Sitting of 8 March 1929

Preamble
The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWER TO QUESTION.

  EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.
  Miss WILKINSONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he can state what is the precise purpose of the summary of cuttings issued to traders by the Empire Marketing Board; what is the cost of such circulation; and if he will consider whether such matter as extracts from speeches made by an anonymous member of the Northampton Junior Chamber of Commerce justifies the expenditure of their circulation?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I presume the hon. Member to refer to a periodical summary of Press notices relating to the work of the Empire Marketing Board. This summary is compiled for the use of members of the Board and its Committees. No issue is made to traders or any other section of the public. It would be difficult to estimate the exact cost, which in any case is inconsiderable.
  Miss WILKINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two or three associations of traders have asked me to raise this matter in Parliament? How, then, can it be correct to say that this has been circulated only to the Committees of the Board, seeing that associations of traders have approached me on the subject?
  Mr. AMERY: It is conceivable that associations of traders may have seen a copy, but it is intended solely for the use of the Committees and sub-Committees.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Parliament Square and other Streets Bill, with an Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Secretary of State to make regulations with respect to cotton cloth factories and for purposes connected with the enforcement of the enactments relating to such factories." Factory and Workshop (Cotton Cloth Factories) Bill [Lords.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: (Sir Thomas Inskip): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This small Measure is well suited to the calm and dispassionate atmosphere of the House on a Friday morning, and no doubt hon. Members will be in a state of sufficient mental activity at this early hour to enable them easily to grasp the simple proposals contained in it. As hon. Members know, an industrial assurance society or friendly society may not pay more than £15 on the death of a child of 10 years of age. There are smaller maxima for children of a lesser age. For many years, however, these societies have issued endowment policies in respect of children which provide for repayment of premiums on the death of the child. Hon. Members will easily realise that the repayment of those sums is not the mischief at which the provisions of the law to which I have just referred were aimed. Nobody would be likely to ensure a child's life upon the chance, merely, after a year, or five, or ten years, of getting back only the premiums which had been paid without interest. In the Committee on the Industrial Assurance Act, 1923, an Amendment was moved providing that the return of these premiums should not be taken into account in assessing the amount of the maximum which is the limit of permissible insurance payable upon the death of a child. In administration, the practice then was not to include those premiums in the calculation. It had been the practice of the official who was then called the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies and of the Registrar-General not to include those premiums in that calculation, and the various societies who communicated with the officials from time to time were so informed. Accordingly, when that Amendment was moved in Committee, I declined, upon that information and being aware of the practice, to accept it as being one that was unnecessary for the purpose proposed. There was a substantial reason for not accepting the Amend-
  732
  ment in addition to the fact that it was unnecessary. The Bill in question dealt only with industrial assurance societies, and if the Amendment had been inserted there would have been a difference, at any rate in the letter of the legislation, between the position of friendly societies and industrial assurance societies, although there was not a pin of difference between the actual position of the two bodies in this respect.
  A new position came into existence, however, when the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, who then became the Industrial Insurance Commissioner, thought it necessary, or at any rate desirable, to have judicial recognition of the practice which has so long been followed in not including these premiums. With that laudable object in view he directed a prosecution to be taken in a suitable case. It was heard at the Merthyr Police Court, and the magistrate decided that the practice was wrong, and that these returned premiums ought to be taken into account in calculating the maximum of £10. It was hoped the society concerned would take the matter to a higher court and would obtain a reversal of the decision of the magistrate, which would make plain that the existing practice, against which there was nothing to be said, was right. The society, however, thought it unwise, as perhaps many people will agree, to embark upon a vista of legislation, and the purpose of this Bill, therefore, is to restore the position to that which I stated it to be in 1923 and which every body believed to be the legal position, instead of leaving these societies with a number of policies issued under the impression that the law was what it is now said not to be, with the consequence that they are liable to penalties for having insured lives above the maximum which is legal.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What was the date of the case?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It was about a year or fifteen months ago, to the best of my recollection.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: And which was the Society concerned?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. and gallant Member will address these observations in an orderly way I

  733
  will try to obtain the information. I think it was the City of Glasgow Society, with which, I think, the hon. Member for Dundee has some connection. Clause 2 of the Bill is merely intended to restore the position with regard to policies of this kind to that which everybody believed it to be before the unfavourable decision in the Merthyr police court.
  When the matter came to be looked into it was found, however, that there was one further point to be dealt with. Hon. Members are, of course, aware that industrial assurance societies and friendly societies may issue policies on the lives of certain relatives for funeral expenses. Some people may think that those policies are desirable and some undesirable, but, speaking for myself, and knowing what one knows as to the sentiments of the poor and the conditions under which many of them live, I think it is not remarkable, indeed it is to their credit, that they should desire to be provided with the cost of the funeral expenses of their near relatives.
  At any rate, it has long been the practice that these policies should be issued, but, curiously enough, there is no power in the law to issue endowment policies upon the lives of these persons; with one exception, that there is a very curious provision in one of the Friendly Societies Acts which allows the issue of an endowment policy upon the life of a nominee of a member of the society, a nominee of any age. With that exception, there is no power to issue endowment policies on the lives of relatives. Hon. Members will understand that by endowment policy I mean a policy which provides for a sum payable at the end of a period or upon the attainment by the life in question of a particular age. The result is that, although such endowment policies have for many years been issued by industrial assurance societies, they are illegal. They are admirable policies. No such criticism as is directed to the policy ensuring the payment of a sum on the death of a child attaches to them in any way, but it appears that as the law stands, so we now find, these policies are illegal, though everybody has hitherto supposed them to be legal, and they certainly are not mischievous. The result would be that Section 5 of the Act of 1923 would apply, making the
  734
  issue of the policies a penal offence. The societies would be pursued and the holders would be entitled to certain rights which might have some effect on the stability of those societies, and would affect the policy holders who are interested in the profits of the various societies. It is desirable in this connection to restore the law and make it actually what everybody believed it to be, and the law upon which everybody has taken out these policies. Section 3 therefore of the Act of 1923, which allows a person to insure the life of a relative for funeral expenses, will be extended so as to apply to an endowment insurance upon the life in the same range of relationship.
  There is a very important proviso in Clause 1. We have no intention of allowing endowment policies to be used for a purpose which was not intended, and if the life dies before the period at which the sum is payable, the only amount that may be recovered is a reasonable amount for the funeral expenses of the life insured. That will prevent anybody thinking that there is a gold mine in policies of that kind. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill validate the holders of those policies, and ensure to them certain legal rights. In certain circumstances which I will not detail to the House, because that is quite unnecessary, the policy holders have certain rights in some cases to a surrender value and in other cases to a free paid-up policy. In some cases, they would be entitled to the return of the premiums. It is true that these rights are not very valuable to the persons concerned, but it is not thought proper to take away those rights without giving them something in return. They are in fact secured better rights by this Bill.
  Clause 3 and the Schedule of the Bill provide free paid-up policies, or for the payment of surrender values. There is this further benefit provided. It is not all policies on the life of a child that are illegal. Hon. Members will recognise that it is only those policies which insure more than the maximum amount which are illegal. We give this new right of surrender value to all policies of this character, whether legal or illegal. We are improving very much the position of the policy holders and we are making this still greater im-

  735
  provement. Under the law as it stands the benefits are such as give a policy holder certain rights after the payment of three years premiums and in other cases after the payment of five years premiums. Under this Bill we give these benefits after the payment of one year's premiums. After the payment of one year's premiums these rights may be claimed by any policy holder provided that he makes the claim within one year of announcing his intention to stop the payment of any further premiums under his policy. Consequently we are making a considerable improvement in the case of those who hold these hitherto illegal policies. By statutory regulations we are bringing up these policies to the practice of the best societies who have always been in advance of the statutory requirements. We are now levelling up the statutory regulations to the best practice, and we are really making a great advance so far as concerns the payment of benefits which policy holders can secure in substitution for the policies with which this Bill deals.
  I hope this Bill will be considered non-contentious, because it simply deals with the two main points with which I began my observations. Clause 3 as I have said provides for surrender values. There is one matter which I hope will not escape the attention of hon. Members. In Clause 3 we have set out what is contained in another Act of Parliament, and instead of legislating by reference, we have incorporated the whole of the provisions word for word so that anyone who runs may read. I hope some of our critics will note this incident in the drafting of the Bill. I must add that inasmuch as the Bill is intended to make the law what it has always been supposed to be since 1923, Clause 4 of the Bill makes it retrospective in its operation. When this Measure becomes an Act of Parliament I think it will be found that nobody is prejudiced, that the whole position has been regularised, and I hope the result will be that the policy holders will be better off than they would have been if we had not introduced this Bill.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: This is a Bill which requires very clear thought and explanation, and I think the House will agree with me when I say that the Attorney-General has given us a clear
  736
  explanation of a somewhat difficult legal position. The assurance societies found themselves in this position on account of advice which they took with a bona fide desire to have their industrial insurance business placed upon a sound basis. In 1923 there was an Amendment which stood in my name on the Order Paper to which the Attorney-General has referred, and, as I happened to be out of the House when the Amendment was called, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) moved it. I returned to the House during the discussion, and it was upon the assurance which the learned Attorney-General then gave that I withdrew the Amendment.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The words I used on that occasion were:
  "The Chief Registrar, who will in future be the Commissioner, has consistently held that sums repaid in respect of premiums do not come within the amounts which make up the limits that are possible under the Friendly Societies Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 1st May, 1923; col. 512.]
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I am obliged to the Attorney-General for giving me the quotation. It was upon that specific assurance, from the Solicitor General of that day, that these policies would be quite legal, that I withdrew the Amendment from discussion in the Standing Committee in 1923. That has been responsible for the very serious position in which the friendly societies and industrial assurance companies have found themselves in subsequent years. I want to thank the Attorney-General for having been perfectly frank in his statement this morning. He points out that the Chief Registrar had been accustomed to deal with points of this kind as matters of administrative practice, and that in that administrative practice he had regarded these policies as certainly not being of an illegal character; but in his new capacity as Industrial Assurance Commissioner, he felt that it was necessary to have judicial authority for what he had regarded as the administrative practice previously. That decision of the Industrial Assurance Commissioner was no doubt lawful from some points of view, although in our judgment it dealt with the matter in a roundabout way. I am not complaining, but I think that, from the point of view of the anxiety of people having to handle these important

  737
  matters, it would have been desirable to have moved to make the law clear rather than raise the question by a prosecution with a view to getting a test case. Still, that is a question of procedure. Sometimes it is felt necessary to move by amendment of the law, and sometimes the other practice is adopted of moving by way of a test case; but the precipitation of the matter by a test case placed the great working-class insurance societies, as well as the industrial assurance companies, in a very difficult position indeed.
  The essential fact is that it is necessary, not only from the point of view of the financial standing of the working-class societies, but in order to maintain confidence in the general principle of insurance, that the position as outlined in the Standing Committee in 1923 as being the law-should now be made in fact the law. That is all that the main part of this Bill really does. There is the other point to which the Attorney-General has drawn attention, namely, that while the law is being put back into its proper position, the Government are taking the opportunity of securing to the persons concerned that, in the case of these policies, whether they have been regarded as illegal or not, they shall have all the benefits in regard to paid-up policies or surrender values to which they would be entitled. The Bill now provides, not only for the granting of free paid-up policies, but also, in the case of those endowments which are specially covered by the Bill, for a surrender value of an amount fixed by the Bill becoming payable after only 12 months, although under the Act of 1923 the period was five years. It will be seen that the provisions of the Bill are very much more to the advantage of those who took out these policies than was previously the case. We have considered this matter on this side of the House, and, so far as the official Opposition are concerned, while they regret the circumstances which led up to the position that we have been discussing this morning, they regard the passing of this Bill as essential, and propose to treat it as non-contentious.
  Sir BASIL PETO: I should like to ask whether I am right in inferring, from the very clear statement of the Attorney-General,
  738
  that there is absolutely no substance in an allegation which has been made in one section of the Press. I refer to a paper called "John Bull," which circularised Members by a communication received this morning saying that this Bill is a secret conspiracy to defraud millions of small investors who have taken out these policies on their children's lives, and who are to be defrauded of the premiums they have paid when they are no longer able to keep them up. I understand from the Attorney-General's statement that exactly the opposite is the fact, and that the Bill gives them further rights; and it is in order to give publicity to that statement, and to ask the Attorney-General if I rightly interpret the Bill, that I have risen.
  Mr. KELLY: This Bill has been spoken of as a non-conteutious Bill, but I am much concerned about many of these people who have been paying for a considerable period, as the Attorney-General I think, stated, on what were illegal policies, or illegal acts of the insurance companies. Many of those people have endeavoured to recover those premiums from the insurance companies, and probably they are among those to whom the Attorney-General referred as the best insurance companies. I am not asking him to name the best, for fear that he should name some to which we should have to take very strong exception, but I know from experience during recent months that when people have discovered, after paying for a number of years, that the amounts taken from them were for policies that were illegal, these insurance companies will not return the money that these people have paid under the impression that they were doing what was legal, cither in regard to payment or in regard to the expectation of certain benefits. I do not mind naming the companies. I refer to the Pearl Assurance Company and to the Liverpool Victoria Society, from whom I have endeavoured to obtain for these poor people the moneys they have paid.
  I cannot find that there is in this Bill the real remedy for that injustice to people who have paid all this time under the impression that they were doing what an Act of Parliament permitted them to do, and that they would be able to receive the benefits. I hope the Attorney-

  739
  General will satisfy us that such people will be entitled under this Measure to receive back the premiums which ought never to have been taken from them. There seems to have been a great desire on the part of the Government suddenly to regularise the position of these very wealthy insurance companies. We know the power that they have at this time, and we know that they can speak with a voice that even the Government have to be very careful of refusing to listen to; and it appears that these particular insurance corporations, big and powerful and wealthy as they are, have been able at any rate to wring something out of the Government that other people could not get.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before this Bill is given a Second Reading, I think some further explanation is required. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) said, in a speech which I found far more helpful than that from the Government Front Bench, the Opposition are not at the present stage opposing this Bill, but we want to know a little about it, because this is a matter that affects a very great number of poor people. I have heard extraordinary figures about the number of persons who are affected. The Attorney-General rather seemed to think this was a matter that must be got through very quickly and that he had not time to go into details. I really put it to him that it was owing to his mistake and misguidance of the House, if I understood the two Front Bench speeches aright, that all this trouble has been caused, and it is really treating the House of Commons without sufficient respect to say that it is very early in the morning, and we have clearer heads, we can see this thing much better than we did in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman, in other words, wrongly advised the Committee on the state of the law, and the Bill is really to indemnify him and the Government for that mistake. These airy pleasantries about the early hour, and no need of much more explanation, and no need for delay, really will not do.
  I have nothing to complain of in the speech of the hon. Member for Hills-borough. I congratulate him on making
  740
  several points a good deal clearer. There are very serious complaints on the part of the holders of these policies dealt with under the Bill who are insured with some of the industrial insurance societies. As regards the great friendly societies and the Co-operative Insurance Society, I have heard no specific complaints, but, with regard to the private insurance companies who engage in the business of industrial insurance for profit, there are very serious complaints indeed. I should like to put this specific question to the Government, if the Attorney-General will give me his attention.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am attending to the hon. and gallant Gentleman very carefully.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will also interrupt me in an orderly manner if I do not make myself clear. Will any insured person, as the result of the Bill, be made worse off, and if so to what extent. Secondly, with regard to Clause 3, it says:
  "Where under any policy to which this section applies not less than one year's premiums have been paid, the owner of the policy shall be entitled at any time within one year from the date on which the last premium was paid or, if no premium has been paid since the date of the commencement of this Act, within one year from that date, to surrender the policy and to claim either a free paid-up policy in conformity with the rules contained in the Schedule to this Act; or payment of a surrender value equal to ninety per cent. of the value of the sum or sums payable under such a free paid-up policy as aforesaid, calculated in accordance with the last four rules contained in the Fourth Schedule to the Industrial Assurance Act, 1923."
  I have read the Schedule and am familiar with the Act. May I ask exactly how much this free paid-up policy in percentages will be worth. Supposing a person has paid £50, or any convenient sum, in premiums, how much will this free paid-up policy be worth, and how much of this is surrender value? It is worthy of notice that the surrender value is 90 per cent., not of the sums payable under the original policy, but of the sums payable under a free paid-up policy. I think I have read the Act correctly, though it is not too clear.
  The next question I should like to ask is how are the rights and benefits under the Bill for insured persons who are

  741
  affected by it to be made known to those insured persons. This is very important indeed. I have not read the article in "John Bull," and I have not had the circular that the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) referred to. [Interruption.] I can tell the hon. Member, who I hope will not get excited at this early hour of the morning, that there is a Mr. Mashford who lives in my constituency. The hon. and gallant Gentleman on the Front Bench is good enough to be amused at the mention of Mr. Mashford's name. I know something of his activities. He has fought a very long battle on behalf of insured persons. The hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian) also knows his activities. He will not be amused at the mention of his name. He will treat him with the respect with which everyone treats him when it is remembered that he has had a long life of contest on behalf of very poor people indeed. My only complaint against him is that he thinks the only evil in the world is the profiteering of industrial assurance companies, while I look at other evils as well. I will send the Lord of the Treasury a list of some of the sums that have been recovered on behalf of these poor people in the Courts at great trouble and inconvenience, and even risk, to himself. He has been imprisoned and persecuted for a very long series of years.
  I do not know if the hon. and gallant Gentleman who was so amused has read the evidence given before the Parmoor Committee. They went very thoroughly into the whole question of industrial assurance companies and paid a tribute to the excellence and value of the evidence that had been given by Mr. Mashford—that was before the hon. and gallant Gentleman's entry into political life—and the Committee thanked him for his services. [Interruption.] I am making no strictures on the Committee. I am calling them to my aid and saying that this gentleman, whatever his antecedents and his past history, gave valuable evidence before the Committee, and it has been of great value in recovering large sums of money for a great number of very poor people. He came to see me yesterday. He admits that he does not want to pass any judgment on the Bill. He has given me nothing in writing about it, but there are certain matters which will need clearing up.
  742
  I should like to know what means will be taken to let the insured persons know their rights under the Bill. Will there be notices in the post offices or advertisements in the Press? Here you have a very large number of poor, hardworking and, in many cases, ignorant and illiterate people, and they simply do not understand very often what they are signing when canvassers get them to insure young children and that sort of thing, and, unless the Government take some means of letting them know, they will not know the benefits to which they are entitled. The fact that we have in Hull a gentleman like Mr. Mashford, who is very vigorous in the matter, does not mean that in other cities there are other people who are able to advise on the subject.
  There will be many evils in the business of industrial assurance as long as it is run entirely for private gain and profit. It was to meet some of these admitted evils that the Act of 1923 was passed and the Commissioner who looks after the rights of insured persons was appointed as Industrial Assurance Commissioner. I would like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the Industrial Assurance Commissioner—of course, he is affected by this Bill—has given any figures of the numbers of persons affected under it and the sums involved. I quite understand that owing to the original mistake very heavy liabilities might have been innocently and properly entered into by large friendly and co-operative societies, and unless the law is altered they may be penalised quite improperly. At the same time, the great industrial assurance societies are well able to afford to pay for any mistakes which they have made, and, if there is anything to choose between their rights and the rights of the insured persons, steps must be taken to uphold the whole of the rights of the insured persons.
  The Industrial Assurance Commissioner is supposed to, and does, I am quite sure, defend the rights of the public who are insured with the industrial assurance companies, and I would like to know whether he can suggest any machinery that can be set up to advise people who are in doubt about this Bill and about their rights, and how the machinery of the Bill is supposed to be worked. There is need of someone to defend, advise, and instruct the mass of the policy holders in

  743
  this class of business. They, as I say, have the scale weighted against them by the immense wealth and power of the industrial assurance companies, and, whenever I find a very wealthy and powerful corporation coming to this House in order to have legislation passed that will admittedly help it, I do not propose for one moment to allow my rights as a private Member of Parliament to be swept aside by any talk of urgency or of the early hours of the morning or by any other specious argument the learned Attorney-General may choose to use.
  There is one other matter, about which I would like to ask. It has reference to Clause 4. This seems to be an amusing business which is not to be taken seriously by any occupants of the Government Front Bench. We on these benches treat matters of this kind very seriously indeed. I have been 10 years in the House of Commons, and I have seen something of the past political history of this industrial insurance. With regard to Clause 4, which is to make certain endowment policies retrospective, what will now be the limit of the amount—reference to this may be included somewhere else in the Bill, but I have not been able to find it—which can be paid on death? I understand the position with regard to funeral expenses and so on. I understand that the present amount of £15 for funeral expenses is adhered to, but what will be the new amount to be legally paid on death to the relative, or nominee in the case of friendly societies? This is rather important, as the matter is being made retrospective. I am sorry if I have taken a little time to explain a rather complicated matter. I confess that to me the Bill contains many ambiguities still, but I hope that before it finally leaves this House these matters will not only be made plain to hon. Members, but in some way, as I have suggested, to the many hundreds and thousands of poor people who are insured.
  Miss WILKINSON: I should like to ask the learned Attorney-General whether he will make some explanation with regard to the proviso in Clause 1 read in connection with Clause 4. The proviso makes provision for the payment of reasonable funeral expenses
  744
  upon the death of a person instead of the full endowment policy. In Clause 4, the position is made retrospective. I can understand that, as things are at present, when a person takes out an assurance policy on the lines suggested in Clause 1, it will presumably be explained to that person that in the case of death the full amount of the endowment policy will not be paid but only reasonable funeral expenses. I think it is extremely vague to have the phrase "reasonable amount for funeral expenses." Who is going to decide what are reasonable expenses? Is the matter going to be decided by the assurance company who can get the highest paid and most efficient legal aid in this country in their dispute in connection with some unfortunate person who has been insured for a few pounds. That is the first point.
  The second point is that any person who has taken out an endowment policy has done so under the assumption that if the person who is insured dies before the endowment policy matures the full amount of the policy will be paid; but under Clause 4, if it is made retrospective, the full amount will not be paid, but only what is defined "reasonable amount for funeral expenses." If that be so, it means that a person who is paying now under the assumption that the full amount will be paid if the insured person unfortunately dies will in that case be cheated out of his or her rights. The learned Attorney-General said rather contemptuously that persons must not regard this as a sort of gold mine. [Interruption.] The Attorney-General, speaking with regard to the question of reasonable funeral expenses in respect of persons specified in Clause 3, said that, instead of having the full endowment policy, they were to have this lesser sum in order—I think I quote his words correctly—"that no person should regard this as a little gold mine." May I suggest that a large number of people take out endowment policies, not hoping for the death of the person concerned, or even with any desire to murder him, as the Attorney-General seemed to imagine, but for very different and very praiseworthy reasons. They are paying now under the law as it stands on the assumption that they will get the full benefit of the endowment policy in case of the

  745
  death of the person insured; but under Clause 4, by making the matter retrospective, they will only get a reasonable amount for funeral expenses, the reasonable amount being decided presumably by the assurance company concerned.
  I suggest that the assurance companies stand to make a very good thing out of this. I have not read the circular to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) referred, but it seems to me, on reading the Bill, that it is purely a matter of common sense. If we allow these two things to go through, it will mean that the already very wealthy assurance companies, who have persuaded people to take up those endowment policies under the definite agreement that if the person insured dies before the endowment policy matures the full amount will be paid, will now come along and say: "We are very sorry, but the law will not allow us to pay you the full amount. It will only allow us to pay a reasonable amount for funeral expenses." The assurance companies are going to make a very handsome profit out of this. They are already making handsome profits out of the stories that are told to persons. The hon and learned Gentleman should not make the proviso retrospective. When persons have paid for a full endowment policy they should get that for which they have paid. Clause 1 should only come into operation for new policies. This is the only way to safeguard these very poor people who insure under a pledge that they will get certain amounts. I do not think that it is fair that an assurance company should be allowed to put the difference into their own profits with the approval of this House.
  Mr. MacLAREN: This is a matter of great public importance. These enormous sums are collected by the societies because of the duress and poverty of the people whom the collectors visit. Under these circumstances, any golden tale will be easily unfolded at the doorstep, with the result that many of these people become payers to these societies. We have heard much, this morning, about Mr. Mashford, who has been very active in connection with "John Bull". There seems to be a smirk go round the House when the name of "John Bull" is mentioned. I remember that during the War the name of "John Bull" was revered
  746
  in this House, and the editor was regarded as a great hero. The Noble Lord the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Lord Erskine) smiles. Perhaps he was not here in those days.
  Lord ERSKINE: It has not the same editor now as then.
  Mr. MacLAREN: During the War, I used to remind my friends that the War had produced throe great persons, and one of those three was the editor of "John Bull." Justice has dealt with him. I wonder whether the present editor is to be placed under any restriction of the State in the same way as the gentleman to whom I have referred. Mr. Mashford has written many articles, and has written to Members of this House. I remember one article which appeared in "John Bull" under the name of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). I never read such an article in my life, and I thought: "If that article goes unchallenged, there must be something in it." Therefore, I made it my business to call at the headquarters of the Prudential Society, and there I met Sir Joseph Burn, a director of the Company, who was rather inclined to set aside anything that came from this particular journal as sensational and not worthy of much notice. I reminded him that the author of the article was a gentleman who held a very responsible position in the State, and who would not take upon himself the responsibility of saying something that he could not support. Thereupon, this very important official of the Prudential Society was good enough to say to me—I thought it was a startling statement to make—that "he was not there to apologise for the misdemeanours of the past."
  Whatever may be in this Bill, good or bad, it is the duty of this House to know exactly where we are going if the Bill becomes law. It is common talk in and around the insurance offices that this Bill would be rushed through the House. I have heard a rumour—I do not know whether it is true—that if the Bill was stiffly opposed, it would be withdrawn. I have rather kept in check much that I would have liked to say. In my own division, like many other divisions in this country, if one goes on to the public platform and says: "What about

  747
  policies?" one is inundated with letters, and innumerable people come for a personal interview. There is not a street in any poor area in this country where you cannot find dozens of victims of the harshness of these insurance societies in the past. If this Bill is going to make amends and give compensation to these people, I shall be glad, and I hope it will, but I am afraid that something much more drastic than this Bill is necessary.
  The Attorney-General will find he has a very difficult task. Here is a well-rooted and well-buttressed vested interest, with enormous financial ramifications, which even influence Government circles. Past Government officials are now directors of this company. It has its fangs in every political division in the country. Indeed, covert threats have been made that those who attempt seriously to criticise this Bill will find it to their own detriment when the election comes, because the collecting agents can do this, that and the other. It is our business to do our duty to the people, irrespective of threats of any kind. I hope that the House will do its duty and that public attention will be attracted to this matter, and that this Bill will not go out as a Bill giving expression to the will and desires of this House until it has been thoroughly scrutinised and subjected to full criticism. I know the position of the Attorney-General. We have discussed this matter before. He has not an easy task. I am not here to criticise him or to say harsh words about him, but to wish him well in the job he has in hand. Those who are critical of the operations of the Bill will watch with interest what evolves.
  12 n.
  Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: There are only a few words which I desire to say on this matter. In the first place, I should like to ask the House whether it is right or fitting that the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) should speak in the terms that he did of a very well-known man, Sir Joseph Burn. I consider that he was unfair in what he said with regard to a mere occasional conversation. We have only heard the hon. Member's side of it. It is an extremely improper thing to do.
  Mr. MacLAREN: I am sure that I said nothing derogatory of the gentleman in question. I thought it was a very important statement for a man in his responsible position to have made. I have said nothing about him personally. I know nothing about the gentleman. I can vouch for the statement and I gave it to the House because it should know his attitude of mind.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: I was a member and took a rather prominent part in the proceedings of the Committee which was appointed by the House in 1923 thoroughly to investigate the relations that existed between the large collecting societies, the smaller collecting societies and the people who insured with them. We sat for many days. We investigated the charges of harshness and oppression that were made against the collecting societies. With respect to Mr. Mashford, I can only say that although he thoroughly believed in all the cases that he brought forward, one or two of which turned out to be genuine, he was rather led away by his enthusiasm for the cases that he had taken up, and one might almost say that he had a bee in his bonnet. Every case that was brought before the Committee was thoroughly investigated. In one or two instances, or comparatively very few instances, out of eases which were made running into thousands—I forget the number—agents, for the sake of getting extra commission, had gone beyond their duty and made possibly false statements, and so vitiated the policies. There were very few cases but could have been put right in the courts of law, and were put right when taken up. The difficulty was that some of the poor people had not the means with which to seek their remedy.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the hon. and learned Member a question on the report which he signed. That report, after thanking Mr. Mashford for his valuable assistance, goes on to say:
  "While the Committee were not equally impressed by all the cases brought forward, they are satisfied that ii Hull is a typical urban centre in regard to industrial insurance, the volume of well-founded grievances under which the assured are labouring throughout the country must be serious."
  What does the hon. and learned Member say of that?
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: In so far as there were any grievances they concerned lapsed policies, and we put provisions in the subsequent Act for altering the conditions of the law in this respect. This Bill rather extends that principle in the case of young children. Mr. Mashford did not particularly raise this point. It was one of the questions into which we were appointed to inquire; and we did investigate it. A question of great public interest was the amount of the costs of these small insurances as compared with the larger insurances. Industrial assurance carried on by the collection of sums of 1d., 2d. and 3d. per week by the agent calling at the house, is more expensive. It was described to us as being like selling biscuits in penny packets; the rate is much higher than if bought by the pound. The results of that inquiry and the Act which was passed have been two-fold. In the larger insurance companies the percentage of cost to contributions has been reduced from something like 40 per cent. to 15 per cent. Only a short time ago the Post Office renounced its life insurance business. I think it should have been encouraged, but the public were not attracted. I believe that industrial assurance is an absolute necessity. That in the view I formed. It confers immense benefits on the people insured, and if the insurance companies could only get down the costs in proportion to the contributions, they would be doing a great service indeed.
  One other great improvement took place. We strengthened the powers of the Registrar. We gave him full power to investigate all complaints. This had an effect not particularly in the existing large companies, where there are practically no hardships except in a few cases, but more particularly in those cases where a few men formed a society, collected premiums, and then disappeared before the day of payment came. All the money went in expenses. The powers given under the Act are such that that class of business has stopped altogether. I think this Measure is a slight improvement on the existing law. It is all in the right direction. To do anything to damage the benefits conferred by industrial assurance would be a calamity to the working people.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I can only speak again by leave of the House. Nobody can complain, and I certainly do not, that hon. Members take an interest in this Bill. I want them to look at it. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) said that nobody was going to prevent him doing his duty. We do not need that assurance from the hon. Member, and the more he looks into the Bill the more he will find, I think, that it makes a distinct improvement in the position of policy holders whose interests he desires to protect. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) says it has been suggested that I have been engaged in a sort of secret conspiracy; I do not know whether the House thinks that I fill the role of a secret conspirator. But I have been in conference with persons who are naturally interested in the Bill, the demand for which has come from hon. Members opposite, not from hon. Members on the Government side of the House. Parliamentary questions have been put in which I have been besought for the last year to introduce a Bill of this kind, and in all cases they have emanated from hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members on this side of the House have certainly shown less interest in the Bill than Members of the Opposition.
  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, Bast (Miss Wilkinson) has asked one or two questions. I was going to suggest that if she cared to consider an Amendment making the proviso to Subsection (1) of Clause 1 applicable only to policies issued after the commencement of this Bill I think there would be good reason for it. I notice the hon. Member is not at present in her place, but no doubt this intimation will be conveyed to her. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) has been most anxious to explain that the whole trouble is due to my incompetence. I make no claim to the omniscience of the hon. and gallant Member, and I have not the slightest objection to being put in my place, even as much more distinguished people have been, by the hon. and gallant Member. All I can say is that I do not think I have made a mistake. I stated the practice, and I gave good reasons for not accepting the Amendment. The police

  751
  magistrate disagreed with the view which everybody else had taken; that is how the position stands.
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: The Court of Appeal.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Court of Appeal never dealt with the question. The only judicial person who has dealt with it is the police magistrate. Three or four categorical questions have been addressed to me and I will attempt to answer them. The first question asked was whether anybody is worse off under this Bill. Nobody is worse off under this Bill. Indeed, I am right in saying that the persons concerned are better off, subject to the criticism made by the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough to whom I have suggested a possible Amendment which would remove even that prejudice. The next question was: What are the surrender values that the policy holders will obtain? Anybods who is acquainted with insurance will understand that you want a great deal more than the amounts paid in premiums in considering surrender values. You must know the life of the assured, and the period for which the policy is taken. Therefore, the only answer I can give is that the surrender value must necessarily depend on the number of premiums paid, the amount of the policy, the age of the life assured, and the remaining duration of the policy. If the hon. and gallant Member will put down a question—I suggest that it should be an unstarred question—the information can be given. The hon. and gallant Member also inquired whether the benefits which this Bill confers will be advertised. I shall be glad indeed if anyone, including the hon. and gallant Member with his well-known powers in that direction, will advertise the benefits which this Bill confers upon policy holders. We have not proposed to set up any new department for the purpose of doing that, but no doubt the Debate in this House will make the benefits known to the persons concerned.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do I understand that the Debates in this House will be the only means of informing these people, hundreds of thousands of them, as to the position of the law?
  Sir B. PETO: Will my hon. and learned Friend give serious consideration to the question of advertising in all the Post Offices what are the rights of the people?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sure that any suggestion for making the benefits conferred by this Bill widely known will be heartily welcomed and taken into consideration. I should have thought that a Debate in this House was a very valuable way of bringing the facts to the attention of those concerned. Hon. Members have perhaps overlooked that Clause 3 provides that all policies shall set out the provisions of the Section and shall be printed in distinctive type.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: This is an important matter. Is Clause 3 (3) retrospective, or can it be made retrospective? Will the companies be required to inform the policy holders?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: How can it be made retrospective when it contains a provision that the policy issued shall contain a statement of the benefits mentioned in the Section? If the policy has been issued you can hardly have a retrospective Section altering the policy. The new policies will contain in distinctive form on their backs a statement of the benefits to which the holders are entitled. So far as they are retrospective we shall do all we can to bring to the attention of the policy holders the increased benefits which they secure under the Bill. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) said that he was anxious about the position. I invite him also to study the Bill and to compare the benefits in the Schedule with the benefits which persons at present obtain under policies which may lapse, and he will find that the benefits are much greater and much more easily obtained.
  There is this further improvement, that it is an offence on the part of these societies not to pay the benefits which are now secured by the Bill. I believe that to be a distinct step in advance. So far as the industrial insurance societies are concerned, it is no part of my business to defend them. It was my duty in 1923 to conduct a Bill, the existing Act, through the House. It immensely improved the position of the policy holders. In connection with that Bill I had the assistance of many hon. Members opposite in making provision for persons who

  753
  at that time were left without protection. I believe that the present Bill is a still further step in the right direction, and I ask the House to accept it.
  Mr. MacLAREN: If you want to make the Bill public, do it over the wireless.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[The Attorney-General.]

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Tuesday next.

  PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, ETC.) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, ETC.) BILL
    CLAUSES 1 (Increase of units of pensions and of maximum amount of pension) and 2 (Provisions as to alternative pensions under Superannuation Acts), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      CLAUSE 3.—(Power to grant a reduced pension under Superannuation Acts in special cases.)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
      Mr. TINKER: This Clause states that reduced pensions will be given in special cases. The special cases are those in which it is impracticable to find appropriate employment in the public service, or when a man has not completed 10 years' service or has not attained the age of 60 years. In such circumstances, a reduced pension can be granted. I am not objecting to that, but I want to take the opportunity of pointing out that this proposal could very well be applied in other directions. I refer in particular to what is called the Industrial Transference Board and the mining industry. That Board found that there were 130,000 persons between the ages of 60 and 65 who were out of work, and many more between the ages of 51 and 65. It is not
      754
      likely that any of these men will get back into the industry. My point is that if the Government can make special arrangements for the Diplomatic Services, it is time they considered extending those arrangements in other directions. I know a case where the employers are now asking for men between the ages of 23 and 39.
      The CHAIRMAN: It is not quite clear how the hon. Member connects his argument with Clause 3 of the Bill. If he can make a connection. I should be glad to hear of it.
      Mr. TINKER: This is public money. The State will be involved in an expenditure of from £5,000 to £6,000. The people to whom I am referring will have to pay this money, and, in doing so, they have a right to compare their own case with that of the people who draw these pensions.
      The CHAIRMAN: This Clause gives "power to grant a reduced pension under the Superannuation Acts in special cases." If the hon. Member says that this power ought to be applied to others, he is entitled to make the point, but he cannot go into all the details of these other matters.
      Mr. TINKER: The Bill confers upon certain people, Governors in the Dominions, a pension. This Clause states that a reduced pension can be given in special circumstances. My point is that if under special circumstances, outside the terms laid down in the other Clauses, reduced pensions can be given, they ought to be given to other people where employment is not found for them. I claim that consideration ought to be given to these other people.
      The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member's argument is too wide to come within the terms of this Clause. This Clause only applies to persons within the public service who are not entitled to pensions at all by right, and it allows a special, reduced pension to be given in special cases. The hon. Member can say generally—though it would be more appropriate on Second Beading or Third Reading—that other deserving classes should also be dealt with, but, of course, that could not possibly be done under this Bill, and I think it is rather farfetched to introduce it in a discussion on Clause 3.
      Mr. TINKER: Do you think, Sir, that it would be better to deal with it on the Third Reading of the Bill?
      The CHAIRMAN: I think it would be a more likely opportunity, but, of course, I cannot say what view Mr. Speaker may take even then. I am clear, however, that the matter cannot be raised now.
      Mr. TINKER: Then I would, in conclusion, merely ask the Secretary of State to explain what is meant by the provision in reference to "unhealthy places." I would also point out to him that there are many analogous cases in connection with other occupations where people, in circumstances far worse than those of Governors of Dominions, receive no pensions at all.
      Mr. KELLY: I would like the right hon. Gentleman also to explain why the period of ten years has been fixed. I find some difficulty in appreciating why it should be mentioned in this Clause. Has the right hon. Gentleman particular people in his mind or particular positions which are occupied at this time? Further, why is it that these Governors are having this special consideration extended to them while other people who come under the Superannuation Acts are left out of all consideration by the Government? As an illustration I may-mention one set of men employed in the Enemy Debts Department for a period of more than seven years who come under the Superannuation Acts, but who have not received a gratuity. Nothing is being done to give any consideration to those people for the service which they have rendered, but special consideration is being given to those who have been Governors or have occupied any of the other positions included in this Bill.
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is referring to a case which comes under another Department, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman could properly deal with that case.
      Mr. KELLY: I only use it as an illustration. There are people in the right hon. Gentleman's own Department in the same position. I mentioned this because it was a recent case.
      The CHAIRMAN: If it referred to people who were in the right hon. Gentleman's own Department, it might be in order.
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): The position is that ten years has always been the qualifying period in regard to any Governor's pension, and Lord Buxton's Committee did not propose to abolish that qualifying period. On the other hand, it did come to the conclusion that there might very well be cases—as there have been cases in the past—in which it would be very difficult for the Secretary of State to offer a Governor another appointment to enable him to qualify under the ten years' rule. The Governor in question may not be suitable for any one of the two or three vacancies which may be open at the time, and these may be the only vacancies open for some years. Therefore the alternative in the past has been for the Secretary of State in making appointments to very important positions like senior governorships to appoint either someone who really was not fully qualified for the post, or else to inflict the hardship of getting no pension at all on some very deserving person who might have considerable Colonial service behind him, but only had five or six years' service as Governor.
      There is one particular case in the light of which this provision has been antedated so as to operate from 1922. One Governor in West Africa was retired in 1922 after very meritorious service in the Colonial Service. There was no other governorship for which he was entirely suitable, and he had not reached the age of 60. To this day that officer has drawn no pension at all for his Governor's service. His pension only relates to such previous service as he had in the Civil Service, and, in fact, he is very much a loser as compared with what he would have drawn, if he had not been promoted to this governorship and if he had, instead, served five or six years longer in the Civil Service. As regards the point about "unhealthy places" it merely refers to the fact that, in respect of ordinary civil service, there are certain increments or abbreviations of the time which it is necessary to serve for pension purposes which apply in unhealthy colonies, like the West African Colonies and so on. The proviso here is simply to the effect that the reduction contemplated in the earlier part of the Clause should not prevent a retiring Governor getting whatever he would

      757
      nave been entitled to for his previous Colonial service in an unhealthy climate.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4 (Gratuity in case of death while serving as Governor in case of Governors with Colonial or similar civil-service) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      CLAUSE 5.—(Amendment of Section six of principal Act.)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
      Mr. TINKER: I want an explanation of the proviso at the end of this Clause which exempts any person from reduction of pension if he goes into some other occupation, in cases where the Secretary of State and the Treasury are satisfied that the employment in question will not continue for more than a year. The early part of the Clause lays it down that anybody who undertakes another occupation must have his pension reduced; but apparently if the employment is only for 12 months that will not apply.
      Mr. AMERY: I think that is a practical provision. If any pensionable officer takes up some definite Government appointment which carries with it a salary, and which, therefore, normally is for a period of years, a deduction is made from his pension; but a proviso is made that this should not apply to work which is purely of a temporary nature. An ex-Governor might take up some work for a month or three months or some such period, and that would not be equivalent to taking up new permanent employment.
      Mr. TINKER: If you come to the decision that a person had undertaken employment for longer than 12 months, and if the matter was questioned, would it be open to you to say whether such a person could recover the pension as from the commencement?
      Mr. AMERY: I expect so.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      CLAUSES 6 (Application of principal Act to Resident at Aden), 7 (Amendment of definition of "service in the permanent civil service of the State"), 8 (Rower to extend principal Act to mandated territories), 9 (Interpretation), and 10 (Short title, citation, construction, and repeal) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule agreed to.
      Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. I may be wrong, but I think there is something amiss here. If you look at the Order Paper, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you will see that the fourth item has to do with "Supplementary Estimate, 1928," and on looking over the page it says: "Class 2, Vote 5 (Dominion Services)," and that is a Supplementary Estimate for the ex gratia grants to ex-service men in the Irish Free State. Further down on the Order Paper is Item No. 6:
  "Supply, [1st March] Report; Adjourned Debate on Question [5th March]."
  If you look at the bottom of that same page, you will see:
  "Motion made and Question proposed, 'That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution.'"
  Then follows the Resolution, which is for the same sum as is provided for in the fourth Order of the day.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The fourth Order is the one now before us. I am afraid I cannot follow the hon. and gallant Member's argument. What has this to do with the sixth Order?
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The fourth and the sixth Orders are exactly the same.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If they be the same, that perhaps may be a point of Order when we come to No. 6, but I do not see that it is on No. 4.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I may he wrong, and I have been trying to fathom this since I saw the Order Paper

  759
  this morning, but I think we have already passed the Committee stage on this matter.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Perhaps when I descend to the lower Chair if the hon. and gallant Member, on consideration, thinks he has a case that the Committee stage has already been passed, I will consider it, but meanwhile I cannot reject the hypothesis that he may possibly be wrong.

  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928.
      CLASS II.

        DOMINION SERVICES.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £31,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for sundry Dominion Services, including a Grant-in-Aid, for advances in certain cases on account of liabilities assumed by the Government of the Irish Free State in connection with Compensation for Damage to Property or with Land Purchase, for certain ex gratia Grants, and for expenditure in connection with ex-service men in the Irish Free State, and for a Grant-in-Aid to the Irish Free State in respect of compensation to transferred officers."
        Mr. AMERY: The purpose of the present Estimate is to carry into effect the arrangement with the Irish Free State which was announced by me in the House of Commons on 20th February. In view of the very full statements which have been made on previous occasions, I hardly think I need go in detail into the past history of the question, which is one of the interpretation of Article X of the Articles of Agreement of December, 1921. The precise legal effect of that Article in the Treaty was dealt with in the Report of the Judicial Committee in November last, and the effect of it was that the method of dealing with the bonus applicable to British civil servants in this country was not necessarily applicable to the computation of compensation under Article X to British civil servants transferred to the jurisdiction and service of the Irish Free State. At the same time the Government here had always taken the position and had so
        760
        informed the Free State and Parliament, that the intention of the parties to the agreement was simply to ensure that transferred civil servants should not be worse treated than civil servants here, and there had been no intention to secure for them, apart from special concessions as to length of time counted for qualification, any further specially favourable consideration.
        At one time, the Committee is aware, the two Governments had proposed to introduce concurrent legislation here and in the Free State to give effect to what both sides clearly believed to be their intention. In view, however, of the very definite ruling given on what was in effect a second hearing of the case by the Privy Council, we felt that that procedure was no longer appropriate. We therefore asked the Irish Free State authorities to discuss the whole question with us. They pointed out to us that it was not really reasonable that they should compel the Free State taxpayer to bear an additional burden which was not in accordance with the original intention of the parties and which had arisen out of the drafting of a Clause for which we, who were concerned with the protection of our own civil servants, might very well be held to be primarily responsible.
        Mr. KELLY: Does that apply to the Lights Service?
        Mr. AMERY: I do not think that arises. The Government here consequently agreed that, as they were concerned with the protection of their own civil servants and with the carrying out of a draft for which they were primarily responsible, if the Free State Government paid the additional compensation, we should be willing to recoup them. It was, therefore, agreed that the additional compensation should he paid to all transferred civil servants who had already-retired or who would have given notice of retirement before the 1st March. The actual amounts in any individual case are, as a matter of fact, very small, ranging from £1 or £2 to £50 or so, and the total liability falling upon this country in the matter in respect of some 1,500 cases is estimated at £31,000 within the present financial year. There may be a certain addition in respect of officers who had given notice of retirement before the 1st March, and whose com-

        761
        pensation has not yet been assessed, and there may be quite a small, trifling sum in future in respect of what is known as the abolition of the overriding maximum, that is to say, if by any chance in future years the cost of living in the Irish Free State should rise above the cost of living at the present moment, there might be a small increment in the case of certain of these officers.
        As regards officers who have not given notice of retirement by 1st March, their position, as stated by me in the House on 20th February, has been the subject of an agreement between the Free State Government and the representative of those officers, an agreement the terms of which I believe are fully satisfactory to the officers concerned. Under it those officers forgo the difference between the Treasury terms contained in the Treasury Circular of 1922 and what they might get under the Privy Council judgment. On the other hand, they secure the protection of a definite statutory committee on which they themselves are represented, and statutory provisions against undue variation in the work imposed upon them and in other respects which, I think, are regarded by the representatives of the officers themselves as a very valuable safeguard for their position in the future. In carrying out these undertakings for the civil servants who remain in the Free State Civil Service, concurrent legislation will be required in both Parliaments as far as it affects the actual provisions of the Treaty. But I gather that the arrangements made are in every way satisfactory, and I do not think this House will have any difficulty in implementing that part of the agreement.
        Sir HENRY SLESSER: While we, of course, offer no objection to this grant, I think before we pass from this Estimate we must necessarily reflect on the extraordinary history which has produced it. I do not pretend to understand the matter very fully or very completely, but, as I understand it, the Privy Council, in this matter, appears to have advised on a different basis on two different occasions, although they arrived at a similar conclusion.
        In the circumstances, perhaps, the second advice of the Privy Council was better than the first. We are here not to discuss so much the merits or demerits
        762
        of the Privy Council's advice, but certainly it is disquieting that judicial opinion should be so unstable. In the circumstances, we can offer no objection to the Vote, but we can express the hope that in future the Privy Council will be of one mind, and not of two minds.
        Mr. KELLY: While the right hon. Gentleman was speaking I interjected a remark with regard to the Lights' service, and the answer he made is not at all satisfactory. I am concerned with regard to this service which is to be transferred, if it is not already transferred—I am not quite sure about it—to the Irish Free State. These are men who are manning the lighthouses and light vessels, and the steamboats which take reliefs. I am much concerned, because if they had remained in their old position then they would certainly have been entitled to a pension upon reaching the age which is set down as the limit of their service under their old employers at Trinity House.
        Mr. AMERY: The Irish Lights' service has never been transferred to the Irish Free State, and, therefore, the position of these men is still entirely intact.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        Resolution to be reported upon Monday-next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  REPORT (1st March).
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [5th March],
  "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution:
  'That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £385,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1029, for sundry Dominion Service?, including a Grant-in-Aid, for advances in certain cases on account of liabilities assumed by the Government of the Irish Free State in connection with Compensation for Damage to Property or with Land Purchase, or for certain ex gratia Grants, and for Expenditure in connection with Ex-Service Men in the Irish Free State.'"
  Question again proposed.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: First of all, I am very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is acting for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury in taking this Order at

  763
  a reasonable hour of the day, instead of late at night. It is the last item of Government business to-day, so that there was no need for indecent haste on the previous occasion. There are one or two matters which I want to put to the Colonial Secretary and to ask him to explain. This is a sum of £385,000 for the grants for the Southern Irish loyalists. I want to know who really are the people who will benefit by this sum. I will give an actual case, of which I know, which was pursued over a number of years and finally turned down. It is the case of an Irish gentleman, who was a small landowner and a gentleman farmer in the South-West of Ireland. I will not mention the name, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has refused to give us any particulars at all of the claims. Therefore, I will tell the right hon. Gentleman in private who this unfortunate person is. I do not propose to give his name for many reasons, one of which I have indicated. This gentleman would, I suppose, be called a loyalist. His father was a strong Unionist, and he is one himself. At the beginning of the War he enlisted as a private soldier and went right through the East African campaign. He, is a Protestant, and I know him through his cousin, who is a comrade of mine in the Navy.
  At the end of the Irish trouble, just before the Special Constabulary, known as the Black and Tans, were recalled from Ireland, they burned his property, for what reason I do not know. They burned a great many people's property. They burned the main street of Cork, containing large shops owned by supporters of the present Government or its party. That was, I believe, said to have been due to a regrettable mistake. I do not know who compensated the shopkeepers in Cork. There were many other burnings by these partisans, but in this particular case which I have mentioned I gather the reason was that he had let it be known that he was a supporter of Lord Midleton, who at that time wanted an agreement on broad lines of a Dominion policy for Ireland. He was reproached as being a Conservative and an Irish Protestant landlord, and he, perhaps foolishly, said that he thought that perhaps Lord Midleton
  764
  knew as much about the real needs of Ireland as the hon. Baronet the Member for East Walthamstow (Sir H. Greenwood) who was then Irish Secretary. His property was burned accordingly, and he has never been able to get compensation. Will he come under this Agreement and under the category of loyalists and be able to look to the committee to pay his claim for compensation in full? I think he deserves it by his loyal service to the Crown. He took no active part in the Irish troubles, but tried to pull his property together when he came back from the exhausting campaign in East Africa. Can he look to the Government to make good the misdeeds of their servants in Ireland and, if not, to whom is he to look? If he is to look to the Irish Free State, is anything to be done through the right hon. Gentleman's good offices to see that he gets something, because so far he has been able to get nothing whatsoever. If he were one of the people who had been able to get near the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) he would have been greeted as one of the great heroes who came back from the War to find their property injured. I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell me what should be done, and I shall be very glad if he will try to get this case settled.
  1.0 p.m.
  There are a number of property owners in Ireland who come under the category of loyalists—people for whom the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) specially speaks, and also the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton and other Die-hards in this House. A certain number of these people had their houses burned down, and were promised that if they rebuilt them in Ireland they would receive payment from the Irish Free State Government. I happen to know West Connemara well, for I go there whenever I can spare the time, because it is very peaceful, and I like the people, and partly because there is very good angling. I know the history of what happened there, and it was this. After our troops were withdrawn, there was a Republican army in the West and a Free State army moving against them. In order to deprive the Free State forces of any billets or big buildings which could be used as barracks, the Republicans burned down nearly all the large houses

  765
  in the district. They burned down the big railway hotel and a number of other houses. In one ease, an Englishman who had bought property there—a fisherman—and had a very fine house, had his property burned down, not for any political reason, but for military reasons. He paid the cost of rebuilding, and has now built a beautiful place, and he was to be paid the cost of it by the Free State Government. The railway company whose hotel was burned down was told that if they rebuilt it they would be paid the cost by the Irish Free State Government. Does not this apply to the other people also? I went down to the Shannon the other day partly to see the great electrical barrage and partly to try, unsuccessfully, to fish for salmon, and one of the great houses I used to know in the old days when stationed in Ireland long before the War—belonging to a noble lord whose name I will not mention—stood there a hollow shell, and I made inquiries about it. This place was burned in the troubles also. I asked whether he was going to rebuild it, and I was told that he could rebuild it and get paid by the Irish Free State Government, but that the Irish Free State Government would not pay unless it was rebuilt, and the money was spent in Ireland. Are all these people going to be paid by this House if they do not rebuild their properties in Ireland, or are they going to say: "It is not safe, and we do not want to live there, but we are loyalists and the British taxpayers will pay"? That is the question to which I want an answer. If that be the case, I think it is unfair to British taxpayers. The country is perfectly safe for anyone who is prepared to behave himself, and nobody need fear any kind of reprisals or persecution of any kind—of that I am convinced. I have travelled all over the country during the last few years, and I really think that these claims should be scrutinised a little further. These are the two cases to which I should be very glad to have a reply.
  Sir H. SLESSER: I want to intervene in this Debate, as in the last, rather from the legal than from the administrative point of view. I was one of those who heard the Debate at the time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the
  766
  right hon. Gentleman gave such weighty reasons why this grant should not be admitted. One of the reasons which was then used was that the committee which was sitting in consideration of these grants was one which was having all the evidence placed before it ex parte. It was pointed out that the Treasury had never been heard, that all applications were ex parte, that therefore the body was not, strictly speaking, a judicial body at all but acting in an administrative capacity, and that there was no reason to suppose that, if the Government case had been heard, either the awards or the amounts were something which the Government ought properly to give. Since that time I have never heard a word from the Government to suggest that that argument has not as much weight to-day as it had before the revolt of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. What are we to understand? Are we to understand, on the one side, that when they were opposing this payment the Government insincerely put up the argument that this was a mere ex parte application, speaking with their tongue in their cheek, in order to find some one reason why the payment should not be made, or are we to understand that when they used that argument, which had great weight in it, that only one side had been heard, they really meant what they said?
  The Government have surrendered. I am not going into that matter but the fact remains that the Government have capitulated, and the amount which is to be paid is, I understand, the total amount awarded. What has happened to the argument that the Government were never heard before the Wood Renton Committee? Is it now said that, after all, the Committee was a judicial committee? Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the right hon. Gentleman withdraw all the arguments which were used when they endeavoured to make the House think that this committee was not one to be treated as having judicial authority? If the right hon. Gentleman still maintains that it is not a judicial committee, does he say the money is not money which has been judicially determined or does he now say that the argument that the absence of representation on the part of the Government had invalidated the finality of the Wood Renton

  767
  claims has all gone merely because his supporters in the House threatened him with defeat?
  As a matter of general principle we ought to know whether the Government really meant what they said when they told us that this was not a judicial committee or whether they were trying to bluff us—if I may use the phrase. We are entitled to know whether the Government say to-day that this sum of money is a sum which has properly and adequately been ascertained by proper evidence, after hearing every side of the question, or whether it is still, as they then said, a sum which has merely been given on the application of claimants without the Government's side of the case having been heard. I believe this point has not been raised since that debate. It is quite true that general discussion has taken place as to whether the Government should or should not have surrendered, but one of the principal arguments on which the Government then relied, was the contention that the Wood Renton Committee had never functioned judicially at all. Do we now understand, now that the amount is to be paid, that the Wood Renton Committee did function as a court, because if it is said that it did function as a court we have some interesting precedents for the future? When, hereafter, a committee is set up to ascertain claims and the case of the Government is not put before the committee, the whole matter being ascertained after hearing one side only, are we to assume that the Government are to treat those ex parte applications as claims which the House ought to honour? Where are we in the matter of these tribunals? That is why I have intervened—to know on what principle the Government will proceed in the future.
  There are two courses open. One is to hear the claims and to say, "You are claimants, we accept your view, we will pay what you ask." The other method, what I call the more judicial way of proceeding, would be to hear the claim, then to hear what has to be said against the claim, to weigh the evidence on both sides, and make an ascertainment. By asking the House to consent to this Vote the Government have definitely said, on
  768
  this occasion at any rate, that an ex-parte application, a claim itself, is to be its own evidence of its own validity. If that is to be taken as a general principle on which Governments are to meet claims in the future, that whenever a claimant comes before a Government department and says "You owe me so much," they are to agree to pay in full, on the sole ground that the majority of their supporters want them to pay, I do not see how any Government is ever going to resist claims in the future.
  It is a very serious position in which we find ourselves. We are not on the question of whether these claims should be entertained or not, or whether 60 per cent. of a certain sum should or should not be admitted, but on the much more serious question, which ought to appeal to economists, of whether persons can make claims against the Government and the Government not be heard in answer to those claims. I have heard no explanation, no defence, no qualification of the arguments which were addressed by the right hon. Gentleman, I think—certainly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—against these claims on a previous occasion. I remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cited as a precedent the claims for damage from enemy aircraft, and there his point was, similarly, that the body which decided them was not a Court; that there was a scaling down of the awards because there had not been a judicial determination as between one side and the other; that they were merely ex parte claims and, therefore, the Government reserved the right to scale down the awards. That seemed to him, in principle, a very fair way of dealing with the matter—either you take the evidence of the claim, do not hear any opposing evidence from the Government, and reserve to yourselves the right to give such ex gratia payment as you think fit; or, on the other hand, you commit yourself to pay the whole of the claim, but only after both sides have been heard.
  In the interests of the taxpayer we must have something to say about a system which seems to me to fall between two stools. In this case the claimant alone is heard, but at the same time he is to get everything that he claims. I may be misinformed, but I am basing that statement on the careful attention I paid

  769
  to the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this very point; and I hope the House will not pass this Vote to-day without our being told quite definitely that these cases of admitting claims without proper examination will be limited to cases where Governments are threatened by defeat and will not go beyond that point. If the right hon. Gentleman will say that the general principle ought to be that both sides should be heard and the amount ascertained, and the amount which the taxpayer has to pay be awarded by a committee only in cases where both sides have been heard, and that the only exceptions, the only cases where claimants may have what they claim without the Government being heard, shall be cases where Governments are threatened with defeat, we shall have limited the vice of this extravagance. But what I fear is that this principle may be extended to cases where Governments are not threatened with defeat, and that in future it will be cited to show that all claimants who come before all authorities are entitled to everything they claim without the Government being heard at all.
  This is not the only time we have entered a protest against this wild extravagance and incompetence of the Government in administering these matters. As I have often had occasion to say, those gentlemen who meet in constitutional clubs spend most of their time, it seems to me, in an effort to destroy the Constitution; at any rate, every time they come here they bring every kind of pressure to bear and make me, as an old-fashioned lawyer, alarmed at the irresponsibility with which they upset all our old traditions in dealing with legal principles. I have never known a worse case than this. The right hon. Gentleman himself has said that the Government had never been heard before the Wood Renton Committee. [Interruption.] That was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the last occasion. He said the reason why the Government were not paying the whole amount was because these were mere ex parte applications by one side and had never been heard properly as by a judicial committee, before whom both sides would put their case. That was said over and over again, but all the same a surrender was made to those who are vulgarly called
  770
  the "diehards," to the Gentlemen below the Gangway.
  Is it true now that the only reason for the change is to be found in the attitude taken up by some of the right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, or is it that the Government have varied their juridical views as to the obligations of Governments when people make such claims? The money in this Estimate is the amount awarded without proper investigation and without hearing the Government's side of the question, and we should be wanting in our duty if we allowed this Estimate to go through, and led the country to assume that in the future anything that may be claimed will he paid whenever a certain number of discontented Members of Parliament threatens the Government with opposition. If we allowed that to go through without objection, we should be wanting in our duty to this House and to the taxpayers.
  Mr. J. HUDSON: There has been some misapprehension upon this question and I am sure a great many hon. Members were not expecting this vote to be taken to-day. I would like to ask why this question has been jumped upon us in this way. Clearly there has been some misunderstanding. The proposal we are considering raises a first-class issue, and it is infinitely more important than the ease which arose at the end of 1924, when the Conservative party made a point of attacking the Labour Government upon a similar question. The charge was made at that time that by pressure from certain quarters not named the Labour Government had been persuaded—or at least one member of the Government had been persuaded—to alter its mind. That charge was never proved, but the feeling which existed amongst members of the Conservative party was sufficient to justify them in attempting to bring down the Government of the day, and in that attempt they were successful.
  What is the position now? The Colonial Secretary is responsible for the statement that the Government could not, in view of the way that the Wood Renton Committee had been constituted, accede to the pressure that was being placed on the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer reinforced that opinion by saying:

  771
  "You cannot expect the Minister responsible for the time being for the public finances to allow anybody the privilege of writing unlimited cheques upon the public account otherwise than by a judicial procedure with both parties represented." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1929; col. 1004, Vol. 225.]
  The Government have allowed those who were able to use political pressure to interfere with judgments and to impose upon the Minister responsible for the public finances the very large sum which we are now being asked to vote. This is simply the thin end of the wedge, because there are other interests concerned. Hon. Members opposite know that whatever Committee is set up to guide the Government in regard to their decision, if they only make their political pressure hard enough the Government can be made to yield to their importunities. It is because we realise that on the evidence of the Colonial Secretary himself the Government have departed from a well-established procedure that we are making our objections. This new departure in regard to the decision of the Wood Renton Committee is not the only instance in which the Government have departed from their promises. There have been several unjustifiable jumps made in regard to this question. Perhaps it would be better not to call them jumps, because they are really cases of the Government being hurled forward by their supporters.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) has referred to a number of claims in Ireland which would have been included amongst the claims which have been allowed if justice had been done. I shall be interested to know what reply the Colonial Secretary will make to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on this point. I have heard of other claims, but I have not had time this morning to collect my papers or I should have been able to bring them forward. A number of politicians sitting on the benches opposite have personal friends with an axe to grind and money to collect from the Government, and although the Government said that it was their duty to resist those claims hon. Members opposite have been successful in getting those claims recognised in spite of the view expressed by the Chancellor of
  772
  the Exchequer. I think this case is a public degradation of the ordinary procedure of Government, and if we allow a repetition of this kind of thing this great nation will sink to the level of those communities in America and elsewhere where politicians fill their pockets at the public expense and pander to the worst instincts of the community.
  Mr. LAWSON: Although on these benches we agree with this Vote, it is quite true, as was said by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson), that we believe there are other people with claims worthy of consideration who have suffered just as much as the people whose claims have been recognised. During the critical period with which this Vote deals I saw something of the devastation which occurred. As the responsible representatives of the Labour party we are all aware that there were injuries inflicted at that time upon a great many private citizens for which in some measure the Government were directly responsible, and we thought those people were worthy of some consideration which they have not received up to the present time. I am pleased that we recognise our responsibilities in that direction. The serious matter underlying this Vote is the method by which it has been advanced and the shilly-shallying of the Government in regard to his question. I would also say that one of the outstanding things has been the attempt of the Government to retreat under cover of darkness, so to speak. One characteristic of the House of Commons, in my experience, is that the big Debate that is expected never comes off, but that suddenly from somewhere there springs up one of the most important Debates of a Session, or, perhaps, of a Parliament; and so it has happened on this occasion. A few people have got together unknown to the Government and have sprung a surprise, formed themselves into a very definite square, and made an inroad upon the Government. Then what happened? The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very definite statement, in the best style of his latest books. He said:
  "Somewhere in this rather fluid organisation of our modern Government, there must reside a principle in the light of which we can say 'No' when a certain point has been reached; and it is very dangerous indeed, I think, for the House, carried away

  773
  by absolutely right feelings, by strong sentiments of generosity … carried away by a sincere belief that they are expressing what is just, to brush aside or wear down the constituted guardians of the public purse, to overturn the definite, long-considered judgment of the Cabinet of the day, and to endeavour to extract from the public Treasury sums of money which the executive Government do not think, in broad light and equity, ought to be handed over.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1929; cols. 1002–3, Vol. 225.]
  In accordance with that sentiment, the right hon. Gentleman said "No" very definitely, supporting the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. Then, of course, it turned out that the Government was in very great danger, the Prime Minister moved to report Progress, and every one of us wondered what was going to happen. One would have thought, in view of such a crisis, that the Prime Minister would have taken a reasonable opportunity of communicating with the Opposition and telling them that he was going to make a fair and clear statement to the House on this question. No such arrangement was, however, made, and the Prime Minister, on a Friday, under such conditions as we have to-day, came and made a statement to the House. He said:
  "I should like to make it clear at the outset that the Cabinet are collectively responsible for the various decisions taken in this matter during the present Parliament, and that the statements made from time to time on their behalf by various Ministers have at every stage carried with them our united assent and approval."—[OFFICIAL RETORT, 22nd February, 1929; col. 1452, Vol. 225.]
  I suppose that the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer carried the united assent and approval of the Cabinet, but then the Prime Minister came to the House and made a statement which in effect said, "We were all wrong; we made a mistake, or a series of mistakes; we are going to do just what our followers want us to do." I congratulate those hon. Gentlemen who have defeated the Government in their objects, who have overturned the Government decisions—repeated decisions, according to the Prime Minister—on their victory. I congratulate them on their loyalty to their colleagues, and on their lively conscience on this matter. But I do wish that they had a lively conscience on other matters with respect to the affairs of this country. It appears to me
  774
  that their consciences are not very lively when we are considering the real inwardness of the state of great masses of people in this country, but this, at any rate, can be said about them, that they will appreciate the feelings of many of us when we have seen pledge after pledge violated with respect to our people, whom such violation of pledges has finally driven down to a state of degradation and want such as we have not known in our time.
  Fundamentally, the matter is a serious one. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other Ministers, are going to the country and speaking about the insecurity of a Labour Government. They are saying that it is subject to pressure from outside. The Chancellor of the Exchequer once gave expression to the famous statement that Labour was unfit to govern. I wonder what the average citizen thinks about the ability of the present Government to govern, in the light of this decision? As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield has said, those of us who have a great regard for the affairs of this House and for its constitution, and who have some sense of responsibility to the mass of the people who have to pay these contributions, feel that underneath this a very serious principle is involved. As the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) has said, if any particular set of people can band together in their clubs, or meet in some part of this House, and rush the Government for something which they want and which they think is right, but which the Government have repeatedly said is not right—if they can overturn those decisions and rush the Government to the thing that they want, it is a very bad outlook for democratic government and for the future of the Parliamentary institutions of this country.
  It is not merely a matter of making party capital, but it is, in our view, a duty to the people of this country to underline what has been done. It has been said that we were open to pressure from outside when the Labour Government was in office in 1924, but I challenge the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, I challenge the Prime Minister, or any other Minister on the Front Bench, to discover, during the Labour Government's term of office in

  775
  1924, any incident equal to this. I challenge them to compare the conditions and the whole record of the Labour Government in 1924. I say that the Labour Government were never subject to such shameful pressure as has been exercised on this occasion; we were never brought to such a state of humiliation, and we never violated the fundamental principles upon which Parliamentary institutions are based.
  Mr. AMERY: I do not think that the hon. Member, who has challenged me on broad grounds to show anything so infamous as the conduct of the present Government, really expects me to take up that challenge in detail, but I should like to answer, first of all, the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), as to who are the kind of people who are being dealt with under this grant. They are, of course, as I pointed out to the House at another stage of this matter, those who suffered special hardship for their loyalty after the truce, after the British troops and police authorities were removed, and who have been unable to get any redress, or got such redress from the Free State authorities as in our opinion would not be adequate to the extent of their sufferings. They are people in every walk of life. Some of them are landowners, some are business men whose whole business was destroyed, and a very much larger proportion are professional men—doctors, lawyers, valuers, agents, and so on—for whom life was made entirely impossible, whose whole professional career was ruined, and probably whose property, such little as they had, was destroyed. There are also farmers and men in a very small way, such as ex-policemen, working men and others. Of the whole 1,600 cases in connection with which recommendations were made, something like 1,350 were cases where the total recommendation in respect of all that they suffered was under £1,000.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted one or two instances. He asked as regards those to whom the Free State had given compensation in terms of the Bill. The great majority of those cases belong to the pre-truce period and are entirely outside this ex gratia grant. In other cases, there is, of course, no question
  776
  of any further grants being made by the committee. He also quoted the case of the gentleman whose place was destroyed by troops in Cork. That obviously was a pre-truce case, because there were no troops in Cork during the period with which these grants deal. If, however, the sufferer whose case was brought forward was unable in any way to get redress before the Judicial Tribunal so established, it is a matter about which I can give him no information, except that conceivably the particular form of hardship he suffered did not come strictly within the category for which the Judicial Tribunal was set up. I add that, because it is very relevant to the whole case made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this case and tell me whether anything can be done?
  Mr. AMERY: I will, certainly, but I am afraid it was a pre-truce case, because the only remedy was the court that was set up and, if that court was unable to provide a remedy, or if he failed to apply to the court, it would be beyond my power to help him.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The ease is this. Each side undertook to indemnify its own friends. This was the case, however, of a man who was a supporter of this country, an ex-soldier, and his property was burnt by Black and Tans. The Free State position was that he was our supporter. We say his property was burnt by Black and Tans, and, therefore, that he must have been doing something wrong.
  Mr. AMERY: I do not think that difficulty would affect the case for compensation. The same tribunal heard all the eases, the awards were made, and then the amounts of the awards were allotted as between one Governments and another. If it came before the Court, he would have got his award, and the question as to whose victim he was would no doubt be duly assessed. Certainly, if the damage was done by British troops, or Black and Tans, it would be as against them.
  I think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds

  777
  has somewhat overlooked the whole genesis of the Wood Renton Committee. We have always recognised that we were under a special obligation to do something for these people, and we set up a Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Dunedin to advise us as to the general character of our obligations and as to the method with which to deal with them. The Dunedin Committee pointed out that there were two distinct ways of dealing with the problem. One was the strictly legal method. We could have said that we regarded these people as still being entitled to such legal compensation as they were entitled to before the truce, and while British authority was in force in South Ireland. Then a legal tribunal could have been set up, and, by the ordinary process of law, these people could have established, or failed to establish, such legal claim as they had. Lord Dunedin's view was that, while this might afford very substantial compensation indeed to many of the more well-to-do claimants, it would entirely leave out of account a large number of cases of grievous hardship of a kind for which there was no legal remedy before the truce and for which there is no legal remedy to-day, and the Committee recommended that, instead of setting up a legal tribunal, we should take the guidance of an advisory committee which would look at the whole question of hardship in its broad historic standpoint, from the point of view of equity, and make recommendations to us as to what they would consider fair and reasonable compensation to mitigate the hardships suffered.
  Sir H. SLESSER: Did the Dunedin Committee recommend that the advisory committee should only hear one side and that the Government side should not be heard?
  Mr. AMERY: No such recommendation was made. The view of the Government has always been that if they had set up a judicial tribunal, competent to give legal decisions, of course they would have been bound to pay in proportion whatever the decisions of the tribunal were. Setting up, as they did, a body of a different character, an advisory committee, they have always reserved to themselves the right, if they decided on general grounds of national policy to do
  778
  so, to scale down the recommendations of the committee, but that fact, and the fact that the committee was an informal one, do not mean in the least that the interests of the Government were never considered, or pleaded, or vindicated before the body. The Treasury preferred to entrust this case to the scrutiny of the secretary of the committee and the continuous scrutiny of the Commission itself rather than to formal legal methods of procedure, which might very well involve much greater moral liability to pay the whole of the damage than was involved in the procedure the committee actually adopted, and which the Government considered most suitable in view of the whole character of this case.
  Sir H. SLESSER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this was not a legal tribunal where both parties to the controversy were represented. I understand the right hon. Gentleman now to say that the Government were represented by an able secretary.
  Mr. AMERY: The case of the Chancellor was that this was not a judicial tribunal proceeding on formal legal lines which involved us in a legal liability to pay whatever the awards were. This was a tribunal admittedly outside any ordinary formal relations of the law.
  Sir H. SLESSER: Let us be clear. I quite agree that the Chancellor said that, but I am not on that point. I am on the point of the representation of the Government before this informal tribunal, which is another point altogether from the question whether it was a legal tribunal. The Chancellor said, in a Debate in this House, that the reason the Government had the right not to acknowledge the award was because both parties were not represented. I understand the right hon. Gentleman now to say that the Government were represented by a secretary. If so, what becomes of the Chancellor's argument that the Government were not bound because they were not represented?
  Mr. AMERY: I am afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman has entirely misunderstood the argument both of myself and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Our point was that, because this was an advisory body, and not a judicial body, we were not bound to

  779
  implement its recommendations. The fact that we were not represented by counsel does not imply that the point of view of the Government was not very effectively represented. It was represented both by the action of the Secretary, who exercised a special scrutiny, and by the Committee themselves, the Advisory Committee of the Government. Their very first duty was to scrutinise these cases, not to accept the statement by the claimant of damage, and, unless that statement be disapproved, to award large sums. Very far from it; the claims put forward, even when the actual damage might have been a very considerable amount, were reduced by the committee to what they thought to be the measure of hardship which justifiably and reasonably entitled to compensation. We have not in the least in this matter changed our juridical point. I would remind the hon. and learned Member that a year ago we hoped that it would be possible to pay the recommendations of the committee in full. We have never taken the view, and we have made it clear again and again in this House, that this body was an irregular body, or that they were likely to scale them down. We have indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself, this year and last year paid our tribute to the care and vigilance in the public interest which the committee exercised.
  Sir H. SLESSER: I am not suggesting anything to the contrary.
  Mr. AMERY: All we have claimed is that this is not a legal tribunal, but an advisory committee, but we did reserve to ourselves the right to fix the total amount. We did, in the first place, decide to fix a sum which we soon discovered, in view of the number of cases, was inadequate. We raised it, and we have raised it again. We have, in doing so, in no way altered our point of view in regard either to the character of the tribunal or to the efficacy of its methods. We have bowed to the very general feeling in the House. Our decision was taken, not on the merits of the case as far as the people were concerned or on the efficacy of the work of the Wood Renton Committee but, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself explained, in relation to all the many needs which the Government have to con-
  780
  sider, and that was the only reason why that decision was taken. But in view of the very strong feeling in every quarter of the House that we in this particular matter ought not to be guided by general considerations of financial economy, and that we ought to close this whole chapter on a note of reasonable generosity to people who have suffered, as undoubtedly these people have very gravely suffered, we bowed to the decision of the House.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have published the reports of the evidence given before the Wood Renton. Committee in any form whatever? Has the case for and against been published?
  Mr. AMERY: Obviously, no. It would be quite impossible in cases of this sort. Knowing the history of these cases and the conditions under which some of these people still live, it is obviously quite impossible.
  Mr. LAWSON: The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement in reference to the representation before the tribunal. I must say that I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) that his statement contradicts that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think it would be permissible to ask why, in view of the gravity of this matter, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are not present?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can answer that question.
  Sir OSWALD MOSLEY: I would like, very briefly, to address myself to the legal and constitutional question which has been raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser). On the broad question of the Government's conduct in this matter, perhaps, enough has been said, and more, no doubt, will be said later on outside this House. On this particular and narrow issue, the point, as I understand it, raised by my hon. and learned Friend was: Are we now to have a precedent established that a purely advisory committee may fill in a blank cheque written by the Government? That is what the issue comes to. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies admits that in their inception

  781
  this committee were clearly advisory, that they had no legal character, that the Government were not legally represented. The Government's intention was to receive the advice of this committee, and then, having regard not only to the condition of the victims for whom compensation was asked, but also having regard to the condition of national finances, they were to make up their minds what compensation was to be paid. That was the original position of the Government.
  What is the situation which has now arisen? The Government were driven from that position by the action of their supporters, and they are now compelled to pay full compensation to the extent of any award which the Wood Renton Committee may make. In fact, the Wood Renton Committee have been turned into a tribunal whose decisions have a legal and binding authority upon the Government. The right hon. Gentleman now, as an afterthought—we heard nothing about it in the first Debate—claims that the secretary of this committee was acting for the Government. No doubt he is a very estimable gentleman. He was given a kind of roving commission of inquiry, but he had no legal status of any kind as a Government representative, and I understand that he is not the representative who is commonly employed by the Treasury. It is quite useless for the right hon. Gentleman to say that, if the Wood Renton Committee are to be regarded as a legal tribunal whose awards are binding on the Government, the Treasury were satisfied that they had adequate representation on that Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the first Debate made specific and bitter complaint that the Treasury were not there represented. The words I have to read are even stronger, I think, than those which came to the notice of my hon. and learned Friend. These are the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
  "There was no case where the Treasury counsel could advance arguments against the claims made by the parties, and canvass and criticise their credentials, such as is done when any Income Tax case is fought in any Court with the greatest vigour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1929; col. 1004, Vol. 225.]
  Those are the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He complained that the Treasury were not represented, and he put very strongly the case that, if
  782
  these awards were to be binding upon the Government, then the Treasury-should have been represented before a properly constituted tribunal. In face of those words, in face of the facts which have now emerged, it is quite idle for the right hon. Gentleman to claim that the Government were represented and that the Treasury had not full opportunity to combat these claims and to secure their writing down. The facts are perfectly clear. This committee began as an advisory committee; it has ended as a legal tribunal whose awards have binding authority upon the Government. The difference that has arisen is not due to the volition of the Government. It is not due to any change in their conception of their obligations to these people. It is simply due to a revolt of their supporters which has entirely changed the character of this committee and has compelled the Government to write a blank cheque for any award which this committee may care to make.
  I shall not enter at this stage into the general question that we discussed last week. It is sufficient to point out on this occasion that the legal and constitutional question raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East, has been thoroughly justified, that no adequate answer of any kind has been forthcoming from the Government and that we have constituted a precedent, which I hope will never be followed, that a purely advisory committee can give awards which the Government of the day is bound to honour in toto. Upon this extraordinary situation we need not make any further comment now. We know its origins, and we shall discuss them further before a greater tribunal. On this occasion, we can merely point out that in their unparalleled course of conduct the Government have established precedents which we trust this House will never follow.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  REPORT (1st March).

    ADJODENMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir V. Warrender.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes before Two o'clock until Monday next, 11th March.

  COAL INDUSTRY (STATISTICS).
  COAL INDUSTRY (STATISTICS).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING (VALUATIONS).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING (VALUATIONS).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  IRISH PERSONS.
  IRISH PERSONS.
  JUVENILES, CARDIFF.
  JUVENILES, CARDIFF.
  BOROUGH.
  BOROUGH.
  COURTS OF REFEREES (PAYMENTS).
  COURTS OF REFEREES (PAYMENTS).
  ADMIRALTY EMPLOYES (SERVICE ABROAD).
  ADMIRALTY EMPLOYES (SERVICE ABROAD).
  COMPANIES' SHARE CAPITAL DUTY.
  COMPANIES' SHARE CAPITAL DUTY.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (TERRITORIAL WATERS).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (TERRITORIAL WATERS).
Preamble
The House met at twelve of the clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before business begins I should like to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House how long he proposes to keep the House sitting to-day, and whether he has in his mind any future arrangements if the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill is not finished to-day.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, this is a most reasonable question, only that I deprecate the form in which the noble and learned Lord has put it. It is not for me to keep the House sitting; the House keeps itself sitting; but, as far as my humble advice to your Lordships is concerned, I should suggest that we should make a really substantial effort to finish the Committee stage of the Bill to-day. I hope that would not require a very long sitting, because I think all of the points, except one, of real capital importance have been discussed—not discussed, may I say again, at any undue length. I hope the Opposition will not think for a moment I am criticising the methods they have pursued or that my noble friends behind me have pursued in this discussion. On the contrary, they have been extremely businesslike. I do not think there ought to be any great difficulty in finishing Committee to-day. I hope we shall not sit very late—not an evening sitting; an afternoon sitting, let us call it. And I hope to finish the Bill on this stage.
If, owing to circumstances which we are not envisaging for a moment, the Committee stage should not be finished in reasonable time to-day, whatever that adjective exactly imports, then no doubt we shall have to sit on Monday to finish the Committee stage. I should very much regret that decision of your Lordships, because it would upset the remainder of the time table which, by a common understanding, your Lordships proposed to follow in the succeeding stages of the Bill. We should have, of course, to postpone the Report

325
stage to a rather later date than we had intended, and that would have further effects. If your Lordships ever play skittles you know that if you knock one pin down it knocks down several others, and that is what will happen here. Therefore, I hope that we shall be able to finish the Committee stage to-day. I am quite sure, after what has passed, that I may rely on noble Lords in all parts of the House to co-operate as far as possible to that end.
LORD PARMOOR: I am sorry if I exaggerated in my reference to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, but I am sure our sittings depend on his view, assented to by the rest of the House as they would be because of his reasonableness. It seems to me doubtful whether we can finish the Committee stage to-day, though I feel very strongly that we ought to do our best. This Bill does, however, contain throughout such important matters that I doubt whether we can finish the Committee discussion to-day, but certainly we will do nothing to delay matters.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order): The EARL OF DONGUGHMORE in the Chair.
Clause 68:
Adaptation of enactments imposing limits on expenditure of local authorities.
68.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, any provision of any enactment imposing a limit upon the expenditure of a local authority for any purpose in any year by reference to any specified rate poundage shall, as from the appointed day, have effect as if for the limit thereby imposed there were substituted such a limit as would be imposed if the specified rate poundage were increased by thirty-three and one-third per cent., or such higher percentage as the Minister may in any special case allow.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or such higher percentage as the Minister may in any special case allow." The noble Earl said: I venture to think this Amendment is one of some importance. It raises a matter of principle, which we shall come to again in Section 123 and also in the Tenth Schedule, and that is the question as to how much power you are going to put into the hands of the Minister with-
326
out the slightest check of any kind whatsoever by Parliament. The purpose of the clause is, according to the marginal note: "Adaptation of enactments imposing limits on expenditure of local authorities," and the first part of the Clause contains the limit. One-third more can be spent than at the present time. That can be quite unobjectionable. The Government have considered this matter and they think that the local authorities cannot actually be under this enactment as they come under the other, and they are saying they shall be allowed to spend one-third more.
If the Government had said that in their considered opinion they ought to spend two-thirds more or even double as much, I should have been perfectly prepared to support them because this is a matter they have gone into and they know. But at the end of the subsection come these words, "or such higher percentage as the Minister may in any special case allow." That leaves an entirely free hand for the Minister to say what he thinks is a special case, and having made up his mind that it is a special case, he is left with an absolutely free hand to allow expenditure up to any amount. We ought not to consider this matter only from the point of view of the particular Minister that one may have in mind. A Pharoah may arise who knows not Joseph, and a totally different procedure may come in with a new Minister. One knows from the history of the Local Government Board before it became the Ministry of Health that certain Ministers took the view that the general policy of the Ministry ought to be to check expenditure wherever it could, while other Ministers have said that in their view that is not the most important function of the Ministry, or indeed the function of the Ministry at all, but that it is on the whole a good thing to encourage expenditure of this nature. You would get absolute chaos if you had one Minister doing the one thing and another Minister doing the other.
I am fortified in making an argument of that kind by some words that fell from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, on another clause of the Bill, in opposing an Amendment moved by the noble Earl opposite, Lord Russell. He said:—
There is a still further objection that if the noble Earl's Amendment were accepted

327
it would give to the Minister—to each particular Minister who came into office—absolutely arbitrary discretion as to what areas should, or should not, be included. One Minister might allow it in every case and another might limit it to the whole county. There would be no sort of guide laid down in the Act as to the principle on which the Minister should apply his discretion."
I have no doubt the Lord Chancellor will say in answer, and quite properly so, that the first part of this clause does give some sort of guide as to what the Bill means, but it is not really a guide at all. Nobody would suggest as the clause stands at present that if a Minister chose to say that in his view there was a special case in which he was going to allow an increase of 500 per cent. such an Order would be ultra vires. If it was not ultra vires nobody could object to it, and so I say you are giving to the Minister an absolute latitude to allow any expenditure he chooses. One cannot go into details, but one knows perfectly well that speeches have been made by responsible people who do not agree with us in politics that in their view, for instance, the very great expenditure which was incurred in Poplar was perfectly justifiable. We may get Ministers coming in with that view. Is it then wise to leave such a very wide power to the discretion of the Minister unchecked in any way by Pariament? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 39, leave out ("or such higher percentage as the Minister may in any special case allow").—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: I agree with the argument put forward by my noble friend behind me, but I would suggest that perhaps another form of words might meet his point and also meet the views of the Government. I would suggest these words "or such higher percentage as the Minister may deem necessary to compensate for the effect of derating." That I understand to be the object of the clause.
LORD PARMOOR: There is one other point which I should like to raise. I think the noble Earl's point might be met if, before a higher percentage was allowed, the proposal was laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament and was subject to an affirmative Resolution. I think it is very important in administrative matters that Parliament should retain control, and that is a well recog-
328
nised method of dealing with the question so as to give sufficient discretion to the Minister while still retaining Parliamentary control. I hope the Lord Chancellor will consider that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): The noble Earl in moving his Amendment said that there was raised by this clause a point of great substance which would arise also on Clause 123. I have never disguised from myself that in Clause 123 there is undoubtedly a point of grave importance which has to be very carefully considered. There are obvious difficulties in the clause. There are on the other hand necessities, which I hope to be able to explain to your Lordships when we come to that clause, which render if not that precise form of words, at any rate some power like that in the clause, necessary. I do not want to discuss that at this stage. When we reach Clause 123 I shall be very glad to hear opinions from all sides of your Lordships' House with the object of seeing how far we can thrash out an acceptable and proper form of language.
But I do not want your Lordships to think, and I do not really believe it to be the fact, that the same point is involved in the Amendment which has just been moved by my noble friend the Earl of Halsbury. May I explain to your Lordships why it is that we cannot do what the noble Earl suggests, that is to say, to put in a percentage which would be satisfactory in all cases? The noble Earl said that the Government had doubtless considered the point and decided that 33⅓ per cent. was a proper allowance to make for the loss of rateable value, and therefore he was quite prepared to accept their view on that point. But although we have considered the point and although we have come to the conclusion that 33⅓ per cent. is on the average and in ordinary cases a fair and reasonable allowance, the effect of derating in individual cases will vary so enormously that it is not possible to find one percentage which is equally fair for all areas. You could of course have a higher percentage, but then you would have to have, I think, something like 100 per cent. or even more than that to compensate for the loss. If you were to put in some figure of that kind you would be encouraging those areas, where a much lower percentage was sufficient to give

329
them enough to compensate them for the loss, to an undue expenditure in these matters.
Of course your Lordships will appreciate that we are not dealing with the whole expenditure of the councils. The matters in regard to which there is the expenditure limit which is here being dealt with, are mainly confined to four or five matters such as advertising health resorts, providing bands by town councils, providing allotments, providing gymnasiums and things of that kind, for which the produce of a penny or a halfpenny rate is the sort of amount at present allowed. It is in order to meet exceptional cases, where the loss of rateable value is not compensated by the 33⅓ per cent., that the power has been put in. The last thing the Government would wish to do would be to encourage an arbitrary exercise of authority by the Minister.
I always hesitate, if my noble friend will forgive me saying so, to accept words which I have not had the opportunity of considering and which are proposed on the floor of the House without further consideration because it may be that there is some difficulty which I have not been able to see. So far as I can gather from the glimpse of the words which I have just had the opportunity of seeing, the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Hunsdon is that we put in the words "or such higher percentage as the Minister may deem necessary to compensate for the effect of derating." This certainly seems to me to carry out the intention of the provision and, if he will allow me an opportunity of considering the point with the Ministry before the Report stage and satisfying myself that the words are otherwise unobjectionable, as I hope they are, the proposal would be in no way obnoxious to His Majesty's Government.
A possible alternative would be to insert provision for an Order in Council. If the noble and learned Lord opposite will allow me to say so, I do not think that a matter of such very minor importance as whether a certain percentage shall be allowed to some small parish for a band or gymnasium is one which demands an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I think the better course might be to put in words which will bring the matter under the operation
330
of Clause 122, which, as your Lordships know, involves the Order being laid upon the Table, and provides that a Resolution in either House can negative it. The suggestion of my noble friend Lord Hunsdon would, I think, be satisfactory to the Government. I have not heard what the noble and learned Earl has to say and I do not know whether he would be prepared to allow me to consider which of these alternatives seems most suitable and to bring the matter up in the most convenient form on Report. If that would meet the views of my noble and learned friend, I will do my best to secure that one or other form of words is introduced on Report to meet the point which he raised.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: In view of the extremely reasonable attitude of the Lord Chancellor, I will, of course, withdraw my Amendment. Let me say, in doing so, that I should prefer the difficulty to be got over by the machinery of Clause 122 rather than by a method which seems to me still to leave it to the discretion of the Minister whether a special case has arisen and takes away from Parliament, its ultimate decision in the matter. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clauses 69 and 70 agreed to.
Clause 71:
Adaptation of enactments relating to drainage rates.
71.—(1) Any provision of any enactment directing that the amount of any drainage-rate shall or may be determined by reference to the value for rating purposes of any property as appearing in the valuation list for the time being in force, shall, as from the appointed day, have effect as if for any reference to that value there were therein substituted a reference to the gross annual value for income tax purposes.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF ONSLOW) moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or may." The noble Earl said: I beg leave to move this Amendment in the absence of my noble friend Lord Stradbroke, in whose name it stands. The clause as it stands goes too far and compels not only those authorities who are required to use the rateable basis, but also those who are empowered to do so, to adopt in lieu thereof the Schedule A basis. There is

331
no reason consequent on derating why the latter class of authority should have to adopt Schedule A unless they wish to do so. They will be left, therefore, as they are at present, in a position to adopt any annual values they think fair and equitable to meet the case. That is the position now, and we seek to preserve it by this and the following Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 10, leave out ("or may").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD PARMOOR: I think that what the noble Earl says is extremely reasonable. I am sure we all regret very much the cause of the absence of the noble Earl, Lord Stradbroke.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 25, at end insert:
("(3) Where by any enactment, including this section, the amount of any drainage rate is to be determined by reference to the gross annual value of any property for income tax purposes, then, if the property is not assessed for income tax purposes under Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, as amended by any subsequent enactment, the value thereof shall, as from the appointed day, be determined, in the event of any dispute, by a court of summary jurisdiction.").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 72 and 73 agreed to.
Clause 74:
Power to require copies of values in force under Schedule A of 8 & 9 Geo. 5 c. 40.
74. Any authority or person upon whom is imposed by or under any enactment a duty to obtain information for the purposes of the registration of voters or of enabling the names of persons qualified as jurors or special jurors to be marked in the electors' lists, and any authority person or body of persons having power to levy a drainage-rate whereof the amount is in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act to be determined by reference to the annual value of any property for income tax purposes, may from time to time require the surveyors of taxes for their area to furnish to them, on payment of a sum not exceeding the rate of five shillings for every hundred entries numbered separately, a copy of the annual values for the time being in force for the purposes of income tax under Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, for all or any of the properties in that area.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to omit the words: "whereof the amount is in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act to be determined by reference to the annual value of any property for Income Tax purposes." The noble Earl said: This is another Amendment that I beg to move on behalf of my noble friend Lord Stradbroke. Under Clause 71, the number of authorities who are required to adopt Schedule A values as a basis is narrowed. Only those who are now required to use rateable value will be required to adopt Schedule A values. But there are a number of drainage authorities who, though not required to adopt rateable values, did in practice use them and had specific rights of access to valuation lists for the purpose. These authorities may well desire, in the altered circumstances, to take Schedule A values as a guide to, or indeed to adopt them as, their annual values, and they should, it is thought, have facilities for obtaining the necessary information. This Amendment has been drafted to bring about that result.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 1, leave out from ("drainage-rate") to ("may") in line 4.—(The Earl of Onslow).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clause 76:
General adaptation of enactments and other documents.
76.—(1) Save as in this Part of this Act otherwise expressly provided, any provisions of any document directing that expenditure falling to be defrayed by two or more local authorities shall be apportioned between those authorities by reference to some value (other than rateable value) as appearing in or ascertained from the valuation list for the time being in force or as shown in, or ascertained in accordance with the Acts relating thereto, the basis or standard of county rates shall, as from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty, have effect as if for any reference to that value there were therein substituted—

(a) in the case of a document, not being an enactment, as respects which a value is agreed upon by the local authorities concerned, a reference to that value; and

(b) in the case of any such document as respects which a value is not so agreed upon, and in the case of an enactment, a reference to rateable value as shown by the valuation list for the time being in force.

(2) Save as in this Part of this Act otherwise expressly provided, any provision of any

333
document directing that the amount of any payment, not being a payment to which the last foregoing subsection applies, shall be determined by reference to some value as appearing in or ascertained from the valuation list for the time being in force or as shown in, or ascertained in accordance with the Acts relating to, the basis or standard of county rates shall, as from the appointed day, have effect as if for any reference to that value there were therein substituted—

(a) in the case of a document, not being an enactment, as respects which a value is—

(i) agreed upon by all persons having rights or obligations under the document; or

(ii) determined, in default of such agreement, by an arbitrator appointed by the Minister on an application made to him by or on behalf of any such person,

a reference to the value so agreed upon or determined; and

(b) in the case of an enactment, a reference to such value as may be determined by order or the Minister on application made to him by any such person as aforesaid.

(3) Before making any order under this section the Minister shall require the applicants to serve a copy of the draft order upon any local authority affected and to give, in terms approved by him and in such manner as he may consider best adapted for informing any other persons affected, public notice of the application for the order and as to the manner in which and the time within which objections to the order may be made, and shall consider any objection which may be duly made within four weeks from the date of the notice, and in the event of any objection being so made and not withdrawn the Minister shall make the order as a provisional order which shall not have effect unless and until confirmed by Parliament.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved to leave out Clause 76. The noble Lord said: One of my noble friends behind me said last night that he liked to know what he was voting upon. I have to confess that I do not understand a single word of this clause. There is no reference to it in the explanatory Memorandum, and I think it received very little discussion in another place. I think it is desirable that we should have some explanation of the intention of this clause, so that we may be guided as to the action to take in respect of it.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, leave out Clause 76.—(Lord Lamington.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very glad to have the opportunity of explaining what the clause does. I quite agree
334
that it wants a little analysis. It has two subsections that deal with different matters. In subsection (1) the case is dealt with of a joint service rendered by two or more authorities, the expenses being at present apportioned between them according to the value in the present valuation list. An obvious instance is a joint sewage board operating for two or more districts. The expenses of such a board are at present apportioned according to the value in the valuation list as it exists to-day. In those cases it is provided that the apportionment shall in future be based upon the future rateable value, so that the rateable value of the different parties shall determine the proportion that they will pay of that expenditure.
Subsection (2) deals with cases, not of services done by two parties jointly, but of one local authority paying another some proportion of the cost of services rendered by the either. Here the obvious instance would be the case where the expenses of the police are borne between one or more parties, payments being made to the authority that provides the service. Very often nowadays the amount of payment is calculated by reference to some value in the valuation list. After the alteration in the rateable value, the service that is being rendered will be the same as before and just as many police will be wanted, even if the rateable value of the district is altered. Accordingly it is not fair to reduce the amount of the payment by reason of the fact that the amount of the rateable value of the district paying has gone down. In those cases it is provided that either authority can apply for a revision of the terms of the agreement and, if they do not agree as to what that revision shall be, a decision shall be given by an arbitrator who will be appointed for that purpose by the Ministry.
Subsection (3) provides that the variation shall be made by order, and that if any objection is made by any party to the order that order shall become a provisional order, leaving the final decision to Parliament. I hope that that answers the question which my noble friend has put.
LORD LAMINGTON: I am obliged to the Lord Chancellor for his very explicit explanation, and I hope it has enlightened other members of the House besides

335
myself. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78:
Discontinuance of grants.
78.—(1) The grants set out in the Second Schedule to this Act (in this Act referred to as "the Discontinued Grants") shall cease to be payable in respect of any period after the thirty-first clay of March, nineteen hundred and thirty.
EARL BUXTON EARL BUXTON moved in subsection (1), after the first "grants," to insert "other than grants for maternity and child welfare." The noble Earl said: This Amendment has reference to the question of maternity homes and child welfare institutions, and it is of importance. Let me say at once, with regard to the object which we have in view—namely, the encouragement of maternity homes and child welfare institutions—that I do not think there is any difference of opinion between the Government and members in any part of the House. We want to encourage them as far as we can, and this Amendment can be accepted entirely within the terms of the Bill itself. It does not alter in any way the proposals in the Bill, or the method by which they are to be carried out. It is a matter of the discontinued grants. This is a grant which is to be discontinued, and I ask the Government to see whether they cannot continue it.
The difference which I am going to put to the Government is this, that under the system at present existing when a local authority desires either to institute or extend these maternity homes and child welfare institutions the Department gives it a grant, pound for pound. For every pound which the local authority expends on maternity and child welfare work, it gets another pound from the Treasury. If they are brought, as they are intended to be brought by the Bill, under the block grant system, it means, of course, that they will receive a complete sum annually instead of receiving it in detail. The block grant is based upon the expenditure of last year, and will last for three years, and afterwards may be amended. The difference, so far as the encouragement of these homes and institutions is concerned, is that in the one case, where the local authority institute or extend these insti-
336
tutions, they will get back what they have expended, pound for pound, but when it comes to the block grant, although the amount expended this year has already been included, no additional grant for the extension of maternity and child welfare work will be given.
This work has only been in force for a comparatively small number of years. It was instituted, I think, in 1914, and the Government grant then was only £12,000 a year. It has now risen, as I am sure we all rejoice it should have risen, to just over £1,000,000 a year, which is paid yearly towards these institutions by the Government. Two years ago there were only 400 of these institutions and now there are no fewer than 2,634 centres, and the Minister of Health the other day, in debate, said that the result of the stimulus of this pound per pound system was so satisfactory that the mortality had been reduced to 65 per thousand, or considerably over four per cent. below what it had ever been before. It is clear that the present system has been a great stimulus to the institution and extension of these centres. I think more could be done in regard to them, but that is all the more reason for giving them greater encouragement, instead of damping the work down by not giving the local authority any particular reason for instituting or extending this work year by year.
It must be a considerable discouragement to the local authority if, under the general block grant, they should have to bear the whole of the cost of instituting or extending these institutions, whereas before they have always received a pound for every pound which they have so expended. Let me give an instance. Supposing at the present time they have one institution costing £2,000 a year. The local authority pay £1,000 and the Government the other £1,000. If, in the course of the next few years, the local authority extends its operations in regard to this matter of maternity or child welfare, and spends in the next year, say, £2,500, it will receive, included in the block grant, the £1,000 paid last year, but it will have to pay the other £1,500 out of its own pocket, instead of getting half of the £2,500 back from the Government. The same thing will occur if the expenditure exceeds £3,000. The local authority will then pay £2,000 instead of getting £1,500 back from the Government.
That must mean serious discouragement of the existing institutions and extension of these institutions. The block grant will, of course, be spent upon every conceivable proposal and expenditure coming under the purview of the local authority. Up to the present moment these maternity homes have not been in competition with other proposals and services, because they have been in a privileged position, as being profitable, in a sense, because for every pound that has been spent a pound has been received from the Government. Under the block grant system they will, however, come into competition from the very beginning with all the expenditure of the local authority, and I am afraid that having lost their preference they will be liable—I will not say to disappear, but it will not be to the interest of the local authority to spend money upon them as it has been in the past.
We were told in the debates in another place that the Government were giving for the block grant what they called "new money," and that the local authority would have a larger amount at its disposal, some of which it could spend on welfare homes, but surely that is not the case, because throughout this Bill it has been defended and supported on the ground that it is going to relieve the rates. Therefore, quite properly, especially in these necessitous districts, the first interest will be the reduction of the rates, and however much money may be brought into their purview, there will be an equal demand for a reduction of rates, and therefore there will be no surplus to go to these institutions in which I am interested. Then we were told that at the present moment the Minister has no power to enforce the institution or extension of these maternity and child welfare homes, but that under the Bill he will have the power to force a recalcitrant local authority, or a local authority not particularly interested in the matter, to spend money on the creation of these homes. How can he do it? The only method he has under Clause 96 is to reduce the grant which he is about to pay for the coming year to the local authority; he can only force them to spend money by taking away money to which they are otherwise entitled. That is not a very
338
good method. After all, a Minister in a matter of this sort would enforce Clause 96 for the reduction of grant with great reluctance, and only in cases of great neglect; and I am quite sure that it is better to encourage backward authorities by giving them an additional grant, rather than to coerce them by taking away the grant which they already have.
This proposal of the Government cannot fail to be a real and serious discouragement to the creation or extension of maternity and child welfare homes. I would make an appeal to the Government in this matter. As I say, it does not affect the principle of the Bill; they have only to take this particular grant out of the block grant, and let it remain as it is at present as a great encouragement to local authorities to institute these homes. We all want to do what we can to encourage welfare homes, and especially maternity homes. The very heavy mortality among mothers in childbirth is one of the most tragic incidents in our civilised life, and anything we can do to encourage the extension of these admirable homes we ought to do. I am seriously afraid that if the Government pass this clause the incentive to increase such homes will disappear, and the rapid increase in their number that has taken place in the last few years will cease.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 24 after ("grants") insert ("other than grants for maternity and child welfare").—(Earl Buxton.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARK: I should like to support the appeal which has just been made by the noble Earl. I am speaking as one who for some time has been in close connection with those who have been working in these homes, and I know that there is no proposal in this measure which has caused greater anxiety among those who are concerned in welfare work. I believe that their reasons for asking that some change may be made in this clause are as follows: Firstly, the system of percentage grants has worked admirably. Under this system the development of the work has been very great. In 1916 there were 650 of such centres; last year there were no fewer than 2,684; and in the last five years the amount spent on this work has increased by 36 per cent. They therefore think that it would be very unfortunate to make a change in a system which has

339
been working admirably. Next, they feel that, although real progress has been made, a great deal still requires to be done. I notice that Sir George Newman, in his report on the health of school children, says that no fewer than 25 per cent. of the children in our elementary schools were suffering from illness which could have been prevented if they had only been treated earlier in life. And although this welfare work has greatly increased, it is inevitable that if the health of the children is to be cared for, there must be a great extension of it in the next few years. Therefore it is unfortunate if the basis on which the grant is made is to be changed.
The third point is this. In the future whenever any extension of this work is required an appeal will have to be made to the local authority, and as far as I can see—though it is possible that the noble Earl who is replying for the Government may be able to give some different interpretation of it—the additional expenditure will have to come from the rates. A friendly Minister of Health has been encouraging this expenditure during these past years. Many local authorities will no doubt encourage expenditure which is so important for health, but there are other local authorities who view this work with a good deal of suspicion, and naturally they will be very loath to take a step which will mean an increase in the rates. If the clause remains as it is I cannot see how you can avoid these questions being decided in future, not on their merits from the point of view of health, but from the point of view of rates. I am perfectly certain that the Government are as anxious as anyone else to see that this work progresses in every way. The Minister has made that abundantly clear, and therefore I hope that the Government will modify the clause so as to continue the system which has proved so successful in the last few years.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I regard this as one of the most important Amendments to the Bill. Maternity and child welfare to my mind lie at the whole root of our national well-being. The position in which this country stands to-day with regard to maternity mortality, is—not to use too strong a word, a disgrace. I think myself, though I am not quite certain of the figures, that our ratio of
340
deaths to those in Holland is something like 14 to 2. Of this, at least, I am certain, that Holland and Sweden and other countries have an immensely less mortality rate of women in childbirth than this country has; and yet there is hardly a medical man who will not tell you that maternity mortality is almost entirely preventible, as it is in Holland, where it is reduced almost to nothing. What is the reason for that? The reason for that is ignorance and carelessness—ignorance of the proper conditions in which these women ought to be treated, and carelessness in applying the proper treatment. The same thing is true with regard to children, though there we have reduced the mortality notably, and I trust it will go on.
But both these things depend upon your continued energetic application of maternity and child welfare centres. It is owing to their work that we have been able to go as far as we have, and it is to them that we must look if we hope to get improvement. My complaint against the Bill as it stands is this, that it has robbed this work of its direct incentive to grow. At the present time money that can be raised in the locality is met at once pound for pound by a grant from the Government. There is therefore every inducement to raise the money. Under this arrangement, as I see it, there is going to be an inducement to save the money and that is exactly the thing above all other things that we ought to try to avoid. I believe that we ought to do this in the interests of our people—the interests of the women and of the children. There is another way in which it may be looked at. It is also obviously the most economical expenditure that we can make. To rear a strong and healthy population is the surest way to secure economy. But to let women suffer and children be brought up weak is the surest way to incur further expenditure. Therefore, both upon the public and upon the narrower grounds, I do most earnestly ask the Government, even at this hour, to reconsider their position and not to do something which. I cannot help thinking, will strike a very grave if not a deadly blow against the growing activity of this splendid work.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not think that anybody would deny for one instant the very great importance of this matter

341
which the noble Earl has brought forward—the great importance of maintaining and increasing and rendering more efficient the maternity and child welfare service of local authorities. As he very truly observed, there is no difference between us as to the object which we have in view. He went on to say that the Amendment he has put before your Lordships does not alter the Bill fundamentally. It does alter the Bill fundamentally. It cuts right at the root of the financial system of the Bill, a system of block grants which is the basis of the more important financial clauses of the Bill. I do not want to insist upon the purely financial aspect of this case too much, but I would like also to say that his proposal cuts again at the root of the Bill. It cuts at the principle which we seek to bring forward and which we believe is a better principle for maintaining the object we all have in view than the principle of the percentage grants.
Let me explain what I mean by that. The noble Lord said that a percentage grant is a great stimulus to activity in this or other directions. I do not deny for an instant that a percentage grant may be so; but it is a stimulus in the richer areas. A richer area is more stimulated to spend and to obtain money by means of a percentage grant. Obviously, if you have not a large number of pounds your rates will not bear a very heavy charge and you have not got a large number of sovereigns to put up to earn a percentage grant. That must happen, of course, in the poorer areas, in those areas where maternity and child welfare services are most important and most necessary. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, very truly and very rightly laid emphasis on the necessity for the diminution of maternity mortality in this country. Where does maternity mortality take place? Where is the greatest incidence of that calamity? It is not in the large populous residential areas which have a high rateable value and are able to spend large sums of money on their services and to earn a high percentage grant. The mortality is in the poorer districts and in the less well-off areas which cannot afford to raise the initial sovereigns to earn this pound for pound grant from the Government. That is the actual principle of this Bill. It is to enable those poorer
342
areas to get the necessary money for their services that we have brought forward this principle of the block grant; and while we do not differ in our anxiety to effect these services well, we do differ, because it cuts at the root of the Bill, regarding the proposal of the noble Earl in the light of that which is in the Bill.
It has been said, I think by the right rev. Prelate as well as by other noble Lords, that this block grant of £5,000,000 over and above the compensation for the loss of rates and grants will be used largely to relieve the rates. I do not think it was said by the right rev. Prelate but by the noble Earl that this is a Bill to relieve the rates and, therefore, the first result would be that the block grant, the additional £5,000,000, would be used to reduce the poundage of the rates throughout the country or, at at any rate, in those areas where the pressure of the rates is greatest. That is not the idea of the Bill, and I think it is the first time it has been suggested. The idea of the relief of the rates in the Bill is a rating reform whereby inequitable rates shall be taken off the shoulders of those who ought not to bear them, such as agriculture and industry, and not to give block grants in relief of rates which are admittedly equitable and which are left in statu quo. I do not think the Bill can possibly have that result. I do not suppose that local authorities will say: "Now that we have a block grant, we may cease from our services and use the money to reduce our rates." That, I think, would be a very retrograde interpretation of their duties.
Suppose that were the case. Suppose another difficulty adumbrated by the noble Earl arose: Suppose, in the first instance, that local authorities used the£5,000,000 to reduce their existing rates, or that they said: "We are not going to spend this money on maternity and child welfare; we are going to spend it on our roads which we think are far more important, and as the Government have ceased the percentage grant" (or whatever reason they may give)"we are not going to spend the money on maternity and child welfare," what would happen? The noble Earl said that the power of the Minister to reduce the grant is a very peculiar method of forcing them to spend money in the proper direction. Let us examine how the power of the Minister to reduce the grant will operate. The block grant

343
goes to a district, and the apportionment goes to a county, we will say. That local authority spends its money in its own way and allocates so much for this, so much for that and so much for the other service. The Minister's duty is to inform himself as to the budget of the local authority, and he may say, and no doubt will say because it is the duty of the Ministry of Health to see that this service is properly and effectually carried out: "You are not spending the £10,000, or £20,000 of your grant upon maternity and child welfare as you ought to do." The local authority will no doubt give reasons which it regards as adequate for not doing so. That will not satisfy the Minister, and what will be the result? He will say: "If you propose to spend £20,000 on the roads and not on maternity and child welfare services as you ought to do, you shall not have the money. If you do not spend it in the proper way you shall not have it and you shall not be able to bring it to the relief of roads or any other service."
That power which he will have is a power greater than ever was given to any Minister before. I do not suppose for an instant that it is likely to come into operation so far as actually to reduce the grant, but what will happen is that the local authority will be told that they will not get their money unless they spend it properly. In the event, no doubt, a proper arrangement will be arrived at and the welfare service will be maintained. I want to insist very strongly on the advantages of a block grant as against a percentage grant. It is to the poorer areas that we want to direct the flow of this money. By the percentage grant it is to the richer areas that the money tends to flow and not to the poorer ones.
Take certain figures I will give to your Lordships. Grants per child above five years of age for this service in the year 1926–27 were:—Gateshead. 27 d.; Dudley, 21 d.; South Shields, 29 d.; Tynemouth, 36 d.; Merthyr Tydvil, 43 d.—all poor districts, and largely working-class districts where I have no doubt the calamity mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, is very likely more to be felt than in those districts I will now mention to your Lordships. In the same year the grant for this service to Manchester was 128 d.; to
344
Liverpool, 107 d.; to Leeds, 140 d.; and, highest of all, to Eastbourne, 200 d.—200 d. to Eastbourne and 27 d. to Gateshead! Under the formula the flow of money goes to the area which needs it most—the poorer area—and, therefore, the greater portion of the block grant will go to those areas which most need it, and they will be able to utilise it for that service. That is a fundamental point of this Bill and I insist upon it rather than upon the financial point. I want to impress upon noble Lords that the Government stick to this clause on its merits. We think it is a right and proper way of getting the money applied to this service in those districts which most require it, and which cannot get it under the present percentage system.
LORD OLIVIER: I have an Amendment later on the Paper which proposes to extend the exemption from this clause to certain other sanitary grants, but if this Amendment is defeated my Amendment can hardly have a chance of succeeding. I was glad to hear the noble Earl proclaim that local authorities and richer constituencies are not to imagine for a moment that this Bill is to be a Bill in reduction of rates, and that the new money is not to be applied in that manner. That is a wholesome admission to get on the authority of the noble Earl. I am also glad to hear him say—I hope it is the case universally—that all local authorities and communities now recognise the immense importance and value of these maternity grants and these child welfare grants. The latest London return shows the lowest infant death rate on record. That does not quite satisfy some of my noble friends who also think that we should have the lowest birth rate, and that local authorities should take steps towards that end. However that is a matter we need not go into here.
I want strongly to support the arguments in defence of the percentage grant that have been urged from this side of the House. The noble Earl opposite has given us some reasons for supposing that the poorer districts do not get so much out of it as the richer districts. I was very much interested to hear in the debate on the Second Reading one or two very good arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth. I do not think he is in the House at the present moment. As

345
a supporter of this Bill he gave, What appeared to me to be very good arguments against it, and one of those I am going to quote to your Lordships. He said:—
"Again and again the expenditure, sometimes running into thousands of pounds, has been on the point of being turned down because either it was unnecessary or not so necessary as some other reform. There may be some still small voice, perhaps an official, more often a councillor, who said: 'You know, if you turn that down, you lose £2,000 of public money,' and nearly always that, to my mind false, argument has won the day and the expenditure has been carried through."
The experience of those familiar with local government in regard to this percentage grant tells them that again and again it has encouraged the local authorities to incur expenditure which they would not otherwise have expended, and again and again I am quite sure it has had eminently that effect in regard to those necessary social services which have been grafted on to the old administrative services of the councils. I think the pound for pound grant is unquestionably a very great incentive towards the increase of these necessary social services, and it is an incentive which it is very undesirable indeed to sacrifice.
The noble Earl argued that if the local authorities neglected the development of their social services then pressure could be put upon them by cutting down the block grant. On this clause we are brought into the whole question of the formula and the block grant itself. I have very great sympathy with the noble Earl and with the Government in having had to devise some kind of formula, or some kind of financial expedient, that could be applied to an alteration of our local financial system of such a character as this. I know very well what is the great difficulty when you are changing the incidence of taxation in getting any kind of reform that will act fairly. It is almost impossible to do it.
I must say the block grant system seems to me one of most monstrous and mistaken creations that could have been devised for that purpose. The block grants proceed on the same principle as certain advertisements of clothing which we see. It used to be called "Reach-me-down" clothing and now it is called "Ready-made tailor-
346
ing". You see a diagram put up with certain measurements, and you are told if you make out these measurements and they are operated upon by a formula of reducing the cubic dimensions then the establishment will send you a perfectly fitting suit of clothes. The boy is unfortunate for whom his economical mother orders a suit of clothes made according to this formula. In order that there shall be no mistake she insists that her boy should be given a little room all round. It is thus provided his suit may be a little too big for him all round. Then when the suit arrives his mother says: "I do not think this quite fits you, my boy; your figure is defective in some parts, you do not fill out the suit in some places where you should do so. I am afraid that on the next occasion, if your figure does not fill out in the meantime so as to fit this beautiful Reach-me-down suit of clothes made according to the formula, I shall have to cut down your suit all round—take an inch or so off the width of the trousers and a couple of inches off the bottom, and then the suit will fit you." That is the sort of mechanical process by which we propose to deal with these deficiencies.
The noble Lord says to the local Authorities: "If you do not increase your expenditure on these maternity and other services I shall take off the money I was going to give you for them." That might be a real hardship upon the local community, because on the face of it they may have had to spend money upon other services, and to cut down their block grant may mean that they will have to cease spending money which they otherwise would spend on services that are legitimately and properly required. In any case the incentive to them to increase their maternity and their sanitary expenditure will not be so great as it would have been if they were going to get pound for pound. They will say, and quite truly: "If you were going to give us pound for pound we should certainly put up our rate and undertake additional expenditure, but so long as you do not give us pound for pound for this particular expenditure there are other parts of our expenditure which we think are legitimate that we shall have to sacrifice, and it is a great hardship upon us that you should cut down the whole of our financial budget

347
because certain parts of it have precedence, though in our judgment the distribution is reasonable. If you would give us a pound for pound grant we would do it, but as you will not give it the fair balance of our financial arrangements will be disturbed if we should make this increase."
I am not in the slightest degree convinced by the noble Earl's argument that the block grant is a better system than the percentage grant. It is perfectly true that the deleterious operation is delayed for a certain time and that the hardships of it have been mitigated by an elaborate system of stages by which you are going to apply it, and therefore it is difficult to argue that immediately it will have a deleterious effect, but it is establishing a perfectly mistaken, and, in my opinion, a perfectly indefensible principle of applying the relief which is to be given in aid of the operations of this Bill, in order to evade the much greater task of putting our rating system upon a sound and proper basis. I share the opinion of the noble Earl that encouragement should be given to these activities, and that that will not be done by the substitution of the block grant system.
LORD ARNOLD: Before my noble friend speaks again, as he probably will, I should like to say a few words and to endeavour to reduce the matter to a concrete instance. The noble Earl gave as a reason for changing to the block grant system that the percentage system was unfair to poorer areas, and he gave reasons for that view. The noble Earl knows as well as I do that there is a good deal more behind it. The Treasury for years have wanted this block grant system. I should like to know, if all that the noble Earl said about the block grant system is true, how comes it that, although the Meston Committee did not report, the bulk of its members after prolonged inquiry were in favour of the percentage system?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I know nothing about that.
LORD ARNOLD: The noble Earl said that under this system a poor area could not get as much as a rich area, and the implication was that by this Bill that would be made right. Nothing of the sort will happen, because there is not enough money to do it. If the noble
348
Earl had given your Lordships figures, your Lordships would have seen that these services are going to be shockingly starved under the Bill. If you had enough money to do it there would be more to be said for the view of the noble Earl, but it is not going to be put right. We do not say that the percentage grant system is ideal. In fact, as happens with the education grant, the percentage system may be supplemented, and probably it is on some such lines as that that you will get the ideal. As it is, a great starving of these services will take place under this Bill.
I will give your Lordships an instance. This is the concrete instance I mentioned at the opening of my remarks. Suppose you have now an expenditure on a certain service of £10,000. At present £5,000 is found out of the rates and £5,000 comes from the Exchequer. Suppose you increase that £10,000 to £30,000. What is the result? The whole of the £25,000 will have to be found out of the rates if that is done after the quinquennium. That is five times as much, and not only so, but owing to the derating proposals you will have lessened the rateable value of the area so that, instead of five times as much, the cost will probably be seven times as much to the ratepayers. Is it reasonable in these circumstances to expect the local authority to develop a system on the same lines as it would have done before? It would be a great discouragement to them. It is no reply to say that when the next quinquennium comes it will be all right. There is no certainty of that whatever. There is nothing in the Bill to say that this particular health service will receive an additional penny. It might and it might not. I say you are putting a very great discouragement in the way of local authorities developing these services.
The only other point I would refer to is that the Lord Chancellor in the Second Reading debate gave as one of his very strong reasons for the change that the Minister would now have power to withhold these grants. He can do that now. The percentage grant is only given on approved expenditure. Surely the Lord Chancellor was on a false point there. The whole matter is in the discretion of Whitehall now and it does really seem, if I may say so, to be misleading to give your Lordships to understand that he will

349
be able to do in future what he is not able to do now. As a matter of fact I thought the noble Earl's instance singularly infelicitous because he said that if under the block grant system a council would not spend certain money in the end the grant would be withheld.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I did not say that. I said that if a grant was used for wrong purposes, if, for instance, money was spent on roads which ought to have been spent on maternity and child welfare work, the Minister would say: "You ought to have spent this on maternity and child welfare; you shall not use it for other purposes."
LORD ARNOLD: I do not think the position outlined by the noble Earl is very encouraging for the future of these services, and I have ventured to give a specific illustration. The figures I have given are unshakeable and they show how the additional burden will work out. If they are wrong I ask the noble Earl to say where they are wrong.
EARL BUXTON: I will not detain your Lordships more than a couple of minutes. I do not propose to answer my noble friend because I am anxious to get on, but there is one question I want to ask. If an authority ought to entend its maternity and child welfare homes, is that authority more likely to extend these homes if the whole of the money is to come out of the block grant, or if it gets a grant of pound for pound of the money expended?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The answer is that the block grant will cover the expenditure. They will take the money out of the block grant. They will have a larger amount.
EARL BUXTON: I was speaking of the future if they are going to extend. The block grant is fixed on the expenditure last year.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, much larger in the poorer areas.
EARL BUXTON: In the future they will have to take it out of the block grant instead of getting pound for pound.
ON Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clause 79:
Payment and apportionment of General Exchequer Contributions.
(3) The amount of the General Exchequer Contribution shall be the sum of the following amounts, that is to say:—
(a) an amount equal to the total losses on account of rates of all counties and county boroughs.
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved, in subsection (3) (a), to leave out "total losses on account of rates," and to insert "average annual losses on account of rates during the preceding fixed grant period." The noble Lord said: The two Amendments standing in my name hang together. The first aims at making the general Exchequer contribution more elastic, and the second at making the apportionment to the counties and county boroughs more exactly fit the reasonable needs of local expenditure after the first years of the operation of the Bill. The first Amendment deals with the method of arriving at the general Exchequer contribution by which all the money for the scheme is provided. Let me draw your Lordships' attention to the method by which this is done in the Bill. The general Exchequer contribution is based upon three items: (1), the total losses on account of rates; (2), the total losses on account of grants; and (3), an additional figure which is estimated at £5,000,000 to start with. In paragraph (c) of subsection (3) an explanation is given of how any expansion of this amount can take place. The first two items are fixed for all time, but the third can be varied. Paragraph (c) provides that the ratio that the total amount of the general Exchequer contribution bears to the total grant and rate-borne expenditure at present shall never be reduced, and on page 43 of the White Paper (Cd. 3273) an example is given of how this would work out in practice.
I believe these figures are based upon actual estimates, and the result of the calculation, with which I will not trouble your Lordships, is that, when a rise in rate-borne expenditure takes place in the future, an increase of only one-quarter of that rise will be covered by the increase in the total of the general Exchequer contribution. What I want to point out is that I believe this to be too small an amount. What we want for these increasing activities of local bodies,

351
like the maternity, child welfare and health services in general, is that they should have more money than they are getting at present and, in the future, a great deal more. I think that we on this side of the House agree that more of the expenditure on such services should be gradually transferred to the national Exchequer from the rates, and my first Amendment, which deals with the total amount of the general Exchequer grant, proposes that the total loss due to rates should be re-estimated at intervals so that the general Exchequer contribution may be more closely related to the increase of burdens that fall upon the ratepayers all over England after the first periods of the scheme have been passed.
My second Amendment aims at returning to each county and county borough the whole of its loss on account of rates instead of only a diminishing percentage, as is provided in the Bill. I am aware that additional grants are provided which are supposed to make good any losses suffered in the various localities, and I believe that this may be a satisfactory method of dealing with the problem at first. The various White Papers that have been published tend to show that this will be the case, at any rate in the initial stages of the scheme. But when you reach the end of the first seventeen years, the apportionment will be made entirely by means of the formula, and I cannot help feeling that the result of this will be more or less a matter of chance. There must be some element of chance in it, or I presume that the formula would have been adopted directly the Bill was passed. Where rapid increases of population and industry have taken place—and we all hope that there may be a rapid increase of prosperity all over the country—and especially where there are shifts of industry from one part of the country to another, the increased rate-borne expenditure which will have to be incurred will be less and less adequately met by the provisions of the Bill. A very heavy burden will tend to fall on the general body of ratepayers, as was pointed out in the debate on the Amendment to Clause 78, and local authorities will be discouraged from undertaking important activities such as health work. It is because I believe that the future is inadequately provided for that I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 4, leave out from ("the") to the second ("of") in line 5 and insert ("average annual losses on account of rates during the preceding fixed grant period").—(Lord Henley.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not think that I need trouble your Lordships with any lengthy discussion of this Amendment. The noble Lord and your Lordships must be well aware that this proposal cuts right at the root of the finance of the whole Bill. Your Lordships are familiar with the scheme of the Government, which was laid before you on the Second Reading in the very able and eloquent speech of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It is unnecessary for me to repeat what he said. If your Lordships were to accept this Amendment you would be cutting at the root of the finance of the scheme. The Government claim that in this Bill they have met the justifiable claims of every local authority and that their scheme is an equitable and just scheme of rating reform. They are unable to accept this Amendment, and must stand or fall by their scheme.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD ARNOLD: I wish to say a few words before we pass from this clause, because there are certain very intricate matters which arise in connection with it which are not easy to put into an Amendment. The points which I wish to raise relate more particularly to the working of the quinquennial system. I think myself that the whole basis of this fixing of the block grant for the next five years according to the penultimate year is most unscientific, and is bound to lead to bad results. The noble Earl somewhat surprised me in his concluding argument by saying that they had satisfied every local authority in the country. That is not my information at all, and I very strongly beg to dissent from that statement, because a great many local authorities are very far from being satisfied. I do not think the noble Earl could have meant that statement, because he must know that very strong representations to the contrary have been made.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I wonder whether I might make an appeal to the noble Lord? I hope he will forgive me for interrupting. I quite understand his wish to address your Lordships

353
upon this clause, but I do not gather that he desires to strike this clause out from the Bill. Therefore his observations, although no doubt very much in point, will not really have any effect upon the actual passage of the Bill. What I would venture to say then is that we have had the Bill under discussion for a very long time and I would suggest that in the circumstances we might confine our debates as far as possible to the material matters which noble Lords wish to have altered in the Bill, and which are most appropriate for discussion. I make this appeal to the noble Lord not to detain your Lordships on this clause longer than he can help.
LORD ARNOLD: I am in great difficulty. I am somewhat meticulous about points of order, and therefore I consulted high authority about the points which I wish to make, and I was informed that I could raise them now. I could perhaps have made observations upon the Amendment which was moved by the noble Lord—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord is absolutely in order. There is no question about that.
LORD ARNOLD: I think if I had made my observations upon the last Amendment someone who was super-meticulous would have found reason to take exception—
LORD BUCKMASTER: The noble Marquess has fully explained that there is no question of order involved, but the point is that this debate is futile because there is no question of altering the clause before the House.
LORD ARNOLD: I think that that observation would rule out all discussion upon the question that a clause stand part of the Bill. However, in the circumstances I am not going to detain your Lordships, because it does not seem to be of much use doing so, for even if points are put on these intricate financial matters they are not replied to. Therefore I will leave the matter where it stands.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 79 agreed to
Clause 80:
Payments out of Road Fund towards General Exchequer Contribution.
80.—(1) Towards the General Exchequer Contribution there shall at such times and in such manner as the Treasury may direct be paid out of the Road Fund in respect of the year beginning on the appointed day, and each subsequent year an annual contribution amounting to the sum of the following amounts, that is to say—
(b) in respect of each year in the first fixed grant period, eighty ninety-first parts of the sum of three million pounds, and in respect of each year of each following fixed grant period, such sum as Parliament may hereafter determine with respect to the fixed grant period;
and any sum so payable out of the Road Fund shall, in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury, be applied as an appropriation in aid of the moneys to be provided by Parliament for the purposes of the General Exchequer Contribution.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE VISCOUNT ALLENDALE moved to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Earl Beauchamp. It is intended to oppose any further sums being taken from the Road Fund. It is considered that too much has been taken already, and although I am afraid it is too much to hope that the Government will consider this Amendment, yet it seems that in the present state of our roads every penny in the Fund is needed for their improvement.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 28, leave out paragraph (b). (Viscount Allendale.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I would like in the first place to congratulate my noble friend on what I think is the first time that he has addressed your Lordships, and I wish I had been able to give him a more cordial reception. I am sure your Lordships will join me in that wish. I regret that I am unable to accept the Amendment. The figure has to be considered in relation to the estimated net increase of about £7,000,000 in the total grants to local authorities, and the total net additional cost of the English scheme to the Exchequer of 31⅓ millions sterling. I think I dealt with this point on the Second Reading. It was stated then that the £3,000,000 from the Road Fund was not new money, and I ventured to say then that this Road Fund is increasing and is certain to go on increasing,

355
and that this money coming from the Road Fund is regarded, and should be regarded, as new money, and therefore devoted to proper purposes. This £3,000,000 will not in any way affect the activity of the Road Fund.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clauses 81 to 84 agreed to.
Clause 85 [Schemes as to maternity and child welfare]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 4, leave out from ("shall") to ("a") in line 7, and insert ("before the beginning of each fixed grant period, after consultation with the councils of the county and of the district, make").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 85, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 86 and 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Additional Exchequer grants to county boroughs]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This also is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 24, leave out ("this section") and insert ("section eighty-eight of this Act.")—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 88, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 89 [Payment of supplementary Exchequer grants to county boroughs]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Amendment I move here is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 10, leave out from ("years") to the end of line 13, and insert ("such sum as, together with the amount of the Additional Exchequer Grant (if any), is equal to one-half of the said aggregate amount of such losses;")—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 89, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 90 to 92 agreed to.
Clause 93:
Contributions by councils to voluntary associations in respect of maternity and child welfare.
(2) The scheme shall provide—

(a) for the payment to any such association whose services were immedi-
356
ately before the appointed day approved by the Minister, of such annual contribution in respect of those services (not being less than a sum to be determined by the Minister) as may be specified in the scheme; and

(b) for the payment to any such association in respect of any services not so approved, which are utilised by the council, of such annual contribution as may be specified in the scheme.

LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to add to subsection (2):—
"Provided that the said annual contributions shall be limited to such amounts as represent the cost of the services rendered or to be rendered, during the year to which such contributions relate, by any such association to and at the request of the council, and any dispute between the council and the association either as to the cost of such services or as to the reasonableness of any refusal by a council to request such services to be rendered shall be determined by the Minister."
The noble Lord said: This seems a very strong obligation to put upon county councils because the clause, as it now stands, is rather complicated. The effect would be that the Minister will be able to impose upon county councils—in fact, the clause says:
"It shall be the duty of the council of every county (other than the county of London) and of every county borough six months at least before the beginning of each fixed grant period to prepare and submit to the Minister for his approval, a scheme for securing the payment by the council of annual contributions towards the expenses of voluntary associations … "
—quite irrespective of any benefit that they may receive from these voluntary associations. They may be very valuable or they may not, and there should be some means by which the county council should be protected. That is the object of my Amendment.
I would also draw attention to subsection (5), for it appears to me that voluntary associations may be able to go out and tout for subscriptions saying that for every pound received in subscriptions the county council would have to contribute another pound. If that is the right reading there should be some protection afforded, but the clause is very complicated, and my object in moving is to get a fuller explanation of the position of the county councils. In

357
my Amendment I also arrange that there shall be an appeal to the Minister in case of dispute. The County Councils Association do not like this compulsion. The Government are too much inclined to put compulsion upon the county councils without any appeal to the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 13, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I hope that my noble friend will not insist upon this Amendment. The objections to the limitation which it is proposed to put in are that it would be opposed to the principle on which the clause is based, and it would be inequitable because the whole of the grant paid hitherto by the Ministry to the voluntary associations would be included in the grants to be paid under the Bill to the local authorities, therefore it would pass through the local authority. Secondly, some of the institutions provided by the voluntary associations serve the areas of several councils. It would be necessary in these cases for each to pay a contribution, although a sum equal at least to the whole of the grant hitherto paid by the Ministry would be credited to the council of the area in which the institution is situated. The third objection is that the Amendment would be disastrous to the funds of some of the associations, especially associations like those which run homes for unmarried mothers, because it might be difficult to say that these associations render services to the councils in the area in which the home is situated. I am afraid that the proposal of my noble friend for an appeal to the Minister would not be of assistance in such cases.
LORD STRACHIE: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 93 agreed to.
Clauses 94 and 95 agreed to.
Clause 96:
Power to reduce grants.
96. The Minister may reduce the grant payable in respect of any year under this Part of this Act to any council by such amount as he thinks just, if,—

(a) he is satisfied, either upon representations made to him by any association or other body of persons experienced or interested in matter relating to public health or without any such representa-
358
tions that the council have failed to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of efficiency and progress in the discharge of their functions relating to public health services (including services relating to maternity and child welfare, lunacy and mental deficiency and the welfare of the blind), regard being had to the standards maintained in other areas whose financial resources and other relevant circumstances are substantially similar, and that the health or welfare of the inhabitants of the area of the council or some of them has been or is likely to be thereby endangered; or

(b) he is satisfied that the expenditure of the council has been excessive and unreasonable, regard being had to the financial resources and other relevant circumstances of the area; or

(c) the Minister of Transport certifies that he is satisfied that the council have failed to maintain their roads or any part thereof in a satisfactory condition:

Provided that whenever the Minister makes such a reduction, he shall make and cause to be laid before Parliament a report stating the amount of the reduction and the reasons therefor.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER, on behalf of Earl Buxton, moved, in the proviso, to leave out "whenever the Minister makes such a reduction he shall make and cause to be laid before Parliament a report stating the amount of the," and to insert "the Minister shall not make such a reduction until he has made and caused to be laid before Parliament a report stating the amount of the proposed." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment has the merit of simplicity. As the clause stands, there is power to make a reduction in grants, subject only to this, that whenever the Minister makes a reduction he shall cause a report to be laid before Parliament stating the amount of the reduction. I cannot help thinking that it is an oversight in the Bill that it is not already provided that before he makes the reduction he shall make the report to Parliament. It really does seem quite useless to make the report to Parliament after the reduction has been made—unless, indeed, it is suggested that Parliament should not have any opportunity of criticising it. All that this Amendment proposes is that you should have the report before reduction, instead of after reduction. I hope that will be considered reasonable.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 7, leave out from ("that") to ("reduction") in line 9, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not think there is any very great objection to this Amendment, but I should like to point out certain considerations to the noble and learned Lord. The object of the clause is to equip the Minister with a power of reduction of grant in order to enable him effectively to discharge his responsibility of seeing that the health services are properly carried on and that the expenditure is not unreasonable. It is right and proper that this power of the Ministry should come under the survey of Parliament, and that is done. But it is suggested that it is not desirable that the power should be held in suspense, and further, that the Legislature should be introduced into an administrative process, and that this process therefore should be held up. As a matter of fact, I think the whole criticism which has been directed against this clause hitherto is that the powers of the Minister are not strong enough, and I think the tendency of the Amendment would be, not to strengthen the powers of the Minister, but to weaken them. We are of opinion that the powers of the Minister should be maintained at the level at which they are in the clause, and therefore we think it would be desirable to maintain the clause as it is.
LORD BUCKMASTER: If Parliamentary criticism is to be brought to bear at all it is nothing but fractious to criticise the thing after it is done. If it is to be of any value it must be before the thing is done, and what I suggest is that the noble Earl should consider between now and the Third Reading whether this Amendment is not really, not only a rational Amendment, but one that brings the administration of this measure more into accordance with our Parliamentary practice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I certainly will undertake that the Amendment will be reconsidered. I cannot promise that it will be accepted. There is a point that I am sure will be present to the noble and learned Lord's mind. Parliament might not be sitting, and it might be undesirable if, for instance, during a vacation of five or six months, the Minister could do nothing except say: "When Parliament next meets I am going to make a report against you." I certainly will mention again to my right hon.
360
friend the Minister of Health what has been said, and ask him to give the Amendment his consideration.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am much obliged. The noble and learned Lord will no doubt at the same time point out that the vacations of Parliament are becoming fewer and briefer.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had an Amendment on the Paper to add to the clause:
"Provided also that the amount of the reduction imposed upon a council in any year shall not exceed the sum which should, in the opinion of the Minister, have been expended by the council in that year upon the service or road in respect of which the reduction is made.
(2) Nothing in this section shall affect any classified road situate in an administrative county area or entitle the Minister, in the event of failure on the part of the council responsible for the maintenance of any such road to maintain it in a satisfactory condition, to reduce either the grant payable to the council under this Part of this Act or the grant payable out of the Road Fund in respect of such road."
The noble Lord said: After what has been said on the previous Amendment all I will ask my noble friend is that he will also consider my Amendment. I do not move it; I only make an appeal to him.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will not go further than to say we will consider it before Report.
Clause 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 to 105 agreed to.
Clause 106:
Mitigation of liability of councils for temporary loans raised under 11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 67.
106.—(1) For the purpose of affording relief to the councils of counties and county boroughs to whom liabilities in respect of loans (including overdrafts) raised by poor law authorities under section three of the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act, 1921 (as amended by any subsequent enactment) are transferred under this Act, the following provisions shall have effect with respect to such loans—
(b) where any such loan is a loan made by the Minister, the sum so certified with respect to the loan shall be repaid without interest to the Minister by the council liable therefore by means of an annuity

361
equal to one-fifteenth part of the certified sum, the first instalment being payable on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD had given Notice to move, in subsection 1 (b), after the second "sum," to insert "or on such other terms as may be arranged between the Minister and the council." The noble Lord said: In the Bill as it stands provision is made for the mitigation of the liability of county councils for loans to be transferred from guardians on April 1, 1930, and the Bill provides that loans made by the Minister should be repaid without interest by fifteen equal instalments. It might well happen, however, that some council would find itself in a position to repay these loans at a somewhat quicker rate than that, and I think that any endeavour in that direction ought to be encouraged by the Ministry of Health.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Would it be acceptable if the Amendment were moved in this form: Page 87, line 28, after "therefor" insert "within fifteen years from the appointed day either," and line 32, at the end of the paragraph, insert "or by such other means as may be agreed between the Minister and the council."
LORD ARNOLD: I am much obliged. As far as I can follow, that will entirely meet the case. There is one point I would raise. I do not think there is any difficulty but, perhaps, between now and the Report stage the noble Earl would be kind enough to look at paragraph (d) and see whether any change at all is required in it in view of this. Perhaps there is not any change necessary.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will certainly look into it and see whether there is anything consequential upon these Amendments.
LORD ARNOLD: I am much obliged to the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Then I will move those Amendments in the form I have mentioned.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 28, after ("therefor") insert ("within fifteen years from the appointed day either").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 32, at end insert ("or by such other means as may be agreed between the Minister and the Council").—The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 106, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 107 and 108 agreed to.
Clause 109:
Transfer of road property and liabilities.
109.—(1) Subject to the provisions of the next following section, the following property and liabilities of every district council, in so far as they relate to any roads which immediately before the appointed day were, or as from that day become, vested in the county council, shall, as from that day, by virtue of this section be transferred to and vest in the county council, that is to say:—

(a) any land (other than land acquired for the improvement or development of frontages or of lands abutting on or adjacent to any road) which, before the appointed day, has been acquired by the district council for the purpose of improving any such road, but which does not on that day form part of the road;

(b) the unexpended balances of any loans raised by the district council for the purposes of any such roads or for the purposes of any land transferred to the county council under the last foregoing paragraph of this section, and any sinking funds established by the district council in connection with any such loans;

(c) the unexpended balances of any grants paid by the Minister of Transport to the district council for the purposes of any such roads;

(d) all liabilities (including loans and loan charges) incurred for the purposes of any such roads or the improvement thereof which would become due for payment by the district council on or after the appointed day:

Provided that in the case of any loan the county council and the district council may agree that, in lieu of the transfer to the county council of the loan under this subsection, the county council shall from time to time repay to the district council all sums required to meet the loan charges; and in the event of any such agreement being made, the loan and any sinking fund established in connection therewith shall remain vested in the district council.
Where the loan has been raised partly for purposes relating to such roads as aforesaid and partly for other purposes, the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall apply as if the part of the loan contracted for purposes relating to such roads were a separate loan.
LORD FORESTER LORD FORESTER moved, in subsection (1), after the proviso, to insert:—
"Provided also that nothing in this section shall impose or be deemed to impose upon the county council any obligation to accept the transfer of—

(a) any loan raised by the district council either for the purchase of land or for such improvements to any classified road as have been undertaken by the district council to provide work for unemployed persons:

(b) any loan raised after the commencement of this Act by a district council without the consent of the county council;

and in the event of the county council refusing to accept the transfer of any such loan then the loan shall remain a liability of the district council concerned."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Cottesloe, who, I regret to say, is not here owing to illness, and for the County Councils Association, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the names of Lord Strachie and Lord Cottesloe. The proposed transfer of district roads to the county councils is necessarily accompanied, under this clause, by a similar transfer of the loan liabilities incurred in respect of such roads. There are, however, three kinds of loan which should, in the opinion of the County Councils Association, only be transferred to the councils with their consent—namely, those relating to the purchase of land, those raised for unemployment schemes, and those recently raised for highway improvements generally which the county council consider to be necessary. As to the first, it is thought that land may frequently have been purchased more with a view to town improvement than for the purpose of providing better facilities for through traffic, and it would be inequitable that the relative loans should be transferred compulsorily to the county councils, thus spreading the cost of a local improvement over the whole county.
As to the second, the association are informed that there are cases in which road works have been undertaken by way of providing unemployment relief, against the advice of the Ministry of Transport and the county councils, but that loans were nevertheless forthcoming from the Unemployment Grants Committee. It is appreciated that these relief schemes have been very necessary throughout the country, but this constitutes no reason
364
why the county councils should be compelled to accept liability for work of a type approved neither by themselves nor by the Ministry. There is the further point that most unemployment relief schemes have naturally been of greater benefit to the town than to the country, and this is an additional factor in support of the view that loans made therefor should not be spread over the whole county except with the consent of the county council.
As to the third type of loan referred to, it is understood that there are cases in which district councils are now proposing, with the aid of loans, to undertake highway improvements which the county council consider to be quite unnecessary. Should such proposals mature it is clear, as the Bill stands, that the county councils concerned would be compelled on the appointed day to take over loans raised for works of which they do not approve. This would be inequitable and by paragraph (b) of the Amendment it is intended to empower councils to decline liability in such cases where the loan has been raised after the commencement of the Act. That Amendment is to insert the proviso upon the paper in subsection (1). I would like to ask the Lord Chairman whether I should move also the Amendment after subsection (1).
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord had better take one at a time.
LORD FORESTER: Then I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 20, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Lord Forester.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I hope that the noble Lord will not insist upon this Amendment for reasons which I will give him. I will deal with the paragraphs separately. In the first place, with regard to paragraph (a) every loan for roadworks carried out for the relief of unemployment has been sanctioned by the Minister of Health after the works have been approved by the Ministry of Transport. No unnecessary work, therefore, has been carried out. Normally, the expenditure has been incurred at an earlier date than it otherwise would have been in order to provide immediate employment. The county council obtains

365
the benefit of these works which would sooner or later have to be carried out and there is no reason why the outstanding loans should not be transferred to them. I think that is really an equitable arrangement.
Coming to paragraph (b) all loans raised for highway purposes require the sanction of the Minister of Health, who consults the Minister of Transport before giving it, as I explained just now. Both Ministers are fully aware of the provisions of the Bill relating to the transfer of loans, and loans for improvements would not be allowed if they were not satisfied as to their necessity. If this Amendment were accepted, district councils might be bound to carry loans raised for works which could not be delayed, unless the district council neglected its highway authority merely because the consent of the county council had been refused. In those circumstances, I hope your Lordships will agree to maintain the Bill as it stands.
LORD STRACHIE: I am afraid I cannot agree with the arguments used by the noble Lord. He seems to think that everything that has been done was done simply because it was required absolutely in the interests of the roads. That is certainly not the case. I have the misfortune to belong to a local authority by whom a large amount of money has been spent on improvements which were really not necessary improvements of the roads. The money has been spent, I will not say extravagantly, but unnecessarily. If we can get some assistance from the Ministry of Transport and some in other directions, by spending some money ourselves we shall eventually be able to deal with unemployment in the area. Although we shall put upon our rates heavy loan charges we shall not be increasing our poor rate because there will be less poor relief to pay to people who are unemployed. Very often (quite contrary to what the noble Earl has said that it was necessary to do it) the money has actually been expended simply to afford outdoor relief, and where it would not be sanctioned under all the conditions the expense is borne by the board of guardians and at the same time it has been a charge upon the district council. That, of course, has been admitted.
366
I cannot agree with what the noble Earl says about the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Health. A work may undoubtedly be advantageous in the view of an unemployment committee—a body quite independent of the Government—but the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Health may not approve of it. So it would happen that some grants and loans which the county councils would have to take over were not actually approved by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Health. The noble Earl seems to imply that they have been approved. It is very hard that county councils should have to take over these debts which, in some urban cases, are incurred for improvements of roads to make certain parts of the district more accessible for shopping. It is very important that these district councils should not have a direct invitation to spend money. An urban council is very likely to do it in order that they may have the benefit of it. I hope my noble friend will press the Amendment because it is unfair to the county councils and I know that the County Councils Association feel very strongly in the matter.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Lord has stated that these works have been carried out without the sanction of the Minister of Health and the Minister of Transport. Certainly that is news to me. I thought it was necessary that these works should be carried out with the sanction of the Minister of Health after they had been approved by the Minister of Transport. The noble Lord says, on the contrary, that the Minister of Health did not approve and that the Minister of Transport did not approve either. I accept what he says, of course, but I can only say it is news to me. I admit that these works are undertaken primarily with a view to providing employment, but they are necessary works which would have to be done; they are merely advanced.
LORD STRACHIE: No, not in all cases.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Well, the noble Lord again gives me news that I had not heard of. My information is that they are approved by the Ministry of Health, who consults the Ministry of Transport, who says that they are necessary works. They may not be imme-

367
diately necessary, but eventually they will have to be done. Therefore the benefit of them will inure to the county council and it is not unfair that the payment of the loan should be transferred to them. That is why I venture to think the Amendment should not be accepted.
LORD FORESTER: On behalf of the County Councils Association I shall have to press the Amendment. If the county councils considered they were necessary works done for the sake of unemployment
Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD FORESTER LORD FORESTER moved, after subsection (1), to insert as a new subsection:—
"(2) Where a loan raised before the appointed day by an urban district council has been transferred to the county council by virtue of the provisions of this section, and the functions of maintenance and repair of the road to which the loan relates are subsequently claimed by the district council in accordance with the provisions of section 31 of this Act, then all liability for and in connection with the said loan shall, as from the first day of April next following the calender year in which the claim is made, be resumed by the district council."
The noble Lord said: It is provided by the Bill that councils of urban districts with a population of 20,000 persons can claim the maintenance and repair of county roads in their area, and the County Councils Association think it equitable, in the event of such a claim being made, that the urban district council should thereupon resume liability for loans raised in respect of such roads before the appointed day. I think that
I am sure the county councils would consent and be only too glad to do so. Their grievance is that you are putting this work on the county councils and they think that they ought to be allowed to consent to it, I am certain, if it was for the sake of unemployment and was necessary, they would at once do.
On Question, Whether the words proposed shall be there inserted:
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 8; Not-Contents, 32.

CONTENTS.

Buxton, E.

Aberconway, L.

Forester, L. [Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

Stanley of Alderley, (L. Sheffield.)

Allendale, V.

Deramore, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Plymouth, E.

Desborough, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stanhope, E.

Dynevor, L.

Ernle, L.

Wellington, D.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage) [Teller.]

Elibank, V.

Hastings, L.

Bath, M.

FitzAlan of Derment, V.

Hayter, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Hood, V.

Jessel, L.

Lawrence, L.

Airlie, E.

Askwith, L.

Leigh, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Avebury, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Midleton, E.

Templemore, L.

Onslow, E.

de Clifford, L.

is a very reasonable Amendment, and I hope that the Government will accept it. I do not think it can harm the Bill in any way. I beg to move.
Amendment moved——
Page 92, line 25, at end insert the said new subsection. (Lord Forester.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. The effect of it would be to impose upon urban authorities who claim their roads, and who have the right to claim their roads, a liability in respect of loans which would not attach to an urban district which did not claim. It seems to me very difficult to see any justification for penalising an urban authority which only exercises the right to claim under Clause 31. It would certainly be contrary to the principles of Part III of the Bill. I am afraid I cannot accept it.
LORD FORESTER: I am afraid I cannot follow the argument of the noble Earl. I do not want to penalise an urban district. I only want to make it fair to the county council. If they take

369
the roads back they are responsible for the loans. However, after what the noble Earl has said I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to insert at the end of the clause:—
"(8) Where any person or authority, other than a rating authority, receives any income applicable to the repair or maintenance of roads in any parish or other area, that person or authority shall pay over the income so received (less the amount of any expenses properly incurred in connection therewith) to the rating authority for the county borough or district in which that parish or area is situate, to be credited to that parish or area."
The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to deal with the case of money bequeathed to trustees for the purpose of repairing roads in a particular parish. In the absence of a particular provision the rural district as the highways authority would be entitled to claim. It would be necessary for the county council to keep a special account, which is inconvenient, and it is thought that the better course would be that proposed in the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 7, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 110:
Transfer of quarries, plant, materials, and depôots.
110.—(1) The council of every county shall, on the appointed day, take over—

(a) if desired by the council of any urban district within the county (not being a council who have duly made or are deemed to have duly made a claim to exercise the functions of maintenance and repair of county roads within their district), any quarry belonging to the district council in their capacity as highway authority, together with any fixed plant therein; and

(b) if desired by the council of any rural district within the county, any quarry, plant or materials belonging to the district council in their capacity as highway authority, or any depots used by the district council exclusively in that capacity,

and shall pay therefor such sum as may be agreed upon as representing the value of the property so transferred at the time of the transfer, or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by an arbitrator
370
appointed by the Minister; but the district council shall remain subject to any liabilities contracted in respect of any such quarry, plant, material or depôts.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "as representing the value of the property so transferred at the time of the transfer". The noble Earl said: This Amendment is moved in pursuance of an undertaking given in another place that the Government would consider the insertion of a provision enabling county councils and district councils to agree in the event of a quarry being taken over by the county council that some or all of the liabilities contracted should pass to the county council. I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 35, leave out from ("upon") to ("or") in line 26.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 28 at end insert ("save as in so far as may be otherwise agreed between them and the county council").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 111 agreed to.
Clause 112 [Transfer of road officers]:
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 35, after ("officer") insert ("and").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 113 [Tenure and distribution of transferred officers]:
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved to insert the following new subsection:—
"(3) A transferred officer who on or before the date of his transfer by virtue of this Act shall have attained the age of fifty years and shall have completed not less than twenty-five years' service under any local authority or local authorities may with the consent of the Minister relinquish his office at any time within five years after the appointed day, and any such officer who so relinquishes his office shall be deemed to have suffered a direct pecuniary loss in consequence of this Act."
The noble Lord said: I can put the case for this Amendment very briefly. Under Clause 111 an officer of a Poor Law

371
authority is on the appointed day as respects the office which he holds transferred to a county council or a county borough council as the case may be. Then subsection (2) of Clause 113 provides that—
"The council to whom functions are transferred under this Act may employ a transferred officer in the discharge of such of their functions as they may think proper. … "
This Amendment deals with the case of an officer who is at least fifty years of age and who has completed twenty-five years' service, who may find very considerable difficulty in adapting himself to the new conditions. I will not take up time by citing instances. I think your Lordships will readily appreciate that a position may arise in which, owing to exceptional circumstances, a man may have real difficulty.
It is suggested in this Amendment that, subject to the consent of the Minister, such an officer, within a period of five years, if he has made an honest endeavour to adapt himself to the altered conditions and found that he really cannot and that his life is becoming almost intolerable, should be allowed to resign, and in that case he would be deemed to have suffered direct pecuniary loss in consequence of this Act. That means he would get compensation. I think a very strong point in favour of the Amendment is that Clause 115 provides that any officer—
"who, at any time within five years after the appointed day, relinquishes office by reason of his having been required to perform duties which are not analogous to, or which are an unreasonable addition to, those which he was required to perform immediately before the appointed day … shall be deemed … to have suffered a direct pecuniary loss in consequence of this Act."
The cases I have in mind are somewhat different. A man may not necessarily be in a position in which the duties were not analogous to or an unreasonable addition to his previous duties, and I think your Lordships will have sympathy with men who are in a state of suspense and who, having served the community well and having passed middle age, are asked to change their duties. I consider there is a case for the Amendment. It will be within the discretion of the Minister, but without this provision he could not give permission to a local authority to pay compensation in such cases.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 16, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Arnold.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think this Amendment extends very considerably the facilities which my noble friend quite fairly admits exist in the Bill for the relinquishment of office by dissatisfied officers on transfer. It must be remembered that relinquishment of office has been found most detrimental to the public service. I do not think it is reasonable that reorganisation should entitle a large class of persons to retire and receive pensions, because there is reorganisation and they consider they are unable to go on. Provision is already made for the payment of pensions to officers if they suffer pecuniary loss through reorganisation—that is certainly fair—and for the relinquishment of office in cases where officers are required to perform duties which are not analogous to or are an unreasonable addition to those they were performing, on the appointed day. I think that is reasonable. That seems to me to safeguard the position of officers as far as is just and right.
The ground which the noble Lord advances in support of his Amendment is that an officer who has an appointment in circumstances which do not go so far as I have mentioned should be able to relinquish it and go into retirement. Let us consider for a moment what would happen in the Civil Service. I have been familiar with civil servants and with the Civil Service for many years and I do not think such a principle would ever be considered in any reorganisation of any Department of the Civil Service. I think that what is applicable to the Civil Service should be also applicable to the reorganisation of these services. I venture to think that the safeguards in the Bill are sufficient to avoid any officer being treated with injustice, either pecuniary or otherwise, and therefore I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD ARNOLD: I think the noble Earl has rather overlooked the fact that this is subject to the consent of the Minister. It would not do any harm to give the power in certain cases. I do not think the analogy of the Civil Service is a very real one. Suppose a man had been an infirmary master and now changed to a mental deficiency hospital: there may be no power to allow him to

373
relinquish his post. I do not think, if I may say so, that the case has been met by the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 113 agreed to.
Clause 114 agreed to.
Clause 115:
Compensation to Existing Officers.
115.—(1) Every person who having been an officer of an authority or committee from whom functions are transferred under this Act, or a registration officer or registrar of marriages, on the twelfth day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, is at the appointed day an officer of such an authority or committee or a registration officer or registrar of marriages, and who by virtue of this Act, or of anything done in pursuance or in consequence thereof, suffers any direct pecuniary loss by determination of his appointment, or by diminution or loss of fees, salary or emoluments, and for whose compensation for that loss provision is not made by any other enactment for the time being in force, shall be entitled to compensation under this Act for that loss.
LORD FORESTER LORD FORESTER moved to leave out "that", the last word but one in subsection (1), and to insert "such net personal". The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Strachie. Its object is to make it quite clear that persons whose appointments are terminated in consequence of this Bill shall be compensated solely on the basis of their net personal emoluments. It is understood that some officers, especially under the Poor Law, receive an inclusive salary out of which they pay assistants, and it would be distinctly inequitable to the ratepayer to be obliged to provide compensation for the gross salary in such a case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 42, leave out ("that") and insert ("such net personal").—(Lord Forester.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This is not a very important Amendment. Indeed, it is a purely verbal one. It is open to very considerable objection because it introduces a new term which would require definition. I do not think it is necessary, for the meaning of the clause is, I think, perfectly well known, and I think your Lordship will agree that it is undesirable to overload Bills with technical terms unless they are absolutely necessary. In those circumstances
374
I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.
LORD FORESTER: In view of what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 115 agreed to.
Clause 116 [Superannuation of transferred Poor Law officers]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 35, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 116, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 117 and 118 agreed to.
Clause 119:
Information to be given by poor law authorities and district councils to county councils.
119.—(1) It shall be the duty of every poor law authority, and of their officers, to furnish any information in their power which may be required by the council of any county or county borough for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their functions under Part I. of this Act.
(2) It shall be the duty of every district council, and of their officers, to furnish any information in their power which may be required by the council of any county for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their functions under Parts III. and IV. of this Act.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), to leave out "and of" and to insert "to furnish and instruct." The noble Lord said: As I understand that the noble Earl will accept this and the following Amendments that stand in my name, there is no reason why I should make a speech upon them.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am not quite sure in what form the noble Lord moves these Amendments, but I take it that it is not in the form in which they appear upon the Paper. Perhaps he will move them in the form that he has just shown me, and then, if they are not entirely acceptable in that form, the point can be brought up on Report.
LORD JESSEL: I will do so.
Amendment moved—
Page 104, line 21, leave out ("and of") and insert ("to furnish and to instruct").—(Lord Jessel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 104, line 22, after ("may") insert ("reasonably").
Page 104,lines 26 and 27, leave out ("and of") and insert ("to furnish and to instruct").
Page 104,line 28, after ("may") insert ("reasonably").—(Lord Jessel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 119, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 120 and 121 agreed to.
Clause 122:
Provisions as to orders, schemes and regulations.
(3) Where any order (other than an order under Part IV of this Act) or any regulations are by this Act required to be laid before Parliament, the order or regulations shall be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat after any such order or regulation has been laid before it praying that the order or regulation may be annulled, the order or regulation shall be annulled and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order or regulation.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "(other than an Order under Part IV of this Act)". The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I hope, after what has taken place earlier in these discussions, the Government may be willing to accept. The object is that all Orders made by the Ministry under Part IV shall be laid upon the Table in both Houses, so that, if any objection is taken to them and carried, they will ipso facto become void, without, of course, affecting any action that has been taken. This is the ordinary form of procedure, which has been repeatedly approved by the Government and put into numerous acts of Parliament. It seems to me undesirable that Part IV should be left out, for some very important questions are covered by it. I think we need a very strong reason why your Lordships should be asked in this case to depart from what is now becoming a general practice in regard to Orders made by Ministers. The Lord Chief Justice has pointed out that a
376
Minister is now very often empowered to alter an Act. of Parliament and even to repeal sections of it.
If the House is ready to give these powers, surely we should be careful to keep the right of revision. The Government approve of this procedure in regard to all Parts of the Bill except Part IV. It would take me too long to read to your Lordships all the important provisions of that Part. I know that a strong Amendment will be moved later with regard to this matter showing how much importance noble Lords on both sides of the House attach to it, but I raise the point now because Part IV touches matters of real importance. We may be told that we can have confidence in the present Minister of Health. I quite agree, but the present Minister of Health will not always be there and we may have a Minister who will adopt a very hostile attitude towards county councils and local bodies and want to centralise everything in Whitehall. There is always that danger, and we must look ahead. On those grounds, and on those grounds alone, I beg to move the Amendment that stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 106, line 38, leave out ("(other than an Order under Part IV of this Act)").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This matter has been before your Lordships on an Amendment moved by Lord Beauchamp in Clause 44, and I then ventured to put before your Lordships why it seemed right to make these provisions with regard to one particular matter—namely, the redistribution of areas. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will look into this point again. Without in any way committing myself or making any promise whatever, I will examine the question, subject to what I said on Clause 44. The noble Lord understands that I can give no promise that I shall be able to meet him.
LORD STRACHIE: After what my noble friend has said, of course I shall be ready to accept his assurance that he will go into the matter, without making any promise, but I would again press upon him that this has been the custom of the Government on previous occasions in many other Bills, and that it is desirable to put in this Amendment in order to protect both Houses of Parliament.

377
Having said that, I am quite satisfied that the noble Earl will look into the precedents, and I hope he will consult the Leader of the House, who has always been most anxious that Parliament should have this protection.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Of course I should state that any examination would be subject to the decision which has already been made on the Amendment moved by Lord Beauchamp.
LORD STRACHIE: Perhaps the noble Earl will be kind enough to explain what that decision was.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It was on Clause 44, and it was a proposal to omit from subsection (7) the words after "shall" to the end of the subsection and insert "not become operative until it has been confirmed by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament." That was proposed by Lord Beauchamp, and was not accepted by the House.
LORD STRACHIE: That is an entirely different question. I am only asking that it should be laid upon the Tables of both Houses. I am not asking for a Resolution of both Houses, but only that these Orders shall be laid before both Houses. Lord Beauchamp proposed that no Order should come into force until either House had passed a Resolution, but I am only proposing that they should become void if either House takes exception to them, which is a very different matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE VISCOUNT ALLENDALE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "void." The noble Viscount said: I am moving this on behalf of Earl Beauchamp, and it proposes to leave out the last two lines of the subsection. It appears that under this clause the Minister may make an Order, and such Order may be made during the Recess, when it will be finished and passed before Parliament has an opportunity of considering it.
Amendment moved—
Page 107, line 7, leave out, from ("void") to the end of the clause.—(Viscount Allendale.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: To my regret I must decline to accept this Amend-
378
ment, because the provisions sought to be left out are essential. It is in common form.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 122 agreed to.
Clause 123:
Power to remove difficulties.
123.—(1) If any difficulty arises in connection with the application of this Act to any exceptional area, or in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act, the Minister may make such order for removing the difficulty as he may judge to be necessary for that purpose, and any such order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear to the Minister necessary for carrying the order into effect:
Provided that the Minister shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty.
(2) Every order made under this section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be alter it is made.
(3) In this section the expression "exceptional area" includes any poor law area which is not wholly comprised within one county or county borough, any district which is not wholly comprised within one county, or which is administered by the council of an adjoining district in another county, any parish which is not wholly comprised within one county, county borough or district, or which is not within the same district for municipal and sanitary purposes, and any area which enjoys or is subject to any special privilege, exception or liability in respect of rating or valuation.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH: moved, at end of subsection (2), to insert "and shall not be of any effect unless and until a Resolution affirming the Order is passed by each House of Parliament." The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Strachie has given us an argument, in favour of his Amendment, on the principle of this proposed alteration. It may be said that this clause deals with exceptional areas, that it is hedged by the Minister not having the powers conferred by this clause after December 31, 1930, and that it defines what the exceptional areas are, but if the words of the clause are looked at it will be seen that the clause says that in bringing into operation any of the provisions of this Act, the Minister may make an Order without coming before Parliament. That has been criticised a good deal lately in the country, although years ago a similar

379
clause may have been included in Acts of Parliament. The draftsmen of those days inserted it with as much skill as the draftsmen and Parliamentary officials have used in drafting this very complicated Bill, for which great credit is due to them.
I do not wish to labour the point, but if it is dealt with by the Government it may be necessary on Report to add consequential Amendments. Taking it broadly, this Amendment would give a control to Parliament which has rather been before the country and which the country desires, against Orders being made by a Minister without anybody else having any control. No doubt in bringing into operation an Act which has just been passed it is difficult for a Minister, and he may find himself hampered by delay, but at the same time it is quite possible for him to have power to go too far and beyond what is really necessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 107, line 22, at end insert ("and shall not be of any effect unless and until a Resolution affirming the Order is passed by each House of Parliament")—(Lord Askwith).
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON had given Notice of an Amendment to insert at the end of subsection (2) the words—"and shall not be of any effect unless and until the Order is approved by a committee to be appointed by Parliament, or, failing such approval, unless and until a Resolution affirming the Order is passed by each House of Parliament." The noble Lord said: I have an Amendment on the Paper which is designed to produce the same results though by a method slightly different. If your Lordships see fit to pass the Amendment now under discussion, I shall not move my Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I think some such Amendment as that of Lord Askwith or Lord Hunsdon should be accepted, and I understood the Lord Chancellor on a previous occasion to say that he would consider the matter. I only intervene because I have an Amendment to leave out Clause 123, for the purpose of seeing that some such provision is introduced. I therefore cordially support either of the Amendments in the names of noble Lords opposite. I think it is quite necessary that some such words should be Used.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Clause 123, which has been, as my noble friend has said, criticised outside is, in fact, a clause which (he has also reminded your Lordships) in some shape or another has been in a good many recent Acts of Parliament, and, in fact, has proved very necessary. I can, if need be, give to your Lordships some illustrations of the sort of case that has to be met. I gather that most of your Lordships at any rate realise that some provision of the kind is necessary. I have here a whole list of cases under the Rating and Valuation Act, in which the power has had to be exercised, sometimes in regard to a particular area, sometimes in regard to a general condition of affairs which could not have been foreseen at the time when the Act was originally passed.
The Government in the House of Commons had the clause introduced in a somewhat wider form than that in which it now appears. The form of words which we now find was introduced on the Report stage, adapted from some words suggested by a private Member in the debate and, we hope, it does not go further than is necessary in order to provide for the Minister the powers which it is essential for him to have. We had thought that the fact that under Clause 122 any Order of the Minister, whether made under Clause 123 or elsewhere, had to be laid on the Table in both Houses was a safeguard which would enable any grievance to be remedied. I should like to explain that it is a mistake to think, as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the Second Reading, that where there is a provision in the form in which it appears in Clause 122 any Order may be disallowed by a Resolution of either House of Parliament. It is impossible in practice in another place to move such a Resolution because those of your Lordships who have been in the other House will remember that it is exempted business under the rules of that House, and therefore any private Member can set down a Motion, which has to be debated and discussed. We had thought that that precaution was a sufficient precaution, but I quite recognise that in the wording of Clause 123, which includes the possibility of modifying provisions of the Act in order to bring an Order into effect, it may be advisable

381
that the special attention of Parliament should be called to an Order made under that particular clause.
I cannot accept the Amendment which my noble friend has moved in the form in which he has moved it, because, as he will appreciate, Orders may have to be made to meet an immediate emergency. Again, I can give him instances in which that was actually necessary. Parliament is not yet—in spite of the warning of my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster earlier this afternoon—continuously in Session from the beginning to the end of the year, and therefore a provision which will protect the Minister from exercising the power until a period, possibly a month, after the necessity of its exercise had arisen, would, in effect, make it nugatory. But I am quite willing to insist if your Lordships think it right, that any exercise of the power of Clause 123 should be brought to the special attention of Parliament by providing that, instead of its merely being laid on the Table, and subject to disallowance by a Resolution under Clause 122, in the case of an Order made under Clause 123 there should be the necessity for its confirmation by an affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament within a named number of days after Parliament meets after the Order has been made.
I do not want to pin your Lordships to words which you have not had the opportunity of considering. I have had something drafted, which I have shown to one or two of my noble friends whose names appear on Amendments to this clause, and it would be something of this kind:—
Page 107, line 21, after ("section") insert ("shall come into operation upon the date specified therein in that behalf but,")—
Then the subsection proceeds that it should be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made,
"and shall cease to have effect after the expiration of a period of …."
three months is what we suggest, but I am not particular to a month so long as I have an assurance that Parliament has sufficient time to do it—
"a period of three months from the date upon which it came into operation unless at some time before the expiration of that period it has been approved by a Resolution passed by each House of Parliament:
382
"Provided that in reckoning any such period of three months as aforesaid, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days."
The effect of that would be than any Order made under this clause would necessarily come under the review of Parliament after it was made as soon as Parliament sat—or at the very time when it was made if Parliament was sitting—and that it would cease to be operative if Parliament did not pass a Resolution approving of it within a specified period after Parliament first had cognisance of it.
I venture to think that does sufficiently safeguard the position which, I quite appreciate, your Lordships are anxious to safeguard, and which I am not less anxious to safeguard than others of your Lordships; and at the same time it does not prevent the exercise of a power which has been useful in practice, and which may be necessary occasionally in the future, and of which I could give instances, if I did not think that probably the general necessity for some such power as this was a matter which is fully recognised in this House.
LORD ASKWITH: If one can be certain in anything in this life it is that the House of Lords would not desire continuously to sit in order to pass Resolutions dealing with these matters, and therefore I thank my noble and learned friend for meeting the suggestions that have been made from many parts of the House. I understand that my noble and learned friend will put down an Amendment for the Report stage on the lines that he has indicated.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I only do not move it now, because I think it is hardly fair to the House to have an Amendment of this kind moved without there being an opportunity of seeing it in print. I think the wording I have read is the wording I propose to put down on the Report stage, and I hope that it will meet with general acceptance.
LORD ASKWITH: I approve of it entirely, and I withdraw my Amendment now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 123 agreed to.
Clauses 124 and 125 agreed to.
Clause 126:
Definitions.
"Certified" means—
in relation to the number of unemployed insured men, certified by the Minister of Labour:
"Road" means a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large, and includes bridges and "improvement" in relation to a road includes the fixing of a building line or improvement line under any enactment:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in the definition of "certified," after "unemployed insured men," to insert "or women." The noble Earl said: This is a consequential Amendment. It is really drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 109, line 5, after ("men") insert ("or women").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after the definition of "county," to insert "'County bridge' includes any bridge which a county council are liable to repair, except a bridge which they are liable to repair only by reason of the fact that the road carried by the bridge is, for the time being, a county road." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to make it clear that a bridge that carries a county road is not for that reason alone to be regarded as a county bridge. It is to clarify the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 109, line 18, at end insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given Notice to move to amend the above Amendment as follows: Leave out from "repair" in the second line to the end of the Amendment. The noble Lord said: I should like to ask the noble Earl the reason for this exception. The County Councils Association are not satisfied with regard to it and perhaps the noble Earl would explain why the exception is made.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am afraid I do not follow.
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Earl will notice that the Amendment says:—
" … except a bridge which they are liable to repair only by reason of the fact
384
that the road carried by the bridge is, for the time being, a county road."
Will the noble Earl be good enough to explain that exception?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Lord's Amendment is designed to do away with that point. The effect of his Amendment would be to exclude all bridges on county roads from obtaining the powers of the larger urban authority and leave to the absolute discretion of the county council the delegation of all bridges on county roads whether classified or not.
LORD STRACHIE: Am I to understand that it is objectionable and not in the general interests to do that?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes.
LORD STRACHIE: Then I will not move the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in the definition of "road" to leave out "includes bridges" and insert "save as in this Act otherwise expressly provided, includes any bridge carrying the road." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 111, line 30, leave out ("includes bridges") and insert ("save as in this Act otherwise expressly provided, includes any bridge carrying the road").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given Notice to move to amend the above Amendment as follows: Leave out "save as in this Act otherwise expressly provided." The noble Lord said: I should like to ask my noble friend whether he has any objection to leaving out "save as in this Act otherwise expressly provided." It seemed to the County Councils Association that such an Amendment was necessary, but, of course, the noble Earl may say that it is unnecessary.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It is unnecessary for the reasons I gave respecting the noble Lord's previous Amendment. If we accepted his present Amendment it would be out of place because the saving would still be required in view of the language of Clauses 31 and 34 in which special provision is made in respect of county bridges.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 126, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 127:
Declaration of intention as to future increases of local expenditure.
127. It is hereby declared that it is the intention of this Act that, in the event of substantial additional expenditure being imposed on any class of local authorities by reason of the institution of a new public health or other service after the commencement of this Act, provision should be made for increased contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to leave out "substantial." The noble Lord said: The County Councils Association suggest the deletion of "substantial" because they fear that it might be construed by the Minister—I do not for one moment think it would be so construed by the present Minister—that practically everything was substantial. The County Councils Association do not wish such an obligation to be put upon the county councils. Some future Minister might contend that practically everything was substantial, and it is clear in such an event that a heavy charge would fall upon the county councils in regard to this matter. The noble Earl will see that that is so. It might be necessary for a county council to undertake very heavy expenditure after the commencement of this Act, and that is not at all unlikely to be the case in the future. If that happened and the Minister took it into his head to say that it was not a substantial expenditure and was, therefore, unnecessary and only a small matter, the charge would fall upon the county council, and there would be no appeal and no opportunity for the county council to put forward its views. In the result a very heavy burden might be placed upon that county council. I agree that the noble Earl has given us a little concession but very little indeed. He is rather inclined to say: "You must take this Bill as it is because we are the best judges." I ask my noble friend to make some concession upon this point.
Amendment moved—
Page 113, line 18, leave out ("substantial").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not think I have deserved the reproach of my noble friend. He says that I am inclined to say that you should take the Bill as it stands and that the Government are the best judges. I have endeavoured to give every attention to the Amendments
386
which have been introduced by noble Lords and by my noble friend Lord Strachie himself. I would remind him that while the Government has introduced this Bill and is its author, it is largely owing to Lord Strachie that many of the provisions are included. Lord Strachie was a valuable and distinguished member of the Royal Commission on Local Government, and Part IV, a portion of Part III and certain other portions of the Bill are based on the recommendations of that Commission, which were unanimous and the whole of which were signed by my noble friend Lord Strachie. Therefore, I think he must share to some extent the responsibility for the authorship of the Bill. With regard to the Amendment, I think it would be unfortunate if "substantial" were omitted, because I think there must be some indication that additional expenditure which is trivial will not necessarily cause increased obligations. A burden must be imposed upon local authorities before increased contributions are to be considered. Therefore, some adjective must be put in. I do not mind whether it is "substantial" or "material," but some indication should be in the Bill, and if the noble Lord has a better adjective to suggest perhaps he will mention it.
LORD STRACHIE: I only ask my noble friend to consider this question between now and Report stage to see whether he cannot meet the County Councils Association in the matter. That is all I ask.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 127 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Amendments to this Schedule are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 116, line 11, at end insert ("therefrom")
Page 116,line 14, at end, insert ("therefrom")
Page 116,line 15, in the third column insert:
("As if the following words were omitted therefrom, that is to say, the words 'or with a surveyor of any county bridge,' the words 'or of any road over any county bridge and the approaches thereto,' and the words 'or surveyor'")
Page 118, line 10, at end, insert ("therefrom")
Page 118, line 13, at end, insert ("therefrom").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second and Third Schedules agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Amendment to this Schedule is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 122, line 25, leave out from the first ("the") to the end of line 35, and insert:
("following assumptions:

"(i) that elsewhere than in the County of London, section nine of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, and not paragraph ten of the Seventh Schedule to that Act, had been in operation with respect to precepts issued by county councils; and

"(ii) that the expenditure on the transferred services had been expenditure by a county council or a county borough council, and, in the case of a county, had been expenditure for general county purposes; and

"(iii) that in the case of the County of London, the London (Equalisation of Rates) Act, 1894, had not been in force in the standard year").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth Schedule:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This is also a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 129, line 15, after ("that") insert ("elsewhere than in the County of London").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sixth and Seventh Schedules agreed to.
Eighth Schedule:

EIGHTH SCHEDULE.
Provisions as to the determination and payment of compensation to officers.
5. In computing the service of any officer for the purpose of the award of compensation the council shall take into account all the service of that officer after he attained the age of eighteen years under any local authority:
Provided that where the officer held two or more offices and the claim to compensation is based on a loss of one or some only of those offices, account shall not be taken under this paragraph of service in an office which the officer continues to hold.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved to add to paragraph 5 "but in the case of any such officer who throughout the period of his service under any local authority or local authorities devoted the whole of his time to the duties of the office or offices held by him account shall be taken of the whole of such period exclusive of any service before attaining the age of eighteen years." The noble Lord said: I can state the case for this Amendment in one or two moments. It is a somewhat important matter and it was not possible to discuss it in another place; therefore I hope your Lordships will bear with me. The point is one which might affect certain men. It is to do with the transferred Poor Law officer who holds perhaps several offices. He may be a relieving officer, a collector for the guardians, a registrar of births, marriages and deaths, and a vaccination officer—a whole-time official, and all his offices really regarded as one. The question is what you would have to spend in respect of compensation if, on his transfer, he were for certain reasons, called upon to take a reduced salary. If there is no reduction of salary the question of compensation would not arise.
This man may have held three offices for thirty years. He may have held, say, the office of vaccination officer for only ten years, and if, when he is transferred, he ceases to be vaccination officer and his compensation has to be assessed on the basis of his only being vaccination officer for ten years, obviously he will not be as well off as if it were assessed on the basis of his having been vaccination officer the whole time. It does not really matter in a great many cases how many offices one of these men hold so long as he has been working his whole time as a whole-time officer. It is really an accident whether he holds three or four offices. He may have had the vaccination office put on him in the last ten years, perhaps because of an increase in salary, or for some other reason, but he cannot work more than his whole time, and if, on the transfer, one of these offices is dropped

389
and it happens to be one which he has not held for anything like the whole time, it is clear as a matter of logic and justice that his compensation ought to be assessed on the basis of the total length of service.
There are reasons why this should be done. If you do not do it you are creating an unfair differentiation between a whole-time officer who holds one appointment only and one who holds several appointments. There is no real justice in it. For the purpose of superannuation under the Poor Law Officers Superannuation Act, 1896, the whole of the service of an officer, whether whole or part time or whether continuous or not, is reckoned. My hope is that this proviso in the Bill really was intended to deal simply with part-time officers. If that is so, I have nothing more to say. I am not for a moment pleading for them, but for the whole-time officers. I think the case for the addition to the proviso which I propose is a very strong one, more particularly as I believe this proviso is new in our legislation. I think it has not hitherto been inserted in any public Statute, Local Act or Provisional Order. Therefore, on those grounds alone, I suggest that before it is left as it is it would require very strong justification. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 133, line 16, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Arnold.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The proviso in the Schedule says:
"Provided that where the officer held two or more offices, and the claim to compensation is based on a loss of one or some only of those offices, account shall not be taken under this paragraph of service in an office which the officer continues to hold."
The Amendment which the noble Lord asks your Lordships to accept would qualify the proviso which I have just read by saying it is not to apply to any officer who throughout the period of his service under the local authority devoted the whole of his time to the duties of the office or offices held by him and that account shall be taken of the whole of such period exclusive of any service before attaining the age of eighteen years. That, I think, is the modification which would take place.
I ought to explain the proviso. It seemed to me that the noble Lord asked
390
for a little clarification on that point. The proviso is designed to meet this class of case. An officer may have held for, say, twenty years an office such as the clerkship to a rural district council, which is not affected by the Bill and which he will continue to hold. About ten years ago he may have secured a second office such as the clerkship to a board of guardians, which is affected by the Bill, while still holding the rural council clerkship. Upon the officer's appointment as clerk to the guardians being determined by the county council, he would be able under the first part of paragraph 5 to base his claim to compensation for the loss of that office on his 20 years' service as clerk to the rural district council. The claim to compensation would, therefore, be based on ten years' service as clerk to the guardians plus service in any previous office which the officer does not continue to hold—that is to say, the clerkship which he held before promotion to the office of clerk to the guardians.
This proviso is right because where an officer holds more than one office service in an office which is not affected by the Bill, and in which the officer will continue, should not be allowed to swell the claim to compensation for the loss of another office held by that officer. The two do not, I think, hang together. If you were to allow them to hang together the compensation would be doubled. I do not think there is any good reason for exempting an officer from this rule because he has devoted all his time to the duties of the offices held under local authorities. The principle that where an officer remains in the enjoyment of the emoluments of an office, service in this office should be disregarded in compensating him for the loss of another office still holds good. That is the whole point.
LORD ARNOLD: The noble Earl's illustration, as I understand it, has to do with two offices, one of which is affected by the Bill, another of which is not. The case I put was different. A man might hold four offices all of which were affected by the Bill and one of which he is required to give up. That is the case I should like the noble Earl to reply to. In that case it does not seem to me a fair thing to assess him for compensation on a shorter term of office in one of those offices whereas he has really been working whole-time

391
throughout his whole service. It does not matter for practical purposes whether he holds three or four offices. Will the noble Earl look into the matter before Report?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It is rather a new point and it will be safer if the noble Lord will allow me to look into it without committing myself.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Amendments to the Eighth Schedule are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 135, leave out lines 1 to 4.
Page 135, line 17, at end insert:
("(c) the office of a teacher in a public elementary school maintained but not provided by a local education authority shall be deemed to be an office under the authority; and").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Eighth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Ninth Schedule:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Amendments on this Schedule are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 137, line 28, leave out ("in case") and insert ("where")
Page 137, line 28, leave out ("had been") and insert ("was")
Page 140, line 16, leave out ("appointed day") and insert ("first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine")
Page 140, line 28, leave out ("appointed day") and insert ("first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine")
Page 141, line 43, at end insert:
("6. Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of section one of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, it shall not be necessary for an agricultural, industrial or freight transport hereditament to be distinguished as such in any supplemental list which will come into force in the County of London on the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty, and nothing contained in any such supplemental list shall operate to alter the valuation list in force immediately before the said date as respects any hereditament which in that valuation list is so distinguished as aforesaid.")—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Ninth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Tenth Schedule:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I beg to move an Amendment which is consequential on Part III of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 144, line 10, at end insert:
("10. Section sixteen of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, shall have effect as if the words 'in pursuance of this Act' were omitted therefrom").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Tenth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Eleventh Schedule:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The first Amendments in my name to this Schedule are required in connection with an Amendment to be moved later on on page 155. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 150, line 18, leave out from the second ("the") to ("in") in line 20, and insert ("estimated rate relief of the companies")
Page 150, line 23, at end insert:
("(b) any interest payable on sums borrowed by the Railway Clearing House in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule; and").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 152, line 1, leave out ("resultant coal") and insert ("coal or of the resultant").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The next Amendment is intended to make it clear that the scheme to be submitted to the Railway Rates Tribunal may provide that a railway company may apportion the rates on coal.
Amendment moved—
Page 152, line 6, at end insert ("and may provide for any certificates necessary for such apportionment being obtained by the companies and for the allowance of rebates apportioned upon the basis thereof, subject to occasional verification of the facts thereby certified").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 153, line 19, leave out ("has been") and insert ("is"),—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The next Amendment on the Paper is designed to meet a situation which may arise owing to wholly exceptional circumstances affecting to an abnormal degree the amount of heavy traffic passing by rail.
Amendment moved—
Page 154, line 18, at end insert:
("11. If it appears to the Minister of Transport that by reason of some excep-

393
tional occurrence the net revenue of the fund for any year is or will be abnormally greater or less than the amount which, upon the basis of the rebates for the time being in force, will be required, to pay the sums payable thereout under paragraph five of this Part of this Schedule to the companies in respect of that year, and that there is danger of such instability being thereby occasioned in the rates of the said rebates as to affect prejudicially the operation of the scheme, he shall issue to the tribunal a certificate that in his opinion the rates of the rebates to be allowed in respect of any group of selected traffics specified in the certificate ought to be reviewed, and upon receipt of such a certificate the tribunal shall, notwithstanding anything in this Part of this Schedule, have power to make such alterations in the scheme as they consider desirable for stabilising, so far as practicable, the rates of the rebates to be allowed in respect of that group, and, if they think fit, for securing that any abnormal excess shall be expended, or abnormal deficiency made good, as the case may be, over such period of years as they think proper").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The effect of the next Amendment is to exclude from application to the jurisdiction of the Railway Rates Tribunal certain provisions as to appeals.
Amendment moved—
Page 154, line 32, leave out ("Sections twenty-five and twenty-six") and insert ("Section twenty-five except so far as it relates to appeals").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 155, line 21, at end insert:
("(d) the Railway Clearing House may, with the consent of the Minister of Transport and subject to such conditions as he may think fit, borrow moneys on the security of the fund for purposes connected with the scheme."
Page 155, line 48, at end insert:
("Provided that in determining for the purposes of this provision whether there is for any year such a deficiency as aforesaid or the amount of any such deficiency, no account shall be taken of any sum paid in that year by way of adjustment under paragraph 2 of this Part of this Schedule").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The next Amendment is intended to remove doubt as to whether the existing definition of carriage charges includes carriage charges made by light railway companies.
Amendment moved—
Page 156, line 42, after ("tribunal") insert ("or made by a light railway company").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 157, line 36, leave out ("subparagraph (a)") and insert ("sub-paragraphs (1) (a) and (b)")
Page 159, line 30, after ("assessment") insert ("or valuation").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The next Amendment is designed to enable a rebate to be allowed on treacle sent to farmers for the purpose of being used as feeding stuffs.
Amendment moved—
Page 160, line 20, leave out ("consigned") and insert ("delivered").—(The Earl of Onslow).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 160, line 41, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 5 on page 161, and insert:
("Such coal delivered to patent fuel works as is used for the manufacture of exported patent fuel:
Such coal delivered to a washery as is washed or cleaned thereat before being exported or delivered to and used in iron or steel works:
Such coal delivered to a coke oven (not being situate at an iron or steel works) as is used for the manufacture of coke which is exported or delivered to and used in iron or steel works:").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Eleventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Twelfth Schedule:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The next Amendment is to repeal Section 4 of the Union Assessment Committee Act which is rendered obsolete.
Amendment moved—
Page 163, line 11, after ("two end") insert ("four").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 170, line 23, at end insert:

("41 & 42 Vict.c.77.

The Highwaysand Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878.

In section sixteen, the words 'in pursuance of this Act.'"

—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Twelfth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at a quarter past three o'clock.