Commons Sitting of 27 November 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Greenock Improvement Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Consideration deferred till To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  PALM KERNELS (EXPORT DUTIES).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French Government have imposed an Export Duty on palm kernels and other raw material used in the manufacture of oils and cattle foods exported to this country in retaliation for the duty imposed on similar products exported to France from our Colonies and Protectorates; and whether he has information as to similar Export Duties imposed by any other of our Allies or by neutrals on raw materials exported from their Colonies or Protectorates to Great Brtain?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD (Vice-Chamberlain): The French Government have imposed Export Duties on oleaginous produce shipped from French West African Colonies to all destinations, including France. It is therefore evident that these duties have not been levied as a retaliatory measure for the duty imposed on palm kernels exported from British West African Colonies to destinations other than the British Empire. have no information as to other similar Export Duties imposed by any other country.

  BUDAPEST.
  Mr. SITCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, when Admiral Horthey's Army entered
  1860
  Budapest, a number of Socialist leaders were arrested; whether Sir George Clerk issued a protest against these arrests, and whether the men have now been released?
  Mr. D. WARD: Before the entry of Admiral Horthey's Army, Sir George Clerk had obtained the most complete guarantees from him, that order would be maintained. On the 16th November, Sir George Clerk telegraphed that order has so far been completely maintained and that the general life of the city was quite normal, but that there had occurred instances of unauthorised arrests and attempted arrests of prominent Socialists and Social Democrats. Against this Sir George Clerk made the strongest possible representations to the Government, who assured him that the incidents were entirely unauthorised acts of individual officers or soldiers. Sir George Clerk demanded the immediate release of those arrested, and declared that, unless he had definite guarantees that there would be no more molestation of political opponents, he would at once leave Budapest. On 19th November Sir George Clerk was able to report that the attitude of the Government in regard to this matter was entirely satisfactory, that individual Opposition leaders had been provided with Hungarian guards when they desired this, and that he now had little fear of political persecution.

  MONTENEGRO.
  Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information to the effect that Gabriele D'Annunzio is preparing an expeditionary force to attack Montenegro?
  Mr. D. WARD: I have received reports to that effect, but they remain without confirmation.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will explain in what manner the representation of Montenegro in the Peace Conference was accepted in principle; why, if it was accepted in principle, was it not acted upon in fact; and if he will say what difficulty, if any, prevented a representative of Montenegro from; sitting in the Conference?
  Mr. WARD: I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. and learned Friend on 24th November.
  Mr. McNEILL: Does the hon. Member know there was no answer whatever given to the last part of the question?
  Mr. WARD: No.
  Mr. McNEILLasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether at any time during his mission to Montenegro Count De Salis or any member of his mission was interned or subjected to any indignity; if so, by whom was such insult offered to His Majesty's representative; and what steps have been taken by the Government to exact apology or reparation?
  Mr. WARD: Count De Salis has not reported the internment or subjection to any indignity of himself or any member of his mission in Montenegro.
  Mr. McNEILLasked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that more than 3,000 dwellings in Montenegro have been burnt by the Serbian troops in occupation of the country, and that numbers of Montenegrins, including women and children, have been murdered, imprisoned, or driven. as refugees to the mountains, whether he will propose to the Allied Council in Paris that compensation from Serbia be demanded on behalf of Montenegro for these wrongs, seeing that this Ally has been excluded from the Peace Conference and from the Allied Council?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): As my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated on 24th November, His. Majesty's Government have no confirmation of the allegation contained in. this question, and it is not, therefore, possible for me to take the course which he suggests.
  Mr. McNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to take any steps to find out whether these allegations are true or false, and is he himself familiar with the transaction which has been so deeply staining the good name of this country in its relations to Montenegro?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure my hon. Friend that Montenegro is one of the most difficult questions with which we have had to deal. The people are divided, and it is very difficult to ascertain what are their views or what is their condition.
  Mr. McNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Under-Secretary of State for War continually refuses to give the House any information, and, now that
  1862
  he is here, can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any more information than the Under-Secretary?
  The PRIME MINISTER: If I had any information should certainly be happy to communicate it to my hon. Friend. I know the trouble and complexity that this question has caused to those who have attempted to settle it.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not the real difficulty the fact that there is an ex-King related to the Royal family in Italy?
  Sir J. D. REES: Does any special responsibility for Montenegro attach to Great Britain other than such as attaches to the other Allies?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly not. We have to act together. Of course, it would be quite impossible for us to act except in conjunction with our Allies.

  SPITSBERGEN.
  Sir MARTIN CONWAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state what securities have been taken for the protection of British enterprises in Spitsbergen under the terms of the proposed Grant of the sovereignty of that country to Norway?
  Mr. D. WARD: I cannot at present give the exact terms. The treaty, however, granting the sovereignty of Spitsbergen to Norway contains the most careful provisions for the protection of British enterprises in Spitsbergen, which will be entitled to the same privileges as those enjoyed by the nationals of any other Power, including Norway.
  Sir M. CONWAY: May I ask whether the actual terms will be published, also whether they are capable of modification, and whether the parties interested in British enterprise will have an opportunity of expressing their views on these terms before they are finally accepted?
  Mr. WARD: I must ask for notice of that question.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    STATUS OF EGYPT.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for

    1863
    Foreign Affairs whether Egypt will be invited to send a representative to attend the first meeting of the assembly of the League of Nations; and, if not, what is the reason for her different treatment in this respect to that of the Empire of India?
    Mr. D. WARD: The status of Egypt in relation to the League of Nations can only be determined when the details of her future Constitution under the Protectorate and her position in relation to the British Empire have been finally settled. Her present position offers no analogy; to that of India.

    FIRST MEETING OF COUNCIL.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he can state whose duty it will be to summon the first meeting of the assembly and the first meeting of the council of the League of Nations in view of the refusal of the United States Senate; to ratify the Treaty?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Article 5 of the Treaty of Peace stipulates that the President of the United States of America shall summon the meetings. I do not understand that this will be in any way affected by the refusal of the United States to ratify the Treaty.

  RUSSIA.

    BOLSHEVIK GOVERNMENT.
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what meaning the Foreign Office attaches to the word "Soviet"; and whether the present form of authority in Russia answers to this description?
    Mr. D. WARD: The word "Soviet" means "Council." The name is commonly applied, both by themselves and by others, to the Bolshevik Government in Russia.

    TRANSIT OF GOODS.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of either an armistice or peace being agreed to between the Baltic States and Soviet Russia, we will place any hindrance in the way of the transit of goods to Soviet Russia by way of Libau, Win-dau, or other ice-free ports in the Baltic?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it is desirable to answer hypothetical questions in reference to the highly difficult and complicated situation in Russia. I have already stated that the British Fleet cannot undertake to resume their patrol of the Baltic.

    CONFERENCE OF POWERS.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the Prime Minister when the International Conference which is to discuss the future of Russia will be convened; what Powers or de facto Governments will be represented; what sections of the former Russian Empire will be represented; whether representatives of the Soviet Government will be invited; and what will be the terms of reference to this Conference?
    Mr. RAPERasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state when and where the Conference of the Allied and Associated Powers which is to meet to discuss and, if possible, settle the Russian, question, is to be held?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything to what I said on Thursday last in reply to questions on this subject.

    SUPPLIES FROM GREAT BRITAIN.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether he can state at what date Great Britain will cease sending supplies to any of the belligerent bodies in Russia?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the information already given to the House on this subject.

    VLADIVOSTOK.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have any information as to a revolutionary movement at Vladivostok, supported by the Czecko Slovak General Guida and the Socialistic parties, which is alleged to have as its object the opening of negotiations with the Soviet Government; whether this movement was suppressed by the representatives of the Allies; and, if so, why?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and, as to the second part, in the negative.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The revolution was not suppressed by the; Allies?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No.

    PEACE TREATIES (SIGNATORIES).
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will say what Governments are signatories of the Treaties of Peace with Germany and with Austria-Hungary, respectively?
    Mr. D. WARD: The name of the States whose Governments are signatories to the Treaties of Peace with Germany and Austria are contained in the copies of the Treaties which have already been laid before the House.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    MOST-FAVOURED NATION RIGHTS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what Treaties or arrangements which confer most-favoured-nation rights upon other countries are still in force, and also if any such treaties have been denounced; and, if so, when?
    Mr. D. WARD: The greater part of the information required by the hon. Member will be found in the "Return of Most-favoured-nation Clauses in Existing Treaties of Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain and Foreign Powers," which was laid before Parliament as Cd. 3395, Commercial No. 3 (1907).
    Since the date of that Return, commercial Treaties containing most-favoured-nation Clauses have been concluded with Bolivia, Honduras, Japan, Portugal and Serbia. The former commercial Treaties with enemy Powers have lapsed owing to the War, and those with the Congo Free State and Corea have disappeared upon the annexation of those countries. The Treaties with Russia, Salvador and Uruguay have terminated upon denunciation, and the Treaties with France and Greece have been denouncd, but remain operative subject to three months' notice of denunciation on either side.

    TRUSTS AND COMBINATIONS.
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Prime Minister what action has been taken or will be taken on the Report of the Committee on Trusts?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. Section 3 of the Profiteering
    1866
    Act empowered the Board of Trade to make investigations into Trusts and Combinations, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee; and a number of investigations are now being conducted by the Central Committee established under that Act.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    DEPRIVATION FOR IMPRISONMENT.
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Pensions Minister if his attention has been called to the fact that magistrates and judges are frequently embarrassed by the present pensions rule that imprisonment for a certain period of time of an ex-soldier in receipt of pension automatically deprives that soldier of pension rights; and if, in view of the fact that soldiers' pensions are now regarded as of right and not of grace, he will consider the advisability of taking steps to remove what would appear to be an anomaly?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I am considering this question with others, of which it forms a part.
    Captain LOSEBY: Is it not a fact that the soldier's pension now is a right and no longer a grace?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is a right, and it is not a grace, and I am considering the reaction which follows from that fact.

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Pensions Minister if he will state the number of medical men permanently employed in his Department who have not served in His Majesty's forces overseas during the War, the number so employed who have served overseas, how many who have not served overseas now hold high administrative rank, including deputy commissioners of medical services and assessors, the number of medical men who have applied for permanent appointments, and how many have been granted; if he is aware that many, if not most, of the well-paid posts have never been advertised in the medical or other Press; if he can give any information as to how these posts were filled; if the official in charge of the Appointments Department of the Ministry of Pensions

    1867
    (Director - General's Department, 14, Great Smith Street, S.W.), Dr. R. M'Queen, has served overseas in His Majesty's forces; and if he will take steps to see that ex-Royal Army Medical Corps and naval medical officers get preference for all appointments before the appointments are made permanent?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In reply to that part of the question which relates to Dr. M'Queen, I may inform my hon. Friend that this officer was mobilised on the first day of the War and served, continuously until four months after the, signing of the Armistice, when he was invalided with a 30 per cent, disability resulting from service in France, Belgium, and Macedonia. In appointments to the; Medical Services Division of the Ministry it is the invariable practice to give preference to men who have seen war service overseas.
    The answer to the remaining parts of the question is of such length and involves; so many figures that I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the remaining portion of the Answer:
    The medical officers of the Ministry are almost without exception, serving on temporary engagements terminable at a; month's notice. There are only three permanent officials, of whom one has served overseas.
    There are fifty-nine temporary officers who have not served overseas, of whom forty-eight have served at home, and others with the British Red Cross or similar units.
    Since 1st April between 1,600 and 1,700 applicants have been interviewed. The present number of salaried appointments is 244. As will be seen from these figures, the material for selection for the few posts available has been so great that advertisement has been unnecessary.
    Each applicant is personally interviewed, and his suitability is carefully considered in the light of his former service, and general qualification and experience, special attention being given to his experience of the kind of work at which it is proposed to employ him. Since 1st April no applicant has been favourably considered unless he has had war service; in the Navy, Army, or Air Force.
    Mr. ROSEasked the Minister of Pensions if he will state the grades and
    1868
    average salaries of the 283 officials removed from his Department during the month of September; and how many, if any, of them were transferred to other Government Departments?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The net reduction in staff at Headquarters in September was 497. Against this the staff in the Regions and in medical institutions showed a net increase of 214, giving a net reduction for the whole Ministry of 283. The reduction was practically entirely in the clerical grades with wages averaging about 46s. a week. No transfers were made to other Government Departments.

    ROYAL NAVY (ERNEST BUTCHER, INJURIES).
    Mr. ALFRED SHORTasked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Ernest Butcher, who was injured in the Royal Navy in 1888, and who was awarded a pension of £13 10s. per annum (pension certificate No. N.G.B. 3,078); whether he is aware that Mr. Butcher received this pension for one year only; that after repeated applications the pension was renewed in 1915, stopped again in 1916, and finally in 1917 a lesser amount was awarded for life; and whether, in view of the fact that this man's disability is permanent, he will give instructions for the payment of the pension for the period during which it was withheld?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The pre-war Regulations under which this pension is granted, are based, not on the extent of disablement, but on a man's ability to contribute to his own support. Mr. Butcher's original pension of £13 12s. a year was awarded by the Admiralty for one year only, its renewal depending on further survey. Mr. Butcher, however, went to Australia, and made no further application until August. 1914. He was then re-examined and found ineligible for continuation of pension, but was informed that, should he lose his employment as-a result of his disability, his case would be reconsidered. On a further application in March, 1915, reconsideration took place, and pension, at the rate of 3s. 6d. a week, again awarded for one year. In view of the medical report at the end of that period, the pension was not renewed, but as a result of a further later examination, pension was granted at the rate of 3s. 6d. a week for life. Mr. Butcher is not eligible for an award in respect of the periods during which the pension was discontinued.

    DISABLEMENT AND SERVICE PENSIONS.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Pensions Minister if he can state the reason why disabled men in receipt of service pensions are only being paid disablement pensions under the scales laid down in the 1918 warrant instead of the higher scales, with wife allowance, as laid down in the warrant of September last; whether he is aware that disabled service pensioners who have received disablement pensions under the last-named warrant are now being asked to refund the overpayments; and if he will state the authority for this action?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The facts are not quite as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend. The scales of service pension have been increased for certain classes of pension to meet the increased cost of living. As following the recommendation of the Select Committee on Pensions, the rates of Disablement Pensions were increased for precisely the same reason, the Government deciding that in cases where both disablement and service pensions were payable, payment should not be made at the increased rates for both classes of pensions concurrently. The new warrant will, therefore, provide that in cases where the service pension is payable at the higher rate, the disablement pension shall be based on a maximum of 33s. instead of 40s., but the allowance for a wife and the new rates of children's allowances will be payable.
    It is not intended to ask for a refund from future issues of pension in any of the few cases where, prior to the Government's decision, payment at the higher rates both of disablement and service pension may already have been made. If my hon. and gallant Friend can give me particulars of any cases where repayment has been claimed, I will investigate them.
    Colonel ASHLEY: In respect to the general principle, is not the Government doing exactly what is objected to in private individuals, namely, reducing a man's wages by asking what is the amount of his disability pension?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think not. It is only with regard to the element of increase in cost of living that it is taken into account at all.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Does not that apply-equally to wages?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, wages are not taken into account at all, but these are both payments from public funds which overlap with regard to the cost of living.

    WIDOWS REMARRYING (GRATUITY).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Pensions Minister if he can state the reason why a widow who remarries is only entitled to draw a gratuity based on the rates of pension laid down in the Pensions Warrant of April, 1918, instead of at the higher rates as introduced on the 3rd September, 1918?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The general increase in the rates of widows' pensions consequent upon the high cost of living is not considered to afford any ground for a corresponding increase in the amount which is given to a widow gratuitously, and not for current maintenance, on her remarriage. The new Royal Warrant which is shortly to be issued will, accordingly, provide that these gratuities shall continue to be paid at the rates laid down in the 1918 Warrant.

    OFFICERS (DISABILITY RETIRED PAY).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that officers in receipt of disability retired pay, after winning their commission from the ranks, are subject to a deduction from this pay of the amount of service pension earned for service in the ranks; and whether he is prepared to introduce an Amendment to the Warrant which will make it possible for such an officer to receive his retired pay in full independent of any pension which he may have earned by reason of long service in the ranks before the War and under an entirely different and distinct engagement?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As I explained in reply to a question put to me on the 11th August, an officer holding a temporary commission receives disability retired pay made up of his service pension as a soldier, with an addition, according to the degree of disablement, varying from £100 for total disability. In cases where the rate arrived at is less than the disability rate in the prescribed scale he receives retired pay at that rate. The ques-

    1871
    tion has, however, been before the Select Committee, who may possibly deal with it in their next Report.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Is not the Government doing the same thing here again, namely, taking into consideration the rate of service pension in assessing disability?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: I think not. We are following the principle which has been applied right through pensions for both officers and men. So far as it affects officers, it is before the Select Committee, and I shall, of course, consider any recommendation they may make on the subject.

    LOCAL WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEES.
    Captain MOREINGasked the Pensions Minister whether he will explain why he has closed the banking account of the East Ham Local War Pensions Committee and withdrawn their powers; and whether he is aware that the committee have in the past made themselves liable to surcharges amounting to £100,000?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: From the reports of the inspectors of my Department it appeared that the East Ham committee were making, and threatening to make, unauthorised payments out of public moneys committed to their charge. As a precautionary measure, I, therefore, stopped their power to draw upon public moneys. I ordered a local inquiry to be held into the action of the committee, and this is now proceeding.
    Mr. JOHN DAVISONasked the Pensions Minister whether the scale of expenses allowed to a member of a local war pensions committee is 1s. per hour for time lost through attending meetings of the committee; whether he is aware that, in comparison with the present earnings and the high cost of living, 1s. per hour does not meet the loss incurred; whether he is aware that members of local advisory committees under the Ministry of Labour are entitled to the actual wages lost up to a maximum of 20s. per day; and whether he will consider the advisability of adopting the same scale for members of war pensions committees?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I regret that am not yet in a position to make an announcement on this subject, which is being considered in consultation with other Departments.

    CONVALESCENT TRAINING CENTRES.
    Mr. HALLASasked the Pensions Minister whether, in view of the practical failure which has so far attended all his other schemes for the establishment of convalescent training centres, he proposes to go on with the further scheme at the Beacon and Lickey Hostels, Birmingham, which does, as a matter of fact, deprive; 1,500 people of employment and housing at Longbridge, and which offers no better prospects of success than any of his previous schemes?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot usefully add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the subject of these hostels on the 5th instant.

    TEMPORARY PENSION (LIEUIENANT G. A. M. LEATHEM).
    Mr. DONALDasked the Pensions Minister the result of the special medical examination on Lieut. G. A. M. Leathern, No. 13030–, L. 3, Royal Irish Rifles, at Whitehall Buildings, Ann Street, Belfast, on the 21st October last; whether, as the result of this examination, this officer is now entitled to his wound gratuity which has been refused by the War Office; and will his temporary pension of £35 plus twenty per cent., which expires in; January, 1920, be extended till January, 1921.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I must refer the hon. Member to the War Office for information as to the wound gratuity. Following the consideration of the medical board's reports the grant of retired pay has been revised. An award has now been made at the rate of £52 10s. a year, with bonus, for the period from 25th March, 1919, to 29th April next. Before the expiration of this period the question of renewal will be considered.

    WIDOWS.
    Mr. STURROCKasked the Pensions Minister the number of pensions which have been awarded under Article 15 of the Royal Warrant on Pensions; whether these are of a temporary nature and amount to 15s. weekly to widows and no allowances for children are provided for in this Article; and whether the pensions will be assessed on a proportionate basis to widows whose pensions are awarded under Article 11 or a war bonus added owing to the increased cost of the necessaries of life?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The number awarded is approximately 1,000. The temporary pension granted under Article 15 of the Royal Warrant to a widow whose husband's death was in no way connected with his military service is a gratuity given in circumstances which cannot be said to justify a claim for assistance from the State. It was not intended to be a maintenance grant, and was, therefore, excluded from the scope of the 20 per cent, bonus.
    Mr. STURROCKasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that Private James Law, No. 2013, 5th Black Watch, died at a camp at Hawick in April, 1915, through being choked while at a meal; that he was buried with full military honours; that his widow, Mrs. Law, Smithy Croft, Arbroath, is in receipt of a temporary pension of 15s. weekly, while no allowances are given for his child; and that the deceased soldier heroically rescued from drowning, at great danger to his own life, a comrade who had fallen into a rushing mill tide; and whether he will explain why Mrs. Law is not receiving full pension?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Private Law's death could not be ascribed to his military service, and, therefore, it was only possible to grant to his widow the temporary pension under Article 15 of the Royal Warrant.
    Mr. SPEAKERcalled upon Sir Clement Kinloch-Cooke to ask question No. 25.
    Major O'NEILL: Before this question is put, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, as the first question answered by him on Thursday is No. 25, the effect of it is, as I stated last week, that no Irish question can be answered verbally?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not relevant to the question on the Paper.
    Major O'NEILL: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, how I can raise this point?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Member will put his question down in the ordinary way, as other Members do.

    WOMEN INCAPACITATED.
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the fact that many women who served in various capacities in forward areas
    1874
    during the War, and were incapacitated owing to such service, do not come within the scope of any pensions scheme; and will he consider the advisability of instituting an Inquiry into the whole system under which these pensions are administered, with a view to the removal of grievances and bringing under one Department the whole administration?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have been asked to take this question, but I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend on the 20th instant.
    Captain LOSEBY: Could the right hon. Gentleman reply to that part of the question in which I ask him if his attention has been, called to the fact that many of these unfortunate and gallant women do not come within the scope of any pension, and also the other part of my question in which I ask him if he will consider the advisability of bringing the whole administration under one Department?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I told my hon. and gallant Friend on the 20th instant that these cases either came under the Workmen's Compensation Act or the Injuries of War Act, and that was in communication with the First Lord of the Admiralty and with the Secretary of State for War with regard to the matter. I really cannot add anything to that statement.

    HOSPITAL TREATMENT.
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Prime Minister whether approximately 400 disabled men are still awaiting hospital treatment as bed cases in the London district?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have been asked to answer this question. There are at present about 130 discharged disabled men awaiting hospital treatment as bed cases in the London area. The surgical cases will be admitted forth with, and other cases with as little delay as possible.

    SOLDIERS IMPRISONMENT.
    Mr. KILEYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that during the War many soldiers were sentenced to terms of imprisonment for offences other than criminal; is he aware that these men were not then imprisoned but were put in the firing line, and those who were not killed or maimed were sent to prison

    1875
    after the Armistice was signed; and, in view of the fact that nearly all the Great Powers have released their military prisoners, is he prepared to advise similar action so far as British soldiers are concerned?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): This question only reached me a short time before the House assembled. The terms of the question do not at all represent the actual facts, but I am anxious to make a full statement, and if the hon. Member will put a question down early next week I will answer him.
    Mr. KILEY: I will be very glad to do so, and to supply the right hon. Gentleman with a case which bears upon what I have said.

    UNEMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have this year at any time considered the question of preventing unemployment, other than the question of insurance against unemployment; and, if so, what is their intention on this matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The policy of the Government with regard to the prevention of unemployment has been to do everything in their power to hasten the return of industry to normal lines. The general question of the prevention of unemployment was considered by the Provisional Joint Committee of the Industrial Conference in the early part of this year, and so far as this could be done by Government action, the Minister of Labour has done his best to have the recommendations of this Conference carried into effect.

    FIUME.
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to make any statement as to the existing state of affairs at Fiume; and what further steps are contemplated, if any, by the Supreme Council to deal with the situation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This matter is receiving the close attention of the Supreme Council, but I regret I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.
    Viscount CURZON: Is it a fact that this irresponsible adventurer is preparing an attack on the Dalmatian coast and also Montenegro? Would not the British Navy be called in to deal with that?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that is not the way to deal with it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have we any ships in the Adriatic to protect Spalato and the other Dalmatian towns from this adventurer?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must have notice of that.

    LIQUOR TRADE (CARLISLE).
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of pending legislation with regard to the drink trade, the Government will provide facilities to enable Members of the House of Commons who desire to visit Carlisle and acquaint themselves with the facts of the experiment in direct control that has been made there to do so?
    The DEPUTY-MINISTER Of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to answer this question. I am informed by the Central Control Board that any Member who may wish to visit Carlisle, for the purpose indicated in my hon. Friend's question, should communicate with their local representative, Sir E. C. Sanders, 19, Castle Street, Carlisle, who will provide all necessary facilities.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is hardly possible for a Member or anybody else to avoid visiting Carlisle, and that it is extremely hard when you arrive there to get anything to drink anywhere, at any time?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: That is probably the explanation why so many Members have not yet visited it.

    BLACK SEA ARMY.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the immediate withdrawal of the Black Sea Army, which is costing the country £24,000 a day, and the employment of the money formerly spent on the Black Sea Army on building houses or other reconstruction schemes to provide employment and alleviate distress?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As what is termed the Black Sea Army includes troops at Constantinople and the Straits, it is not possible to adopt the suggestion in the question till Peace has been made with Turkey.

  PROFITEERING ACT.

    MESSRS. J. AND P. COATS.
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a working-class protest demonstration held on 20th November outside a building in which the shareholders of Messrs. J. and P. Coats were meeting in Glasgow; whether the protest was against the high price of thread and the great increase in the profits of the firm; and whether, in view of the discontent, which is extending, because of high prices and enormous profits, he can take some step, by legislation or otherwise, to reduce both or make effective use of the Profiteering Act in this case?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. My attention had been drawn to newspaper reports of a demonstration of the kind referred to. With regard to the last part of the question, would refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to a question by the hon. Member for South Salford on 13th November, in which it was explained that prices, costs and profit in all stages in the manufacture of sewing cotton have been for some time under investigation, through machinery established under the Profiteering Act.
    Mr. CLYNES: Is it possible for the Profiteering Act to be applied in a case of this kind?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: At any rate, it is possible to have it applied so far as investigation goes.
    Mr. CLYNES: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, after investigation, the Act can be applied by any act of the Government, instead of it being on the initiative of an aggrieved person?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think I should like to have notice of that.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not the case that even under the Act a fine of £100 can be imposed?
    Mr. ACLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be possible to make a statement about the investigation, seeing the matter has given rise to a great deal of unrest?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid it cannot be very soon, because figures from abroad as well as at home have to be collected.

  PEACE TREATY.

    UNITED STATES SENATE.
    Mr. A. T. DAVIESasked the Prime Minister what effect the delay in the ratification of the Treaty of Paris by the United States Senate has had on the Plebiscite and Missions under Clauses of the Treaty; whether the guarantees to Belgium will be carried into effect by His Majesty's Government should the United States fail to ratify the Treaty; whether the British and French Governments have already conferred on this possible eventuality; and whether he is in a position to indicate what effect, if any, a decision by the United States not to ratify the Treaty of Paris will have on the Tripartite Treaty defending France in case of wanton attack?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the first part of the question, the Supreme Council have decided that the German Delegation should be informed that all Commissions to be constituted by the Allied and Associated Powers should be duly composed and should function regularly with the representatives designated by the Powers ratifying the Treaty, or who, without having ratified, have agreed to designate representatives. The only effect which the delay in ratification by the U.S.A. has had on these Commissions has been an indirect one due to the necessity, thereby falling on the other Powers, of finding a larger quota of representatives. As regards the second part of the question, I do not know what the hon. Member has in mind. As far as His Majesty's Government is concerned, the Treaty of 1839 remains in force until it is abrogated, and the British and French Governments are at present considering the position of Belgium should that contingency arise. As regards the last part of the question, the ratification by the British Government of the Tripartite Treaty is contingent on the ratification by

    1879
    the U.S.A., but the refusal of that Government to ratify the Treaty of Peace will not necessarily affect the Treaty of Peace provided that they ratify the tripartite part separately.

    OTTOMAN EMPIRE.
    Major GLYNasked the Prime Minister whether such representations to the Allied and Associated Powers can now be made as will enable the Peace Treaty with the Ottoman Empire to be considered and ratified in London, since the interests of the British Empire are so deeply concerned by the conclusion of an early peace with Turkey, and so far no progress in this direction has been found possible?
    Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Prime Minister whether steps will be taken to accelerate the conclusion of peace with Turkey, in view of the fact that the United States of America cannot now be expected to accept a mandate for any part of the Turkish Empire?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The British Government are anxious to have an early meeting for the settlement of the Turkish problem. They are in communication with the Allied and Associated Governments with that object. I quite agree with my hon Friend the Member for Clackmannan and Eastern Stirling that the conclusion of an early peace is in the interest not only of the British Empire, but of the whole world.

    PUBLIC STATISTICS.
    Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a petition praying that an immediate inquiry may be instituted into the existing methods of the collection and presentation of public statistics; and whether he would be prepared to fix an early day for the reception of a small deputation to urge the prayer of the petitioners?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not yet received the petition in question. Perhaps those interested might send me their views in writing, and I could then judge whether a deputation would be necessary.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I am much obliged.

    UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
    Mr. GIDEON MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether he can give any indication as to when the new insurance scheme, against unemployment is likely to be ready for submission to the House of Commons, and how many months from the present time he anticipates it will take before the scheme can be brought into force?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): I have been asked to reply to this question. As I stated yesterday in reply to the hon. Member for Lincoln, it is hoped to introduce a Bill dealing with this subject very shortly. It is not possible to say what period is likely to elapse before the scheme comes into operation, since this must depend on the nature of the scheme as finally adopted and the date of its adoption.
    Mr. MURRAY: May I ask whether, when the Government decided to repeal the unemployment doles to civilian workers, they had any definite idea in their heads as to how long it would take to bring in this unemployment Bill?
    Mr. WARDLE: I think they have a very definite idea of how long it will be, because the Bill is now being prepared.
    Mr. ACLAND: Does "very shortly" mean before Christmas, or after Christmas?
    Mr. WARDLE: I think so!
    Mr. ACLAND: Which?
    Mr. WARDLE: Before!

    AGRICULTURE.

      GOVERNMENT POLICY.
      Lieut.-Colonel WEIGALLasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to embody in one Bill the Government agricultural policy as to guaranteed prices, security of tenure, and improved standards of cultivation; and, if so, when will this Bill be introduced?
      The PRIME MINISTER: It will probably be found convenient to deal with the matters referred to in one Bill. I cannot at present state when this legislation will be introduced
      Mr. TURTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister not aware of the

      1881
      very natural anxiety of the agricultural community that the promises made by the Prime Minister should be put into print at the earliest possible moment?
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that anxiety is also felt by the consumers of this country?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Turton), but the work which is in front of Parliament between now and Christmas is very considerable. As soon as possible this pledge will materialise. The Government have authorised me to make this statement on their behalf. We propose to honour it at the earliest possible opportunity.

      ROYAL COMMISSION.
      Captain TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the delay in the production of the Interim Report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture is, owing to the uncertainty of the outlook, causing serious inconvenience to farmers; and can he tell the House when this Report may be expected?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I have no information as to the cause of the delay referred to in the question of my hon. and gallant Friend, but I am advised that a Report may be expected within two or three weeks.
      Captain TERRELL: May I ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that the land under cereals has decreased this year by 20 per cent.?
      Mr. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of any question relating to figures.

    EGYPT AND SOUDAN (CIVIL SERVICES).
    Major GLYNasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to reconstitute the Egyptian and Soudan Civil Services, in view of the depleted condition of those services through casualties in the War and the suspension of recruiting during the War; whether the existing situation is one of the main causes of the present disturbed condition of Egypt, since adequate supervision of native officials was, and is, impossible; whether the new obligations of this country to other Arabic-speaking countries necessitates a
    1882
    new system by the formation of a Civil Service responsible for assisting in the good government of all Arabic-speaking countries under a British Protectorate or Mandate; and whether, without improved conditions of service, chances of promotion, and rate of pension on retirement, it is considered probable that suitable individuals will offer themselves for employment in the Civil Service of Egypt, the Soudan, Palestine, etc.?
    Mr. D. WARD: A selection board representing the Egyptian and Soudanese Governments assembled in London during August and appointed candidates to fill vacancies in the Civil Service of the countries. As regards the second part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, it is impossible to analyse all the causes contributing to bring about the present disturbed condition of Egypt, but it is undoubtedly the case that the absence of sufficient British Civil servants during the War rendered the inspection and control of the work of minor Egyptian officials almost impossible. As regards the third part of the question, the proposal will receive consideration when the extent of our new obligations towards Arabic-speaking countries is determined. As regards the last part of the question, substantial improvement in the conditions of service in Egypt and the Soudan has already been effected, and further improvements are being considered.
    Major GLYN: Arising out of the question, may ask the hon. Gentleman whether Lord Milner's Commission, before they proceed to Egypt, will be able to consider the future government of Egypt with the knowledge that the British Government are prepared to set up a Civil Service which will embrace all Arabic-speaking countries over which we have either Protectorate interests or a Mandate.
    Mr. WARD: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.
    Earl WINTERTON: May ask whether the Milner Commission will be competent to inquire into the grievances, either individual or collective, of the existing British Civil servants in Egypt? Will that be one of their instructions?
    Mr. WARD: I am afraid cannot answer that question. Notice should be given.
    Earl WINTERTON: Cannot we have an answer to the question—it is a very important matter?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord must be aware that the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs is abroad on public business, and that the hon. Member for Southampton is only answering on his behalf.
    Earl WINTERTON: But cannot we have an answer from the Prime Minister?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think notice should be given of these questions in reference to Egypt. As my Noble Friend is well aware, this is a very delicate matter.

    BESSARABIA.
    Sir SAMUEL HOAREasked the Prime Minister whether Roumania has agreed to the requirements of the Allied Powers with reference to Bessarabia; and what steps are being taken to enable the population to determine their future government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question of Bessarabia has still to be discussed at the Peace Conference.

    MESSRS. KRUPP'S.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether his Majesty's Government have any information with regard to the establishment of Messrs. Krupp in Germany; whether this firm is continuing to produce large quantities of munitions; and whether any steps are being taken to ensure that adequate supervision is exercised to avoid any possibility of secret production of munitions on an extensive scale?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Our information does not confirm the suggestions in the first two parts of the question. It is the duty of the Supreme Council to have regard to such questions, and this, I am sure, is being done.

  AUSTRIA.

    ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CONDITIONS.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether the British High Com-
    1884
    missioner for Austria has reported that unless speedy assistance is given to Austria the day is not far distant when the whole of the Republics from the Swiss frontier to the confines of Hungary will dissolve into total anarchy; whether His Majesty's Government share that view; and whether the Supreme Council in Paris, including the United States of America, or His Majesty's Government are taking steps to deal with the situation?
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH- BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, with a view to restoring the economic life of Europe, the Government will propose that international credits be given for the purchase of raw materials by those countries of Central and Eastern Europe which are at present suffering from inability to purchase such materials, owing to the breakdown of their exchanges;
    (2) whether he is aware that considerable suffering exists in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Austria, and Jugo-Slovakia owing to the fact that the economic and financial breakdown is preventing the exchange of food, raw materials, and manufactured goods; and whether His Majesty's Government will endeavour to bring together the responsible statesmen of these countries with a view, to making the adjustments necessary for securing the free exchange of goods between them?
    The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are fully conscious of the very serious economic situation existing in Central Europe, and, in conjunction with the Supreme Council in Paris, are taking all possible means to alleviate the difficulties. They have reached the conclusion that only a comprehensive arrangement for a large international credit would adequately meet the situation, and it is essential for the success of such a proposal that the United States should contribute that part of the expenditure which has to be incurred in dollars. Urgent representations have accordingly been made to the United States Government in this sense. The Noble Lord's proposal for free exchange of goods between the various countries would undoubtedly tend to make conditions easier, and His Majesty's Government will certainly lose no opportunity of promoting such an arrangement, as they feel that the seriousness of the situation is such that all possible measures should be taken.

    Ex-SOVIET LEADERS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the refusal of Austria to surrender the ex-Soviet leaders; whether the surrender of these leaders meets with the approval of His Majesty's Government; and, if not, whether he will inform Sir George Clerk accordingly?
    Mr. D. WARD: Unless the hon. Member refers to the same incidents as the hon. Member for Kingswinford in the question which have already to-day answered, have no information on the subject.

    VATICAN (BRITISH MISSION).
    Mr. LYNNasked the Prime Minister the entire cost of the British Mission to the Vatican; whether he is aware that the presence of such a Mission is a violation of the Act of Settlement; and whether, in view of the attitude of the Vatican, towards Great Britain and her Allies during the War, he will consider the advisability of bringing the Mission to an end at the earliest possible moment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The total cost of the Mission from its inception until 31st March, 1919, is £16,920 19s. 2d. I have not yet received figures for the period subsequent to 31st March. His Majesty's Government are carefully considering the question of the maintenance of the Mission and will take a decision in the near future.
    Sir S. HOARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great political value this Mission has been during the last five years?
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be considerable opposition to the Mission being withdrawn?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware of both facts; that is why we are taking them into serious consideration. I fully realise the point put by the hon. Gentleman (Sir S. Hoare), that the Mission has been of great value during the War.
    Captain REDMOND: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will kindly inform the House what was the "attitude of the Vatican towards Great Britain and the Allies during the War"? It is stated hypothetically in the question.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think there is anything arising on that point out of the question.
    Captain REDMOND: "In view of the attitude of the Vatican "—what was it?

    GOVERNMENT CLERICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFS.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Prime Minister if he will give the figures for the number of people earning £3 per week and under employed in the Government's clerical and administrative work discharged during the last six months who were not in Government employ before the War, and the number still employed; the correspondng figures for those paid over £3 per week; the number of permanent Government officials not employed before the War and being paid over £400 per year who had been discharged, and how many were now employed; if those Government Servants whose salaries had been raised because they were in charge of large staffs, or because they were heads of Departments, have now had their salaries correspondingly reduced, the reason given for such increase no longer holding good; how many complete clerical and administrative staffs have been abolished, and whether any of the permanent Government servants formerly in charge of these had had their salaries reduced; and how many officers in receipt of retired pay are still being employed by the Government, and of these how many are being paid over £500 per year?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EX-CHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The various particulars desired by the hon. Member could only be obtained by calling for detailed returns from Government Departments, the preparation of which would involve an expenditure of time and labour altogether out of proportion to the value of the information obtained. If the hon. Member has a particular case or cases in mind, perhaps he will address a specific inquiry to the Minister concerned. As regards the fifth part of the question, temporary increases of pay to permanent Civil servants for extra duties or responsibilities are withdrawable when those extra duties or responsibilites cease, and have no reason to doubt that this condition is duly observed.
    Mr. ROSE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not think that the process adopted by the Pensions Ministry would relieve the situation, and that the easiest way would be to sack all the low-paid officials, rather than trouble about their wages?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that it is the desire of the House, as it is the desire of the Government, to dispense with any officials whose services are no longer required.
    Mr. ROSE: Is it only those who are getting low salaries who are not required? Are there none who are getting large salaries who are not required?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly. The question of whether the salary is high or low does not affect the usefulness or necessity of the services rendered.
    Mr. ROSE: Then why sack all the low-paid ones?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is singularly unfortunate in insinuating as a statement of fact something which is not the case.

    IRISH QUESTION.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he gave any undertaking to President Wilson at the Peace Conference that he would endeavour to settle the Irish question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to this question is in the negative.

    HUNGARY.
    Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Prime Minister when steps will be taken to make peace with Hungary?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Allies have been ready for some time to present their terms of peace to Hungary. Unfortunately, there was no Government in existence that could be fairly held to represent that country. At last, however, largely owing to the exertions of Sir George Clerk, a Government, representative of all parties in Hungary, has been formed to hold elections immediately. I trust that this will be the prelude to an early peace between Hungary and the Allied and Associated Powers.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that peace with Hungary cannot take place until after there has been a general election in Hungary?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it would be possible to negotiate peace until there is in Hungary a Government that is really representative of the people.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: And does that depend upon the election?
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he has information to the effect that the Catholic extremists are co-operating with Admiral Troubridge to retain the pro-Hapsburg Friedrich in power in Hungary in opposition to Sir George Clerk; whether this is contrary to the policy of His Majesty's Government; and will he have Admiral Troubridge informed of the necessity of supporting Sir George Clerk in all things?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I have information that the rumour referred to is without foundation.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this statement has been made in the Austrian Press?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

    GENERAL YUDENITCH.
    Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Prime Minister whether £1,000,000 has been placed to the credit of General Yudenitch in a London bank; if so, whether this money has been advanced by the British Government; and whether General Yudenitch will be entitled to withdraw it now that his expedition is a failure?
    The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government have no knowledge of such a transaction as that alleged. The last two parts of the question, therefore, do not arise.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    FOOD FROM DOMINIONS (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).
    Major M'KENZIE WOODasked the Prime Minister whether food coming from the Overseas Dominions will be subject to-the provisions of the Exports and Imports. Regulation Bill?
    Mr. BRIDGEMANI have been asked to reply. If the hon. and gallant Member will study the provisions of the Bill he will find that no article of food is included in the list of key industries; and that the powers to prohibit the import of goods on the ground of collapsed exchanges relate only to foreign countries. The only provisions which restrict importation from the Overseas Dominions into this country, therefore, are those to prevent dumping. These are confined to no particular class of article, but may be applied to any goods coming from any source. The application of these provisions, however, will in all cases take place only with the authority of a statutory body on which hon. Members of this House will be in a large majority.

    DUTCH BUTTER.
    Mr. CLYNES(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that there are 2,000 tons of best Dutch butter awaiting export to this country; that unless this butter be shipped to this country this week it will go elsewhere as the permits for export to this country expire on the 29th instant; whether it is a fact that the Treasury have refused to sanction the necessary expenditure for the purchase of this butter through the Food Ministry, and, if so, whether, in view of the present great scarcity of butter—a scarcity which will become accentuated—he will state the grounds upon which the Treasury refused to sanction the expenditure?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Treasury sanction was given some time ago for the purchase of Dutch butter at a price not exceeding £283 a ton, c.i.f., which may be taken as approximately equivalent to the price of 2s. 6d. a pound, which is the selling rate to the public in the United Kingdom. The price now asked is understood to be £330 a ton, f.o.b., and the Treasury has refused to sanction purchase at this price.
    In view of the condition of the foreign exchanges it is not in my opinion desirable that this country should make competitive bids for imported butter at prices which not only tend to cause further exchange difficulties but also a loss to the Exchequer when the butter is resold to the British consumer. It is essential that the available purchasing power of this country in foreign markets should be conserved to the utmost extent possible for the purchase of absolutely essential foodstuffs and raw materials.

    LEGAL TERMINATION OF WAR.
    Major M'KENZIE WOODasked the Prime Minister whether the legal termination of the War will not take place until the ratification of the last of the Treaties with countries which have been at war with His Majesty and his Allies?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative.
    Major WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what will happen if Turkey, or Hungary, or any other country refuses to ratify the Treaty?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The War cannot come to an end until there is a Treaty of Peace.
    Major WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great hardship that is being caused by the continued uncertainty as to the legal termination of the War?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have already said so with special reference to Turkey.

    GERMANY.

      FINANCIAL CREDITS.
      Mr. CHARLES WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the amount of the credits which have been granted to Germany by each of the Allied and Associated Powers?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The British Government have given no credits to Germany, and they have no information as to credits given by any other Government.

      INDEMNITIES (PAYMENT).
      Mr. WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the amount already paid by Germany by way of reparation or indemnity to each of the Allied and Associated Powers; and in what form payment has been made?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The Treaty of Peace with Germany has not yet come into force.

    GOVERNMENT ORDERS (ALLOCATION).
    Mr. CHADWICKasked the Prime Minister whether the Government, in placing orders on Home, Colonial, or

    1891
    Indian account, will have regard to the special hardships under which towns such as Barrow-in-Furness, which were engaged almost exclusively in the manufacture of material for the War, are now suffering; and will he ensure that so far as possible some clear priority in the allocation of such orders be made promptly to enable the workers in those places to weather the coming winter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have devoted a good deal of attention to the case of industrial centres which have been engaged in the production of war material where dislocation and suffering have been caused by the termination of war contracts. Much has already been done to mitigate the evils which inevitably arise owing to the change from war to peace conditions, and, in consequence, there has been little actual distress, and the conditions compare very favourably with those which ensued after previous great wars in which the country has been engaged.
    Mr. CHADWICK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the locality in question approximately 10 per cent, of the adult working population are out of employment to-day; and will he, considering that, give a reply to the second part of the question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I shall certainly bear in mind the statement of my hon. Friend.

    PRINCE OF WALES' FUND.
    Mr. CHADWICKasked the Prime Minister if he can now make any statement as to the steps which the Government feel able to take to facilitate the use of the Prince of Wales' Fund for the relief of cases of distress due to the cessation of the unemployment benefit; and whether he can recommend greater decentralisation of authority in dealing with purely local cases?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything to the replies which have already been given on this subject.
    Mr. KILEY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to consider the setting up of a Committee to consider what is the best use to which these funds can be put?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather not answer that now, because the
    1892
    subject is being considered very carefully at this very moment by the Ministry of Labour.

  COAL PRODUCTION.

    COAL-OWNERS' PROFITS (FIXATION).
    Mr. WILSON-FOXasked the Prime Minister whether the Government is pledged to fix the profits of the coal-owners at 1s. 2d. per ton; and, if so, to whom, on what occasion, and on what terms, this pledge was given?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, the Government pledge was given in this House by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the 20th of March, 1919, when he stated, on behalf of the Government, that they were prepared to adopt the Sankey Interim Report.
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: May I ask whether the pledge is absolute, or will it take into consideration the fact that the recommendations of the Sankey Committee on this point were based on considerations of output?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think my hon. Friend had better wait until the Bill is introduced.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has received, with reference to the proposed limitation of profits, any protest from the Cobden Club?

    RESTRICTIONS.
    Mr. KILEYasked the Prime Minister when legislation will be introduced to provide for a limitation on the export of coal, a limitation on the owners' profits, and a limitation on the price of coal supplied for domestic purposes?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. Legislation for limiting the export of coal is already in existence, such export being restricted by licences granted in accordance with the provisions of the Royal Proclamation issued under the Customs Acts. The profits of coal-owners for this year will be limited, by a Bill to be introduced very shortly, to 1s. 2d. per ton on coal raised. The price of coal for inland consumption, including coal for domestic purposes, is governed by the provisions of the Price of Coal (Limitation) Act. 1915, and the subsequent Coal (Pit's Mouth) Prices Orders.

    COAL CONTROL DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDSasked the Lord Privy Seal what is the explanation for the delay in presenting the Financial Statement of and Report upon the Coal Control Department which, by the terms of the Coal Mines. Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act, 1918, had to be made up to 31st March last and presented to Parliament; and if, having regard to the importance of this House being placed in possession of exact information with regard to the administration of the Coal Controller for the purpose of forming a right judgment on Government policy in relation to the coal trade of this country, he can state; when the said statutory Financial Statement and Report will be in the hands of Members?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. The accounts referred to by the hon. Member only relate to the receipts and expenditure under the Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act, 1918 (Section 3), and do not include the cost of the Coal Mines Department. Particulars of such receipts and expenditure down to 31st March, 1919, will be found in Vote 26 of the Unclassified Services for the year 1919–20. Final accounts in respect of the years 1917–18 and 1918–19 have recently been rendered to the Comptroller and Auditor-General in the form prescribed by the Treasury, and will in due course be laid before Parliament with any Report thereon which he may see fit to make.

    HOUSEHOLD COAL (TEN-SHILLING REDUCTION).
    Captain BOWYER (by Private Notice)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, and, if so, how, the recent reduction of 10s. per ton in household coal applies to electric and gas companies; and whether any arrangements have been made that a corresponding reduction should take place in the price of electricity and gas to consumers?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, Sir; gas and electricity undertakings will receive at the reduced price that proportion of their total requirements of coal which the amount of gas or electricity supplied by them for domestic or household purposes bears to the total amount supplied by them. There will be an adjustment in the price of electricity and gas supplied for domestic or household purposes; and as to
    1894
    this, the Coal Mines Department is in touch with the interests concerned.
    Captain BOWYER: Have arrangements already been made to that effect with the gas and electrical companies?
    Mr. KILEY: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how electrical companies are to differentiate between electricity for private consumption and that for power?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid I cannot answer either of those questions offhand.
    Dr. MURRAY: Does that apply also to the price of coal for coastal steamers?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That does not arise out of the question.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Who is to pay the loss?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Answer !

  TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION.

    RAILWAY SERVICES (REORGANISATION).
    Mr. ATKEYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction amongst all classes of the commercial community with the inefficiency of the railway services of the country, and of the desire to see the railways restored to their owners and competitive conditions; and if he will state whether the negotiations with the railway workers' unions are known to and approved by the directors of the railway companies, or are of such a nature that they will not prejudice the return to those companies of their property when the temporary control assumed by the Government comes to an end?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot altogether accept the accuracy of the suggestions made in the first part of the question.
    The railways in all belligerent countries, including ours, are suffering from the failure to keep up their rolling stock during the War. The wagon supply is still deficient, although all wagon works are under full pressure doing their best to repair old and construct new wagons. But all this is due to the inevitable consequences of war, and it is unfair to attribute it to inefficiency on the railways or on the part of those controlling them.

    1895
    With regard to the second part of the question, the directors of the various railway companies are aware of the course of the negotiations with the men, and I do not think that these negotiations prejudice the question of the return of the property when the Government control ceases.

    RAILWAY MANAGEMENT (GOVERNMENT POLICY).
    Mr. ACLANDasked the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to make a statement to the House as to the Government's proposals for the future management of the railways and as to the negotiations with the National Union of Railwaymen on standardisation of wages?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No proposals for the future management of the railways have been put forward by the Government, though new machinery for the settlement of wages disputes and for the inclusion of representatives of railway labour on a railway advisory committee are under discussion, and hope to make an announcement on this point at an early date. Negotiations on standardisation of wages are not completed, and cannot say when I am likely to be able to make a statement of the result.
    Mr. ACLAND: Does an early date mean in this case before Christmas?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It depends on the progress of the negotiations. I have no complete control over them.

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH (INSURANCE PRACTITIONERS).
    Mr. A. SHORTasked the Prime Minister whether at a recent conference of medical men, held at Wigmore Hall, London, it was decided to recommend practitioners not to accept service under the Ministry of Health until a satisfactory rate had been secured; and whether he will afford this House facilities to discuss the matter?
    Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): The Minister of Health has been requested to reply to this question. A general conference of representatives of all local medical and panel committees is being held to-day to discuss the terms and conditions of service of insurance practitioners, and he proposes to receive a deputation
    1896
    from that conference to learn from them the outcome of their deliberations. In these circumstances he is not in a position to make any statement to-day on the subject.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM WAR LOSSES COMMISSION.
    Mr. HICHAMasked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the Defence of the Realm War Losses Commission was appointed in order to prevent hardship to any of His Majesty's subjects through the operation of the Defence of the Realm Act, whether he is aware that applicants who have suffered direct and substantial loss have, in some cases, been ruined by the commandeering of certain commodities on which their businesses depended, have been refused compensation by the Commission on the ground that the interference of the State was indirect, and only those large companies, trusts, and others who controlled the commandeered article have received any consideration; whether, as the instructions to the Commissioners contained in the Royal Warrant make no distinction between direct and indirect interference, this differential treatment between His Majesty's subjects is with the knowledge and approval of His Majesty's Government; and, if so, what is being done to meet the hardships suffered by those whose claims have been refused by the Commission and who are not so well able to bear such losses as those to whom awards have been made?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The terms of reference to the Defence of the Realm Losses Royal Commission are not as stated by the hon. Member, but are
    "to inquire and determine, and to report what sums (in cases not otherwise provided for) ought in reason and fairness to be paid out of public funds to applicants (not being subjects of an enemy State) in respect of direct and substantial loss incurred and damage sustained by them by reason of interference with their property or business in the United Kingdom through the exercise by the Crown of its rights and duties in the defence of the realm."
    I am satisfied that every applicant who has suffered such direct and substantial loss who has come before the Commission has been granted adequate compensation in respect thereof. I am aware that certain applicants have been refused compensation on the ground that the interference of which they complained was not with their property or business but with

    1897
    the property or business of other firms or individuals with whom they had business connections which were adversely affected by such interference. This is in accordance with the Commission's interpretation of their terms of reference as expressed in their first Report, which has the entire approval of His Majesty's Government, and I am not prepared to advise any modification of those terms.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (DISCHARGES).
    Mr. WALLACEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the number of men being discharged from His Majesty's Dockyard, Rosyth, he will state when the Committee to inquire into the question of adapting dockyards for the building of mercantile ships will begin their work?
    The FIRST LORD Of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): I have been asked to answer this question. As I explained yesterday, the Committee will hold its first meeting on Monday, and will continue to meet day by day until its work is accomplished.
    As indicated yesterday, the Board had arranged to go into the whole matter of the dockyard discharges later in the day, which they did, and think it due to hon. Members who put questions to me yesterday, shortly to say that we have notified Portsmouth, Devonport, Sheer-ness, Pembroke, Haulbowline, and Dover, to the effect that
    "It has been decided to modify programme of discharges on reduction for present, in view of unemployment conditions, and pending result of inquiry already announced into possibility of undertaking commercial work. This will be done by still further bringing forward work which it was originally proposed to spread over a longer period. Steps are accordingly to be taken to reduce notices of discharge due to take effect on Saturday next, 29th November, and in subsequent weeks, down to one-sixth of number previously authorised, pending further instructions. In selecting employés for discharge on this new basis, every care is to be taken to provide for cases of hardship. As far as possible, men with families should be retained in preference to single men."
    As regards Chatham, where, as hon. Members will remember, there was much more definite willingness expressed to go on short time, we have decided to continue the policy in that yard of issuing no discharges on reduction. But in consideration of the steps which have enabled so substantially to reduce discharges
    1898
    elsewhere, the application of short time at Chatham will be so arranged as not to prejudice that yard.
    Mr. WALLACE: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue instructions to this Committee to expedite their inquiry and produce their report at the earliest possible date?
    Mr. LONG: It is quite obvious that the Government cannot issue instructions to a Committee, but that there will be no delay is indicated by the fact that the Committee proposes to sit de die in diem.

    EX-KAISER (TRIAL).
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Prime Minister in view of his reiterated pledges that the ex-Kaiser shall be brought to trial and the strong monarchical agitation in Germany, if the Allied Governments have made any representations to the Dutch Government to prevent his escape to Germany; if the latter Government has given satisfactory assurances on this point; and if the recent legal conference in Paris made final arrangements as to the trial and when it shall take place?
    The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first and the second parts of the question there is nothing to be added to the answers already given. With regard to the third part, the recent conference in Paris was not concerned with the trial of the ex-Emperor.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his information does not point to the fact that public opinion in. all the Allied countries is favourable to leaving the ex-Kaiser where he is? [HON. MEMBERS: No!]

  ARMY OF OCCUPATION.

    GERMANY'S CONTRIBUTION TO COST.
    Mr. KILEYasked the Prime Minister whether any payment has been received from Germany towards the cost of the Army of Occupation; and, if so, in what form the payment has been made?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been asked to answer this question. I must refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen on the 29th October and to the

    1899
    hon. Member for West Toxteth of the 27th October on the question of payment to be made by Germany under the Separation Section of the Treaty.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that our economic recovery is very much hampered by uncertainty as to the amount of the indemnity to be paid?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My Noble Friend knows that that does not arise out of the question.

    ULSTER DEPUTATION TO AMERICA.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that a delegation from Ulster is proceeding to the United States of America; can he state what are the objects of the delegation; and why passports have been granted?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My attention was called to the fact for the first time by the hon. Member's question. As to the motive of the delegation I have no information on the subject. I understand that passports were granted in the ordinary course.

    ORDERS IN COUNCIL (PROCEDURE).
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will arrange in future that Orders in Council and Regulations, which under various Acts of Parliament have to lie upon the Table of the House for a specified number of days, shall be printed and circulated to Members as soon as they are laid, to avoid difficulties such as arose over the Regulations of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, when Members were in ignorance of their provisions and unable to obtain copies of the Regulations in the Vote Office?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): In view of the expense which it would involve, I am afraid I cannot recommend the adoption of my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. GWYNNE: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to inform the House when the Orders are laid on the Table?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have made inquiries. I think I am right in saying there are six copies which hon. Members can see. I think it would be a waste of money to print and circulate them with the paper.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that hon. Members' attention is called to the fact when these documents are laid on the Table?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. Member means that something shall be done to notify Members of the fact that the documents are laid, I think that is reasonable and I will see what is possible.

    PENSIONS (TAXATION).
    Mr. SUGDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared to consider the revision or revocation of the taxation of pensions granted to the widows of fallen soldiers, sailors, and airmen, just as pensions granted direct to disabled soldiers, officers, and nurses are exempt from taxation?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The statutory exemption to which my hon. Friend refers is restricted to the pension, or part of the pension, attributable to the disablement or disability of the pensioner. Pensions to widows are by law chargeable to Income Tax at the reduced rates of tax applicable to earned income. In this connection, would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Hull S.W., and on the 10th instant to the hon. Member for Burslem. I am sending copies to my hon. Friend.

    BREWERS' CHARGES.
    Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the complaints that are being made by licence holders with regard to the increased charges imposed on them by brewers, in some cases amounting to an advance of 18s. per barrel since March, 1918, and whether he can take steps to ensure that the licence holders shall not be called upon to bear the major portion of extra taxation?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): I have been asked to reply. The Food Controller is not aware that complaints have been made

    1901
    except in a very few cases. On the whole question of the machinery which has been set up to deal with any disagreements arising as to wholesale prices and which is working well, would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on this subject on 3rd November to the hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge.

    INCOME TAX (ABATEMENT FOR WIDOWS).
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked this Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that by Section 13 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1918, an abatement for the purpose of Income Tax is given to a widower who has a female relation resident with him for the purpose of looking after his children, he will consider the advisability of granting a similar abatement to a widow who is earning her livelihood by outside work, and who has a female relative or other person residing with her for the purpose of looking after her children?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer, a copy of which I am sending him, given on the 5th instant in reply to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Newton.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will my right hon. Friend in considering the matter consider the necessity of equalising the rights of the two sexes?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If hon. Members had made suggestions when we were discussing the concessions made on the Budget I might have met them favourably, but now these things must await the Report of the Royal Commission, which I dare say will deal with the question, or it may be next year's Finance Bill.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Major - General SEELY (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether the Air Policy of the Government in respect to the Air Ministry is the same as it was on 14th November, 1917, when the present Lord Privy Seal stated that the
    1902
    whole of the Air Service must be independent of either the Admiralty or the Army Council; why the Secretary of State for War is now President, both of the Army Council and the Air Council, and whether the Air Council is now independent of, or dependent on the President of the Army Council?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that my right hon. Friend did not see his way to put notice of this question down on the Paper. Nothing has arisen in the course of the last two days which was not in existence before, and, therefore, notice might have been given. I will, however, do my best to answer, as far as I Can, in the short time at my disposal.
    It has already been stated that there is no change whatever in the Air Policy of the Government, which remains the same as it was when my right hon. Friend accepted the position from which, to my regret, he has recently retired.
    Major-General SEELY: May I ask the Prime Minister how he can say that there is no change in the policy of the Government as announced by the Lord Privy Seal when he said that the Air Ministry must be independent of the Admiralty and the Army Council; further, will he give an opportunity to this House to express its opinion on a change of policy from a decision which was so strongly endorsed by his own colleagues?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Army Council has no control whatever over the Air Force—none. It is perfectly independent of the Army Council.
    Lord H. CECIL: Not of the President of the Army Council.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is the Secretary of State for War, who holds both positions. That has been done many times in the history of this country, and it is thought desirable in this case. With regard to the latter part of my right hon. Friend's question, I have already said, in answer to my Noble Friend, that if there is a general desire on the part of the House for a discussion of the subject, the Government will find time—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no !"]—but I would point out that the pressure of business is very great, and we do not wish to allocate time unless there is a general desire on the part of hon. Members.
    Lord H. CECIL: Will the Prime Minister consider whether a few hours or half a day would not be quite sufficient for this purpose; has not recent experience shown that there is often half a day at the disposal of the Government, if they cannot promise a whole day, and could we not have a friendly arrangement that half a day should be assigned, without any inconvenience to the Government, to give the Government an opportunity of explaining to the House the rather metaphysical obscurities which have arisen.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ACLAND: Can the Leader of the House say what the business of the House will be for next week?
Mr. BONAR LAW: On Monday there will be the discussion on Premium Bonds.
Tuesday, Land Settlement (Scotland) Bill, Report.
Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, the Government of India Bill.
I hope it may be found possible to take the National Assembly of the Church of England (Powers) Bill, if there be time, on Friday.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Carr and Major Steel; and had appointed in substitution: Major Farquharson and Sir Kingsley Wood.
  Report to lie upon the table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  AGRICULTURE (COUNCILS, ETC.) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  AGRICULTURE (COUNCILS, ETC.) BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.— (Substitution of Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries for Board of Agri culture and fisheries.)
    (1) It shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries who shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure, and from and after the date of the first appointment any reference in any Act or document to the Board of Agriculture and fisheries, or to the President of that Board shall be construed as a reference to the Minister.
    (2) For the purpose of acquiring and holding land the Minister for the time being shall be a Corporation sole by the name of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and all land transferred to the Minister by this Act or otherwise vested in the Minister shall (except where and to such extent as the land is held on other trusts) be held in trust for His Majesty for the purposes of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
    (3) Upon and by virtue of the appointment of any person to be Minister the benefit of all deeds, contracts, bonds, securities, or things in action vested in his predecessor at the time of his predecessor ceasing to hold office shall be transferred to and vested in and enure for the benefit of the person so appointed, in the same manner as if he had been contracted with instead of his predecessor, and if his name had been inserted in all such deeds, contracts, bonds, or securities instead of the name of his predecessor. For the purposes of this provision the Board shall be deemed to be the predecessor of the person first appointed to be the Minister.
    (4) Section one of the Board of Agriculture 4ct, 1889, is hereby repealed.
    (5) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Acts, 1889 to 1909, as amended by this Section, may be cited as the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Acts, 1889 to 1919.— [Captain Fitzroy]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Captain FITZROY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    4.0 P.M.
    This proposal has for its object the substitution of a Ministry of Agriculture for the present Board of Agriculture. It is not necessary to state at great length the reasons which make it desirable that this change should take place. Those who have interested themselves in the agricultural industry during the last few years are aware of the general desire throughout the country for a real revival of that industry, and must be impressed with the necessity of making the Department of the State which has to deal with it one of
    1956
    of first grade. It will be remembered that before the House rose last autumn there was a proposal made, by the Government before the House for raising the salary of the President of the Board of Agriculture to an amount similar to that received by the heads of the other big Departments of State, but through the vary proper desire of the House that at this particular time expenditure of that kind, if it could be, should be avoided, the proposal of the Government fell to the ground. That does not alter the case for this Department being under a Minister instead of being a Board. So far as I am aware, the importance of a Government Department does not consist in. the amount of the salaries which are paid, either to the head of the Department or to his subordinates, but in the status of the Department in being presided over by a, Minister. The other side of the question is the increasing responsibilities and duties which are rightly being put upon the Department which deals with agriculture. Not only is it dealing with many new questions, but it is also becoming the trustee, as it were, of the State for an enormous amount of land. For that reason, if for no other, it seems to me necessary that the Ministry of Agriculture should be a first grade Department.
    Captain FALCON: I beg to second the Motion.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): The effect of this would be to abolish the Board of Agriculture, as a Board of Agriculture, and to substitute a Ministry of Agriculture. Of course, this is a big change in name. We have always been known as the Board of Agriculture, and in the old days, long before the present Board was constituted, there was a board, at the beginning of the eighteenth century. But the Board is a name, and nothing else, at present. The Board itself is a perfectly ineffectual body, which consists, no doubt, of very eminent persons, such as all His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State. It has met whenever it has been summoned, but as it has never been summoned the effect of its meetings has not been very great. I do not quite know what particular advantage is conferred by the change of name, but if there is a general feeling in the country that it would be better to have a Ministry which would be a real Ministry, and would not be a Board which is what may be called a

    1957
    sham Board, we are quite willing to accept the Amendment, to disappear as a Board and reappear immediately under I the altered style of a Ministry. Some people think that if they call us by another: name we shall be better, probably, than we were before, I do not think we can be I better. However, if the idea is that we might conceivably be a little better, I am quite willing to accept the change; and if it is the general wish of the House, I shall be perfectly willing to accept the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause accordingly read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Duties of Councils of Agriculture.)
    Each Council of Agriculture shall meet at least twice a year for the purpose of discussing matters of public interest relating to agriculture or other rural industries.
    Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words "and these meetings shall be held in public."
    My object is to provide that the meetings of the councils of agriculture for England and for Wales shall be held in public. The Bill provides for the setting up in each county and county borough of an agricultural committee, and provides for the setting up for England and for Wales of separate agricultural councils. I lay great stress on the establishment of these councils if the Bill is to be a success at all, because for the first time it provides a statutory body which will be able to discuss agricultural questions, and we shall have a means of arriving at what is the real opinion of agriculture on questions affecting agricultural policy. It is quite true that, these councils have no legislative or administrative powers at all; they are merely consultative bodies, but if they are to have value it is absolutely essential that everyone who is interested in agriculture should know not only what are the decisions they arrive at, but what takes place at their discussions and on what grounds they have arrived at those decisions. It is a great mistake, in my view, that we should have public bodies meeting in private. The Royal Commission on Agriculture carefully shuts out the public from all its discussions, and its decisions carry no weight or authority. I am very anxious to see that avoided in the case of the new council.
    Mr. E. GARDNER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    1958
    I think it absolutely essential, if these councils are lo be of value, that their meetings should be held in public. I see no point in them holding them in any other way. It is useless to suppose for a moment that anything that goes on among ninety persons will do other than leak out in some form or other, and very likely in a very inaccurate form.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is quite reasonable and proper that the meetings of these large bodies should be in public. One of their objects is to arouse as much interest in the industry as possible, and if there are full accounts in the local Press and the London Press of their meetings, so much the better. I accept the Amendment.
    Mr. ACLAND: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the Amendment. These bodies are much too big to be any real good as deliberative bodies. When people really deliberate they should do it in private, but these would be such bodies that everyone would want to play up to the constituents whom he represents. In fact, every six months there will be a sort of general blow-off on agricultural matters in general, and when you are having a blow-off of that kind the more publicly it takes place the better.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment is out of order. It imposes a charge. You cannot impose a charge on the Report stage.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: As I understand the Amendment, it would not impose any charge upon public funds, but only on the rates.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is the reason for which I ruled it out. We cannot impose a charge on the rates on the Report stage. The next Amendment, proposing to apply the Bill to Scotland, is also out of order. The House passed this Bill on the distinct understanding that it was only applicable lo England. In order to extend it to Scotland or Ireland it would be necessary to move an Instruction to the Committee. No such Instruction was before the House.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: I raised this question on the Second Reading, and the Parliamentary Secretary promised to consider it before the Report stage. No question was raised then of its being out of order.
    Mr. SPEAKER: In order to extend the Bill to Scotland it would have been necessary to have an Instruction to the Committee. Of course the question of an Instruction cannot arise upon the Second Reading of the Bill, but when the Second Reading was passed, then would have been the time to apply for an Instruction to extend the Bill to Scotland. That was not done. You cannot take a Bill limited to one country, and suddenly, without any notice that you are going to do it, extend its provisions to another.

    FIRST SCHEDULE.
    (Composition of Councils and Committees.)
    1.—(1) The Council of Agriculture for England shall consist of the following members:
    (a) One member of each of the Agricultural Committees established by the councils of the counties and county boroughs in England to be nominated by the committee:
    Provided that, if the Agricultural Committees established by councils of county boroughs shall exceed twelve in number, the total number of members nominated by those committees shall be twelve and the members shall be nominated by the committees in such manner as the Board may by regulation prescribe.
    (b) Six members of the Agricultural Wages Board to be nominated by that Board in equal numbers from the representatives of employers and workmen.
    (e) Twenty-four persons nominated by the Board, of whom eight shall be representative of workmen engaged in agriculture, and of the remainder three at least shall be women, six shall be representative of the industry of horticulture, and three representative of agricultural education or research.
    (3) The Advisory Agricultural Committee shall consist of the following members:

    (a) Four of the members of the Council of Agriculture for England who have been nominated by the Agricultural Committees to be nominated by the whole body of such members representing the Agricultural Committees.

    (b) Four of the members of the Council of Agriculture for England who have been nominated by the Board to be nominated by the whole body of such members, and so that one of the persons so nominated shall be representative of workmen engaged in agriculture, another shall be a woman, and a third shall be representative of agricultural education or research.

    (c) Two members to be nominated by the Board in equal numbers from representatives of employers and workmen.

    (d) Two members of the Council of Agriculture for Wales to be nominated by that council.

    Mr. E. GARDNER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1c), after the word "work-men" ["of whom eight shall be repre-
    1960
    sentative of workmen"] to insert the words, "and eight employers of whom four shall be landowners."
    The paragraph provides for twenty-four members nominated by the Board, of whom eight shall be representative of workmen engaged in agriculture and of the remainder three at least shall be women, six shall be representative of the industry of horticulture and three representative of agricultural education or research. It is difficult to understand why employers of those concerned in agriculture are left out. They are mentioned in the preceding paragraph, but not in this. It may have been thought by those responsible for the Bill that the agricultural committees in the counties would nominate employers, but I am not sure about that. This is an Agricultural Bill, and although it is of great interest to all the country, it is principally interesting to agriculture, and it is for the purpose of furthering the interests of the industry in the whole country. Whatever the character of the county councils may have been in by-gone days they at present tend to become more and more urban. The rise of the small towns and larger villages will make them very much more urban. In, addition, the agricultural council has already twelve members to be appointed by the urban districts. Then the Board of Agriculture has the right to nominate one-third of these agricultural councils. I have the greatest confidence in the present Board and its chief officers, and I am sure they will not do anything that is not absolutely fair to agriculture; but this is a Bill, practically speaking, for all time—not a war emergency Bill—and I have not such confidence in the future of the county councils as to think that they will have that great interest in agriculture that I should like them to have. The interests of the employers and landowners ought to be considered in the composition of the councils. Reports appeared in the papers the other day of a conference held in London, and we were told that they had split on the question of who ought to be represented. Strong objection was taken to any landowners being represented. That gives some indication of the trend of opinion in regard to representation. The Amendments which I propose are, in paragraph (c) after the word "workmen," to insert the words "and eight others, of whom four shall be landowners and four employers of labour"; to omit the word "six," and to

    1961
    insert instead thereof the word "four"; and to omit the word "three," and insert instead thereof the word "two." Horticulture is to have six representatives. Although horticulture is a very important part of land cultivation, six members is a very large proportion to allow to an industry which is, comparatively speaking, only a small part of the great industry of agriculture. Three representatives are provided for research. I think two might do equally well. If the Parliamentary Secretary would be prepared to increase the present total number of twenty-four, the representation of horticulture and research could be kept at their present figure, and I should not insist upon those Amendments The inclusion of landowner representatives is indispensable. The landowners are a very small minority of the population, but in agriculture it is admitted that they provide two-thirds of the capital necessary to carry on. There is a grave danger that in future representation the landowning class should not have adequate representation on the councils. It would be in the interests of the councils that such representation should be given.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: I beg to second the Amendment. I do not tie myself to any particular numbers to be nominated by the Board, but it is very important that among the twenty-four persons there should be a certain number who are representative of landowners, and also of tenant farmers working upon the land. It is quite clear that when these councils meet for the discussion of agricultural questions it will be a serious omission if no voice is able to be raised there representing the interests of the owners of the land. It would be a disadvantage from many points of view. If these councils perform, as I hope they will, a useful purpose in friendly discussion on all matters of interest to agriculture- it will be a benefit, apart from other practical benefits, that all the various interests concerned in the land should be brought into amicable relations and have opportunities of hearing each others points of view. If the representatives of horticulture, education, research, labour and so forth meet to discuss matters, it would be of great advantage for them to know what was likely to be the view taken by owners and occupiers of land. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will recognise the principle of this Amendment, and, if necessary, in-
    1962
    crease the total number, in order that there may be room for a certain number of representatives of the classes covered by this Amendment.
    Mr. ACLAND: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not give way on this matter. The landowners and farmers will be adequately represented among the sixty odd representatives from the agricultural committees. I sit on one of these committees and it is practically composed of prominent farmers in the county of Devon, or landowners. Probably in this case they would appoint as their representative either the past or present chairman of the county council who happen to be members of the committee, both of whom are landowners, or possibly if they want someone who is likely to be in London they may appoint myself I happen to be a landowner—or one or other prominent farmers on the committee. I would not do anything to cut down the representation of the workmen or the representation of women, horticulture, education or research.
    Mr. McNEILL: Is there anything to necessitate the representation of the landowners and tenant farmers on the agricultural committee? I agree that in point of fact they are there now, but there is no security that they will always be there.
    Mr. ACLAND: The committees do in fact consist of prominent farmers or landowners in the county. It is extremely difficult for workmen to sit on the agricultural committees, and I think the House will be safe in assuming that the great majority of the sixty representatives of the agricultural committees will be farmers or landowners.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I hope this Amendment will not be pressed. The hon. Members who are supporting were not on the Committee which considered this matter. If they had been they would realise that we went into it very carefully, and after considerable discussion between the two sides, a compromise was arrived at. In the composition of the agricultural councils as originally proposed in the Bill, there was a, danger that urban representation would be too large. We provided that every county borough which established an agricultural committee should be entitled to representation. As there are eighty county boroughs in England it must be obvious that if they had all been represented, they might have

    1963
    outvoted the representatives of the country districts altogether. I met that point by a proposal which received general acceptance, limiting the number of borough representatives to twelve. It was further pointed out that the Agricultural Wages Hoard had too large a representation. I met that again by reducing the representation from twelve to six. Inasmuch as I am anxious that the Labour movement should be adequately represented I increased the number of Labour representatives who are to be nominated by the Board from six to eight, in view of the fact that by the reduction in the number of representatives of the Agricultural Wages Board, the number of direct representatives of Labour who would come from that board was reduced from six to three. In many ways it is undesirable that we should have this special representation at all. If we could have avoided it nobody would have been more pleased than I, but it seemed to me, as my right hon. Friend opposite has said, the chances were that practically all, or a very large majority, of the representatives of the county councils would be either landowners or farmers, and inasmuch as we want the councils to be an adequate mirror of the various interests in the land, and especially as we wish to take agricultural labour along with us and identify Labour as much as possible with the general prosperity of the industry, we felt it necessary to protect those which were likely to be a minority on the councils and we put in special words to enable Labour, horticulture, research and other interests, which might not get representation in the ordinary way, to have such representation. The whole matter was fought out in Committee, we came to a compromise, and I hope the House will not upset what was done in Committee, although, of course, it has a perfect right to do so if it thinks fit. The landowners and farmers will get adequate representation. We want to have an adequate representation of Labour. We want horticulture to be adequately represented.
    Mr. ACLAND: That includes allotments.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, horticulture includes allotments, which is a very important matter. Nothing is more likely to break down the difference's between the urban and rural areas than the allotment movement. Having regard to the
    1964
    importance of developing what is called intensive cultivation of the soil, I hold that six representatives of horticulture on a council of over ninety is not an undue proportion. Nor would anyone say that it was an undue proportion to provide that three should consist of women, nor is it unfair that we should ask for three representatives of agricultural research. It is to agricultural research, to such splendid work as has been done in places like Rothamsted, originally thanks to private enterprise and initiative, and to the dissemination of the knowledge thus gained, that we must look forward for the improvement of agricultural methods and the production of better results, and it would be unfortunate if we were to reduce the number of representatives of agricultural research. I do not wish to increase the total. The matter has been carefully considered; it is the result of a compromise, and I regret, that I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment. The existing proposal is, as has been said, the result of a compromise. If this proposal were granted I am not sure that there would not at once be a demand for an increased number of Labour representatives. We are all trying to create a better spirit between employers and employés for the development of agricultural industry, and if the workman thinks that the strength of his representation is to be diminished by including on these councils, as is suggested, more landowners, I am quite certain that, that will not help to produce the desired result.
    Mr. GARDNER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not convinced me, but in face of the opposition I have no alternative but to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Captain BROWN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "members" ["following members"], to insert the words "to be nominated with due regard to their geographical distribution."
    There seems to me to be a slight danger that members of this committee might be drawn from one portion of the United Kingdom. If that is so, I have very grave doubts whether other portions of the country will be satisfied with the decisions at which they may arrive. I admit that in the case of a somewhat mixed body, as

    1965
    this committee is, it may be a little difficult to arrange, but I do think that this is not a binding form of words, and it can be laid down as a general principle, as the Board is given powers of nomination, it can fill up gaps, so as to see that every district is fairly represented on the committee. In the North of England there is considerable feeling on the matter. We are afraid that if these matters are arranged by people who live close to London our interests may not be sufficiently considered. In this connection it is instructive to see how the committee which actually discussed this Bill was composed. Cumberland, Northumberland, Westmorland, Durham, and the North Riding of Yorkshire had three members. I only got on as one of the three with the greatest difficulty, while other counties nearer London had more representation. The county Sussex, which is smaller in area than many of the others, was given three members, and yet we find great areas of country unrepresented in matters which affect all areas alike. I am sorry to speak from the northern point of view, but it is not solely a northern point of view. It affects try part of the country equally, but I use the North for the sake of argument, because it is the place which I know, and we do claim that in this we represent what might be called the Highlands of England. What would Scotland think of a committee set up to regulate agriculture in Scotland if the Highlands of Scotland were absolutely unrepresented?
    We are in area something like one-eighth of the total acreage of the country, and out of that one-eighth we produce one-fifth of the total sheep. In the circumstances we are entitled to have some safeguard that our interests shall be preserved. I believe that Wales has special representation from the geographical point of view, and I am told that one of the difficulties with regard to Wales is the language difficulty. Is not there the same difficulty all over England? Have we not got difficulties of language in North, South, East and West? What sort of an animal would the House think I was referring to if I started to talk about a mule hog? They would wonder if I was, referring to a mule or a pig, and yet it is a kind of sheep. A committee cannot understand matters of that sort unless they have a local man to explain what the local people mean. The committee is a purely advisory committee with no
    1966
    executive powers, but the Board of Agriculture has to take advice. Take as an illustration the question of rabies, I am told that in the North the muzzling order is not enforced because of the fear that the miners would not submit to it. I quite agree, but this might be obviated if there was someone to explain to the miners why the order would have to be imposed. But if an order of this sort is issued by the Board alone naturally every miner does everything he can to get round the orders of the Board, while if he had someone who was more or less a local person whom he could abuse, he would obey the order and merely abuse his representative. But there is more in this than meets the eye. There is a great deal of sentiment in it. We feel in the North that unless there is representation to safeguard our interests there may be a very great deal of anxiety and that this committee may not have the confidence of farmers, as I sincerely hope they will.
    Commander WILLIAMS: I beg formally to second the Amendment.
    I would point out the necessity of trying to distribute the members of the committee as far as possible on purely geographical lines. One argument which might be used in favour of the Amendment is the different climatic conditions which affect various parts of the country. This is a matter which affects us more in the South than it docs those in the North, as climatic conditions are much more seriously interchangeable within a comparatively short distance.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: While I sympathise entirely with the object of my hon. and gallant Friend, I cannot accept the Amendment, because I do not know how it would work in practice. This is a plan for distributing on geographical lines the members of a body which is a very small body, consisting of only twelve members, who are distributed into four categories. I think that in practice to distribute these members on geographical lines would be absolutely impossible, but I can assure my hon. Friend that in choosing representatives on this advisory body the first thing that any county agricultural committee and any Board of Agriculture would endeavour to do would be, as far as possible, to get proper representation for every part of the country, and I hope, therefore, that he will not press the Amendment.
    Mr. CAUTLEY: While I have sympathy with the spirit of the Amendment, I have great doubt as to whether it is really necessary to put such a provision in the Bill. Perhaps the position would be met if the Parliamentary Secretary would give a reasonable undertaking that when making Regulations under Clause 4 of the Bill, regulating the proceedings for appointing the members of each council and committee, he would endeavour to secure the object of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, and also of myself.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: As far as we are concerned, we shall be quite willing to indicate in our Regulations that as far as possible the members of the advisory committee should represent every part of the country.
    Captain BROWN: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: At an earlier stage of the Bill an Amendment which apparently had the effect of extending the Bill to Scotland was ruled out of order. Of course I can understand that any general extension to Scotland would be out of order, but as, I understand the Amendment, its intention was merely to lead up to a very limited provision as regards Scotland. I think that limited provision could be inserted now, even though the, original Sub-section was not inserted by this House. It has been pointed out by Members from various Scottish constituencies that a difficulty arises from the. fact that although the English Board of Agriculture has no general jurisdiction in Scotland it acts with regard to diseases of animals in Scotland as well as in England and Wales, and I understand the desire of the Scottish Members is that on the Advisory Council there should be some means whereby the special circumstances of Scotland may be brought before the attention of the President of the Board of Agriculture. Therefore, though I could not accept any general Amendment which would give Scotland a general right to interfere in the affairs of England and Wales, I am quite willing to accept a limited Amendment. I therefore move, as an Amendment to the First Schedule, to add at end of Subsection (3):
    "(e) Two members to be nominated by the Secretary for Scotland, who shall be entitled to act only in relation to matters and questions arising out of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1874 and 1914."
    1968
    That would mean that if there is an outbreak of, say, foot-and-mouth disease or something of that sort, the handling of which affects Scotland, then at the next meeting of the Advisory Council we should be only too glad to have with us two Scottish representatives, who would act in relation to that matter and nothing else. Perhaps the Amendment I have moved will be agreeable to my Scottish Friends?
    Mr. SPEAKER: When I ruled out the previous Amendment I had not grasped that it was intended to refer only to the one standing last on the Paper. I thought it was of much wider scope, but, having had more opportunity of looking at it, I do not see that the same objections arise on the Amendment proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL [Lords.]
  Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: I had intended to move the recommittal of the Bill, but now there is a new Clause standing in the name of the Minister of Transport which will meet the case so far as those with whom I am working are concerned.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I am much obliged for the observations made by my hon. Friend, and I beg to move, if I am in order at this stage, "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House," in order that this proposed new Clause, which incidentally may impose some charge on the rates, may be dealt with.
  Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I wish to oppose the Motion of the learned Attorney-General, and for this reason: I submit that the procedure which my right hon. Friend is adopting is altogether wrong in this case. It affords a very cogent example of the way in which the Government are more and more in the habit of treating those Members who sit upstairs on Committees. This is a Bill which has twice or three times, certainly twice, been passed

  1969
  by the House of Lords and come down here, and it has never succeeded in getting a Second Reading until this year. It went to a Committee upstairs to be considered. There was a great deal of the usual difficulty in obtaining a quorum. The first meeting happened to be appointed for a day when members had to attend a certain function. The meeting had to be adjourned. When the adjourned meeting took place there was a long pause before we could get a sufficient number to form a quorum. Ultimately, by the individual efforts of members of the Committee, we secured a quorum. The Attorney-General for Ireland attended on behalf of the Government and confined his observations to the extension of the Bill to Ireland. Beyond that fact no member of the Government took the least interest in the Bill. The only thing that occurred was that I was asked, as I was in charge of the Bill, to accept an Amendment providing that soldiers should pass free over any ferries—a suggestion which I, of course, accepted. After a great deal of opposition the Bill went through. There was a series of Amendments proposed with the object of extending the operation of the Bill beyond the county councils to district councils. They were opposed, they were voted on, and they were lost. Now we come down to this House on Report, Hon. Members who moved Amendments in Committee extending the operation of the Bill to district councils have put the Amendments down again, as, of course, they are entitled to do. Then at the eleventh hour along comes the Minister of Transport and proposes to move a new Clause which absolutely alters the whole Bill. I should rather say it is not a new Clause but a new Bill. The proposal is to leave out Clause 1 and to insert a new Clause 1. It is Clause 1 which provides that any existing ferries may be taken over by county councils, that two of them can combine, that they can impose a rate for the purpose of obtaining expenses, and if they come to the conclusion that the advantage of an existing ferry will fall upon some particular locality they can call upon that locality to bear half the expense. Now the Government, who have taken no interest whatever in the Bill up to this time, and have treated it with contempt, come down here on Report and desire to redraft the whole Bill, and because they find they are out of order they ask the House to allow the Bill to be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House. That is
  1970
  not treating the Committee upstairs with proper and decent respect. If you are going to let it be known that that is the sort of thing which will happen to Committees upstairs, it will be still harder to obtain a quorum than it is now, and that is saying a great deal. Under these circumstances, I submit that the Government should not be allowed to re-commit the Bill. The Bill would then go through in the form in which it left the Standing Committee, who considered it with great care, and that would be a just and proper course.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not understand on what ground Mr. Speaker ruled the Clause of the Government out of order, but I presume it was on the ground that you cannot impose a charge on the Report stage. There is another point of Order which not only prevents the Government from moving the Clause now, but prevents them, I submit, from moving it if the Bill is recommitted. It is that the new Clause is beyond the scope of the Bill, and that if moved and carried in Committee it would make this a new Bill. The title of the Bill is "An Act to enable County Councils to acquire existing ferries by agreement," and Clause I says that a county council may do certain things. The whole Bill deals with county councils. The new Clause of the Government alters that altogether and brings in, all sorts of other local bodies. I contend that if the Bill is re-committed the new Clause will be out of order, first of all, because it is outside the scope of the title of the Bill, and secondly, I because if carried it would create a new and totally different Bill from that to which the House gave its consent on Second Reading.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have already considered that point, but I do not think it is one which ought to be fatal to the Bill. The Bill proposes, as the right hon. Baronet says, to give powers to county councils. It is quite open to the House to extend that to district councils, and I think it is equally open to the House to extend it to borough councils. They are authorities of the same nature as county councils. They are not, perhaps, so large, and possibly some of them do not represent so great a population; but they are of the same class of local authority, and it is open to the House to extend what was originally proposed for county councils to all other local authorities.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL [Lords.]

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power of Local Authorities to Acquire, etc., Existing ferries.)
    (1) A county council may, with the consent of the Local Government Board, purchase or accept the transfer of, and the owner of any existing ferry may sell or transfer to a county council, upon such terms as may be agreed on between the owner and the council, any existing ferry which is within the area of that council or which serves the inhabitants of that area.
    (2) Subject to the provisions of any Act of Parliament under which the ferry was established and to the rights of any other persons, the county council may work, maintain, and improve the ferry and charge such tolls as were legally chargeable in respect of the ferry before the sale or transfer thereof to the council, or such other tolls as the council, with the approval of the Local Government Board, may determine; or, with the approval of the Local Government Board, The council may, if they think fit, free the ferries from tolls, and shall have the rights and powers which the owner of the ferry possessed and shall be subject to the obligations and liabilities to which he was subject.
    (3) A county council may join with any other county council for the purchase or acceptance, working, maintenance, or improvement of a ferry under this Act, or may contribute towards the expenses of the purchase or acceptance, working, maintenance, or improvement of a ferry by another county council.
    (4) In this Act. the expression "existing ferry" means any ferry legally established by Act of Parliament or otherwise at the date of the purchase or transfer, and includes all boats and other vessels, landing stages, approaches, apparatus, plant, and other property used in convection with the ferry.
    (5) A county council may borrow for the purposes of this Act, under Section sixty-nine of the Local Government Act, 1888, as if those purposes were mentioned in that Section.
    (6) A county council may, if they consider that any expenses incurred by them under this Act in respect of any ferry not being not the purpose of a main road should, instead of being charged upon the whole county, be to an amount not exceeding one half specially charged on any parish or parishes in their county specially benefited by that ferry, charge those expenses upon that parish or those parishes as special expenses.
    (7) Section eighty-seven of the Local Government Act, 1888, which provides for local inquiries, shall apply to any cases where the Local Government Board are authorised to give any consent or approval under this Act as it applies to cases where the Local Government Board are authorised to give any consent or approval under the Local Government Act, 1888.
    (8) In this Act, the expression "county council" includes the council of a county borough, and the council of a county borough shall have the same power of borrowing for the purposes of this Act as they have under the Public Health
    1972
    Acts, 1875 to 1908, for the purpose of defraying any expenses incurred by them in the execution of those Acts.
    The CHAIRMAN: The new Clause must come at the end. Perhaps the better course would be to put the Question, That Clause I stand part of the Bill. It seems hardly worth while going through the series of Amendments on the Paper. If hon. Members insist they will be entitled to move those Amendments. But it would seem to be a waste of time to do that.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir F. BANBURY: The Bill is only recommitted in respect of the new Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: I listened to the question put by Mr. Speaker, and it was re-committed generally.
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: This is really the enabling Clause giving county councils power to do certain things, whilst the new Clause which they propose would do something totally different.
    Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I desire to support the existing Clause, and for these reasons: I do not think it ought to be entirely forgotten that this Bill has been passed by the House of Lords and sent down here, and it is to enable the county councils to do certain things. That is the sole purpose of this Bill, as it has been of two or three Bills which have preceded it, and all of which have come down to this House. I submit that the existing Clause is the best one in order to make the Bill operative and to carry out that which its framers really desired. The object of the Bill is to take over existing ferries and also, by Sub-section (6) of this Clause.
    "A county council may, if they consider that any expenses incurred by them under this Act in respect of any ferry not being for the purpose of a main road should, instead of being charged upon the whole county, be to an amount not exceeding one half specially charged on any parish or parishes in their county specially benefited by that ferry, charge those expenses upon that parish or those parishes as special expenses."
    In the case of some ferries in small places it is assumed that at least half the traffic carried would be purely local, and under the Sub-section I have quoted the county council would have power to charge one-half the expense on the locality and the other half on the county. I think that is much the better plan than giving power to acquire ferries to any local authority

    1973
    I very much fear if that is done the district council or other council will say that the expense of acquiring an existing local ferry would be too heavy, and they would have no power to impose half the burden on the county, while the county council would have no power to charge half the expense to the locality. Apart from the question as to whether the House of Lords will accept the Bill in a totally emasculated form, and an almost unrecognisable Bill, I think that on the pure facts of the case the Clause as it now stands is much more practical than that which the Minister of Transport desires to introduce. I oppose the Motion.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: The county councils arc very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken for the great time and trouble he has taken in the House and in Committee in piloting this Bill through. It is quite true that this Bill has been supported by the Association of County Councils for some years past, because they thought that it was in the public interest that county councils, should have power to acquire ferries. It is quite obvious that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred ferries come within The purview and duties of one or more of the county councils. The Bill went through Committee, and was brought here substantially in the form in which it came from the other place. An attempt in Committee to get concurrent power for the district councils was defeated. The county councils attach the greatest importance to getting this Bill, and I understand the Government were approached by the County Councils Association and asked to give facilities for its passage. I can quite understand that the Minister of Transport found that the condition of being able to give facilities for the Bill was to give to the district councils and boroughs the powers which they have asked for. Therefore, I understand that is the reason why the new Clause appears in the name of the right hon. Gentleman. We thank him, too. The difficulty we are in is this: We prefer, of course, the Clause in its original form, because that is what we think is best in the public interest; but we would very much rather get the Bill in the form in which the right hon. Gentleman's new Clause puts it than not get the Bill at all. In a nutshell, the position is, we require this power as to ferries, and we require it urgently. If Parliament says we can only have it if
    1974
    other people—who may or may not require it so urgently—are given it as well, then we would rather have it on those terms than not at all. We know how much is attempted and occasionally effected in this House by that kind of pressure. I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen not to vote in such a way as to prevent what is the kernel of the Bill becoming law. It is a necessary power required by the county councils, and without it they cannot do public work which requires to be done. We hope, therefore, that the Bill will pass, and that the time devoted to it will not be wasted.
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): I would like to join with the hon. Member who has just sat down in expressing the appreciation we all feel for the very large amount of time and ability which my hon. and learned friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) put into this Bill in Committee. He has suggested that the Government has treated the Committee with, perhaps, scant courtesy in coming in at this stage, when the Government did not come in upstairs; but the reason that I have come in at this Stage is because I did not exist at the earlier stage. The Ministry of Transport became a Ministry after this Bill left Committee, and I was asked if I could do anything to help this through. I believed it was uncontroversial, but I was told there was a very strong feeling—and the representations made to me showed it was very strong—that this permissive power to the minor local authorities should be given. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will believe that there was no intended discourtesy to the Committee, at all. As to what we have done in altering what is rightly called the kernel of the Bill, we have made two alterations, which have real significance, the remainder seeming to me to be mainly consequential. One is that the operation of the Bill, so far as any Ministry of State is concerned, is transferred from the Local Government Board to the new Ministry of Transport, which did not exist when this Bill loft Committee, and I think that requires no explanation, as Parliament decided that the Ministry should have control of roads, and, not unnaturally, the ferries come in with them. The other thing we have done is that. whereas the county councils had the power. if they wished, by agreement and with certain consents from the Local Government Board, to take over the ferries and to

    1975
    charge not exceeding half the cost of acquiring the ferries to the parish, the change has now been made that the power to take over by agreement has been extended to the rural district councils, the urban district councils, and the county boroughs There is no question of compulsion. In fact, there was compulsion on the parish to pay up to one half in the Bill as it left Committee, but now there is no compulsion to pay; but either the county council itself or one of the minor authorities, or any two or more of them jointly, can, if they so wish, take over these ferries, levy charges, and assume the responsibilities I of the ferry owners. That explains the principles of the new Clause which the Government have put down, and therefore I hope the Committee will support the Motion to leave out the existing Clause 1, in order that we may substitute at a later i stage the proposed Clause 1 which the Government have put on the Paper.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think any Member of the House under the circumstances would object to that part of the new Clause which gives power to the Ministry of Transport to say whether or not these ferries should be run. We have, rightly or wrongly, given that Department very great powers, and probably it is almost necessary that they should have the further power over the ferries. But there is a very different question, and that is the empowering of all these other bodies to take over and work ferries. The Minister says there is no compulsion, but there is no need for compulsion, because if any of the local authorities offer a sufficiently large sum belonging to the ratepayers in order that they may do more municipal trading—because that is what it amounts to—the owners of the ferries will be only too glad to sell, and you do not want any compulsion. If there wore any compulsion at all, it should be on the local authorities not to spend too much of the ratepayers' money, which is being done in a very free manner at present. The rise in the rates is very burdensome, and no sane man of business would suppose that a local authority is going to run a ferry at a profit, especially these smaller authorities. What they want them for I do not know, because in the majority of cases, unless we have ferries across the Thames, for instance, there are not many rivers in county boroughs. The fact remains that if the Government Amendment is car-
    1976
    ried in its entirety, we are going to add very greatly to the burden of the ratepayer. For what reason? Surely it will be quite sufficient if we allow the county councils to run ferries where necessary, and I see no reason for allowing the borough councils to have the same privilege
    My hon. and learned Friend (Sir R. Adkins) put what has taken place, and said that pressure was put on the supporters of the Bill to require them to include the borough councils and these other bodies, and he said he was afraid that unless this was done be might loose the Bill. In other words, ho has been blackmailed. There is no other word for it. These other local authorities, who would not have had a ghost of a chance to get a Bill of this sort, have come down and said, "Unless you are prepared to include us, we will oppose you and prevent you getting your Bill." I think everybody will agree that you could not have a worse thing than that. Under these circumstances, and at this very late hour, I think it is essential for us to support my hon. and learned Friend, who apparently has taken very great trouble in Committee, in order to get The measure passed in the form in which it passed Second Reading in. this House, and I hope the House will oppose any attempt to override all these decisions in Standing Committee. I do not say we are never to be allowed to make alterations in the House through matters which have arisen in Committee, but I do say that we are not entitled, after a Bill has been before a Standing Committee, to make a vital alteration on the Report stage merely because certain hon. Gentlemen see an opportunity of getting some of their own particular interests by a sidewind into the Bill, because that is what it comes to. The Standing Committees, we were told by the Government, were to be the panacea for all evils. I have had experience of Standing Committees, and I know you can very rarely get a quorum except with great pressure; but the Government urged all sorts of arguments in their favour, and therefore they ought to support their own arguments and not allow a vital alteration to be made in this Bill. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will go to a Division, in order that the Government may see that if they are going to send all these Bills upstairs to Standing Committees, they must pay some regard to what has taken place upon them.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I have listened to the whole of the Debate, and I think the most interesting speech of all, which showed the thoughts at the back of some of those who are supporting the Clause being retained, was that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). He had not gone on long before we got his old theories out, and it appeared that underneath all this was his fear of municipal trading, but he did not attempt to demonstrate how. I confess that in this matter I am one of the "blackmailers," because I have dared, in trying to get a measure through this House promoted for a good object, to extend it to other local authorities, which, I venture to say, are quite as honest and quite as good as the county councils but; according to the speech of the right hon. Baronet, the only thing that exists that is honest and pure is the county council. If you go beneath the county council to the district council, no matter what its size, they simply want to get in to create a job.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I never used the word "honest," and I never used the word "pure," and I did not apply either epithet to the county council or any other municipal body, or the reverse.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I accept the right hon. Baronet's correction. So long as he is prepared to put us all in the same category I do not mind. But what is the real issue? This Bill went to Committee upstairs, and by a small majority the Amendment in favour of extending it to other authorities was lost.
    Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: District councils only.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I am told that upstairs an assertion was made by someone that the county councils were against the extension of these powers to any other local authority. I only give this from what I am told, but surely neither of the hon. and learned Members who represent the County Councils' Association will say that that is a fact. I have in my hand the correspondence between the Secretary of the County Councils' Association and the Secretary of the District Councils' Association, and here is a letter going back to March:
    "I read your letter of the 25th instant in regard to the above Bill before a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee on Wednesday, and am instructed by them to inform you that they have no objection to the Bill being amended so as to extend the power of acquiring ferries to
    1978
    rural district councils and to make provision for joint action between the county and rural district councils, but they cannot agree to the deletion of Clause 6."
    It may be said they changed their views after that, but I have another letter of the 15th August, which is much later:
    "In reply to your letter of the 12th, Sir Ellis Hume Williams and the members of the Committee were informed some time ago that the County Councils' Association had no objection whatever to the inclusion of district councils, whether urban or rural, and therefore I do not know why suggestions to the contrary have been made."
    Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: No such statement was made to me in Committee. Someone stated at the meeting of the Committee that the county councils approved of the Amendment. He was asked to give some evidence of the statement, but he did not give it there, and the question dropped.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I shall be pleased to show the hon. and learned Gentleman the correspondence I have here. This is a letter signed by Mr. Johnson, the secretary. Why, if that is the case, all this strong opposition to the inclusion of urban, district councils? It is said by some speakers that almost all the ferries are county ferries. I venture to say that is not correct. Whenever there is a desire to give powers to these other authorities, and whenever you speak up for these other authorities, you are charged with having some ulterior motive. Because you try to get the same power for these other local authorities, and put them on the same level with the county councils as regards integrity, ability, or whatever characteristic-you like, you are met in this way. I sincerely trust the Government will persevere in the course it is pursuing, and I shall welcome a Division on the proposal for the deletion of this Clause.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLAN NERY: The old argument appears to be used by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), that Standing Committees upstairs are sacrosanct, and that, whatever be their decision, it must not be reviewed, and certainly not reversed, by this House.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I never said so.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: That was one of the arguments.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On the contrary, I expressly said that, in my opinion, it would be absurd to say that this House was never

    1979
    to review or alter a decision arrived at in Grand Committee. But I said this was a totally different thing, and that you must not reverse the whole of the Bill if Grand Committee had considered the matter.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: I do not see much distinction between what I have said and the correction of my right hon. Friend. What he has said really amounts to this, that the House should not reverse the decision of the islanding Committee on large matters, although it may do so on Small matters. As one who has suffered in having been a member of a Standing Committee whose decisions were reversed, I venture to say there is no possible ground for such a contention. The absolute duty—not privilege, merely, but the duty—of this House is to review all the decisions of Committees, whether they be upstairs or downstairs and upon the merits of the question which may be put forward, it is the duty of the House to arrive at a correct conclusion. What is the crux of the matter in this case? It is this, Shall the authorisation be given by Parliament to acquire ferries to county councils alone, or shall that authorisation be given to district councils who, upon the merits of each case, would show, to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Transport, that they should be allowed to acquire ferries. That is the essence of the whole matter. What is the substantial distinction between the county council and district council? If it is right, in the interest of transport as a whole in connecting canals together or districts together, that local authorities should have the power given to them by Parliament to acquire ownership and management of ferries, why should that privilege, why should that right, why should that public service be limited to local authorities who are called county councils, when we know us a fact that there are many district councils whose scope, influence, authority and power are even greater than some of the smaller county councils? There is no case for such a distinction on the mere question as to whether the local body has the status of a county council or the status of a district council.
    Let me take the Committee to another point, and it is that whether it be a county council, or whether it be a district council which may be authorised by Parliament, that authorisation must be carried out and exercised under the supervision of a Department of State. There is no
    1980
    division of opinion, apparently, as to which Department of State should have that administration, but the question I want to emphasise is this, that die Department of State which has to do with transport as a whole from one end of the country to the other is the Department which shall control, which shall letter if necessary, and which shall give permission, if necessary, to these local authorities with regard to the acquisition and the working of ferries. What has that Department to do? Its main duty—and this duty almost every hon. Member here supported at the last General Election—is to connect up and facilitate transport from one part of the country to another. Will you be carrying out that pledge given to the country better by restricting the acquisition and management of ferries to a small number of local bodies, or will you be carrying out that broad pledge, given at the General Election by the Government and its supporters to facilitate transport, if you allow a larger number of district authorities to have the power to acquire and administer these means of transport and communication? For that reason, and upon that very ground, putting aside altogether the distinction between what the House and the Committee upstairs should do, on the merits of the whole case 1. for one, will support the proposition that the whole interest of transport from one end of the country to the other will be facilitated by enlarging the number of authorities who have the power to acquire and administer ferry communication.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Protection of General public.)
    In the case of every ferry acquired under this Act, regulations with rezard to the working shall be made by the county councils for the protection from injury of passengers and the general public: Provided that no such regulations shall have any force of validity until the same have beer, confirmed by the Board of Trade with or without Amendment. Offenders against such regulations shall be liable to such penalties, not exceeding forty shillings, as may be thereby prescribed.
    Amendments made:
    Leave out the words "county council," and insert instead thereof the words "local authority."
    Leave out the words "Board of Trade," and insert instead thereof the words "Minister of Transport."—[Sir E. Geddes.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Crown Rights.)
    Nothing in this Act affects prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege, or exemption of the Crown and in particular nothing herein contained authorises any county council to take, use, or in any manner interfere with any portion of the shore or bed of the sea or of any river, channel, creek, bay, or estuary or any land, hereditaments, subjects, or rights of whatsoever description belonging to His Majesty in right of His Crown and under the management of the Commissioners of Woods or of the Board of Trade respectively without the consent in writing of the Commissioners of Woods or the Board of Trade, as the case may be, on behalf of His Majesty first had and obtained for that purpose (which consent the said Commissioners and Board are hereby respectively authorised to give).
    Amendment made:
    Leave out the words "county council," and insert instead thereof the words "local authority."—[Sir E. Geddes.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  >Clause. 4 (Exemption from Tolls in case of persons in Service of Crown, etc.) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Application to Ireland.)
    This Act in its application to Ireland shall be subject to the following modifications (that is to say):

    (1) References to the Local Government Board shall be construed, as references to the Local Government Board for Ireland:

    (2) A reference to the Board of Trade in relation to the confirmation of by-laws made by a county council shall be construed as a reference to the Local Government Board:

    (3) The reference to Section sixty-nine of the Local Government Act, 1888, shall be construed as a reference to Article twenty-two of the Schedule to the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1858, and the reference to Section eighty-seven of the said Act shall be construed as a reference to Article thirty-two of the said Schedule, and any other references to the said Act shall be construed as a reference to the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898:

    (4) The reference to the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1908, shall be construed as a reference to the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1918:

    (5) The expression "county district" shall be substituted for the expression "parish":

    (6) The power of a county council to charge on any county district, or county districts expenses incurred by the county council under this Act in respect of a ferry may be exercised as regards the whole or any part of the expenses so incurred, and as regards expenses so incurred in respect of any ferry, whether for the purpose of a main road or act:

    Provided that where a county council consider that any expenses so incurred should be charged
    1982
    in whole or in part on any county district they: shall pass a resolution to that effect and shall communicate the resolution to the council of the district in such mariner as may be prescribed by the Local Government Board, and the council of the district, if aggrieved by the resolution, may appeal to the Board within such time and in such manner as may be so prescribed, and the Board shall have power either to dismiss the appeal or to rescind the resolution and make such Order as they think proper as respects the area of charge.
    Amendment made: Leave out Sub-sections (1) and (2) and insert instead thereof
    "(1) The reference to the Minister of Health; shall be construed as a reference to (he Local Government Board for Ireland.
    (2) The expenses incurred by a county council shall be raised as a county at large charge."— [Sir E. Geddes.]
    Sir E. GEDDES: I beg to move to leave out Sub-sections (5) and (6).
    Sir E. CARSON: May I ask why Sub-; section (6) is put out, and what is substituted for it?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. D. Henry): The substituted Sub-section (2) provides that expenses of I the county council shall be a county j charge.
    Sir R. ADKINS: If and when the county council does anything, it comes on the general county rate; if and when the district council, then the district must pay for itself.
    Mr. HENRY: Failing agreement
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Extent and Short Title.)
    (1) This Act shall not extend to Scotland.
    (2) This Act may be cited as the Ferries (Acquisition by County Councils) Act, 1919.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "county councils" and insert instead thereof the words "local authority."—[Sir E. Geddes.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of Local Authority to Acquire., etc., Existing ferries.)
    (1) A local authority may, with the consent of the Minister of Transport, purchase or accept the transfer of, and the owner of any existing ferry may sell or transfer to a local authority, upon such terms as may be agreed on between the owner and the local authority, any existing ferry which is within the area of that local authority or which serves the inhabitants of that area.
    (2) Subject to the provisions of any Act of Parliament under which the ferry was established and to the rights of any other persons the local authority may work, maintain, and improve the ferry and charge such tolls as were legally chargeable in respect of the ferry before the sale or transfer thereof to the local authority, or such other tolls as the local authority, with the approval of the Minister of Transport, may determine, or, with the approval of the Minister of Transport, the local authority may, if they think fit, free the ferry from tolls, and shall have the rights and powers which the owner of the ferry possessed and shall be subject to the obligations and liabilities to which he was subject.
    (3) A local authority may join with any other local authority for the purchase or acceptance, working, maintenance, or improvement of a ferry under this Act, or may contribute towards the expenses of the purchase or acceptance, working, maintenance, or improvement of a ferry by another local authority, and any difference which may arise between any local authorities who have agreed to take joint action under this Sub section shall be determined by the Minister of Transport or by an arbitrator appointed by him, and such determination shall be final and binding,
    (4) In this Act the expression "existing ferry" means any ferry legally established by Act of Parliament or otherwise at the date of the purchase or transfer, and includes all boats and other vessels, landing stages, approaches, apparatus, plant, and other property used in connection with the ferry.
    (5) The Minister of Transport shall have the like powers with respect to the holding of local inquiries for the purposes of this Act as are conferred by Section 87 of the Local Government Act, 1888, upon the Minister of Health for the purposes of that Act.
    (6) In this Act the expression "local authority" means and includes a county council, the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of a county or other borough, and the council of any urban or rural district. Any expenses incurred by a local authority under this Act may be defrayed, in the case of a county council out of the county fund, and in the case of the council of a borough or urban or rural district as part of the general expenses incurred in the execution of the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1908. A local authority, if a county council, may borrow for the purposes of this Act under Section sixty-nine of the Local Government Act, 1888, as if those purposes were mentioned in that Section, and, if a council of a county, or other borough, or a district council, shall have the same power of borrowing for the purposes of this Act as they have under the Public Health Acts. 1875 to 1908, for the purpose of defraying any expenses incurred by them in the execution of those Acts.—[Sir E. Geddes]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir E. GEDDES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this Clause is going to change the whole scope of the Bill. It will be a totally different Bill to that which obtained a Second Reading in this House. There is another
    1984
    and much more important point which I think the House ought to be acquainted with, especially the new Members. This is a private Member's Bill, brought in as such. As such it obtained the Second Reading, It went to Grand Committee and came to its Report stage as a private Member's Bill—that is to say, it wont through all its stages up to Report stage as a private Member's Bill. What happens then? The Government star it—that is to say, they make it a Government Bill. If the Government had not starred it it could not have been taken up, because the Government have all the time of the House, as is the custom when, we unfortunately are afflicted with an Autumn Session. Starring has been rarely resorted to during the years I have been in the House; only on very occasional circumstances and on very small matters. The reason is obvious. If the Government are going to star private Members' Bills at all frequently—and I think this is the third they have starred already this Autumn Session—what happens They get the whole advantage of the private Member's Bill which goes through without a majority of the House paying much attention to it, in all probability knowing little about it, and having thought that, as a private Member's Bill, it would never get any further. The Government are saved the trouble of taking any part in the Bill. They need not even condescend to come upstairs to the Grand Committee. Then, after all these stages have been gone through, they suddenly take it up as a Government Bill, and alter the whole scope and tenour of the Bill.
    All the years I have been in the House there has been strong objection from all parts of the House—in the old days, when the House of Commons was the House of Commons—against the procedure of centuries not being carried out with due regard to the proper exercise of its functions by the House. This sort of thing was never tolerated. I venture to make this protest before it is too late. We have had some explanation, but many of us do not know very much about the Bill. Bills are hurried through. Even the Government do not know the proper course to pursue with these. I speak of what occurred to-day. If, on the top of all this, private Members' Bills are to be taken at the fag-end of the Sescsion and altered in this way, well, then, I say we are parting with a great many of the safeguards which existed in the old days, and the country will find

    1985
    to its cost that—well, I do not know quite what word to use—will find that it will be subjected to Bills which members have never had any opportunity of knowing about or speaking about. They probably will regret it when they find themselves suffering under these legislative enactments.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause accordingly read a second time.
    The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: At the end of Sub-section (1) to add the words
    "Provided that where no ferry exists within the said area at the time of passing of this Act the local authority may, with the consent of the Minister of Transport, establish and work one in manner hereinafter provided."
    The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment and the two that follow in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman are, I think, outside the scope of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman desires to make provision to provide ferries. I cannot accept that as within the scope of the Bill.
    Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: The Clause as it stands not only gives power to acquire ferries, but to free them from all tolls. Does not this Amendment of mine approximately do the same thing? Will not the Bill cover the two identical things —in the one case to acquire a ferry and free it, and the other to start one? Is not that within the scope of the Bill?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think not. Clause added to the Bill.

    TITLE.— (An Act to Enable County Councils to Acquire Existing Ferries by Agreement.)
    Amendment made: Leave out the words "County Councils," and insert instead thereof the words "local authorities."— [Sir E. Geddes.]
    Bill reported with Amendments [Title amended]: as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 224.]

  IRISH RAILWAYS (CONFIRMATION OF AGREEMENT) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Sir E. GEDDES: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  1986
  In asking the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would like briefly to explain what it does, and why it is necessary. When the Irish railways were taken over under war conditions at the end of 1916 it became necessary to do for them what was done for the English railways under the Act of 71. By an agreement with the Irish railways the year 1913—a prewar year—was taken as the base year upon which their net receipts should be made good to them by the Government. In Ireland there are two complications, which have to be met—first of all, by agreement now by means which this Bill introduces for the consideration of the House. The two points are these: Owing to railways being required in certain backward districts in Ireland which would not pay by themselves, there have been a considerable number of guarantees of minimum return upon capital given by local authorities. Roughly speaking, the cash value of these guarantees is about £50,000 to £60,000 per year. The guarantees are based upon an accountant's scrutiny, partly by officials from the local authorities and partly by officials from the Board of Trade on the accounts; finding what the net receipts for any year may be, then from that making up the deficiency for the total guarantee.
  Obviously, when the receipts were no longer divided and the railways were being guaranteed by the Government, on the 1913 receipts, it was impossible for them to afford the audited statement necessary before the guarantors would pay the deficit on the railways. This Bill provides that for that purpose, as for the purposes of guaranteeing the whole of the net receipts of the railway, that 1913 should be taken as a base year. It was not at all an unfavourable year; in fact, it was a favourable year for the guarantors. The other thing the Bill does is somewhat similar. It provides that 1913 shall also be taken when one railway is working a line belonging to another railway company on a percentage-of-receipts basis. Obviously that, under normal circumstances, would be the net actual receipts paid to the line in question for each year. As these have not been separately ascertained, and as the railways have been given all over the Kingdom, both in Ireland and Great Britain, the 1913 figure, they cannot, as in the case of the guarantors, give the actual receipts of 1913. What

  1987
  this Bill does is that it provides that for these two purposes, and in slight variants, the year 1913, net receipts, shall be taken as the year upon which a calculation shall be made during the period of Government control.
  Sir F. FLANNERY: That is precisely the same as in Great Britain?
  Sir E. GEDDES: The same principle. But the question of guarantee and of making up the net receipts has not risen in this country as in Ireland. In Ireland those conditions exist and it is necessary to make 1913, so to speak, the legal net receipts year for the two purposes.
  6.0 p.m.
  Sir E. CARSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he concludes, whether the guarantees apply to anything but light railways? Are they merely light railways?
  Sir E. GEDDES: I am afraid I cannot answer my right hon. and learned Friend with great accuracy on that, but I think not; they are broad-gauge lines.
  Mr. LINDSAY: Are we to take it that the guarantees paid by the State will not relieve the local authorities and the guarantors from their responsibility—that they will not be able to shift any of the guarantee on to the State?
  Sir E. GEDDES: That is the intention. I cannot take any particular railway, but if you take the whole of Ireland, it is less than if they had not come under the Government control at all, because the receipts were falling. If the year 1913 had not been adopted, the guarantors would have had to pay more.
  Mr. ROYCE: The right hon. Gentleman referred just now to light railways in Ireland. Is it not a fact that some of the light railways in Ireland are of 3 ft. 6 ins. Gauge?
  Sir E. GEDDES: Yes.
  Mr. WATERSON: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that some of the railways have been held back by the State. I should like to ask him whether those backward parts of the railway system have been developed, and at whose expense, and will that be taken into consieration when they return to normal conditions?
  Sir E. GEDDES: I am afraid I do not understand the hon. Member's question. This is not a question of building new railways in backward parts. Those are railways which were built before. It is purely a question of adjusting the financial guarantees for the years during which, owing to the Government control and the depletion of staff during the War, it has been impossible to arrive at what their actual receipts have been. What the Bill does is to make the year 1913, which was the year adopted for the Government guarantee, the base year for the other guarantees as well. That is all that is done. It is not starting any new railways; it is not giving new guarantees; it is simply a matter of adopting a statutory year which shall be taken as the year giving the net receipts for the period during which the Government control lasts.
  Mr. WATERSON: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I want to ask whether, since they were taken over in 1916, there has been any development in the national interest, and, if that development has taken place, who is to bear the expense?
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Sir. E. Geddes.]

  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any additional sums which may become payable under Section 106 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to increase the rate of unemployment benefit payable; under the National Insurance (Unemployment) Acts, 1911 to 1918, and to make certain consequential Amendments in those Acts."
  Resolution agreed to.

  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Home): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Last week the House dealt with the question of the unemployment donation, and, in the course of the discussion which took

  1989
  place upon the Government's proposal, I informed the House that a certain number of people, at present or prospectively out of work, would be covered by the unemployment insurance schemes which are already in existence. I further stated that it was the intention of the Government to produce, as soon as might be, a universal unemployment insurance scheme. During the time that we have been investigating the possibilities of a universal unemployment insurance scheme, we have ascertained that the amount of money which is now at our disposal under the Unemployment Insurance Acts already in existence, is sufficient to allow of larger benefits being paid to the beneficiaries than they are at present receiving. I dare say the House is well aware that the amount of benefit which is distributed at the present time to people who are insured against unemployment is 7s. per week under the National Insurance Act of 1911. That Act covers people in the building trade, in the engineering trade, and in the shipbuilding trade, and its benefits were extended by the Act of 1914 to a series of other occupations. These two Acts between them now cover something like three and a half millions of workers, all of whom have the right to this benefit of 7s. per week during unemployment.
  The reason why there is more money available than is represented by this 7s. per week is explained in a White Paper which the Government actuary has supplied, and which has been circulated to Members of the House. In the first place, the amount of benefit which could be distributed was estimated on a very cautious basis, with the result that it has been found that, as the result of the contributions, there is more money than was anticipated. In the second place, during the War there has been practically no unemployment at all, and even in the two years immediately preceding the War unemployment had become very low. Funds, therefore, have been accumulating. The result has been that, from these two causes, it is now possible, as the Government actuary shows, quite safely to give 11s. instead of 7s. per week to the people who am unemployed and who are insured under these national schemes. I am sure I am expressing the mind of the House when I say that, looking to the increased cost of living at the present time, it would be the desire of all of us to give the full amount which can be afforded under these
  1990
  schemes. Seven shillings a week is not what it was before the War, and even before the War it was a very small amount to give to a man who was unemployed. I am sure that the House will welcome an opportunity of adding to this meagre amount, and, since it is certified by the Government actuary to be possible, will agree that we should increase the amount to 11s. per week.
  It is necessary to have legislation to bring about this object. The Act of 1911 provided that the amount to be distributed should be 7s. We require to have that altered by substituting 11s. for 7s. In the next place, the Act of 1911 provided that there should be a discretion in the Board of Trade to increase the amount of 7s. to 8s., or to reduce it to 6s. We have got to alter those two figures by substituting 12s. for 8s. and 10s. for 6s. Then there is a provision in Clause 2 which I ought to explain. Under the Act of 1911 it is provided that trade unions might have the option of paying the unemployment benefit to their members and being reimbursed by the Government; but that was only possible if the trade union itself paid one-third of the amount which the Government contributed. To give the House an illustration, since the Government's benefit was 7s. per week, the trade union could only obtain the advantage of distributing the unemployment benefit if it provided 2s. 4d. per week. It may be expressed thus, that the trade union must provide one-third of what the Government provided before it could enjoy that privilege. If the Government's payment is increased to 11s., it is obvious that one-third of 11s. is 3s. 8d., instead of 2s. 4d., and that gives rise to this difficulty: Many unions have struggled, in order to have the opportunity of dispensing this benefit, to pay the necessary one-third, and their arrangements at the present time are suitable for getting enough funds from their members, to contribute this one-third; but if we were suddenly to ask them to contribute more, it would so dislocate their arrangements that in many instances they would not be able to give the necessary contribution. Accordingly, we propose in Clause 2 that, at least until the 31st December, 1920, although the Government contribution has increased, the necessary contribution paid by the trade union should not be increased. After the 31st December, 1920, the trade unions will be put in the same position in which they previously were;

  1991
  that is to say, they will only have the privilege of dispensing the Government benefit if they pay one-third of the contribution which the Government gives.
  The Bill in its essence is very simple. Its objects, I venture to say, are good, and are such as the whole House would readily agree to at the present time. It is very necessary that we should have the powers as rapidly as possible, looking to the fact that we are now at the beginning of winter weather, and that many people may stand in need of this unemployment benefit. Accordingly I will venture to appeal to the House to give this Bill as rapid a passage as possible.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to have some interpretation of Clause 2.
  "Notwithstanding the increase in the rate of unemployment benefit effected by this Act the expression "unemployment benefit under the principal Act" in Sub-section (1) of Section thirteen of the National Insurance (Part II. Unemployment) Act, 1914 (which limits the power to make or continue arrangements with associations under Section one hundred and five of the National Insurance Act, 1911), shall, during the period ending on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty, be construed as meaning unemployment benefit at the rate payable before the commencement of this Act."
  I cannot understand what on earth that means.
  Sir R. HORNE: I have just explained it.
  Mr. HALLAS: In making a modest contribution to the debate on this Bill, I should like to address myself to what I regard as the intentions of the Bill and the results. The Bill intends to make better provision for the unemployed, and the proposal is to increase the unemployment pay from 50 to 66 per cent. I want to call the attention of the House at once to the fact that the increase in the cost of living is no less than 130 per cent., and it does seem to me that to increase the unemployment pay from 50 to 66 per cent, to meet that increased cost of living is, to say the least of it, to provide us with a very unsatisfactory Bill. We have been told over and over again during the War that we are never again to return to the deplorable conditions of poverty and unemployment that so often occurred previous to the War. The Prime Minister has told us "The old world must end, where unemployment, through the vicissitudes of industry, brought despair to multitudes of humble homes." I hold it an ethical and elementary right that a
  1992
  wealthy country like this should either find work for its adult population or provide adequate maintenance. There are surely sufficient means to find work, failing which there is wealth with which to provide adequate maintenance. I am aware that an actuarial valuation has given figures showing that the increased allowances suggested in the Bill will entirely swallow up the premiums obtained under the Act of 1911 and 1918. Surely it is recognised as only too true that unemployment means poverty and that poverty breeds vice and disease and crime. We know that disease and crime cost this country a considerable sum of money. Congested workhouses, crowded prisons, and overflowing asylums are so costly that if by giving a better unemployment benefit we can save the cost of these institutions we shall surely find that the increased allowances suggested will be economical from every point of view.
  I am not content to be told that some other proposals are to be placed before this House in a little while. The workers of the country want something now, and I would impress upon the Government the seriousness of the position as shown by what occurred yesterday in Sheffield, where a crowd of unemployed thrust themselves upon the council meeting and protested very strongly against the stopping of the Government unemployment donation. The spirit of the country to-day is such that nobody can reasonably expect the working classes to starve peaceably, and the allowances suggested in this Bill mean starvation. The increases will not cover the increases which we are led to expect will take place in rents alone. Nobody can be surprised at the alarm with which this Bill is being viewed by those who know what it is to tramp the streets in search of a job and to knock at office doors while the wife and family are waiting anxiously at home the result of their efforts. If we are to press forward to the new world about which our Prime Minister so grandiloquently speaks, it seems to me that we should begin right here by saying that all possible shall be done to provide work for the adult population, and, failing the finding of that work, that all possible shall be done to save the people from poverty. Never again do we want to see the unemployed standing at our street corners, wrapping their rags about them. If that is to happen there are not wanting those who will want to know and who will ask: What, after all, did they fight for in

  1993
  the Great War? We were proud of the fact during the War that we were a great family and a huge team working together for the common good. Has the time now come when we can put aside these beautiful sentiments which, put into concrete form, saved civilisation? Cannot we continue to be a team and a family and so regulate the economic conditions of this country that something more than a miserable pittance of this character shall fee adopted in this House in order to meet poverty? The Bill is good so far as it goes, but it does not by any means go far enough. The least that could be done, the irreducible minimum which would satisfy Labour, would be to double the amount suggested in the Bill.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hallas) appears to have lost sight of the fact that this is an Insurance Bill. It is not a question whether the benefit to be derived under this Bill is or is not sufficient to supply the wants of a certain portion of the population, but whether the actual funds in the Insurance Fund are sufficient to give the benefits named. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Government actuaries have arrived at the conclusion that the benefit can be extended from 7s. to 11s. Is that intended to be a permanent part of the Insurance Act?
  Sir R. HORNEindicated assent.
  Mr. McNEILL: Does that mean that the accumulations derived from the fortunate good employment during the four years of war will enable the benefits for all time to be extended from 7s. to 11s.? If that be so, does it not point to a very serious error in the estimate when the original Act of 1911 was passed, because my recollection is very clear that when we were debating that Bill the apprehension was very generally expressed that the Insurance Fund would be insufficient to meet the benefits? It is a very happy circumstance if the estimate has turned out so completely wrong as it appears to have done. I understood from my right hon. Friend that the extra benefits can be expected in the future regardless of whether there are accumulations or not, assuming, I suppose, the average of unemployment in the years to come. I understood him to say, further, that for thirteen months the special contribution from the trade unions in consideration of whch they have been allowed a share in the administration is to be suspended. In other words,
  1994
  that the contributions to the funds will be less by so much for thirteen months. That means that the total amount of contributions will be reduced by that amount. If that be so, would it not have been better that the privileges should also have been suspended during that period, because it is possible, if the administration had depended upon it, that the contribution in many instances would have been continued during those thirteen months, and that the insurance fund would have benefited by that amount and would have been in a stronger position when the thirteen months had elapsed than it is likely to be when depleted by that amount? It appears to me, therefore, that my right hon. Friend is being rather over generous than under generous. I only want to ask whether it is quite certain that the fund will be so strong that it can bear that strain placed upon it.
  Mr. R. YOUNG: While I agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Hallas) as to the necessity for doing what we can for the working classes thrown out of employment, I recognise that we are now dealing with the terms of the Acts of 1911 and 1918. I want, however, to say that I trust the Government, as a result of this measure, will not fail to fulfil their intention of dealing with the unemployment question as speedily as possible. I was glad to hear the re-assuring answer given this afternoon, but we cannot be too insistent in calling attention to the fact that all the great questions affecting our industries to-day will never be settled until we deal with this problem of unemployment. The dread of unemployment is stultifying in many directions that which to-day should be done in the interests of the country, and I therefore do urge my right hon. Friend to use all his influence to induce the Government to bring in as speedily as possible their Bill to deal with universal insurance. They will find that some industries will prefer to deal with the matter themselves, but I hope the Government will make no delay in the matter. I want to take the opportunity to refer to a remark made yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). I am afraid that he is under the misapprehension that the trade unions are being largely subsidised by these Insurance Acts so far as unemployment is concerned. That is not so. Although they get one-sixth from the Government, they have to do all the clerical work attached to paying

  1995
  out the benefits through the general offices and the branches of the societies, and the paltry sixpence that some get does not compensate them for the work. You must remember that when this was brought in some societies which had paid no unemployment benefit, and others which had paid but a very small sum, were encouraged either to pay a benefit or to increase their payment, so that the unemployed might have at least something like 9s. 4d., or even more. Certain societies immediately commenced to pay 10s. a week, the result being that the subsidy to them was 6d. out of the 10s., because they were doing work which the State had passed on to them. I trust, therefore, no one will run away with the idea that the trade union movement of this country is making a large amount of money out of the administration of the National Health Insurance Unemployment Fund. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity of using the surplus already accumulated for increasing the benefit to be paid, but I trust that by the end of 1920 it will be found there is no need to put into practice the proviso which is contained in the second Clause of this Bill. I hope by then some other solution will have been found and that the trade unions will not be called upon to increase their unemployment benefit to their members. Some of the societies already, in addition to the 7s. given by the State, pay 10s. per week to unemployed members. Therefore I do not think you have any right to call upon the trade unions to throw their rules into the melting pot and to call a special delegate meeting, which may involve an outlay of £2,000 or £3,000 on the part of the society for the purpose merely of altering their rules in this connection. I trust that that point will be reconsidered before the time arrives. It means a very large sum to the trade unions to call meetings for the purpose of altering rules, and that necessity should be obviated entirely. I am pleased the right hon. Gentleman is using the extra funds in the Unemployment Fund to increase the benefit to those who unfortunately at this time are out of work, but the 4s. increase per week which has been provided is scarcely more than a 55 per cent, increase, which compares very badly with the increase in the cost of living, and there is no hope, I should say, that by the end of 1920 even the cost of living will have been decreased to that extent.
  Sir E. CARSON: I think the statement of my right hon. Friend is from many aspects very satisfactory, and the House must be pleased to know that the basis on which the 7s. was originally fixed on the average of the then unemployment in this country has been shown to be wrong, because it means that employment even before the War had improved on the average in this country. Of course, we know that during the War unemployment was a very rare thing. That is satisfactory in itself, but I think it is also satisfactory in this, that I hope it will encourage my right hon. Friend and the Government to-at once grapple with the whole problem. It is quite clear now that, you can get a benefit of a satisfactory nature with regard to unemployment, and whether it may be necessary to call for an increased contribution, either from employers or employed or from the State, it is quite plain, from the calculations made in 1911, that you can fulfil a great work in this respect on such statistics as you are able to get. This should be an encouragement to the Government to bring in a larger scheme, such as they promised the other evening when we had the question of the out-of-works under discussion—a scheme which I understood the Labour party to promise they would gladly assist. So much for that. I think there is a good deal of misapprehension in the country upon one other matter to which I should like to refer. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hallas) suggested that this was not a worthy increase to make to the men who had come back after fighting at the Front. That would lead one to suppose that the out-of-work donation had been dropped as regards these men. But I understand that that is not so. It is still going on, and, moreover, these men do not get the insurance we are now dealing with. It has nothing to do with them, and consequently the eloquent peroration in which the hem. Member indulged loses its force, because the soldiers who have served are specially provided for. It should not go forth to the country that they are under the unemployment benefit in the Insurance Act, but it should be known that special provision is made for them, and this particular proposal has nothing to do with their case.
  Mr. HALLAS: I was referring to those soldiers who had returned to civil life and were no longer recipients of the donation.
  Sir R. HORNE: By leave of the House, I will answer the questions which have

  1997
  been put to me. I should like to say at once I am very pleased to give an assurance that the Government intend to proceed with all speed with the larger measure we desire to see brought into operation at the earliest possible moment, and I hope to be able to introduce the Bill at a very early date. The matter with which we are now dealing is only a very small section of the problem. When I consulted the Government actuary I found it was possible to increase the amount of the benefit to the unemployed, and that is the sole object of this particular measure. The Government actuary, in explaining the position, stated that owing to the lack of suitable data at the time the original calculation was made the risk of unemployment was over-valued, while the benefit was fixed at a suitably lower rate than would have been otherwise laid down. With regard to Clause 2, the position is really this: Under Section 105 of the 1911 Act it was provided that the trade unions might dispense this benefit and have paid to them the amount of the Government contribution, but it was arranged that if they received the 7s. they should pay out 9s. 4d. in all. Now the Government contribution is to be 11s., and if the House approves of the proposal now before it the trade unions will make the donation up to 13s. 4d. If the matter were left as it stands the trade unions would as a matter of fact, if the same proportions were retained, be called upon to distribute 14s. 8d., but in order not to dislocate their financial arrangements it has been decided to give them until December next year to rearrange their finances. Up to December next year they will, therefore, only be called upon to pay 2s. 4d. over the Government Grant, but after that they will be required to provide 3s. 8d. I hope I have made the point clear, and I ask the House to give us the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I do not think my right hon. Friend has made it quite clear whether the increase now proposed from 7s. to 11s. will be a permanent increase, or whether it is only to be a temporary increase consequent on the accumulations referred to by the right hon. Gentleman?
  Sir R. HORNE: I am sorry not to have answered that part of the question. It will be a permanent increase, because, as a result of the over-valuation of the risk, you can give more benefit than was proposed in the original estimate. Accord-
  1998
  ingly, the increase will be permanent, and it will not require any extra contribution to keep it in existence.
  Mr. SPENCER: If there be an accumulation of funds and it is contemplated bringing in a new scheme, would it not be possible to increase the benefit over and above the amount now proposed?
  Sir R. HORNE: I do not think it would be possible now to give more than 11s. under the present arrangement, but I hope when the permanent scheme of uniform insurance is brought in it will be possible to increase the benefit altogether.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): I beg to move, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Mr. SPEAKER: On what day?
  Sir R. HORNE: Now.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I hope it is not proposed to take the Committee stage today. No one has any objection to the Bill. We set a very bad precedent during war-time in endeavouring to take a number of stages of a Bill on one particular day, and I do not think we should now follow it. The Committee could be gone through in five minutes on any day the Government like to put the Bill down, and I hope they will not repeat the practice adopted in war-time, one which, in my opinion, is very bad in peace time.
  Sir R. HORNE: I readily accept my right hon. Friend's suggestion. We will take it on Monday.

  MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Although this is merely a financial measure, the effects of the Bill are more far-reaching than merely financial. The

  1999
  problem with which we have to deal is, in effect, the necessity, in the light of experience of making it possible to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission appointed in 1904 to report on the question of the feeble-minded. Hon. Members who have read the Fourth Annual Report of the Board of Control for the year 1917 will realise that these measures which we have been able to take up to the present moment are wholly inadequate to deal with this very important question. Not only have the few years which have elapsed since the passing of the Lunacy Act of 1913 been disturbed by the War, and therefore circumstances have made it impossible to devote as much attention as should have been given to this very important question, but the increase in the cost of everything has made it quite impossible for the local authorities to carry out their functions under that Act unless they received a larger sum from the State. There is also the further point, and it cannot be overlooked that many feeble-minded persons were able during the War to obtain regular employment. They, unfortunately, are perhaps the first to lose their employment under present conditions, and it is advisable, in the interests of these unfortunate people themselves no less than in the interest of the community, that no steps should be spared to deal with the matter in a humane and efficient manner. In order to do that, it is necessary to afford the local authorities financial support, without which it is impossible for them to deal with this important and complicated question. Furthermore, it is necessary to stimulate the activity of some of the local authorities who have not seen their way to throw as much energy into this branch of their duties as the importance and seriousness of the subject demand. It is hoped, therefore, that by increasing the contributions—that is to say, by removing the limit of the total sum which the Treasury can pay in the shape of the 50 per cent, grant to the local authorities towards the sums spent by them in dealing with the feeble-minded, to enable these local authorities to embark upon a much more thorough scheme of work than has been possible in the past. It will be readily understood that the difficulty of estimating the work required to carry out this 1913 Act has been very great when the authorities have not known what sum they could rely upon from the
  2000
  Treasury, and since the total amount that the Treasury may pay to the country as a whole was limited, it was impossible for any one authority to know what share would come to them.
  Briefly, the experience of the working of the Act of 1913 has been to show that that Act is not carrying out the work for which it was passed by Parliament, and that the moment has arrived which appears to have been contemplated when that Act was under discussion, for the very Clause (Clause 4) which we desire to amend contains the phrase "there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament," and so forth, and then the phrase ''unless Parliament should otherwise determine." Therefore it was obviously and wisely contemplated that there should be no finality in dealing with a matter so important as that which we now have under consideration. I, therefore, come to the House to ask that the financial limit, imposed by the Act of 1913 on the total amount of the Treasury Grant both as regards England and Scotland, should be removed. The White Paper, which has been in the hands of hon. Members for some days, shows that the total expenditure contemplated eventually will be £1,400,000. It is not anticipated that the total sum will be expended in any one year before, at least, five years from now, and, of course, the gradual increase of expenditure cannot be accurately estimated. In the remaining months of the financial year not a very large sum, unfortunately, can be spent but it is very important that the House should sanction the policy embodied in this Bill, which is not merely a policy of humanity towards a most unfortunate section of the community, but a really wise social reform which, I think, all sections of the House will approve and support.
  As regards the Clauses of the Bill, Clause I hardly requires any explanation. Under the Act of 1913, the Treasury is limited to a Grant of £150,000 to the English and Welsh local authorities in connection with, measures taken by them to deal with the feeble-minded Since the local authorities are not called upon to deal with these cases beyond the point where they can receive from the Exchequer half the total sum expended, the limitation imposed on their activities is very clear. That limitation is very unfortunate, and has had a most hampering effect on this very important work. The same thing applies to Scotland, with the difference that the limit

  2001
  there is smaller, being only £20,000. It is estimated that in England and Wales the number of people who ought to be dealt with is something like 21,700. In Scotland the number is 4,000. It is estimated that each case will require something like £60 per annum for treatment. The necessity, therefore, for removing the limit, which exercises so hampering an effect, I think hardly needs to be dwelt on at any length. Clause 2 of the Bill has reference to the Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1857, which imposed a limit to the interest which might be paid by Scottish local authorities on the sums borrowed by them. The interest was 5 per cent., which was, no doubt, an adequate and proper amount in 1857, but which can hardly be considered a proper sum now. Therefore, it is sought to obtain the removal of the limit on the amount of interest payable by local authorities on borrowed money. Clause 3, again, has reference to a purely Scottish matter—the power of district boards in Scotland to borrow for current expenditure. The rates imposed annually to provide for the ordinary current expenditure of district boards are not usually levied till about the middle of the local financial year (which runs from 15th May to 15th May) and the collection takes place about two months later. Thus about eight months of the year have gone before the rates, are received, and meantime the boards have to provide for current requirements, such as maintenance of patients, administrative expenses, etc. The power proposed to be conferred on district boards by the present Clause, to finance themselves temporarily in anticipation of the collection of the rates—by means of bank overdrafts, or otherwise, such overdrafts, etc., to be repaid as soon as the rates are received—is already pos-
  2002
  sessed by all other local authorities in Scotland, and the extension of the power to district boards has become necessary by reason of the increased activities of these boards in recent years under the Mental Deficiency Act, and the consequent increase in their annual financial requirements. All that we seek by this measure, for dealing with this unfortunately relatively large section of the community, is that the local authorities should be put on the same footing as they are with regard to the treatment of tuberculosis and venerial disease. In both these cases there is a contribution, in one case of 50 per cent, and in the other case of 75 per cent., towards the total sums spent by the local authority, but there is no limit to the total amount of the Exchequer grant. What we ask is that the House should agree to put the treatment of mental defectives, from the financial point of view, on the same footing as the treatment now accorded to the other cases I have mentioned.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Major Baird.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes before Seven o'clock.