, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to cut down the benefit in the case of young people between

    1631
    18 and 21, and he is proposing to do this with the full knowledge that the amount being paid to adults is inadequate.
    There is another point which I wish to raise, and it is in regard to a pledge which has been given to all insured persons. Previous Governments have admitted that insured persons over the age of 18 are entitled to full status, and that whatever benefits are paid to them must be the full benefit for those ages. The Government are now departing from that principle, and it is not fair to the men and women who have passed the age of 18 to have their benefits cut down. If the benefits have to be reduced, at least let us keep our pledges to the people who have already passed the age of 18. I placed an Amendment on the Paper providing that the limit should be further extended. I notice that the Minister of Labour has provided in the Fourth Schedule that the benefits shall operate as from July, 1928. I would like to put a question on that point. Seeing that the Measure comes into operation in April, 1928, what is the reason why the right hon. Gentleman has extended it for a further three months to people between 18 and 21 years of age? Is it because times are so bad that he desires to allow a little time for these people to recoup themselves?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton)): The reason why the date is put forward to July is that that is the end of the insurance year. There is no other reason whatever except that this change should come into operation at the beginning of the insurance year.
    Mr. TINKER: Then I stand corrected. My view was that it was being done to allow these people a little more time to recover. I would like the Minister of Labour to consider the case of families that are impoverished for the moment. In those cases there is no chance of the young people who are out of work getting any additional help in their own homes. We had a Debate yesterday upon the state of affairs in the mining industry, and it was proved that in many mining areas whole families were out of work. In those cases, there is no chance of getting any help for members of such families who are thrown out of work. If the idea of this proposal is that the
    1632
    burden of reduced benefits can be borne by families as a whole, then I say that there are many families who cannot bear such a burden. What chance have those who are out of employment to live in decency on the rates allowed under this Bill? I contend that in a matter like this the same benefit which is given to adults should be extended to all those cases between 18 and 21. That is our appeal. We contend that Clause 2 and Clause 4 hang together and ought to be modified. The contributions should be the same in both cases. I hope the Minister will agree to our point of view.
    Mr. E. BROWN: It appears to me that this Clause does away with one of the most powerful arguments from the Departmental point of view in regard to the Bill as a whole. The one thing to be gained by the Bill as a whole is that it will simplify administration very greatly, and that will be an immense gain. On the other hand, in my opinion, the introduction of a new class into this Bill seems to go a long way in the direction of nullifying the simplicity of administration gained by Clause 1 and Clause 5. When we consider what is happening with the Schedule, and the making of this new class, it seems to me that the administrative complications are going to be very great indeed.
    In the administration of the benefits, the adults have to go to one counter, and those between 18 and 21 years of age go to another counter. When you are paying 2,500, 3,500, and sometimes 4,000 applicants in one morning, any hon. Member who has watched the process will know that those behind the counter have to work with extreme rapidity in order to get through the number of cases which have been put down to receive their benefit on one particular day. There is no doubt that the graduated scale of benefits which has been adopted against public opinion and against the recommendation of the Blanesburgh Committee will place a great strain upon the counter work of those who have to administer this Measure.
    I think the arguments of the hon. Member for Beading (Mr. FT. Williams) were rather more thinly spun than usual. There is one point I wish to take up in the speech of the hon. Member for Beading. He used the argument that since these young people are young and

    1633
    the risk of unemployment is less, they ought to receive lower benefits new in order that they may receive higher benefits when they reach 21 years of age, and later on in life. That argument might be applied to young men, but it certainly does not apply to young women. I think the most unjust thing in this Bill is that in the case of a young woman between 18 and 21 years of age you demand a higher contribution, and at the same time you give her a rate of benefit which nobody can defend either inside or outside of this House.
    It must be remembered that in such a case a young woman will remain in employment for a much shorter period on the average than a young man in the same class, because the ordinary young woman looks forward to being married, and therefore the argument of the hon. Member for Reading does not apply to her. I think it is entirely wrong to separate the young women from the adults of their own sex. Whatever force there may be in that argument as applied to young men, they get less between 18 and 21 in order that they may get more when they are older, that argument cannot apply to young women who, in the normal course of things, will go out of industry in order to take on the vital functions of home-making. After reading the Report of the Blanesburgh Committee, and after listening to the speeches which have been made by the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary in order to find a valid reason which would justify the segregation of this class from the whole mass of insured persons, the conviction has been left on my mind that no adequate case has been made out. If all adults were receiving the same benefit and paying the same contribution, it would have been better to retain the dual rather than the triple scheme.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I think this discussion has been very valuable for certain points that have been brought out. There is this difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. We believe that a person who is unemployed should receive adequate maintenance, while the Minister of Labour and his Friends believe that a person who is unemployed should only receive partial maintenance. I do not think that, in making that statement, I am saying anything contrary to
    1634
    the sense in which it was implied by the right hon. Gentleman. I want to point out that the Minister of Labour steadfastly refuses to follow out his argument to its logical conclusion, and he has not answered a question that has been repeatedly put to him with regard to these young people. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is right that a young person should not receive sufficient to maintain himself or herself? If a young person is destitute and has no friends who are able to give financial or other assistance, how is that young man or young woman to live? I think that before this Bill leaves the House we should have a definite answer from a representative of the Department upon that question. What does the Minister of Labour imagine is going to happen to the young man or young woman under this totally inadequate amount allowed for maintenance? What are young persons to do if they are not going to receive financial assistance elsewhere?
    I would like to mention another point. To-day the discussion has ranged over the general subject. At a previous stage of the discussion I brought forward an Amendment providing that the full rate of benefit should be given to young men or women who are married, and who are between the ages of 18 and 21. I think the Minister of Labour might have been a little more thankful to the Members of my party for putting him in the way of remedying something which he now admits is an unfortunate position. He has taken a great deal of credit to himself for the discovery that there should be a further extension, and that none of us on these benches seemed to have noticed that there was an even stronger case for the young man who did not get married, but was seeking to maintain his mother or had dependants to maintain. I am grateful for the fact that the Minister made this discovery, and that this concession has been made. I believe that it will be of some little help to make this exception, so that between the ages of 18 and 21 these young people at least will receive the full rate of benefit.
    On the general question of the institution of this class, I do not think that the Minister has given sufficient attention to the question whether this Bill is to be a permanent Measure, or only a tide-over till more normal times are reached.

    1635
    Sometimes he has proceeded on the assumption that this is to be the normal provision of our scheme of unemployment insurance, but at other times he has proceeded on the assumption that the present period is an abnormal one. The question whether this is a normal or an abnormal period of unemployment has not been given nearly sufficient attention by the Minister in the discussion of the whole question of the institution of this class. If it be an abnormal period, then evidently, with the reduced benefit, there should have been something additional in the way of preparing and assisting all these young people to find a place in industry in the future. On the other hand, if this is to be taken as a normal period, then it seems to me that the Ministry is not recognising the tremendous problem of this section of young people, who will find it difficult in the future to get employment at all. There has been all this confusion throughout the discussion, and, without wishing to say anything nasty about the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, I must say that both of them have contributed greatly to it. Their own minds have not been clear—
    Mr. BETTERTON: If the hon Member is asking me, may I make it quite clear at once that this is intended to be a permanent scheme.
    Mr. STEPHEN: The Parliamentary Secretary says that it is intended to be a permanent scheme, but in a great deal of the discussion upon it there has been
    the assumption that the time is abnormal, and a great deal of the argument in regard to the institution of this new class has also been governed by the consideration that in the future the number of unemployed people between the ages of 18 and 21 will be very limited, and that, in the circumstances of to-day, we are face to face with a very different problem. However, I am glad that at last this has been brought out so definitely. I want to stress the distinction between us in dealing with unemployment. We in the Labour party believe in full maintenance for the unemployed; Members on the other side believe that there should be not full, but inadequate maintenance for the unemployed—that somehow or other the unemployed must find other reserves besides what the State can arrange to give them through an unemployment insurance scheme. I hope that Members on the opposite side will make that plain to all the unemployed people in their Divisions and to the public generally, because I am confident that, if it is made plain, when an opportunity presents itself a great many people, who have supported this Government under the misrepresentations of the past as to what the Government were going to do for the unemployed, will not support them in the future. I would also say that I am glad that this one little concession has been made in this Clause.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'who' in line 15, stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 126.

    Division No. 452.]

    AYES.

    [5.36 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Buchan, John

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Atkinson, C.

    Burman, J. B.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Balniel, Lord

    Burton, Colonel H. W

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Drewe, C.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. C.)

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

    Berry, Sir George

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Bethel, A.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Betterton. Henry B.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Fermoy, Lord

    Blundell, F. N.

    Christie, J. A.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Cope, Major William

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Remnant, Sir James

    Gates, Percy

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Looker, Herbert William

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Salmon, Major I.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Lumley, L. R.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Grace, John

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Macintyre, Ian

    Sandon, Lord

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    McLean, Major A.

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Hanbury, C.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Skelton, A. N.

    Harland, A.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Tasker, R. Inigo

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Hilton, Cecil

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Oakley, T.

    Wells, S. R.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Iliffe Sir Edward M.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Inskip. Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Pilditch. Sir Philip

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Preston, William

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Radford, E. A.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Raine, Sir Walter

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Lamb, J. O.

    Ramsden, E.

    Major Sir George Hennessy and

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Forrest, W.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Lowth, T.

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Lunn, William

    Ammon, Charles George

    Gillett, George M.

    Mackinder, W.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Gosling, Harry

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Baker, Walter

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Barnes, A.

    Greenall, T.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Batey, Joseph

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    March, S.

    Broad, F. A.

    Groves, T.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Montague, Frederick

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)

    Morris, R. H.

    Buchanan, G.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Cape, Thomas

    Hardie, George D.

    Murnin, H.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Naylor, T. E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Oliver, George Harold

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Owen, Major G.

    Compton, Joseph

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Palin, John Henry

    Connolly, M.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Paling, W.

    Cove, W. G.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Dalton, Hugh

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Potts, John S.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Dennison, R.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Riley, Ben

    Duncan, C.

    Kennedy, T.

    Ritson, J.

    Dunnico, H.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W. R., Elland)

    Edge, Sir William

    Kirkwood, D.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Lansbury, George

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    1638

    1639

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Westwood, J.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Snell, Harry

    Varley, Frank B.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Viant, S. P.

    Windsor, Walter

    Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Wright, W.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Strauss, E. A.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

    Whiteley.

    Mr. STEPHEN: In view of the fact that the Amendment standing in my name—in page 1, line 16, after the word "years" to insert the words "and are unmarried,"—is covered by a later Amendment which the Minister has put down to Clause 4, and which includes my Amendment and a little more besides, I do not propose to move my Amendment.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Rates of unemployment benefit.)
    Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, to leave out Sub-section (1).
    Under the ruling given by Mr. Speaker, it was understood that this Amendment and the following one, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder)—in page 2, line 26, to leave out the words "commencement of this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "fourth day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine,'—were to be moved formally.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'commencement,' in line 26, stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 125.

    Division No. 453.]

    AYES.

    [5.46 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Cope, Major William

    Hanbury, C.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Harland, A.

    Atkinson, C.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Balniel, Lord

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Berry, Sir George

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Bethel, A.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Drewe, C.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Blundell, F. N.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Ellis, R. G.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C R. I

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N)

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Burman, J. B.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Gates, Percy

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Campbell, E. T.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Cautley, Sir-Henry S.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Grace, John

    Lamb, J. O.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Christie, J. A.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Guinness. Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Penny, Frederick George

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Preston, William

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    McLean, Major A.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Ramsden, E.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Wells, S. R.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Salmon, Major I.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Sandon, Lord

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Oakley, T.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Major Sir George Hennessy and

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Mr. F. C. Thomson.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Hardie, George D.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hayday, Arthur

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hayes, John Henry

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Baker, Walter

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Barnes, A.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Batey, Joseph

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Broad, F. A.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Snell, Harry

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hudson, J. H. Huddersfield

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Buchanan, G.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Cape, Thomas

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kennedy, T.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Strauss, E. A.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Compton, Joseph

    Lansbury, George

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Connolly, M.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Cove, W. G.

    Lowth, T.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lunn, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Mackinder, W.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon C. P.

    Dalton, Hugh

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Varley, Frank B.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Viant, S. P.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Dennison, R.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Duncan, C.

    March, S.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dunnico, H.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Edge, Sir William

    Montague, Frederick

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Morris, R. H.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Westwood, J.

    Forrest, W.

    Murnin, H.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Gillett, George M.

    Owen, Major G.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Gosling, Harry

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Paling, W.

    Windsor, Walter

    Greenall, T.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wright, W.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Potts, John S.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Groves, T.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grundy, T. W.

    Riley, Ben

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Ritson, J.

    Mr. MACKINDER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, to leave out the words
    1642
    "commencement of this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "fourth

    1643
    day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine."
    Mr. R. YOUNG: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 128.

    Division No. 454.]

    AYES.

    [5.54 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Gates, Percy

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Atkinson, C.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Balniel, Lord

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Grace, John

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'ld.)

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Berry, Sir George

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Oakley, T.

    Bethel, A.

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hanbury, C.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Penny, Frederick George

    Blundell, F. N.

    Harland, A.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Preston, William

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

    Ramsden, E.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Burman, J. B.

    Hills. Major John Waller

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Hopkins. J. W. W.

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Sandon, Lord

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Christie, J. A.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.).

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Locker- Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Lumley, L. R.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Drewe, C.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Ellis, R. G.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

    McLean, Major A.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Wells, S. R.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Fremantle. Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Major Sir George Hennessy and

    Womersley, W. J.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Major Cope.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Rose, Frank H.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Hayes, John Henry

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Baker, Walter

    Hirst, G. H.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Barnes, A.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Batey, Joseph

    Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Broad, F. A.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Snell, Harry

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

    Buchanan, G.

    Kennedy, T.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Cape, Thomas

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lansbury, George

    Strauss, E. A.

    Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

    Lawson, John James

    Sutton, J. E.

    Compton, Joseph

    Lindley, F. W.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Connolly, M.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Cove, W. G.

    Lowth, T.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lunn, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Mackinder, W.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Dalton, Hugh

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Varley, Frank B.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Viant, S. P.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Dennison, R.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Duncan, C.

    March, S.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dunnico, H.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Edge, Sir William

    Montague, Frederick

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Evans Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Morris, R. H.

    Welsh. J. C.

    Forrest, W.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Westwood, J

    Gardner, J. P.

    Murnin, H.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Naylor, T. E.

    Whiteley, W.

    Gillett, George M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Gosling, Harry

    Owen, Major G.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Greenall, T.

    Paling, W.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Windsor, Walter

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Potts, John S.

    Wright, W.

    Groves, T.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Riley, Ben

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Ritson, J.

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles

    Hardie, George D.

    Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

    Edwards.

    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, after the word "that," to insert the words:

    "(a) young men and young women who are in receipt of an increase of benefit in respect of dependants; and

    (b)."

    This Amendment has to be taken together with the consequential Amendment—in page 2, line 33, after the word "women," to insert the words" (whether in receipt of such an increase or not)."
    The effect of the Amendment is to allow adult rates of benefit in respect of those young men or young women who have a dependant. A proposal was made in Committee that young men or young women should be allowed the adult rate of benefit if they were married. Any proposal of that kind seems to me to be too limited in one respect and too wide in another. So far as these rates are
    1646
    approved at all there is no real justification for extending them where a young man out of work is married and has a wife who is in work. On the other hand, they are too narrow in one respect, because probably the case of real hardship, as I have indicated earlier this afternoon, is where there may be a young man who has a mother dependent on him. If I may repeat in very few words what I said earlier this afternoon, I was trying to think what would be the case of a young man or a young woman under this Bill where it could be said that a great deal of hardship might result, and it seemed to me that a case of real hardship was where there was a young man who had dependants, and particularly, shall we say, an aged mother. In the case of a young man with dependants, probably it is not so much a case of the cost of the dependant as

    1647
    that his own personal expenses in these circumstances tend to go up, because he might naturally be expected to have a house of his own. For these reasons I have put down this Amendment, so that in a case where a man has a dependant in respect of whom he draws benefit, he should be allowed himself to receive benefit on his own account at the adult rate.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made:
    In page 2, line 33, after the word "women," insert the words "(whether in receipt of such an increase or not)."—[Sir A. Steel-Maitland.]
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, leave out paragraph (c).
    This question was discussed in the Committee stage, and we now move the omission of paragraph (c) not with the idea of bringing out any real differences of opinion but in order to get a little further explanation of the meaning of the Clause. The purpose of paragraph (c) is to alter the definition of "a dependent child." The Act of 1922, when this Amendment has been incorporated, will read as follows:
    "The expression 'a dependent child' means a child under the age of 14 years who is maintained wholly or mainly by the person entitled to benefit."
    At present it reads:
    "wholly or mainly at the cost of the person entitled to benefit."
    I understand that the purpose in making this proposed alteration in the Act of 1922 is to guard against those cases where a father claims dependants' benefit in respect of a child towards whose maintenance he makes no contribution whatever. If the Clause is intended only to meet that sort of case we should support it, because there is no case for allowing benefit in respect of "a dependent child" where the parent has really never fulfilled his own responsibilities. A case was raised in the previous discussion regarding children who might be in institutions, Poor Law institutions or other institutions, where the parent might be making what those who are responsible for those institutions thought a reasonable contribution, but which did not, as a matter of fact, mean "wholly or mainly maintaining the
    1648
    child." He might be maintaining it to the limits of his capacity as determined by the authorities of the institution who had care of the child. If that be so, then I should hope that the Clause would cover such a case. There might be a hard case where for one reason or another a crippled child is in an institution and the father is not maintaining it except partially, not "wholly or mainly." If those cases are covered we have no exception to take to the Clause, but I am a little doubtful whether there may not be real cases of hardship arising where parents who are contributing towards the maintenance of a child in an institution up to the limit of their ability to pay might be deprived of dependant's benefit, although they would in fact, really me maintaining the child.
    Mr. DUNCAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am advised that that case is actually covered. The object of the Amendment is merely to confine the right to the 2s. for the child to cases where the claimant for benefit is, in fact, spending the money on the child. There is no need to take up the time of the House in explaining how this wrong phraseology has crept in. It is merely a case of wrong phraseology. I am advised that supposing a child is in a Poor Law institution and that the father contributes toward its maintenance a sum of 2s. or in excess of 2s., the case is covered and he will be able to claim in respect of it. This is only intended to meet cases where there is no payment towards a child's maintenance or no payment of as much as 2s. towards it.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I should like to pursue the point a little further, because a case has been put to me by a constituent as to the possible application of this provision in an adverse manner. It was pointed out to me that owing to housing difficulties and the father being unemployed and there being no mother, a man might go in search of work and might not be able to provide a full home for the children, and one or more of the children under 14 years of age might be taken care of by someone. The Act at present says "at the cost of." Such a case would be covered so long as the man himself provides for their cost. It is now proposed to insert the words "main-

    1649
    tained by." Does it mean, in that case, that the child must actually be in residence with the parent? The right hon. Gentleman will understand the anxiety of people outside this House on this subject, where there is a housing difficulty, a man goes to seek work, there is no mother and he gets someone to look after the children while he is searching for work. The children are being maintained at his cost, because he sends on the money, but under the Amendment as a result of the insertion of the words "maintained by," must the children be actually in residence with him?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I do not think the hon. Member need be under any misapprehension in regard to that. If a man goes away in search of work and he is paying for his child who is in care of someone else, he is clearly maintaining it, and, therefore, the difficulty which the hon. Member has in mind is one about which he need have no fear. If he is actually paying for the child he will be covered.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I correct a misapprehension which may occur in the amount which should be paid? I find that it is 5s. he will have to pay in order to be regarded as maintaining.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: I should like to put one question. Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that if a person has a child in an institution for which he is paying 1s. 6d. per week, on the present assessment, he will be deprived of the 2s. in respect of the child; or does it mean the difference between 1s. 6d. and 2s.?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would say this with reserve—no lawyer can speak entirely without his book—that in that case he would not be entitled to the 2s.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Amendment as to statutory conditions for receipt of benefit.)
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 4, line 6, to leave out the word "thirty," and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty."
    This subject has been fairly well debated already, and there is no question on which the House of Commons is
    1650
    so unanimous. I was not present in the Committee when it was being discussed—certain circumstances led to my absence—but I have read the debates in the OFFICIAL REPORT and I find that the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson), the hon. Member for White-haven (Mr. R. Hudson) and other hon. Members joined in asking for a reduction of the 30 stamps to 20. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) asked for a reduction to 15, the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) asked for five, and the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) asked for 20. The Labour party argued that this. qualification should go altogether. The point I want to make is, that from the hon. Member for North Battersea to hon. Members opposite there was common agreement that the 30 stamps' qualification was too severe, and in the circumstances ought to be reduced. I must make it clear that the Labour party does not support a 20 stamps' qualification. In the evidence submitted by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood), they definitely said that they were not in favour of a stamp qualification.
    But we have to take the Bill as it is, and the House of Commons as it is, and while we have endeavoured to get unemployment as the only test for benefit, while we think that it is the duty of the State to maintain a man if he is unable to find employment, and hope with another Government in power to put it into practice, we have to face the realities of the present position and do not ask that this view should be accepted by the present Government. We have tried to effect a. compromise between the view of the hon. Member for Leith and the view of hon. Members opposite, who ask for 20 stamps. I am sure the hon. Member for Leith will agree that while 20 stamps would not solve our problem, it would go far to mitigate the hardships which would be imposed by this Bill. What is the reason for this 30 stamps' qualification? The only reason is the recommendation of the Blanesburgh Committee and, I have no doubt, the Minister will try to find refuge there. It is true the Blanesburgh Committee recommended that there should be some form of qualification and that 30 stamps

    1651
    came as near a qualification period as any other figure. But there is no reason for 30 stamps, or for 40 stamps; there is no reason for 20 or for 10. It is said that we ought to have some figure; and by a process of reasoning unknown to me the 30 stamps' qualification has been put in. To enforce this qualification will undoubtedly impose great hardship on people, and should be resisted.
    There are two or three points which I am anxious to make. The first is that if this Bill is carried in its present form you will throw an undue burden on local rating authorities. In the White Paper which the Minister issued he states that he expects that only 30,000 persons will be thrown on the Poor Law as a result of these provisions. I cannot find out where he gets his figures. I have heard hon. Members, Liberal, Tory, and Labour, argue that if this qualification operates, hundreds, if not thousands, will be added to the Poor Law in their own constituency, and if we take the cumulative opinion expressed in this House I should say that the figure is much nearer 100,000 than 30,000. But whether it he 30,000 or 100,000, the Minister, so far, has not produced any convincing evidence to show that the number will be 30,000, and I consider that 100,000 is as likely to be correct as his figure. Let me take it at 30,000. Where will they be situated? The worst feature is that these 30,000 will not occur in the towns in the Midlands of England, which have been fairly prosperous for the past two years; they will not have to carry much of this burden. In fact, the whole 30,000 will be cast on two or three very bad areas, who at the present time cannot afford to bear any further burden. The comparatively rich areas will be able to shirk this responsibility and fling it on to areas like Wales and Durham, and parts of Scotland which are already groaning under their present burdens.
    It is indefensible from another point of view. As far as we are concerned, we consider that there ought to be one test only; and that should be whether a person is capable of work, whether he has been offered a job, and whether he has refused it. If a man can prove that he is capable of work, that he is willing and anxious to work, ready to take any job that is offered, then we submit he
    1652
    ought to get benefit. If this qualification of 30 stamps is retained, it means that men who have been out of work for two years, who are as anxious and as keen as possible to get work, will not get benefit. They are men of good character, unexcelled by anybody. Their search for work may have been diligent and over far distances, but that does not matter. The only thing that matters to the Minister of Labour is not their diligence in searching for work, not their anxiety for work, but whether they have this 30 stamps qualification. That is not a satisfactory position.
    We have also to consider how far the present Poor Law figures will be affected. I have obtained figures from the Secretary of State for Scotland for my own local parish council of Govan, and I find that in 1924, when the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) held office, they spent on able-bodied unemployed relief, roughly speaking, £1,600 per week. A month ago, under the present Minister, it had risen to £5,500 per week. What is the reason for that? The reason is this, that the Minister has been casting men, who have been looking for work and who could not fulfil the qualification, on to the Poor Law. In this district shipbuilding and engineering are the staple industries. I know men who have searched for work morning, noon and night. Their characters will bear the strictest investigation, and they are out of work because of circumstances over which they have no control. Consider what has been happening in the shipbuilding industry—and I think this is quite to the point. Ships, built for steam purposes, are being largely displaced by oil-carrying vessels, and the old boiler makers, who used to make boilers for steam engines, are not needed now. They have become a thing of the past: This new mechanical invention has turned out these highly skilled and energetic men and displaced them by another kind of worker altogether. Many establishments on the Clyde have closed down one after the other, and these men have not worked for years. Nobody has suggested that they have not looked for work, or are not very keen to get it. They will take anything that comes along, sweep the streets, or take up labour of any menial task whatever, and then along comes this Govern-

    1653
    ment, with this 30 stamps qualification, and these men are automatically cut out.
    There is another case I want to put; it has not yet arisen, but it will. I refer to the town of Greenock, where shipbuilding and sugar refining are the staple industries. By the operation of the sugar subsidy, the Government have turned the town of Greenock from a fairly prosperous community into a derelict place, and if this new Clause operates it is estimated that within a few months the refining industry will be closed down entirely. What is to happen then, unless these men have seven months work in two years, which, when you add holidays, means close on eight months in two years? These men cannot qualify for benefit at all. The Minister ought to be reasonable in the matter. We think that the 30 stamps qualification is too heavy. Take the case of the miners. Yesterday every Member who spoke, including the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), stated that there were from 100,000 to 200,000 men who could never hope to get work again in the mining industry. What is to happen to them? Here are men searching for work, willing to be transferred from Durham to Nottingham or from Lancashire to Scotland or anywhere at all, but they cannot get work. Yet they are to be told that unless they get seven months' work in two years the country cannot do anything for them and they must become a burden on the local rates. That situation is terrible. To be chargeable to the local rates is bad enough, but I fear that they will not become even chargeable to the rates. What I fear is that the operations of the Minister of Health and Secretary of State for Scotland will mean that circulars, each one harsher than its predecessors, will come along and deprive these men even of Poor Law relief.
    It is a situation on which the Minister ought to meet us. We are not asking for the abolition of the stamp qualification. We know that this is a Tory House of Commons and that it does not accept our views, but we say, "Let us have a qualifying period, but try to make it as easy as possible and not too severe on the applicants for work." We think 20 stamps should be enough. In reality the Bill demands 33 weeks' work. A man starts work in Glasgow shortly after the
    1654
    new year. He cannot work seven months without entering at least two weeks of holiday time in that period. Suppose that a man started work now in Glasgow. He could not qualify without having at least a week at the new year, for which he would not have his card stamped, and another fortnight at the end of June or the beginning of July. In the seven months he would have, therefore, at least three weeks to add to the 30, which means that he would have to work 33 weeks in order to qualify. It is a terribly harsh proposal. The provision about "not genuinely seeking work" was in all conscience harsh enough, but here you have an arbitrary and harsher test. We think of the effect on the Poor Law authorities, but I am: more concerned with the terrible consequences to poor men who have helped make this country and its prosperity. It is a criminal thing to those who have helped to make the nation rich that the nation should turn its back on them. If the Minister cannot meet us in all that we have asked, I hope he will at least accept this extremely moderate Amendment.
    Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The last speaker referred to the mining industry, and I want merely to emphasise the point that he raised. The Debate of yesterday proved conclusively that large numbers of miners have been thrown out of employment through no fault of their own. When that fact is admitted on all sides it is unfair to penalise these men by saying that unless they can show 30 stamps on their cards, they are to be deprived of benefit. It means that the men will have no chance whatever of benefit, that 200,000 or more will be destitute, and that the poor rate will have to bear the burden. I appeal to the Minister on that one point alone, that for the time being and until the mining industry has been put once more on a proper footing or until this surplus labour has been placed somewhere else, this 30 stamps qualification should be abolished. At a time like this it is entirely unfair to impose this qualification on those in the mining areas. Coming as I do from the mine fields, I know the distress with which the miners are afflicted. One would think that when the facts were admitted the Minister would at least say, "Well, all right; for

    1655
    this period and until times are normal I shall not enforce the stamp qualification." Then later on, perhaps in two or three years, when trade has improved, the qualification might be established again.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I do not desire to elaborate further the arguments I used for a lower rate of contributions when the Bill was in Committee, but I want to say one or two other things. It appears to me that the discussion between the Minister and those of us who desire lower contributions is really a, discussion between those who have hopes and those who have fears. I am generally on© of those who are accused of nursing excessive hopes, but in this case I am on the side of those who have fears. I want to say straight away that I am in favour of 15 or 20 rather than 30 stamps. I hop© it may be true that the Minister is right and that we are wrong, but at the moment I am one the side of fear. We are told that an optimist is a man whose face goes one way and a pessimist a man whose face goes another way. The Minister's mind goes all ways. To enforce this statutory contribution of 30 stamps inside two years at the present juncture, when conditions are abnormal, is to undercut the whole principle of unemployment insurance. Contributory unemployment insurance was introduced for one purpose only, namely, to rid the homes of our working people of the haunting sense of insecurity which was there before they were insured.
    It sems to me that the effect of this arbitrary rule, at a time when there are 1,126,000 unemployed and when the only answer we have is that the Minister has hopes and that we have fears, is to bisect the insured persons into the secure and the insecure. We desire to have a lower rate of contributions because we desire to have fewer insecure and more secure employed persons. The matter can be stated in three ways. Those who get the 30 contributions in two years will be secure; men who get the normal rate of employment in a normal time will be sure of benefit. It will be a statutory right and to them it will be a great gain to know that as long as they have any ordinary chances of achieving the 30 contributions they are to be secure and not at the caprice of some Department or
    1656
    Committee, but that it is their statutory right. But consider the other classes, those who are not now able to secure 30 stamps in the two years, and that other class on the border line. Consider the position of the man who has 29, 28, 27, 26 or even 25 stamps on his card. You have given him a paper right. He is within five or four stamps or even one stamp of that paper right, but because he lacks one stamp you cut a clean line between him and the man who has 30 stamps. You drive him into the ranks of the insecure.
    You therefore undercut the very design of unemployment insurance. He is driven into the ranks of the insecure and the very thing for which unemployment insurance was designed, to lift the haunting dread of insecurity from the homes of the people, is rendered null and void. On the other hand, if the Minister's hopes are realised and we return to a normal rate of unemployment, even six per cent., then of course the range of persons driven into the ranks of the insecure will be smaller than the present number. Personally I desire the qualification to be 15 stamps. After a great deal of thought I have come to the conclusion that that is a fair test to apply. This stamp qualification is not now a guide as it was before. It is now a test, the basic test. Except in regard to finance, the Minister has kept the letter of the Blanesburgh Committee's recommendation, but in doing it he has defied the whole spirit of the recommendation, for the recommendation was that the permanent scheme should not operate until there was a normal cycle of trade and unemployment had dropped to six per cent., which would be 720,000 unemployed instead of 1,126,000.
    The right hon. Gentleman keeps the letter of the recommendation. He is the fundamentalist of modern days. He keeps the letter and denies the spirit of his own Report. He and I differ about it, but that is my assertion. He brings in this Bill but he knows perfectly well that the Report was not designed for an abnormal time like the present. Those who represent distressed areas are much concerned about this proposal. We think it is bad economics. Whether the Minister's figure of 56,000, or the "Times" figure of 156,000, or the actuary's suggestion of 200,000 is the correct one, large numbers of men will be thrown on the rates which, in our

    1657
    judgment, is the worse possible place for them. We think that is the worst form of economics that could be undertaken in a Bill of this kind. To put on the rates the burden which will be occasioned by these men being unable to qualify for benefit, is to allocate the responsibility of maintaining the unemployed in a most unjust, and an unwise and uneconomic manner. Rates are an addition to costs, whereas taxation merely comes out of profits. Therefore, the burden will be laid on industry just at the point where industry is least able to bear it and an unfair charge placed on the industrial areas. Since the whole nation benefits from our industries, why should industrial districts which have been hard hit for so long, have to bear the heavy weight resulting from this regulation? I think the Minister ought to meet us in some degree. It is a great humiliation to decent. hard-working men who have made contributions while they were in employment, that they should be driven to the Poor Law. Even at this late stage, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that there is reason behind our fears and, if he cannot concede us the 15 figure or the 20 figure, that he will at least agree to a figure of 25 and make it easier for men to stay in the insurance field and in the realm of security, instead of being driven into the ranks of the insecure.
    Mr. HAYDAY: At this stage, one cannot go into the principles of contributory and non-contributory schemes. The tragedy which lies behind this Bill and the imposition of the 30 stamps' qualification, cannot be passed over lightly and cannot be dealt with by mere assumptions of figures. We must remember that we are dealing with human lives, many of which have become more or less derelict in the struggles of the last seven years. Certainly the present is the worst possible time at which to introduce a Bill containing a statutory condition of this kind. We know that it was found necessary previously to waive a stamp qualification and that, at the moment, eight, 12 or 20 stamps are sufficient to ensure benefit under the Minister's discretion. The Minister's discretion was imposed because it was felt that the circumstances surrounding employment were so precarious that large bodies of men and women would not be able to satisfy com-
    1658
    pletely the statutory stamp conditions. The present proposal to impose a 30 stamps' condition is too harsh for words. The Minister in the White Paper assumes that at the commencement of 1930 there will be 56,000 unable to meet the qualifications and he argues that out of that 56,000 persons, many will be in receipt of pensions under the Old Age Pensions and Contributory Pensions schemes. That, he argues will bring the number down to 30,000. I have already made the statement that when the test was taken in April, 1927, covering the two years previous, if the 30 stamps' contribution had been put into operation and proportional percentages applied to the two months' file—then, even by the Minister's own method of approach, there would have been 138,000 persons unable to satisfy the 30 stamps' qualification. All the rest is assumption.
    It is assumed that there will be prosperous times in the near future; that, before the full force of this Measure is felt, there will be a revival in trade and that between now and April 1930, there will be sufficient time for all those unfortunates who have no stamps to their credit now, to secure the qualification. That is speculating in futures on too serious a scale. It is speculating with the lives of people who have been long unemployed. The Minister said that it would be possible if the 30 stamps represented the last 30 weeks of a two-year period for a person—subject to the fulfilment of all the other qualifications—to draw benefit for a period of about 78 weeks. That is one extreme case. I put a case at the other extreme. Supposing a person can show 30 stamps and passes the test. If four or five of those stamps relate to the first quarter of the two years preceding the claim, that person cannot draw benefit for a period longer than three months. So that under this statutory condition you may have two unemployed persons applying for benefit. Both have 30 stamps to their credit, but the stamps have been secured at different periods in each case. The one who has 30 stamps, representing the last period of the two years, can get 78 weeks—taking the most favourable circumstances. The other with his 30 stamps, equal in value to the stamps of the first man, but some of them relating to the first quarter of the two-year period, can only draw 13 weeks benefit. Therefore,

    1659
    he ceases to draw benefit with 28 stamps still remaining to his credit, after drawing 13 weeks benefit, while the other man can draw 78 weeks and clear off the whole value of his stamps.
    It is true that these are extreme cases, but I ask: Will the great bulk of people be able to supply the 30 stamps and bring themselves within the period that will entitle them to draw benefit? That is the doubt. The Minister has expressed confidence, but his figures are all based on assumptions. The only way you can rectify the position with such a qualification is by transferring the 1,100,000 persons now out of work into the places of 1,100,000 persons who are in work. The latter will have their 30 stamps each and, when they have exhausted the 30 stamps, let them change over again. I do not see any other way of dealing with it. Whatever the figure may be, whether 200,000 or 150,000 or 138,000 or, even at the most favourable, 30,000, surely its magnitude is sufficient to warrant us giving serious thought to the consequences. If trade improves, as we all hope it will—because we can all be optimists to that extent—would not the Minister then feel more content and his Government more satisfied in the knowledge that at this stage they had passed a Measure which inflicted the minimum of injury and pain on a valuable section of the community who require sustenance and help in this crisis? Between now and the time when the full force of the Measure is felt, during this transitional stage, I hope the Minister will try to make it as easy as possible for the honest and genuine workman to secure benefit.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: I wonder if it is too late to ask the Minister to respond, not to the arguments put for this side of the House but to the appeals which have been made from his own side of the House, and to grant some modification of this Clause? I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman realises that what he is now committing us to means not less but more unemployment. Even on his own showing, at least 30,000 are to be thrown out by the operation of the 30 stamps condition. I wish to emphasise what was said by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that hon. Members on the Conservative side, including the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson), have given vital reasons for a
    1660
    modification of this proposal. I have been considering what it will mean in the case of Newcastle-on-Tyne. There, we have 4,000 who have contributed under the insurance scheme and who are now thrown off the fund. Taking the figure of 4,000 and the present unemployment figure at a round million, I calculate that, on the showing of the right hon. Gentleman himself, we are going to get another 120 cases to be dealt with under the Poor Law. If the right hon. Gentleman's figures are not correct and if the figures of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) are correct—or if we take a figure between the two, such as that given by the hon. Member for Sunderland of about 100,000 which is perhaps as nearly correct as any—it means 400 to 500 more cases upon the rates of Newcastle-on-Tyne. I have already reminded the right hon. Gentleman that able-bodied relief is now costing us £225,000 a year, equivalent to a 1s. 8d. rate, for men who were on the Unemployment Fund and are now on the rates. The added number which will arise from the operation of the 30 stamps qualification means another 3d. on the rates. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and the hon. Member for Gorbals have emphasised what this means.
    7.0 p.m.
    Every business man knows what a penny of the rates means. I was talking to one of our ship repairers the other day, and he showed me an estimate for a £l,200 job—not a considerable job, but a considerable one for them—which they had lost, all over a £10 note. Any Member who has any experience of the heavy industries knows that orders are going abroad all over a question of two or three hundred pounds, and that a penny off the rates might mean bringing these orders here. Now we have the proposal of the Minister that in April, 1929, he is going to put another 30,000 or—what is a more probable figure—138,000 more people on to the rates in our industrial areas—not the residential areas, but the areas represented by the hon. Members for Leith, Sunderland, West Nottingham, Gorbals, myself and others. These are areas which are bearing unduly high rates, and it is the duty of every one of us to protest, on whichever side of the House we sit, against this further imposition upon the local rates.
    The right hon. Gentleman himself is receiving from all over the country protests against this unequal distribution of the burden of unemployment. He has given us certain modifications on different Clauses of the Bill, and we appreciate that. He has been amenable to arguments put forward and to some of our appeals, and I would ask him at this late hour to look equally into this matter to see whether he cannot respond when an appeal is earnestly made to him from his own side to reduce the stamp qualification to 24 stamps, and we ask in this Amendment that it shall be reduced to 20 stamps. I believe it would make a very considerable difference indeed as far as the throwing of further men on to the Poor Law is concerned. I add my voice at this late stage to the appeals made that he should, even on the Report stage of the Bill, give further thought to this matter.
    Mr. DUNCAN: I should like to say a word or two on this particular matter. Having had at least 30 years' experience in administering unemployment benefit, I think what I say should have some little weight, although I am very doubtful it it will. The Minister of Labour seems to me to show a cast-iron mind in this matter. There is very little bending in the direction that we desire. I could quite understand a 30-stamp qualification if it were coupled with something else. To me, it seems a one-eyed, lop-sided arrangement that will not stand the slightest examination in any circumstances. What I would suggest is this: The Minister has been asked to consider this matter. Whether he will or not I do not know, and, judging by his past attitude, I do not think it matters very much. But if 30 stamps were combined with the percentage of unemployment existing at the time, and varied up and down according to that percentage, then there would be some sense in it. As it is, with a single factor deciding as to whether a man shall be a free man or pauper, it seems to me a one-eyed, cast-iron sort of arrangement. I believe it will bring very great hardship indeed to tens of thousands of people. It does not matter very much what the numbers are.
    Everybody in this House knows that this Bill is not a Bill dealing with unemployment but to manufacture paupers. There is no getting away from that. I
    1662
    have had some little experience of it, and particularly of men who have been working in Government establishments for years. Everybody knows that a great efforts has been made not only in this country but in all countries to cut down armaments and the rest of it, and there has been ruthless slaughter of men who have worked the greater part of their lives in Government establishments. Take places like Rosyth and Pembroke Dock. What is the use of suggesting that men who have been employed there have the slightest possible chance of getting 30 stamps in two years? We all know that these places are practically devoid of employment. Nobody in this House will deny that the effort of the Government is in the right direction in cutting down expenditure for military and naval purposes, but is it fair that the whole weight and burden of this cutting down should mean the slaughtering and breaking of men's lives?
    I am speaking with some little feeling because I have had some of this business. I remember one period of six months' unemployment, and I can assure the House that many times the question of suicide crossed my mind. I am not at all surprised that in the times through which we are going many men have committed suicide, and if this proposal goes into the Bill there will be an increase in the number of people committing suicide, because they can stand the pressure no longer. I have had some little experience. In my own union we do not say 30 stamps in two years; we say eight weeks in one year, which is 16 weeks in two years. Some of the hardest cases we have had to turn down have been men who have worked for a number of years in Government employ. They have worked at a peculiar industry, which is not what one would call a competitive industry. They are fit for one particular operation, and it is almost an impossibility for these men to fit themselves into any industry in this country. It may be by the kindness of somebody they get chucked in here and there, but it is a tragedy to look round and see the men displaced at Woolwich Arsenal, Pembroke Dock, Rosyth and Enfield Lock—men on whom this country depended in the War to turn out the munitions, guns and rifles which enabled this country to win the War. There are some very sore hearts among these people.

    1663
    Besides making paupers by this Bill, you are going to make some people take an infinitely keener interest in politics than they ever did before, and when the vote of these people comes to be cast at the next General Election, it certainly will not be for the Conservative candidates.
    I do not know whether it is worth while appealing to the Minister. It seems to me, from my experience in this House, a waste of time to appeal. This one-eyed, cast-iron condition is one which you can neither bend nor break, and the human element is cast on one side absolutely. No consideration of a human character is given to the men who are trying to do their best. Nobody can say they are not trying to get work. We all know that the work is not there to be got. It is no use burking that fact. To put this condition to them simply means you are going to drive people to the Poor Law—a thing which every man with any sense ought to seek to do everything to prevent. It has always been considered in this country that there was a taint of disgrace about pauperism, but now, when we are driving tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands in that direction, the taint is being broken down and people are compelled, willy-nilly, whether they like it or not, if they are going to exist, to live on the amount they can extract from the board of guardians to keep life in their bodies. I do hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter. I suggest to him very earnestly and seriously that 30 stamps is a brutal thing and an inhuman thing. If it were based on a percentage of unemployment as well, then it might work, and at least work with some sense of justice to the people who pay these contributions to the Unemployment Fund.
    Let me say in conclusion, that if this Unemployment Fund were a voluntary fund, I do not believe that one workman in 100,000 would contribute to it. This House has got these people in its grip, and they cannot escape contributing to the fund unless they get out of the country. The whole thing has been arranged by the uncontrolled, autocratic power of this House. It is administered under the control of a small body of people—the State pays the least, and the people who pay the most have nothing to do with the administration. It is totally undemocratic; it is autocratic in
    1664
    the highest degree and we think there should be some elasticity in the system, and that the human element should be considered.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I should like to add a word or two to what has been said already from these benches with regard to this question of 30 stamps. My hon. Friend the Member for East Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Connolly) related what was likely to be the experience of towns like Newcastle, and one can readily admit that the condition, bad as it is, is bound to be intensified by the passing of this Bill, particularly with regard to the specific Clause under discussion. If that be the case in the large industrial centres where there is a diversity of employment, what is to be the case in the large districts where employment is practically of a unitary character, and where unemployment is of a most intense description? The constituency I have the honour to represent is at the present time carrying rates of 30s. 7d. in the £l, and there are thousands of unemployed men. When this Bill becomes law, there are thousands of those men who will not be able to find one stamp to their cards, never mind 30. It is no use talking about an extension of time, for an extension is of no value whatever.
    Last night, we had a description of the curtailment of the markets of the world, particularly in regard to coal, and hon. Members can understand that under the conditions at the present moment you could give an extension of two and three years, and even then it might be impossible, and probably would be for men to find 30 stamps upon their cards. What is to be the position of towns like Merthyr Tydvil which, though a small town, has a debt already of £500,000, and to which the Minister of Health refuses further loans because of the town's indebtedness? It is a town where a penny rate merely brings in £1,000. Cities like Manchester or Glasgow or Liverpool could possibly bear this burden far better than small places like Merthyr Tydvil can. In Manchester, a penny brings in £26,000, and in Glasgow probably a like amount, and probably it is the same in Liverpool or Birmingham. But in places where a penny brings in £1,000, and where there is a terrible burden of unemployment, men are bound, because of their inability to comply with the Clause now under discussion, to be thrown on

    1665
    to the Poor Law guardians. Therefore, a large amount of money must be raised on a very small rateable value where a penny merely brings in a small amount of money, and it means increasing disproportionately the debt of the poorer districts as compared with the richer districts. Under this Bill the poorer districts are being victimised, and badly hit—far worse than the larger towns.
    What is to be the effect on industry? In my own constituency it is not only mining which is badly hit. There is a large steel works where for practically five or six years the works have been closed down, and work has been of a particularly intermittent character. There has been a month or two of work, and then the thing has closed down again under conditions of this description. Those works, turning out steel rails, a huge thing that belongs to the Quest, Keen, and Nettlefold group, must be badly affected by the high rates that are bound to be caused, and if the rates do not go higher, they cannot possibly come lower. That is the difficulty, but under this Bill there is no chance of any rate reduction. I do not know whether it is any good appealing to the Minister, but I cannot understand why this Bill contains so many punitive Clauses. If the Bill were directed against towns and communities of an alien race that had been handed over to us by a treaty following a war, they could not have been treated much worse than our towns and communities are being treated under this Bill.
    This punitive method of legislation is of the most appalling character, and the local authorities of my constituency view with exceeding alarm the passing of this Bill. They have urged me to do all I can to oppose it. They need not have done so, as I would have opposed it without any urging, but they have sent resolutions asking many of us to oppose the Bill by all means in our power because of the terrible burden that it will entail upon them in the near future. If any words of mine could add to the very eloquent appeals that have been made from these benches, I would use them, but I can use no stronger words than have been used. This Clause is one of the biggest detriments to the recovery of trade in a good many areas that could possibly be imagined. We get from the benches opposite time and time again
    1666
    disquisitions upon the extravagance of Labour majorities and talk about spendthrift councils and guardians. Will the Minister tell us what the boards of guardians must do? The old idea has gone, and even Conservative boards of guardians now shrink from what this Bill means, because they know they have gone as far as humanity will allow them to go in curtailing relief, but a further curtailment will be necessitated under this Bill if the Minister of Health still continues his intransigent attitude. I hope the Minister of Labour will yet see his way to do something to remedy the terms of this Clause.
    Mr. BETTERTON: In this discussion hon. Members opposite have, with great feeling, put before the House the situation as they see it and as they think it will affect their constituencies. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wallhead) and others who have preceded him have regarded this proposal with regard to the 30 contributions as being punitive, arbitrary, unconscionable, and unfair, and as designed quite unjustly to punish a large number of innocent people. As a matter of fact, this proposal is nothing of the kind. It is an attempt, and a necessary attempt, to safeguard the other contributors to a contributory insurance scheme. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) gave an illustration, of which no doubt there may be more than one instance, of a man who failed to satisfy the 15 or 30 stamps rule, and he said that it was very hard, if he had only 14 or 29 stamps, that he should be cut out. Of course it is, but that applies to any rule. He himself suggested, I think, 15 in the two years or seven in one year, but exactly the same sort of hard case would arise whatever test you had. What the House has to decide is whether this scheme is to have within it the necessary safeguards which any insurance scheme must have, or whether the House wishes that the scheme should be little other than a pension fund and the recipients of it mere drawers of pensions.
    Mr. E. BROWN: Surely the hon. Member is over-stating the case. If his White Paper, on his own showing, only means 30,000 difference, surely the difference between a pension scheme and an insurance scheme is narrowed down to a very

    1667
    narrow limit. The hon. Member is not entitled to have it both ways, and if his White Paper only shows 30,000, the narrowing of the stamps will narrow the 30,000 to a very small figure indeed.
    Mr. BETTERTON: That was not quite my point, but the hon. Member also cannot have it both ways. I repeat that what this House has to decide is whether it wants a pension scheme or an insurance scheme; and, therefore, the whole question is not whether you shall have a test, but only if the test which we propose is or is not a proper and a fair test. The hon. Member says it is not, and the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, in both a fair and an impressive speech, if I may say so, intimated that in his view the 30 contributions test was too high, and he asked where the Blanesburgh Committee got the idea of 30 contributions from. As it happens—I do not know how far they were moved by this—they had a precedent for the requirement of 30 contributions before them when they made their recommendation, because, as the House will recollect, the 30 contributions, subject, I agree, to a very limited power of waiver, was the exact number inserted in the Act of 1924. I am not so much concerned at the moment with the fact that the 30 contributions were in that Act as with The reasons given by the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) for inserting the 30 contributions in the Act of 1924. He said, on the Committee stage, in regard to the 30 contributions:
    "That is my guarantee that the person drawing the benefits is a genuine unemployed person who has proved in a certain period, by a certain amount of work, that he is the genuine person whom I assume him to be, and whom I desire him to be for the drawing of benefit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 19th June, 1924; col. 1827.]
    Those were the reasons why the right hon. Gentleman inserted this requirement in 1924, and they are very much the reasons which are given by the Blanesburgh Committee for inserting the 30 contributions in the present scheme. Using very much the same language as the right hon. Gentleman, they say, on page 41 of their Report, that the scheme
    "must never degenerate into a so-called 'dole' or become a mere pension fund. From this fate it must be saved."
    1668
    They say further down on the same page:
    "Thus at the worst our proposals could not shut out many, and they would only be those who had failed to obtain work in an average of 15 weeks out of 52. It will be conceded that in the generality of cases persons with so poor a record of employment could scarcely claim still to be in the insured field; that there is grave doubt as to the genuineness of their search for work; and that the exclusion of such individuals is only fair to the general body of insured contributors."
    I confess that it seems to me that if you are to have an insurance scheme with any test at all of the amount of contributions, it is not a very high test to say that a man must prove 30 contributions within the last two years. One hon. Member opposite said, quite truly, that there are places in England and Wales and Scotland—and he mentioned Pembroke and Rosyth—which had been very badly hit through a changed national policy, where dockyards had been closed down, or where there had been a great diminution in the number of men employed, so that locally the effects had been very severe. The answer to that is that, sorry as we may be for these people, an insurance scheme is not a scheme on which they can expect to be, in fairness to the other contributors, pensioners for any prolonged period.
    The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) raised this rather technical point, and I hope he will forgive me if I have not understood it aright. He said that it may be that in certain cases where the 30 contributions come immediately before the claim, the claimant will get 78 weeks, but that you may have cases where he will get a much shorter period of benefit, because the contributions have been spread out during a much longer period before he makes his claim. The answer is that, if the contributions have been spread out in the way that he visualised in the second case, the inference is that during that time the man has been drawing benefit while he has been out of work, and, therefore, naturally he had not got those contributions to his credit to enable him to draw benefit for a much longer period.
    Mr. HAYDAY: The same would happen in the case of the man whose 30 stamps came late; just before he got his stamps he would be out of work. If these 30 were the last in two years, and

    1669
    the other man's the first in two years, they would both be out of work an equal number of weeks in those two years.
    Mr. BETTERTON: Except that where the man was out of work prior to the beginning of the period the presumption is that he was getting benefit during those weeks, but this much is clear, that where a man has the 30 contributions behind him at the moment he makes his claim, that would frank him for a period of 78 weeks.
    Mr. HARDIE: In that case, if the applicant has 30 stamps when he makes application in November, four of those stamps were made in the first quarter of the two years immediately preceding, and he cannot have 78 weeks, because his review takes place in the first quarter of his benefit, and that quarter is added on to the two years. If he is working, his stamps then represent 26 and not 30, and he automatically comes out.
    Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Member is perfectly correct. There is just this other point I want to mention, for I do not think sufficient stress has been placed upon it. The hon. Member for Leith and the hon. Member for Claycross (Mr. Duncan) both used much the same language. They said that this proposal ought to be coupled with something else. It is coupled with something else. It is coupled with the transitional period, for under the Clauses relating to the transitional period the man may have up to two years before the scheme comes into operation at all, and, if he is out of work now, and draws the benefit, he will continue to do so, assuming that he fulfils the conditions, as he is fulfilling them now, for a period which may be as much as two years. That should be, and I am sure it will be, of very great service in helping these particularly hard cases and cases to which hon. Members have referred.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: What about men in my constituency whom I have quoted? Two years' extension is no use at all to them. They have been told that they cannot get jobs, and there is no work for them inside the next two years.
    Mr. BETTERTON: Then we come back to the point with which I was dealing at the beginning of my speech. These men cannot become pensioners on an in-
    1670
    surance scheme. In the words of the Blanesburgh Report, they are not "in the insured field," and you cannot expect them to be borne indefinitely on the scheme.
    Mr. SHAW: I did not want to intervene in this Debate, but, after the last speech, I feel that there is no alternative. The hon. Gentleman has pointed out quite clearly that the Government will be sorry for the men but that they cannot do anything. I ask the right hon. Gentleman specifically: What is he going to do with the 56,000 people who, he admits, will be turned out? Is there any proposal?
    Mr. DUNCAN: They will eat grass.
    Mr. SHAW: The absence of an answer shows that the Government have no proposal at all for dealing with these people, and I am going to try and demonstrate that the figure of 56,000 itself is based on such a wild assumption that it can have no foundation in fact. When I tell the House that the actual live register figures to-day are only, roughly, 45,000 less than they were three years ago, it will be realised that, taking these figures at their face value—and nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a true test—and not making anything of the fact that the figures are not strictly comparable, the Government have succeeded in reducing the unemployment at the rate of 15,000 a year. In this scheme we are taking unemployment at 6 per cent. I have been making a rough calculation, and, without going to more than one decimal point, the result I arrive at is this. With an estimate of 11,700,000 people insured, and with the present unemployment of 1,145,000, there is 9.8 per cent. of unemployment. Six per cent. unemployment means a reduction of over 400,000. Does anybody believe, can anybody credit that the Government, having reduced unemployment by 45,000 in three years, can reduce it a further 400,000 in a limited time? The whole thing is out of perspective, and we really do need an answer to the point that has been repeatedly put—what are you going to do with these people who are thrown out of benefit? Have you any proposals to make? Is there nothing that you suggest that these men can do or are you going to leave them to the tender mercies of the guardians?

    1671
    It is as well that we should know where we are. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman put 30 weeks into his Bill because I did the same in my Bill has, relatively speaking, got nothing to do with the case. What really does matter is that the Government are responsible for this Bill. On their own showing they say that 56,000 people are going to be taken out of benefit when the Bill comes into full operation. I say that on these figures the likelihood is that nearer three times 56,000 will be the number. It says in the Actuary's Report, at the end of the Blanesburgh Report:
    "From certain data supplied by the Ministry of Labour I draw the somewhat general conclusion that the proportion of the total unemployment prevailing in 1924–25 which would have been disqualified from benefit by such a rule would have been about 20 per cent."
    The conditions are pretty much what they were in 1924–25 so far as unemployment is concerned. If the Actuary's statement that on this figure the number of disallowances would have been 20 per cent. of the actual, it means 220,000 and not 56,000. How on earth can we calmly look upon this thing and be satisfied with a mere statement that it is a bad thing if this thing grows, but that we cannot have pensioners on the fund. We really are entitled to a definite statement from the Government as to how, if they are going deliberately to take benefit from these people, they are going to deal with them? Unemployment is a big enough subject on which the Government should have some comprehensive policy, and if they are going to throw people off, where are they going to throw them? If they told us plainly, we should know where we are, but we are told nothing. If we are to be told that this thing is being done for the sake of the other workmen who are working and for their protection we reply that this is monstrous. It is a monstrous thing to suggest that the workmen who are in work would consent for a moment to the punishment of their fellows who are out of work. It is not true, and the Government ought to know that it is not true. There is no more generous man in the world than the worker, and there is no man who would go to more sacrifice to help his fellows than the ordinary workman; and it is misleading the House—I am trying to use the word which is least
    1672
    offensive—it is misleading, not deliberately perhaps, to give the House the impression that the workmen are being protected against those who have been unemployed for a long time.
    In three years, the position has been, getting worse, and the 1924–25 figures on which the Actuary based his 20 per cent. are better from this point of view than the present position. Even now, when the basic industries, that were suffering from a great degree of unemployment in 1924, have had another three years, instead of 20 per cent. the proportion is probably higher. Really, the Minister ought to tell us frankly whether that is all the Government has to say. Do they say it is an act of God that these people will go off, and that it is unfortunate, but that there is nothing else to be done? If that be all that the Government can do, we had better give up arguing. The whole scheme is based on a callous disregard of the circumstances now existing, and the story that the Minister in 1924 did this, that, and the other is absolutely beside the mark. What the Minister in 1924 did was this. He tried to form a genuine scheme under which every genuine unemployed worker would get benefit. If it would help the right hon. Gentleman, I will read to him what I said to the House, so that the House shall be under no misapprehension as to what I was doing. Here is one passage where I was speaking of the benefit.
    "Consequently, I have decided to raise these figures to as high a level as I thought the House would give me, all the circumstances taken into consideration."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1924; col. 2047, vol. 173.]
    That was frank, and the House knew perfectly well where the Minister in 1924 stood, but what does it matter where I stood then? What really matters is, what you are going to do with these people? Is nothing going to be done? When you talk of the Blanesburgh Report, one of the principal statements in that Report is that unremitting effort should be made by the Government to reduce unemployment. Have you carried that out? If so, let us know what you have done, for we certainly cannot see any effects. We shall vote against this Clause, and unquestionably we shall fight against it to the bitter end. I hope that the time will soon come when an unemployed workman will

    1673
    be treated as well as a criminal and a pauper. At present he is not, and it is time that a change was made.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has had the whole matter explained to him in Committee, but it seems to have made no impression on his mind. He quotes the Actuary's Report with regard to unemployment in 1924–25, and he compares that figure with the unemployment now, and makes a calculation which is not correct. If you take the people unemployed in 1924–25, you have to consider what happened to their cards during the period beginning some time in 1922, and you have to consider the unemployment prevailing in 1922–23 in order to get the condition of the cards in 1924–25. The figures for the present United Kingdom were only available from April, 1923. At that date there were 1,778,000 on the live register, in January, 1924, there were 1,571,000 people on the register. You have to consider the unemployment problem in the period which is two years prior to the period of which the right hon. Gentleman was speaking; the condition of the cards reflects the period of two years ago. In exactly the same way, what we have now to consider is what the cards will show on 19th April, 1929, covering the two years back from that date, and not the condition of the cards as they are now, covering the whole period of the coal stoppage, when the coalminers themselves had no stamps on their cards for seven months and when many other people in the heavy industries were also unemployed. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman and other speakers not to judge the cards as they are now but consider what the cards will reveal 18 months hence.
    Mr. LAWSON: There is one thing to be said about to-day's Debate on the 30 contributions' rule, and that is that I do not before remember ever hearing a back bencher on the Government side defend the proposal. Those who have spoken from the Government Benches have in the main spoken very forcibly against the 30 contributions' proposal. The one exception is the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), who always comes to us with statistics and elaborate arguments composed to his own satisfaction in order to justify this principle. There is at least this to be
    1674
    said for the credit of the Conservative Members, that as far as I know there has only been one defender—I put it plainly, one time server—of this particular proposal. I do not think the Blanesburgh Committee ever thought that trade and industry would remain in the position they are in at the present time, but whatever they may have thought, whatever calculations the Minister may make, whatever the hon. Member for Reading may attempt to prove to suit his own economic theories, the fact is that we know there are masses of men who cannot fulfil the condition we are laying down as to 30 stamps.
    I am not indulging in what is called sob-stuff when I tell the House of a young man living within two miles of my own home. In this case he was receiving unemployment benefit, but he was so tired of it all, wanting work, that he threw himself into a pond and was drowned—committed suicide. That was a fortnight ago, and only a month before that a middle-aged man who had had his benefit stopped went straight to a reservoir and threw himself in. Our people are tired to death of the present state of things, in which they cannot get work. There has been no disposition to take into account that section of the Blanesburgh Report which says very definitely that unemployment schemes ought to be put in hand in an active and business-like way, so that the people may have an opportunity of working. The Government know that men will not be able to get unemployment benefit through being unable to comply with the condition as to 30 stamps; in fact, I fear they could not comply with the condition if, as we suggest, the number were reduced to 20, although that would give them a slightly better chance. The men know they cannot get relief, and all that remains to them is either to get out of the country or to starve; and, indeed, it is not so easy even to get out of the country.
    I know nothing more true than what was said by the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw). There has seldom been a more callous and brutal Government in power in this country. They know quite well that this proposal means death and starvation to a great mass of people. One would be inclined to think that hon. Members opposite would personally not do this, but they certainly are supporting a policy which is a policy

    1675
    of starving men, of increasing hours, of lowering wages, of carrying out the good old Tory policy, in spite of Disraelian professions, of letting the workers who are unemployed, letting good men and good women, intelligent men and intelligent women, those who have given their best to this country—letting them starve regardless of the results to themselves individually or to this country. Perhaps it is too late to make any appeal to the conscience or to the hearts of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have agreed, more often than not in silence, to support the Government in this brutal policy,
    and I hope the time will come when at last it will recoil on their heads. To me this is no mere matter of party. It is not a matter of gaining votes, it is a matter of getting some real, human consideration for people who certainly deserve better of this country. I am sure that time will punish both this Government and this country for acts of the kind we have in the 30 contributions' rule.
    Question put, "That the word 'thirty' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 122.

    Division No. 455.]

    AYES.

    [7.33 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Fermoy, Lord

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    McLean, Major A.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Ganzoni Sir John

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Bennett, A. J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Malone. Major P. B.

    Berry, Sir George

    Grace, John

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Bethel, A.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Waiter E.

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hanbury, C.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Harland, A.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Burman, J. B.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Oakley, T.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford Luton)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Cadogan, Major Hon, Edward

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Pitcher, G.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hills, Major John Walter

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Preston, William

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Holt, Captain H. P

    Ramsden, E.

    Cope, Major William

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Hopkinson, A (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Remer, J. R.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Rice, sir Frederick

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Drewe, C.

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    King, Commodore Henry Dougla

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D Mel. (Renfrew, W)

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lamb, J. O.

    Shepperson, E W.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wells, S. R.

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Major Sir Harry Barnston and Mr.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    F. C. Thomson.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Ritson, J.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Hardie, George D.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Harris, Percy A.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Baker, Walter

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Barnes, A.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Sexton, James

    Batey, Joseph

    Hayes, John Henry

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Henderson, Rt. Hon, A. (Burnley)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Broad, F. A.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sitch, Charles, H.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhither

    Buchanan, G.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Cape, Thomas

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Cluse, W. S.

    John. William (Rhondda, West)

    Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Compton, Joseph

    Kennedy, T.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Connolly, M.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Cove, W. G.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Strauss, E. A.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lansbury, George

    Sutton, J. E.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Lawson, John James

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lindley, F. W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Dennison, R.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Duncan, C.

    Lowth, T.

    Viant, S. P.

    Dunnico, H.

    Lunn, William

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Edge, Sir William

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Mackinder, W.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Forrest, W.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Westwood, J.

    Gardner, J. P.

    March, S.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Montague, Frederick

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Gillett, George M.

    Morris, R. H.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Gosling, Harry

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Murnin, H.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Windsor, Walter

    Greenall, T.

    Owen, Major G.

    Wright, W.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Palin, John Henry

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Paling, W.

    Groves, T

    Potts, John S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grundy, T. W.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. White-

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Riley, Benley.

    Mr. WALLHEAD: I beg to move, in page 4, line 11, to leave out paragraph (b).
    The words of the original Act read as follow:
    "Provided that a person shall not be deemed to have failed to fulfil the statutory conditions by reason only that he has declined an offer of employment in the district where he was last ordinarily employed at a rate of wage lower or on conditions less favourable than those which he originally obtained' in his usual employment in that district or would have obtained had he continued to be so employed."
    The Government Amendment to that Section will take away a guarantee, which the workman now has, that he cannot be employed or compelled to accept work on
    1678
    worse conditions than now obtain for him. At the present time he is protected, and the Government propose to take his protection away. He will be compelled, I take it, under this Clause, to accept any work that is offered him in any district; and the character of the work will not enter into it in any degree whatever. There was a great deal of discussion about this matter when the Bill was in Committee. One of the main objections that I should take to this Clause would be that it would, to a very large extent, destroy the pride of craft. The average man, the skilled workman, does not care to be driven to a job in which his touch will be destroyed and his skill rendered to a large extent nugatory. During the

    1679
    discussion in Committee, the case of the engineer was quoted. One can readily understand that an unemployed engineer, a man used to working to the thousandth part of an inch, may very easily lose some degree of skill by being compelled to accept conditions of labour which will destroy that sense of touch which has developed over a long period of years. Men who are doing finer work even than that may be compelled under this Clause to accept other jobs. There is the scientific instrument maker, the jeweller, who does exceedingly delicate work, and, I suppose, there are men in the textile trade as well. I speak as a craftsman myself, and I say that the sense of touch, developed by familiarity with a certain job, is a very precious thing to a man. A man's pride in his craft is a precious thing, and is something which this House ought to do all that it can to maintain at any cost, especially at a time when industry is being so eaten into by mechanical power and skill. Industry is being cut up and sectionalised, and the skill is almost being taken away from the workman and is coming to reside in machine more than anywhere else. This factor, which enters very largely into the lives of thousands of skilled craftsmen, ought to be preserved by all means in our power.
    I regard it as a big indictment against this particular section of the Bill that it will do something to destroy that pride of craft which we should do all we can to protect. For that reason I am moving the Amendment. The protection which the workman now enjoys should be continued to him, instead of his being driven, as he can be driven, under this Clause, if it be applied, from his own district to a district outside, and compelled to take work which will injure his skill as a workman. That is something to be deplored. I do not wish to argue the intricacies of the case from a legal point of view, but the whole thing at present is exceedingly vague. On the Amendment, the Minister tried to clear up many of the doubts of my hon. Friends sitting on these benches, but I am compelled to admit that, from my point of view, he did not succeed. I wish, now, that he would make perfectly clear the particular point that I am raising. At this time, when this country is being driven more and more to exert all its effort and skill to maintain itself
    1680
    in the markets of the world, we have, in a great many industries, the oldest workmen and craftsmen, who came in with the industrial revolution, and who have been accustomed and trained, and have inherited, almost, a traditional skill. All that is likely to be injured by the policy of this Clause. That is something against which we should safeguard them, instead of doing nothing except to take from the workmen whatever pride they may have left in their work. Thank Heaven, some pride still exists, in spite of all the shoddy work which they are compelled to do, and in spite of the cheapness of production. There is still a pride of craft, and an inherited instinct for doing things decently and well. I know that many workmen rebel at doing cheap and shoddy work; they would rather do the other kind. That was my experience when I was in more intimate touch with them than I am at present. That pride is something that we should very jealously safeguard, and I should like to hear what the Minister of Labour has to say on the subject.
    Mr. OLIVER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I hope that the Minister of Labour will give us some guidance on this particular Clause as to how a workman will be protected under the definition of "after a reasonable interval." Will the recipient of benefit be told beforehand that he is expected now to look to other trades for employment, or will he be expected, as a right, to do that from the moment he becomes in receipt of benefit? That is one point on which it is necessary that a very clear definition should be laid down, because without it I cannot see how a man—say an engineer—drawing benefit can be safeguarded if, on any occasion, he presents himself before the Committee, and is informed that in consequence of, say, his not having looked in the mining areas where he might have obtained work in the engineer's department of a mine, he has neglected his duty. If that possibility be always present, any person drawing benefit will always be at the mercy of the officials of the Employment Exchange in being told that he has neglected his duty to seek an occupation in industries other than the one which it is customary for him to follow. I echo the sentiments which have been expressed

    1681
    by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead). In expecting many of the craftsmen to find work in other industries we shall be penalising, to a very large extent, the prospects of skilled craftsmen being able to resume their normal occupation at the earliest opportunity which presents itself.
    I do not think that the Minister of Labour was present when I spoke on this matter in Committee, and I will repeat, for his express benefit, the effect that will be produced on a highly skilled craftsman in the toolrooms of a skilled industry. If such a man should have the misfortune to be unemployed and should be compelled to take a labourer's job, or to work at brickmaking, or in the stone industry, or should have to do any work consisting almost exclusively of manual labour, then afterwards, immediately he made application to any high-class engineering firm, the very fact that he had been labouring would make it almost impossible for him to be reemployed in that particular industry. In high-class motor car firms, in the machine tool industry, in the scientific instrument-making firms and in jobs of that character, the very fact that the applicant for work has had to accept an inferior position and go to work as a labourer, would penalise him in his prospects of being re-employed in those high-class branches of the engineering industry. Therefore, this particular Clause would penalise him very severely. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will either accept this Amendment or give us some clear definition of how it will be interpreted.
    There is one other point. If a craftsman be compelled to accept a job in another occupation than his own, the effect will be that if, for instance, you make him seek a labourer's job, you will squeeze the labourer out of a job, or you will keep another labourer, who would automatically come into his own, out of that job. In consequence, there would be no net gain to the Minister of Labour by making this craftsman seek work in occupations other than those which he is accustomed to follow.
    Mr. PALIN: I wish to add my plea to those who have asked the Minister to give further consideration to this Amendment. If this paragraph remains in the Bill I am sure it will create a great grievance when it comes to be administered,
    1682
    and it will seriously handicap these people in their future careers. Sometimes we find that a carpenter or a stone mason comes into the transport industry. We find a great number of engineers driving omnibuses and motor lorries, but if you are going to take a warp twister, whose trade requires a delicate touch, and put him to hard manual labour, you are going to unfit him for a long time to come to do the work in which he is skilled. If you are going to take women textile workers and put them to domestic service; if you make skilled men do the work of bricklayers' labourers, you will find great difficulty when orders come in affecting their own trade in carrying on the skilled industries. I think these are a few considerations to which the Minister of Labour has not given careful attention.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the House would prefer that I should intervene at this stage in order to deal with this Amendment. I think the complication which has been referred to was made clear during the discussions in Committee. Since that time I have had prepared and put in the Vote Office a cyclostyle document relating to Clause 5. I asked the Whips of all parties in this House to tell their members who were interested that they could obtain a copy of the two Sections that govern this point in their amended form. We have to take Section 7 of the principal Act as amended, and as amended by paragraph (b) to which this Amendment refers, together with Sub-section (2) at the bottom of the same page as this Clause. I have had both those Clauses put together in this cyclostyle copy in order that hon. Members should have these proposals clearly written out.
    Mr. PALIN: The copy referred to by the right hon. Gentleman has only just come into our hands.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I sent word early to all the Whips' offices that they might tell the members of their parties that these copies could be obtained, and I brought some spare copies which I handed to hon. Members on the benches opposite in order that these points might be made clear. I think it will make matters clearer if I suggest that any hon. Member who is interested should take a pencil and refer to paragraphs (b) and (c) at the bottom

    1683
    of the first cyclostyle page, and note what are the alterations made in paragraph (b). The words which are newly added that affect this question are in the first line of paragraph (b), and they are "in his usual occupation." That is all, and it was just a slip that I did not have those words underlined in the actual typing. The effect of these two Clauses read together is that in his own trade a man will be able to refuse an offer of a job at lower rates than those which, having regard to his own past experience, he would have been entitled to expect. Under the Bill, he can refuse an offer in his own trade at lower rates, but after a reasonable time he may have to take a job in another trade, but then the rates must be the proper rates for the job.
    If hon. Members will compare what is proposed now with the present state of things, they will find that, broadly speaking, it is not a disadvantage, taking everything together, to a man's craft, but really it gives greater protection to the craftsman than the existing law. Taking the whole of the conditions together, they increase that protection. Under the present law different conditions apply to standard benefit and to extended benefit, but under the new system proposed by this Bill there is of course only one kind of statutory benefit right through. Therefore, there has been, as it were, a telescoping of the previous standard and extended benefit conditions. On the whole, there is no question whatsoever that the net result is in favour of the craftsman, and upon that I have no doubt whatever. There is one small restriction which some may think acts to the disadvantage of the craftsman as compared with the present state of affairs. At the present time in his own district, so long as a man is entitled to standard benefit, he can decline any job at a lower rate than that which he might expect having regard to what he was accustomed to receive in his own trade. Under the new Bill, this protection is limited to jobs in his usual occupation.
    That is the only way in which it can be said that the protection is at all restricted. I want hon. Members to realise how small is that restriction. It only applies to a man in the case of a job in his own district and even then he could
    1684
    not always demand the actual full trade union rates if he was himself for any reason or other not getting the full rates before. Supposing a man is a fitter, he is not as good a workman as his fellows, and, consequently, is not getting the full rate of pay. If that man went to another job he could not ask for a fitter's rate but only what he was actually getting before. I know this is a very narrow restriction, but, on the other hand, the man gets this advantage. Under the Bill all unemployed persons without distinction have the express right to stand out for a reasonable period for a job in their usual occupation. Under the present law that is not expressly laid down, but under the Bill it is expressly laid down that all claimants have the right to stand out for employment at their own job.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: May I just intervene—
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member will put his question afterwards, because I want to try to make the matter clear, and, if I break off, I shall only confuse it. It is not expressly laid down in law at the present moment, but the umpire, in interpreting the law, does, in effect, give, to those who are entitled to standard benefit, to a considerable extent the same advantage. That is the effect of the umpire's decisions, but this is the first time it has been laid down expressly in a Statute. The next advantage is really the greater advantage. Under the present law, if a man is on extended benefit, he may have to accept at once any job suited to his capacity, whether in the same occupation or in another occupation, or whether in his own district or in another district. Extended benefit will no longer exist under the Bill, and all claimants without distinction will get the same benefit, and will have the express right to stand out for a reasonable period for a job in their usual occupation.
    Mr. A. GREENWOOD: What is a reasonable period
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am coming to that. Under the old law, while a similar protection was given in case law to those on standard benefit, it was never expressly laid down, and for those

    1685
    on extended benefit it was not given. Now everyone, who is drawing benefit—it will be all of one statutory kind—will have the protection. Frankly, without trying to make a party case at all, or anything of that kind, I think that that is a very great advantage, and for this reason, that, on the whole, the craftsman who has had much recourse to the Act tends in time, and very often after a not long interval to come on to extended benefit. In those trades that have been hard hit, it is very often the case that the craftsman is less able to turn his hand to something else, and, (therefore, is perhaps more likely to come on to extended benefit, so that it is he who really gets the greater protection, which did not exist at all before. For these reasons I say quite explicitly that, if hon. Members will read carefully these paragraphs as I have now had them stencilled out, they will find that a very distinct advantage is conferred upon claimants of benefit.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: May I ask who is to interpret the word "reasonable"?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is the point to which I was coming, and to which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) called my attention a few moments ago. The person who will be the final interpreter, and who will make the case law, will he the umpire. I think confidence may be taken from the fact that, although until now the umpire has had no express direction in any Statute to interpret it in this way, yet, as a matter of fact, he has given similar interpretations in the case of standard benefit. Now, he is to be given the express duty under the Statute of giving a reasonable time. He has done it up to the present, in the case of standard benefit, and now he will have this specific direction to do it, and it will lie with him to interpret the phrase. I can only say, in answer to the particular kind of case mentioned by the hon. Member for West Newcastle (Mr. Palin), that I cannot imagine the umpire taking any other line than considering what has been the man's past record and what his trade is. I am not the umpire—hon. Members may be glad or sorry—but I can say at once what sort of line I myself should take if I were. I cannot imagine the umpire
    1686
    taking any other line, and it is in fact the sort of line that has been taken hitherto. Suppose the case of a man who in his craft has a very definite skill of hand, which roughening his hands in another job would spoil for good. In such a case I should look to the industrial history of the man, and the nature of his craft, and should judge accordingly. On the other hand, if it were the case of a man who had been doing heavy work, and especially if his work had been irregular, I should myself, taking those two circumstances together, have much less hesitation in saying to him that it was reasonable that he should fairly soon find a job in another trade of similar character to his own, where his industrial quality would not be spoilt. If, however, I had to deal with the case of, say, a skilled metal worker, I should think a good many times before I asked him, particularly if he had a good industrial history, to go off and unfit himself for future work in the metal trade. I have put the matter before hon. Members as clearly as I can, and I hope I have done something to explain what is necessarily rather an intricate matter.
    Mr. T. SHAW: The courtesy of the Minister in having this document prepared is fully appreciated on this side, and it shows the necessity—I am not speaking now in a party sense—that in future, if Bills by reference have to be drafted, they should be drafted in such a way as to show the old Clauses side by side with the changes, so that one can see in the Bill itself exactly what it means; and this would also be of advantage from the point of view of the Judges. I hope that in future the House will refuse to consider any Bill by reference which does not contain within itself sufficient material to enable a Member of the House to understand, by reading the Bill, what it means. To turn to the point under discussion, frankly I shall go into the Lobby against it, because I am not even yet satisfied that the man is not going to lose. One thing is certain, and that is that, as things are at present, the man drawing ordinary statutory standard benefit cannot be asked to take a job in his own town, either at his own occupation or at any other occupation, on wages and conditions that are worse than he enjoys as a worker in his own trade. That is an absolute certainty.

    1687
    Paragraph (b), however, lays it down quite definitely that it is only in his own usual occupation that he can refuse a job on conditions worse or wages lower than he previously had in his job. That also is an absolute certainty. In the second case it may be that there is a slight advantage over the conditions that now exist with regard to extended benefit, but in the first case I am quite satisfied that there is a disadvantage. It is possible under this Clause—we will take the case of the engineer again for the purpose of illustration—it is possible for an insurance officer to ask an engineer who has been out of work for a few weeks to take a street sweeper's job at the trade union rate of wages. There is nothing to prevent that, and the only guarantee that the man has against being thrown out of benefit is the position under Sub-section (2, ii), which says:
    "after the lapse of such an interval from the date on which an insured contributor becomes unemployed as, in the circumstances of the case, is reasonable"—
    and so on. The whole question is, is the man, after such period as in the circumstances of the case is reasonable, going to be as well off as he is now? We can only judge from what is taking place throughout the country in the administration of the Act. Let me quote to the Minister a definite case of what an insurance officer did. A man with a wife and seven children was offered a job 30 miles away from home. Everyone knows what the circumstances now are, and what the renter of a house has to pay. This man was offered a job 30 miles away from home, at a wage of 39s. a week—a man with a wife and seven children. Obviously, in the best circumstances that could happen, he would have to remove to this town 30 miles away, if he could get a house. As things are, the almost inevitable thing would be that this man would have had to work 30 miles away and return home weekly. A man with a wife and seven children with 39s. wages, and the case was forced before the Umpire! They were not satisfied with the Court of Referees deciding in favour of the man. How can we take these words, innocent as they are, as being without danger? Frankly I cannot.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think the right hon. Gentleman would make a
    1688
    great mistake because at present, as he says, an engineer on extended benefit can be offered a street sweeper's job at street sweeper's wages, but under this he could not do it. He would have the protection of the Clause unless there had been a reasonable period.
    Mr. SHAW: There will be no extended benefit under this Clause and if the engineer had drawn sufficiently long benefit to be on extended benefit and was then offered a street sweeper's job he would be no worse off than he is under this.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, he would.
    Mr. SHAW: Oh, no; because the only thing the man can refuse is an offer of employment at less wages than those ruling in the district. He could have refused the offer before with every chance of success if the wages for the job were under the trade union rates. If they were at trade union rates he has no protection against that. It does not matter what the job is under this Clause. If the trade union rate of wages is paid he has to go.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Under this Clause he does not have to go for a reasonable time. Under the existing law, if it is extended benefit, he might have to go at once.
    Mr. SHAW: The whole thing then turns on the decision" as to what is a reasonable time. In spite of the fact that I have had the courtesy of this document and I understand perfectly well what the Minister's point is, I think it would be much safer not to leave things to chance. I do not feel that I can leave things to chance as they are at present.
    Mr. POTTS: Unless the Minister makes the provision read "an offer of employment in his usual working place," I shall be bound to oppose it. It will have a serious effect upon the mining industry. The right hon. Gentleman has surface work in his mind. I want him to see how it will be applied underground. If a day wage worker underground changed his occupation at the request of the management, being paid the same rate of wages he is paid to-day, he would be wrong if he did not accept it. If he was offered a position at a shilling a day

    1689
    less, he would be able to stop and he could obtain unemployment pay. Now let me come to piece-work. When we get to normal times—I do not see much prospect of it at the moment but I hope it will not be long—we shall have more than 600,000 actually working piecework. There is a large number in every mine changing places almost every day. A man may be working in a place that finishes to-day. To-morrow he may be sent to work at another place in the same district and may not be able to earn as much by 2s. a day or more. If he refused to work and claimed benefit, the employers could prosecute him and claim damages. They could assess damages at 10s. or 15s. a day or any figure they like. They are getting more than that in many cases. They can notify the Exchange that he has had work offered him and has refused to accept it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take out the word "occupation" and to make it "an offer of employment in his usual working place," which would cover the miner and make no difference to any other trade in the country. I think those words would help to establish our defence in a Law Court if a summons was issued.
    Miss WILKINSON: I think the House is generally agreed that this Clause has a germ in it—something which has to be reasonably considered. Where you have a person who obstinately refuses to take what is quite a suitable employment merely on the ground that it is a different occupation, there would he very few people who would have any sympathy with them. I submit that an obstinate case of that kind is already amply covered by other sections of the Bill. In this particular Clause we are dealing with a very different matter, and I do not think the Minister in his reply has quite considered it from the point of view of the value of status to the worker. It is not only a question of wages and it is not only a question of the kind of work done, but it is a question of the status of the worker, which is of very real importance. You might take a boy or a girl who has left the elementary school and spent years in working at continuation classes in order to qualify for certain skilled branches of the clerical industry. They have a job where they are insured and a job which represents a definite amount of skill and a large amount of preparation. I am speaking
    1690
    of members of my own union, the Union of Distributive Workers, where we make special provision for encouraging young shop assistants and clerks to take classes of all kinds in order to qualify for manager-ship. You may have girls or young men who are definitely in the running for becoming managers or manageresses of shops or heads of departments or heads of offices, and so on. That represents a definite part of their capital. They have sunk a good deal of their small savings in the necessary classes and examinations, and are definitely on the way to reaching a higher status. Then they become unemployed, it may be temporarily or it may be for a longer period. If they are unemployed for a short period the difficulty does not arise, but they may be out of work for six months, not at all an unusual thing, or nine months. What period is the Minister going to consider reasonable? The Employment Exchanges are subject to continual pressure from above in order to turn as many people off benefit as possible.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND indicated dissent.
    Miss WILKINSON: I know that when I put it as crudely as that the Minister naturally shakes his head. I have no doubt whatever that, if it could be left to the Minister of Labour or his kindly Parliamentary Secretary and these matters were dealt with by them personally, the cases might be treated on their merits, but, in fact, whether the Minister likes it or not, great pressure on the Employment Exchanges is to reduce the number of people who are getting benefit. It does not seem to be possible to explain what is going on in any other way. If you like it better, let me say that the pressure is to induce the people to take; any kind of job. Let me give particulars of a case which occurred in connection with my own union. It was the case of a woman in a drapery department. She was a drapery hand in a co-operative store, well on the way to becoming first sales and manageress. She lost her appointment and was looking round for something else in the same line of business. She was offered a job as a cleaner. Anything more utterly inadequate or more utterly ridiculous could not be imagined. She refused it. It was a position as cleaner in connection with an hotel. Having refused the job,

    1691
    she lost her benefit. I consider that the woman was perfectly justified in refusing it. You could say that that case came entirely under this Clause. The hotel in question was quite a good employer, but once having taken that particular job it would have been utterly hopeless for her ever to get back into the drapery trade. She had gone through examinations, and was anxious to become head of her department and to go higher in due course. She was a highly skilled worker and she was penalised because she refused to do something that would have meant throwing away all those years of training.
    Let me give another case which occurred in my own constituency. This is the case of a man. He was passing his examinations, and hoped to become in due course a certified accountant. He became unemployed because his works had closed down, as so many have done in Middlesbrough. He was a very highly skilled man, quite young, and had not got out of the insurance limit. He was offered a job, I think it was in a sort of tarmac works, filling barrows with slack from the iron at the blast furnaces and wheeling it to a certain place in order that it might be made into concrete for the roads. He refused the job. Had he taken the job, he would have made it utterly impossible, unless he could have kept the secret very carefully in the district, for him ever to get back again into his own work. I suggest that in these matters the Exchange or the Umpire ought to have a very wide latitude. There is all the difference in the world between a man who says, "I have always been a little piecer and I shall always be a little piecer, and nothing on God's earth will ever make me do anything but this particular job." One gets a little impatient with that kind of attitude, because it seems as if nothing on earth will move such people, and it is often a kindly thing to get them to have wider ideas and to go to a new job. But those are not the people we are dealing with in this Clause. Here you have cases where skill has been acquired through painful years of study and examination, and where status is a very large part of the capital of the individual worker. I do think that is an entirely different case from the case that is apparently contemplated in this particular Clause, and I
    1692
    suggest that the Minister might deal with it. It may not be possible to deal with in this Bill. When we have reached the Report stage, after the stormy passage which this Bill has had, the idea of starting new Amendments must fill the somewhat tired brain of the Minister with utter horror; but would it not be possible for him to consider it from the point of view of administration or the sending of circulars to the Employment Exchanges to call attention to cases like these which I have mentioned, which are not very many in the aggregate but do mean a great deal to the individual?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not look at this question from the narrow party point of view. I have taken the precaution of having this memorandum typed out for myself in order that I might the better understand it, and I do feel that the Minister's explanation has not quite filled the bill. The part of the new Sub-section which fills me with dismay is that part about the lapse of a reasonable interval. We have heard about the jeweller. That was the case which the right hon. Gentleman took. He imagined a world full of jewellers unemployed, and those unemployed jewellers are not to roughen their hands by going on the roads. But that is not a typical case. I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman or to the Parliamentary Secretary certain cases which we have with us now and which we have had with us for a long time. I want to give the cases of 200,000 miners. What will be the "reasonable period" before these people are to be absorbed into industry again? Will it be to-morrow? Certainly not. These men will never get back into the mines. Nobody believes that the mining industry of this country will ever again employ the number of men who have been employed in the past. With these people it will be quite impossible in a very short space of time, even if they have accomplished the miracle of having 30 stamps on their cards, to fulfil these statutory conditions, because within a day or two, not the Umpire as the right hon. Gentleman says but the insurance officers will be able to say: "Here is a job, in another part of the country, and in an entirely different occupation. If you do not accept this job, you must go off benefit." They are perfectly entitled to say that because a "reasonable period" is a period which in the circumstances of the case appears reasonable. It is not

    1693
    reasonable to believe that all the unemployed miners are going to be re-employed. in the mines. Therefore, there is every reason why that period should be made very short; and I am afraid it will be, and that you will have a number of jobs used as a decoy to get these men thrown out of unemployment insurance benefit.
    Take the shipbuilding centres, where you have platers and riveters, and all kinds of shipyard workers, who have not been able to do a day's work for two years, three years, four years, and as long as five years. Is it reasonable to suppose that they are likely to be employed in a short space of time? Obviously not; and the Employment Exchange official will be able to say after two or three days' unemployment, "There is not the remotest prospect of your being employed in the shipyards again, you must become an agricultural worker, or a street sweeper." The man who objects will be deprived of benefit if in the view of the Exchange officer the period is reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. This is a very serious state of affairs. In the determination of years the Minister is going to have it both ways. First of all he has the stamp qualification, which these people cannot fulfil, and if they can fulfil it he will be able to get rid of them by offering them jobs elsewhere, which all of them could not possibly accept. He will thus be enabled to deprive them of benefit. The truth is, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that you have two kinds of benefit, and two kinds of conditions are attached. In the case of standard benefit those conditions are more advantageous to the worker than in the case of extended benefit. Now we are telescoping—I use the word of the right hon. Gentleman—the two kinds of benefit and also telescoping the conditions, which means that although in certain respects there is an adequate protection to the worker the net result of the new conditions is that they prove to be very injurious to the worker.
    Mr. BETTERTON: Not to the man on extended benefit.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: That is not the point. To-day you have a large number of people on extended benefit. We think there ought to be more; but the point is
    1694
    this, that you are going to abolish extended benefit and by telescoping the benefits and the conditions applicable you are, in fact, going to offer statutory conditions for all benefits inferior to those which obtain for statutory benefit to-day. That is my contention, and in the industrial circumstances of to-day this Sub-section (2, ii) is bound to operate to the disadvantage of the worker. This is a proposal for the compulsory mobility of labour. This is the way in which the Minister of Labour is trying to carry into effect the wishes of certain members of the Blanesburgh Committee, expressed on pages 26 and 27 of the Report, where some of the Members say how excellent it would be to drive unemployed workers at less than the standard rates into new trades. I submit to the Parliamentary Secretary that this form of mobility of labour, utilising the lash of refusing unemployment benefit to these people is a cruel and inhuman form of mobility and it is the clumsiest way of carrying it into effect. The State has no right to drive a man into another occupation unless it is prepared to say they will give him opportunities of training himself for that occupation. Those opportunities are not given.
    One can see what will happen; the same kind of thing has happened in the mining industry. Men have been sent from Durham into Nottinghamshire, where there are no houses for them to live in. It is all very well to offer a man a job in another occupation, at a distance, and leave him to take care of himself. Then, when he gets there, he has to go into lodgings, to be separated from his wife and children because no house is available for him. Yet this is what is going to be done under this particular scheme. If the Government wants to tackle the problem of the mobility of labour—and I think it should be tackled at once, as it is one of the fundamental industrial problems of to-day—it is not going to be tackled by driving men into other occupations by refusing them benefit in their own, but by the expanding industries sitting down together, trade unions and employers' associations, to consider the proper recruitment of men in those trades.
    9.0 p.m.
    It can only be done scientifically by taking those trades which are going to suffer under this provision, and mining

    1695
    is a case in point, and getting the people, employers and workers, to consider in what way they can dispose advantageously of their surplus labour. This would be a policy with some foresight and insight in it, but the present proposal is the most brutal and callous way of effecting the mobility of labour. I am only sorry that we have arrived at such a late stage of this Bill without this Clause having been fully discussed. This is the Clause which the Prime Minister tells us we discussed for 29 hours in Committee. We should still be discussing it to-day if we want to get down to what is really at the bottom of these new statutory qualifications. I am prepared to admit that in some respects there is an added protection, but having regard to the economic circumstances of to day, Sub-section (2, ii) with power put into the hands of the officials of the Ministry—this is to be dealt by them first before it goes to the umpire-is going to operate in a way which will be very injurious to large numbers of people in the big depressed industries, the basic industries, of the country. There is this additional point. This is going to be used to drive people out of insurable employment into uninsurable employment.
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am quite sure the hon. Member wishes to be quite fair in the matter, and he will realise that it is the Court of Referees and the Umpire who will have the final decision in the matter.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I have admitted that. The point I want to make is this. This will be used to drive people out of insurable occupations into uninsurable occupations. How do we know that in the future a miner is not going to be offered a job on the land; and once he is offered a job on the land he is outside the unemployment insurance scheme. If he wants to return to insurable occupation he has to start de novo, although he may have been an insured person for years. It has been used already, particularly in the case of women, with great effect. The great social problem of the middle classes to-day is the question of the domestic servant. This is a glorious opportunity for increasing the supply of domestic servants. It is perfectly true that thousands of girls on extended bene-
    1696
    fit, whatever their trade—some of them in my own constituency are skilled weavers who know nothing about domestic service—have been driven into domestic service by the operation of the qualifications for extended benefit, and this is going to be used more in the future because it will apply to all benefit. Under this the Minister will be perfectly entitled, when a girl has been out of work for a reasonable time—in many industries no one can tell what a reasonable time is—to drive her into domestic service. That is operating to-day.
    Mr. BETTERTON: Surely the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. If a man or woman has had extended benefit he or she is now bound at once to take a job suitable to his or her capacities. Under this Clause they have the safeguard that they cannot be required to take another job until a reasonable period has elapsed.
    Mr. MARCH: What is a reasonable period?
    Mr. BETTERTON: That depends in each case on the Court of Referees and the Umpire.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: That is not my point. On extended benefit you can drive people into any job; I know that. But in future all benefit is to be statutory benefit, and people who are receiving statutory benefit can after a reasonable time, in a way that they cannot today, be driven into other occupations. In the case of women, where there is a large sphere of work which is not within the four corners of the Act, this may prove to be a means and a rather cruel means of driving people out of insurable occupations into uninsurable occupations. When he made his very lucid explanation of Clause V of the Act of 1920, as now amended, the Minister did not bring out these points. But these are the essential points to us. That is why, whatever the Minister Fays now, we really shall have to go into the Division Lobby against the Clause, admitting that in certain respects it is better, but fearing the possibilities and knowing what will happen once these new statutory conditions are put into effect.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I feel a little bit anxious in regard to this provision and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary

    1697
    to take note of the fact. The governing sentence is that a man is genuinely seeking work but unable to obtain suitable employment. The governing statutory condition is suitable employment. The definition of "suitable employment" under the Bill is limited in a way different from that under the 1920 Act. It is limited in two ways. He need not take employment in his usual occupation in his own district at lower pay than he has received habitually; or, secondly, he need not take employment in his usual occupation in another district at a rate of wages lower than the standard. Those are the two limiting-conditions defining the words "suitable employment," but only defining suitable employment to a certain extent. "Any other kind of employment that is not in his usual occupation" may be deemed by the insurance officer to be suitable employment. For example, gardening might be offered to an engineer. The insurance officer might consider that that was suitable employment. The only limitation of suitable employment is this reference to his usual occupation in his own or other districts. Then comes Sub-section (2, ii), which says:
    "after the lapse of such an interval from the date on which an insured contributor becomes unemployed as, in the circumstances of the case, is reasonable, employment shall not be deemed to be unsuitable by reason only that it is employment of a kind other than employment in the usual occupation of the insured contributor."
    That is a provision that definitely allows for change from his usual occupations to some other occupation. But before that there is nothing to prevent the man being compelled to accept other employment than his usual occupation, under the rule that it is suitable employment. If you are going to have two ways and there is going to be a certain period, what is considered a reasonable period by the Court of Referees and the Umpire before the individual can be compelled, I would like it to be put a little more clearly than it is now. I ask the Minister to consider that matter when the Bill goes to another place, if it is not possible to make the matter clear here. This is what will happen: Suppose a man goes to the Exchange, and is unemployed. The insurance officer says to him, "You can have employment at So-and-so. You may go to Such-and-such a place." He replies,
    1698
    "But I am an engineer, and that is not suitable employment for me. It is a different occupation from that to which I have been accustomed." The insurance officer says, "Oh, this is suitable employment, and you will be quite capable of doing it." The man can turn to him and say, "Yes, but under the Act of 1927 I am entitled to the benefit of Sub-section (2, ii), and am entitled to have the Court of Referees and Umpire decide whether I shall have to go and whether there has been a reasonable time elapsed or not."
    If the man took up that position I dare say the Insurance Officer would recognise it and would assist him in going to the Court of Referees and the Umpire; but that is on the assumption that the individual concerned, who has gone to the Exchange, has got to the bottom of the meaning of this admittedly very complicated provision. But suppose the officer tells the man to go to this other job, and the man goes because he does not know that he has the right to refuse until a reasonable time has passed. What I am anxious about is that there should be better protection than that which is provided here for the man who is not skilled in getting to the meaning of the Bill as it is now. The difficulty might be met by a definite instruction from the Ministry to the Insurance Officers throughout the country that every man is to have this matter made perfectly plain to him, and that a man need not go to another job until the Court of Referees had decided. If that were done, it would be something, but I am anxious as to what meaning may be taken out of this provision. It would seem to be quite possible for the Court of Referees if a man has refused what they say is suitable employment, in a different occupation, to hold that there had not been any reasonable time. But there is nothing to say that there must be reasonable time. Both parties can go into the Court of Referees to have a dispute decided, but the Court of Referees may say to a man that Clause 5 (2, ii) does not necessarily mean that there is to be any definite amount of time. They may say that the definite amount of time is something extra which is not necessarily entailed—
    Mr. BETTERTON: If the hon. Member has any doubts about this matter I can assure him that, in the view of our

    1699
    advisers, at any rate, there is no doubt at all that Clause 5 (1, b) is governed by Clause 5 (2, ii). There is no question whatever about that, and it seems to answer the hon. Member's point.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I quite recognise that Clause 5 (1, b) is governed by the part which begins:
    "The following provision shall have effect in relation to the said statutory conditions."
    I still maintain, however, that the words "suitable employment" do not necessarily involve a fixed period of time and the Court of Referees may claim that this provision gives them definite power to say to a man that in a certain period of time he is to change from one occupation to another. Sub-section (2) (ii) does not necessarily mean that the
    man is to get the advantage of a period of time. However, the Parliamentary Secretary assures me that it is not intended in that way. There is the other point that it is of the utmost importance that every individual concerned should know that he can go to the Court of Referees and that the court can decide what is the proper period of time in his case. The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that cases constantly arise in connection with the present administration which show the importance of making these points as plain as possible and bringing home to people what are their rights.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 114.

    Division No. 456.]

    AYES.

    [9.20 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Fanshawe, Captain G D.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Fermoy, Lord

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Kindersiey, Major G. M.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Forrest, W.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Bennett, A. J.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Knox sir Alfred

    Berry, Sir George

    Fraser. Captain Ian

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Bethel, A.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon George Abraham

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

    Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Guinness Rt. Hon Walter E.

    McLean, Major A.

    Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

    Gunston Captain D W

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Burman, J. B.

    Hanbury, C.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Harland, A.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Harrison G J C.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon. Totnes)

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd. Henley)

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Cope, Major William

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Oakley, T.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hills, Major John Walter

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Hilton, Cecil

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Holt Captain H. P.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Dixey, A. C.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Pilcher, G.

    Drewe, C.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Preston, William

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Ellis, R. G.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Ramsden, E.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Remer, J. R.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Remnant, Sir James

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Walls, S. R.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Storry-Deans, R

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Salmon. Major I.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Tasker, R. Inigo

    Womersley, W. J.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Major Sir Harry Barnston and

    Skelton, A. N.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Captain Viscount Curzon.

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)

    Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hardie, George D.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Baker, Walter

    Harris, Percy A.

    Sexton, James

    Barnes, A.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hayday, Arthur

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Broad, F. A.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Buchanan, G.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

    Cape, Thomas

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Charleton, H. C.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Cluse, W. S.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Kennedy, T.

    Strauss, E. A.

    Connolly, M.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cove, W. G.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lansbury, George

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lowth, T.

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Lunn, William

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dennison, R.

    Mackinder, W.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Duncan, C.

    MacLaren,. Andrew

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Edge, Sir William

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    March, S.

    Westwood, J

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Montague, Frederick

    Whiteley, W.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Murnin, H.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Gillett, George M.

    Owen, Major G.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Gosling, Harry

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Paling, W.

    Windsor, Walter

    Greenall, T.

    Potts, John S.

    Wright, W.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Riley, Ben

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Ritson, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grundy, T. W.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Amendment as to disqualifications for receipt of benefit.)
    Mr. WHITELEY: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out from the word "whom," in line 40, to the end of the Clause.
    In 1924 we altered Section 8 of the principal Act in order to equalise in some measure the responsibility for creating a trade dispute. The first part of the Section said that the men who were responsible for a dispute, or the insured person who participated in a trade dis-
    1702
    pute, or financed it or were directly interested in it, could not receive unemployment benefit from the unemployment fund. The latter part of the Section dealt with the employers who were responsible for a stoppage because they had contravened the terms or arrangements in any district, or even in a national sense. This Bill seeks to eliminate the latter part of that Section and make it much easier for the employers to break existing agreements, but still penalise the workmen for anything that they may do in that particular connection.

    1703
    We made an attempt in the Committee stage to convince the Minister that we were right in our contention, and that the present law ought to be allowed to stand. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to the case that we put, pointed out that Clause 6 of this Bill would not alter the situation in any respect from the present state of the law. He said on Friday last that in the case of any particular dispute in the future, under this Clause the men would not be penalised, because their places could not be filled by other people. He said, as a matter of fact, it was an injustice really to the employers, and further, that if it should be that men who were unemployed and were receiving unemployment insurance benefit were offered the work of these men who were engaged in a trade dispute and they refused it, their unemployment benefit would still continue. He argued that this new Clause was bringing about an equality between the insured persons and the employers which had not previously existed. The right hon. Gentleman said the present law was giving the workmen a great advantage over the employers, and that in reality, to put the two on an equality, what really ought to happen was that although the workmen were prevented from receiving unemployment benefit when participating in a trade dispute, the employers ought to be able to offer their places to other workmen and not to keep those places vacant as happens to-day.
    I want to cite an actual case to the Minister, in order to show him at least that this new Clause 6 is going to have a very much different effect on the situation in the country from what the existing law has at the moment. I have an actual case in my own division where a colliery firm owning two collieries has for the past 30 years always carried out district, county and national arrangements. It may be a coincidence—I do not know—but it is singular that after this Bill had been printed and circulated these owners placed on the pit bank a notice that from a certain day the pit could only continue to remain open provided the workmen would agree, not to the 89 per cent. on their basis, in keeping with the district and county arrangement, but provided they were prepared to agree to 50 per cent. on their basis, instead of 89 per cent. It was put in
    1704
    another form, and it was said that if the men wanted to continue work at these two collieries, then in future at the end of a week, when they get their pay slip, there will be one-fifth deducted from: the total, which will equal the arrangement of the reduction of 39 per cent. from the 89 per cent. to the 50 per cent. on the basis, that is to say, that the men at these two collieries had an offer of work provided that they were prepared to work five days, and draw four for themselves, and give the employers the fifth.
    This is one of the effects that this particular Clause will have. The Minister, on Friday, said, as his main argument, that trade agreements and conditions of labour ought not to be brought before the umpire, and that in case of disputed benefit the umpire, under the Unemployment Insurance Act, ought not to be called upon to interpret whether the trade agreement had been broken or had not been broken and that that was really a matter for an Industrial Court. I want to say quite frankly that whether it is a matter for an Industrial Court or not, in the case of disputed unemployment benefit it is imperative that the umpire, under the Unemployment Insurance Act, should have before him the whole of the facts in order that he may come to a right decision as to whether the men are right or the employers are right. I have cited an actual case which has happened since this Bill came before the House, and if the Clause be allowed to stand, it means that a district arrangement in future under this Bill will never be secure and will not be safe under the law. What will happen will be that in a district where employers have already broken a district arrangement, other employers will find that they have to compete against a firm that is being allowed by this process to reduce wages and further to lower the workpeople's standard of life, and those other employers will say, "If we do the same, we are protected under the new Act, and we will do the same because we have to compete in this district with other employers who are doing it." It is a very dangerous weapon that the right hon. Gentleman is putting into the hands of the employers, a weapon that neither trade unionism nor anything else can stand up against, because it gives employers the power to offer men low

    1705
    wages and bad conditions, knowing that it will be impossible for the men to stand out, because they know they will be refused benefit and that the guardians cannot pay the same out-relief under the stringent directions of the Minister of Health as they would like to do. You will thus set up throughout the country a similar competition between individual firms to that which exists with regard to our foreign trade to-day.
    Knowing that the Minister of Labour prides himself upon being a strong advocate of industrial peace, I want to say to him very frankly that the effect of this Clause will be to breed industrial unrest and, to a greater extent than ever before, to create chaos among the working classes of this country. This Clause will enable the worst type of employer to break all kinds of district arrangements, knowing that he has the protection of the Clause to prevent the men securing unemployment benefit. It will create an unhealthy and unnatural competition, it will increase the possibility of trade disputes, and it will arouse industrial enmity rather than promote industrial peace. For these reasons, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment and to prevent something which he himself probably does not see at the moment, but which we can see. If the insertion of this Clause will not, as he said last Friday, alter the present law, let Kim accept our Amendment and allow the present law to operate, in order that our people may have a fair opportunity in the event of trade disputes arising.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    In doing so, I want to quote a similar case to that quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley). If, as my hon. Friend says, the Amendment makes no alteration in the existing law, there is no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not accept it. This Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) said on the Second Reading, contains more than one instance where the right hon. Gentleman himself put more than a little bit of grit into the wheels of industrial negotiation, and if there is one thing more than another that the right hon. Gentleman should try to avoid, it is
    1706
    creating unnecessary competition and intensifying the difficulties that now exist. At the particular colliery at which I had the good fortune or the misfortune to work for so many years, we had an experience similar to that quoted by my hon. Friend. In 1914, 1915, and 1916, for two and a-half years, we persisted in trying to build up a list of prices for work done which would last for the life of that colliery, and after lengthy and costly negotiations our prices were finally arranged. The terms were carried out until a recent year, when an opportunity was seen by the owners of the colliery to take advantage of the situation which then presented itself, and they did not hesitate, realising that no unemployment pay would be available and that the guardians would not be willing to grant assistance to men who refused to accept their employers' conditions, to post a notice at the pithead intimating that on and from a certain date, unless the workmen were willing to continue work on terms and conditions which the employers themselves laid down, the colliery would be closed and the whole of the men turned on the street. In such circumstances the workmen had no alternative but to accept the inevitable and tremendous reduction in the terms originally arranged between both parties.
    As my hon. Friend has truly said, if employers are going to be allowed to take undue advantage of this Clause, it will be a continuance of "Beggar my neighbour," for if one colliery company can reduce the pay rates for its employés, it must be obvious to every Member that other colliery companies will be obliged, if they are to have an equal chance of competing with their neighbours, to insist upon similar reductions. It seems to me that this is going to give a further opportunity for the sinners to be allowed to control the saints in the industrial life of the country. Other Clauses in the Bill, where, for instance, the young men are going to be pitted against older men, are mot going to help the relations between employers and employed, nor are they going to help us to reach that state of industrial peace that so many people think is desirable in this country. This Bill ought in no circumstances to make industrial relationships any worse than they are now, and I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to offer the slightest loophole for any unscrupulous

    1707
    employers to make it more difficult for decent employers, who would willingly do so, to abide by terms and conditions that have been arranged over a long period of time. This Clause as it stands is a further piece of grit entering our industrial machinery, and it should be amended in order, first, to allow workpeople to have a fair and equitable chance when wages and conditions are under review, and in order, secondly, to prevent any intensification of the bitterness and hatred that exist at the moment. The Government should at least allow the Bill to go through in such a form that it will in no way endanger what possibilities there may be at the moment of decent relationships existing.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I have listened with great care to the careful and moderate speeches with which this Amendment was put before the House. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley), who moved it, says that this Clause as it stands puts an unfair weapon into the hands of the employer. In 1920 Unemployment Insurance had a general application with the exception of three main groups of people. Prior to 1912 it applied to no one, but I have recollection of great industrial disputes before 1912 in which unions were perfectly certain that they had a just cause for a fight. They will be in precisely the same position as they were in before 1912. Surely, trade unions possess the same general body of powers as they did then, and greater than they possessed prior to 1906. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is quite clear and definite. Prior to 1906, the powers of trade unions to deal with the kind of case we are now considering were very effective. Therefore, I think that the hon. Member, who put his case with great care and moderation, was overstating it when he said it was putting an unfair weapon in the hands of the employers. The words we are proposing to leave out of the Act of 1924 are—
    "or that the stoppage is due to an employer acting in a manner so as to contravene the terms of the provisions of any agreement existing between a group of employers," etc.
    Somebody has got to decide whether the dispute does arise out of breach of the agreement. Who is going to decide?
    Mr. YOUNG: Who has done it since 1920?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I agree it might have been done in the past, but you are imposing very great difficulties. If the workmen are aggrieved because of a breach of contract, the obvious remedy is the remedy of suing the employer. [HON. MEMBEES: "Nonsense!"] Why do hon. Members say "Nonsense"? Why not sue the employer if an agreement has been broken? They are the people who have committed the offence. The offence has been committed by the employers. not by the custodians of the insurance fund
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman asked a question which ought to have a reply. He asked why the workpeople do not sue the employer? He must know that there is no possible chance of suing an employer if the employer gives the workmen seven days' notice that on and from a certain day the terms and conditions previously enjoyed will be dispensed with.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Whether the workman can sue the employer does not depend on the question of seven days, but on the terms of the agreement that are broken. If they are drawn in such a way that contravention makes it possible for employers to take advantage of the protection of the Court, the men have a remedy. [An HON. MEMBER: "You do not know the industry!"] It may be the case that agreements do not contain such clauses, but perhaps the time has arrived when they should. Why not treat industrial disputes by the method of arbitration to which commercial disputes are taken, that is, arbitration by process before a Court of law? Why should a dispute existing between A and B penalise C, C being the rest of the contributors to the Insurance Fund? After all, you are asking the rest of the body of workmen and employers who have contributed to that fund to divert part of that fund to be used in support of the participants of a trade dispute.
    There is, I think, one clear line to be taken with regard to the whole question. No industrial dispute ought to be subsidised, one side or the other, by the rest of the community. If you lay that down as a general principle, and it is a general principle that cannot be chal-

    1709
    lenged, namely, that the actual participants are not entitled to any form of subsidy, you have a clear line to work on. If you do not accept that principle, and think that in certain circumstances one of the parties to a dispute is entitled to a subsidy from the rest of the community, then if the other party happens to be wrong, if the workpeople happen to contravene an agreement, the employer has an equal claim to a subsidy. If you are going to use a fund, which is devised to deal with ordinary unemployment, in support of a dispute, both sides have an equal claim on the Fund. If you stick to the broad principle, that this Fund, which was established for certain specific purposes, shall not be used for other purposes, you are committing no offence against the general body of workmen, for whom the Minister is, for the time being, the custodian.
    Mr. VIANT: The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) has not quite stated the position. He has spoken of unemployment benefit being paid to a man or woman engaged in a dispute as being tantamount to subsidising one side of the dispute. Hitherto the Act has operated in such a way that there was no question of subsidy because the machinery of the Act made it possible for no benefit to be paid until it was decided whether the employer was in default or not in locking the employés out. Furthermore, it has to be proved that the employer had broken an agreement. Under the Act, the employés who were locked out were unemployed through no fault of their own. But if, on the other hand, it was proved by the umpire that the employés themselves had broken an agreement, they were not paid unemployment pay. Furthermore, their own respective unions were accustomed to deal with them and did not pay them unemployment pay. So they were penalised by their own trade union. If this Amendment be not accepted the men will be penalised through no fault of their own but through the unjust and unfair action of an employer. The hon. Member for Reading must be well aware that it is not easy to follow his advice that the unions should take these cases to the Courts, and further I suggest to the House that we ought not to pass legislation which will cause more litigation, our endeavour should be to reduce litigation. I suggest that no case has been made out for a
    1710
    change in the law, and all we ask in our Amendment is that the status quo should obtain. Unless we agree to this, men whose employers have deliberately broken an agreement by locking them out will say they are being robbed of benefits for which they have paid, and will be justified in saying extremely harsh things about the Minister and the Government.
    The building industry like many other industries, makes national agreements on hours and wages. It often happens that employers in certain districts will "kick over the traces" and endeavour to upset a national or a district agreement by coming to another arrangement with their own employés. I should have thought the Minister of Labour would see the advantage that lies in our proposal from the point of view of minimising the number of industrial disputes, and assisting trade unions in their endeavours to see that national or district agreements are carried out. Under this Bill there will be an inducement to an employer who is outside a federation, or to one who is prepared to break away from his federation, to ignore a national or district agreement, and that will lead to more industrial unrest. Not only will our Amendment assist trade unions to guard the rights of their members, but it will assist national or local federations of employers to bring pressure to bear upon recalcitrant employers to see that agreements are kept both in the spirit and in the letter, and I hope the Minister, bearing these facts in mind, will give our Amendment further consideration.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. DENNISON: I only rise to speak because I regard this Clause as seriously affecting the future of good relationships in industry. In most of the basic trades, including that with which I am associated, we have national agreements covering many plants. When manufacturers refuse either to give effect to agreements come to nationally, or endeavour to get reductions of wages and altered conditions in respect of their own employés—I am happy to say it does not often occur—it can become a very serious matter. There was, however, a notorious case in Scotland, involving 300 workpeople, in which a firm, in spite of the fact that it was a member of the conciliation board, gave notice of a 10 per

    1711
    cent. reduction in wages. The workpeople naturally declined to accept this. I hope the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) will listen to this, because it is important to him, as the secretary of a manufacturing association, to know something of what goes on in other associations. The action of the firm was not only opposed by the trade unions, but was strongly resented by the other employers, because if that firm was to be allowed to get away with a reduction of 10 per cent. it meant it would be more favourably placed than were the more honourable employers. It was not that our men wanted to stop work; they were encouraged by many of the manufacturers in the West of Scotland to resist the attempt made by this particular firm, which, by the way, was a member of the employers' association and a party to the national agreement. However, all this did not prevent the men being kept out of employment because they declined to accept the reduction. There was an appeal. We failed before the Court of Referees. Ultimately the case went to the Umpire, and when the whole facts were placed before him he gave his decision in favour of the men. I say that if this Clause is inserted in a Bill it will prevent the Umpire treating these cases on their merits.
    The hon. Member for Reading says trade unions have a remedy at law; by going to the Courts they can compel employers to conform to agreements; but in this case the employer knew the law perhaps better than the hon. Member for Reading does. He did not break the agreement in the legal sense of the term, but he broke something which was more important, namely, an honourable obligation. As one associated with an industry which is proud of the fact that it has enjoyed a greater measure of industrial peace and good relationships than most industries, I appeal to the Minister to assist us to bring an employer to book when he is not acting the part of a man in regard to his obligations. I daresay the Minister himself knows of many instances, particularly in the Midlands, and in the Birmingham area, which he knows so well, of employers having done what we complain of, and I say frankly that it will
    1712
    not be helpful either to employers or workpeople if this kind of Clause is put in the Bill.
    Mr. BATEY: I was surprised to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), because he is generally well-informed on these matters. To-night, however, he did not seem to grasp this question. When he spoke of trade unions or workmen suing employers, I felt he had not listened to the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley), who pointed out that employers gave notice to the workmen and that it was only when that notice to cease work had expired that the employers offered the new terms.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Then no agreement was broken in that case.
    Mr. BATEY: I want to help the hon. Member for Reading. I do not want him to make mistakes such as he made to-night. In the circumstances which I have described the workpeople cannot sue the employers. Then the hon. Member said the law ought to be made so that they could do so.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I did not say the law ought to be made; I said the agreements ought to be made.
    Mr. BATEY: The agreements should be made to provide for the workmen suing the employers. What side of the House has power to do that? If the hon. Member would bring his influence to bear on the Government to do that, we should be very glad, but we have not much hope that the Government will do any such thing. He asked why the rest of the community should be punished for the action of the employers. On the other hand, why should workmen be punished by a refusal of benefits for which they have paid, when they are not guilty of causing the dispute which has put them out of work? The workmen are not guilty, and why should they be punished? We believed, when the Act of 1924 was passed, that when there was a dispute the workmen would be entitled to benefit. We believe that now. We believe that where the workmen are not the guilty parties, and the guilt rests with the employers, the workmen should not be punished. The workmen have paid for the benefit under such circumstances, and they are entitled to receive it. It is no good stating that the workmen and the

    1713
    employers should be put on a level in regard to these matters, because that is quite an impossibility, and it only means that you would punish the workmen when you could not punish the employer under any circumstances or in any sense. To stop the workmen's unemployed benefit is a real punishment. We all know that the present Act is bad enough, but what is now proposed is going to make it a good deal worse. There have been many decisions given by the umpire in our county of Durham under the present Act which I do not like, and which I consider to be unfair. I believe that the umpire's decision should never be final, but that there should be an appeal. I want to remind the Minister of a particular case in Durham. Last year, after the dispute, the owners forced on the workmen an agreement which laid down that there should be 89 per cent. paid on the basis rates of wages, and that the subsistence wage should be 6s. 8½d. per day. In one case an employer has sought to break the agreement—an agreement imposed by the whole of the owners in the county, and has asked the men to accept 50 per cent. on the basis rate and 5s. 4d. subsistence allowance per day.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member will tell me if the basis rates also form part of the agreement?
    Mr. BATEY: No.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I could not quite gather what he said, and I was trying to follow the argument.
    Mr. BATEY: No; it did not interfere with the basis rate. That was altogether different. The county agreement—although it should have been higher—forced the men to accept 89 per cent., and, instead of 7s. 6½d. day, a subsistence wage of 6s. 8½d. a day. That applied to the subsistence wage, and affected be-between 50,000 and 60,000 men. This particular employer not only put notices up at the colliery but he called. a meeting of the men and their wives and put these new terms before them. He said that instead of 89 per cent. it should be 50 per cent. and instead of 6s. 8½d. a day it should be equal to 5s. 4d. a day subsistence wage. For any employer to-day to offer to pay a man 5s. 4d. a day is a scandal, and had those men accepted it there would have been injury to the rest of the county. We are anxious that the
    1714
    present Act should not be strengthened in the direction of enabling unscrupulous employers to pursue such a policy as that. Bad as the present Act is, we prefer it to the amended proposal, and I hope the Government will reconsider the matter. The Government's proposal is not so much a question of avoiding friction; the real intention of the Minister of Labour in this, as in his other Amendments, is simply to prevent men from getting unemployed benefit.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I want to say only a sentence or two, because the Minister of Labour must know the full force of this suggested alteration of his. If the right hon. Gentleman will inquire in his own Department, he will find that his conciliation officers are constantly employed on cases where employers commit a breach of their national or district agreements. I am also certain that his liaison officers associated with the Whitley Councils could give him reports showing how serious have been the attempts of individual undertakings or companies to break away from the national agreement. If he will recognise the full force of all these issues, he will even now give consideration before taking away this one protection that we have, which has assisted in building up our conciliation machinery, as it exists to-day in the Whitley Councils. I could quote many instances, but will only refer to one. About two years ago, a great undertaking broke away from its agreement. Eventually, to save the Joint Industrial Council, the employers agreed with the workmen to expel that particular undertaking from their own association, and so preserve the harmony, the possibility of peaceable negotiations. and the machinery of the councils.
    Surely it is much better to have a body of employers and workmen who will do their best for peace, negotiation and agreement in cases where somebody or other commits a breach. If it is the workmen, their position is clear. They are automatically cut out of their benefit, because of the penalty. If it be an unofficial lot of workmen, the organisation deals with them. When the employer breaks away, and the whole of the machinery is threatened, it is not asking too much that he should be dealt with. It is not, as the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) said, that other employers and other insured persons would

    1715
    be paying to keep people who are engaged in a dispute with their employers in benefit. It is simply that they are paying towards those who contribute to benefits, and who have not committed a breach, but are the victims of unscrupulous employers or undertakings which are trying to break down conciliation machinery. Therefore, these men ought to be admitted to benefit. When that position is fully appreciated, I am certain that the Minister of Labour will give further consideration to the point, because it really has very serious consequences. The hon. Member for Reading said that we used to do these things before 1920, and that we have the same facilities now. It will be remembered that when the Whitley Councils were first established—I believe they date back to 1919—it was expected that you would get great national groups representing industries who would form national agreements. All I say is that if you are going to tamper with the keystone of this business you are likely to have a collapse. The tendency during the last 12 months has been to stabilise in our large industries by 12 months' agreements, and, if you expect that those agreements are going to be faithfully carried out, I think you are mistaken, because some individual employer will probably break the agreement, and then the whole of the conditions entered into by the group of employers will tumble down. Hon. Members know that a trade union cannot sue an employer.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member is quite wrong there.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I think I know what the law is on this question. If you are dealing with an industry covering 100,000 persons and upwards, you may only be dealing with an employers' association consisting of about 100 persons, and the agreement is entered into jointly. Supposing one of those employers withdraws and breaks away from the agreement. You cannot sue that employer on behalf of the whole of the men. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Reading claims to have had more experience than I have had in these matters, but I have been dealing with them for 30 years, and therefore I make him a present of anything that he can make out of the point which he has raised. I know very
    1716
    well that the only possibility of suing is where the agreement is made direct between the employer and the individual workman, and where a breach of such an individual contract takes place. It is not a question of wanting any unfair advantage, or wanting to establish a position that will protect men in all circumstances where there is a breach of agreement, but I believe that this will be a safeguard that will secure and cement the confidence that is now growing in these agreements. Otherwise, the first little break-away will weaken the whole conciliation machinery, and joint industrial councils will be in jeopardy.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have listened with very great care indeed to all the arguments that have been brought forward on this subject, and I say at once most sincerely that I have every wish to see agreements kept on both sides in industry. Anyone looking at this case may think, as a natural first view, that it is desirable to bring an influence of this kind to bear on employers in order to try to make them keep an agreement if they are willing otherwise to depart from it. I shall be glad—I do not care on which side it is on industry—to bring any proper and legitimate influence to bear, and it is only after a good deal of consideration that I have come to the conclusion, taking the authorities that I have, that it is not really desirable to twist the use of the Insurance Fund to purposes for which it was not intended, and which are foreign to its original and proper purpose, in order to try to attain some end which might from other points of view be desirable.
    The House may not generally realise, from the discussion that has taken place, that this has not been a principle on which agreements have been based and built up; this is an entirely new provision, which is only the growth of the last two or three years. It was introduced in the Act of 1924. Very grave doubts were then expressed as to its desirability, and there was certainly very grave question as to whether it would be proper and really useful. The vote was carried against it in the Committee upstairs, and it was reversed, I think—I was not myself present, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was—at a late hour, when not much attention was focussed upon it, during the

    1717
    Report stage. That was how this principle was first introduced into the law, and, as I have said, at that time very grave doubts were expressed as to its desirability.
    The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) has laid stress on the way in which these agreements, upon which so much depends, have been built up during his experience of the last 30 years. I would, therefore, put it to everyone in the House that the immediate effect of a provision of this kind in the law cannot be so great, after all. The building up of these agreements, on the hon. Member's own showing, was going on perfectly satisfactorily for years before this provision was ever made part of our legislation. Therefore, I contend that, from the point of view of keeping agreements, and industrial peace, too, it has not been an essential factor. What I feel in my own mind is this—and it is really after weighing the pros and cons of the question—that, if you take a Measure like the Unemployment Insurance Act, and, as I said at the beginning, twist it to uses which it was never intended to subserve, you may in the end do more harm than good. I know that that was the quite definite conclusion—I do not propose to read it in detail; it covers a good many lines—of the Blanesburgh Committee, and, as far as I can see, it is really better to leave these agreements, which were made before ever this provision was introduced three years ago, to the influence of employers and workmen on the two sides to impose upon their fellows.
    Let me outline again what would be the necessary corollary of continuing the provision, and it is a corollary that I think would be a wrong one and one that would, without question, lead really to industrial disturbance, and yet it must necessarily follow, because one could not in justice deny it. Up till three years ago, and in its fundamental nature, the Insurance Fund was never intended to help either side in an industrial dispute. It was kept quite clear of industrial disputes. If ever there was an industrial dispute of any kind, whether it would be called a strike or a lock-out, a breach of an agreement or not a breach of an agreement, two consequences followed. In the first place, the men did not get benefit, and in the
    1718
    second place the masters got no advantage, because the jobs that were vacant through the dispute could not be offered to other persons by an Exchange as a test of willingness to work. From that point of view, the scales were held evenly as between the two sides, and the establishment of the industrial insurance system was not brought into an industrial dispute one way or the other. Truly, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you continue to maintain a penalty on the employer for breaking an agreement, a similar penalty for breaking an agreement must, in fairness, be imposed upon the other side.
    Mr. WHITELEY: So it is.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, it is not.
    Mr. WHITELEY: A man does not get benefit.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: A man, in any case, does not get benefit in any dispute, whether there is a breach of agreement or not. He is hurt by that. The employer loses his business, and he is hurt by that with his competitors. The analogy in this case is quite different, and I defy anyone to contradict the social truth of what I say. If you are going to use the Unemployment Insurance Act as a means of making employers keep agreements, you must use it also to make the men keep agreements. If you use it for the purpose of making the employers keep an agreement, you must use it also to make the men keep an agreement, and the inevitable corollary is that if the men break an agreement the places so open can be offered to other men by an Exchange, and the other men must know that they are liable to lose benefit unless they accept those places. I say without any hesitation that is a most undesirable thing to have happen. It is much more likely to cause trouble than anything else. You cannot possibly have one penalty without the other, and it is the fact that those two come together that, to my mind, makes it undesirable to have this Amendment as suggested, and that the system should stand as it originally stood and should not enter into the question of disputes one way or the other.
    It being Half-past Ten of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKKR proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 1st December, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 126.

    Division No. 457.]

    AYES.

    [10.30 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Foster, Sir Harry, S.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Gates, Percy

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Balniel, Lord

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Bennett, A. J.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Berry, Sir George

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Bethel, A.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Oakley, T.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Blundell, F. N.

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Hanbury, C.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Penny, Frederick George

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Harland, A.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Pilcher, G.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Preston, William

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Burman, J. B.

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Ramsden, E.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Remer, J. R.

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Campbell, E. T.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cecil. Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sandon, Lord

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Dixey, A. C.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Drewe, C.

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Lumley, L. R.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Fielden, E. B.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Finburgh, S.

    McLean, Major A.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Wells, S. R

    Womersley, W. J.

    Major Cope and Major the Marquess

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    of Titchfield.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Riley, Ben

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Ritson, J.

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Hardie, George D.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Harris, Percy A.

    Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

    Baker, Walter

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Rose, Frank H.

    Barnes, A.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Batey, Joseph

    Hayes, John Henry

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Sexton, James

    Broad, F. A.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Cape, Thomas

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kennedy, T.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Compton, Joseph

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Connolly, M.

    Lansbury, George

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lawson, John James

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Crawfurd, H E.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lowth, T.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Lunn, William

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Varley, Frank B.

    Dennison, R.

    Mackinder, W.

    Viant, S. P.

    Duncan, C.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Dunnico, H.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Edge, Sir William

    MacNeill-Weir, L

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    March, s.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Forrest, W.

    Montague, Frederick

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Morris, R. H.

    Westwood, J.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Murnin, H.

    Whiteley, W.

    Gillett, George M.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Gosling, Harry

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Owen, Major G.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Greenall, T.

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Paling, W.

    Windsor, Walter

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wright, W.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Groves, T.

    Potts, John S.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.

    Bill read the Third time and passed.

    Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given.

    FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Minor Amendments.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 18, line 48, after the word "person," insert the words
    "Provided that the foregoing provision with respect to persons engaged in work provided by a local authority shall not apply in the case of any person who has previously been in receipt of unemployment benefit and is employed in full-time work provided by the authority.
    1722
    For the purpose of this provision a person shall not be deemed to have been employed in full-time work unless he has worked for such number of hours in each week as would normally have been worked by him if he had been employed on the same work otherwise than under such an arrangement as aforesaid."
    In page 19, leave out from the word "any," in line 17, to the word "he," in line 23, and insert instead thereof the words
    "employer in employment which is excepted under this paragraph ceases to serve under that employer and on so ceasing enters other employment which is so excepted."—(Sir A. Steel-Maitland.)
    Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PERTH COUNTY BUILDINGS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  PERTH COUNTY BUILDINGS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

    CLAUSE 1.—(Confirmation of Order in Schedule.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Before this Clause is passed and before this Order is approved, it is essential that some brief statement should be made by the promoters of the Bill with regard to one part of it. By an Act of 1803 an assessment or tax was made for the raising of a fund to maintain the wives and dependants of militiamen, drummers and non-commissioned officers who were taken for the armies in the Napoleonic Wars. Relief was provided only for families who were unable through destitution to maintain themselves. The advance was on the most meagre scale. A weekly allowance of one day's average labour wage was given for a wife and one day's wage for every child under 10 years of age. There was no allowance whatever for children over 10. A certificate of inability had to be given by a heritor or by a minister of the parish. By Clause 21 of the Act, no substitute could be taken for any balloted man. After the Napoleonic Wars, there was a balance in this fund, undistributed to the wives and children, of £2,974, and that sum was handed1 over by the Commissioners or trustees who were then in charge of it to a County Buildings Fund, and since 1824 that money has been used to maintain parts of the county buildings. The parts of the county buildings maintained have reduced the sum to £1,568.
    That money at 5 per cent. compound interest would have meant a sum now approaching £200,000, which, if it had been spent for the purpose for which it was raised, would have been spent upon the common soldiers or their dependants in the county of Perth. But during this period of over 100 years the money has been spent on maintaining several rooms in the county buildings for the following purposes: For balls during the meetings of the Perth Hunt; when the county Member gives a dinner or receives one from his friends (I do not know which
    1724
    county Member that refers to now); when any candidate for the representation of the county, whether successful or not, gives a dinner to his friends or receives one from them; or when a dinner is given by any county corps on a particular occasion. For these four purposes the county ballroom and supper-room have been used for over 100 years. It cannot be said that the Gentlemen who have been in control of these buildings have acted without knowledge of what they were doing. They were legally advised, almost threequarters of a century ago, that they were wrongfully spending public money raised for the maintenance of serving soldiers and the wives and dependants of those soldiers. Despite that legal advice, which they got in 1854, they have continued to spend that money up to now, and we have after 100 years the county gentry of Perth coming forward in this House and asking what is virtually relief for their wrongful intermission of public money. They are now handing over these public buildings to the county council of Perth and, in future, these buildings will, presumably, be democratically controlled. Therefore we have no further objection to the provisions of this Bill. I think however we ought to have an explanation from the promoters as to the reasons, if any, which they can offer in justification for using funds raised for ex-service men for class county purposes.
    Mr. SKELTON: The hon. Member who has just spoken confined his opposition to the Bill to the one point, and even within the limits of the very few moments which I shall occupy, I hope to show that it is not a very substantial one. The facts are simply these. A militia fund was raised under Act of Parliament for the purposes which my hon. Friend has mentioned, but with this addition. The purpose of the fund was that it was to be used as a form of maintenance allowance to the wives and children, as the hon. Member said, while the recipient was actually serving. The fund, which was a properly constituted assessment by law, really was the predecessor of subsequent arrangements. The fund, as soon as the Napoleonic Wars were over, and the militia returned to civil life, had no legal function left. The question then before the commissioners of supply, who were the predecessors of the county council, was: Where was that fund to go? It

    1725
    was decided to hand it over to another body constituted by Act of Parliament, namely, a body which in 1807 had been charged with the duty of erecting county buildings in Perth. To that body, whose functions had not then been completed, the fund, which amounted to rather over £2,000, was handed over.
    No question was raised at the time, and no question was raised for more than 37 years. The only question then was, not whether it should have been used—quite improperly—for the maintenance of the families of the militiamen who had been returned to civil occupation. The only alternatives then suggested were that it should be added to a fund known as the "rogue money" fund used for the apprehension, maintenance and prosecution of malefactors, or handed to the body charged with the erection of county buildings. Those were the two alternatives. The original function of the fund was discharged, and the alternatives were to hand it over to the "rogue money" fund or to another legally constituted body which was charged particularly with the duty of erecting county buildings. The latter alternative was chosen. The hon. Member does not suggest and, there is no room for the suggestion, that the fund when transferred to this properly constituted body was not properly used. It was used, first, for the completion of the work of erecting county buildings, which was the work the commissioners had been charged with by Parliament, and the balance was used for the maintenance of those buildings and has been so used since. As far as these interesting facts which my hon. Friend and I have stated to the House are concerned, I think their relevance is very slight.
    What does this Bill seek to do? It seeks to transfer to the county council these buildings which, to some small extent, were built with the help of this Militia Fund, and for a period of years were maintained by it, that is to say, to hand over the council buildings to the successors of the people who handed over the Militia Fund for the purpose of building and maintaining the buildings. I do not think my hon. Friend has suggested that the money was misused or not spent for the purposes for which it was handed over to the legally constituted body, namely, the Commissioners for the erection of the Council buildings, and he has
    1726
    laid before the House no argument to show why he so passionately desires that the apprehension of rogues should have taken precedence over the job of building county buildings. It seems to me that, although the House is no doubt greatly indebted both to him and to me for an extremely interesting historical disquisition, there is nothing in his speech which should postpone the easy passage of the Bill.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Before the hon. Member sits down, would he address his mind for a moment to the purposes for which these buildings have been used in the past 100 years?
    Mr. SKELTON: I had intended to say something about it, but I thought it was too personal. They have been used for the festive purposes for which, apparently, they were quite properly intended. I want to inform the House, in case it should be supposed that I have too great a personal interest in the matter, that neither as an unsuccessful county candidate, which I have been, nor as a County or City member, have I ever given or have I, unfortunately, ever received a dinner in these buildings.
    Clause 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported without Amendment; considered (under Section 7 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899); read the Third time, and passed.

DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order).
Order for consideration read.
Bill considered accordingly.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Clause on the paper in the names of the two hon. Members for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour and Mr. Johnston) is out of order, first, because it imposes a charge on the rates, which cannot be done on Report stage, and, secondly, because it makes a proposal which requires notice being given to the people concerned, according to our

1727
procedure. The hon. Members will be able to raise the point on the Third Reading of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: We had no intention in any way of seeking to oppose the Bill, but on learning that those who had charge of its procedure had not been able to accept the particular Clause which we had down, we felt it would be necessary to ascertain some reason why they had not been able to accept it as well as the others. Our procedure, of course, was to put down an intimation of the Motion so that it might work out, if possible, for the reinsertion of the Clause. As a matter of fact, we had the good advice the Chairman of Committee as to the possibility of such a step being taken successfully in the event only of an agreement being arrived at here. That was somewhat doubtful, but at the same time, we have now the opportunity of putting some points in favour of the Clause.
I would just mention, in regard to the Clause itself, that this estate of Belmont was originally the estate of the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and it was acquired by the late Sir James Caird, of Dundee, who purchased it for £55,000. His sister, who strangly enough passed away at the beginning of this week, made it over as a gift to the City of Dundee, and, as explained in the course of the proceedings before the Committee, it was put down very clearly that the desire of the benefactress was that, first and foremost, the mansion of Belmont should be available for disabled soldiers. That has been followed out in its entirety. The second recommendation that she was good enough to make was the adaption of the mansion for the purpose of a home of rest for workers. That provision had for me a special interest. We have in the City of Dundee the Bannatyne Home for Women, and when there was a possibility of securing an arrangement of this kind, I certainly, like many of the other workers in the City, was very favourable to its being done. As a matter of fact, that Clause was inserted just as unanimously as other Clauses in the Order, and we hoped it would go through. As it transpired, there apparently had been perhaps in the minds of some a feeling
1728
that the witnesses put up for the Corporation had not been so fully prepared to satisfy the Members of the Committee in regard to this particular Clause as they might have been. One of the stipulations was that if the Corporation did not see fit to run the institution in that way by themselves, then it could be run by any particular organisation. It was left open for that to be done.
11.0 p.m.
There were two farms which, being let out, produced an income of £1,270 between them, and that was taken towards the adjustment of the estate. Apparently it was felt that with the deficiency on the estate, for the last nine years, of £7,000 to £8,000, probably it would be inadvisable to have this proposal as in the Clause, that the mansion and the estate should be placed on the rates instead of being on the Common Good. In the Clause the provision was an optional one for the exaction of a rate not exceeding one penny, but, as a matter of fact, the legal representative of the corporation agreed, in view of the evidence, to reduce that penny to a halfpenny, so that the rating, if any exacted, should not exceed a halfpenny. The city engineer showed that the reduction in the debt was very considerable, and when asked a question as to how many workers would be provided for, he said 120 men or thereabouts, and that as an anticipated deficit of no more than £3,000 would be met by a halfpenny rate, the whole thing seemed a feasible proposal. Because of the procedure adopted by my colleague and me in trying to get this considered in the way we are doing, the city Press took up an attitude of antagonism to anything being done at all. In addition, the Lord Provost of the city took upon himself an attitude of severe criticism. I think it right to give an indication of what has been put forward regarding our attitude, and to deal with it from a defensive point of view. The leading article says:
"The action of the Committee in striking out this bit of 'something for nothing' Socialist politics was most proper, and we have little doubt the majority of the town council were glad to get quit of it. But under the pressure of Wellgate via Westminster the Committee has now pledged the town council to insert the rejected Clause in the next Provisional Order. … (The Bill) authorises a great deal of far from essential expenditure, and the council could have saved 10 times as much as the sacri-

1729
ficed costs of promotion by abandoning some of the schemes the Order authorises. A selection 'could have been made which would have vexed nobody but the people concerned in the blocking manœuvre."
The proposal, as far as I was concerned, was in no way impelled by any organisation other than the Dundee Corporation, and my attitude has all along been that, if I can conscientiously support anything the corporation have tried to do, I have done it; and I have done it in this House, and, having followed that course, I submit it is very far from a proper attitude on the part of the Lord Provost to take exception to Members of Parliament for the city following out only what the corporation wanted to secure. Now you find that a very ridiculous opposition is exhibited, not only by the Press, but by the Lord Provost himself. Another article in the Dundee Press said:
"The serious result of the blocking of the Order was pointed out. The cost of the Order itself would run into four figures, and the extra expense incurred through blocking the Order would be considerable, as Parliamentary agents and counsel had to specially consider the new situation. Had the blocking motion been persisted in the effect would have been serious for the city. It would have amounted to the whole Order being lost."
In the whole of our proceedings we have in no way sought to oppose the order. We have simply been guided by those whom we are entitled to have as our advisers in this House to secure anything that might be reasonable. All the time we were making it clear that we did not want to injure the interest of the Bill. The point about the ½d. is that it has been stated that we had not given proper attention to the Clause as it stood in the original, and that we bad probably made a mistake. The "Advertiser" says:
"The public, however, will note a curious halt in their enthusiasm"—
that is a reference to myself and my colleague—
"The Clause as it appeared in the original Bill authorised the council to expend on the Belmont ' Home of Rest' project the produce of a penny rate. In the Motion now on the Paper for the reinsertion of the Clause the penny rate is reduced to a halfpenny. What is the explanation of this strange and uncharacteristic break towards economy? Do the local members think that to spend a penny rate would be an un-
1730
warrantable extravagance, or have they merely blundered in the labour of copying?"
I will read from the evidence, from which the House will see how far the Lord Provost, along with the editor of the "Advertiser," has got lost:
"Supposing you have got 100 inmates in Belmont, how much would you estimate it would cost to keep them there?—There was prepared a statement which I do not have with me, but there was to be a loss of about £3,000 a year."
"How many people would be in that estimate?—120 people would be in the house under that estimate."
"What does a 1d. in the £ on the rates give?—£6,000."
"So that ½d. in the £ would meet at present your estimated loss of £3,000?—Yes. I am quite sure that ½d. in the £ would meet the deficit if it was turned into a home of rest."
That was the evidence of Mr. Baxter, the city engineer. Then said Mr. Mackintosh, their advocate:
"We would be prepared, in view of the evidence, to amend the Clause in question to read 'Provided such expense shall not exceed ½d. per £' instead of '1d. per £.'"
I know that to some hon. Members this may not be of particular interest, but I feel that I am discharging my duty. The "Advertiser" having gone wrong, the Lord Provost has lost the road as well. I have gone to the official evidence. We were so careful that we followed out exactly what had been asked for. I do not reckon that I am going to be subject to the dictatorship of any Lord Provost or editor. As a matter of fact I am here in spite of them. It has been said that we were adopting a little propaganda. I am convinced, and I shall be able to prove, that the propaganda is on the other side. The Lord Provost, being a Die-hard Tory, is working for some other prospective candidate, to see what can be done in the next Election. I do not believe in doing electioneering business on a basis of that kind, but he is not so scrupulous. I say that in the past I have been available for doing the business of the Dundee Corporation. When I was asked by my colleague whether I intended to do anything of this kind I said "Yes." because I felt that the Corporation had asked for it, and there was no evidence against the Clause, and yet it was deleted. I found that something for which the Dundee Corporation had asked had been struck out

1731
without any explanation, and if I had not taken action I think I would have been regarded as being at fault, and very likely I would have been taken to task if it had suited the Lord Provost and the "Advertiser." I have done my duty, and there has been not a single iota of risk to the Measure. The Bill will go through in proper form.
Mr. JOHNSTON: I would like to endorse what my colleague has said about the Belmont "Home of Rest," and to utter an emphatic protest against the decision, unanimously taken after due consideration, by the Dundee Town Council and members of all political parties, no political question arising. It was a question of the lives and the health of ex-service men and aged workers in the City of Dundee. There was no protest against this Clause from any section of the ratepayers of Dundee. Then the Clause came before a committee of two Peers and two Conservative Members of this House, who, so far as I know, had no representations made to them.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to attack the tribunal, nor is he entitled to attack the procedure adopted by members on the tribunal. The hon. Member himself might be sitting on a tribunal not in his own county or city, and he would not like other Members to discuss his action.
Mr. JOHNSTON: I desire to point out that a decision, democratically taken, unanimously taken, by persons representing all classes in the City of Dundee, has been turned down and thrown out of the Bill without a word of explanation. I merely want to add my protest against that.
Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland a question in regard to the Scottish Office. Did this Measure come before the Scottish Office for consideration? Seeing that the Dundee Town Council unanimously agreed to this, and seeing that nobody appeared before the tribunal to oppose it, I want to ask whether the Scottish Office took exception to it on the ground of the increase in the rates, or on any ground in any way connected with that Department?
The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): This matter was considered by the proper tribunal. Evidence was given in support of it, and was deemed by the Committee to be insufficient and was struck out of the Bill.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Elecricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the township of Great Barr, in the rural district of Walsall, and part of the parish of Shenstone, in the rural district of Lichfield, in the county of Stafford, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 1927, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Barnoldswick, in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 1927, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Earby, in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 1927, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parishes of Purley, Sulham, and Tidmarsh, in the rural district of Bradfield, in the county of Berks, and for the amendment of the Whitchurch and Pangbourne Electric Lighting Order, 1903, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 1927, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Southwold and the parishes of Reydon and Walberswick, in the

1733
rural district of Blything, in the administrative county of East Suffolk, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 1927, he approved."
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Watchet and part of the rural district of Williton, in the county of Somerset, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 1927, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Midhurst and Westhampnett, in the administrative county of West Sussex, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 1927, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, authorising the County of London Electric Supply Company, Limited, and the North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company to give a supply of electricity in bulk to each other, and for purposes incidental thereto, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 1927, be approved."—[Lieut.-Col. Ashley.]
The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

PROSECUTION AND SENTENCE (DUNDEE).
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 8th November, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. JOHNSTON: I desire to raise the case of which I have given notice of a girl named Charlotte Leitch in Lochee, Dundee. Her father was wounded in the War and died in 1917 while undergoing hospital treatment. The family pension was stopped five years ago. In this family there were then three children the oldest being 13 years of age, the next 12, and the third is aged three months. After the death of her husband
1734
the mother was compelled to go out to work in a jute mill. The eldest girl has been engaged assisting her aunt in a shop. This girl was accused before the Dundee Sheriff of having received goods two years ago—I think they were biscuits—for which the aunt had not paid. The girl declared that she had not received the goods and that the signature on the receipt was not here. This girl has been sentenced to two months' imprisonment without the option of a fine, for a first offence upon evidence which depends on one man's memory—and that one man specifically said he could not identify her. A decision of this kind, based upon what appears to be flimsy and insufficient evidence, which sends a girl against whom no accusation has previously been made to prison for two months on a charge like this, is a crime against modern civilisation. This girl collapsed in prison. A petition has been signed for her release. The Secretary of State for Scotland says that he cannot see his way to reduce her sentence. Another factor in the case is the state of the girl's health. We have evidence that she is unable to stand imprisonment at all; and her family are in great distress. Here you have a girl who is physically weak sent to prison for two months without the option of a fine on a charge which depends on the evidence of one man and upon one man's memory of an incident which took place two years ago. This is something which the Secretary of State for Scotland ought to justify. By the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1908, a fine is permissible. This girl had not been arrested, she was not out on bail, she came quite freely to the Court to stand her trial.
This young girl, 23 years of age, has had her case taken up by every newspaper of every political opinion in the East of Scotland—by papers which are bitter opponents of ours and strong supporters of the right hon. Gentleman—with such headlines as "Scandals," "Harsh Sentence on Young Girl that ought to be quashed," and so on, in papers which do not support us, but support the right hon. Gentleman and the political party which he represents. In these circumstances I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give this House an assurance that he will at any rate have the most stringent medical examination made of this girl, and, if he

1735
can get the slightest medical justification for it, release her, because I am sure that nothing less will satisfy public opinion in Dundee; and, particularly in view of other recent cases, I trust that he will not delay his decision, but will act at once. I do not need to tell the right hon. Gentleman that petitions have been sent to higher quarters than himself; he knows it full well. We have done everything that we can do by private negotiation, through the Press, and by public petition to higher quarters, to have this case re-examined and the girl released, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to imagine that there is any political propaganda in this at all, but to act in a humane way and let this girl out of prison.
Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: May I put to the right hon. Gentleman two points? I had an interview with him, and there was his formal answer to a question to-day, which, unfortunately, was against us. In the first place, I would point to the substantial good character of this girl, well confirmed on every hand, and the fact that there has never been any exception taken to her conduct in the past. In the second place, in view of the circumstances, and of there being only one witness, I suggest that there might have been consideration on the part of the Sheriff in allowing, as he had the power to do, a fine to be imposed. I submit respectfully to the right hon. Gentleman that some step should be taken to meet what undoubtedly is felt to be a very gross bestowal of what is called justice from the legal point of view, but which we feel to be from a moral point of view a gross injustice.
Sir J. GILMOUR: This is a case which arose out of a prosecution dealing with a civil action, and the circumstances which were divulged on that occasion led the authorities to take further steps to deal with what eventually was proved to be a case of perjury. I would say to the hon. Gentleman, and to the House in general, that a case of perjury is a very serious case. It goes to the root and foundation of the whole legal structure of our country, and when hon. Members say to me that this is a first offence, and a matter which ought to be dealt with leniently, I am bound to say that I cannot agree with
1736
that point of view. Be that as it may, I think it is clear that the greatest care was exercised in dealing with this case, and when the hon. Gentleman says that this girl was convicted on the evidence of a single person who could not speak to her identity, I would remind him that the facts are that this was established on the signature of the girl, that the Sheriff was satisfied that the signature was a genuine signature, and, further that it was admitted—
Mr. JOHNSTON: He said there were points of difference.
Sir J. GILMOUR: Everyone knows that, when any hon. Member signs his name in this House, there are points of difference between the signatures which each one makes from time to time; but the girl herself, as I understand, admitted that it was very like her signature. In any case the Sheriff was satisfied that the signature was correct. Let me add that clearly this is a case where it was proved that the goods were delivered by the railway, that the actual delivery was taken and the credit note given in the shop on the day in question for returned empties. It is evident that the vanman who took this was there at the time, and, in addition, it was admitted by the girl that she was the only individual in the shop at that time. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, I think it is clear that the crime, for such it is, was proved to the satisfaction of the Sheriff who had to deal with the problem.
Now I turn to the question as to the medical condition of this unfortunate girl. She arrived, no doubt, in prison after the proceedings at the Court as many people do, in rather a disturbed state. I caused a report to be submitted to me immediately, in view of the allegations and statements being made in the Press and elsewhere. I ascertained that her condition was not in any case serious or gave any indication of real ill-health. I received a further report yesterday. My information is that her condition is entirely satisfactory and that all such signs of nervousness as were apparent when she first went to prison had disappeared. I have also caused the prison officials to report to me from time to time as to the state of her health. I am bound to say, looking at this case

1737
purely on its merits, that I have to decide that the conviction is a proper conviction, and in so far as the question of health is concerned, there is nothing which can be adduced at the present time to make me feel that a modification of the sentence could be given.
Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I wish to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that in a case with regard to which I had some correspondence with him, the shoe was on another foot, and he was not very keen that any prosecution should follow. I remember bringing before his notice the case of a man who was acquitted by the Sheriff of Hamilton because he was dissatisfied with the evidence laid by the police. I am sorry that I have not sufficient time to deal
1738
with the matter; but I want to add my opinion as to the scandalous nature of the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. I think there is no other place in the world where cases of the character raised by my hon. Friend could so frequently be brought. Apparently, we can get nothing done; we cannot even get fair play, and we might as well be perfectly frank as to the qualities of the right hon. Gentleman who represents Scotland on the Front Bench opposite.
It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'Clock.

  COAL INDUSTRY (STATISTICS).
  COAL INDUSTRY (STATISTICS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
POST OFFICE.
  TELEGRAPHIC CABLE, ISLAND OF LEWIS.
  TELEGRAPHIC CABLE, ISLAND OF LEWIS.
  CASH-ON-DELIVERY SYSTEM.
  CASH-ON-DELIVERY SYSTEM.
  TELEGRAPHY (PHOTOGRAPHS).
  TELEGRAPHY (PHOTOGRAPHS).
  ARMY SERVICE (EXTENSION).
  ARMY SERVICE (EXTENSION).
  WAR OFFICE (CIVIL STAFF).
  WAR OFFICE (CIVIL STAFF).
  PROSECUTION AND SENTENCE (DUNDEE).
  PROSECUTION AND SENTENCE (DUNDEE).
  BRITISH FILMS (CROWN COLONIES)
  BRITISH FILMS (CROWN COLONIES)
  IRAQ (ATTACK BY WAHABI TRIBESMEN).
  IRAQ (ATTACK BY WAHABI TRIBESMEN).
  KENYA (ATHARAKA NATIVES).
  KENYA (ATHARAKA NATIVES).
INDIA.
  PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONS.
  PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONS.
  CHOLERA, BENGAL.
  CHOLERA, BENGAL.
  SANDHURST COMMITTEE.
  SANDHURST COMMITTEE.
  BANKING FACILITIES (COMMISSION).
  BANKING FACILITIES (COMMISSION).
  OPEN-AIR SCHOOLS, MINING AREAS.
  OPEN-AIR SCHOOLS, MINING AREAS.
  NEW FOREST (HIGHWAYS AND WATERCOURSES).
  NEW FOREST (HIGHWAYS AND WATERCOURSES).
  SCHNEIDER CUP.
  SCHNEIDER CUP.
  SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE (EXPENDITURE).
  SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE (EXPENDITURE).
ROYAL NAVY.
  HOSPITAL SHIP "MAINE."
  HOSPITAL SHIP "MAINE."
  PETTY OFFICERS (UNIFORM).
  PETTY OFFICERS (UNIFORM).
  MEALS, RAILWAY TRAINS.
  MEALS, RAILWAY TRAINS.
  APPOINTMENT OF JUSTICES, GRIMSBY.
  APPOINTMENT OF JUSTICES, GRIMSBY.
  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT.
  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT.
AGRICULTURE.
  WHEAT AND FLOUR (IMPORTS).
  WHEAT AND FLOUR (IMPORTS).
  WAGES (STATISTICS).
  WAGES (STATISTICS).
  CREDITS.
  CREDITS.
  DOG RACING (BOOKMAKERS).
  DOG RACING (BOOKMAKERS).
  FACTORY FIRE, HACKNEY ROAD.
  FACTORY FIRE, HACKNEY ROAD.
  WHEAT (PRICE).
  WHEAT (PRICE).
  YOUNG OFFENDER, PORTSMOUTH (SENTENCE)
  YOUNG OFFENDER, PORTSMOUTH (SENTENCE)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ALIENS).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ALIENS).
  NATIONAL DEBT.
  NATIONAL DEBT.
  TAXATION (STATISTICS).
  TAXATION (STATISTICS).
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  FOOD PRESERVATIVES.
  FOOD PRESERVATIVES.
  VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.
  VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.
  FOOD ADULTERATION.
  FOOD ADULTERATION.
  LIQUID EGGS.
  LIQUID EGGS.
  SKIMMED CONDENSED MILK.
  SKIMMED CONDENSED MILK.
  SMALL-POX.
  SMALL-POX.
  STARVATION (DEATHS).
  STARVATION (DEATHS).
  CASUAL WARDS, WARMINSTER.
  CASUAL WARDS, WARMINSTER.
  POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION, BEDWELLTY.
  POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION, BEDWELLTY.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  HOUSING.
    PETITION, TORQUAY.
    PETITION, TORQUAY.
    SLUM CLEARANCES.
    SLUM CLEARANCES.
    DIRECT LABOUR.
    DIRECT LABOUR.
    STATISTICS (PLYMOUTH).
    STATISTICS (PLYMOUTH).
    MOTORING ACCIDENT'S (HOSPITAL TREATMENT).
    MOTORING ACCIDENT'S (HOSPITAL TREATMENT).
TRANSPORT.
  LEVEL CROSSING, HERIOT, MIDLOTHIAN.
  LEVEL CROSSING, HERIOT, MIDLOTHIAN.
  ROAD FUND (GRANTS)
  ROAD FUND (GRANTS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  ELECTRICITY SCHEMES (BRITISH STEEL).
  ELECTRICITY SCHEMES (BRITISH STEEL).
  CARPETS (IMPORTS)
  CARPETS (IMPORTS)

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Verulam—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Earl of Feversham—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I will not detain you for a moment on this Motion, but there are two things to which I think attention should be directed. The first is that people who consider that single-chamber government is adequate to the legislative necessities of this country should consider the number of Amendments to this Bill that stand in the name of the noble and learned Viscount upon the Woolsack, the Lord Chancellor.
LORD CARSON: Hear, hear!
LORD BUCKMASTER: Some of them undoubtedly are the result of the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill; but I do not think the noble Viscount would deny that by far the greater number are due to the fact that this Bill has come in an imperfect form from another place. What would happen if there were no Second Chamber to revise and remedy these mistakes it is difficult to understand. The second thing is that this list of Amendments is a formidable one and its adequate discussion must take a great deal of time. What are we going to do with the other Bills that come before us this Session? Are we going to say that we have not time to consider them, or are we only going to give a maimed and mutilated attention to matters which deserve our full and anxious consideration? Both these questions arise, I think, upon the Motion that the House should go into Committee upon this Bill. I am only

603
anxious, of course, that the Committee stage should begin at once, and I hope your Lordships will not think that I have wasted the three minutes which I have taken in making these remarks.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, it always interests me when a noble Lord sitting on the Liberal Benches has a word to say in favour of your Lordships' House. I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord was a member of this House when the Parliament Bill was passing through. Had he been a member of your Lordships' House we should have reckoned him as one of our supporters, because the noble and learned Lord's friends on that occasion did their best to check the power of your Lordships' House and to prevent it from operating as an effective Second Chamber. Now the noble and learned Lord is a few years older and perhaps I may be allowed to say to some extent wiser, and he has realised what a fatal mistake was made on that occasion when the powers of your Lordships' House were seriously curtailed. I hope that when we come to consider the reforms of the House of Lords we shall find the noble and learned Lord one of the warmest supporters of the Government in carrying out what may be necessary to make your Lordships' House efficient.
As regards the pressure upon your Lordships' time at this period of the Session, I will not be hypocrite enough to pretend that I do not profoundly regret it. I do not say that any blame is to be attached to any individual. I am certain that my colleagues in another place have done their utmost to hurry forward the business there and we are grateful to that most efficient colleague of ours the Chief Whip in the House of Commons for all he has done to help us; but, owing to the method of discussion in that House now and the practices which prevail there, it is almost impossible to get business through in a reasonable time. I hope the observations of the noble and learned Lord will re-echo not merely in your Lordships' House but elsewhere, and will induce a spirit of reasonable discussion in another place which will restore to your Lordships the opportunity of doing your duty as a revising chamber.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I think the remarks just made by the noble
604
Marquess should be regarded rather as a jest or as a red herring put directly across the legitimate points raised by my noble and learned friend. I may remind the noble Marquess that while the Parliament Act was passing through Parliament my noble and learned friend was, in another place, one of its staunchest defenders. But that was not the point to which he directed the attention of the noble Marquess. No doubt the Leader of the House is anxious to direct the attention of your Lordships to it rather than to the point which was the kernel of the remarks of my noble and learned friend. It is obvious that we might well have met earlier in the month of November, or even in October, and in view of the number of Bills which His Majesty's Government are asking us to pass that would have been a very reasonable step to have taken.
The real gravamen of the charge, which the noble Marquess did not understand, is, if he will allow me to say so, quite a different one from that to which he tried to direct your Lordships' attention. Amendments have been put down by the noble and learned Viscount upon the Woolsack which are considerable both in number and extent. That is not altogether a point with regard to the one-chamber system of government. It has been our painful experience during the last two or three years that no Amendments of substance are allowed in your Lordships' House. What I look forward to with much interest is to see whether in the course of these discussions any Amendment of substance is admitted and accepted by His Majesty's Government. It is practically a one-chamber system of government so long as the majority in one House dictates the policy of this House as well, and refuses to your Lordships' House any opportunity of introducing serious Amendments. That has been our experience in the past and we look forward with interest to see whether His Majesty's Government propose to continue that policy in future. If it does then it will be a continuation of what I describe as a system of single-chamber government. However, I am not going to be led astray by the noble Marquess into defending the Parliament Act on this occasion for it would be almost out of order to do so.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: My Lords, may I add one word to what has already been

605
said on this matter? I would point, out that the first thing that was done after the Bill had passed its Second Heading and it was decided to go into Committee in the ordinary way, was that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack put down a list of Amendments which I counted up to 78. Out of those 78 I think only 7 could by any possibility be called Amendments of substance. The rest were drafting Amendments and I think, without being censorious, even another place could manage to choose its language with more success and discrimination so that such Amendments would not be required. The learned Lord Chancellor should not have, in addition to all his many other labours, immediately to set about producing 70 Amendments as a first instalment of this measure which has passed through the other House after much discussion.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, my purpose is twofold, and first of all to say that I agree with what the noble and learned Viscount has just said. It is almost inevitable that there should be a certain number of Amendments of a legal kind, but until we come to those Amendments we cannot say whether or not they have substance. My second purpose is to say that I wholly dissociate myself from the analogy which has been brought in of the Parliament Act. That was brought in for the purpose of preventing this House from thwarting the decisions of the majority of the electors of the country expressed by a Government with a large majority in the other House. It did not interfere with what we are doing to-day or with this kind of procedure. It was directed to high policy and for high policy it was established. When we come to the general purposes of this Bill the point of view of those with whom I am associated on this Bench is this. We do not regard this as a perfect Bill, but we do regard it as a step forward. Therefore we are in sympathy with it and we have given it our support by abstaining from prolonging the discussions unnecessarily. We shall listen to the Amendments as they are brought forward and if they further the general purpose of the Bill then we shall not put difficulties in their way, but we shall have to see what those Amendments really mean and what the attitude of the House is towards them. With those observations I differentiate myself
606
so far from what has been said from the Liberal Bench and I also do not quite agree with everything that was said from the Government Bench.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, as a point has been made about the Amendments, may I say a word upon this matter? It is true that on the day after the Second Reading of the Bill was passed and so soon as the Motion was made to refer it to a Select Committee had been negatived, I put down a long list of Amendments, nearly all of them drafting Amendments. In regard to them may I point out that the procedure in another place differs from our procedure? When Amendments are put down on Report here and are carried we have a further opportunity of revising their terms and moving Amendments after Third Reading. In the other House they have not that advantage, and if a number of Amendments have been accepted on Report in the other House it may become necessary to revise their language when the Bill gets to this House, so that we may see that the final form of the Bill is satisfactory. My first Amendments were entirely a matter of form and did not arise out of points of substance raised in the debate on Second Reading.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL of KINTORE in the Chair.]
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON moved that Parts I and II of the Bill be postponed until after the consideration of Part III. The noble and learned Lord said: The object of this Motion is that we may at once proceed to consider the proposals, commencing with Clause 20, which deal with setting up the tribunal to whom these cases are to be referred. A good deal of the debate which we had last week turned upon the tribunal, and I think your Lordships will see that if we first know what is the tribunal to whom it is proposed to send the various questions that arise under the Bill we shall get on much more quickly in dealing with these proposals themselves. For instance, there are a number of Amendments on the Paper as to how questions raised—questions of law or questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact—are to be dealt with. In every branch of Parts I and II your Lordships will find that the most complicated questions are to be sent to

607
the tribunal as set up in the Bill, a tribunal which I think even those who opposed the Motion for sending the Bill to a Select Committee think ought to be altered.
When you take Part II, which deals with general amendments of the law of landlord and tenant, turns certain of the covenants upside down and revolutionises the whole method of dealing with those covenants, you find these words:—
"Any difference as to the reasonableness of any such sums shall, if both parties agree, be referred to the tribunal, and where a dispute as to the reasonableness of any such sum has been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the tribunal, the landlord shall be bound to grant the licence or consent on such terms as the court or tribunal considers reasonable."
There are questions to be submitted to the tribunal, therefore, which are just as great as those I have been dealing with for four and a half hours this morning in your Lordships' House. I understand the Lord Chancellor will accept my proposal, so I will move it without further words.
Moved, That Parts I and II of the Bill be postponed until after the consideration of Part III.—(Lord Carson.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I feel that this would be a convenient course to adopt, but I would like to suggest that my noble and learned friend should move to postpone Parts I and II until after Clause 20. I do not think it would be necessary to go through all the detailed clauses before coming to Part I.
LORD CARSON: With great respect I think we should go through the whole because you will find definitions of landlord and tenant. Having regard to the way in which covenants and the questions of improvement and goodwill are to be dealt with, it is very important to consider what definition your Lordships will put upon them when we are examining the other questions which arise, the changes in the law which are to affect the landlord and the tenant as defined by the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the other course would be more convenient, but I will not dispute the matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT SUMNER VISCOUNT SUMNER moved, after Clause 19, to insert the following new clause:—
Trial of claim and applications under Part I of Act.
.—(1) A claim for compensation or for the grant of a new lease and all other applications under Part I of this Act which the tribunal has power to hear and decide, shall be triable in the High Court, but where either the total amount claimed is less than five hundred pounds or the annual value of the holding in question does not exceed one hundred pounds, the claim or application shall be triable in the county court of the district in which the holding is situate instead of in the High Court, and where any such claim or application is so dealt with the High Court or the county court, as the case may be, shall be the tribunal for the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this Act:
Provided that where the claimant or applicant and all persons affected agree that the claim or application shall be made to and tried by the tribunal, the claim or application shall be so made and tried.
(2) Whenever a judge of the High Court or a judge of the county court shall think fit to be assisted by an assessor on the hearing of any question arising under this Act he shall give directions accordingly. Such assessor shall be one of the panel of referees hereinafter mentioned and shall be selected in the manner hereinafter prescribed.
(3) The reference committee hereinafter mentioned may make rules relating to applications to and proceedings before the High Court and the county court under this section.
The noble and learned Viscount said: The effect of the Amendment which I have put down on the Paper is to supersede Clause 20 in all material particulars. It appears rather curiously on the Paper as an Amendment on page 20, line 2. All that that means is that it comes in after the words "Part III—General" and before Clause 20. The principle upon which I ventured to draft this Amendment, which I will explain to your Lordships in detail in a moment, is this. As the Bill was originally drafted it provided, in Part I, for new remedies given by Statute to the tenant and introducing into the well-known law of landlord and tenant very extensive changes, and it prescribed, oddly enough, that in deciding questions with regard to these new rights a perfectly new tribunal should be created. But that was not enough. It further provided that this perfectly new tribunal should be compulsory, and that on all questions of fact its decision should be final.
It is true that in a certain class of case there was power given to the High Court to remove the case and entertain

609
and try a claim itself, upon the rather curious ground not merely of difficult questions of law but of the magnitude of the amount at stake. That advantage should not be confined to persons who have large amounts at stake, I think; and should not be taken away from all those whose transactions are not large. The result—the happy result, as I venture to think—of the discussion which took place when this Bill was before your Lordships last week, was that on all sides and from all quarters of the House remarks were made about that plan, which ranged from chilly admiration to violent condemnation. I do not think the original Clause 20 had a friend left at the end of the evening. At any rate, we now have upon the Paper Amendments by many of the most eminent hands and also this one by myself, and, above all, an Amendment by the Lord Chancellor. To that Amendment it will be necessary to direct particular attention because I. think it is not unfair to assume from its character that the compulsory reference of these disputes to an amateur tribunal of surveyors or something of that kind is now abandoned as the principle of the Bill, and it is recognised that subject to the question what course should be resorted to, parties who are engaged in these disputes ought to have access direct whenever they choose to His Majesty's Courts.
The question, therefore, lies in substance between providing that the case may go to the county court if it is of a magnitude suitable for the jurisdiction of the county court, which is the ordinary principle on which actions are referred from the High Court to the county court, or whether the county court should be in the first instance the appointed tribunal, with some power, upon an application being made or upon general consent, to go to the High Court. I venture to think that upon principle, and especially in a Bill of this magnitude and character, it is important that nobody should be shut out from access to the High Court of Justice. Remember that not only are there many cases of great magnitude, not only are there many new questions of law, not only will there certainly be at the beginning a large stock of new questions to be decided, but there are also innumerable cases in which smaller claims will be raised all over the country and in which, owing to the fact that landlords are not all rich and tenants
610
are not all magnanimous, there will certainly be bitter dissensions between the parties such as ought to be decided in the Court to which the party who has to pay will be most content to be taken.
Accordingly, partly, I confess, in defence of what I conceive to be the Constitutional rights of the King's Courts, partly in the hope that at the very beginning authoritative decisions will be given which will clear the ground and make it possible to arrive at agreed solutions afterwards. I propose that the scheme should be of this kind: A claim for compensation and all the other applications that are attendant upon it—such as the grant of a new lease instead of the payment of money, a settlement of the terms of the new lease and that kind of thing—"which the tribunal has power to hear and decide"—that covers, I think, the whole of the matters that arise under Part I—"shall be triable in the High Court"; and then, of course, the usual procedure of the High Court will apply with regard to evidence and with regard to appeals and the ordinary practice and procedure—
"but where either the total amount claimed is less than five hundred pounds or the annual value of the holding in question does not exceed one hundred pounds, the claim or application shall be triable in the county court of the district in which the holding is situate instead of in the High Court, and whore any such claim or application is so dealt with, the High Court or the county court, as the case may be, shall be the tribunal for the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this Act."
The result of that is, I hope, to insert throughout all the opportunities for new litigation and new applications with which Part I bristles a comprehensive provision that the case shall be triable in the High Court, with a limited jurisdiction conferred upon the local court that is most convenient having regard to the locality of the premises in question.
Then there is the following proviso:—
"Provided that where the claimant or applicant and all persons affected agree that the claim or application shall be made to and tried by the tribunal, the claim or application shall be so made and tried."
I insert that proviso for this reason. Much has been said against the tribunal. I do not, of course, as a practical man fail to recognise that there are many cases in which persons sitting and forming part of the panel would be capable of giving a sensible, perhaps a rapid and

611
possibly (though not very probably) an inexpensive decision, and I did not think that, after the trouble that had been devoted to the construction of this tribunal in another place and the high hopes that appear to have been raised by the idea of getting everything finally decided by an eminent surveyor or valuer, it was quite right to sweep away the tribunal and the panel constructed with so much care.
Accordingly, if the parties—I mean all the parties, because it is not right that it should be done except by consent—like to go to that tribunal, then I think they ought to have the power to do so. This will have another advantage in that, if upon trial the new tribunals work well, the number of cases in which all parties will agree to go to the tribunal will undoubtedly increase. The tribunal is itself upon its trial. It may perfectly well be that, guided on the law by decisions of the High Court and with good will, if such a thing be possible under this Act between landlord and tenant, by consent many cases may be referred to them. At any rate I wish to keep the door open for them.
The next part of the Amendment says:—
"Whenever a Judge of the High Court or a Judge of the county court shall think fit to be assisted by an assessor on the hearing of any question arising under this Act he shall give directions accordingly. Such assessor shall be one of the panel of referees hereinafter mentioned and shall be selected in the manner hereinafter prescribed."
That preserves the machinery by which the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Incorporated Law Society and the President of the Surveyors' Institution will, after deep thought and large discrimination, select suitable practical men all over the country and will provide rules which will specify how they are to be selected for particular cases, what the procedure is to be, who is to tax the costs and all the rest of it. I wish to extend the advantages of this chosen panel as much as possible, so that both the High Court and the county court may have the advantage of the assistance of members of it.
They have, of course, powers at present of sending suitable questions to special referees, but if the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Incorporated Law Society and the
612
President of the Surveyors' Institution have laid their heads together and selected a panel of the fittest men in the country for this particular kind of case, I think it would be an advantage that the Judge of either Court should be able to say that he will have one of them to help him. An assessor is one thing, but a reference to a layman to hear a case and to determine it is quite another. The great value of an assessor is that he sits at the Judge's elbow and gives him a hint when not to pay too much attention to expert witnesses, whereas the disadvantage of a single-handed Rhadaman-thus, who decides all questions of fact and fails or refuses to recognise that anything is a question of law, is that of a person who is apt to rub everybody up the wrong way and to produce results which are anomalous and which will lay down no general rule.
That is, briefly, the nature of the Amendment which I venture to propose. I will not trouble your Lordships with the small Amendments that will have to be made in the existing Clause 20, of which I am bound to say that, so far as I am concerned, not very much will survive. But if I may do so, without presuming to spoil the ground for the Lord Chancellor's Amendment in any way by trying to discuss it when we are not on it, might I point out the difference between the two Amendments? In the case of the Lord Chancellor's scheme, which your Lordships will find on pages 29, 30 and 31 of the Marshalled List of Amendments, the county court is compulsorily the tribunal—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I had better explain the scheme.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: I bow to that at once. Let me conclude by saying that there are differences between the Lord Chancellor's scheme and mine which I venture to hope may be resolved in favour of my scheme. When your Lordships have heard them both you will decide. There is, however, one small difficulty, and that is that your Lordships might adopt my scheme first; but I suppose that when the Lord Chancellor addresses your Lordships upon this question he will contrast his view with mine, and I agree that he is the proper person and very much more fit than I to explain his clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 2, at end insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Sumner.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The debate has taken a turn which, I confess, I did not anticipate when my noble and learned friend Lord Carson moved to postpone Parts I and II. I thought he desired that I should at once explain the new clause which it is proposed to insert in place of Clause 20. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, has moved a clause which, of course, if carried, would take the place of Clause 20, for it sets up a totally different tribunal from that which Clause 20 sets up, but he has not moved to leave out Clause 20 and insert his clause. He has moved to insert his new clause after Clause 19, and so has obtained priority for his proposal. However, I cannot deal with his Amendment without dealing with the whole subject, and I hope that I shall be allowed in this debate to explain, in my own words, what is the purpose of the Amendment which I have put down, and how it would differ from that which the noble and learned Viscount has moved.
I promised in the previous debate to reconsider the whole question of the tribunal. I agree that there were from different parts of the House objections taken to the proposal in the Bill, mainly, I think, because noble Lords did not wish to deny to the King's subjects access to the ordinary Courts of Justice in this country, or to set up what were called lay tribunals, not responsible to any higher authority. We want to meet that point, but at the same time to adhere to the view which we have taken throughout, that on these questions of value and detail it is of advantage to have the first opinion from some person specially familiar with that kind of inquiry, and also—and this is a point which bears closely on my noble and learned friend's Amendment—we desire not to overload our Courts; that is, not to require a Court to deal with this kind of matter from the beginning, to have an action commenced there, to have counsel heard by the Judge, whether of the High Court or of the county court, to have experts called before him, and so to occupy a great part of the time of the Court in investigating these matters.
Let me add that really our Courts have not the time to deal from the beginning with all this new business. If you
614
adopted this Amendment, and directed that every proceeding should be begun in the Courts, either in the High Court or the county court according to value, you would be adding a volume of work to the work already done by the Courts which they could not really carry out, and we should have to appoint a number of additional Judges. More than that, in the county court districts we should have to build additional court-houses for those Judges to sit in. You would find the Courts absolutely overloaded by the work thrown upon them by this Bill. It is to avoid that that our proposals have been very carefully thought out, and what we suggest is that every proceeding shall be commenced in the county court of the district where the property in question is situate, and that the matter may be transferred to the High Court in either of two events—namely, if the parties so desire and agree, or if the High Court, on application made to it, so direct.
That would bring up to the High Court all matters of sufficient importance for that purpose, but as to all other matters which would remain in the county courts, we propose that in the first instance the cases shall be automatically referred to a member of the panel of referees to be selected by the County Court Judge or by his registrar. In other words, he would not begin by requiring a hearing with counsel and experts, but would merely make an immediate, uncontroversial order referring the matter to a referee on the panel for inquiry and report. The referee would, of course, hear the matter as we originally proposed, but he would not finally decide it. He would report under the County Court Acts and rules to the Judge of the County Court, and then either party would be at liberty to object to that report. If no objection were taken the County Court Judge would make an order approving the report and giving final judgment. If objection were taken by either side he would hear the objection and give his decision.
Therefore in the end you would have a report by an expert, and a decision by a Judge, which we think would fulfil all the requirements put forward in the recent debate. Of course there would be, under the existing County Court Acts, an appeal on matters of law to a Divisional Court, but not further without leave of the

615
Court, and so you would get an opportunity in every case for a decision by a Judge of our Courts on all points—first on the question of fact, which the County Court Judge would have power to decide, and afterwards if necessary by an appeal on any question of law. I suggest to your Lordships that that carries out all the requirements which were so forcibly urged in the recent debate. We shall keep our system of expert inquiry, but we shall have a system of decision by a Judge. I suggest that it is a better plan than that put forward by my noble and learned friend who moved this Amendment.
His Amendment has the great objection that it throws the whole burden of these decisions from the beginning upon the Courts, either the High Court or the county court. In every case you would have a writ or plaint commencing the proceedings, you would have a defence, and a hearing with counsel and witnesses on both sides, and a judgment, and all that would take place in the Court itself, occupying hours and sometimes days of the Judge's time. We want to avoid that intolerable burden, as I think it would be, upon our Courts, and we suggest that it would be better to adopt the simpler process which we suggest, which would save the Courts from that burden, but would in the end leave the decision to the Judges of this country. I do not propose at the present moment to occupy a longer time, or to deal with the details of my proposal. I have explained what is the big distinction between the noble Viscount's proposal and our proposal, and in the view which I hold of the matter I ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment moved by my noble and learned friend.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I must say that I have listened with a good deal of regret, and some astonishment, to the statement of my noble friend the Lord Chancellor. What is his objection to the noble and learned Viscount's proposal? The noble and learned Viscount simply and solely proposes that, in cases arising under this Bill, His Majesty's subjects should have the same rights as they have in every other case. I assure your Lordships that the difficulties of the Bill, the complications of the Bill, and the amount of property that may be at stake under the Bill, are not less than in those cases which are engaging His Majesty's Judges
616
either in the county courts or in the Supreme Court every day. And what is the reason why the subject, whether he be landlord or tenant, is to be debarred from asserting his rights in the ordinary way, either in the county court or the Supreme Court? The Lord Chancellor actually says he is to be deprived of his right to go to the Courts because the Courts would not have time to hear him, it would add so much to the volume of the work.
Is that a real reason? If the Courts are not sufficient, surely we have not come to such a pass that we have to set up additional tribunals of an extraordinary character and at enormous expense. Every kind of question which arises under this Bill can be paralleled by similar questions that are decided every day in the Common Law Courts and in the Court of Chancery; and, indeed, many of the clauses of the Bill raise questions of importance far greater than many raised in the cases which are discussed from day to day in His Majesty's Courts. Therefore the first question I ask is: what is the difference between these rights and any others? Are we to say every time a Bill is passed in the future that our Courts are so overworked that we must find some other method of disposing of disputes, rather than allow His Majesty's subjects to go to the Courts? Your Lordships can lay this down as a precedent for taking away the ordinary rights of His Majesty's subjects, if you wish, but I hope you will pause before you do it.
What does the Lord Chancellor propose instead of Lord Sumner's very simple proceeding? Lord Sumner proposes that these matters should go to the Courts in the ordinary way—to the county court if the matter is under £500 (which is some extension of the county court procedure), and to the Supreme Court if it is over that amount; and, if there is a difficulty about valuation, or anything of that kind, the High Court Judge or the County Court Judge who hears the case can be assisted by an assessor drawn from the panel. Could anything be more businesslike than that? But what does the Lord Chancellor propose? As far as I can see everything is to be brought into the county court, though there is then to be the large expense, if anyone goes to the trouble of making a motion, of bringing the matter up to the Supreme

617
Court—which, I may tell you, will not be done for nothing—and there you will have an argument as to whether the case is a proper one. Then, when that is done, what is to happen? The whole case is to be referred in the first instance to the expert on the panel, and you have to go to the expert and have a full trial before him on every question connected with the case, questions of law and fact alike. Having got his decision, you then have another hearing before the county court or the Supreme Court. All the Lord Chancellor does is to give two hearings, instead of one, before a decision is come to.
I know very well what will happen. When the matter goes from the expert to the Supreme Court or the county court all sorts of questions will arise as to what were questions of law and what questions of fact, whether the expert considered this point of law and that point of fact; and the whole matter will be in a state of extreme difficulty and confusion before the High Court or the county court, as the case may be. I can easily see, from very long experience, that when it comes to the Supreme Court or the county court it may be that the whole hearing before the referee will become absolutely abortive, and the county court may hold that all that the referee heard, having regard to the proper view of the law, should not have been heard at all, or parts of it should not have been heard at all; and it may be that in those circumstances there is no advantage whatever in having the expert, and the Judge may have to commence all over again and send the case back to the expert.
Now all that is avoided by the very simple procedure proposed by Lord Sumner. He says: Do not have separate hearings; let the Judge sit and have the man from the panel sitting behind him, the one directing the other on what they know, and let them consider afterwards between them how the matter is to be discussed. That is not unknown in our Courts. In the Admiralty Courts you have assessors brought in who have a knowledge of the sea and who advise the Judge on various matters, and the Judge keeps them right on points of law. With all these complications and consequent expense that expense in thousands of cases will come out of the property. I suggest that the Lord Chancellor's proposal would therefore be a denial of
618
justice to these people—landlord and tenant. For my own part I cannot understand what fault is to be found in the proposals of Lord Sumner, and if he goes to a Division I shall support him.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I confess I listened with amazement to the Lord Chancellor's suggestion that the Judges of the County Court were in any way less engaged in work than Judges of the High Court.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not suggest that.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Then I do not quite follow what is the excellence of the suggestion to put this responsibility on the Judges of the County Court instead of the Judges of the High Court. But it is quite obvious what is going to happen if the matter goes to the county court. I have always considered that legislation by reference is a very happy relief to the draftsman of a Bill, but an extremely bad thing for the person who attempts to understand it. If you look at the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor, subsection (2), you will see that reference is made to Section 6 of the County Court Act, 1919. I think from that section you will see exactly what is going to happen if the Lord Chancellor's Amendment is carried. Section 6 says:
"Subject to county court rules, the Judge may in any case, with the consent of the parties, refer any action or matter or any question arising therein to the registrar or a referee for inquiry and report, and may direct how such reference shall be conducted, and may remit any report for further inquiry and report"—
Now this is what I want to call attention to:—
"and on consideration of any report or further report the Judge may give such judgment or make such order in the action or matter as may be just. …"
Therefore the Judge can take the report of the panel referee and give judgment on that without any further hearing at all.
Is that really in the spirit of what was suggested on the Second Reading? Is not that leaving it practically in the hands of the panel expert? The Judge has only got to lead his report and to say: "Well, it seems to me a sensible report. I will give judgment." The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, says "No." I have referred your Lordships to the section of

619
the Act. I may be wrong about the matter of law, but if the Lord Chancellor assures us that it is not so why should not something be put in to make it clear? I should have thought that the Act was clear, that having received the Report, the Judge could give judgment on the Report.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble and learned friend must know that this is all provided for by rules, and that the rules provide that notice of the report shall be given to both sides. Some one must apply to the Courts with regard to the report and the Judge makes his order after hearing the parties.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I am sorry, but I must maintain my point. The Act of Parliament gives the Judge perfect power to give judgment on the report without any further evidence being taken, and no rule can affect that. Of course, either party can be heard on the report. What I am pointing out is that the Judge has power to give judgment then and there on the report without hearing any further argument. That is provided by the Act and no rule can get out of it. I see the noble and learned Marquess (Lord Reading) opposite shaking his head. I naturally bow to his very great knowledge, but I have looked into the Act of Parliament and, with great respect to him, I cannot see that you can get out of it. It seems to me that the Lord Chancellor's Amendment allows the Judge, if he so desires, to give judgment straight away on the report of the expert. Of course, the parties can be heard as to whether he should or whether he should not; that is perfectly true; but the Judge can say: "No; I have seen the report and I do not want to hear any further evidence."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I am again in disagreement with my noble and learned friend and with noble Lords opposite, but I think I am in agreement with my noble and learned friend who sits beside me.
LORD CARSON: Not on the question of its not being heard; but on the question of hearing evidence my noble friend is quite right.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: That is what I said. I am very sorry, but I thought I explained very carefully that
620
the Judge, if he so desires, can on hearing both parties say: "I am not going to hear any further evidence; I shall act on the report." If he chooses to do that he can. Again, the noble and learned Marquess opposite shakes his head.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The point is a small one. The learned Judge is not entitled to give judgment in the circumstances mentioned until both parties have appeared before him, as they have a right to do.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: It is entirely my fault. I never meant to go beyond what I am saying—that the County Court Judge can give judgment after he has heard both parties, on the report and nothing else. I have not appeared much in the county courts for the last two or three years, but before that I appeared a great deal in them. If your Lordships knew the congestion of work due to the Rent Restrictions Acts under which the county courts are now suffering you would not suggest putting on the County Court Judge the burden of having to go into every case, when there is a perfectly short way out by his taking the word of his expert and saying: "Well, I shall take the word of my expert. I will allow each side to say what it likes about it. After all, I have dealt with the expert for some time and I know he is a perfectly good and proper fellow, or I think he is, and I shall take his word." If you do that you will not be putting the matter into the hands of the Court at all, but into the hands of the expert witness and you are only camouflaging it by suggesting that it is to go to the county court with this report.
Why on earth, when it has been discovered after many years that the assessors in the Court of Admiralty do aid the Court and that when a county court is dealing with workmen's compensation cases a medical assessor is an excellent person to sit with the Judge, you should abandon all that procedure which has been found to work so well and go to something totally different—namely, the report from an expert on which the Judge can act without any further evidence—I do not know. For this reason I suggest that the noble and learned Viscount who moved the Amendment is right when he says that the subject ought to be entitled to go to the Courts of this

621
country and ought not to be left with what he will be left with practically—the report of one expert. For these reasons, if the noble and learned Viscount goes to a Division I shall vote with him.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I regret that this debate turns so much upon legal questions that lawyers occupy your Lordships' time. None the less it is essentially what might be described as a professional question. It is the question as to how best to secure that speedy and cheap justice may be brought to people who have controversies under this Bill. I must admit that when I heard the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, I was very greatly impressed and thought that he had provided a proper and easy exit from the difficulties the Bill presents. But the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has convinced me that my first impression was wrong, and for these reasons. It is not only that you will overburden our Courts with work. That, it seems to me, would be a necessary and inevitable consequence of accepting the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Sumner. Every case then would be compelled to go either to the county court or to the High Court, and these cases must be many.
It is not only that, but what to my mind is equally important, yon will multiply the expense of these proceedings in such a way that they will become burdensome beyond degree upon all the litigants. If there is one thing which remains until this day a reflection upon our system of administering justice and which hitherto we have been unable to remove, it is the cost of litigation. That is the thing that bears with enormous weight upon innocent litigants, who frequently have to hazard what may be the whole of their savings in order to get justice from the courts of law. That is a thing which has been present to my mind for a very long time, and I think that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, considered it when he pointed out that he had adopted a method by which that risk would be minimised as far as possible.
The real difference between the view I first entertained of the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, and the contention of the Lord Chancellor is this. I agree entirely with
622
the view of Lord Sumner as to the importance of the constitutional rights of the citizen to have access to the Courts. At the same time I do not want the citizen to have those constitutional rights so emphasised that in the course of exercising them a man is ruined. I really am not exaggerating what well may happen in the case of small litigation under this measure when I say that the weight of the cost of the expert witness and the necessary burden and cost of counsel may be such as to rob victory of all its spoils. That is the reason why I think the Amendment of the learned Lord Chancellor should be accepted. As for the rest, there really is not anything so serious as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, suggested. At this moment there is power in the Courts to refer. They can refer if they like and when the report comes back it will be dealt with exactly in the same way as the report that would be made under the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. There is practically no difference between the one and the other.
The only difference is this. The Lord Chancellor's Amendment insists that there shall be the preliminary reference and the other leaves it to the discretion of the Judge. In those circumstances I think that the compulsory reference is right and that when it comes back it can then be fully argued if necessary on any question of law and, if not, it can be accepted by the County Court Judge. There is only one thing that might be suggested. I think it might be possible to blend the two Amendments in this way, that up to £500 it, should go into the county court and beyond that figure into the High Court, the procedure being the same in each case. I see no objection to that. The important big cases would then be retained in the High Court and the smaller ones would go to the county court but, with that modification, I hope your Lordships, in the interests of the litigants themselves, will disregard everything else and support the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I did not like to interrupt the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken but he was quoting me as having suggested that Section 6 of the County Court Act, 1919, laid it down there would be no difference in the reference arising out

623
of that Act. Under the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor there is every difference in the world. Section 6 is governed by this: the consent of the parties; then, an absolute right of access to the Courts. Under this Amendment that is not so.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I merely said that in the one case it was compulsory and in the other optional. That is exactly what you said.
LORD JESSEL: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, said this was a purely professional debate. I am reminded of the saying about fools entering where angels fear to tread when I venture to address your Lordships' House, but I was very much struck by the remarks of Lord Buck-master in regard to the expenses. If I may say so, I do not think he has read the noble Viscount's clause as he might have done. If you look at the end of page 27 of the Marshalled List you will read:—
"Provided that where the claimant or applicant and all persons affected agree that the claim or application shall be made to and tried by the tribunal, the claim or application shall be so made and tried."
LORD BUCKMASTER: Both parties agreed.
LORD JESSEL: There is no reason, if they want to avoid expense, why they should not agree to go to the tribunal. The real case that I think the noble Viscount made out for his clause is that once these matters have been taken before a Judge and grave decisions come to, then the rest will follow. People will be quite satisfied to go to the tribunal that has been set up later on, if they so agree. The object of the noble Viscount's clause, it seems to me, is that in the first instance the Court should be the proper tribunal; and it is because of that and because I think it would be much easier for the County Court Judge or the High Court Judge himself to have the assistance of an assessor instead of having only the view of the expert witness brought before him, that I shall vote in favour of the noble Viscount's clause.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I think we should be grateful to the Lord Chancellor for having gone so far to meet the objection which was raised on a previous occasion, but I suggest to him that his clause is
624
still open to the criticism that it is more a formal than a material alteration, and I think I that he would probably meet a great deal of criticism and possibly some cavil if he would take some such words as these. Instead of "stand referred," which would simply seem to mean the purely formal order of the Judge, he should accept words like these: "be referred with such directions as the Judge may give." That would enable the Judge to put before the referee the proper questions and would really make some use of the original application and would, I think, very much protect the subject. If the Lord Chancellor would make the further concession suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, of making in the large cases the tribunal as of right the High Court and not the county court, then I venture to say, having considered this matter a great deal, he would meet most of the objections. I do not say he can do it to-day but I hope if not to-day he will do something in that direction on Report.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: My noble and learned friend has performed the obsequies of my poor little Amendment and has proceeded to discuss the Amendment which I dare say will presently be before your Lordships—namely, that of the noble and learned Viscount—and he has had the assistance of my noble friend opposite in that matter. But before the grave now yawning closes over my Amendment I should like to say a few words in answer to the Lord Chancellor, and perhaps, if I am very fortunate, I may persuade my noble friend opposite to turn round again and once more think that on the whole my Amendment has slightly the best of it. The principle I would submit to your Lordships is this. If you enact that new and far-reaching liabilities shall be created which fall upon a very large number of His Majesty's subjects, you are bound to give the person so made liable all the old remedies to which under the old law he was entitled. You have no excuse that I can see for altering the Common Law by Statute and drastically changing the liabilities of landlords, and imposing very considerable liabilities upon tenants and saying that nevertheless, for the most part, they must be kept away from the adjudication of the High Court. Least of all have you any right to do that when the main objection is the question of cost. Litigation is spread all over the

625
face of this Bill and in litigation costs, like the poor, are always with us. I know of no litigation in which you can ensure that the costs of having the case properly prepared and properly argued can be kept down where the parties think the matter of sufficient pecuniary importance or their tempers got up sufficiently to insist on having the best assistance.
But, for what it may be worth, I have a little provision in this matter:
"The Reference Committee hereinafter mentioned may make rules relating to applications to and proceedings before the High Court and the county court under this section."
If it is legitimate to enact that there shall only be one expert witness on each side, unless a special order be made, I should think it was legitimate to make a rule prescribing that there shall be only one counsel on each side, unless with special leave, and that on taxation the modest 5 and 2, or whatever takes its place in these days—I suppose a modest 25 and 2—would be more proper, indeed should be the utmost that should be allowed for any case on taxation. But I do not know how costs can be cured except by abolition of litigation.
Then as to the apprehension that the Courts will be overloaded. How that may be I do not know. We have no information before us of the number of cases which it is anticipated will arise, and I think I am not misquoting my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor when I say that in his final speech the other evening he said that he himself did not know how many cases there would be. It is impossible for us to tell whether the number of cases that will arise will be such as to overload the Courts or not, but what I would point out is that if cases go into Court some Court has got to be overloaded and whether it is the High Court or the county court appears to me to make remarkably little difference in comparison with getting cases tried in the most satisfactory manner. I would point out also in reference to what is called the automatic reference to the expert, which may be all very well in its way, that that can as easily be applied in the High Court as in the county court. It is equally possible at the commencement of a case in either tribunal to say that the first thing to be done is to go before the referee and have a report on the facts which very possibly may dispose of the case, because it may prove that the
626
amount he is disposed to recommend is not very great and that the case is stated so as to bring the parties to terms.
But remember if you are going to begin in the county court you first have a duplicate proceeding before the referee. I am quite sure that for a very considerable time every case in which there is a new point bearing upon the construction of the Act will be the subject of appeal to the Divisional Court, and unless leave is refused rather arbitrarily will be appealed to the Court of Appeal, but let us trust no further, because the interest of landlords as of tenants, and I am afraid also the interest of mortgagees and reversionaries, are acutely affected all through this Bill. Every solicitor will be anxious to get at the earliest moment to know how he is to advise his clients and every point that turns up that is worth discussing at all is certain to be appealed to the High Court, and I think ought to be appealed to the High Court, because it is in the High Court that you can get reported decisions which bind not only inferior courts but Judges of the High Court themselves, whereas in spite of the excellent judgments given in the county court, they have not the same weight and will not be equally well known.
Then there is the question of the expense of additional Judges and additional buildings. The difference is simply between additional High Court Judges and additional County Court Judges because, after all, no Judge can try more than one case at a time. The only difference is between the stipends of those august individuals. Bear this in mind. Part I applies only to improvements hereafter to be effected and only to improvements after three years have elapsed from their completion so that, except for the preliminary cases when a man sends in his plan and specification and the landlord quarrels with it and there is an application to settle what the improvement is to be, there will not be any claim for compulsory improvement for three years. Where the High Court will be three years hence does not lie in our hands. It may be that all this will be profoundly modified by that time. At all events there will be in that interval a breathing space for the Court which will be principally occupied, so far as compulsory cases are concerned, with goodwill cases and they

627
will be cleared out of the way. I beg your Lordships not to be led astray by the mirage of cheap justice. In this country justice is never cheap. It is difficult enough to get it at all. The only thing we can do is to say that a good part of the cost of getting justice shall be the luxury of the man who applies for it and that the loser shall not have to pay the whole of the cost. That can perfectly well be done by a rule.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster has left his place I am afraid that he must have felt it was unsafe to continue to lend an ear to my persuasion. With regard to his suggestion, my clause does already divide litigation by a standard of money, the amount of the claim or the annual value of the tenancy, which will send one class of case to the county court and another to the High Court. If he will address himself to the Lord Chancellor on the subject I have no doubt he will be received with courtesy, but as far as I am concerned I am converted already and it is in my clause. I think this is a very important matter for this reason: in the discussion of Amendments to Parts I and II and in the actual course of events when Parts I and II have become law, it will be very much more easy to take risks with regard to doubtful cases, very much more easy to come to terms with an antagonist, when it is known that the best legal decision is available to the parties who seek it. That will lay a broad foundation for knowing what the new law is and for avoiding litigation and coming to terms or for going to arbitration and confining disputes to the most practical details.
When we consider how these claims will range from great buildings to small buildings, from alterations that will ruin a poor landlord or ruin a poor tenant up to arrangements that may affect widespread properties and many other buildings than those directly concerned. I do not think in practice the public will find that it is as well satisfied with the decisions of the County Court Judges, subject to appeal, as it would be with the decisions of the High Court Judges, no doubt subject to appeal also but I think less likely to be appealed against. I am sorry to trouble your Lordships because we have a great deal before us, but I must press my Amendment to a Division.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Before we go to a Division it really would be an assistance if we could have some statement from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. If a Judge of the High Court, or the county court as the case may be, were to be given the power of settling the issue by giving directions to the referee, if one knew that the referee's mind would be applied a priori to the real points at issue, it would relieve some of us who know the practice in the Courts of Justice. If we could get some such promise I for one should support the Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had intended to say that I think that the power which the noble and learned Lord suggests is already in the County Courts Act. The County Courts Act enables the County Court Judge to give directions to the referee when he refers a case for inquiry and report. That power will be imported, as I believe, by the words of this Bill. As regards the second point raised by Lord Buckmaster, as to whether it might be made a direction that any claim over £500 should go to the High Court, I will very certainly consider that point and see if I can meet the noble and learned Lord at a later date.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Although I am a Free Trader, I strongly dislike imported considerations in an Act of Parliament. Instead of importing them, will my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor incorporate them? If we know they are there then we shall be more satisfied.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Though it may be in the county court rules, it is not in the High Court rules, and where High Court cases are concerned we should really want some such words as suggested.
LORD MERRIVALE: I hope regard will be had to what Lord Phillimore has said. There is a separate system of reference in this Bill, and I submit that having regard to the separate system of reference the general terms in the Bill might be held not to apply to that system of reference under the County Courts Act. I do not see such a clear incorporation as would necessarily secure what I now believe to be the intention of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am so sure of my ground that I will undertake either to satisfy my noble friend Lord Phillimore that what I say is right or to agree to the insertion of appropriate words.
Clause 20:
Tribunal.
20.—(1) The tribunal for the purposes of this Act shall be such one of a panel of referees appointed for the purposes of this Act by the Reference Committee hereinafter mentioned as may be selected in manner provided by rules made by the Reference Committee.
Provided that where a claim for compensation or the grant of a new lease has been made under this Act, and it appears to the
On Question, Whether the proposed new clause shall be there inserted?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 80.

CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Biddulph, L.

Leigh, L.

Ilchester, E.

Carson, L.

Merthyr, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Castlemaine, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Midleton, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Morton, E.

Clinton, L.

Mowbray, L.

Northbrook, E.

Dynevor, L.

Newton, L.

Selborne, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Faringdon, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Harris, L.

Queenborough, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hylton, L.

Saltoun, L.

Sumner, V. [Teller.]

Jessel, L.

Strachie, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Strathspey, L.

Lamington, L.

Sydenham of Combe, L.

Avebury, L.

Lawrence, L.

Wittenham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Glenarthur, L.

Onslow, E.

Hampton, L.

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Hanworth, L.

Russell, E.

Hemphill, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sandwich, E.

Heneage, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Stanhope, E.

Kilmaine, L.

Sutherland, D.

Stradbroke, E.

Knaresborough, L.

Wellington, D.

Yarborough, E.

Kylsant, L.

Lovat, L.

Bath, M.

Burnham, V.

Manners, L.

Camden, M.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Chelmsford, V.

Merrivale, L.

Haldane, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Reading, M.

Peel, V.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Ullswater, V.

Parmoor, L.

Airlie, E.

Phillimore, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Arnold, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Caithness, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

Cavan, E.

Charnwood, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Clwyd, L.

Southborough, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Conyers, L.

Southwark, L.

De La Warr, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Stanmore, L.

Grey, E.

Cushendun, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Hewe, E.

Darling, L.

Swaythling, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Daryngton, L.

Templemore, L.

Iveagh, E.

Ernle, L.

Teynham, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Thomson, L.

Lovelace, E.

Gainford, L.

Wargrave, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

High Court or a Judge thereof, on an application made for the purpose by the claimant or other person affected by the claim, that on account of the magnitude of the claim and the questions of law involved the case is one which it is desirable should be tried in the High Court, the High Court or a Judge thereof may order that the claim shall be tried in the High Court; and in the event of any such order being made, or in the event of the claimant and all persons affected by the claim agreeing that the claim shall be tried by the High Court, the claim shall be so tried, and the High Court shall be the tribunal for the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this Act.
(2) The Reference Committee may make rules as to the manner of selection of the referee to whom any application or matter under this Act is to be made or referred, regard being had to the knowledge of the locality possessed by such referee, and as to the time within which and the manner in which any such application or reference is to be made, and as to the procedure in relation to any such application or reference, and for prescribing anything which under this Act is to be prescribed, and, with the consent of the Treasury, for prescribing the fees to be paid in connection with any such application or reference.
(3) In any proceedings before the tribunal not more than one expert witness on either side shall be heard unless the tribunal otherwise directs.
(4) The decision of the tribunal on any question of fact shall be final and binding on the parties and the persons claiming under them respectively, but the tribunal may and shall, if the High Court so directs, state at any stage of the proceedings in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High Court any question of law arising in the course of the proceedings, and may state its award as to the whole or any part thereof in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High Court, and an appeal shall, with the leave of the High Court or the Court of Appeal, but not otherwise, lie from any decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal, and the decision of that court shall be final and conclusive and shall not be subject to appeal to any other court.
(5) Subject to rules made by the Reference Committee the costs of any proceedings before the tribunal shall be in the discretion of the tribunal, which may direct to and by whom and in what manner those costs or any part thereof shall be paid, and the tribunal may in any case disallow any costs which the tribunal considers to have been unnecessarily or unreasonably incurred, and the costs ordered to be paid shall be taxed by such officer and in such manner as may be prescribed.
The rules of the Reference Committee made under this subsection may provide for applying, subject to the necessary adaptations and exceptions, the provisions of subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Section five of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, relating to costs of proceedings under that Act.
(6) Any order of the tribunal may, by the leave of the High Court or a Judge thereof, be enforced in the same manner as a judgment or order of the court to the same effect, and after such leave has been given may be registered under the Land Charges Act, 1925, as an order affecting land.
(7) The Reference Committee for the purposes of this Act shall consist of the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Law Society,
632
and the President of the Surveyors' Institution.
(8) Nothing in this Act shall prevent an agreement being made for referring to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1889, any matter which under this Act is to be determined by the tribunal.
Such an agreement may be contained in the original lease or may be made in writing at any date subsequent to the date of the lease.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think that it will be to the convenience and in accordance with the sense of the House, that the Amendments to Clause 20 standing on the Paper should not be moved, as the Lord Chancellor will move to leave out that clause altogether. I therefore suggest that I should call upon him to move the omission of Clause 20, in order to insert his new clause, which is on the Paper.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move to leave out Clause 20, and to insert the new clause on the Paper. It has been fully debated, and I will not trouble your Lordships with a speech. I will, of course, consider the points which have been raised in the course of the discussion.
Amendment moved—
Pages 20 and 21, leave out Clause 20 and insert the following clause:—
Provisions as to tribunal.
(".—(1) The tribunal for the purposes of Part I of this Act shall be the county court within the district of which the premises or any part thereof are situated acting under and in accordance with this section:
Provided that—

(a) if before commencing proceedings in the county court the claimant or applicant and all persons affected agree that the claim or application should be heard by the High Court; or

(b) if on an application being made to the High Court within the prescribed time the matter is transferred to the High Court in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Section one hundred and twenty-six of the County Courts Act, 1888;

a Judge of the High Court without a jury shall, in respect of the matter, be the tribunal for the purposes of Part I of this Act.
(2) Where proceedings are commenced in the county court in respect of any claim or application under Part I of this Act, the matter shall, unless the parties otherwise agree, or it is otherwise prescribed, stand referred for inquiry and report to

633
such one of the panel of referees appointed by the Reference Committee hereinafter mentioned as may be selected by the county court, as if with the consent of the parties the matter had been so referred to him in pursuance of Section six of the County Courts Act, 1919.
(3) The power of selecting a referee from the panel shall, unless any of die parties object, be exercisable by the registrar of the county court, and if there is such an objection by the Judge.
(4) In any proceedings before the referee not more than one expert witness on either side shall be heard unless the referee or the Judge of the county court otherwise directs.
(5) County court rules may be made for regulating proceedings under this section, and those rules may fix the remuneration of referees and may provide for applying, subject to the necessary adaptations and exceptions, to costs of proceedings in county courts under this section, the provisions of subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Section five of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, relating to costs of proceedings under that Act.
(6) The Reference Committee for the purposes of this Act shall consist of the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Law Society and the President of the Surveyors' Institution, and the Committee shall have power to appoint such persons as they think fit to be members of the panel of referees either generally or for particular localities, and to remove from the panel any person so appointed.
(7) Nothing in this Act shall prevent an agreement being made for referring to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1889, any matter which under this Act is to be determined by the tribunal.
Such an agreement may be contained in the original lease or may be made in writing at any date subsequent to the date of the lease.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD CARSON: I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with a speech on the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor, but I would like to point out that, owing to the course which has been taken, there will be no opportunity of moving Amendments to the Lord Chancellor's clause. If that is so, I suppose what we shall have to do will be to put down Amendments on the Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Service of Notices]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: These are all drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 22, line 9, leave out ("or to")
Page 22, line 10, leave out ("or given")
Page 22, line 17, leave out ("or to")
Page 22, line 18, leave out ("or given")
Page 22, line 22, leave out ("receive")
Page 22, line 25, leave out ("receive")
—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24:
Interpretation.
24. For the purposes of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
The expression "tenant" means any person entitled in possession to the holding under any contract of tenancy, whether the interest of such tenant was acquired by original contract, assignment, operation of law or otherwise;
The expression "predecessors in title" means any person through whom the tenant has derived title, whether by assignment, by will, by intestacy, or by operation of law;
The expression "landlord" means any person for the time being entitled to receive the rents and profits of any premises;
The expression "term of years absolute" has the same meaning as in thy Law of Property Act, 1925;
The expression "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Reference Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a definition only, to go in after the definition of "tenant."
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 31, at end insert:—
("The expression 'landlord' means any person who under a lease is, as between himself and the tenant or other lessee, for the time being entitled to the rents and profits of the demised premises payable under the lease.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON THE EARL OF MIDLETON moved, in the definition of "tenant," after "tenancy," to insert "for a year or any longer period." The noble Earl said: I desire to bring before your Lordships an important point, to which considerable reference was made in the course of the debate on the Motion of Lord Harris, but on which there was no time for the

635
Lord Chancellor to make any reply. I say frankly that I do not propose to raise again the questions of principle which were raised in that discussion, but I do most earnestly desire to ask the Lord Chancellor to tell us what it really is the intention of the Government to do. As the Bill reads now, every tenant, whether he holds from year to year, or from month to month, or from week to week, can become a leaseholder under this Bill. The curious position is that we have to read the effect of this Bill side by side with the Rent Restrictions Act, which it is understood is coming up to this House in the course of the next few days, with no possibility of amendment by your Lordships' House, because it is to be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Look at the position, which I cannot believe it was ever the intention of the Government to create. A tenant who comes under the Rent Restrictions Act cannot be removed, and may be living at a rent which is quite inequitable, unless the landlord can find him another house at a similar rent which is equally convenient. In scores of cases it has been found that the tenant has only to sit tight and he cannot be removed.
Under this Bill he can come to the landlord, although he is only a tenant from week to week, and ask to make some improvement which the landlord may not deem desirable, but which the tribunal may say it thinks is a desirable improvement. The landlord is then forced to agree, and at the end of his tenancy, if he stays for three years—under the Rent Restrictions Act many people have been staying for seven or eight years—the tenant can compel the landlord to pay him for an improvement which the landlord does not regard as an improvement, or give him such a period as the tribunal may consider equitable. I cannot believe it is the intention of the Government to deal with improvements so made in respect of these small tenancies, to which the Bill as at present drawn applies. I pointed out before, and I again venture to point out, that if it is equitable in a case of a man who is holding under a tenancy which has long expired, and which the landlord urgently desires to end—if it is equitable that he should be given this advantage, how can you look the genuine leaseholder in the face and say: "You did that under a contract, which we will not break,
636
although your unexhausted improvements at the end of the lease are such as to entitle you to every consideration at the hands of the landlord? I ask, for the purpose of information, whether the Government do not really consider that there should be some limitation with regard to this question.
Then consider the matter from another point of view. It is only a few minutes since every lawyer almost who addressed your Lordships on the last clause, was dealing with the immense mass of litigation which would inevitably arise, and from which it was thought highly desirable to shield the High Court and the county court by any arrangement which could be made. All the distinguished lawyers who addressed us made it perfectly clear that at present there is absolutely no barrier to small litigants being ruined—as Lord Carson pointed out had been the case in a great many cases in which he was engaged in the old days—and losing all the advantage which they had secured from the landlord by reason of the costs of litigation. Look at the other side, the case of the landlord. Here you get a mass of tenants, yearly, monthly or weekly, on whose behalf, by anybody who likes to back them, the landlord may be taken into Court to defend himself against that which really will be of great disadvantage to his property. I hope there will be some consideration of such cases. If all this is to be done for the tenant at will while the genuine leaseholder is left in the cold, we have carefully considered with very high legal advice how we could deal with the question. We have not the slightest desire to put down any Amendment on which we should be met, as we were met last week, with the reply that we shall cause untold disappointment, that we shall do injury to this House, and that we are not, as it were, playing the game with regard to the Bill. We fail to see how it is possible to alter this or to put any restriction on it except by restricting the Bill to tenants who have at least a yearly tenancy.
Those who desire that real equity should be done as between classes would put it much higher, and would suggest such a period as five or three years, which would be in accordance with the period during which tenants must remain there in order to obtain the advantage of the Bill. I

637
have put down the very modest period of a year in the hope of drawing from the Lord Chancellor some expression of what the real policy of the Government is. We are perfectly aware that the Government take the view that they intend at all hazard to accept this very ill-digested Amendment made in the House of Commons, which, without the knowledge of a great number of persons, was inserted in the Bill at the very latest stage there. If that is so we must leave on them the responsibility for a provision which, I am convinced by the opinion of every person of experience who has examined it on our behalf, will lead to a most undesirable and lamentable flooding of the Courts, which will leave a great deal of inequity as between different classes, and which, I submit, will not reflect credit on the revising power of your Lordships' House.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 29, after ("tenancy") insert ("for a year or any longer period").—(The Earl of Midleton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not in the least complain of my noble friend's moving this Amendment, and I will not ask the Committee to resist it unless they are convinced that it had better not be accepted. I desire, if we do succeed in resisting any Amendment to do so wholly upon reasons which commend themselves to the Committee. But may I put the point as it strikes me? My noble friend is afraid of a case where a weekly or monthly tenant makes an improvement and at the end of his tenancy claims compensation for it. Now, in the first place, I should think the cases are rare where a weekly or monthly tenant, or a tenant for less than a year, offers to spend money in improving his landlord's property. But I do not think my noble friend has drawn sufficient attention to the provision in Clause 2 (1) (c), which provides that the tenant shall not be entitled to compensation
"in respect of any improvement made less than three yeas before the termination of the tenancy."
If a tenant, whether he be a weekly or a monthly tenant, has spent a large sum in improvements, and has continued to be a tenant for not less than three years afterwards, and the value of his improvements is still unexhausted, I do not see why he should not be treated as if he had been a tenant for the whole three
638
years or more, and be entitled to compensation accordingly. The words which my noble friend seeks to insert were originally in the Bill—I make him a present of that. They were moved out in another place, and were omitted without a Division, although the interests of the landowners were fully represented in the other House, because in the end they were so convinced that the case I have put to-day could not be refuted. As at present advised, it seems to me that the Bill is right. If you have a case of a tenant holding on for so long a time, who has spent his money in improvements, he ought to be treated as if he had been a lessee for the whole of that time.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Really the noble and learned Viscount has not met my point at all. He talks as if the landlord could have got rid of the tenant, but he cannot under the Rent Restrictions Acts; he has no power of giving the tenant notice. You may say that after some years the man has some rights, but he has only got rights because the landlord cannot obtain the tenancy under the Rent Restrictions Acts. Under those Acts and this Bill the whole position of the landlord is changed. If we cannot convince the Government they must accept the responsibility, but honestly I think it is not sufficient, without any regard to the flooding of the Courts—as to which the Lord Chancellor did not say a single word—or any regard to the great expenditure which will be forced on the landlords, or any consideration of the provision of the Rent Restrictions Acts which everybody in this country knows require amendment—simply to say "No" to the Amendment. I protest against that method of dealing with our case.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Can the Lord Chancellor tell us whether or not a person who is still continuing in possession by reason of the Rent Restrictions Acts comes in under Clause 24? I should have thought he must, because the clause refers to anybody who is in possession by operation of law or otherwise. If he does I have very much doubt whether the noble Earl's Amendment cures the matter, because that Amendment refers to "a year or any longer period," and it might not cure it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next three Amendments are formal Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 23, line 32, after ("title") insert ("in relation to a tenant or landlord").
Page 23, line 33, after ("tenant") insert ("or landlord").
Page 23, leave out lines 36 to 38.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD CARSON: May I ask why the last words are left out? Is there to be no definition of the word "landlord" in the Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We have just inserted one.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON moved to add to the definition of "landlord" "but shall not include a mortgagee in possession of such premises." The noble and learned Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to carry out what I understood the Lord Chancellor to say on the last occasion, that nothing is being enacted which will in any way affect the security of, or throw obligations upon, the mortgagee who has advanced his money upon an estate. It is plain that unless these words are put in a mortgagee who enters into possession, as he is entitled to do as one of his remedies if his interest is in arrears, will become liable to the whole of the obligations which are put upon the landlord in relation to the land. That is a very important matter. I have received communications from various quarters pointing out that one of the probable results of this Bill will be that it will be very much harder to raise money when a landlord requires it for the purposes of his property.
Another thing which is much more feared is that mortgagees, particularly where trustees have lent money upon mortgage, will begin to call in their mortgages at a time when it will be very difficult and inconvenient to pay them off. That may lead, as I am sure this Bill will lead in many cases outside mortgages, to the sale of the properties rather than that they should be encumbered by the revolutionary provisions of this Bill. I propose, therefore, to protect the mortgagee.
There cannot be anything more unfair than that when a man, particularly as a trustee, has lent funds upon an estate to which the Bill applies, he should be made liable, if he is enforcing his remedy, to all the obligations of a landlord and to the finding of all these moneys for compensation for goodwill and improvements and all the other obligations in the Bill; seeing that he has merely entered into possession for the purpose of recouping the money he has absolutely paid. At the time he made his mortgage he was first or second mortgagee and knew where he stood. But under this Bill heaven only knows what his position may be or what amount may be put upon him. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 38, after ("premises") insert ("but shall not include a mortgagee in possession of such premises.")—(Lord Carson.)
LORD HARRIS: I have a question to put to the noble and learned Viscount on the subject of mortgages and also on the definition of landlord.
LORD CARSON: The latter is finished with.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord can ask his question on this clause.
LORD HARRIS: I will confine myself to the question of mortgages. It does not seem to be altogether clear how far mortgages are bound. Presumably the ordinary rule would apply and the mortgagee would be under no obligation to the tenant under a lease granted after the date of the mortgage contrary to the mortgage deed; otherwise he would be bound. It is suggested that this should be made clear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that is exactly the effect of the Bill. A mortgagee not in possession would not be bound to pay any compensation at all. He has the first charge, and no charge can be created prior to his charge. But if he goes into possession he is practically the owner of the property. It often happens that a man in possession holds until the end of time. The mortgagor may have no equity left worth asserting at all and the real owner may be the mortgagee in possession. He has the benefit of the improvements that have been made by the tenant. They may

641
have been made before he took his mortgage in which case he gets the benefit of the property as improved. They may have been made after he took his mortgage in which case, again, he has the benefit of the improvements. In either case he gets the benefit under the terms of the Bill. The tenant has paid the money, the improvement is unexhausted. I cannot see that in this particular case, in the case of a mortgagee in possession, the tenant should not have the ordinary rights of a tenant. That is exactly in accordance with the advice given to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and I think he will find that is the effect of the Bill.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I would like to point out to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, that he need not be uneasy about the mortgagee.
LORD CARSON: I am not uneasy about anything.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I only want to point out that it is a small matter though it is really one of substance. A mortgagee in possession is a person who has exercised the right he possesses under the mortgage of taking possession of the property. The moment he takes possession the Statute of Limitations begins to run in his favour and he may acquire absolute ownership and destroy the whole claim of the mortgagor. If instead of entering into possession he merely appoints a receiver, as he can do in writing under the Conveyancing Act, he gets all the advantages that a mortgagee in possession has excepting this right of acquiring the property by adverse possession. He receives the rent. He can let the property and he can manage it. He does everything except be in possession. Therefore, if the mortgagee desires to assert the right to possession in order that he may thereby assert the right of ownership it does seem to me that he should be under the obligation of a landlord.
LORD CARSON: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for the information he has just given. I can assure him that I have heard some
of it before though, no doubt, it is very important that your Lordships' House should hear it also. Notwithstanding what the noble and learned Lord says, I still assert that by the provisions of this Bill and by the definitions of "landlord" and "tenant" you are taking away from the mortgagee a right he now has—the right of going info possession and of collecting the rents and profits without the provisions of this Bill. That cannot be disputed. The moment this Bill passes all the obligations that it puts upon a landlord will be put upon the mortgagee if he goes into possession. That is what I am complaining of.
The country and the landlords should know, and the people who are investing their money should know, that one of the Acts of a Conservative Government takes away from a mortgagee the rights he now has of entering into possession without, any such obligations as are in this Bill. All these obligations which are put upon him will come in priority to his security and thereby, of course, his security will be weakened. There can be no question about that. It may be right or it may be wrong to do it. It may be that no one ought to be concerned or be uneasy about a mortgagee, as my noble and learned friend opposite says. But I think that it is well that it should be understood by people both inside and outside of your Lordships' House, that not only does this Bill place obligations upon landlords who are owners of property but it also places them upon the mortgagee who tries to exercise the right he now has of recouping himself for the money he has lent and which was not subject in any way to such obligations as are in the Bill. That seems to me to be a very clear matter. If the Government say that they are willing to mulct the mortgagee in this kind of way and that is part of their policy I suppose they can carry it in the House, but I think in an important matter of this kind I shall ask the House to divide.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 38; Not-contents, 73.

CONTENTS.

Bath, M.

Ilchester, E.

Midleton, E.

Leven and Melville, E.

Morton, E.

Caithness, E.

Lovelace, K.

Northbrook, E.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Selborne, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lamington, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Clinton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Sumner, V.

Dynevor, L.

Leigh, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Mowbray, L.

Faringdon, L.

Queenborough, L.

Avebury, L.

Harris, L.

Saltoun, L.

Carson, L. [Teller.]

Hylton, L.

Strathspey, L.

Castlemaine, L.

Jessel, L.

Sydenham of Combe, L.

Charnwood, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Wavertree, L.

Wittenham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Russell, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandwich, E.

Kilmaine, L.

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Scarbrough, E.

Knaresborough, L.

Stanhope, E.

Kylsant, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stradbroke, E.

Manners, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Sutherland, D.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Merrivale, L.

Wellington, D.

Chelmsford, V.

Merthyr, L.

Haldane, V.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Camden, M.

Peel, V.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Ullswater, V.

Phillimore, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Reading, M.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Biddulph, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Airlie, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Clwyd, L.

Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

Birkenhead, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Bradford, E.

Cushendun, L.

Southborough, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Darling, L.

Southwark, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Daryngton, L.

Stanmore, L.

De La Warr, E.

Ernle, L.

Strachie, L.

Grey, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Howe, E.

Gainford, L.

Swaythling, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Templemore, L.

Iveagh, E.

Hampton, L.

Teynham, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Hanworth, L.

Thomson, L.

Onslow, E.

Hemphill, L.

Wargrave, L.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Heneage, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, before the last paragraph, to insert:
"The expression 'statutory company' means any company constituted by or under an Act of Parliament to construct, work or carry on any gas, water, electricity, tramway, hydraulic power, dock, canal or railway undertaking; and the expression 'public utility company' means any company within the meaning of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, or a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1913, carrying on any such undertaking."
The noble and learned Viscount said: These words "statutory company" and "public utility company" occur in the Bill and it is desirable to define them in accordance with the definitions found in the Finance Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 14, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment in my name is consequential
644
on the adoption of the new Clause 20. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 10, leave out ("regulations made by the Reference Committee") and insert ("County Court Rules").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert as a new subsection:—
"(2) The designation of landlord and tenant shall continue to apply to the parties until the conclusion of any proceedings taken under or in pursuance of this Act in respect of compensation."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a designation which follows word for word Section 57 (2) of the Agricultural Holdings Act. It really is machinery. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 16, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
LORD HARRIS: Now I may ask the question that I have been requested to put to the noble and learned Viscount as regards the word "landlord"? This definition is taken from the Agricultural Holdings Act, and only in February last its vagueness was criticised by the Lords Justices in the Court of appeal in Richards v. Pryse (1927). It appears to be very desirable to amplify the definition, so as to avoid the questions which are otherwise likely to arise between vendor and purchaser and mortgagor and mortgagee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is exactly what we have done. If the noble Lord had followed my Amendments he would find that the Committee has consented to delete the definition of "landlord" which was found in the Bill and to put in a new and better definition.
Clause 25:
Short title, commencement and extent.
25.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927.
(2) This Act shall come into operation on the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven.
(3) This Act shall extend to England and Wales only.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven" and to insert "twenty-sixth day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight." The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is to alter the date. We propose March 26, that is the day after Lady Day.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, lines 19 and 20, leave out ("thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven") and insert ("twenty-sixth day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 1:
Tenant's right to compensation for improvements.
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, a tenant of a holding to which this Part of this Act applies shall, if a claim for the purpose is made in the prescribed manner—

(a) in the case of a tenancy terminated by notice within one month after the notice was sent or received by the tenant; and

646

(b) in any other case not more than thirty-six nor less than twelve months before the termination of the tenancy;

be entitled at the termination of the tenancy, on quitting his holding, to be paid by his landlord compensation in respect of any improvement (including the erection of any building) on his holding made by him or his predecessors in title, not being a trade or other fixture which the tenant is by law entitled to remove, which at the termination of the tenancy adds to the letting value of the holding:
Provided that the sum to be paid as compensation for any improvement shall not exceed—

(a) the capitalised value of the net addition to the letting value of the holding as a whole which may be determined to be the direct result of the improvement; or

(b) the reasonable cost of carrying out the improvement at the termination of the tenancy, subject to a deduction of an amount equal to the cost (if any) of putting the works constituting the improvement into a reasonable state of repair except so far as such cost is covered by the liability of the tenant under any covenant, or agreement as to the repair of the premises.

(2) In determining the capitalised value of such net addition as aforesaid, regard shall be had to the purposes for which it is intended that the premises shall be used after the termination of the tenancy, and if it is shown that it is intended to demolish the buildings or to use the premises for a different purpose, and that after such demolition or change of user the improvement will not add to the letting value of the premises, regard shall be had to the length of time likely to elapse between the termination of the tenancy and the demolition or change of user.
(3) In the absence of agreement between the parties all questions as to the right of compensation under this section, or as to the amount thereof, shall be determined by the tribunal hereinafter mentioned, and if the tribunal determines that, on account of the intention to demolish the buildings or to change the user of the premises, no compensation or a reduced amount of compensation shall be paid, the tribunal may authorise a further application for compensation to be made by the tenant if effect is not given to the intention within such time as may be fixed by the tribunal.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY had given Notice to move in subsection (1), after "Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act," to insert "and as respects leases made before the commencement of this Act containing a covenant or agreement against the making of improvements without licence or consent subject to the provisions of this Act relating to such leases." The noble Earl said: I would

647
rather not move this Amendment, because the Amendments to Clause 20 have made, I think, a very material difference. But although I do not propose to move it now, I should like to reserve my right to move it on Report.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON THE EARL OF MIDLETON had given Notice to move to leave out from the beginning of paragraph (a) down to and including "case" in paragraph (b). The noble Earl said: In view of what has taken place just now I do not propose to move this Amendment, but I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor if he would kindly tell me definitely whether the Government have formed any estimate whatever of the number of tenancies which, by the inclusion of all these small tenancies of less than one year, would be brought under the Bill. This is one of the points we strongly desired to have brought out before a Select Committee. We have no power ourselves to make any investigation, and we would ask the Government, as they are responsible for including this very large number of persons, what the number is likely to be, especially in view of all that has been said about congestion in the Courts.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The point really does not arise on this Amendment, which deals with a wholly different matter, but however that may be I cannot give the noble Earl any figures.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I think the position is most unsatisfactory. The matter has been discussed and the Government refuses to ascertain the number. I do not propose to move my Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "sent or received" and to insert "served on or". The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 15 and 16, leave out ("sent or received") and insert ("served on or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL RUSSELL: You want to leave out the words "sent or," not "received," do you not?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, the Amendment is right as it is on the Paper. The Bill will then read "one month after the notice was served on or by the tenant."
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE had given Notice to move, in proviso (a) in subsection (1), after "value," to insert "if any." The noble and learned Lord said: Presuming that the Lord Chancellor intends to move the Amendment which he has on the Paper, I have no wish to move my Amendment, or the consequential one which follows it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in proviso (a) in subsection (1), to leave out "the capitalised value of". The noble and learned Viscount said: The omission of these words will bring the clause into conformity with Clause 4. The effect will be that the amount of compensation will represent the net addition to the value of the holding. We no longer propose to take a rental addition and capitalise it, but to ascertain the net addition to the value.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("the capitalised value of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD DYNEVOR: I hope the Lord Chancellor will not press this Amendment. The words of the Bill are preferable to the Amendment. The Bill says "the capitalised value of the net addition to the letting value." The Amendment says "the net addition to the value of the holding," which is quite another thing. The whole of the difficulty has arisen because a definition of the word "goodwill" is not in the Bill. The Bill says compensation is to be given for the loss of goodwill, but the Bill does not say what goodwill is. I certainly sympathise with the Government, and I have no doubt that the Home Secretary rode hard till he came to the fence of goodwill. That fence he found was too big to get over, and so he and his colleagues went round and said: "Let us call it 'the capitalised value.'" The two things are as much apart as a silk purse and a sow's ear. They have nothing whatever to do with each other. We have some faint idea of where we are under the Bill as it stands, but the Lord Chancellor's Amendment makes the compensation payable more formidable than ever. I do hope he will not press the Amendment but will let us have the Bill as it stands.
LORD CARSON: I really do not know what the meaning of the Lord Chancellor's Amendment is. I do not know

649
why he proposes to strike out the words "the capitalised value," because it seems to me he leaves the matter entirely at large. The valuers or the tribunal, whatever it may be, will be left entirely at large without any way of arriving at the sum. If you first find out what the improvement adds to the letting value of the holding you can capitalise that. I think that was wide enough, but as far as I can see you are now putting in nothing at all except to say "the net addition to the value of the holding as a whole which may be determined to be the direct result of the improvement." I understand that by a subsequent Amendment the Lord Chancellor proposes to strike out the word "letting." How is that net addition to the value to be determined? When you find the letting value, if you are not allowed to capitalise it, how are you to get at it?
I do not quite understand what the Lord Chancellor said about Clause 4. He said this Amendment would bring about some uniformity, but, in the moment I have had to look at it, all I can see is that Clause 4 says that
"the sum to be awarded as compensation for such goodwill shall not exceed such addition to the value of the holding at the termination of the tenancy as may be determined to be the result of the carrying on of the trade, or business. …"
That can have no application to the cost of improvements. How can you get at it by looking at the period during which he has carried on his trade? I can see no direction at all. It is left entirely at large and at the sweet will of the arbitrator, or to the report of the expert, to say whatever he wishes to say is the value, leaving out, as I understand, the letting value of the holding. If you leave out the letting value and also the capitalised value, how you get at it I am sure I do not know, but I am sure that the Lord Chancellor does.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friends are really rather difficult to satisfy. Clause 4, as Lord Carson says, prescribes that the landlord shall pay any addition to the value of the holding—a very simple phrase—in the case of goodwill. We propose to simplify this clause and to refer to the net addition to the value of the holding which is "the direct result of the improvement"—again a very simple phrase. The valuer would very often, I suppose, take the letting value
650
and allow so many years' purchase, but we do not bind him down to that. He is to find out the real addition to the value of the holding, and I really think it is difficult to find simpler words or words more applicable.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I confess that I rather looked at this clause from the point of view of the landlord, and from that point of view I proposed to put in the words "if any" because I was not going to admit that there would be any value at all. Now that the Lord Chancellor proposes to take out "the capitalised value" and leave merely the words "the net addition to the value" I think one is sufficiently protected, and that is why I did not move my Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("letting").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to add to subsection (1):
"or (c) the amount paid by the tenant to his predecessor in title in respect of any such improvement."
The noble Viscount said: I think it is quite possible that, owing to the cost of production going up, an improvement may increase in value, and it does not seem to me fair that a tenant should reap a benefit with which he has had nothing to do. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 23, at end insert ("or (c) the amount paid by the tenant to his predecessor in title in respect of any such improvement").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid that this Amendment would not be workable. The case put, I suppose, is that a tenant improves a holding and then sells it for a price or a premium of some kind to a purchaser. How can you find out how much of the purchase money paid by the purchaser is paid for the improvement? It is impossible to say. It is far better to take the value to the landlord at the end of the term, limited as it is by the other paragraphs of this clause, and not to put upon the tenant an impossible inquiry as to how

651
much he paid because of the improvement. I hope that the noble Viscount will not insist upon this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved to add to subsection (1):
"(c) The amount of the loss at the termination of the tenancy sustained by the tenant by reason of the cost of the improvement."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Erskine, in whose name this Amendment stands as well as in my own, I beg to move. So far as I can see, this is a reasonable Amendment, because the compensation should be paid only for loss or damage and, if the landlord sees that the tenant got back all his outlay with interest and possibly with profit, there is no reason why the landlord should have to pay. For instance, an improvement may be made by dividing a large shop into two and a tenant, by letting out one of the shops, may get substantial profit on the outlay. All this could be ascertained at the end of the term, and I venture to think that, since the property belongs to the landlord and not to the tenant, this Amendment would do substantial justice.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 23, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Jessel.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course it is possible to put these things in all kinds of different ways, but the principle of the Bill is that the landlord pays for what he gets out of the tenant, what the tenant leaves behind him and what it is really worth to his landlord. In fact, he is to pay for the gain which he makes and not for the loss which the tenant makes. If once you depart from that, you get into all kinds of complications. I should add that for the last forty-four years we have had an exactly similar principle laid down and carried out in the Agricultural Holdings Acts. There, too, the landlord pays compensation for the unexhausted value of the tenant's improvements, and this even although it may be argued that the tenant, by enjoying the improvements for a time, has partly recouped himself for the expenditure. I think that it would be unfortunate if this new principle were incorporated in the Bill.
LORD JESSEL: I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 24, leave out, ("capitalised value of") and insert ("value attributable to").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS moved, in subsection (2), after "demolish," to insert "or reconstruct." The noble Lord said: This seems to me to be a possible change of a character which ought to be provided for. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, after ("demolish") insert ("or reconstruct").—(Lord Harris.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree; but the noble Lord will see that this is entirely met by my next Amendment, which covers this and other points.
LORD HARRIS: If the noble and learned Viscount says that his Amendment will meet the point, I accept his assurance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "the buildings" and to insert "or to make structural alterations in the premises or any part thereof." The noble and learned Viscount said: We were afraid that the Bill as drawn would apply only if the premises were completely demolished, but would not apply in the case of partial demolition or reconstruction. We put down these words with a view to covering that point.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, leave out ("the buildings") and insert ("or to make structural alterations in the premises or any part thereof").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to omit "and that after such demolition or change of user the improvement will not add to the letting value of the premises." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is really consequential on my last Amendment. The provisions of the clause would apply only

653
where the demolition or reconstruction will absolutely destroy the value of the improvement, but need not mean the total destruction of the premises. The effect of this Amendment is that the tribunal will be able to have regard to the effect of the demolition or change of user, whether immediate or prospective, and to the question whether the effect of the demolition or change of user will be to destroy or only to diminish the value of the improvement.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 29, leave out from ("purpose") to ("regard") in line 31.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, after ("had") insert ("to the effect of such demolition, alteration or change of user on the additional value attributable to the improvement and").—(The lord Chancellor.)
LORD CARSON: With regard to this Amendment, I should like to ask a question. I do not understand why the words "change of user" are there. Is it meant to be the same, or is it to use the premises for a different purpose? It has been pointed out to me that it may mean an entirely different thing.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is intended to refer to use for a different purpose, but I will look into the words again.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 33, after ("demolition") insert ("alteration").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), to insert the following new subjection:
"() Where the letting value of the holding is increased by reason of the use thereof or of any premises thereon in a manner which could be restrained by any court, or is contrary to the law, or is detrimental to the health of the inmates of the premises or to the public health, the amount of that increased letting value shall not be taken into account."
The noble Viscount said: I have made bold to adopt Clause 2, subsection (4), of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, which seems to be a suitable clause to go into this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Viscount is under a misapprehension. Clause 1 does not give a right to compensation in respect of use, but only in respect of structural improvements which increase the value of the premises themselves. Structural alterations to enable premises to be used for immoral or illegal purposes will surely not increase the value of the premises for any purpose to which the landlord designed to put them, and I cannot imagine that compensation could be claimed by the tenant for such a purpose as that.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I do not see that the noble and learned Viscount has explained why this subsection is in the other Act and cannot be put in this.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The two Acts deal with different matters.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 40, leave out ("the buildings") and insert ("or alter").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved to insert the following new subsections:
"(4) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall authorise the tenant to make any improvement which is calculated or likely to diminish the value of any adjoining or adjacent, property;
(5) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall authorise the tenant to make any building or erection upon any part of the holding heretofore unbuilt upon and upon which the tenant is by his contract of tenancy restrained from building:"
The noble Lord said: I think the subsections which I have put down explain themselves.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 2, at end, insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Jessel.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: Does the noble Lord mean adjacent property belonging to the same landlord, or belonging to a stranger? If it is the same landlord, I understand the importance of the Amendment, but if it is belonging to a stranger, it does not seem to me to have anything to do with the Bill.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I do not know whether I am in order in calling attention to the fact that I am raising the same point on Clause 3 of the Bill procedure for anybody who is aggrieved. The Amendment at present before the House does not seem to provide any procedure by which any person can appear before a tribunal, or take up the matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is moved in the wrong place. Clause 1 only entitles a tenant to claim compensation for improvements already executed, and does not authorise a tenant to make improvements. It is really on Clause 3 that this arises.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Limitation on tenant's right to compensation in certain cases.
2.—(1) A tenant shall not be entitled to compensation under this Part of this Act—

(a) in respect of any improvement made before the commencement of this Act; or

(b) in respect of any improvement made in pursuance of a statutory obligation or of any improvement which the tenant or his predecessors in title were under an obligation to make in pursuance of a contract entered into, whether before or after the passing of this Act, for valuable consideration, including a building lease; or

(c) in respect of any improvement made less than three years before the termination of the tenancy; or

(d) if within one month after the making of the claim under section one, subsection (1), of this Act the landlord serves on the tenant notice that he is willing to grant to the tenant a renewal of the tenancy at such rent and for such term as, failing agreement, the tribunal may consider reasonable, and if the tenant does not within one month from the service of the notice send to the landlord an acceptance in writing of the offer the tenant shall be deemed to have declined the offer.

(2) Where an offer of the renewal of a tenancy by the landlord under this section is accepted by the tenant, the rent fixed by the tribunal shall be the rent which in the opinion of the tribunal a willing lessee other than the tenant would agree to give and a willing lessor would agree to accept for the premises, having regard to the terms of the lease, but irrespective of the value of the improvement in respect of which compensation would have been payable.
(3) The tribunal in determining the compensation for an improvement shall in reduction of the tenant's claim take into consideration any benefits which the tenant or his predecessors in title may have received from the landlord in consideration expressly or impliedly of the improvement.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "made," to insert "or begun." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am moving this Amendment for my noble friend Viscount FitzAlan. We do not mind whether it is accepted or not, but the point is this, that it has been brought to our attention that there have already been divergent legal opinions as to whether or not a work which has been begun, but not finished, comes under the Bill. The object of the Amendment is to make it quite clear whether it does or does not.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 5, after ("made") insert ("or begun").—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Earl does not mind I would rather keep the Bill as it is. He will notice that compensation is not payable under the Bill in respect of any improvements unless notice has been served under Clause 3, and either the landlord has not objected or the tribunal has sanctioned the improvement. There is no reason why in the case of an improvement begun, but not completed, before the commencement of the Act, the procedure of notice should not be adopted, and if this condition is fulfilled compensation would, of course, be payable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved, after paragraph (a) of subsection (1), to insert the following new paragraphs:
"(b) in respect of any improvement which is intended or calculated to facilitate the carrying on of a trade or business other than a trade or business of the kind for which the premises were expressly let by the terms of the contract or tenancy; or
(c) in respect of any improvement which would alter the architectural character of the exterior of the premises; or
(d) in respect of the reconstruction of any building or part of a building which the tenant by his contract of tenancy is bound to keep in repair, and which reconstruction is rendered necessary in order to comply with that obligation; or."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 6, at end, insert the said paragraphs (b), (c) and (d).—(Lord Jessel.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has not explained this Amendment, but he proposes that no compensation should be payable in respect of improvements in these three categories. The first category is:—
"any improvement which, is intended or calculated to facilitate the carrying on of a trade or business other than a trade or business of the kind for which the premises were expressly let by the terms of the contract or tenancy."
Has the noble Lord forgotten that the tenant, if he means to claim compensation, must get the landlord's consent to the improvement or the consent of the tribunal? If he is going to make an improvement for a purpose not sanctioned by the lease of course the landlord will object, and the tribunal will not sanction the improvement; or, if the tribunal does, and the improvement is a proper improvement for the purpose, then compensation follows because the value of the property has been improved. That applies both to (b) and (c). In each case the tribunal must consent, or there will be no compensation. As to (d), that, I think, is already covered by the Bill, which refers to improvements which a tenant is bound by his contract to make.
LORD CARSON: I cannot help thinking that this Amendment is of very much more importance than it appears to be at first sight. Paragraph (b) of the Amendment means that where a tenant has contracted and received a lease for the purpose of carrying on a particular kind of trade, which will be the kind of trade which would bring in the most rent to the landlord, the tenant is not to have compensation if he turns the premises into an entirely different kind of place, for the purpose of carrying on another trade for which the landlord has not let him the premises. It seems to me to be taking away a great deal from the landlord if the tenant can not only disregard the contract to occupy the premises for the trade for which they were let, but can proceed to reconstruct the whole premises in order to make them effective for carrying on another trade which the landlord does not want. The only answer that the Lord Chancellor gives to that invasion of the landlord's right, which indeed takes away from the
658
landlord the entire control of the objects for which he has let his property—and not only takes that away, but enables the tenant then to claim compensation for having turned the premises into entirely different premises, for a different business—the only answer given by the Lord Chancellor is that this can be referred to the tribunal.
One of the great objections to the whole of this class of legislation is that it lays down no guidance or direction whatsoever for the tribunal which it sets up. Just fancy going before the tribunal and asking the tribunal to settle the question of what ought to be paid to the tenant under our law for turning the premises into a different kind of business premises from those which under his contract he was bound to carry on there. Of course Parliament can do anything it likes, but a proposal that the landlord is to pay for the breach of contract is a kind of legislation to which one has not grown accustomed. Under this Government we shall get accustomed to something even more extraordinary in the future. Then the matter comes before the Court. I do not know, I am sure, what the Court will say is the reason why it should give compensation—on what basis or principle, on what equity or common law right. The Bill says nothing about it. I should have thought the Amendment a most reasonable proposal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Lord who moved this Amendment feels very strongly about it I can promise that I will carefully consider paragraph (b). I cannot hold out any hopes about paragraphs (c) and (d).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1) (d), to leave out "one month" and to insert "two months." The noble and learned Viscount said: I propose to give the landlord two months after the making of the claim to compensation, instead of one month, in which to serve notice on his tenant that he is willing to grant a renewal of the tenancy.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, leave out ("one month") and insert ("two months").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1) (d), after "willing", to insert "and able," and after "tenant," where that word secondly occurs, to insert "or obtain the grant to him of." The noble and learned Viscount said: Both these Amendments are really to make the language of this paragraph correspond with that of paragraph (b) of the proviso to Clause 4 (1).
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 21, after ("willing") insert ("and able").
Page 3, line 21, after ("tenant") insert ("or obtain the grant to him of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, in subsection (1) (d), after "offer," to insert "to refer the consideration of the rent and term to the tribunal." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is an explanatory one. I want to make it quite clear that the offer is to refer the consideration of the rent and term to the tribunal: that is to say, the offer is not at a specified rent, but an offer to have it adjudicated upon. I hope the Lord Chancellor will explain whether I am right or wrong in my reading of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, after ("offer") insert the said words.—(Lord Dynevor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I rightly understand the Amendment, the purpose of it is to require the landlord to make a definite offer and refer that offer only to the tribunal, so that, if the tribunal does not approve it, the landlord may withdraw his offer and pay compensation. I think there are objections to that. When the landlord receives the tenant's claim for compensation he may admit it or contest it, or he may offer a renewal of the tenancy, to be settled on such terms as, failing agreement, the tribunal consider reasonable. In other words, he may say: "I put myself in the hands of the tribunal to fix the terms of my new lease," but he should not be entitled simply to offer the lease at so much a year and on no other terms at all. He must, if he offers a lease, undergo the consideration of the tribunal. If the landlord is to have this right of making and withdrawing an offer, why should not the tenant have a similar right and, if he is dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the tribunal, say: "After
660
all, I will go back to the landlord's offer to renew and will take a lease"? It is far better to leave the offer open for terms which the tribunal will approve.
LORD DYNEVOR: On a point of order, has not the Lord Chancellor answered my third Amendment?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, I read the two together.
LORD DYNEVOR: The Amendment to page 3, line 27, is the one I moved. I have not come to line 28 yet, which is quite a separate one. All these Amendments are separate although they appear together on the Paper.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I know they are separate, but I thought they were connected together and that one would fall with the other.
LORD DYNEVOR: They are not connected together.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The subsection would read in this way—
"… if the tenant does not within one month from the service of the notice"—
LORD DYNEVOR: My Amendment is to line 27 on page 3.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes—
"send to the landlord an acceptance in writing of the offer to refer the consideration of the rent and term to the tribunal the tenant shall be deemed to have declined the offer."
I do not at present see any objection to that taken by itself; but I would like to consider it if the noble Lord does not mind putting it down for the Report stage. I am rather disposed to agree to it.
LORD DYNEVOR: I will put it down on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
"Provided that where the consideration upon which he is prepared to renew the tenancy has been definitely stated by the landlord, the tribunal shall not without the consent of the landlord vary either the term or rent submitted by him, but shall proceed to fix the amount of compensation payable to the tenant in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

661
The noble Lord said: I have not yet put my point to your Lordships. The offer of a lease is voluntary by the landlord and trustees would be advised about the rent. They might not like to take a lower one and would prefer to pay the compensation. The tenant cannot make the landlord go to the tribunal for a lease, and I think it would be a hardship on the tenant where the landlord refuses to make an offer for a new lease and the tenant is debarred from the possibility of getting one. Under my Amendment the landlord must grant the lease at his figure if the tribunal says it is fair. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 28, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Lord Dynevor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have really dealt with the point, and I should not have recognised the Amendment by the noble Lord's description of it. It runs as follows:—
"Provided that where the consideration upon which he is prepared to renew the tenancy has been definitely stated by the landlord"—
that is an offer of a new lease upon certain terms as to rent and otherwise—
"the tribunal shall not without the consent of the landlord vary either the term or rent submitted by him."
That is the point I dealt with. That is not in favour of the tenant; it is in favour of the landlord. It enables him to make an offer once for all at a certain rent. If that is too high then the whole offer falls. Our proposal is that he shall offer a renewal of the lease upon terms to be fixed by the tribunal, which is quite a different thing. I am afraid I cannot accept his Amendment.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I think there is a good deal of force in the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor. As I understand, it comes to this. At present if the landlord goes to the tribunal under this offer he is liable to have any rent or any terms fixed upon him. Lord Dynevor wants him to have an opportunity, if he goes to the tribunal and the tribunal fixes a rent or a length of term as to which he would rather pay than have them, to withdraw his offer to go before the tribunal and to pay instead. That is what I think he means, and it seems to me well worth consideration.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the form of the Amendment would have to be altered.
LORD DYNEVOR: I will not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 35, leave out the third ("of") and insert ("attributable to").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE moved, in subsection (2), after the first "consideration," to insert "the time during which the tenant may have enjoyed the advantage of the improvement, and the rent at which the holding had been held, and." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment appears to be a reasonable one. At all events there is a precedent for it. The words are taken from the Town Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1906. They were put down in respect of the wrong clause in Standing Committee and were refused by the Government as inconsistent with the Bill. They were not discussed on Clause 2. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 40, after ("consideration") insert the said words.—(Viscount Younger of Leckie.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I really have dealt with this point. Like a previous Amendment it alters the principle of the Bill. That principle is that the landlord pays for what he gets and not for what the tenant loses by improvement. It is really immaterial for this purpose whether the improvement has proved of benefit to the tenant or not. The only point we deal with is whether at the end of the tenancy the improvement has added to the letting value of the property. If it has so added the landlord must pay for what he receives. If you alter that principle I am afraid you will get into endless contradictions, and I should say that it was far better to adhere to the terms of the Bill. I may add that this Amendment was moved in another place, was discussed at great length both in Committee and on Report, and was rejected. I hope that the noble Viscount will not press it.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: I do not wish to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SUMNER VISCOUNT SUMNER moved, in subsection (3), after "landlord," to insert "or his predecessors in title." The noble and learned Viscount said: I propose the insertion of these words which appear to have been omitted by inadvertence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 42, after ("landlord") insert ("or his predecessors in title").—(Viscount Sumner.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), after "landlord," to insert "or otherwise." The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to permit the tribunal to take into consideration benefits received in respect of improvements otherwise than from the landlord; for example, by the tenant having sublet at an increased rent. It was said in another place on this point that a man may let on a forty years' lease. His tenant sublets for twenty-one years having made some improvements. He sublets it at such a rent that at the end of the twenty-one years he has entirely recouped his outlay on the improvements. He may sublet at a profiteering rent. Having received full compensation in that way for the improvements, he should not be able to come to the original landlord in respect of those improvements. The tenant has put himself in the position of a landlord. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 42, after ("landlord") insert ("or otherwise").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): I understand the noble Viscount is dealing with cases where the tenant gets some advantage from some other source than the landlord. Where he gets it from the landlord it is dealt with in another subsection, but the question whether he gets an advantage from a third person is surely not relevant. It is much the same point as that which my noble and learned friend has just dealt with. The question is: What is the advantage the landlord gets? That is the proper test.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Landlord's right to object.
3.—(1) Where a tenant of a holding to which this Part of this Act applies proposes to make an improvement on his holding he shall serve on his landlord notice of his intention to make such improvement, together with a specification and plan showing the proposed improvement and that part of the existing building affected thereby, and if the landlord, within three months after the receipt of the notice, serves on the tenant notice of objection, the tenant may, in the prescribed manner, apply to the tribunal, and the tribunal may, after ascertaining that notice of such intention has been served upon any superior landlords interested and alter giving such persons an opportunity of being heard, if satisfied that the improvement is of such a nature as to be calculated to add to the letting value of the holding at the termination of the tenancy, and is reasonable and suitable to the character thereof, and will not diminish the value of any other property belonging to the same landlord, or to any superior landlord from whom the immediate landlord of the tenant directly or indirectly holds, and after making such modifications (if any) in the specification or plan as the tribunal thinks fit, or imposing such other conditions as the tribunal may think reasonable, certify in the prescribed manner that the improvement is a proper improvement:
Provided that if the landlord proves that he has offered to execute the improvement himself in consideration of a reasonable increase of rent, or of such increase of rent as the tribunal may determine, the tribunal shall not give a certificate under this section unless it is subsequently shown to the satisfaction of the tribunal that the landlord has failed to carry out his undertaking.
(2) The tenant shall, at the request of any superior landlord or at the request of the tribunal, supply such copies of the plans and specifications of the proposed improvement as may be required.
(3) Where no such notice of objection as aforesaid to a proposed improvement has been served within the time allowed by this section, or where the tribunal has certified an improvement to be a proper improvement, it shall be lawful for the tenant to execute the improvement according to the plan and specification served on the landlord or according to such plan and specification as modified by the tribunal or by agreement between the tenant and the landlord or landlords affected, anything in the lease of the premises to the contrary notwithstanding: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall authorise a tenant to execute an improvement in contravention of any restriction created or imposed—

(a) for naval, military or air force purposes;

(b) for civil aviation purposes under the powers of the Air Navigation Act, 1920.

(4) A tenant shall not be entitled to claim compensation under this Part of this Act in

665
respect of any improvement unless he has, or his predecessors in title have given notice thereof under this section, and (in case the landlord has given notice of objection thereto) the improvement has been certified by the tribunal to be a proper improvement and the tenant has complied with the conditions, if any, imposed by the tribunal, nor unless the improvement is completed within such time after the service on the landlord of the notice of the proposed improvement as may be agreed between the tenant and the landlord or may be fixed by the tribunal, and where proceedings have been taken before the tribunal, the tribunal may suspend the execution of any order as to costs until the expiration of the time so fixed for the completion of the improvement.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "building" and insert "premises." The noble and learned Viscount said: The Bill requires that a plan of the building affected by the improvement shall be given. Of course it may be that there is no building; that there really is only a site on which a building is to be put. Therefore it is proposed to leave out the word "building" and insert "premises."
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 7, leave out ("building") and insert ("premises").—(The Lord Chancellor)
VISCOUNT SUMNER VISCOUNT SUMNER moved, in subsection (1), before "calculated," to insert "best." The noble and learned Viscount said: The object of my Amendment is this. The proceeding contemplated is that a tenant, having served notice of the intention to make the improvement and the landlord certifying notice of objection, the tenant may then go to the tribunal. What may the tribunal do? It has to be satisfied that the improvement is of such a nature as to be calculated to add to the letting value of the holding. You can easily see circumstances in which this kind of dispute might arise. The tenant says: "I can satisfy the tribunal that the building I want to put up will add to the letting value; you cannot deny that." If the tribunal are satisfied of that and some other things that do not matter for the moment, they then have to certify that the tenant is making a proper improvement. The landlord says: "I am not in a position to dispute that there is some improvement, but what I say is that a good job ought to be made if it is to be tackled at
666
all. Instead of having a botching improvement made we ought to have the best improvement that will add to the letting value. I am the person who has to pay for it in the long run and if there is to be anything of the kind I think it ought to be the best that is calculated to add to the value."
The simplest instance is this. The tenant proposes to erect a one-storey shed. The landlord says: "At the end of the tenancy it would not be a desirable-looking thing and would involve trouble about repairs; let it be made of better material." The tenant would then be entitled to claim the tribunal's decision, saying: "That is not the question for you. If you are satisfied that what I propose will add to the letting value then I have satisfied the conditions of the clause." If the word "best" is put in, then, if the thing is to be done at all, it has to be done in the most reasonable way to obtain the best result. At the end the tenant will have had his enjoyment of it and the landlord will have to pay for it I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 15, after ("be") insert ("best").—(Viscount Sumner.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am not afraid of the word "best" that my noble and learned friend wishes to put in, but it might perhaps be extended rather widely. I do not think that any qualifying or additional words are necessary, because if the landlord says that the tenant's specifications could be improved then, by Clause 3, the tribunal is given the power to qualify them. If, on the other hand, it says that they could not very well be improved by modifications and that some other scheme would be far better, then the tribunal can refuse its certificate unless the tenant agrees to that other scheme. In those circumstances it does not seem necessary to add any further words. The landlord seems to be well protected already.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), after "thereof," to insert "and of the neighbourhood." The noble Earl said: This is, I think, almost the only Amendment moved from this side. I do not know whether that gives me some hope that I may be more successful with the noble Viscount than his own friends have been. The Amendment is of a

667
reasonable character. If your Lordships will look at the words you will see what they mean. The tribunal has to be satisfied that the improvement is of such a nature as to be calculated to add to the letting value and is reasonable and suitable to the character thereof. I suggest adding "and of the neighbourhood." It seems to me that it might be possible that you might have an improvement made to a small and attractive grocer's or baker's shop in a pretty country village, turning it perhaps into one of those horrible petrol pump places and almost entirely spoiling the village. That would not be suitable to the character of the neighbourhood and it would not be really an improvement. It is rather a strong order, is it not, to force a thing of that kind upon a landlord under this Bill and compel him to pay for it? You might have other things of the same kind in a town. For instance, in some old world town you might have somebody proposing to rebuild premises with some very glaring kind of brick or colour or design which would be totally unsuitable to the neighbourhood in which the building was situated.
It has been pointed out that there is not too much guidance to the tribunal and this is only one of the matters that the tribunal will have to take into consideration. I think it is not altogether unreasonable to allow them to look, not merely at the building itself and not merely at what it will turn into, but also at the surrounding circumstances and at the question whether it is such a building as any reasonable and decent landlord would wish to see put up, which is practically what my Amendment comes to. This Amendment was moved in another place and obection was taken to it on what I regard as an entirely fallacious ground—namely, that it would enable third parties to be heard before the tribunal as to the character of the neighbourhood. It is clear that it does not introduce any new parties to the question at issue before the tribunal. New witnesses it might introduce, but that is quite a different thing. The only parties would still be the landlord and tenant. I hope, as it is so reasonable in character, that I may persuade the noble and learned Viscount opposite to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 17, after ("thereof") insert ("and of the neighbourhood").—(Earl Russell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am a little apprehensive lest the Amendment in this form should have the effect of admitting the intervention of people other than the landlord and tenant. At all events it would, as the noble Earl said, lead to the calling of additional witnesses. It has another hardship about it that it would force the tenant to prove affirmatively that the improvement was suitable to the neighbourhood. That, I think, is to put too great a burden upon him. I appreciate the moderation of the noble Earl and his friends in not moving too many Amendments on this Bill, but I would refer him to an Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, which appears under Clause 3, page 4, line 25:—
"Provided that in considering whether the improvement is reasonable and suitable to the character of the holding the tribunal shall have regard to any evidence brought before it by the landlord or any superior landlord (but not any other person) that the improvement is calculated to injure the amenity or convenience of the neighbourhood."
That of course shifts the burden and throws it upon the landlord. I think that is fairer. We would be disposed to consider that Amendment, but I would rather have it moved at a different place—namely, at the end of subsection (1) where it would come in properly as a further proviso to the clause. I hope the noble Earl will consider that meets the substance of his argument, although the words proposed are somewhat different.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Nobody wishes to bring new parties into a question like this. It is quite right that care should be taken to prevent outside people from coming into a dispute between landlord and tenant, and if there is anything that can be done on Report to safeguard that I think the noble and learned Viscount should consider it, because undoubtedly this Amendment raises a valuable principle. Landlords and tenants should not be able, by bargaining amongst themselves, to put up something which is a nuisance to the neighbourhood; some protection against that seems to be required. I hope the Lord Chancellor will consider whether Lord Charnwood's Amendment can be accepted on that point.
EARL RUSSELL: If the noble and learned Viscount will accept Lord Charnwood's Amendment, I think that would go a very long way towards meeting the point I have raised. If I understand him to say that, I will not press it now but reserve the right to raise the matter on Report if I think it has not been satisfactorily dealt with.
LORD JESSEL: Does the noble Earl, Lord Russell, support Lord Charnwood's Amendment as it stands on the Paper, because that Amendment says the tribunal is only to have regard to evidence brought before it by the landlord, but not by any other person?
EARL RUSSELL: That is clearly right. That surely ought to be so. I do not think you can have societies for beautifying the countryside or for prohibiting advertising coming in in these disputes. That I do agree with.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am proposing to accept that, leaving myself free to reconsider the matter if objection should be taken elsewhere.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved to omit from subsection (1) the words "belonging to the same landlord, or to any superior landlord from whom the immediate landlord of the tenant directly or indirectly holds." The noble Earl said: This I do consider a very important Amendment. It affects directly the question of people other than landlord and tenant coming into the dispute. What is to be the effect on the next-door neighbour? Under this Bill as it stands the tribunal can allow a particular improvement. As between a particular landlord and a particular tenant I will assume it is an improvement, but it may be very detrimental to the next-door neighbour. It may obscure his ancient lights. He has no redress whatever, because it is done by the leave of the tribunal. Take another case, which is a very common case. You get it both in the modern town-planning scheme and also in the much older instance where you have a row of houses owned by different landlords, but with restrictive covenant, that there is to be no outside alteration to the structure of the house.
Such an alteration might damage the property in the row very much indeed, and surely if it is going to diminish the value of a man's property, he at least ought to be allowed to be heard and to be allowed to appear before the tribunal and say: "Well, I daresay as between Smith and Jones you are doing justice, but what about me, Robinson?" Is he to be damaged? Is that the general scheme of the Bill? I think not. I think that, as explained by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, that was not intended to be the idea of the Bill. If in case of a dispute between one tenant and landlord another landlord is hit, clearly he ought to have the opportunity of coming in if he objects and saying what he wants done about the matter. I have put down, in conjunction with my noble friend Viscount FitzAlan, another Amendment which is intended to deal with the same thing. Lord Jessel raised it on Clause 1. I thought the simplest way to do it was by the words I have put in my Amendment, that is to say, when the tribunal considers that it will not diminish the value of any other property. That is limited as the Bill stands to property belonging to the same landlord or any superior landlord from whom the immediate landlord of the tenant directly or indirectly holds. What I propose is to leave out those words so that any man who feels aggrieved may appear to protect his own property, even although Smith and Jones have a little difference of opinion, before the tribunal.
Otherwise you might get quite an absurd position. Under the Law of Property (Amendment) Act, 1926, you can go to the Court of Chancery and ask for relief against restrictive covenants. Supposing the tenant of No. 3 goes to the Court of Chancery and the Court does not think he is reasonable, the tenant of No. 4 can go to the tribunal and get leave to build something which is going to damage No. 5 very badly indeed. I suggest that your Lordships should give this very careful consideration, and I do ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to give it his consideration. If he thinks the particular method proposed in my Amendment is a bad method, but that the same effect could be obtained by another Amendment, of course I should not press this. But I do want to urge that some protec-

671
tion should be given to the unfortunate landlord who is not a party to any dispute but may find himself in a very serious position.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 18, leave out from ("property") to ("and") in line 21.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: The noble Earl has filled me with horror. He has suggested that there is nothing in this Bill which enables anybody to do anything with regard to a third person. This is a matter purely of relations between landlord and tenant, not of authorising a tenant to do work in the sense of authorising him against the rest of the world. You are authorising him to claim to make an improvement against his own landlord. For heaven's sake do not put in words which would imply that the tribunal to be set up is to decide something concerning other parties.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think the noble and learned Lord opposite has answered the point. This question is one between landlord and tenant. If you are going to bring in third parties I am afraid you will largely increase the amount of business and even go far, as has been suggested, to break down the county courts. The tribunal, I understand, in considering the improvement and the character of the improvement, would not of course consider the particular house or building as if it were in isolation from the rest of the world. The tribunal would deal with general considerations. The noble Earl suggested that an improvement might take away somebody else's ancient lights. I thought there were other remedies for the infringement of ancient lights. I hope the noble Earl will not press the Amendment and introduce third parties into something that is entirely a domestic matter.
LORD CARSON: This seems to me to be an Amendment of considerable importance. It raises the very important point of what is to be the effect of the orders of the tribunal and how far they will affect, if at all, the rights of others or cause damage to other property which does not belong to the same landlord. It is all very well to say it is quite right to allow improvements because it is only dealing with cases where landlord and
672
tenant have not come to terms, and have gone before the tribunal, and the tribunal has to consider whether the improvement diminishes the value of any other property belonging to the same landlord. Why do you approve that? What has the tenant to do with other property belonging to the same landlord? Of course the reason is, to take a residential district, that a landlord may have had covenants with various tenants that the place should be reserved as a residential district, which might be a reason why people bought houses or settled down there. I suppose if the tenant tried to turn the place into a public-house or something of that kind the tribunal might say that it would diminish the value of other property, assuming they did not conclude that it was likely to approve the value of other property, in that neighbourhood.
You take into account only the value of other property belonging to the same landlord, but you may have a row of houses just adjoining, or on one side of the street, belonging to one landlord, and on the other side another belonging to another landlord, and the making of this alteration may injure the estate which, by special covenants entered into, the tenants had supposed to be preserved for them as an estate of the kind that they wanted and where they wish to live. I think this is a very serious consideration. Lots of people are very proud of their small residential houses in the suburbs and elsewhere. It would be a shock to them to find that a so-called improvement can be set up turning the place into something entirely different, simply because it will not diminish the value of any other property of the same landlord.
I have not considered the question, but the point which my noble friend has raised is an extremely important point. He takes the case of a house adjoining another which does not belong to the same landlord, and of an improvement which will interfere with a neighbouring tenant. Suppose some sort of machinery is put up to carry on some kind of business. This might interfere greatly with some poor author or somebody else who has bought the house next door. It comes before the tribunal and the tribunal makes an order under the Bill allowing this to be done, and they say it does not diminish the value of the

673
landlord's holding but adds to it; otherwise it would not be an improvement. But what is the effect of that order of the tribunal upon the house next door?
LORD PHILLIMORE: None.
LORD CARSON: My noble and learned friend, in a very easy and ready way, says "None," but when he has to sit for four or five hours here to consider the matter I think be will see that there is a great deal to be said about it. If the effect is none, it ought to be put in the Bill. He may say that the effect is none and then find all kinds of litigation arising from a conflict of orders. One Court gives you a certificate that you may put up this improvement and then the man next door can say that, notwithstanding the order of the Court, he is going to get an order from another Court to pull the improvement, down because it interferes with his rights.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Hear, hear.
LORD CARSON: My noble and learned friend is very pleased with that, but it does not seem to me to be a very satisfactory proceeding to have two Courts, one doing one thing and another exactly the opposite. I know what my noble friend means and what, I suppose, the noble Viscount means when he calls this a domestic matter, or words to that effect. That is all very well, but there is nothing on the face of the Bill to show the position, and it ought to be on the face of the Bill that it is not in any way to be allowed to interfere with the rights of people next door. For my part I think it is ludicrous and ridiculous to have two Courts making directly contrary orders, and I hope that further consideration will be given to this point.
EARL RUSSELL: I find it impossible to believe that there can be any confusion of mind on the part of a noble and learned Lord so distinguished as the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, and I feel that the confusion must be in my own mind. I hope the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, will tell me if I have misunderstood this matter. As I understand it, on the point he raised as to why the tribunal were to have regard to other property belonging to the same landlord, this arises, I suppose, from the fact that the landlord tries to tie the tenants by various covenants,
674
and you are giving this tribunal power to some extent to overlook those covenants and to override them, though they are to have regard to the question whether it is reasonable that those particular covenants should be enforced in that particular case or not.
But when you come to outside parties, how can a judgment between A and B possibly conclude anything as against C? How can the rights of a third person be affected by any judgment between two parties? Surely neither the landlord nor the tenant are going to be able to do a thing which they were not able to do before, nor are they able to prevent anything which they could not have prevented under the ordinary law. I cannot see how a judgment between these two people can possibly affect the rights of a neighbouring owner to prevent a thing being done, or his right to demand that the action be restrained by a Court. That is the impression that I have formed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl is absolutely right. This Bill does not affect any rights of a third party. If the third party is going to have his light cut off or any of his covenants infringed, he has his separate remedy. It is a pure inquiry as between landlord and tenant. The decision of the tribunal affects nobody else. In order to make this point clear—and perhaps this may assist my noble and learned friend—I have an Amendment down to subsection (3) of Clause 3 to insert, after "tenant," the words "as against the immediate and any superior landlord." He will find that the subsection then runs:—
"Where no such notice of objection .… has been served .… it shall be lawful for the tenant as against the immediate and any superior landlord to execute the improvement …"
That, I think, exactly covers the point.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I desire this Amendment, but I feel that if it is not carried by your Lordships I shall get so much benefit from the increased litigation that will follow that my feelings are divided. This Bill, as I understand it, allows a tribunal, which we now understand is going to be the county court, to make an order and give a certificate that a tenant may do something. Why, if that certificate is given

675
by the county court, is it said that it docs not affect anybody else? The noble Earl opposite suggested that a judgment between two people would not affect a third person who was not a party to the proceedings. Has he never heard of a judgment in rem? Here is a judgment with regard to a building, as to whether the building may or may not be made or put in a particular place. What is the third party going to do? Is he to go to the High Court for a prohibition against the tribunal making any such order? Has he got to wait until the building is put up and then start High Court litigation for a mandatory injunction to pull it down again? What is the unfortunate man to do? Surely it would be more practicable, if he is going to be aggrieved by a particular alteration, to allow one Court to try both cases at the same time, and to say either "No, you are unreasonable here, the improvement is not going to hurt you," or else, "Yes, you have made out your case and I do not think you ought to be hurt by this improvement." For this reason I suggest that some Amendment of this kind is necessary, to protect the unfortunate third person, for whom Lord Phillimore does not seem to have any sympathy. Otherwise he may be completely injured by means of this Bill, and by a Court deliberately saying to a tenant: "You can go on with the work."
LORD PHILLIMORE: If the noble and learned Earl will only think for a moment he will see that the landlord and tenant together cannot injure a third person, and all that this matter does is to implement an agreement between the landlord and tenant by a compulsory order against the landlord to do something which he ought to agree with the tenant. It cannot possibly touch a third person, and with regard to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, said, the superior landlord is put in for the very excellent reason that the Lord Chancellor has insisted upon more than once, and that is, that it is the Magna Charta of the landlord with regard to this Bill that it is not the tenant's loss but the landlord's gain. It is the landlord who is not to get the gain which he ought not to get; it is not the tenant's loss which is protected; and if the superior landlord has one
676
house damaged and one house improved, he is not affected very much either way. That is why adjacent property belonging to the same landlord is taken into consideration.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: The noble and learned Lord invited me to think. I have done so, and I am quite unable to understand why the breach of a restrictive covenant, allowed by the Court, is the implementing of a contract between two people.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[The sitting was suspended at fire minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter after nine o'clock.]
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (1), immediately before the proviso, to insert:
"If the landlord has a superior landlord and does not propose to serve a notice of objection himself, he shall within the three months, transmit the tenant's notice to his superior landlord and inform the tenant that he has so transmitted it, and the superior landlord shall have a further three months within which to determine whether he shall serve a notice of objection."
The noble and learned Lord said: I may be mistaken, but I think I have found here a gap which requires to be filled up. Your Lordships know that a great deal of this town property is not held direct by the occupying tenant from the landlord. There is constantly a middleman with an intermediate lease and the Bill contemplates that and provides for it. It provides that if the landlord gives notice and the matter comes before the tribunal, the tribunal shall see that the superior landlord has an opportunity of coming in and defending his interests. But it does not seem to me that the Bill provides for the case where the main landlord—the intermediate landlord—does not propose to object and does not give an opportunity to his superior landlord to object. Those of your Lordships who are familiar with our legal procedure will know how that is met in cases of ejectment—how the tenant on whom notice of ejectment is served is bound to communicate with his superior landlord so that the latter can come in and defend.
What I propose is that if the intermediate landlord, who is himself the tenant to a superior landlord, receives a notice from a tenant of his intention

677
to make repairs and does not himself see any objection, the superior landlord shall not be ousted from the opportunity of making a suggestion. I propose in those cases that the main landlord shall be bound to pass the notice on to the superior landlord, who shall have a reasonable time for considering—I have put in three months, but that is a pure matter of arrangement—whether he will object though his immediate tenant will not object.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 25, at the end insert the said words.—(Lord Phillimore.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is a difficulty about this Amendment which I dare say has occurred to the noble and learned Lord. He proposes to provide for a series of notices, and to allow each superior landlord three months within which to object. Now, if there is, as there often may be in London, a chain of landlords, one above the other, sometimes as many as six, each of them would have three months; thus it may be eighteen months before the tenant can proceed with his improvement. I think we have a better proposal in the Bill. If the noble and learned Lord will look at Clause 7, line 15, he will see that a mesne landlord will not be entitled to make a claim under this section unless he has, within the time and in the manner prescribed, served notice and the documents of the claim on his superior landlord. If he fails to give that notice he cannot recover from his superior landlord. Therefore the superior landlord is absolutely protected unless proper notice is given. In regard to the time prescribed, the proposal is to prescribe a period of quite a short time, say a week, so that every landlord will get notice within a week or two or three weeks, otherwise the right to compensation will go. I think that is sufficient sanction to secure that the notice shall be given, and I think upon the whole that will be proper protection to the chain of higher landlords. The noble and learned Lord need not press his Amendment.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am not sure about that unless the clause really gives time. The Lord Chancellor means it is proposed to make the time prescribed a very short time?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
LORD PHILLIMORE: It would be better to say so in the Bill. However that may be, it gives the superior landlord a shorter time and it may give one landlord very little time indeed. The landlord may have some other scheme to propose than a mere opposition to the improvement. No doubt that clause gives a great deal of protection, but I cannot help thinking that it would be desirable to put my Amendment in even, as I said, if a very much shorter period of time was given to each landlord within which to object. I am not quite satisfied with Clause 7, though I agree it does cover some of the mischief.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does the noble and learn ad Lord persist in his Amendment?
LORD PHILLIMORE: I will not divide the House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in subsection (1), immediately before the proviso, to insert: "Any person alleging that the effect of such improvement will diminish the value of his property may appear and be heard by the tribunal." The noble Earl said: I have talked about this before. Not only have I talked upon it but I have thought upon it, and I have had occasion to comment upon it. I should like to know why any person alleging that the effect of such improvement will diminish the value of his property should not be allowed to appear at the tribunal. Is this going to be another plea, because you choose to pass this sort of legislation, that you will not pay for it? I gather this is the same point as I have taken before; but it is not quite the same point. I was told before to think; I was told that I was entirely wrong and that this Bill had nothing whatever to do with anything except matters between landlord and tenant. Would the Lord Chancellor give expression to that, and if he did would it bind a single County Court Judge? If, in fact, a person is aggrieved by this Bill, why should he not be heard? I propose to press this Amendment to a Division and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 25, at end insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Earl has told us that he has spent a great deal of perception upon this Amendment—
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I was asked to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was rather speaking in laudatory terms of his efforts. I think he has arrived at precisely the same conclusion as he did before dinner, and I do not know that I can offer any further observations on the subject. The general law, of course, as regards improvements remains exactly as it was, and everybody has precisely the same remedies as they had before. All that is done here is that an arrangement is made as between the tenant and the landlord to enable certain compensation to be paid if the tribunal thinks it is a proper amount. It is, as I said, a domestic matter. The other point that was raised was, why should you consider the effect that it might have on the landlord's other property and not on somebody else's property? The answer to that is fairly obvious. It is rather hard that the tenant should be claiming some advantage or compensation against the landlord when by this particular measure he may be diminishing the value of some other part of the landlord's property. In that case you balance one advantage against another and it remains purely a domestic matter. I hope the noble Earl will not seek again to bring in third parties, nor to argue their position before the tribunal.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: The noble Viscount says it is a domestic matter, but is it a domestic matter?
LORD PHILLIMORE: I think the answer may be put in few words—an injury to a neighbour which the landlord and tenant cannot effect by agreement they cannot effect by disagreement.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: May I answer the noble Lord? All your Lordships know that one of the commonest things that you can have is a restrictive covenant applying to a row of houses and prohibiting anyone from building outside the line of the houses. But according to this Bill the tribunal is entitled to tell the tenant that he can do that. The Lord Chancellor says that he is not entitled. Why does not he say so in the Bill? You can have a declaration by the
680
tribunal, which is now the High Court, saying in certain cases that you can have the building put out against this restrictive covenant. You can get a Judge on the King's Bench side telling the tenant: "You can build out," and on the same day you can get a Judge on the Chancery side issuing an order to prevent the tenant doing it. Is that good legislation? Can anybody tell me that this Bill does not allow these things to take place? You get a Judge on the King's Bench side giving a declaration that the tenant is entitled to do it and certifying that he may do it, and at the same time you get an injunction granted by a Chancery Judge saying that he may not do it. Is that the legislation that the Lord Chancellor or any of the legal authorities in the Conservative Government can be proud of? I should have thought they might have given a little more attention to it before they brought this Bill before the House. They might have given a little more attention to this House and allowed us to have a little more time to deal with it instead of, if I may say so—and I am sure it will not be taken as any personal suggestion—acting so that this particular House is no longer the revising chamber. The revising chamber has been changed from your Lordships' House to the office of the Lord Chancellor.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I would like to ask the question: what is the protection for the third party in the Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Common Law of this country.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: What is Common Law? I do not profess to be a lawyer and we have a right to know. Has a third party a right to a notice? I have seen these things done under the Common Law and the third party does not always get a notice. Does he get it under this Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course not. The third party is not affected at all by the Bill. I have said so many times. If the noble Earl does not follow what I say I cannot help it.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Cannot we possibly have some Amendment? I am not suggesting that the Amendment I have put down is perfect, but cannot we have some Amendment which says definitely that the third party is not affected?

681
It is no good having an expression even from the Lord Chancellor speaking in this House. It has got to be laid down by something in the Bill which the people who have to interpret the Bill will understand. Cannot we have something in the Bill which says in terms that the third party is not affected?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have already said so, and I have called attention to an Amendment of my own. If the noble Earl will not listen of course he cannot understand.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I have not only listened, but I have thought, and I have considered the Amendment to which the noble and learned Viscount referred. I do not think this helps in the very least.
LORD LAMINGTON: Would the Lord Chancellor say whether a third party is in a worse position under this Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not in the least.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: It is most unsatisfactory. We asked for an explanation and we are only met with a discourteous negative. We have a right in this House to a proper explanation. I do protest against the tone of the Lord Chancellor with regard to it and I ask again why should we not have it put in the Bill that in this question, in which third parties are deeply interested, the third party has a right before the tribunal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think the noble Earl will accuse me of want of courtesy to him. I think I am entitled to point out that we have argued this—possibly the noble Earl was not in the House—for a long time. I have said, I am afraid so often as to weary the House, that no third party can be affected by the decision of this tribunal. It is a matter between landlord and tenant, to decide whether a tenant shall have compensation for improvements. It does not affect in any way the rights of any third party, and really, I submit to the noble Earl with all deference that there is no reason why notice should be given to him.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I do not like to trouble the House again, but I must answer the Lord Chancellor. It is not a domestic matter between the landlord and the tenant if a tenant wishes
682
to build out to the detriment of a third party. The third party has a right to be considered. It is not right to say it is a domestic matter. It is a question in which the third party has a right to be heard, and as far as we can gather he will not have that right.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I hold no brief for the Government. I simply speak as a lawyer and, I may say, as a landlord well versed in the law of real property. A decision as between two people interested in one house as to their respective rights in that house does not in any way touch the rights or wrongs or remedies of the person in the next house. A decision that I have got a lease for three months of a house when my landlord says it is only two months gives me no rights against my neighbour. A decision that as between the landlord and myself I have a right to build or not to build does not give me any right as against my neighbour. My neighbour is left exactly where he was, with the right to restrain me from doing anything, though the Judge has said that as against my landlord I have a right to claim that it is an improvement. I can assure the noble Earl—as I say I hold no brief for the Government—that there is not the slightest reason for supposing that third parties are in any wav affected by the Bill.
LORD CARSON: I do not want to enter into legal controversy. We all have our own opinion, and eventually it will fructify to the benefit of my profession, which is at all events something to look forward to by those who are still carrying on. But I would like to say, in order that you may know it, a word on behalf of the tenant, having regard to the eminent opinion that has just been given. The tenant must now understand, when he proposes to make an improvement and goes to the tribunal which authorises him to make that improvement and, on the faith of an order, executes the improvement, he may have a lawsuit against him the next day for carrying out that order of the Court.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I cannot quite understand why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore, is so averse from putting in terms in the Bill the duty towards his neighbour which he has so ably suggested.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I will tell the noble Earl. If he really is so meticulous, let him put a clause at the end of the measure to the effect that "nothing in this Act shall prejudice third parties." If he liked to do that, it would be perfectly meticulous, but there would be no great harm.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: If the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, will accept that, I will be perfectly prepared to withdraw this Amendment. My method is not one that I particularly care about. My only point was that I wanted to protect the third party. If the Lord Chancellor would accept the suggestion made by Lord Phillimore—
LORD PHILLIMORE: I do not suggest it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved, in subsection (I), immediately before the proviso, to insert:—
"And any work so certified shall be carried out by the tenant under the supervision and to the reasonable satisfaction of the landlord's surveyor whose fees shall be paid by the tenant. The tribunal shall be entitled as a term of such certificate, to impose upon the tenant the obligation of reinstatement if required by the landlord at the end of the lease and to order payment of such deposit as security for reinstatement as the tribunal may consider reasonable and necessary."
The noble Lord said: The reasons for this Amendment are as follows. It is almost an invariable rule when granting a licence for structural alteration to ask that the work be done under the supervision and to the satisfaction of the landlord's surveyors. Generally the landlord asks the tenant to reinstate, if required, at the end of the term, and in many cases it is usual to demand a deposit as security for this reinstatement. Landlords have sometimes found that at the end of the term the tenant has not reinstated the premises. So long as the tenant is a man of substance this does not matter, but sometimes it turns out that the tenant is a man of straw, or he may have gone away and cannot be found. Accordingly, I think it necessary that some protection of this kind should be put in for the benefit of the landlord. I am glad to say that there are a good many more landlords in this country than
684
there used to be, and this fact makes a great deal for the security of the State and social wellbeing. Many landlords are not very wealthy men, and it is in their interest that I venture to put forward this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 25, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Jessel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: There are several classes of cases, I think, to which the Amendment moved by my noble friend applies. There are those improvements which are agreed upon between the landlord and tenant, and in those cases it is provided that they must follow the specification. In those cases the tenant has every incentive to follow the specification because, if he does not, he will not be complying with the terms of the arrangement. In a second class of case there is the same security, because the tenant has every inducement to abide by the specification, but it would be open to the tribunal in any such case to lay down that the work should be carried out under the landlord's direction. The other portion of the Amendment deals with the question of deposits. It would, of course, hamper the arrangements, because the deposits would tie up the capital of the tenant during the lease, and the landlord at the end of the lease would be able to offer a nominal sum as compensation for the improvement and secure acceptance by threatening to require reinstatement at the tenant's expense. As regards improvements which do not add to the letting value, Clause 18, subsection (2), says that the landlord is not precluded from requiring
"as a condition of such licence or consent, where such a requirement would be reasonable, an undertaking on the part of the tenant to reinstate the premises in the condition in which they were before the improvement was executed,"
All those classes of cases seem therefore to be covered, and I cannot think of any other class which would require the Amendment as put forward by my noble friend.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I would suggest to the noble Viscount that there is one portion of this Amendment which ought to be accepted. I cannot think that there is any reason for not accepting this portion, "And any work so certified shall be carried out by the tenant to the reasonable satisfaction of the landlord's

685
surveyor whoso fees shall be paid by the tenant." That is a common arrangement when it is done by common consent. I do not think it should be done under his supervision which means a much larger charge, but surely the landlord is entitled to be satisfied that the work is carried out. It is quite true that the tenant has an interest in carrying out the work, but there are razors made to sell and not to shave, and there are improvements which may look very well but which a practical surveyor would find were in fact jerry-built. I cannot help thinking that the Government ought to accept that part at least of the Amendment. I say nothing about the rest.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Speaking with some considerable personal experience of the working of this kind of clause, I can only say that even in the amended form proposed by Lord Phillimore I have seen it work very oppressively. A large landlord with an active surveyor proceeds to take in hand, in a most meticulous fashion, supervision of what is being done by the tenant, and it is almost impossible for the tenant to satisfy certain surveyors. Some surveyors are good and some are sensible, but some are far from being either good or sensible, and I should object very much if this were carried to the extent proposed by the Amendment or even to the modified extent proposed by Lord Phillimore. If the landlord is injured he has his remedy by the ordinary law, and if he has not his remedy by the ordinary law we do not propose to give him any by the provisions of this Bill.
LORD CARSON: I must say that I think the proposal of Lord Phillimore is a most reasonable one. As to the rest of the Amendment I am not qualified to speak on it, but here again you are leaving open all these controversies in order that you may have litigation. If ever there was a Bill which will create thousands and thousands of actions and set landlord and tenant in the position of plaintiff and defendant for the rest of their tenure, this is the Bill. What is this modest proposal? It is that when the Court or tribunal authorises the making of certain improvements these improvements shall be done to the satisfaction of the landlord's surveyor.
LORD PHILLIMORE: To the "reasonable satisfaction."
LORD CARSON: Yes, I believe that is the phrase. I always assume it is reasonable satisfaction. Look at what will happen if that is not so. The moment these improvements come into controversy, it will be said: "Quite true, all this was litigated upon and gone into by the tribunal years before, but now comes the question did you ever carry out those improvements, and, if you did so, to what extent?" Whereas you put an end to the whole of the controversy if his own surveyor has certified that they were carried out to his satisfaction. Otherwise you may have what was not a real carrying out at all. The answer to it is, according to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, that there are very unreasonable landlord's surveyors. I dare say there are, and there are very unreasonable tenant's surveyors and very unreasonable lawyers and very unreasonable Lord Chancellors and ex-Lord Chancellors. In fact, there are unreasonable people in every walk of life, but if we are to wait and not take these precautions because there are unreasonable men in various professions we may as well shut up shop. For my own part, I cannot imagine anything more reasonable than this—though I may be unreasonable in thinking so—nor anything more tending to bring about an absence of litigation at the end, when the letting value of these improvements has to be estimated and paid by the landlord. However, I suppose any efforts we make, even though we are lawyers, to prevent litigation are resented by His Majesty's Government who, in their efforts to create a universal peace throughout the land, have only one idea, so far as I can see—namely, to turn everybody into litigants.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought until to-night there were no unreasonable Lords of Appeal, but I am rather surprised at the unreasonable tone my noble friend takes on all these Amendments. I was about to say before he rose that I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, said and if he will put down the first part of his Amendment on Report I will see what can be done.
LORD JESSEL: I thank the noble Lord for his concession.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHARNWOOD LORD CHARNWOOD moved, in subsection (1), immediately after the proviso, to insert:—
"Provided further that in considering whether the improvement is reasonable and suitable to the character of the holding the tribunal shall have regard to any evidence brought before it by the landlord or any superior landlord (but not any other person) that the improvement is calculated to injure the amenity or convenience of the neighbourhood."
The noble Lord said: Those of your Lordships who were not here when Lord Russell moved his Amendment will find this Amendment of mine put down on the Paper for line 25. I do not think I need repeat anything that was said by my noble friend Lord Russell. This was put down as possibly expressing more accurately what both he and I intended. If I understand rightly, I am fortunate enough in my way of putting this not very contentious point, for the noble and learned Viscount agrees to it, but he wishes to consider the exact wording of it later. If that is so, I hope at a later stage he will consider whether any other wording is required, and I hope, too, that he will preserve a sufficiently wide definition of the kind of public interest which the landlord will be able to assert. I have changed the wording of the Amendment as it appears on the Order Paper by making it read "Provided further."
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 25, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Charnwood.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: This Amendment is one which appeals to me very much in my official capacity, because it is in line with everything that I am trying to do in the Office of Works. The noble Lord has been very careful to limit the Amendment so that it does not add to the number of persons who can come into the Court and tell their story. I understand that under it outsiders with views on aesthetics are not allowed to come in and interfere, but the matter is only represented as between the landlord and tenant. I do not know how far the convenience of the tenant in this way ought to be interfered with on æsthetic grounds. But if the noble Lord presses the Amendment I am ready to accept it, subject to I his condition, that the actual wording may be reconsidered before Report.
LORD CHARNWOOD: I, of course, quite understood that the actual wording would need reconsideration later. I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. I do want to press that the landlord ought to be able to object to an improvement, not merely on the ground that it is financially injurious to himself, but on the ground that, by execution or design, it will utterly destroy the amenities of the neighbourhood, or that a building, say, on some vacant land, may be placed in a way which will greatly detract from the convenience and benefit of the whole neighbourhood. Provided that the words take a sufficiently wide and liberal view of the sort of real public interest that might be considered, I should be most delighted to see the wording changed at a later stage.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY had given Notice to move to add to subsection (2), "and the tenant shall also supply such copies to the landlord or tenant of any adjoining or adjacent property who applies in writing therefor, with an undertaking to pay the reasonable cost thereof." The noble Earl said: I think this Amendment is very reasonable except for the phrasing at the end which ought to have been differently worded. Instead of "with an undertaking to pay the reasonable cost thereof" I should like to substitute the words "upon payment of the reasonable cost thereof."
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 37, at end insert ("and the tenant shall also supply such copies to the landlord or tenant of any adjoining or adjacent property who applies in writing therefor, upon payment of the reasonable cost thereof").—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought we had discussed this matter, and that this Amendment was purely consequential on an Amendment which the Committee had not accepted. We do not want to bring in third parties. This is another attempt to bring in third parties who happen to be landlords or tenants of adjacent property. The transaction is wholly between landlord and tenant.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I do not see why on earth it is that you will not bring in third parties, and that they should not be allowed to point out what is being done next door to them. And, if

689
you do not bring in third parties, what is the meaning of the proviso to Clause 3 (3):
"Provided that nothing in this subsection shall authorise a tenant to execute an improvement in contravention of any restriction created or imposed—

"(a) for naval, military or air force purposes;

"(b) for civil aviation purposes under the powers of the Air Navigation Act, 1920."

If you are not bringing in third parties, what is the purpose of that? And are you not to allow a private person to see at least what is being done against him when there is going to be a declaration by a Court, possibly the High Court, that the tenant may do a thing, and that he has got to wait until that has been carried out and the thing has been done in order to get an injunction against him on the other side of the Court? Surely he ought to be allowed to be given notice of what is intended and what is being done.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3), after the first "tenant," to insert "as against the immediate and any superior landlord." The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is intended to make it clear that the certificate of the tribunal will not entitle the tenant to make an improvement which would conflict with the rights of any third party. It is only his rights as against the landlord, whether immediate or superior, that are to be affected. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 42, after ("tenant") insert ("as against the immediate and any superior landlord").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in subsection (3), after "premises." to insert "made after the commencement of this Act." The noble Earl said: This, I think, really is more or less a question of words that may possibly have been omitted in drafting. I think it was meant to be that the leases were to be made after the commencement of the Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 3, after ("premises") insert ("made after the commencement of this Act").—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This would confine the operation of the Bill
690
to leases made alter the commencement of the Act and so it would not operate for the benefit of any tenant under any existing lease. Some of them may have eighty or ninety years to run and they would have to wait all that time before they had the benefit of these provisions. The Bill is confined to future improvements but not to future leases. I hope your Lordships' House will maintain that provision.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"(c) for securing any rights of the public over the foreshore or bed of the sea."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is intended to protect not third parties but the public. The Board of Trade are apprehensive lest the right conferred on the tenant by this section should authorise him to construct works which will affect the rights of the public, such as the rights of fishing or rights of navigation, and so on. We want to make it clear that it will not do so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD CARSON: I really do not know why this is necessary. If what we have been told all along up to this point is true—namely, that this is really a domestic matter between landlord and tenant—why do you put in special provisions securing the rights of the public over the foreshore and bed of the sea, when you have paid no regard to the rights of the public who have bought houses in the neighbourhood? You say it is only a matter between landlord and tenant and a domestic matter. Why is this provision to be put in here if that is true? Surely, if these rights are to be preserved or could be affected by the tribunal under the Bill, provision ought to be made for serving notice in certain cases on some Government Department of what was going to be done. Here, again, you may have a tenant imagining that he can do this, that and the other, and then when he comes before the tribunal he will find that the rights of the public are to be secured. I really do not find any consistency between what we have been

691
allowed to believe in dealing with Amendments up to this point with the object of endeavouring to protect the rights of third parties, and this provision that the tribunal are to examine and try out a case between the tenant and the landlord and the Naval and Military or Air Forces and the Civil Aviation Forces, and now for securing the rights of the public over the foreshore and the bed of the sea. I foresee in one of those great trials the whole of these great Departments being represented before the County Court Judge and giving their separate evidence and putting in their various pleas. My confidence has begum to be shaken in the advisers of His Majesty's Government when we find these extraordinary inconsistencies.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are no inconsistencies. The noble Lord forgets that the Board of Trade grants the lease. In these cases it is the landlord.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next three Amendments standing in my name are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 13, leave out ("given notice thereof") and insert ("served notice of the proposal to make the improvement").
Page 5, line 14, leave out ("given") and insert ("served").
Page 5, line 23, leave out ("suspend the execution of") and insert ("defer making").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert the following new subsection:—
"(5) Where a tenant has executed an improvement of which he has served notice in accordance with this section and with respect to which either no notice of objection has been served by the landlord or a certificate that it is a proper improvement has been obtained from the tribunal, the tenant may require the landlord to furnish to him a certificate that the improvement has been duly executed; and if the landlord refuses or fails within one month after the service of the requisition to do so, the tenant may apply to the tribunal who, if satisfied that the improvement has been duly executed, shall give a certificate to that effect.
"Where the landlord furnishes such a certificate, the tenant shall be liable to pay any reasonable expenses incurred for
692
the purpose by the landlord, and if any question arises as to the reasonableness of such expenses, it shall be determined by the tribunal."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This subsection is proposed in order that the tenant may be able to obtain evidence of the execution of an improvement at the time it is executed which may be available when a claim for compensation is afterwards made. The claim may be made many years after the improvement is executed, and in the absence of some evidence such as would be furnished by the certificate which this subsection provides for both the tenant and the landlord might be put to considerable expense in proving the facts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 25, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD CARSON: As far as I can see I think this is an improvement. At the same time I would like to point out that it creates another lawsuit.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: Will the Lord Chancellor give attention to the last words:—
"Where the landlord furnishes such a certificate, the tenant shall be liable to pay any reasonable expenses incurred for the purpose by the landlord."
The most ordinary way in which the landlord can put himself in a position to take advantage of this is to have sent a surveyor to inspect what has been done from time to time, which is almost equivalent to a contract that the work shall be done to the satisfaction of the landlord's surveyor. If the words are intended to cover that it appears to me, if I may respectfully say so, to be a very wise provision, but if it is supposed to be restricted to the reasonable expense of having a certificate properly provided and that kind of thing, it strikes me as rather insufficient. If, as I said, it is framed in the wider sense it would be satisfactory to know that that is the real intention of the clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that would be the effect of the clause.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Compensation for goodwill.
4.—(1) Then tenant of a holding to which this Part of this Act applies shall, if a claim for the purpose is made in the prerscribed manner—

(a) in the case of a tenancy terminated by notice, within one month of receiving the notice; and

(b) in any other case, not more than thirty-six nor less than twelve months before the termination of the tenancy;

be entitled at the termination of the tenancy on quitting the holding to be paid by his landlord compensation for goodwill if he proves to the satisfaction of the tribunal that by reason of the carrying on by him or his predecessors in title at the premises of a trade or business for a period of not less than five years goodwill has become attached to the premises by reason whereof the premises could be let at a higher rent than they would have realised had no such goodwill attached thereto:
Provided that—

(a) the sum to be awarded as compensation for such goodwill shall not exceed such addition to the value of the holding at the termination of the tenancy as may be determined to be the direct result of the carrying on of the trade or business by the tenant or his predecessors in titles, and in determining such addition the tribunal shall, if it is proved that the premises will be demolished wholly or partially, or used for a different and more profitable purpose, have regard to the effect of such demolition or change of user on the value of the goodwill to the landlord;

(b) the tenant shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of such goodwill if within two months after the making of the claim the landlord serves on the tenant notice that he is willing and able to grant to the tenant or obtain the grant to him of a renewal of the tenancy of the premises at which the trade or business is carried on at such rent and for such term not exceeding fourteen years as, failing agreement, the tribunal may consider reasonable; and if the tenant does not within one month from the service of the notice send to the landlord an acceptance in writing of the offer the tenant shall be deemed to have declined the offer;

(c) in the case of licensed premises the sum payable as compensation for goodwill under this section shall not include any addition to the value of the premises attributable to the value of the licence;

(d) the tribunal shall, in determining the amount of compensation for goodwill, have regard to the intentions of the tenant as to carrying on the trade or business elsewhere and shall disregard any value which is attributable exclusively to the situation of the premise;

694

(e) compensation under this section shall not be payable if the tenant has determined the tenancy or failed to exercise an option for a further term contained in the lease or agreement;

(f) where any Government Department, or a local or public authority, or a charity or a statutory or public utility company have, in pursuance of the powers contained in the lease, terminated the lease by resuming possession of the premises for the purpose of the Department, or any other Government Department, or of the authority, or of the charity or of the undertaking of the company, or where premises the tenancy whereof has expired by effluxion of time are required for any such purpose no compensation shall be payable under this section.

(2) Where an offer of the renewal of a tenancy by the landlord under this section is accepted by the tenant, the rent fixed by the tribunal shall be the rent which in the opinion of the tribunal a willing lessee other than the tenant would agree to give and a willing lessor would agree to accept for the premises having regard to the terms of the lease, but irrespective of any goodwill which may have become attached to the premises by reason of the tenant or his predecessors in title having carried on thereat a particular trade or business.
(3) In the absence of agreement between the parties all questions as to the right of compensation under his section, and as to the amount thereof, shall be determined by the tribunal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The first Amendment standing in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 30, leave out ("of receiving the notice") and insert ("after the service of the notice on the tenant").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "five" ["five years goodwill"] and insert "fifteen." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam, whose absence I regret. Five years is a short time in which to establish goodwill that is due to the energy, intelligence and work of the tenant. I think it is only reasonable, that fifteen years should be inserted. It will require fully that period of time for any ordinary mortal to work up what could possibly be called a genuine goodwill.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 39, leave out ("five") and insert ("fifteen").—(Lord Lamington.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think your Lordships will agree that fifteen years is rather

695
a long time to allow for this goodwill to be established. The period of five years was arrived at as the result of considerable discussion in another place and was a compromise between opposing views. As it was a compromise and seems a reasonable period, perhaps your Lordships will not disturb it.
LORD LAMINGTON: There is no object in putting your Lordships to the trouble of a Division, but I do think five years is a short time, and really suggests something in the nature of a gambling or speculative transaction.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved, in subsection (1), after "five years," to insert "definitely ascertainable." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of Lord Erskine, in whose name it stands on the Paper. We have now tome to the clause which deals with the question of goodwill. It is unfortunate that in the other House no proper definition could be made of "goodwill." Various attempts were made, but nothing really eventuated. It was such a nebulous thing that it could not be defined. My noble friend Lord Erskine wants to put in the words "definitely ascertainable." The reason of that is that if a landlord is to be made to pay for goodwill which is alleged to become attached to premises the tribunal must be satisfied that it is not a nebulous quality, but something definitely ascertainable. I know it is a very difficult thing, but it is an attempt on the part of my noble friend to get something tangible. If I may be allowed to say so, with the object of saving your Lordships' time, the same point is dealt with in another Amendment standing in the name of Lord Erskine to insert the word "permanently." The intention in that case is to ensure that if a landlord has to pay for goodwill, it must be for something which is attached to the premises as a permanent thing and not something evanescent.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 39, after ("years") insert ("definitely ascertainable").—(Lord Jessel.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I really do not think these words would be helpful. Goodwill is goodwill. If it is put in the Statute as definitely ascertain-
696
able goodwill it does not seem to me to carry the matter further. That is not a good test. We propose a test in the next succeeding words of the section. It must be goodwill attached to the premises "by reason whereof the premises could be let at a higher rent than they would have realised had no such goodwill attached thereto." That, of course, the tenant will have to prove. If he proves that, surely there is a definite goodwill for which compensation ought to be paid. I am afraid I shall have to say the same thing about the further Amendment to which the noble Lord referred.
LORD JESSEL: I am not greedy. I have received two concessions to-night, and I know how difficult a matter this is to deal with. As I do not want to be too meticulous, and as it passes the wit of both Houses, as far as I can make, out, to find an adequate definition, I shall not press this on behalf of my noble friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS moved, in subsection (1), after "five years," to insert "before the date on which the claim is made." The noble Lord said: It is suggested to me that something more precise should be inserted to define the period and that the words of which I have given notice would improve the clause. There is nothing in the Bill to say when the period is to begin.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 39, after ("years") insert ("before the date on which the claim is made").—(Lord Harris.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: Of course under the Bill goodwill only arises after the tenant or his predecessor has been five years in occupation of the premises. If there is an agreement between landlord and tenant no question will arise, but if they go to the Court the five years will have to be shown at the date of the hearing to have elapsed since the time of occupation. That seems to fix pretty closely the period of five years. Both alternatives being thus provided for, I think my noble friend's point is really met.
LORD HARRIS: It is suggested to me that there might be a change of the class of business during the term of a lengthy

697
tenancy, and the period of five years might be concerned with the business of some previous tenant.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Would not that have to be shown? That would come out at the trial before the tribunal, because, if there had been a change of tenancy, there would not be an agreement between landlord and tenant.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does the noble Lord press the Amendment?
LORD HARRIS: No.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to omit all words in proviso (a) in subsection (1), after "title," and to insert "and if it is proved that by reason of the premises being about to be demolished or used for a different and more profitable purpose the goodwill is of no value to the landlord none shall be allowed." The noble Lord said: As the noble and learned Viscount has said more than once, the question in this case is not what the tenant loses but what the landlord gains. We have now approached the question of goodwill, and it is very carefully defined in the first part of the clause. But when we come to the proviso, I confess that I am puzzled by these words:—
"… and in determining such addition the tribunal shall, if it is proved that the premises will be demolished wholly or partially, or used for a different and more profitable purpose, have regard to the effect of such demolition or change of user on the value of the goodwill to the landlord."
If there is demolition—I will not say partial demolition—or a change of user, there is no goodwill. The tenant may have lost something, because he has lost his place, but the landlord has gained nothing.
Those, words "have regard to" frightened me from the first moment I read them. I was afraid of them when it was in the power of a surveyor to decide the question, and I am just as much afraid when it is in the power of the Judge. I think that the words I suggest will make the meaning more clear:—
"And if it is proved that by reason of the premises being about to be demolished—"
I have left out "partially"—
"or used for a different and more profitable purpose the goodwill is of no value to the landlord none shall be allowed."
698
That is what I think the section means to say, but I am afraid the expression "have regard to" will be supposed to have a different effect. It is in one sense "have regard to," but it is a good deal more—it is treated as a negative. On that short ground I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 8, leave out from ("title") to end of line 14, and insert the said words. (Lord Phillimore.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think my noble friend has not noticed that our words refer to cases where it is proved that the premises will be demolished "wholly or partially." When they are partially demolished and restored in some other way goodwill might remain.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Yes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is why we would keep the words "have regard" to these facts and not confine it to the word "demolished," when the goodwill is of no value and no compensation is paid. In that case, of course, none would be allowed, because there is none possible. Compensation cannot be payable where the goodwill is of no value to the landlord. If my noble friend's words were accepted, you would destroy the provision for the case where goodwill partially remains.
LORD PHILLIMORE: You may provide for "partially" as you please, but the tribunal is to have regard to the effect of such demolition. It may be "wholly" or "change of user." But if there is this change of user the value of the goodwill to the landlord is gone. I quite agree they may partially demolish. I should leave out the word "partially" altogether, as I have done in my Amendment, but if it is true that by reason of the premises being about to be demolished, or used for a different and more profitable purpose, the goodwill is of no value to the landlord, then I think no compensation should be allowed. You do not want the word "partially." If you do, provide for it separately. The words "change of user" in the clause are most dangerous.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will read what the noble and learned Lord has said. I do not promise anything, but I am sure he has some ground for what he has said.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, in proviso (a) of subsection (1), to leave out "and more profitable." The noble Lord said: Clause 4(1) (a) deals with the sum to be awarded as compensation for goodwill, and it says that the tribunal shall
"if it is proved that the premises will be demolished wholly or partially, or used for a different and more profitable purpose, have regard to the effect of such demolition or change of user on the value of the goodwill to the landlord."
I can understand the words "demolished," and "used for a different purpose," but I want to know why it must be a "more profitable purpose." If the premises are going to be used for a different purpose the goodwill disappears, as the landlord is not using the tenant's goodwill in re-letting the premises, and it makes no difference if he is re-letting them for a more profitable purpose or not. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment, or give an explanation why those words are put in the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("and more profitable").—(Lord Dynevor.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The object of those words is something of this kind—namely, to prevent a landlord from depriving a tenant of compensation merely by reason of the fact that he refuses to take a particular offer. Let me take the case of a man engaged as a fruiterer, whose lease comes to an end. There is a certain goodwill attaching to the business of a fruiterer. The landlord gets an offer from a butcher, say of £150, and he gets a higher offer, say of £200, from a fruiterer, the latter offer being higher because of the goodwill attached to the premises. In that case it is not thought fair that the landlord should avoid taking the higher offer, merely in order to prevent his late tenant getting compensation for goodwill. That is the class of case aimed at by the inclusion of these words.
LORD PHILLIMORE: The noble Viscount does not see that that is departing from the whole canon of the measure: the question is not what the tenant loses, but what the landlord gains. In that case the landlord does not gain anything from the goodwill,
700
though he may prevent the tenant gaining. That is the reason I object to the subsection altogether.
LORD CARSON: I do not think the noble Viscount has given us any answer at all. It does not deal with such a case as he mentions. Supposing a landlord wishes to start something less profitable, which has nothing whatever to do with the previous business carried on by the tenant there, what does he get by the goodwill? What you are asked to estimate is what does the landlord get by the goodwill. That is the only ground why he should give compensation. Supposing the landlord wishes to put his son or someone else into the premises to carry on an entirely new and less profitable business with no relation to the previous business, why has he to pay compensation? I do not understand the meaning of the answer. How will it be known whether the business is more profitable until you have tried it for some time? Supposing the landlord starts his son in a business there, how long will you give him before you are able to prove that it is more profitable? Is your object really to try to make the landlord carry on the same business as was carried on there before? Surely it is interference with property, and all these different cases are such interferences with property as will render it impossible to manage any property at all. The Amendment is a very sensible one. You allow a landlord to use it for a different purpose, but you say it must be a different and a more profitable one. We have had no answer to that point.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I wish to ask the Government a question about a case that has taken place very recently. A landlord, solely for the benefit of the neighbourhood, built a post office in a cottage. After the postmaster had occupied the cottage without any increase of rent for twelve or fourteen years he was unable to fulfil the duties and the landlord proposed to put the next postmaster into the same cottage. Under the Rent Restrictions Act, he was informed that he had no power to remove the tenant and compensation was demanded of him, although for a considerable number of years he had foregone increased rent in the public interest. The postmaster maintained that if he went out he must be paid. Under this clause is he not

701
similarly entitled to goodwill? He will say there is a goodwill attached to those premises. He did not create it or spend the money to make it; but, according to the clause, the landlord will have to pay him for goodwill in order, in the public interest, to get him out and enable somebody else to act as postmaster.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think such a case would be provided for by the provisions in Clause 5, subsection 3 (b), in the case of a new lease, and that the tribunal would be entitled to take all the facts into account. But it is difficult to deal with a concrete case like that without having some time to look into it. What I was anxious to say in answer to the general argument is this. In the case put by the noble Viscount of the fruiterer going out the landlord gets the shop with the fruiterer's goodwill—I am putting that as a hypothesis—and he has to pay compensation for the goodwill. But in order to avoid that payment he says: "No, I will let it to somebody else, even although I get a lower rent, because by so doing I avoid paying compensation." That, I think, is what these words mean.
They were carefully considered elsewhere, and I could not consent to alter them to-day, but I think that the definition of "profitable" might be considered. Lord Carson asks, with force, how you are to tell whether a purpose is more profitable. Of course, the meaning is "more, profitable to the landlord," namely, at a higher rent. I am quite willing to make it clear, and to propose some words on Report which would make the sense unmistakable. If noble Lords are not content with my definition when I put it on the Paper they can, of course, raise the point again.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I was not quite certain what the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, really meant. Did he mean that if one fruiterer followed another that would be for a different purpose, because the wording of the proviso is "for a different and more profitable purpose"?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course not; the same.
LORD DYNEVOR: In the circumstances, I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in proviso (c) in subsection (1), to leave out "value of the licence" and to insert "fact that the premises are licensed premises." The noble and learned Viscount said: It is not really the value of the licence that is in question, it is the increased value of the premises, in view of the fact that they are licensed premises. I want to make that clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 34, leave out ("value of the licence") and insert ("fact that the premises are licensed premises").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, in proviso (d) in subsection (1), after "elsewhere," to insert "and to the steps which the tenant may have taken to obtain any suitable alternative accommodation." The noble Lord said: Under proviso (d) the tribunal, in deciding the compensation for goodwill, must "have regard to the intentions of the tenant as to carrying on the trade or business elsewhere." I suggest that the intention of the tenant is not sufficient, and that the tribunal should consider what actual steps the tenant may have taken to get suitable alternative accommodation. He may say he intends to do a great many things, but what he should show is that he has actually tried to get suitable accommodation before he comes before the tribunal.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 38, after ("elsewhere") insert the said words.—(Lord Dynevor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that the steps which a tenant may have taken to obtain alternative accommodation may be relevant to the question before the tribunal—namely, what the landlord gains by having this goodwill attached to his property. If the tenant has taken no steps to obtain accommodation elsewhere of course the tribunal would draw its own inference and might have regard to that fact. But I think it is a pity to put into the Bill only one element which the tribunal will consider when there are, of course, others open to it. I suggest that we should trust the tribunal, especially now that it is the Court, to take all the facts into consideration. I hope this Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD DYNEVOR: I cannot say that I think the answer the Lord Chancellor has given is a very satisfactory one, but in the circumstances I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON moved, in proviso (d) in subsection 1, after "elsewhere," to insert "and may make it a condition of its award that the tenant shall undertake not to carry on the trade or business within such distance of the premises as may be specified in the award." The noble and learned Lord said: This is an Amendment to prevent anything like action on the part of the tenant which would establish again in the neighbourhood the goodwill for which he had already been paid. I would ask the attention of your Lordships to the framing of this comical section. It says:—
"the tribunal shall, in determining the amount of compensation for goodwill, have regard to the intentions of the tenant as to carrying on the trade or business elsewhere …"
How on earth are you to get at the intentions of the tenant? The tenant will come before the Court. He will make his claim for the goodwill. He may express or impute all the intentions in the world. What binds him? The very day after he gets payment for this goodwill he can go down the street elsewhere and start again. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent him doing that. All I ask is that if he receives payment for his goodwill he shall have upon him the provision I am seeking to insert which gives the tribunal power to make it a condition of its award that the tenant shall undertake not to carry on the trade or business within such distance of the premises as may be specified in the award.
We are perfectly well acquainted in the Courts with conditions of that character and with covenants entered into that if a man gives up his business or goes out of a business in which he is in partnership with another he shall not start a business next door and interfere with the business of the man he is leaving. All I ask is to have that principle applied here. I can hardly imagine that the Government contemplate, in trying to do something for these poor tenants, allowing them, as well as being paid compensation for the goodwill
704
(whatever that may mean) to be entitled the very next day to go down the street and start a similar business.
As the Government are not very sympathetic to the landlords, may I put it upon the tenant in this case? The landlord when he takes the business over may let the house with the goodwill to a tenant, who will be in this predicament. Having taken the house at a rent fixed on the fact that there is a goodwill, he may find the old owner of the shop turning up a few days later, taking a new shop and going round to all his old customers, saying: "Come to the old firm. We always dealt very happily together. I am even better off than I was because I have sold my goodwill and have a bit in hand which enables me to start again in a better way." I hope the Government will consider this question and will see that the opportunity for frauds of this kind is not left open. In fact the whole of this subsection (d) requires a good deal of consideration. I have not put down any other Amendment to it. In the last two lines I think I may congratulate the Government on giving us another few law suits. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 38, after ("elsewhere") insert the said words.—(Lord Carson.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord cannot resist the temptation of having a gibe at every clause; nevertheless I think his proposal quite reasonable and I am prepared to accept it.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, after paragraph (d) in subsection (1), to insert the following new paragraph:—
"(e) where the landlord proves that the value of the goodwill has been created or increased owing to restrictions imposed by the landlord whether by agreement with the tenant or not, upon the letting for a competitive trade or business of other premises in the neighbourhood owned by or under the control of the landlord, or that the value of the goodwill has been created or increased by the landlord rather than by the tenant, the tribunal shall have regard thereto and may refuse the application for compensation or may award a reduced amount of compensation."
The noble Earl said: Never an optimist, I hope the Lord Chancellor may think fit to look happily upon this Amendment. The effect of it is this. You get

705
a case that very often happens now in modern improvements and town planning where a landlord deliberately tries to keep up the goodwill of a Particular business by putting in a restrictive covenant against himself that he will not allow-other business to be carried on in that particular district. You may get the landlord of one public-house undertaking that another public-house shall not come within a certain radius; or you may get the landlord of a draper's shop saying there shall not be another draper's shop within a certain radius. The person who is at least partially responsible for the goodwill in such cases is the landlord. I am not saying in this Amendment that lie is wholly responsible. What I am suggesting is that that is one of the circumstances that the tribunal can take into consideration when dealing with the question of goodwill.
I felt my spirits rise when the Lord Chancellor, answering I think it was Lord Carson, said that of course the tribunal ought to take every circumstance into consideration. If so, surely this is a circumstance that the tribunal ought to be told specifically to take into consideration. The tribunal are going to have difficulty in understanding exactly what they have or have not to take into consideration. Let it be put down in black and white that this is one of the things they must take into consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 40, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: This, I think, is an Amendment which was sketched by Lord Ernle on Second Reading. I do not see him in his place at the moment. I know what he was thinking of. He has had great experience of estate management as manager of one of the largest estates in this country, and that led him to discover that it is not at all infrequent that a landlord of a large estate, in the interests of good estate management, restricts the number of public-houses upon his property. In addition to that he very often buys up and destroys a public-house by giving up the licence. By doing that he increases the goodwill of the public-houses which remain. The same thing may happen in regard to a fried fish shop or anything else, but the most prominent instance is a public-
706
house, which is also the one in which the landlord sacrifices most. It is in that class of case that I venture to submit to His Majesty's Government that regard should be had to the landlord's action, and that he should have, so to speak, a slice of the compensation, or rather it would be the other way, and the compensation awarded against him would be diminished because part of it is the fruit of his own exertions.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The object of this Amendment is really to prevent a land lord having to pay compensation for value which is due to action he has taken himself. That seems on the face of it to be a fair proposal. I only want to put one question to the noble Earl. The first part of the Amendment—"where the landlord proves that the value of the goodwill has been created or increased owing to restrictions imposed by the landlord whether in agreement with the tenant or not"—seems to be definite. The later words—"or that the value of the goodwill has been created or increased by the landlord rather than by the tenant"—are not so definite. I do not know whether the noble Earl would be content to move the Amendment without those words.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I should be perfectly prepared to withdraw my Amendment and re-consider it and move if on Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of paragraph (e) in subsection (1), to leave out "Agreement" and insert "in a collateral agreement, unless, in the case of an option, the terms of the option are such that the tenant could not reasonably be expected to exercise it." The noble and learned Viscount said: There are two points in this Amendment. The word "agreement" is not the right word because a lease includes an agreement and the intention was to refer to some collateral agreement. Then, as regards the second point, there are cases where the tenant has an option which is quite useless when the term comes to an end. For instance, if the character of the neighbourhood has changed completely, he would not want to exercise his option. We want to provide for such a case.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 3, leave out ("agreement") and insert ("in a collateral agreement, unless, in the case of an option, the terms of the option are such that the tenant could not reasonably be expected to exercise it").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 23, after the second ("of") insert ("the value of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
LORD CARSON: May I venture to ask to what hour it is proposed we should sit? We have made very rapid progress. Some of us have been here since half-past ten this morning. It might be reasonable, now that we have just finished a clause, that we should adjourn before starting another clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope we shall at least get Clause 5 to-night.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Might I venture to hope that we are going to sit a good deal longer. Really it is most unfortunate that the House should not be able to sit later than a quarter to eleven.
Clause 5:
Right to new lease in certain cases.
5.—(1) Where the tenant alleges that, though he would be entitled to compensation under the last foregoing section, such compensation would not compensate him for the loss of goodwill he will suffer if he removes to and carries on his trade or business in other premises, he may in lieu of claiming such compensation, at any time within the period allowed for making a claim under the said section, serve on the landlord notice requiring a new lease of the premises at which the trade or business is carried on to be granted to him.
(2) Where such a notice is so served, the tribunal, on application being made for the purpose either by the landlord or by the tenant not less than nine months before the termination of the tenancy may, if it considers that the grant of a new tenancy is in all the circumstances reasonable, order the grant of a new tenancy for such period (being a term of years absolute) not exceeding fourteen years and on such terms as the tribunal may determine to be proper, but if the tribunal is precluded on any of the grounds mentioned in paragraph (b) of the following subsection from making such an order the tribunal may award such compensation as is provided under the last foregoing section:
Provided that the rent fixed by the tribunal as the rent payable under the new
708
tenancy shall be such rent as the tribunal may determine to be the rent which a willing lessee other than the tenant would agree to give and a willing lessor would agree to accept for the premises having regard to the terms of the tenancy, but irrespective of any goodwill which may have become attached to the premises by reason of the tenant or his predecessors in title having carried on thereat a particular trade or business.
(3) Where the tenant is the applicant, the grant of a new lease under this section shall not be deemed to be reasonable—

(a) unless the tenant proves that he is a suitable tenant and that he would be entitled to compensation under the last foregoing section, but that such compensation would not compensate him for the loss he would suffer if he removed to and carried on his trade or business in other premises; or

(b) if the landlord proves—

(i) that the premises are required for occupation by himself or where the landlord is an individual for occupation by a son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age; or

(ii) that he intends to pull down or remodel the premises; or

(iii) that vacant possession of the premises is required in order to carry out a scheme of re-development; or

(iv) that for any other reason the grant of such a lease of the premises would not be consistent with good estate management, and for this purpose regard shall be had to the development of any other property of the same landlord:

Provided that if the grant of a new lease is refused by the tribunal on any such ground as is mentioned in paragraph (b), the tribunal may make it a condition of refusal that if the landlord fails to carry out his intention within such period as may be allowed by the tribunal, the landlord shall pay to the tenant such compensation as the tribunal may fix not exceeding the amount of the loss which the tenant has suffered by reason of having been deprived of his right to the grant of a new lease under this section.
(4) Where the landlord proves to the satisfaction of the tribunal that the premises, though not required immediately on any such ground as aforesaid, will be so required after the lapse of a certain period, the term for which the lease is granted shall not extend beyond the expiration of that period, unless the lease is made subject to a condition that the landlord may at any time after the expiration of that period, on giving not less than six months' notice in writing, resume possession of the premises if he requires them for any such purpose as aforesaid.
(5) Every lease granted under this section shall, if the landlord so requires, be subject to a condition that if at any time after the expiration of seven years from

709
the commencement of the term thereof the premises are required for the purpose of carrying out a scheme of re-development, the landlord, on satisfying the tribunal that the premises are so required, and on giving not less than twelve months' notice in writing to the tenant, may determine the lease and resume possession of the premises upon payment of such compensation as the tribunal may determine to be the value of the unexpired residue of the term of the lease.
(6) Where the landlord is a Government Department or a local or public authority or a statutory or public utility company and it is proved that the premises, though not required immediately for the purposes of the Department or of any other Government Department or of the authority or of the undertaking of the company, may be so required at some future time, the tribunal shall not order the grant of a lease unless the lease is made subject to a condition that the landlord may at anytime on giving not less than six months' notice in writing resume possession of the premises if he requires them for any such purpose.
(7) The tribunal shall not order the grant of a new lease under this section if the landlord offers as an alternative thereto to sell to the tenant the landlord's interest in the premises for such consideration as, failing agreement, the tribunal may determine, and the duration of the landlord's interest is in the opinion of the tribunal adequate, and the consideration may as to the whole or any part thereof if the tribunal so determines be in the form of a terminable rent charge for such amount and of such duration not exceeding the duration of the landlord's interest as the tribunal may fix.
(8) No claim for a new lease under this section shall arise in respect of goodwill attaching to the premises and attributable to the trade or business carried on thereat during the term of a new lease granted in pursuance of this section, without prejudice however to the right to make a claim for compensation under the last foregoing section in respect of goodwill created during the term of such new lease.
(9) Where the immediate landlord is a mesne landlord, the expression "landlord" in this section shall include any superior landlord who may be affected by the order of the tribunal:
Provided that the tenant shall not be under the obligation to send a notice under this section to any landlord except his immediate landlord, but his immediate landlord, if a mesne landlord, shall send a copy of the notice to his immediate landlord, who shall in his turn send a copy thereof to his immediate landlord if he may be affected by the provisions of this section, and so on, and if any such landlord fails so to send a copy of the notice to his immediate landlord he shall be liable to pay to the tenant compensation for any loss the tenant may suffer in consequence of such failure, the amount of such compensation to be determined by the tribunal.
(10) Where an order for a new lease is made under this section, the landlord shall be bound to grant, and the tenant shall be bound to accept, a lease in accordance with the order:
Provided that before making an order binding any superior landlord the tribunal shall satisfy itself that notice of the application to the tribunal for a new lease has been served on him and that he has had an opportunity of appearing before the tribunal.
(11) Where the term for which, in the opinion of the tribunal, a new lease should be ordered to hi granted would extend beyond the termination of the lease held by the immediate landlord, the power of the tribunal under this section to order the grant of a new lease shall include power to order the grant of such lease and reversionary leases that the combined effect thereof will be equivalent to the grant of a new lease for such term as aforesaid:
Provided that every such lease and reversionary lease shall be so framed as to confer on the landlord granting the lease the same rights of distress as he would have enjoyed had he retained a reversion expectant on the termination thereof.
(12) A new lease under this section shall if the landlord so requires contain a covenant prohibiting the carrying on of any trade or business and the doing of any act prohibited by the original lease.
(13) Where it appears to the tribunal that proceedings under this section cannot be completed and a new lease in accordance with the order of die tribunal entered into before the termination of the tenancy of the tenant, and that the delay is not due to any default on the part of the tenant, the tribunal may make an interim order authorising the tenant to continue in possession of the premises for such time after the termination of his tenancy and on such terms as the tribunal may allow.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Will the Lord Chairman take my Motion now to omit this clause?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: When the noble and learned Lord sees the Amendments to the clause he may change his mind. Is it not usual to take such a Motion on the Question that the clause stand part?
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am content so long as it is taken some time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "such compensation" and insert "the sum which could be awarded to him under that section." The noble and learned Viscount said: The language here is rather awkward, and we think this phrase will be better.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 33, leave out ("such compensation") and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), after the first "tenancy," to insert "or where the tenancy is terminated by notice within two months after the service of the notice." The noble and learned Viscount said: This gives a little longer time.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 1, after ("tenancy") insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT SUMNER VISCOUNT SUMNER moved, in subsection (1), after the first "may," to insert "if it finds the allegation mentioned in subsection (1) of section five to have been proved by the tenant and." The noble and learned Viscount said: Subsection (1) begins by saying:
"Where the tenant alleges that, though he would be entitled to compensation under the last foregoing section, such compensation would not compensate him for the loss of goodwill he will suffer if he removes to and carries on his trade or business in other premises, he may in lieu of claiming such compensation, at any time within the period allowed for making a claim under the said section, serve on the landlord notice requiring a new lease …."
A valuation on his part entitles him to go and make this claim. Subsection (2) says:
"Where such a notice is so served, the tribunal, on application being made for the purpose either by the landlord or by the tenant not less than nine months before the termination of the tenancy may, if it considers that the grant of a new tenancy is in all the circumstances reasonable, order the grant of a new tenancy …."
I cannot doubt that the framers of the clause intended that the tenant should do more than allege that compensation should be given, and should satisfy the tribunal that this is so.
As it stands, however, the tribunal would be entitled and bound to find that, without any proof of the truth of the allegation, the new tenancy should be granted, because it was reasonable in lieu of compensation. That is why I propose a humble and sincere effort to express what I suppose to be the intention of the Bill. It might be argued that this would be inferred from the words as they stand and that the grant would not be
712
reasonable unless there were proof of the allegation. But it is better to say plainly what you mean and not compel people to go to their solicitors and take advice as to what proof is expected. The section would, I think, be clearer, and not any the worse for the alteration that I suggest.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 1, after ("may") insert ("if it finds the allegation mentioned in subsection (1) of section five to have been proved by the tenant and").—(Viscount Sumner.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the Amendment is unnecessary, not because it is implied, but because the words are already in the Bill. I think my noble and learned friend has not fully in mind subsection (3) of this clause. In order that a tenant may have compensation he must, under paragraph (a), prove—
"that he is a suitable tenant and that he would be entitled to compensation under the last foregoing section, but that such compensation would not compensate him for the loss he would suffer if he removed to and carried on his trade or business in other premises."
VISCOUNT SUMNER: I admit that I had not noticed that. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My next Amendment is verbal.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 27, leave out ("such compensation") and insert ("the sum which could be awarded to him under that section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY had given Notice to move, after paragraph (a), in subsection (3) to insert the following new paragraph:—
"(b) Where the landlord proves that the value of the goodwill has been created or increased owing to restrictions imposed by the landlord, whether by agreement with the tenant or not, upon the letting for a competitive trade or business of other premises in the neighbourhood owned by or under the control of the landlord, or that the value of the goodwill has been created or increased by the landlord rather than by the tenant; or"
The noble Earl said: This clause seems to me to be on a par with the earlier clause which the noble Viscount, Lord

713
Peel, was good enough to say that he would consider between now and Report. I will not now move the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move my next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 40, after ("proved") insert ("to the satisfaction of the tribunal").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON moved, in subsection (8), after "section," to insert "or of a renewal of a lease granted in lieu of compensation under the last foregoing section."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 21, alter ("section") insert ("or of a renewal of a lease granted in lieu of compensation under the last foregoing section").—(Lord Carson.)
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 24, after ("lease") insert ("or renewal").—(Lord Carson.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: These next Amendments are consequential and drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 30, leave out ("send") and insert ("serve"), and leave out ("to") and insert ("on")
Page 10, line 32, leave out ("send") and insert ("forthwith serve")
Page 10, line 33, leave out ("to") and insert ("on")
Page 10, line 34, leave out ("send") and insert ("forthwith serve"), and leave out ("to") and insert ("on")
Page 10, line 36, leave out ("send") and insert ("serve")
Page 10, line 37, leave out the first ("to") and insert ("on")
—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to subsection (11): "a reversionary lease granted in pursuance of such an order shall be deemed to be a lease authorised by Section 99 of the Law of Property Act, 1925." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is to meet a point which arises under the Law of Property Act, 1925. By Section 99 of that Act a lease granted by a mortgagor is not binding on a mortgagee unless it is
714
made to take effect in possession not less than twelve months after its date. If therefore a landlord who under subsection (11) is ordered to grant a reversionary lease has mortgaged his interest and the reversionary lease will not take effect until more than a year after it is granted, it will not be binding on the mortgagee. It seems only right that where the tribunal has ordered a landlord to grant a reversionary lease that lease should not be liable to be upset by the mortgagee of the landlord's interest.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 19, at end insert ("a reversionary lease granted in pursuance of such an order shall be deemed to be a lease authorised by section 99 of the Law of Property Act, 1925").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to leave out Clause 5. The noble Lord said: I have reason to think there was some stiffness shown by His Majesty's Government in the other House with regard to this clause, and therefore I hope I shall get the assistance of all noble Lords interested in this matter in pressing my objection upon the Government. I also know I am addressing a body of reasonable men, and I only hope that I will have a careful hearing for what I have to say. I look at the clause first of all from the point of view of the tenant. The tenant earns goodwill and the landlord ex hypothesi has secured it for himself, and the landlord has to make compensation. Let him do it to the full, but in all our law and all our ways of conducting business compensation is estimated by money. It can be quantified in money and if it can be quantified in money in other cases, a fortiori it can be quantified in money in this case. It is not a case of turning a man out of house and home and spoiling the amenities of his house. It is a question of trade and a question of money, and what is lost in money can be repaid in money.
There is no difficulty in estimating goodwill. On the contrary, the clause we have just passed assumes that you can estimate goodwill. Every practical estate agent and surveyor will tell you that you can estimate goodwill. If, instead of it being an outgoing tenant and a landlord, it was a tenant assigning his lease to another tenant or two freeholders

715
passing the property with the goodwill attached, there would be no difficulty in valuing the goodwill on the part of the vendor or purchaser. There is no reason why in this particular case the loss to the tenant, being purely a money loss, should not be estimated in money, and there is no reason for giving this peculiar power of doing mischief to the tenant. The tenant can be amply compensated in all other cases. There can be no case where money will not compensate the tenant. The money may have to be large or it may have to be measured with some imagination by the surveyor, but it can always be measured.
Looking at the point of view of the landlord, he has of course been an unreasonable creature and not entitled to any special treatment. He is not for that reason to be blackmailed. If you say that a tenant can get a new lease instead of an old one, you thereby enable the tenant to hold up possibly an improvement over an acre of ground and to stop developments which would be very much to the advantage of all the people in the neighbourhood. One man in the middle of a large number of houses may say: "I have got an order from the tribunal that I may have my lease renewed and I am going to have it renewed, or else I am going to ask for blackmail for ten times the value of the property." I see no good but merely an instrument of spite and blackmail in this clause, and I humbly hope that your Lordships will throw it out.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 5.—(Lord Phillimore.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord, who has moved the rejection of the clause, considers that it is only an instrument of blackmail and that it ought to be thrown out. May I call attention to what the clause actually does and why the necessity for it arises? It arises, of course, from the fact that the amount of compensation payable by the landlord is limited to the amount of the value attributable to the goodwill which the tenant would leave behind him if he quitted the premises, and the principle of the Bill, of course, is that the landlord is not to be called upon to pay for anything beyond the amount from which he profits from the goodwill created by the tenant. The noble and learned Lord said that all these things could be valued
716
in money. Possibly they can, but the sum payable by the landlord would, in the great majority of cases and in a great many cases which one can easily recall, be quite inadequate to compensate the tenant for what he would lose if he were forced to move his business elsewhere. Clause 5, therefore, enables the tenant, as an alternative to compensation, to ask for a new lease. The clause is drawn so that the landlord really only has to grant a new lease in cases where, in the ordinary course of events, he would re-let the property.
The noble and learned Lord dwelt on the hardship and unfairness to the landlord. He said he might want to redevelop a whole acre of ground, and only one house or so might stand in the way. But I do not think he has fully considered the provisions of subsection (3) (b)), because it says that the grant of the new lease under this section will not be deemed to be reasonable if the landlord proves, for instance, that he intends to pull down and re-model the premises—in that case no lease is granted; or again, that vacant possession of the premises is required in order to carry out a scheme of re-development. That precisely meets the point of the noble and learned Lord. This granting of the lease does not stand in the way of any scheme of re-development, because that is one of the positive conditions laid down in this clause. As to the rent, the rent which the sitting tenant will have to pay under the new lease will be the full rack-rent which any person other than the tenant will be willing to pay, subject to one qualification only, that that part of the rack-rent, which reflects the value of the goodwill created by the exertions of the sitting tenant is not to be demanded from the sitting tenant himself.
Supposing this clause was omitted what might very easily happen is that an unscrupulous landlord might use the necessity of the sitting tenant to continue his premises in which he has built up his business to exact from him a rent largely in excess of that which any other tenant would give for the business. To meet cases of this kind this clause is essential. Further, all those cases where the land is required by the landlord for development are safeguarded in the clause.
LORD PHILLIMORE: The noble Viscount says that the landlord is only to

717
pay as much as the tenant gains, but that there might be circumstances in which it would be impossible for the landlord to pay that sum.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No. I did not say it would be impossible to pay that sum, but that there would be a very large gap between the value of the goodwill created by the tenant and the amount of that goodwill that would inure to the landlord and it was because of that large gap and of the great interest the tenant had in going on in the same premises that an unscupulous landlord might very easily exact a large rent which no other tenant except the man on the premises would pay.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Exactly what I thought. In those cases the tenant is to get more than the landlord gains. I thought the rule of the Statute would be that the tenant was only to get what the landlord gains—not what the tenant loses. The noble Viscount has suggested that there are cases where the transfer of the landlord's gains to the tenant will not compensate the tenant and it is for those cases he proposes that this lease should be given. It shows the very mischief of this clause. It grants the tenant more than the landlord gains, and it is for that reason that I ask your Lordships to reject this clause.
Clause 6:
Right of landlord to offer alternative accommodation.
6. The tenant shall not be entitled to compensation under section four or the right to a new lease under section five if within one month after the tenant has made a claim under section four, subsection (1), or served a notice under section five, subsection (1), the landlord serves on the tenant notice that he is willing to grant to the tenant at such rent and for such term as the tribunal may consider reasonable a tenancy of other premises which, in the opinion of the tribunal, would reasonably preserve to the tenant the goodwill of his business.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out "or the right" and insert "of this Act or." The noble and learned Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 34, leave out ("or the right") and insert ("of this Act or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 35, after ("five") insert ("thereof").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
Provision when claim is both for improvement and goodwill.
". Where in respect, of any holding a claim for compensation has been made both for improvements and for goodwill, and the landlord has offered in lieu of compensation for either such claim to grant to the tenant, or obtain the grant to him of, a renewal of the tenancy, the rent under such renewal shall be fixed if both such claims are valid, irrespective of any increased value of the premises attributable either to the improvements or to the goodwill."
The noble and learned Viscount said: I should like to make an addition to the Amendment on the Paper, and, after the words "shall be fixed," to insert "if both such claims are valid." Then the effect will be that if the tenant has a double claim for improvements and for goodwill and the landlord offers to grant a lease in lieu of compensation the rent shall be fixed without regard either to the increased value of the premises attributable to the improvements or the goodwill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 43, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
Restriction on frivolous applications.
". If—

(a) a claim for compensation under this Part of this Act has been made by a tenant and the tribunal has decided that the tenant is not entitled to such compensation, and notice of a claim under this Part of this Act is thereafter served on the landlord or his successor in title in respect of the same premises; or

719

(b) notice of his intention to make an improvement has been served on the landlord by a tenant or his successor in title, where the tribunal has refused to certify the same or a similar improvement in respect of the same premises; or

(c) the tenant has served on the landlord a notice under section five of this Act requiring a new lease of premises to be granted to him, in a case where the tribunal has already refused to grant such new lease,

the landlord may, in the prescribed manner, apply to the county court of the district in which the premises are situate, and if the court is satisfied that the claim or notice is in the circumstances frivolous or oppressive, the court may make an order prohibiting the tenant from making any further claim for compensation or serving any such notice as aforesaid under this Part of this Act during his tenancy or for such period, and subject to such conditions (including the payment of costs in respect of the application) as the court thinks fit."
The noble Lord said: This Bill is based upon the quite inaccurate view that many hardships arise from the leasehold system. If ever this Bill becomes law I imagine that those alleged hardships will be far surpassed by those that will accrue to owners of premises in our great cities. The noble and learned Viscount opposite appears to be under the delusion that a landlord is always a big landlord. My noble friend Lord Jessel referred to the increase in the number of small owners. It would be a hardship on those who have invested their savings in one shop and bought another from someone nearby that they should be subjected from time to time to what is really blackmail, so that the tenant or tenants may get not less but something more by way of compensation. The needy lawyer or surveyor is sure to suggest to such people: "Why not apply to your landlord for compensation or renewal? There will be no expense. We will make a division between us of whatever proceeds accrue."
Unluckily, one cannot protect these small landlords from the operations of these people, but they can be protected by not allowing renewed attempts on the part of tenants to get some benefit at the expense of their landlords. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will allow this clause to be inserted so as to give protection to those who have put their hard-earned money into house property or land of the character which comes within the operation of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 43, at end insert the said clause.—(Lord Lamington.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: This clause, I understand, is to prevent a tenant from making numerous or repeated claims: (a), for compensation in respect of the same premises; (b), for a certificate that an improvement is a proper one; and (c), for the grant of a new lease. With regard to (a) and (c), the Amendment of my noble friend is really not necessary because in the nature of things that claim can only arise once—that is to say when the tenant quits the holding. As regards the certificate that the improvement is a proper one, that I agree might be made more than once in respect of the same or similar improvements, but there is one wholesome deterrent and that is that this gentleman would invariably have to pay the costs of the landlord and to most of us, I think, that would usually be a formidable deterrent. There is only one other case that might have happened, namely, as there are several referees the tenant might have chanced his luck, as it were, trying to find one more favourably inclined than another. That has been all swept away by the Lord Chancellor.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: The noble Viscount has made a case against two of the items, but is it quite clear that the costs are a sufficient deterrent? Frivolous and vexatious demands are made. After all many people like to try their luck. Would not the noble Viscount, consider the words in the third case?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the costs are a very strong deterrent. As at present advised I do not think any more is required.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7:
Rights of mesne landlords.
7. Where, in the case of any holding, there are several persons standing in the relation to each other of landlord and tenant, the following provisions shall apply:—
Where more than one landlord is concerned and they do not agree as to offer of a renewal under section four (1) (b) in lieu of the payment for goodwill provided for in that section, the tribunal shall be empowered to decide which course shall be followed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The first two Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 3, leave out ("landlord and tenant") and insert ("lessor and lessee")
Page 12, line 20, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out all words in the last paragraph after "Where more than one landlord is concerned and they do not agree as to" and insert "whether an offer of the renewal of the tenancy in lieu of compensation for an improvement or for goodwill should be made, the matter shall be referred to the tribunal, and the decision of the tribunal as to whether or not any such offer is to be made shall be binding on all the landlords concerned." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is to make the clause clear. It applies not only to offers under Clause 4 (1) (b) but to offers under Clause 2 (1) (d). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 32, leave out from ("to") to the end of the clause and insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 36, at end insert as a new subsection:
("(2) In this section, reference to a landlord shall include reference to his predecessors in title.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Right of entry.
9. The landlord of a holding to which this Part of this Act applies, or any person authorised by him, may at all reasonable times enter on the holding or any part of it, for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after "for," to insert "the purpose" of executing any improvement he has undertaken to execute and of making any inspection of the premises which may
722
reasonably be required for." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is to define the purpose for which the landlord is entitled to enter the premises. It confines it to the purpose of executing an improvement he has undertaken to execute or making an inspection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 8, after ("for") insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Right to make deductions]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendments on this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 13, after ("due") insert ("to the landlord")
Page 13, line 14, leave out ("as aforesaid")—
(The Lord Chancellor).
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
Application of 13 & 14 Geo. 5. c. 9. s. 20.
11. Section twenty of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923 (which relate to charges in respect of money paid for compensation), as set out and modified in the First Schedule to this Act, shall apply to the case of money paid for compensation under this Part of this Act, including any proper costs, charges, or expenses incurred by a landlord in opposing any proposal by a tenant to execute an improvement, or in contesting a claim for compensation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after "compensation," to add "and to money expended by a landlord in executing an improvement the notice of a proposal to execute which has been served on him by a tenant under this Part of this Act." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is an omission we want to supply. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 26, after ("compensation") insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Power to apply and raise capital money]:
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 35, after ("this") insert ("Part of this").
Page 14, line 6, after ("life") insert ("statutory owner").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3), after "life" to insert "or in a fiduciary position." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is to get the trustee's assent.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 10, after ("life") insert ("or in a fiduciary position").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Power to grant leases notwithstanding statutory restrictions.
13. Where the powers of a landlord to grant leases are subject to any statutory restrictions he shall, notwithstanding any such restrictions, be entitled to offer to grant and to grant any such lease as would under this Part of this Act relieve him from liability to pay compensation thereunder and any lease which he may be ordered to grant under this Part of this Act.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, after "landlord," to insert "or a person in a fiduciary position." The noble Lord said: This is a similar Amendment to one which the Lord Chancellor moved on Clause 12. I think the words should be inserted to clarify the clause and allow the trustee as well as the landlord to act.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 19, after ("landlord") insert ("or a person in a fiduciary position").—(Lord Dynevor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think this point is covered by a later Amendment of mine on line 20. I consulted the conveyancing counsel, who has approved all my Amendments, and I think this is covered by the words of the later Amendment.
LORD DYNEVOR: If the Lord Chancellor assures me of that I will withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after the first "to," to insert "sell or." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is one of the conveyancing points.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 19, after ("to") insert ("sell or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Amendments moved—
Page 14, line 20, after ("statutory") insert ("or other").
Page 14, line 21, after ("restrictions") insert ("or any rule of law to the contrary").
Page 14, line 22, after the first ("to") insert ("sell or").
Page 14, line 22, after the second ("to") insert ("convey such reversion or").
Page 14, line 24, leave out ("any") and insert ("to execute any conveyance or").
Page 14, line 25, after ("to") insert ("make or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Landlord's right to reimbursement of increased taxes, rates or insurance premiums.
15. Where the landlord is liable to pay any taxes (otherwise than by deduction from rent) or rates (including water rate) in respect of any premises comprised in a holding, or the premiums on any fire insurance policy on any such premises, and in consequence of any improvement executed by the tenant on the premises under this Act the assessment of the premises or the rate of premium on the policy is increased, the tenant shall be liable to pay to the landlord sums equal to the amount by which—

(a) the taxes or rates payable by the landlord are increased by reason of the increase of such assessment:

(b) the fire premium payable by the landlord is increased by reason of the increase in the rate of premium;

and the sums so payable by the tenant shall be deemed to be in the nature of rent and shall be recoverable as such from the tenant, anything to the contrary in the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts, 1920 to 1923, contained notwithstanding.
VISCOUNT SUMNER VISCOUNT SUMNER moved, before "the premiums of any fire insurance policy," to insert "has undertaken to pay." The noble and learned Viscount said: I move this on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Carson.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 21, after ("or") insert ("has undertaken to pay").—(Viscount Sumner.)
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Holdings to which Part I. applies.
16.—(1) The holdings to which this Part of this Act applies are any premises held under a lease, other than a mining lease, made whether before or after the commencement of this Act, and used wholly or partly for carrying on thereat any trade or business, and not being agricultural holdings within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923.
(2) For the purposes of this section premises shall not be deemed to be premises used for carrying on thereat a trade or business—

(a) by reason of their being used for the purpose of carrying on thereat any profession;

(b) by reason that the tenant thereof carries on the business of subletting the premises as residential flats, whether or not the provision of meals or any other service for the occupants of the flats is undertaken by the tenant:

Provided that so far as this Part of this Act relates to improvements premises used for carrying on a profession shall be deemed to be premises used for carrying on a trade or business.
VISCOUNT SUMNER VISCOUNT SUMNER moved, in subsection (1), after "partly," to insert "but only so far as concerns such part." The noble and learned Viscount said: Holdings to which this part of the Act applies are any premises used wholly or partly for carrying on thereat any trade or business. I wish to have inserted, after "partly," the words "but only so far as concerns such part." It is obvious that premises as described in this clause would cover any dwelling in one part of which a business is carried on. I do not suppose it is intended to allow by this Bill a right to recover the cost of improvements in the dwelling-house part of the premises, but only in respect of the part used for trade purposes. I thought the part of the Bill referring to improvements and goodwill was only to apply so far as concerned the part used for business. It can apply only to improvements, because goodwill cannot attach to the part used as a dwelling-house. It would be a pity to introduce into a Bill which does not deal with dwelling-houses as such a provision which might be expected to include improvements at the dwelling-house in the premises at which business is carried on.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 41, after ("partly") insert ("(but only so far as concerns such part)").—(Viscount Sumner.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In substance I agree with my noble friend, but I am not sure that the words are in the right place.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: If the Lord Chancellor will be good enough to consider the point before the Report stage I shall be happy to accept his judgment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON THE EARL OF MIDLETON moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:
"() This Part of this Act shall not apply to any holding let to the tenant during his continuance in any office, appointment or employment, or for the temporary convenience or to meet a temporary necessity of either the landlord or the tenant, provided that any such contract of tenancy made after the commencement of this Act shall be in writing signed by the parties thereto, and shall express the purpose for which the tenancy is created."
The noble Earl said: I rather hoped that I should not have to argue this Amendment. It seems obviously fair. I am sure it is not intended that persons occupying holdings for temporary purposes or as office holders, or for the temporary convenience of the landlord or tenant, should have the right to compensation or to a new lease. I would point out that it would be unfair to leave the matter in doubt, and I suggest that a contract should be drawn out fairly between those concerned. There have been some very bad cases under the Rent Restrictions Acts of premises occupied solely for the purposes of a man's employment, either under a company or under a private individual, having been occupied for years because they were excepted under the Act. I move this Amendment in the hope that the Government will see fit to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 2, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Midleton.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was rather waiting to hear whether the noble Earl had any specific cases in which he could allege that hardship had arisen.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: No doubt I could supply the noble Viscount with cases, but I should have thought it was obvious. We have been prohibited from discussing the Rent Restrictions Acts,

727
which are not before us, but there are innumerable cases under those Acts. I am most anxious to safeguard the point.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If the noble Earl presses the point, I have no objection to accepting the Amendment, subject to reconsideration on Report.
VISCOUNT SUMNER VISCOUNT SUMNER moved, in the proviso in subsection (2), to leave out "a" and to insert "the." The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment merely introduces my next Amendment, which I propose to explain. It is rather anomalous that this part of the Bill gives a benefit to people who carry on a trade or business but declares that for the purpose of improvements of premises in which that trade or business is carried on, premises in which a profession is carried on—
"shall be deemed to be premises used for carrying on a trade or business."
The form in which this is expressed is rather a reflection on those who carry on a profession, but nobody quite knows what a profession is. Nevertheless, this provision has a practical object, and I should like it to be as clear as possible.
I do not think anyone can define a profession for the purposes of the Bill. At any rate the Bill does not attempt a definition. Whether it is a professor of deportment, a professor of dancing, a professor of music, or a professor of occult science, of course is a thing which no doubt the tribunal would be faced with; but so far as I know the principal premises in which persons can be properly carrying on a profession and do carry on professions otherwise than in offices are those which I propose to mention at the end of the clause, so as to clear the matter up. The proviso will then read:
"Provided that so far as this Part of this Act relates to improvements premises used for carrying on the profession of a qualified physician, surgeon, solicitor, notary public or architect shall be deemed to be premises used for carrying on a trade or business."
I think there is a practice by which in the country solicitors and notaries and architects carry on their profession, a genuine profession, in the house in which they live, and of course physicians and surgeons constantly do so. It appears to me that if those persons, if duly quail-
728
fied, were declared to be the professional men for whose protection this subsection was introduced, it would prevent claims and sometimes expensive and perhaps doubtful discussions before the tribunal as to the persons whom the clause was really intended to benefit.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 14, leave out ("a") and insert ("the").—(Viscount Sumner.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Can the noble Viscount tell me why he has omitted dentists?
VISCOUNT SUMNER: Because I did not think of it.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: I venture to think that it would be very unwise to adopt a narrowing and restrictive Amendment of this sort. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. It means that all these multifarious professions which have a genuine goodwill attaching to the premises in which the profession is carried on and in which improvements are made, for the purpose of carrying on the profession, will be left out of the Bill. In the East End of London, which I know well, there are many doctors who have consulting rooms which are really in the nature of shop premises. At some time they have actually been shops, and have been added to and made more convenient for the practice of the profession. Dentists are in exactly the same category, and it would be most unwise, without further consideration, to state that some kinds of professions or some professional callings come under this heading and adopt words of this sort, which once adopted would limit the right to compensation to the particular classes specified in the Bill.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: I accept "dentist" but I entirely reject "specialist."
LORD DANESFORT: My noble and learned friend has pointed out with unanswerable clearness that the word "profession" is a very vague one. There is no definition of it in the Bill and it would be extremely undesirable that a man who wants to claim compensation for improvements should have to go through an expensive law suit to see whether he was carrying on a profession within the meaning of the Bill. I do urge the noble and learned Viscount to accept this Amendment and, if before

729
Report stage there appear to be any other legitimate professions which ought to be inserted in this clause, it would be possible to include them.
LORD JESSEL: I was rather convinced by what the noble Viscount said in moving the Amendment, but I am not sure I am not rather disturbed by the speech of the noble Lord who spoke last. It would be very difficult to limit the classes. In London you see the advertisements of dancing mistresses in the papers. That is a profession and the improvements of their rooms are of great moment to them. How are you going to omit them if you admit dentists? You have also left out veterinary surgeons. It is a very difficult thing to have a whole category of people put in and to run the risk of omitting somebody who ought to be in. It would be better to leave it alone and not to create another class of privileged person instead of leaving people to fight it out.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have listened to the discussion, but, with great deference to the noble and learned Viscount, I think it would be better not to try and insert a list of these professions. Already we have had suggested the dentist, the teacher of dancing, the veterinary surgeon, the bone setter, and I may add the engineer who has just as much right as the architect, and the surveyor. If we went on thinking, we would find some other categories that ought to be added. Of course the barrister does not want compensation. He never has time or money to improve his chambers. The same, though I am not quite sure, might apply to a journalist or a publisher. If we go on we would find people who would complain they are left out. I think it better to leave in the word "profession."
VISCOUNT SUMNER: It is obvious I cannot press this and, if for the first time in the course of this long and dreary discussion some jocularity has been introduced, I have some reward. I say quite seriously that your Lordships are deliberately opening a door to a large amount of ridiculous litigation by persons who are entitled to say: "We are as good professional people as solicitors or architects or dentists." The matter will be litigated, the whole sentiment of this Act is in favour of the
730
claimant, and you will find that persons are getting compensation for their improvements that are people who were never contemplated by those who framed the Bill. In withdrawing the Amendment I have a claim for unexhausted improvements.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: We are not anxious to obstruct the business, but I think we have made considerable progress, and it has been a pretty severe strain on all concerned. I appeal to the Government not to proceed further now, and I beg to move the adjournment.
Moved, That the Committee do now adjourn.—(The Earl of Midleton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: We have come back here after dinner, and have only sat two hours and a quarter since. The noble and learned Viscount in charge of the Bill has also been exceedingly generous in the way in which he has postponed points until the Report stage, so it is quite evident that the Report stage will be a very long one. We have finished 30 out of the 35 pages of Amendments, and I cannot think that the last five pages of the Amendments will take very much longer. I hope that the Government will resist the suggestion of the noble Earl.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am lost in admiration of the robustness of the noble Earl. No doubt he would like to stop until the small hours of the morning, but I am sure that the Government will be well advised to study the convenience of your Lordships. We have certainly not been badly treated to-night. My noble friends who have not quite agreed with some of the provisions of the Bill have yet shown a very accommodating spirit, and the result has been that the business of your Lordships' House has progressed very rapidly. I think in the circumstances we may reasonably go to bed, and the Government will not resist the Motion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the House, until 11 o'clock to-morrow, may I say that this Bill will, of course, be the first Order to-morrow. There is other Government business as well, but this Bill will be put down first.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The usual custom is to meet at 12 o'clock on Fridays, and the result of adjourning at this unnecessarily early hour is that we are asked to come back again at 11 o'clock instead of 12. Those accustomed to the old traditions of the House have probably made arrangements for to-morrow morning—many of us have—but in consequence of this early adjournment we find that our engagements are all altered by this unusual meeting of the House early to-morrow morning.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The usual practice of the House is that the Government should adhere to the promises which they have made, and on behalf of the Government three or four days ago I said that we should meet at 11 o'clock to-morrow. It would never do for me to vary it, because many noble Lords would come here at 11 o'clock.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House adjourned accordingly until 11 o'clock to-morrow.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before twelve o'clock.