I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

This Clause is really of a verbal character. There is already mention of a notice in the Bill as it is before the House, and if certain Amendments are carried there will be other notices. Consequently, I merely wish to regularise the manner in which notice may be given.

I beg to move to leave out the word "steps," and to insert instead thereof the word "measures."

This is purely a drafting Amendment, and when I put it down I did so for the purpose of making the word used the same as in Clause 5.

May I point out that we have used the phrase "take such steps" usually throughout the Bill, but in Clause 5 we have used the phrase "adopt such measures"? I agree that we ought to use the same term throughout and I will put the matter right when we reach Clause 5.

I beg to move, to leave out the words "from time to time he necessary and reasonably," and to insert instead thereof the words "be prescribed in a notice in writing duly served on him by a local authority having power to enforce this Act."

I would like to say at the outset that I have no desire to weaken this Bill, and I am firmly convinced that the Amendment I propose will make the Bill more workable and strengthen it, and will reconcile it to the people amongst whom it is going to be put into operation. I think it is a proposal which is more likely to obtain their assent and agreement, and is consistent with the general law of the country. I ask the House not to be led away with the extraordinary figures which the Parliamentary Secretary gave when he told us that a certain wiseacre has estimated the damage done by rats at about £40,000,000 a year. I do not believe there is any foundation of any sort or kind for such a figure, but I am quite content to accept the statement that the damage done by rats is very considerable.

I rather protest against the way in which this measure is being rushed through the House. It was introduced and read a second time on Monday, the Committee stage was taken on Tuesday, and the last stages are being taken to-day. I do not think there is anybody in the country who knows what a drastic Clause is being provided in this Bill for the people who live in the country districts. It is a specimen of Prussian legislation which I, for my part, protest very strongly against. It does not exist in any other branch of the law that a man is to be hauled up and prosecuted for an offence for which he is not responsible without any notice on his part. The first point I make on the Clause as it stands is that it constitutes an offence in a way which possesses every vice known to the law. It is absolutely uncertain in its language and in its effect, and nobody can be certain that he is not committing an offence, and is liable to be brought up and subjected to a penalty of £20. This appeal to the criminal law is a relic of the worst form of D.O.R.A., and as the first legislative performance of the new President of the Board of Agriculture I extremely regret it, because we had looked to him to protect the interests of the agriculturists committed to his charge. May I call the attention of the House to the form of the language used. The Clause reads,

"Any person who shall fail to take such steps as may from time to time be necessary and reasonably practicable for the destruction of' rats and mice—"

In the first place, I think I ought to mention a word or two about the habits of rats, in case hon. Members are not aware of them.

We have passed the Second Reading of this Bill and the Committee stage; we are now on the Report stage, and the hon. Gentleman must confine himself strictly to the Amendment.

I am really doing that, Mr. Speaker, because I am laying this as a foundation for showing that my Amendment ought to be accepted in preference to the proposal in the Bill. I was only going to show the hardship of the Bill as it stands, and the better procedure which my Amendment suggests.

That will be all right, but we really do not want a discourse on the habits of rats. We are well acquainted with that.

Then I will accept the view that we are well acquainted with the habits of rats. The proposal is that every occupier of land, which is to include buildings in England and Scotland, shall from time to time take such steps as are necessary for the destruction of rats and mice. is it to be said that the mere fact that rats are seen on the land of an occupier is evidence that the steps that are necessary have not been taken because the rats could have been killed by some means 1 It seems to me, as the Clause is drawn, that the mere existence of rats renders the occupier liable to the criminal law and to this penalty. It is quite true that the requirement is not only that the steps are to be necessary but that they arc to be reasonably practicable. Suppose, however, a man does keep cats and does set traps, and rats are still seen on his land, is he to be responsible to the criminal law? As the words stand, he will be. I protest, as a magistrate, as a lawyer, and as an occupier of land, against the loose way in which this Clause is drawn, against the absolute uncertainty in which a man is going to be placed, and against the impossibility of the magistrates being able to administer this law. Suppose an occupier keeps cats, has he done what is necessary 7 He cannot have done what is necessary because the rats are there. Is he to have poison and rat traps as well to avoid being convicted?

Let me call attention to another objection. As the Clause now stands, it is open to any individual to prosecute another. Anybody who has a grudge against an occupier of land can set the criminal law in motion and summon either his neighbour or fellow inhabitant before the magistrate and render him liable to this penalty. The only reason why I wished to call attention to the habits of rats was that they are migratory; they are here to-day and on somebody else's land to-morrow. In the winter they conic to the buildings and in the summer they go out to the fields. As the Clause stands, an occupier is liable if rats are found in his ditches, although he may have no knowledge that they are there. I venture to suggest that this provision will cause a great outcry in the country when it becomes known. What is the usual way of dealing with a nuisance? Let me impress upon the House once again that the occupier of the land is not responsible for the rats being there, though he may be responsible for allowing them to come in large numbers. The Board may rightly say, if anybody allows rats to accumulate in large quantities, that they ought to be declared guilty of allowing a nuisance. Our law, however, knows how to deal with a nuisance. There are something like thirty or forty different kinds of nuisances dealt with under the Public Health Acts, but in no case is there such a provision as the President of the Board of Agriculture is seeking here to have inflicted upon the public. 1 will only take one illustration, but the procedure is the same in the case of all nuisances. If a man has an insanitary dwelling or a smelling ash pit the Act declares it to be a nuisance, and says that it must be remedied, and the owner becomes subject to the penalties provided by the Act.

What are those penalties? They are these. The local authority can serve upon him a notice classifying the nuisance complained of, requiring him to take the necessary steps to abate that nuisance within a limited time, and specifying what he has to do. If it is not done and the nuisance continues, he becomes liable to the penalties provided by the Act. In only one case is a private person allowed to prosecute, and that is where there is what is called a "person approved," which is a term well known to the law. He is a person who has himself suffered some special damage by reason of the nuisance. That provision is hardly ever availed of because the local authorities act. It may be that neighbours call the attention of the local authority to the matter, but the local authority act. The point is that the local authority has. to give notice to the person responsible for the nuisance telling him what it is, calling upon him to abate it, and letting him know that if he does not abate it he becomes subject to the criminal law. Alternatively, the local authority has the right to give notice and do the work and charge the defaulter with the cost. The second alternative is provided by this Bill, and on that I have nothing to say and no objection to raise. The proper course is for the person responsible for the administration of this Bill to take such steps—in the terms of my Amendment—"as may be prescribed in a notice in writing duly served on him by a local authority having power to enforce this Act.'' That power would be amply sufficient for the purpose, and it would obviate the risk, the most undesirable risk, of private persons prosecuting. It would leave it to the sole enforcement of the local authority, and the Act would work without friction and do a great deal of good. It would not weaken the Act, but would strengthen it by the general assent that it would receive.

I beg to second the Amendment. I would like to draw attention to the very great difficulty, even with the adoption of this Amendment, which will arise in the administration of the Bill. In the Fen country the boundary of ownership between the different properties is often in the centre of the drain, and it will be very hard for any authority to decide to which side of the drain the rats belong. The same remark applies to boundary hedges. I therefore think, whilst supporting the principle of the Bill, that the attempt to deal with the subject has been too hasty and that too little consideration has been given to local circumstances. I can well imagine the difficulties of aged women, single and widows, and the occupiers of small properties which are bounded by drains who would be rendered liable to a penalty of £20 under this Bill. It has been said that the discretion of the magistrate is sufficient to ensure protection for these people, but my experience of magistrates is largely in the direction of a conviction where a charge has been made. I am quite sure, even with this Amendment, that the difficulties of administration will be very great, and the penalties to be imposed upon a class of people who do not deserve to be troubled are very great. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture will see his way to accept this Amendment. It lessens the probability of suffering on the part of people who, by no act of their own, have done this thing. Generally speaking, they have no means of dealing with vermin of this description. Even domestic cats may be beyond the means of some of them, and how shall it be said that they have taken reasonable means to remove vermin from their premises?

I am sorry my hon. and learned Friend seeks to weaken this Bill which is really designed to assist farmers to remove what has become a great pest from the point of view of food destruction, and a great danger in respect of the introduction of bubonic plague and other diseases. This Bill has been brought in to deal with an evil which has assumed lately very large dimensions. My hon. Friend has cast out on the figures I gave the other day. When you are dealing with such a question as the number of rats in the country, or the amount of food actually destroyed by them, you cannot of course obtain actual figures, but those which I have given are as nearly accurate as we can get, and it is common ground that an immense amount of harm is done by these rodents. The difficulty we are up against is this, that unless the measure is thoroughly drastic, unless we make it the absolute duty of every occupier of premises to destroy the rats, and unless we make it a criminal offence if he does not we cannot get the destruction of rats properly carried out. My hon. Friend has referred to the local authorities. It is not for me to say a word against those bodies. Most of them are very efficient, but some are very slack. If, however, the whole initiative is to be left to the local authorities, and if a local authority does not do its work there is nothing left but for the Board of Agriculture to do it, and that might result in a further multiplication of officials, which I know the House would not like, nor do many of us care for it. After all the real business of keeping vermin down lies, I venture to think, on the individual. It is in his own interest and in the interests of the rest of the community, for the very reason given by my hon. and learned Friend, namely, that they are migratory, and because a man who does not destroy his own vermin may cause a very great loss to his neighbour. I think that argument is a very strong one for maintaining the Clause.

My hon. and learned Friend did less than justice to the Board of Agriculture in this matter. He spoke about this being the first act of the new President. But this Bill was introduced as long ago as last July, before the new President was appointed, and therefore to hold him personally responsible is obviously out of the question. I mention the fact that it was introduced last July in order to disprove the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend that we are springing this on the country without due notice. This Bill was introduced long ago. It has been discussed in its present form by Chambers of Agriculture and by branches of Farmers' Unions all over the country, and I have in my office a perfect sheaf of resolutions in favour of it. Therefore it is nonsense to say that the Bill has been sprung on the country. So far from' that being the case another Bill was brought in in another place by Lord Aberconway which did not contain this drastic Clause. The then President of the Board of Agriculture authorised me to bring this Bill into the House of Commons, and, thereupon Lord Aberconway withdrew his milder measure in the House of Lords in favour of the present Bill. That is really a complete answer to what my hon. and learned Friend has said with regard to the -circumstances under which the Bill has been brought in. But we do not want to take an unreasonable line, and if it is thought that this Clause as it stands goes a little too far, I am quite prepared to modify it. But I want to modify it in such a way that it will not weaken the Bill, the object of which is to put the responsibility on the owner of the premises. I have put an Amendment down which I think meets the case. The objection which was raised When we discussed this matter in Committee was that a fine of £20 for the first offence without notice was excessive. There may be something to be said for that view, and if hon. Members will look at the Amendment which I have put on the Paper later on, they will find that I have modified the proposal to this extent, that the maximum fine shall only be £5 unless notice has been given, but if notice has been given by the local authority then the fine may be as much as £20, which was the original figure. That I hope will meet the objections of hon. Members. It makes the fine very much smaller unless notice has been given.

We hold, however, that if we leave it merely as a matter of action after notice we shall weaken the main principle of the Bill and destroy that personal responsibility which we think ought to lie on the owner of the premises. I will go further even than that. If my hon. Friend is willing to withdraw his Amendment, I will move another Amendment at the proper time to meet what I understand to be the principal objection of my hon. Friends, which is that private individuals with malicious intent may bring unnecessary prosecutions. I do not think it is probable that unnecessary prosecutions will be attempted. Still there is the chance. For my part, I believe there are likely to be no prosecutions except at the instance of the local authority or the Board. If it is possible by any form of words to meet the objection, I am quite prepared to consider them, and I will move them in another place with a view to some further modification on these lines. As regards the objection of my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Royce), I quite see the difficulty in the Fen country. But if there is a real plague of rats likely to do an enormous amount of harm, and if they are discovered in a drain or dyke, I think that probably the occupier on each side will have to be prosecuted. After all, the chances are that the majority of these rats live in the banks of one side or the other, and probably there would be no difficulty whatever in ascertaining who was the owner of the side. If there is a plague, I do not think the occupier of either bank of the dyke or drain ought to escape the penalties for allowing the offence to take place. This is a very serious matter. It has been absolutely proved that here we are as a country with a. bread subsidy of about £50,000,000 a year, and that probably we could have saved;£30,000,000 or £40,000,000 of that if we had protected our stocks of grain, and so on, from the depredations of these rats. I hope the House will support the Government in not unduly weakening the Bill by taking from the private individual a responsibility that properly lies upon him.

I trust my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment will stick to it. The offer made by the Parliamentary Secretary is a most ridiculous one. The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the case made for the Amendment at all. Until five minutes ago I had not seen either the Bill or the Clause. Therefore I am an unprejudiced critic. The Clause which my hon. Friend seeks to amend is most absurd. It goes a long way to interfere with the liberty of the subject in this country. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that we are in the midst of a plague of rats. There may be a plague of rats in some cases, but the Clause does not say that it is only where the plague exists that the Bill is to have effect. The Clause is a most pernicious one, because of its extraordinary want of limitation. It is apparently open to anybody who thinks a person is not dealing with the rats on his premises to bring an action against him. The Parliamentary Secretary says that is not likely to happen, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it. One of two results will follow: either the Clause will be a dead letter, which is very likely to happen after the first flush of proceedings taken under it, or there will be a great many injustices done. Who is to decide what for the time being is necessary and reasonably practicable?

The magistrates.

If there were one set of magistrates in the Kingdom that would be all right, but benches of magistrates are as thick as blackberries. Who is to guarantee that any two sets of magistrates will take the same view of what is necessary and reasonably practicable? One bench will consider that the possession and setting of a rat trap is all that is necessary and reasonably practicable. Another set of magistrates will decide that you must have some poison lying about. A third will think that the possession of a domestic cat referred to by the hon. Member opposite is all that is necessary, while a fourth may think the possession of all three engines of destruction necessary. You will have interminable differences of opinion on this subject. If the Board of Agriculture cannot think of a more reasonable way of dealing with this question which will inflict less injustice on the unfortunate inhabitants of this country, we ought to leave the plague of rats to be dealt wit) by the good sense of the people who are affected by it. I shall certainly support the Mover of the Amendment if he chooses to go to a Division.

May I put this point to the Parliamentary Secretary? He is doing the critics of the Bill an injustice. None of those critics want to preserve rats. What they want to preserve are certain rights which ought to appertain to the individual even within the operation of the laws as we know them now. My hon. Friend talked about a plague of rats. I suppose that means an excess of rats over what you may ordinarily find on any farm. If rats develop in such numbers anywhere to the extent that they are a plague, surely it is the duty of the State to protect the whole State from that plague. It is not merely the fault of the individual person on whose property the rats are. The Amendment suggests that before a man can be brought before a magistrate he ought to have notice of the fault that lies against him. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he thinks it fair, say, to someone in his own constituency to whom lie is going to appeal for the suffrage, to place him under the indignity of being brought before the magistrates? Many people have a great objection to going to a Police Court. Why should a respectable member, say of his own executive in his own constituency, who may have the best intentions in the world in assisting the Board of Agriculture to keep down the plague of rats, be hauled before a magistrate simply because he has not had the opportunity of doing what my hon. Friend asked him to do? Although the Amendment he suggests goes a long way, if he can go as far as he goes with these words, then he should go the whole way and allow the notice first to he served before there is a prosecution. I should like to hear the hon. Gentleman's reasons why that would not be sufficient in the ordinary cases.

Why have we such a plague of rats at the present moment in the United Kingdom? Why has the question become acute? It has become acute because, as we were reminded yesterday, there has been a great war, and farmers and employers all over the country have had neither the time nor the opportunity nor the means to keep down the plague of rats in the way they had been accustomed to do before. The rats have had the time of their lives, because they have not been harped. This is an emergency measure, which is being put upon the Statute-Book of the country as a permanent measure. It is drawn in emergency terms. I respectfully submit to the Government that if they honestly believe that in any part of the country there is what we describe as a plague of rats, it will pay the State and the Government to deal with it themselves. The ordinary cases of the incubation of vermin on a farm or in a village can be dealt with in other ways. There is one other argument which may appeal to my hon. Friend. There are other kinds of vermin than rats and mice. There are personal vermin, and everybody who is interested in public health knows that the personal vermin in many of our badly-housed populations in our great cities form one of the greatest means of spreading infection. Yet the public health authority would never venture to bring before a magistrate a man or a woman whose children were verminous without their first having an opportunity of making them clean. If that is the law of the land with regard to equally dangerous vermin, why should an innocent man be marked out for this kind of prosecution? It is not British. It is not fair. It is harassing a great part of the public, and it is exposing them to the indignity of being brought before a Police Court when perfectly innocent, when if they had given him notice to abate the nuisance every reasonable measure would have been taken. Why should not the hon. Gentleman have confidence in the farming community Does he believe that any farmer in the country cultivates rats? Does he believe that anyone keeps them on his premises as pets? No one wants to see a rat or a mouse or vermin of that sort within reach of him if he can get rid of it. If he will bear in mind that behind him lies the War and an accumulation of vermin and in front of him the whole period of time—for this is a permanent Bill—he will agree that this infringement on the individual liberty of the people of the country in exposing them to the indignity of a prosecution is a quite unfair thing and ought not to be done by anyone.

I have some considerable sympathy with the Amendment, but we must not disguise the facts of what will follow if notice has to be served upon every person before action is taken. It will mean the setting up of inspectors and the inspection of premises. I am quite satisfied that if notice is required to be served on every person before any action can be taken you will defeat the whole object of the Bill. In my own county efforts have been made from time to time with the adjoining authorities to combine in stamping out the plague of rats, and the difficulty is that if one authority holds back the efforts of the others are quite ineffective. It is not the ordinary farmer or the owner of tenanted premises who is at fault. It is that one man is careless and indifferent and will not exercise ordinary precautions to keep down the plague of rats. While I have some sympathy with the idea that no person should be taken into Court without due notice being served upon him, so that he may have an opportunity of putting matters right, I feel that in this case of the plague of rats there ought to be some departure from the ordinary procedure, and people ought to be called upon to take reasonable precautions to subdue the prevalence of rats and mice on their premises. I think the hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Boscawen) is quite justified in pressing for these words in the Bill, more especially as he has modified the penalty. I should have liked to see the penalty limited to a recurrence of the offence, but it is some satisfaction that the penalty of £20 is not being insisted upon. If we are to serve notice and there is to be an army of inspectors to go round all the farms and inspect them, that would perhaps make the Bill a dead letter.

I sincerely hope this very important Bill will not be in the slightest danger through any technicality, and 1 hope the Mover of the Amendment and the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture will be able to adjust any difficulty that may arise. This question of rats has become an extremely dangerous arid serious one, and the danger has accumulated and increased during the last five years of war. From the medical point of view, it is a very serious matter for the public health, not only from the enormous amount of destruction of foods which are urgently required but from the way it spreads, and the only way that deadly disease, bubonic plague, is spread is from rats to human beings. Upon that ground alone I am sure the House will not hesitate for a moment to pass any Bill which will remove this great danger of plague, which may at any moment attack the community here. I am not in a position to discuss the technicalities of the Bill. I agree that the reduction of the penalty may perhaps be very useful, but I hope the great principle of the Bill, which the scientific body of this country has discussed during the last ten or fifteen years, will not be in danger.

I hold very strongly that if anyone chooses to keep vermin on his premises to such an extent as to endanger the food supply in the neighbourhood or to introduce disease he ought to be prosecuted. As to the argument that farmers do not keep rats from choice, the fact is that in a great many places the farmers have not destroyed their rats and mice in the way they ought to have done, and in the case of the farmer, as of any other individual, we hold it to be necessary that the duty of destroying these things must be put upon him. I have made what I believe is a perfectly fair offer. I have offered to reduce the penalty, that is to say, that it shall only be £5, unless notice is first served. I further said, although no hon. Member up to date has taken notice of the fact, that if it is held that there is a real danger, which I do not think there is, that there may be malicious prosecution by private individuals, we will endeavour to put words in in another place to meet that point. I think that is a perfectly fair and reasonable proposal, but we must not do anything which would weaken the main principles of the Bill. Under the circumstances I hope my hon. and learned Friend will allow us to proceed and will not press his Amendment.

I feel that the provision that a private person shall not take action to bring others to a Police Court is a very substantial concession, and I should be only too glad to fall in with my hon. Friend's suggestion if the offence had been for keeping an undue quantity of rats. But the offence is simply that he does not take steps for the destruction of rats. There is nothing about an excess quantity at all. I do not see what trouble there is in first serving notice before the local authorities take proceedings. My Amendment was really meant to assist the Bill so that it would work without friction. If my hon. Friend will not meet me the whole way, perhaps he could put in words making it clear that there is no offence because a man has two or three rats in his place.

I really cannot haggle over this matter, I do not know what my hon. and learned Friend wants. Does he want us to say that each man shall be allowed to keep a certain number of rats? If so, I should really like to know what number.

I beg to move, after the word "land" ["or in any land of which he"], to insert the words, "or wharf or quay."

Under Clause 5 the Act is made to apply to ships. It may be that "land" does include a wharf or quay. It is, however, rather debatable. All I want to do is to protect the master of a ship against incursions of rats from a dock or quay or wharf alongside which the ship is lying. He can, by devices, keep the rats from getting ashore, but he is not always able to keep them from getting on board by gangways or ladders. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill will meet me in the matter. He will, perhaps, say if the words are redundant.

I think it is only repetition. If you insert the words "wharf or quay" you will have to insert "house and shop" and every other sort of building.

The Amendment really is unnecessary. If the hon. Member will look at Clause 6 he will find that the expression "land" includes "any building and any other erection on land, and any sewer, drain or culvert in land." A quay, if there are no buildings on it, will be land. If there were a warehouse on it of course the warehouse is a building which is included in land. I entirely agree with the object that the hon. Member has in view, but I think the Amendment is quite redundant.

A quay is not on land, it is on the water.

I beg to move, after the word "shall" ["with rats or mice shall be liable"], to insert the words "where he has been served with notice under this Act."

The object is to restrict the penalty of a fine to those cases only where notice has been duly served.

On a point of Order. I beg to submit that this is the same question that we discussed on the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley).

Does it raise any other point?

With great respect, I submit that the object is to restrict the penalty of a fine to those cases only where notice has been served.

That was the object of the hon. Member for East Grinstead, who said it must be prescribed in the notice in writing duly served by the local authority before any action could be taken.

I beg to move, after the word "exceeding" ["a fine not exceeding twenty pounds"], to insert the words "five pounds, or where he has been served with a notice under this Act requiring him to take such steps, not exceeding."

10.0 P.M.

As the Clause originally stood there was to be a fine not exceeding £20. Under this Amendment the fine could not be more than £5 unless notice had been served. When, however, notice had been served and the occupier still does not abate the nuisance, the original fine of £20 will stand.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "may" ["such local authority may after not less than"], to insert the words "either serve a notice on the occupier requiring him to take such steps within a time specified in the notice, or."

This Amendment modifies to some extent the operation of the Clause which deals with the powers of local authorities. As the Bill stands, if a local authority is satisfied that an occupier is not properly keeping down his rats they may enter after a twenty-four hours' notice. We provide for a much less drastic procedure.

May I draw attention to the fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is putting in an Amendment the very proposal that we tried to get adopted a moment ago, and which he resisted because of the time it would take. I suggest that his attitude is inconsistent with that taken up in another case.

I am sure my hon. Friend is confusing two different things. He is confusing the power of entry to do the work under Clause 4, and the power of prosecution under Clause 1.

I can assure my hon. Friend that I have no desire to weaken the effect of this Bill. I think his drafting there is wrong, because instead of being alternative it ought to be accumulative. To secure the proper working of this Act he ought to have power either to go in and do the work and charge the occupier or to prosecute him, or both, because he may find that if he prosecutes and does not get the work done he may have to do it, or he may find if he went in and did the work that he could not get paid.

What remedy is there against a local authority which refuses to act? I am conversant with a case in which a local authority refused to act when a place was overrun with rats.

Under Clause 3 it is provided that if a local authority refuses to act the Board can act on its behalf and at its expense. In reference to the remarks of my hon. Friend (Mr. Cautley) I think that he wants to strengthen the Bill. If we can do so in another place I shall certainly consider his suggestion.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "such" to insert the words "necessary and reasonably practicable."

I understand that this Amendment is accepted.

I beg to move, to leave out the words "adopt such measures" and to insert instead thereof the words "take such steps."

This is a most drastic and unjust Clause. We are forced to protest against it on principle, because we cannot allow the impression to go forth that this House is in favour of it. We opposed a similar Clause in the English Police Bill, as we considered it anti-trade unionism legislation. It deals with the liberty of the subject. By Act of Parliament the workers in various industries are permitted to organise and join a trade union. I cannot understand why these privileges are being denied to policemen.

Have they asked for it?

They have asked for it.

In Ireland?

And on the Second Reading of this Bill we heard flattering remarks from the Government and Members from Ireland about the loyalty of these policemen. Why should these men be denied the same liberty as other people who are connected with trade unions in connection with other industries in the country? Some people have the opinion that the trade union movement is in existence simply to raise wages. That is a very great mistake. I am speaking after twenty years' experience. So far as wages are concerned, we generally meet employers round a table at a conciliation board, and very often fix up wages for six or twelve months. But I have to pay more visits to an office to meet an employer on account of dismissals and promotions than in order to deal with the question of wages. The questions of dismissal and promotion affect policemen in exactly the same way as they affect every other trade unionist in the country. We know that through prejudice, spite or spleen many serious disputes have arisen as the result of foremen showing favouritism towards some men whom they have under them.

I may give an illustration of a case in South Wales. There was a certain foreman who had a prejudice and spite against one of our members. The result was that this member was dismissed, and he went before the employer—and I may say this, that the employers of labour with whom I have come in contact always try to be fair and just as between workmen and foremen; that is the experience I have. When the man who had been dismissed went before the employer and stated his case the foreman also stated his case, and the employer could come to no decision, because he had to take it that one statement was quite as truthful as the other. Therefore, these people had nothing to do but to appeal to the trade union officials. I went. I had a deputation with me. The charge against this man was that he had handed in his ticket after coming to the works an hour late. A very serious charge, on which not only could he have been dismissed but he could have been charged with trying to rob the firm. When I took the deputation to the office I had six men there who were able to prove conclusively that this man was at work at six o'clock in the morning. We had corroborative evidence to prove that this man was not guilty of the charge brought against him, with the result that the employer reinstated him and paid him his month's wages. If the man had been dismissed from his employment it would have been very difficult for him to find employment elsewhere, because he would have been considered a dishonest workman. As a result of his reinstatement he took a leading part in my society and in the branch work of it, and to-day that young man is one of the most brilliant officials we have in our society. His character and future would have been destroyed as a result of the foreman's spite and spleen had he not been cleared from the charge. Take a man in and around the House of Commons who is charged. We know of charges being brought against a policeman for being drunk. He has been charged by some officials, and he is brought up and the charge is made against him. He denies it, but the chief officer will always believe the sergeant or the inspector before he believes the policeman. He has no one there to protect him or to give evidence in his favour. If these men were allowed to organise and join a trade union in exactly the same way as other workers in the country they would be able to call in their officials in order to state a case on their behalf, as other trade unionists do. On behalf of the Labour party, I protest strongly against this Clause, and we ask from the Government that the policeman may get the same form of organisation and be allowed to fight for his rights in the same way as other people.

I beg to support my hon. Friend. I am not going to repeat the arguments I used when the English Bill was before the House, but I do protest strongly against punishment being meted out to men, perhaps under a misapprehension, and the men being discharged from the force for committing an offence under this Act, and being thereby disqualified from pension rights and from being employed thereafter in a police force. That seems to me to be an extremely vindictive provision in an Act of Parliament, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, if he cannot see his way to accept the Amendment, will agree to modify the harsh provisions of the Clause.

I do not think anyone would take any exception to the remarks made by the Mover of the Amendment except that those arguments were based on false premises. He is comparing two things that are not alike. There is not a single workman in this country who has to take an oath of allegiance to his employer, but that is the duty of every man who is a policeman, whether in this country or in Ireland. The oath they take is that they will defend the property and life of the subject. A dispute takes place and tile police, if the Mover of this Amendment had his way, would be able to forego the terms of their oath and join with the strikers for the destruction of life and property. What did we see in Liverpool only a short time ago 1 There you had a number of policemen who were prepared to break their oath, with the result that the hooligan element turned Liverpool into a second Petrograd for a short period. While I have the utmost sympathy and have been associated with the trade union movement for thirty years, it would be an injury to moral values to say that a man can take an oath of allegiance, and having taken the oath, lie can be able to break that oath at will or because he has a grievance. I believe policemen should be given the fullest liberty of association and opportunity for dealing with any complaints or grievances they may have. I think the right of appeal ought to be extended to its utmost limit, but in the interests of the policeman and for the sake of the oath he has taken he should not be allowed to ignore, as people are liable in these days, those great moral values which if brought down would destroy the very foundations of society. Let us be as generous as we can to the policemen, but let us remember that the policeman on his own part takes an oath. If the object of this Amendment is carried out, that oath would be non effective, you would do more injury to the social fabric of this country than any good that would come to the policeman by this Amendment.

The Amendment would have the effect of largely destroying the discipline and efficiency of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The main object of this Bill is to place the forces in Ireland and England as far as possible upon the same footing, and we must bear in mind that quite recently the right bon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), in Committee on the Police Bill for England, moved to omit a precisely similar Clause. The arguments used by him are familiar to the House, and on that occasion, without a Division, the Amendment was negatived. Is there any valid reason for drawing a distinction between the two countries? In the first place, if we pass this Amendment the police force in England would have a grievance. They are much more suitable bodies to become members of a trade union than a semi-military force like the Royal Irish Constabulary, who have to take an oath and are under very much more severe discipline than any police force in England. I can assure the hon. Member who moved the Amendment that there does not exist in the Royal Irish Constabulary the arbitrary power of dismissal that he seems to think. When a constable in the Royal Irish Constabulary is charged with any offence, no members of the constabulary can dismiss him as a right or as a matter of course. He has a right to be tried, and always is tried, by two district inspectors who are not over him but who are taken from another district. When these district inspectors have heard him and counsel or solicitor representing him, and have heard the prosecutor, they have to make a return of a complete copy of the evidence to the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and even then the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary has no power of dismissal until that evidence is submitted to the Attorney-General for the time being, who has to certify, under his hand after having read it, the conviction is justified by the evidence.

Do you get a statement from the policeman as well?

I get a complete copy of the proceedings conducted by the two district inspectors and part of the file. In addition to the evidence is a written statement by the constable setting out the grounds of his defence. All these matters have to be considered, and I need hardly tell hon. Members that it is a very onerous task, because I, for one—and I am perfectly satisfied it was so with my predecessors also—realise that a man is not to be deprived of his employment as a matter of course. And we consider the matter to the best of our ability absolutely independently, so that the difficulties which have been suggested by the hon. Member do not exist. This matter has been very recently considered and decided by the House, and I would put it to the hon. Members opposite whether they should divide in this matter, seeing that it would draw a distinction between the police force in Ireland and the police force in England.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words

"Provided always that any person who was a member of either police force on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and nineteen, shall be deemed to be a member of such force for the purposes of this Section."

This is really a drafting Amendment, and asks for no further powers than those already found in the Clause as it stands. It simply makes the position clearer to a number of persons, and tells them where they actually stand. The Amendment makes the position in Ireland the same as that in England and Scotland, and I gather that is the idea of the Government in connection with the whole Bill. The Commission which reported on this matter mentioned the 1st of April as the date to be taken. All that the Amendment does is to specify that date. It gives no further powers to make Orders.

I have considered this Amendment, and am in a position to accept it. It carries out exactly the date fixed by the Desborough Commission, and is therefore really a drafting Amendment.

I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the word "two" ["Section two"], and to insert instead thereof the word "one."

This is an Amendment to correct a drafting error. The Bill deals with the publication of a draft Order, and proposes that. Section 2 of the Rules Publication Act shall not apply to any such Order. We have provided otherwise for the publication of the Order, -and to dispense with the other publication, in order to accelerate the payment of the increased wages to the members of the bodies concerned.

When the Bill was before the House on Second Reading, my colleagues on these benches made a very strong appeal to the Chief Secretary to do something to extend the benefits of this Bill to old police pensioners, and I understand that the Chief Secretary expressed himself as being in entire sympathy, but that, as usual, the difficulty lay with the Treasury. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to let us know whether any interview has taken place with the Treasury, and, if so, whether the Chief Secretary has had any success with that body?

My hon. and gallant Friend I am sure has noted the report of the Chief Secretary's remarks. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has not had the opportunity of conferring with the Treasury upon the question. Hon. Members will understand that it is a difficult and complicated question and my right hon. Friend hopes in a day or two to have that opportunity. In the meantime I cannot add anything to the very clear statement he made on the subject or to the undertaking which he gave to the House and which will be fully carried out.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section. (1), to insert the words,

"For the purpose of the provisions of tins Act as to representative bodies a detective officer of the Dublin Metropolitan Police shall be deemed to belong to the same rank as a constable of that force."

This Amendment is simply to define the word detective. In the Dublin Metropolitan Police there is a separate division known as the G Division which represents the detective office of the police force, and it is to remove any possible doubt about the status of those in it that I move.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

A large number of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary joined the Army during the War, and the result of the legislation on the subject dealing with their pensions is this; so long as they were actually in the Army they were entitled to pay and pension in the ordinary way, and once they returned to the Royal Irish Constabulary the time was again counted for pay and pension, but in the case of men who were discharged from the Army suffering from wounds and illness, and who could not for the moment be taken back into the Royal Irish Constabulary for that cause, they lost that period in the calculation for pension and also for pay. What we propose to do by the new Clause is, where a man is unable owing to injuries, ill health, or other reasonable cause to return to the police force, to enable the Lord Lieutenant to direct that that period should be reckoned for the purposes of his pension in future. I think it is a very reasonable proposition, and I do not apprehend that hon. Members will have any objection.

I am only expressing the opinion of the Irish trade union members of the House here in saying that we are very much pleased that this Bill has been carried through the Second Reading and is now before the House for Third Reading. I am a trade unionist myself, and the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Amendment in connection with the second Clause said he was one for twenty years. I am one for thirty years, and I am quite convinced that in dealing with the Amendment to Clause 2 the proper course was adopted. We in Ireland do not experience any difficulty in regulating the interests and affairs of the Royal Irish Constabulary. These men when they have grievances have a medium for bringing them before the authorities and can have them adjusted, and we know from experience from time to time that these men when they are unlawfully or wrongfully dismissed have a medium for bringing the ease before the authorities and having the same heard. But I am here to say that I do not recognise in the Royal Irish Constabulary any claim to be regarded as trade unionists. Trade unionists, as we understand them, are men who are associated with the production of something or the manufacture of something. In this respect we do not regard the Royal Irish Constabulary as trade unionists, and, moreover, it has been pointed out by the learned Attorney-General that, indeed, it would be a failure and quite a wrong proceeding on our part if we allowed them to become recognised trade unionists. We know what has been experienced ill England in connection with the police endeavouring to have these conditions obtained for themselves. It has been pointed out by another hon. Member what confusion transpired in Liverpool by reason of the attempt to force this, and now we see in Ireland what would inevitably happen if such a privilege were accorded.

A man cannot be at once a judge and a witness. That is to say, we cannot regard these men who are charged with the protection of the interests of the community as having a right to combine and probably to exert an influence against the interests of the community, and that is the position we have taken up in this matter. We will take the case of a judge on the bench. If he is a judge and occupying a high and honourable position, lie is nevertheless still a lawyer, and if the King's Counsels thought it right to combine in any form of trade union we should not feel that judges were called upon or ought, indeed, to be permitted to enter any such combination, by reason of the fact that we expect them to act impartially in all cases brought before them, as representing the Crown in criminal cases and in disputes between litigants. We would not like that these judges should be permitted to combine in order that they might defend the interests of the legal profession. Thus it becomes inevitable that it would not be in the interests of the police force their-selves if they were permitted to combine. Moreover, I am convinced that it would mean disintegration amongst the force, because in it there are a great many loyal men who have not the least desire to be mixed up politically in any questions of this sort, and I am also of the opinion that the point of the Amendment was not exactly—

We are not discussing the Amendment, but the Third Reading of the Bill. The Amendment was disposed of a short while ago, and we cannot now go back on it.

I quite realise that and will not proceed with that point. We are quite satisfied with the course that has been taken by the Government as being in the interests of the community at large. For this and other reasons I have very much pleasure indeed in expressing the delight I feel that the Bill has reached the Third Reading stage, and I confidently hope that the House will see its way to give it a Third Reading.

I beg to move,

"That it is expedient to make such provision as may become necessary by reason of the temporary continuance, by any Act of the present Session to continue temporarily certain emergency enactments and Regulations, and to make provision with respect to the expiration of emergency enactments and instruments made thereunder, of the Injuries in War (Compensation) Act, 1914, and the Injuries in War (Compensation) Act, 1914 (Session 2)."

Perhaps a little explanation will be welcomed by the House as to the need for this Financial Resolution. The body of the Resolution contains the somewhat long Title of the Act which we discussed earlier in the week, but the actual terms of this Resolution may be read in this way, that it is expedient to make such provision as may become necessary by reason of the temporary continuance of the Injuries in War (Compensation) Act, 1914, and the Injuries in War (Compensation) Act, 1914 (Session 2). I eliminate the unimportant words. It will be observed by hon. Members that in the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill provision is taken in Schedule 1 for the continuance of two Acts. The first is the injuries in War. (Compensation) Act, 1914, which was limited to injuries suffered by person whilst employed afloat by or under the Admiralty or Army Council in connection with war operations in which His Majesty is engaged. It is now intended to continue this for the purpose of continuing these powers

"during twelve months after the termination of the present War in conditions rendered hazardous by acts done during the War."

The other Act referred to in the Resolution is the Injuries in War (Compensation) Act, 1914 (Session 2). That was an. Act limited to disablement suffered by persons whilst employed on shore out of the United Kingdom by or under the Admiralty or Army Council in connection with war operations in which His Majesty is engaged. It is now intended to read the words as if these were added:

"or during twelve months after the termination of the present War in connection with the-operations of the Armies of Occupation."

During the War it was necessary to make provision by these Statutes of 1914 in order to enable compensation to be paid. in hazardous or other occupations in which injuries were suffered, and, inasmuch as-the result of the War still continues, it is necessary that we should still give the opportunity of compensation for injuries suffered by men who are still engaged in hazardous occupations. Let us take one—mine-sweeping. It is by no means certain, that every mine has been swept, and also it is quite fair that, even though the War has terminated, during a period after the termination of the War it is necessary to make some provision for compensation, in case of accidents to brave men engaged in that occupation. Equally in the Armies of Occupation there may be a good deal of work to be done in clearing up a battlefield, in which it becomes necessary to rim a danger in consequence of some dud ammunition, or something of that sort, going off, and it would be very hard indeed to say that an Act which entitled anyone engaged in that occupation during war to compensation should now cease to have effect. I think, therefore, all members of the Committee will agree that it is necessary to continue these powers, and if the powers are to be effective, it is necessary that there should be some money to pay the compensation for any injuries received. I do not think there can be any doubt in the mind of any member of the Committee as to the purpose of the present Resolution.

I am sorry to say that I am unable to carry out the usual practice of laying a White Paper before the Committee in order to indicate what is the sum which ought to be provided. It is quite obvious there can be no certain data on which one can base what will be the number or the nature of the accidents that may arise in the twelve months after the War. There is no doctrine of averages which would lead us to assume with anything like, I do not say precision, but in any way which would given confidence to anybody as to the amount estimated, and it has been found impossible at the present time to lay a White Paper before the House. But I am informed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that the estimate is not exceeding the sum of £2,000. That, I suppose, has been estimated from the accidents which have taken place in the past. I do not know that I can add anything more to give confidence in those data. What we must all hope is that there will be no accidents at all, but what we must provide is that, in case there are accidents, there must be some money to pay compensation. Having explained the purpose of the Resolution, 1 hope the Committee will be ready to give these powers and so make effective the Clauses in the Bill, which certainly ought to be made operative, because of the necessity of providing compensation for injuries suffered by men employed in hazardous occupations.

No one would disagree with what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about the desirability of having money in hand to pay compensation to soldiers and sailors who may be injured in duties really connected with the War, but I should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman this question. I see in the Resolution that we are voting money to provide such sums as may be necessary under certain emergency enactments and Regulations. Supposing some charges incurred in making Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act—

Perhaps I may explain at once that that is only the Title of the Bill. If you read the Resolution eliminating the title of the Bill there is no confusion. That is why I venture to put it to the House, so that it would real in this way:

"That it is expedient to make such provision as may become necessary by reason of the temporary continuance of the Injuries in War (Compensation) Act, 1914, and the Injuries in War (Compensation) Act, 1914 (session 2)."

The Resolution is closely limited to the operation of those two Acts, and those two only.

Then may I ask how is the money provided for which is needed in connection with Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act it not by this Money Resolution now moved?

So far as I know there will be none needed. We are Slot taking powers, because there will riot he any necessity to take money in consequence of the continuance of such powers as may be given under the Defence of Realm Act. If they are given under any particular Department they will probably come under the Vote of that Department. This Resolution is absolutely limited to the operation of those two Acts, because from very close and careful scrutiny those are the only two Acts for which it is anticipated any money will be necessary.

Some of us object very much to this War Emergency (Continuance) Bill, and intend to resist it at every stage on various grounds which I cannot enter into now, because it would be out of order. But one of the grounds—by no means the chief—is that it is a waste of money. May I ask at what stage in the progress of this Bill is it in order for us to protest against the War Emergency (Continuance) Bill on the ground of its expense? As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well, there is a document setting out the powers which this Bill wilt confer on certain authorities. I presume those powers cannot be exercised without the expenditure of money, and will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me this Resolution does not confer any power for the expenditure of money in regard to those powers?

Certainly not.

Then what really does?

That is not before us now.

With great respect, on this point of Order. May I ask the hon. and learned Member this question? What I want to know is whether this Resolution will confer any power of spending money under any measures or regulations other than the two named? Does it confer any other power in connection with the Bill?

So far as I understand it, I think the matter is made quite clear by the Resolution: it refers only to the measures mentioned there.

I beg to move, after the word "provision" ["make such provision"], to insert the words "not exceeding two thousand pounds."

In introducing this matter the right hon. Gentleman opposite said he regretted he could not put in a figure as to the amount which we were to authorise. Then he went on to say that it was pretty certain it would not exceed £2,000. Many of us have a very great objection to passing Resolutions here authorising the expenditure of money without some figure being mentioned, and I ask the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General to allow us to pot in a figure. If £2,000 is a safe figure, let us put that in, but in any case let us put in some figure. It is highly contrary to sound finance that this House should authorise the payment of moneys without putting in some sort of a limit.

I am perfectly ready to accept that limitation if it is so desired.

I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Before the Amendment is put from the Chair may I inquire what will happen if this Amendment is passed, and the £2,000, on being expended, is found not to be sufficient?

I presume a Supplementary Estimate will be necessary.

A Supplementary Estimate will be brought in for any moneys exceeding the £2,000?

Yes.

That, of course, is where the difficulty comes in, and was in the minds of some of us. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has put his finger on the point. We thought a sufficient limitation was put into the Resolution by limiting it to the events that would happen under the two Acts specified. Having specified these, we thought it would be unnecessary to put in any specific limitation of amount. The hon. and gallant Gentleman feels, and rightly, it might be very hard if the total amount of compensation exceeded £2,000, say was £100 more, and we had only the £2,000 to meet it, A Supplementary Estimate would then he necessary.

My hon. Friends and I are trying gradually, and with great difficulty, to reassert the power of the Sovereign House of Commons over the expenditure of money.

Hear, hear.

That is our object. I am sure we all appreciate what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the collection of ammunition, salvage work, and so on in very dangerous areas, but there is also the mine-sweeping services. These are not only being carried out in the North sea. Active mine-sweeping operations are proceeding in the area of warlike operations, as they have been termed. The men to whom I refer are only doing their duty in obeying orders, and if injured in the course of that duty, to whom are they or their relatives to turn for compensation if injuries are received by them? We do not begrudge this money. Obviously it has to be provided, but we want to have some say, and this is the only opportunity we have nowadays of exercising any control over policy—through the purse. The country, I think, expects us to regain our control over it in every way we possibly can. It may be necessary to bring in a Supplementary Estimate. It may take up a few minutes on a Friday afternoon, but it will give us an opportunity of interrogating Ministers, which is one of the opportunities left to us.

I beg to move "That the County Court Judges (Retirement Pensions and Deputies) Bill be now read a second time."

I can, I think, explain in a sentence or two what are the purposes of this Bill. Under the existing law, that is under the County Courts Acts, 1888, it is provided that the Lord Chancellor may recommend to the Treasury the payment to any County Court judge who may be afflicted with some permanent disability, due possibly to the exertions of his office, and who is deserving of receiving a pension, one not exceeding two-thirds of his salary. That Act charges any pension so granted upon the Consolidated Fund. In practice various difficulties have arisen in the administration of that Act. On the one hand it is felt to be invidious to recommend a less sum than the maximum, and on the other hand the County Court judge is not able to receive a pension unless he satisfactorily establishes that he is suffering from permanent disability. The evidence for that is not always forthcoming. One of the consequences, therefore, is that some County Court judges have continued to perform their duties after it was really desirable that they should do so.

The object of the present Bill is to regularise the whole position. I am sure it is not likely to lead to an expenditure of any larger sum than is now spent. It will be necessary, hereafter, to have a Financial Resolution, but it is not expected that the expenditure taking place under this Bill when it becomes an Act will be greater than the similar expenditure which now takes place under the Acts of 1888. Incidentally, this Bill accomplishes some other purposes. It imposes, as hon. Members will see if they read it, a retiring age of seventy-two, which may be extended to seventy-five if in the particular case the Lord Chancellor thinks fit. Secondly, it grants a pension on a sliding scale with a maximum of two-thirds of the salary, and any County Court judge who has attained the age of sixty-five and served for fifteen years may at any time retire with two-thirds of his salary as pension. On the other hand, if he breaks down in health, and has served fifteen years and attained the age of sixty-five, then he is entitled only to the proportionate pension on the scale set out in the Bill. That is the main proposal of the Bill, but there is a subsidiary proposal which has the object of bringing the law in this country into line with other Acts, and there is provision made for a deputy. The Bill has been agreed between the Lord Chancellor on the one hand and the Treasury on the other and it has received the hearty approval of the County Court judges themselves.

I am sure the House will welcome this Bill, and I think my right hon. Friend has made out a very good case. We are prepared to see that our learned judges who suffer from disabilities and ill-health are not forced by financial reasons to attempt duties for which they are not as well fitted as they ought to be. I would take this opportunity, however, of pointing a moral which I think is not irrelevant to this Bill. You have here the principle laid down that a pension is established at the age of seventy for a County Court judge. If for some reason the learned judge at sixty-five falls into such a state of health that he cannot earn his living he receives two-thirds of his salary as pension. This has been agreed to between the Treasury and the Lord Chancellor and the judges I wish the right hon. Gentleman to convey to the Lord Chancellor that their great influence in Government circles might be used to extend this principle, and if we agree that the public servant who at the age of sixty-five falls into such a state of health that he cannot earn his living, so to speak, may we ask that, the influence of the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor should be used to extend that principle to the humbler members of the community outside their own profession, and to persons other than learned County Court judges who are unable to carry on their duties through illness, and who are now going to receive their pension at sixty-five instead of seventy years of age.

Do I understand from the Attorney-General's statement that no additional charge will fall upon the public funds by reason of this Bill, and that it covers the provisions he has referred to dealing with deputies and the pensions at the earlier age, or does it merely apply to the first part?

As I understand it, the calculation relates to the pensions of Couny Court judges—that is to say, under the new scheme no larger sum per annum will be disbursed than the sum at present being disbursed. The additional element would be whatever sum is requisite for the payment of deputies, but that would be a very small one.

Will it be explained in the White Paper?

The whole matter will appear in the White Paper. The sum that will be required will only be that which is actually paid. It is impossible to say at what age a judge may have to retire, and we have to make an approximate calculation, which has been made with the result I have mentioned.

Is there any limit to the number of years? There seems to be no indication of this in the Bill, and it might go on for many years.

There is no limit in the Bill, bat, of course, if anything of that kind happens it would be quite easy to put an end to it. I will consider whether it is desirable to insert some restriction in the Bill itself.

It is very often done in the case of other bodies.

I will consider that point.