CLAUSE 3.—(Certain Acts to be continued temporarily.)

HC Deb 28 July 1922 vol 157 cc908-55

(1) The Acts mentioned in Parts I to V inclusive of the Third Schedule to this Act shall, to the extent specified in column three of that Schedule, he continued until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and shall then expire, unless further continued.

(2) The Act mentioned in Part VI of the Third Schedule to this Act shall, to the extent specified in column three of that Schedule, be continued until the eighth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and shall then expire, unless further continued.

(3) The Acts mentioned in Parts VII and VIII of the Third Schedule to this Act shall, to the extent specified in column three of that Schedule, be continued until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, and shall then expire, unless further continued.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The Amendment which stands on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), in Sub-section (1), to leave out "V" and to insert instead thereof "VI" is governed by the later Amendment. to insert at the end of the Third Schedule:

It will be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss the subject in the way suggested. The object of this Amendment is to endeavour to insert in the Act the Rent (Restrictions) Act. As the Committee is aware, a Committee has been set up for the purpose of inquiring into the whole circumstances surrounding this Act. Hon. Members will also be aware that in June next the existing Act expires. The difficulty that we feel, and which I understand the Government are prepared to meet, is this, that in the event of the Committee not reporting between now and June, and in the event of no legislation being introduced in the interval, the Act will automatically expire, with all the consequences that will follow, notwithstanding the fact that a Committee has already been set up. For these reasons we think that provision ought to be made in the Expiring Laws Act. Our object is to ensure that in the event of the Committee not reporting between now and June the Act will not automatically expire. We want to safeguard the position.

The MINISTER OF HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond)

My right hon. Friend has quite fairly put the position. The Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restriction) Act comes to an end in June, 1923, but, as the Committee is aware, I have just appointed a Committee to inquire into the question. The first reference is whether the Act is or is not to be continued, and the second reference is, if it is to be continued, what Amendments are required. I shall propose to the Committee when it begins its labours that, on the first point of principle, they might present an Interim Report. I see no reason why on the

FIRST SCHEDULE.
ENACTMENTS MADE PERMANENT.
PART I.
1.	2.	3.	4.
Session and Chapter.	Short Title.	How far made permanent.	Amending Acts.
(1)
3 & 4 Vict. c. 89.	The Poor Rate Exemption Act, 1840.	The whole Act so far as unrepealed.	—
(2)
4 & 5 Vict. c. 30.	The Ordnance Survey Act, 1841	The whole Act so far as unrepealed.	33 & 34 Vict. c. 13.
			47 & 48 Vict. c. 43.
			52 & 53 Vict. c. 30.
(3)
10 & 11 Vict. c. 98.	The Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Act, 1847.	The whole Act so far as unrepealed.	—
(4)
14 & 15 Vict. c. 104.	The Episcopal and Capitular Estates Act, 1851.	The whole Act so far as unrepealed.	17 & 18 Vict. c. 116.
			22 & 23 Vict. c. 46.
			23 & 24 Vict. c. 124.
			31 & 32 Vict. c. 114. s. 10.

question whether or not the Act should be prolonged, we should not be able to make an announcement probably during the Autumn Session. If the Act is to be prolonged and to be Amended, we shall then have the next Session in order to introduce the Amendments, and if the Act is to be continued, the Amendments could be made before the Act expires. On this assurance, I hope my right hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press the Amendment.

Mr. THOMAS

I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government's position is that in the event of no definite Report being submitted before June an Interim Report may be presented, and in the event of neither, the Government will see in the Autumn Session that the Act does not expire without fresh legislation being enacted. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir A. MOND

Yes, certainly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 (Amending enactments) and 5 (Short title and application to Ireland) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

1.	2.	3.	4.
Session and Chapter.	Short Title.	How far made permanent.	Amending Acts.
(5)
17 & 18 Vict. c. 102.	The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854.	The whole Act so far as unrepealed.	26 & 27 Vict. c. 29. s. 6.
			31 & 32 Vict. c. 125.
			46 & 47 Vict. c. 51.
(6)
26 & 27 Vict. c. 105.	The Promissory Notes Act, 1863.	The whole Act	45 & 46 Vict c. 61.
(7)
27 & 28 Vict, c. 20.	The Promissory Notes (Ireland) let, 1864.	The whole Act so far as unrepealed.	—
(8)
28 & 29 Vict, c. 83.	The Locomotives Act, 1865.	The whole Act so far as unrepealed.	41 & 42 Vict. c. 58.
			41 & 42 Vict. c. 77.
			(Part II.)
			59 & 60 Vict. c. 36.
			61 & 62 Vict. c. 29.
(9)			6 & 7 Geo. 5. c. 12.
31 & 32 Vict, c. 125.	The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.	The whole Act so far as unrepealed.	42 & 43 Vict. c. 75.
			46 & 47 Vict. c. 51.
(10)
32 & 33 Vict, c. 21.	The Corrupt Practices Commission Expenses Act, 1869.	The whole Act so far as unrepealed.	34 & 35 Vict. c. 61.
(11)
32 & 33 Vict, c. 56.	The Endowed Schools Act, 1869.	The whole Act so far as unrepealed.	36 & 37 Vict. c. 87.
			37 & 38 Vict. c. 87.
			52 & 53 Viet. c. 40.
(12)			8 Edw. 7. c. 39
34 & 35 Vict. c. 87.	The Sunday Observation Prosecution Act, 1871.	The whole Act so far as unrepealed.	—
(13)
43 & 44 Vict, c. 42.	The Employers Liability Act, 1880.	The whole Act so far as unrepealed.	6 Edw. 7. c. 58 s.14.
(14)
51 & 52 Vict, c. 55.	The Sand Grouse Protection Act. 1888.	The whole Act so far as unrepealed.	—
(15)
52 & 53 Vict. c. 40.	The Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889.	The whole Act so far as unrepealed.	53 & 54 Vict. c. 60.
			2 Edw. 7. c. 42.
(16)
61 & 62 Vict. c. 49.	The Vaccination Act, 1898	The whole Act so far as unrepealed.	7 Edw. 7. c. 31.
(17)
3 Edw. 7. c. 36	The Motor Car Act, 1903	The whole Act so far as unrepealed.	9 Edw. 7. c. 37.
			10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 72.
(18)
5 Edw. 7. c. 18	The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905.	The whole Act	9 Edw. 7. c. 7.
(19)
5 & 6 Geo. 5. c. 48.	The Fishery Harbours Act, 1915.	The whole Act	—

PART II.
(20)
6 & 7 Geo. 5. c.67.	The War Loan Act, 1916.	Sub-section (6) of Section one so far as it relates to the holding of Government securities acquired before the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-two.	—

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. NEAL)

I beg to move, in Part I, to leave out

(17)
3 Edw. 7 c. 36.	The Motor Car Act, 1903	…	The whole Act so far as unrepealed	9 Edw. 7. c. 37. 10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 72.

I told my Noble Friend the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), in whose name this Amendment stands on the Paper, that I thought the Amendment might be accepted, and, in his absence, I beg to move it.

3.0 P.M.

Captain W. BENN

We ought to know something about this Amendment before it is made. I am told by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely) that this was not recommended by the Committee of which he was chairman. I think we should view any Amendment of the Motor Car Act proposed by the Noble Lord with the most intense suspicion. Therefore, being in ignorance of this matter I ask, on behalf of myself and other hon. Members, that we may have some ample explanation.

Mr. NEAL

I can give the explanation in a sentence. As the Bill stands it proposes to make permanent the Motor Car Act, 1903. It has been suggested that it. would be better to carry that Act over from year to year, and that is the effect of the Amendment, the reason being that the Government is under a promise to introduce amending legislation at an early date and to try to bring motor legislation more into consonance with modern conditions and practice.

Major-General SEELY

This is a very unfortunate proposal. As Chairman of the Committee I received from different Government Departments their suggestions that Bills which have hitherto been annual Bills should not be made permanent, but should be so continued. My hon. Friend's Department wanted to make these annual Bills. It is just that sort of thing that the House set up the Committee to put a stop to. It is a most unreasonable method of conducting Parliamentary business, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not press the Amendment. It flies in the face of the unanimous Report of the Committee set up by this House.

Mr. NEAL

If there has been any misunderstanding and the object of what is suggested now would be to leave it to expire, which is not what is desired, I will reconsider the matter between now and the Report stage, but I think there is a unanimous desire that this Act should be annual rather than permanent.

Lord c. PERCY

The Parliamentary Secretary told us that the effect of not proposing this Amendment would be to drop this out of the Bill altogether. He is now proposing to leave out this Act from the list of laws made permanent, and to do so solely on the ground that he is under promise to introduce permanent legislation. He and other Ministers are under promise to introduce permanent legislation on a dozen subjects. The Committee unanimously decided that there was no argument for keeping these Acts under the Expiring Continuance system. This Amendment strikes at the root of the whole Report.

Viscount CURZON

I apologise for not being here when the Amendment was proposed. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord c. Percy) has referred to the Report. Paragraph 10, page 5, of the Report says: The Committee have acted throughout on the assumption that an Act originally experimental in its character has remained in force for a considerable space of time, and during that time has been annually renewed without opposition. There is strong presumption that that Act should, unless obsolete, be made permanent. The Motor Car Act was passed in 1903 and was to last three years. It has been continued annually under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, but it has been admitted by the Parliamentary Secretary on many occasions that that Act is in effect obsolete. Several of its provisions do not now apply and want revision. Therefore I hope that the Committee will not be swayed by the opposition which has been offered to this Amendment.

Lord E. PERCY

We are not proposing to repeal this enactment.

Viscount CURZON

You are proposing that it should be made permanent.

Mr. THOMAS

On this Friday afternoon a proposal is put down by a private Member, and he is not present to move his own Amendment. In the ordinary way, it would have lapsed, and, to the amazement of everybody, someone representing the Government moves it, notwithstanding the fact that it is in the teeth of the recommendations made by the Committee which the Government set up. Such a procedure must be not only novel, but amusing, to all the colleagues of the bon. Gentleman. I submit that this thing must be treated more seriously. If on the Treasury Bench someone runs wild, as Members sometimes do on this bench, they should take steps at once to deal with him, as we do. I submit that the colleagues of the Parliamentary Secretary should say to him, "Really, you did not quite understand what you were doing. You made a hopeless mistake; you have put the Government in a difficulty, and we have to throw you overboard immediately."

Mr. NEAL

This is not a matter to which I attach much importance. If my right hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee (Major-General Seely) thinks it right that this Act should be made permanent, it really bas no serious effect. There is amending legislation contemplated.

Sir D. MACLEAN

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport has indicated that he is an expert swimmer. He has also shown his powers as a gymnast. But he has not explained

(18)
5 Edw. 7. c. 18.	The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905.	The whole Act	…	…	…	9 Edw. 7. c. 7.

Under the provisions of this Act every municipal corporation and every urban district council with a population of over 15,000 persons is required to appoint a distress committee. These distress committees have been appointed annually. They have no functions to discharge, and local authorities consider that the Act should be repealed. This is not the time even for the pretence of making an Act permanent. Therefore if this Act is to be continued, it should be continued in the Third Schedule, and not in the First Schedule. I would like

to us what he proposes to do on the Report stage.

Mr. NEAL

I propose to withdraw the Amendment.

Captain BENN

I would like to ask the hon. and gallant Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) what his position is now. I think we should have some further explanation.

Viscount CURZON

Like the last speaker I want to know where we stand. This Act is admitted to be obsolete. The Select Committee say that unless an Act is obsolete it should come under the permanent class. This is an obsolete Act.

Lord c. PERCY

Then repeal it.

Viscount CURZON

When the Government are asked to repeal this Act, they say they have not the time. This Act falls within the conditions laid down by the Select Committee. Therefore, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport to reconsider the withdrawal of the Amendment.

Major-General SEELY

I think my Noble Friend has not quite appreciated the meaning of the Amendment. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for proposing to withdraw it. The Select Committee went carefully through every Bill. You might use the same argument about almost every Bill in the Schedule, and the whole of the labours of my Committee would have been in vain.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir D. NEWTON

I beg to move, in Part I, to leave out

to register a protest against the way in which this business has been brought before us. There are over 50 Acts of Parliament which we have had to read between Wednesday and Friday, and it seems to me, that when so many Acts are to be made permanent the authorities concerned—and they are numerous, important, and influential—should have been given more notice of the proposals of the Government.

Sir A. MOND

I hope the Committee will support the Select Committee's recommendation in this matter. It is really useless to appoint a Select Committee to go through this long and complicated business and then proceed to reconsider it on an occasion like the present. The hon. Member says this Act ought to be repealed. It would be just

SECOND SCHEDULE.
ENACTMENTS REPEALED.
1.	2.	3.	4.
Session and Chapter.	Short Title.	How far repealed.	Amending Acts.
(1)
1 & 2 Geo. 5. c. 55	The National Insurance Act, 1911.	Section Seventy-eight	…	—
(2)
3 & 4 Geo. 5. c. 26	The Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Grant Act, 1913.	Subsection (2) of section six	…	—
(3)
5 & 6 Geo. 5. c. 4	The Land Drainage Act, 1914.	Subsection (2) of section four	—
(4)
9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 59.	The Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919.	Sections three, four, and five	…	—
(5)
10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 44.	The Fertilisers (Temporary Control of Export) Act, 1920).	The whole Act	…	—

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill."

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD

I think the Committee ought to know what is in Section 78 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, which we are now repealing. There is no reference to any amending Bill in the Schedule. One would think we were repealing some section that had not been dealt with by other legislation. In other cases we referred to amending Acts

THIRD SCHEDULE.
ENACTMENTS CONTINUED.
Part I.
1.	2.	3.	4.
Session and Chapter.	Short Title.	How far continued.	A mending Acts.
(1)
46 & 47 Vict. c. 60	The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883.	The whole Act	…	…	…	48 &49 Vict. c. 77.
						49 & 50 Vict. c. 59.
						54 & 55 Vict. c.48.
						54 & 55Vict. c. 71.
						55 & 56 Vict. c. 7.
						59 & 60 Vict. c.58.
						61 & 62 Vict. c. 37.

as easily repealed in the one Schedule as in the other, but excellent work is being done under its provisions.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

passed since the original Act, but in this case there is nothing of the kind.

Sir A. MOND

Section 78 of the Act of 1911 provided that in cases of difficulty arising, the Insurance Commissioners might, with the consent of the Treasury, modify the provisions of the Act. This Section has now become obsolete and is no longer required, as the Insurance Commissioners under their present constitution have full powers.

1.	2.	3.	4.
Session and Chapter.	Short Title.	How far continued.	Amending Acts.
46 &47 Vict. c. 60—continued.	The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883—continued.	The whole Act—continued.
			3 Edw. 7. c. 37.
			6 Edw. 7. c. 37.
			7 Edw. 7. c. 44.
			9 Edw. 7. c. 42.
			1 & 2 Geo. 5. c. 19.
			4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 32.
			8 & 9 Geo. 5. c. 20.
			9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 55.
(2)
58 & 59 Viet. c. 21	The Seal Fisheries (North Pacific) Act, 1895.	The whole Act	—
(3)
4 Edw. 7. c. 24	The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904.	The whole Act	—
(4)
7 Edw. 7. c. 55	The London Cab and Stage Carriage Act, 1907.	As to the abolition of the privileged cab system, Section two.	—
(5)
1 & 2 Geo. 5. c. 55	The National Insurance Act, 1911.	Section forty-two	3 & 4 Geo. 5. c. 37.
			4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 57.
			4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 81.
			7 & 8 Geo. 5. c. 62.
			10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 10.
(6)
2 & 3 Geo. 5. c. 2	The Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act, 1912.	The whole Act	—
(7)
4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 3	The Grey Seals Protection Act, 1914.	The whole Act	—
(8)
7 & 8 Geo. 5. c. 19	The Coroners (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1917.	The whole Act	12 Geo. 5. c 2.
(9)
7 & 8 Geo. 5. c. 42	The Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Act, 1917.	The whole Act	9 & 10 Geo. 5. c 83.
(10)
8 & 9 Geo. 5. c. 23	The Juries Act, 1918	Section seven	12 Geo. 5. c. 2.
(11)
9 & 10 Geo. 5.c.92	The Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919.	Section one	—
(12)
9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 97	The Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919.	Sections one and two	—
(13)
9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 99.	The Housing (Additional Powers) Act. 1919.	Sections one, two, eleven, and thirteen so far as they apply to Scotland.	—
(14)
10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 57.	The Unemployment (Relief Works) Act, 1920.	The whole Act.	—
(15)
10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 58.	The Shops (Early Closing) Act, 1920.	The whole Act	11 & 12 Geo. 5. c 60.
(16)
11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 66.	The National Health Insurance (Prolongation of Insurance) Act, 1921.	The whole Act.	—

PART II.
(17)
9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 35.	The Housing, Town Planning, &c, Act, 1919.	Section twenty-five.	—

PART III
1.	2.	3.	4.
Session and Chapter.	Short Title.	How far continued.	Amending Acts.
(18)
9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 60.	The Housing, Town Planning, &c. (Scotland), Act, 1919.	Section twenty-two.	—

PART IV.
(19)
6 & 7 Geo. 5. c. 12.	The Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916.	Section five, except paragraph (a); Sections six, seven, nine, and twelve; Section thirteen, except subsection (6); Sections fourteen, twenty-one, twenty-two, and twenty-three, and subsection (1) of section twenty-four.	11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 12.
(20)
6 & 7 Geo. 5. c. 55.	The Local Government (Emergency Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1916.	The whole Act	11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 12.
(21)
10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 47.	The Ministry of Food (Continuance) Act, 1920.	So far as it authorises the making or revoking in whole or in part, of Part III of the Sale of Food Order, 1921, and provides for the enforcement and imposes penalties for the breach thereof.	—

PART V.
(22)
11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 1.	The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921.	The provisions as to increases in the rates of unemployment benefit and in the rates of contributions.	11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 15.

PART VI.
(23)
10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 29.	The Overseas Trade (Credits and Insurance) Act, 1920.	As to the powers of the Board of Trade with respect to the granting of credits and the giving of new guarantees.	11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 26.
			11 & 12 Geo 5. c. 65.

PART VII.
(24)
8 & 9 Geo. 5. c. 34	The Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1918.	So far as it relates to tramway undertakings.	10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 14.

Part VIII.
(25)
59 & 60 Vict. c. 16.	The Agricultural Rates Act, 1896.	The whole Act	…	…	…	2 Edw. 7. c. 42
						7 Edw. 7. c. 13.
(26)
59 & 60 Vict. c. 37.	The Agricultural Bates Congested Districts, and Burgh Land Tax Relief (Scotland) Act. 1896.	The whole Act	…	…	…	60 & 61 Vict. c. 53.
						7 Edw. 7. c. 13.
						l & 2 Geo. 5. c. 49.

Captain BENN

I beg to move, in Part I, to leave out

(3)
4 Edw. 7. c. 24.	The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904.	The whole Act	…	…	…	—

The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904, is the principal Act conferring powers on the Post Office to control wireless telegraphy and telephoning, and is an annual Act. Hitherto, that Act has been included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It does continue until the end of this year in any case. The Postmaster-General has a Bill now before the House for extending his powers, as conferred by the Act of 1904, to a more general control over this developing science. Therefore, my first point is that there is no necessity to continue this Act till 1923, as proposed here. My second, and more serious complaint, is that the powers of the Postmaster-General under this Act are being used in a very unexpected and, as I think, in a very improper way, and therefore I take the first opportunity of seeking to limit those powers or to deprive him of them altogether. I refer to the new scheme which he is carrying through in connection with the broadcasting of wireless messages. Everybody realises that this is an enormous advance in the matter of public news. Broadcasting a message, as anyone who has read the accounts from America knows, will be a supplement to the newspaper, and altogether marks quite a new stage in the civilisation of our country and our ordinary social life. Indeed, since the invention of the printing-press, it is almost the most important thing that has happened.

The Postmaster-General, so far as I can learn—and he has been good enough to answer questions on the subject at great length—proposes to put the broadcasting plans into the hands of a monopoly. The Marconi Company is one of the component members of that combine, I understand. The right hon. Gentleman only named three, but we understand that the combine will contain those three and other companies, who submit to the regulations of the combine. What powers are going to be conferred upon this monopoly for the broadcasting of wireless messages? I understand that they have asked that the apparatus that they use for the transmission of messages and the apparatus which is to be used for the reception of messages are to be of British manufacture only. I suggest that when this House tells the Postmaster-General that he has power to license applicants, it does not intend him to use that power to carry out some fiscal system, well or ill-conceived, which happens to commend itself to his mind at the moment. Supposing the Ministry of Agriculture is empowered to license dogs, no one would say they were using their powers properly if they refused to license a French dog; supposing the Home Office refused to license a Renault car because it has a French motor engine, that would be an abuse of their power.

This matter was referred to, but not very fully, in the Committee, and the Postmaster-General said that this country should not allow this new form of communication to be exploited by foreign manufacturers. He is proposing to allow it to be exploited by some unknown combine, of unknown composition, with unknown powers, but having behind them the force of the Post Office, through the penalties which they are empowered by this Act to impose. He has to issue the licence, and he has to impose the penalties, so that we come to this position, that these fortunate individuals or companies who have the monopoly propose conditions which give them an effective monopoly, not only of broadcasting transmission, which may be very proper, because obviously we must, have control of the transmission of messages, but also of the control of the instruments for receiving messages. I hold that the more people there are who receive these broadcast messages, the better for society as a whole. What harm could them possibly be in some individual, in some place, subject to the ordinary Regulations as regards area, and subject to payment for a licence, which I think reasonable, constructing his own apparatus, or purchasing an apparatus from abroad, or getting it in any way he thinks fit, and receiving the messages which are being broadcasted?

If the Postmaster-General says that nobody shall be in possession of a receiving apparatus unless it complies with the specification made in the financial interests of the fortunate people who have joined this combination, how is he to carry out his orders? Suppose I get my licence, pay my 10s. and set up my apparatus, and then get an apparatus from abroad, or get it partly made at home and partly abroad, how can the Postmaster-General possibly prevent me from using it? Either the law should be obeyed and enforced, or else it should not be enacted, because nothing brings the law so much into contempt as failure to enforce it. How can the Postmaster-General, unless he intends to limit this thing to a very narrow circle of listeners, possibly enforce these Rules about the specification? He cannot possibly do it. I asked him the question, and his reply to that was that the companies, in providing these instruments, would see that the specification was observed. Other people who use instruments which they import into this country, on parts of which they pay duty, are to be prevented from using those instruments for the purpose of receiving messages. The right hon. Gentleman cannot do it unless he intends to have a large number of inspectors peeping about the streets and inspecting every apparatus to see if it complies with the specification laid down, by the Postmaster-General. I think the whole business is improper. The House in in great ignorance of the full particulars. They have sought information, but they have not got it.

Then what arrangements as to copyright has the Postmaster-General made about the messages to be sent out? Newspaper news is going to be supplemented by this broadcasting. If a newspaper, at considerable expense, secures news, it is perfectly right that it should be protected in the monopoly of that news for some period, say 24 hours. In the dark as we are, knowing nothing about Regulations or terms of agreement with this unknown monopoly, what guarantee have the newspapers got that their copyright will be secure? I am all in favour of the maximum circulation of news, and the freest communication between people, as a civilising influence, but I think the newspaper Press is at least entitled to be assured that their copyright in this matter is not being interfered with. I have no desire to take up more time of the House than necessary. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Lane-Mitchell) appears to regard that as a great joke—

Sir W. LANE-MITCHELL

A great joke!

Captain BENN

The hon. Member's contributions to Debate consist mostly of objections and interruptions. The proper course to pursue in this matter is for a Select Committee to be set up to inquire into it. Here we have Regulations being made on behalf of the Government touching one of the most important advances which have been made for centuries in the circulation of news, and I think what I suggest is very desirable. A Select Committee should go into the question and so re-assure the House that the terms of these contracts will be proper and in the public interest.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway)

I am glad that at last we have got the hon. and gallant Gentleman into the open on this business—

Captain BENN

What do you mean by that?

Mr. KELLAWAY

I feel that in this matter—

Captain BENN

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. Will the Postmaster-General kindly explain what he means by the words that "he is glad we have got the hon. and gallant Gentleman into the open?" What does he mean by the words?

Mr. KELLAWAY

What the words mean I should have thought would be obvious to every Member of this House.

Captain BENN

They are a gross insult.

Mr. KELLAWAY

I propose on this occasion to speak with a good deal of frankness. I very much doubt if the hon. and gallant Gentleman in moving his proposal has considered that it will, if carried, put an end to the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904. Does he realise, as a responsible Member of this House, the consequences involved in his action? It is all very well on this Motion to discuss all sorts of details of the broadcasting scheme. That is not what this proposal will affect if hon. Members opposite succeed in getting it carried. If it be carried, and the Act is not continued beyond the period for which it is current, there will be no control of wireless in this country. The Admiralty will be unable to communicate with the Fleet. The Air Ministry will be unable to communicate with their aircraft. No one in this country will be able to rely on efficient communication with anyone at sea. These things are proposed as a light and airy way of spending Friday afternoon. I say there should be some sense of responsibility at least in the proposals which are moved from the benches opposite. It is not made on the ground that the hon. Member has not had the opportunity of discussing the new Bill which I brought in. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made it clear that he and his Friends intend to resist the Bill line by line and Clause by Clause. They have, I am afraid, made it impossible that the Bill should be carried before the House rises.

Mr. KILEY

You have got the Committee stage.

Mr. KELLAWAY

That may be, but the hon. Gentleman and his Leaders on the Front Bench have made it clear that they do not intend to allow the Bill to pass. That is the contribution they propose to make to the development of what my hon. and gallant Friend himself has properly described as "one of the most important discoveries ever made in this country." Let me deal with some of the observations that my hon. Friend has thought fit to make on very imperfect information. He made the complaint, a curious one, I think, against me, that I have not given adequate replies to questions.

Captain BENN

No.

Mr. KELLAWAY

I have given answers to every question put to me in regard to this scheme fully and in detail.

Captain BENN

I went out of my way to say that the Postmaster-General had done that.

Mr. KELLAWAY

I have endeavoured to give the greatest possible information. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he had had the greatest difficulty in finding out what was meant by this scheme. That is what I thought. Every question that has been put to me on this subject I have answered fully, and when it has not been possible to give the information to the House, I have taken other means of making the information public. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith says that I am "setting up a monopoly." On what is that statement based? Had he seen my answer yesterday, he would have seen that it was an indication to those people to become members of the broadcasting company. No monopoly is possible under the terms which I have already indicated. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that I am going to prevent a man constructing his own apparatus, and using it. I stated clearly yesterday that a man constructing his own apparatus would be allowed to continue the use of it.

What is the real objection of the hon. and gallant Member? He thinks that by a hack door I have been trying to introduce Tariff Reform and a Protectionist system. May I ask him to read one or two elementary text books on the subject of Free Trade, and then he will find out how little relation his charge of Protection in this connection has to this question. Is it something new in the experience of Government Departments that they have made a condition in the placing of contracts that the material which is bought with Government money shall be of British make? That is nothing new, because it has been the practice of the Post Office for many years to include in their contract a provision that the money shall be spent in this country, or upon British materials unless there be some overwhelming advantage to be derived by not so doing. In connection with this new invention, a Government Department has neither the audacity nor the ingenuity to exploit inventors. On the other hand, had I agreed to carry out this work myself, what a howl of indignation there would have been had I proceeded to buy German or American instruments for this work, and I am sure there would have been no one more indignant than hon. Members opposite.

I am not going to be drawn into a discussion of a fiscal question which does not properly arise now, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will only read the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) in the Debate on Dyestuffs, or the same right hon. Gentleman's speeches in connection with the Paris Resolutions, he will find how little relation there is between the actual facts and the charge that I am trying to introduce a protective system by a backdoor. We have to keep this new form of communication in this country in the hands of our own people, and see that our manufacturers in regard to every branch of it have a technical skill and capacity for production equal to anything in the world. I am advised by those engaged in this industry that in about two years there will probably be some £6,000,000 spent in the purchase of receiving sets and the broadcasting system, and that as much as 80 per cent. of that total will go in wages. I am prepared to argue fully this question, not only in this House, but, if necessary, in the country, and I am prepared under the authority of the Act of Parliament to make it a condition of the granting of these licences that these instruments shall be of British manufacture. That has been made sufficiently clear. Sufficient notice has already been given, not only that I intend that that should be a condition, but that I do not intend to allow it to be evaded by persons, who I know are already seeking means by which they may get round this condition.

Captain W. BENN

How are you going to prevent evasion?

Mr. KELLAWAY

If I were to explain how I intend to prevent evasion, it would make evasion easier. I ask the Committee just to consider what my hon. and gallant Friend is proposing. He has admitted, so far as broadcasting is concerned, that it must be in the hands of British firms.

Captain W. BENN

No, I said that there must be Government control over broadcasting messages. That is obvious; otherwise, the air would be too full of sound.

Mr. KELLAWAY

Then we may have in this country some German or American or French firm setting up these broadcasting stations and allowed to engage in what has always been regarded as an essential monopoly to be controlled by the Government. It is an unthinkable proposition, and I am certain that no one who ever hopes to be Postmaster-General would ever agree to allowing a new form of communication of this kind to be in the hands of foreign firms. Supposing we proposed in connection with telegraphy or telephony to allow people to come in from abroad, what would be said? We are quite competent to look after our own communications without foreign assistance. He then proceeds to attack me with regard to the receiving sets. I have said that these must be of British manufacture. It is a common practice of Government Departments—it certainly is in the Post Office—to make conditions in their contracts to the effect that the material purchased with public money must, unless there be some overwhelming reason to the contrary, be of British make. Is there an overwhelming reason to the contrary here why we should allow the importation of foreign sets for this purpose? Is it because we are not technically efficient in this country to produce them? I would advise my hon. and gallant Friend to consult some Members of this House who speak with great authority on this matter. They will tell him that the electrical firms of this country have reached as high a degree of efficiency as any in the world. Is it that the hon. and gallant Member is afraid of a monopoly? I have already said that the scheme is open to every bonâ fide fide electrical manufacturer in this country. Everyone can take a part in this scheme.

Look at it from the other point of view. The electrical industry to-day is severely depressed. It is one of the industries in which the rate of unemployment is very high, and, apart from the overwhelming argument in favour of the course which I have taken, I should like to know with what face we could go into any of these great centres where the electrical workmen are walking the streets and say we propose to sanction a scheme under which the communications of the country can be exploited for the benefit of foreign workers. My hon. and gallant Friend, if he will permit me to say so with great respect, has overlooked an old text, which runs The letter killeth, but the spirit maketh alive. He is trying to score a little party advantage regardless of the very great public disadvantage which would be caused. He has worked very hard in this connection in various ways to try and arouse some agitation outside, and he has not had a single response. Not from a single quarter have I had a protest against what I have done. So far as I am aware, the only organ in the Press which has made any response to my hon. and gallant Friend's pathetic efforts has been the "Westminster Gazette."

Captain BENN

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that I have worked very hard to try and arouse agitation?

Mr. KELLAWAY

I have no doubt my hon. Friend has done so quite unconsciously.

Captain BENN

I have done nothing of the kind.

Mr. KELLAWAY

I will do my best to answer my hon. and gallant Friend's question. By persistent questioning in the House, and by the sort of Amendment which he puts on the Order Paper, he has done so—quite properly I admit. But that is not the point I am emphasising. The point is that he has met with no response from anywhere. The whole of the Press of the country, and common sense as well, are against him, whether it be Free Trade or Tariff Reform. This aspect of the case which alone occupies my hon. and gallant Friend, is after all a very small part of what is involved. If he succeed in preventing the renewal of this Act, he will have created chaos, whether he call it Free Trade or by whatever name. I repeat that the only control of wireless which exists in this country is contained in the Act which my right hon. Friend is asking this Committee not to allow to continue in operation, and this result will ensue if my hon. and gallant Friend gets his way—if he gets his little bit of party capital out of it. The Admiralty will not be able to communicate with the Fleet.

Captain BENN

Nonsense!

Mr. KELLAWAY

If my hon. Friend says it is nonsense, it shows he has not studied the A B C of the question.

Captain BENN

I repeat it is nonsense.

Mr. KELLAWAY

There is no power apart from the Government to regulate wireless outside this country, and this is what will ensue if this Act be not renewed. Any man can erect any station of any power he likes around our coasts. He can communicate with any place he pleases, and we cannot prevent him. He can jam every signal which is being sent, and he will do so in the ordinary course of the operations of that station. He could jam every signal being sent, whether by the Admiralty to the Fleet or by the Air Minister to aircraft, or by any one individual in this country trying to communicate with persons at sea. This is the price and the risk he is willing to run in what he calls the interests of the system of Free Trade—of which he has not yet learned the elementals.

Sir D. MACLEAN

The right hon. Gentleman, in his heated speech, has made an attack on my hon. and gallant Friend. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend feels duly admonished, and will take the greatest possible care not again to intervene in the Debates in this House without getting the Postmaster-General's licence. I suggest that the licence should be in the terms of the Act which we are now considering, that is to say, that Every such licence shall be in such form and for such purpose as the Postmaster-General may determine, and it shall contain the terms, conditions and restrictions under and subject to which the licence is granted. Then, of course, we shall see that Parliament is moving in accordance with the best traditions which the Postmaster-General has laid down. What has my hon. and gallant Friend done? He has taken a proper, and appropriate, Parliamentary opportunity, which the right hon. Gentleman, in other, and, I think, better days, used also to take, of bringing before Parliament a subject of general interest, which there is very little chance of raising at another stage of the proceedings. That is all that he has done. The Postmaster-General has endeavoured to make the flesh of the Committee creep by stating what would happen if this Amendment were carried. In any event, however, the Act goes on till Christmas, and there is to be an Autumn Session, during which a Bill could be brought before the House. I do not really know whether the right hon. Gentleman was serious, or whether he was attempting to amuse himself by working up indignation and endeavouring to show that my hon. and gallant Friend was occupying a ridiculous position. All I can say is that I do not think the Postmaster-General really increased his influence or his position in the House by the speech that he made.

I say again that my hon. and gallant Friend exercised a proper Parliamentary opportunity of laying his case before the Committee, which he did very fairly and, from my point of view, with very good effect. He was met with a tornado of abuse front the Minister in charge of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman went into the most irrelevant observations about Tariff Reform, Free Trade, and all the rest of it, referring my hon. and gallant Friend to textbooks and to further study of the question, in which he himself used to believe, although I congratulate his colleagues who are now on the Government Bench on his having become a convert to their particular faith. That is as it may be, but the action which has been taken in this case by my hon. and gallant Friend is justified on the facts of the situation. All that he wants is that there should be proper opportunities in this country for the development of this particular industry. I myself regard it with feelings of the greatest possible alarm, but here it is. The Postmaster-General himself said that the principal manufacturers of wireless apparatus in Great Britain will combine to form a company or companies to provide broadcasting services. We want to find out what that means, and I cannot imagine any better place for discussing this great public question than in this Committee here and now on the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend. What does the combine mean? First of all, you are going to shut out foreign competition. I suppose that an integral part of this apparatus is included under the Safeguarding of Industries Act already, but, not content with that, the Government have decided to exclude all chance of foreign competition. That I can understand, but they are also going to what is called "corner" the whole market. They are going to form, as an hon. Member behind me says, an additional trust at home. What harm is there in discussing it? The Postmaster-General objects to our discussing it.

Mr. KELLAWAY

indicated dissent.

Sir D. MACLEAN

But he does. He said it is a most unpatriotic thing to do. "It is one of the most shameless exhibitions of party spirit in opposition." I think it ought to be discussed. This is probably the only opportunity we are going to get. I will leave for the moment the question of the advantage to the consumer of having the choice between home-made and foreign-made instruments and confine myself altogether to the question of the combine at home, and I will assume that the Postmaster-General has issued me a licence and that I have his gracious permission to ask him for more particulars about this combine. Everyone who is interested at home is entitled to know what the Government Department proposes to do with regard to this combine, and we are entitled to have an answer, so that in any event there is going to be no cornering and no trust at home, but within these shores at any rate there shall he free play of competition. That is a question which should be addressed to the right hon. Gentleman, and if unsatisfactory answers are given I shall take all the risk of his displeasure and of the calumny which must fall upon us for so unpatriotic an action as voting against, him in the Division Lobby.

Sir D. NEWTON

I am very glad to think the Debate is taking place, because. I hope it may mean that facilities will be found for carrying the Bill through to its concluding stages. There are at least three points of view from which this question should be reviewed. There are the scientific reasons in support of the proposal.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

We are not discussing the Bill. We are discussing the proposals of the Postmaster-General with regard to the Bill. I understand the Act of 1904, which it is proposed to continue, gives great powers to the Postmaster-General, and it is only the powers under that Act which are open o review and discussion now. Hon. Members must not deal with the Bill.

Sir D. NEWTON

I was endeavouring to indicate that it was desirable to proceed to amplify those powers, and I hope at any rate the Motion will not be carried, because the whole of the wireless telegraphy situation would he in a state of chaos. It is necessary that wireless receiving sets should he obliged to conform to certain definite regulations, because unless they do they will give off radiations.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is discussing the new proposals. We cannot discuss those now.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. MALONE

I would not detain the House any longer had the Postmaster-General not deliberately and wilfully misrepresented the contentions of those who have put down Amendments to the new Bill which is coming before the House next week. He says he has given us details of the new scheme. If I turn to the reply he gave yesterday to a question which he has taken such great care to publish broadcast to the Press I find he is forming a combine. He says that the private manufacturing companies are able to be members of this combine. Is their power in the combine in proportion to the amount of capital they subscribe? If it is in accordance with the amount of capital which these small companies subscribe, then, as far as I can see, the right hon. Gentleman is going by this Bill to put a monopoly into the hands of the big constructive companies. The Postmaster-General told us that about £6,000,000 are going to be spent on broadcasting in the course of the next year or so, and he said that 80 per cent. of this money would be spent in labour. If that is so, then the companies from which the Postmaster General got his information must be operating on an extraordinarily in efficient system. Take two simple vital parts which constitute the receiving apparatus, and you find, first of all as regards double-head piece telephones, that the American article can be got for 30s., whereas the British equivalent, in quality and material in every respect, costs 40s. If I turn to the thermionic valve, which is a vital essential of all receiving sets, I find that the Marconi valve costs 26s. retail, whereas the same apparatus in America or France only costs 3s. or 4s.

Mr. HAILWOOD

Are these prices contained in the Act of 1904, and are we discussing whether they are to be kept in or left out?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I understand that the Postmaster-General has power under the Act of 1904 to spend this money or to sanction this policy. If I am correct, then the hon. Member is in order. If I am not correct, he is not in order.

Mr. MALONE

I do not propose to go into all the details, but I shall raise them at greater length at a later stage. The Postmaster-General has wilfully misrepresented the intention of hon. Members who have put down Amendments in saying that we are not protecting the interests of the people outside. We are protecting the interests, not merely of the hundreds of small wireless instrument makers, but also the million or so people who will be purchasing receiving sets in the course of the next 12 months. The two items that I have mentioned were only two out of numerous other technical parts of receiving sets which show the enormously exaggerated prices which the protection given in this Bill permits, and which millions of people have to pay to these monopolist concerns. The Marconi Company, which has practically a monopoly in this respect, cannot possibly supply more than one-twentieth of the needs of the present time.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is going beyond the powers of the Postmaster-General under this Act, and he is going on to the powers which he seeks in the Bill.

Mr. MALONE

Even if the Amendment be carried, this Bill will be in operation until the end of 1922, and there is plenty of time between now and then to set up a Select Committee or a Royal Commission to consider what should be done, instead of bringing this matter before us in a hole and corner way, and answering vague questions, such as was the case yesterday. Everybody knows that the trade in this country is full up with orders for receiving instruments. If you inquire of any of the well-known small firms you will find that they are constructing between 10,000 and 20,000 instruments. They cannot anything like supply the needs of the country. This protective system which is preventing up-to-date instruments being obtained in this country is driving the amateur receivers to purchase out of date instruments. They have to buy crystal receivers, which are not anything like so effective or efficient as is the valve system. That is putting a handicap on the progress of wireless broadcasting in this country. I protest against the deliberate misrepresentation by the Postmaster-General.

Mr. KILEY

It is well known in this House that the Postmaster-General is gifted in many ways, but until this afternoon it was not generally known that he possesses all the qualifications of a good lawyer. That is, that when you have any doubt about your brief, make good by going baldheaded for your opponent. That he has done with a vigour which has been interesting, and has enlivened an otherwise dull afternoon. What would have been very much more interesting to some Members of the House would have been the details which have been requested in relation to this subject. The Postmaster-General drew an appalling picture of what would happen if we did not confirm the continuance of the 1904 Act. That picture left us a little cold, for the very good reason that if there were any danger such as he suggested—a ship in distress unable to communicate with the land in order to get assistance—he knows very well that he has only to come, to this House and we would pass into law in a few hours such Measures as would prevent a calamity of that kind. The Postmaster-General said that he intended to exercise certain powers for limiting the use of certain instruments, and that he has provided for a combination which certain people may enter. He carefully refrained, however, from giving us one iota of information as to the conditions on which one is permitted to enter the combination. Is the combination to be limited to those in a certain trade? He mentioned the electrical trade more than once. Must the manufacturer be in the electrical trade before he can enter the combine? What penalty or amount must a manufacturer pay before he is admitted? Must a manufacturer provide

thousands of pounds as a condition of entrance? If that is not the case, what other conditions are there?

If it were a question of finding more money for broadcasting stations, there are several ways in which that could be done. If the half-guinea which the Postmaster-General is charging is not sufficient to provide for broadcasting, he might make a grant from his Post Office funds or he might increase the charge of 10s. 6d. I am as much interested as the Postmaster-General in British industry. I am more concerned to have the assurance that the British public will have at their command the very best instruments that brains and money can produce. It is very foolish to erect a barrier which would prevent our having the benefit of any invention or discovery and to permit the Postmaster-General to say that we shall or shall not have the best instrument that can be provided. That would be a dictatorship and a monopoly of a very dangerous kind. Before the Postmaster-General puts his powers into operation, I hope he will let the public know definitely what are the conditions for the working of this combination.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 126; Noes, 30.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Sugden, W. H.	Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)	Sutherland, Sir William	Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur	Taylor, J.	Windsor, Viscount
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)	Winterton, Earl
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John	Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)	Wise, Frederick
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)	Townley, Maximillan G.	Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)	Wallace, J.	Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward
Simm, M. T. (Wallsend)	Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor	Young, E. H. (Norwich)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander	Warren, Sir Alfred H.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)	White, Col. G. D. (Southport)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Stewart, Gershom	Whitla, Sir William	Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Dudley Ward.

NOES.
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby.)
Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Tillett, Benjamin
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Lyle-Samuel, Alexander	Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Cape, Thomas	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Waterson, A. E.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)	Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Galbraith, Samuel	Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)	Wignall, James
Gillis, William	Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)	Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C>
Grundy, T. W.	Myers, Thomas	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hirst, G. H.	Raffan, Peter Wilson
Holmes, J. Stanley	Royce, William Stapleton	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Irving, Dan	Swan, J. E.	Mr. Hogge and Mr. Kennedy.

Captain BENN

I beg to move, in Part I, to leave out

(11)
9 & 10 Geo. 5. c.92.	The Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919.	Section one.	—

In 1914, during the early stages of the War, the Aliens Restriction Act was passed, conferring upon the Home Secretarty very drastic powers. Those powers were continued once—in 1919—and would in the ordinary course expire in December, 1922. but it is now proposed to continue them until December, 1923. I contend that the continuance of such autocratic DOWNS in the hands of the Horne Secretary is quite unnecessary. Such powers can only be justified by the circumstances of war and are totally improper in a democratic State in times of peace. I will not retail all these powers, but they include powers to prohibit aliens from landing; to impose restrictions on them when they land; to prohibit them from going: to deport them; to force them to reside in certain areas; prohibiting them from remaining in other areas save under licence; compelling them to be registered; appointing officers—I do not know what that costs—and any other matters which appear necessary or discreet. Such a wide power as that is quite inappropriate in times of peace. We know that the great need of to-day is to get back to peace conditions and to get rid of restriction and interference in every way. Such powers as these may be, and indeed are, exercised in respect of aliens who come here for the purpose of engaging in trade. Surely it is in our interest that they should have the greatest facilities, just as we ourselves, when we go abroad for purposes of trade, desire to have the greatest facilities for ourselves. In short, we want free communications between all countries, in order that the economic health of the world may be restored. These powers are hostile to such an ideal. They were only granted—and properly granted—in the emergency of the War, and it is time now that they came to an end.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt)

There are many restrictions which are necessary in war-time, but which are distinctly undesirable in times of peace; but I do not think anyone in this Committee would deny for a moment that we cannot possibly allow aliens from any part of the world, of any sort and description, to come here without restriction. We are bound to protect ourselves from undesirable persons of all kinds who might otherwise come into the country. I would also remind the Committee that when this Act of 19l9 was passed, it was made a temporary Measure, because it was hoped that we should have sufficient time and experience to put our Regulations and our statutory provisions in regard to aliens upon a more permanent basis Experi- ence has taught us one thing, and that is that it is very difficult indeed to bring in any permanent legislation with regard to aliens which would be always satisfactory. Indeed, your Rules and Regulations must constantly be changing as circumstances change all over the world, and for that reason it has been almost impossible to come to any sort of decision or guidance as to what form permanent legislation on the subject should take. Clearly, this year it would be out of the question to pass legislation of a permanent character on the subject. If we did not continue the present legislation, therefore, the result would be that we might have a small invasion of undesirable persons coming in and flooding our labour market, many of

(15)
10 & 11 Geo. 5 c. 58.	The Shops (Early Closing) Act, 1920.	The whole Act	…	…	…	11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 60.

The Act was passed in 1920, but it really contains a code passed during the stress of war in 1916. It contains D.O.R.A. Regulations. Prior to that period there had been an Act of 1912, which gave to local bodies of shopkeepers various powers for the closing of their own shops, but when the War had been going on for a couple of years, and there was a shortage of coal, gas and labour, all sorts of strange Measures were adopted for the purpose of winning the War. A new code was adopted for shops which was supposed to be only a war Measure, and it should only have been a war Measure. It should have been dropped when peace was concluded. It impinges very much upon the liberty of the small shopkeeper. Prior to that Act, unless there was an overwhelming vote of shopkeepers in an area, the small shopkeeper who did not employ assistance could open and shut pretty well as he chose. I contend that it is utterly unreasonable, four years after the War, to be continuing this Act, and to be subjecting small shopkeepers to an inspection to which no other class of labour in this country has to submit. You may have statutory hours of labour in coalmines or elsewhere affecting the wageearner who is employed. We have had it for a considerable number of years and I do not think anyone wants to go back upon it. It is perfectly right that when a man is employed in labour that the hours of his labour should be regulated, them probably dangerous persons, who might get in without our really knowing anything about them. For these and other reasons, it is absolutely essential that we should retain power to regulate the influx of aliens into this country, and I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not press his Amendment. He is quite right to make his protest, and to raise the point, because it is desirable, as far as we can, in peace time to get rid of what are really war-time restrictions, but alien restriction is necessary in peace-time, if not to the same extent as in war-time.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

I beg to move, in Part I, to leave out

otherwise you would have undue exploitation of the wage-earner by those who employ him.

The case, however, is entirely different with a man who is working on his own account, and to use this code established for war purposes to suppress him—for that is what it amounts to—is not right. The code was introduced in 1920, and all the shopkeepers closed except the eating departments. The discharged man came back from the War and found this code imposed upon him. If he wanted to start a little shop of his own, and, if possible, to gather up some of the crumbs that fell from the table of the rich shopkeeper, after the big shops were closed, when he might hope, perhaps, behind his own counter, to get customers who were engaged for long hours and had not the the time to shop except then, he found that it could not be done. He found this extraordinary code around his neck. The big Shopkeepers' Association—because, after all, the big shops have run the Early Closing Associations, and have provided a fund by which they can keep up this enormous agitation against any attempt to introduce a rational system of regulating the hours of employment, instead of regulating the hours of the shop—I say the big shops are behind all this, and using their own employés as a cover have closed the small shops so as to get the business into their own hands.

The curious thing is this: When I propose—I suppose the Labour Members would call me a reactionary Tory—to protect the small employer against the big shopkeeper and to give him reasonable and limited hours of work and reduce his hours from 19 or 12 to 8 hours, the Labour party stand up and resist me and prevent the shopkeeper's assistant getting reasonable hours of labour which they desiderate for all classes of labour. This question was, I find on looking back to 1920, before the House then. I find that on 30th July, 1920, the Shops (Early Closing) (No. 2) Bill—the one which is now being renewed—was brought forward. It was introduced in what I think would probably be styled a rather perfunctory speech by the Under-Secretary for the Home Office. It was pointed out by him or the Home Secretary that "there was so much confusion in regard to the closing of shops that it was better to continue the War Regulations than to have no Regulations for a period until things have adjusted themselves."

I find that the late Member for the Wrekin Division (Mr. Palmer) opposed the Bill very strongly and pointed out the absurd anomalies of it. He showed how he could go into a shop and buy a little cooked meat, but could not buy the pickles to go with it, because that was against the Regulations. He also explained he could go to a theatre with his wife and could go out and buy whiskey for himself, but he could not get a box of chocolates for his wife in the theatre. This latter difficulty, however, has been removed. But the whole matter is riddled with distinctions, without any thought for the convenience of the public; because, mark you, the one thing I wish people engaged in business would get rid of this idea that they are carrying on their business and their occupation for their own good. That is the last thing they could think of. The man who is engaged in industry or a profession should always have regard to the customers and serve his clients' interests to the best of his ability. In doing so he would know that if you render the best possible service all other things will be added unto you. [Laughter.] That is an old maxim, I would remind hon. Members. They will find it in that old book of which possibly some of them have a copy, and it is perfectly true. The small shopkeeper, it may be, served a very large part of the working classes, because the workman used to spend part of his evenings following his employment, going out with his wife to do the shopping. Now she has to get out in a hurry before the closing time of the shops, and at a time when she ought to be preparing her husband's meal for when he comes home. One of the evils in our country is the concentration of industry and wealth in few hands, and it is not a natural process. Our Limited Liability Acts are responsible for a great deal of these evils, because they have allowed a concentration of capital into single hands. One of the grievances in Scotland is that you could sometimes find one man with 19 farms in his own hands, with grieves working them. What you want to have is more individual ownership. I know that there is a strange view held by hon. Members opposite that there should be huge aggregations of capital—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member has now got beyond the point as to whether this Act should be continued for another year or not. He must bear in mind that we are only considering the question of this Act being continued for another year, and so far as he directs his arguments to the continuation of this Bill, that will be in order; but the general Debate upon the Shop Hours Acts and their operation is distinctly out of order.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

I was trying to illustrate the danger of continuing this Statute, which has been continued since 1916, and I was trying to show that one of its effects has been a tendency to almost exterminate the small shopkeeper, or, at any rate, to make his lot very much more difficult. I am pleading for the small shopkeeper who ought not to have his liberty taken away from him under War Regulations which were continued in 1920 and which under this Bill will be continued for another 18 months—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member has already told us that.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

I think it is an absolute abuse that this Act should be continued, and I want the Committee to take advantage of what the Home Secre- tary said we ought to do when he reminded the House that this Bill does not propose to take any permanent stand, but simply says that there has been a diversity of opinion amongst those concerned, and we ought to have time to look round, and therefore we propose the existing state of things for another 18 months. The right hon. Gentleman has had 18 months of it. On another occasion he said: Let us go on for another 12 months, and, in the meantime, by investigation and discussion, we shall be able to arrive at what is the judgment of the House, and then we shad make that permanent. Since then there has been no interest taken in this question, although there has been ample time.

Mr. SHORTT

My hon. Friend says that there has been no discussion and no interest taken in shop hours, but I can assure him that his experience is very different from mine. The Committee will recollect that prior to the War there were very few regulations with regard to shop hours. They were chiefly local, made under the Act of 1912. During the War it became necessary for various reasons to regulate shop hours, and from 1916 to 1920 the workers in shops experienced the benefit of a reduction of hours. The result was that they pressed hard at the end of the War that the experience of shorter hours which they had gained in the War should be continued in times of peace. It is perfectly true that it was a difficult subject, and that at the end of the War there was some diversity of opinion, but I venture to think that diversity is very much smaller to-day, and certainly, so far as my information goes, every day the number of those who are in favour of these Provisions is growing and growing. I am sure that the House will realise that it is very difficult in industrial matters in times such as we are going through to put permanent provisions upon the Statute Book. We are not in normal times, and it is no use pretending that we are. Therefore, although we have been discussing this matter with those interested and concerned, obtaining all the opinions and all the experience that we can get, we do not feel that it would be wise this year to put a further Act upon the Statute Book. Consequently, we are asking the House to consent that this very salutary and beneficent Measure shall be con- tinued for at least another year. It may be that as times improve we may come to some permanent arrangement, but in the meantime I hope that the House will consent to this Measure, beneficial as it is, being continued.

Mr. KILEY

I rise to make an appeal to the Home Secretary, that he should not let this matter drift indefinitely, as he rather hinted that he might be disposed to do. He will recall that in 1920 it was somewhat reluctantly agreed to pass the proposal, which he then presented, and for which he gave very good reasons. But it interfered very considerably with the Act of 1912, which gave to local authorities powers to deal with special cases and special events. I was approached, as the Home Secretary knows, a short time ago by the local shopkeepers outside great stations like Euston. On football day thousands of visitors come to London. They desire to take back with them some present or gift, but unless they purchase it early in the evening and cart it about with them — because the trains do not leave till late —they are unable to take those articles back. Under the Shop Act of 1912, the local authority in each area had power to deal with special occasions, and it was understood when the Act was agreed that the Home Secretary would have authority to continue those powers. On application being made to him to exercise these powers, the Home Secretary declined to do it on the ground that he could not interfere with the local districts, but he said he would be quite willing to interfere in cases of general holidays throughout the Kingdom. That is complained of very much in local areas, where there are special holidays and special occasions on which the shopkeepers desire to avail themselves of the special conditions made to meet their cases. When the Home Secretary is considering his new Bill, I hope he will bear that in mind.

Dr. MURRAY

I wish to say a word on behalf of the small shopkeepers. Take the case of a town where there are two men owning neighbouring small shops. One employs a boy or two; the other employs no one. The shopkeeper who employs a boy or two will be compelled to close at a certain hour, whereas his neighbour who does not employ anyone may keep open at all hours day and night. This is a great injustice which is felt by a large number of small shopkeepers throughout the country, and in their interest I cannot support this Amendment.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and agreed to.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

Is there not some mistake. I thought the Question you put was that my Amendment stand part of the Schedule.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

No. The hon. Member voted in favour of the words proposed to be left out standing part of the Schedule.

Mr. WATERSON

I beg to move, in Part IV, in the paragraph commencing 10 & 11 Geo. 5, c. 47, in column 3, to leave out the word "Part," and to insert instead thereof the words "Parts I and".

I do not know whether there is an unfortunate omission on the part of the right hon. Gentleman in not inserting this in the Bill, but I may just briefly state the circumstances and ask for a favourable consideration of my proposal. Part I of the Sale of Food Order dealt with the question of bread. Part II dealt with the question of tea, in reference to which the Government brought in a Bill that has been sanctioned. In connection with it arose a question of the labelling of imported produce. Inasmuch as the Order so far as bread is concerned comes to an end on the last day of next month—the 31st August—and the Government had a Sale of Bread Bill which it has withdrawn for this Session, we shall be compelled to revert to the status quo before the War. My right hon. Friend well knows that a Committee was appointed and certain decisions were arrived at. The consuming public are anxious to retain the position which for the past five years has worked successfully under this Sale of Food Order—at any rate, until the Government have carried their Bill.

Mr. KILEY

I hope the Government will not do anything of the kind. It is admitted that the working of this Order under the Food Controller, when rationing was in vogue and when there were limited supplies, was essential. But there is not the slightest justification for con- tinuing war-time orders to-day. If there is thought to be then they should be debated on their merits. As regards this very Order, about which my hon. Friend is so anxious, and which he says is such a great success, the Government themselves only propose partly to renew it in their new Bill. I am speaking from memory, but I am as certain as I can be without having the actual words before me that it is only intended to renew a part of the Order. We are entitled to ask for some further grounds for this continuance of war-time proposals, and also to ask at whose instigation and demand it is. As far as I can gather, in my locality there is no demand for it whatever. My hon. Friend appears to assume that the housewife, when she goes shopping or marketing, has no idea what she is getting or what she is paying, but he overlooks the fact that there is not now only one shop or one source of supply, as there was during the War; there are three or four shops fiercely competing with each other, and, if there is any profiteering going on, I do not think it is being done by the small shopkeepers. In these circumstances, I hope the Government will give a clear undertaking that this Order will be dropped, either now or in the very near future.

Mr. HAILWOOD

I hope the Committee will support the Government in the Bill as it stands, and will also support the Select Committee whose special duty it was to investigate these expiring laws. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment said that there was a demand on the part of the public that this present Regulation should be continued. I have not met with that demand, nor have I met anyone else who has met with it. It is quite true that this Order was introduced during the War by Lord Rhondda, and it was introduced for a special purpose, because of the possibility that the bread of the people might have to be rationed. It was an impossible Regulation to carry out in its literal sense, but the baking trade accepted it loyally and endeavoured to do their best with it, because it was in time of war. It has, however, been continued since the War, and was embodied in the Sale of Food Order which was passed in 1921, and is now the Sale of Bread Bill. Certain reasons were given to the House when that Order was passed. The specific Order with regard to the sale of bread in pounds and multiples of pounds was not discussed, but the Minister of Food came down to the House and asked for certain powers to continue control of the milling and flour trades, and, as the flour mills were under control, the Minister of Food felt himself bound to reserve powers right through to bread at the other end, in case any Regulations had to be made. The Committee, of which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely), was the Chairman, says in its Report: Your Committee are, therefore, of opinion that the system of extending the duration of temporary laws by means of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, so far from being a safeguard of the rights of Members, is, in fact, to some extent, liable to become a menace to those rights, inasmuch as temporary and experimental legislation is by this means continued from year to year. They further say: The Committee have not been impressed by these arguments"— that is to say, the arguments with regard to controversial subjects— or assented to the view that, as applied to any particular enactment, they afford sufficient cause for refraining from recomending that it should be made permanent. This is a controversial Measure pure and simple, and the Committee specifically lay it down that no controversial Act should pass under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The hon. Member has referred to a Bill which has been left over until next Session. We are discussing now the Expiring Laws Bill and not the Future Laws Initiation Bill. I take it there is no desire on the part of the House to anticipate legislation which will be introduced in the autumn and very probably will be defeated—at any rate, it is controversial—and there is no reason whatever why the House should anticipate that legislation under theo Expiring Laws Bill. I hope the Committee will support the Government and the Committee that investigated the matter.

5.0 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson)

Perhaps it will help the Committee if I say why I think on the whole, giving due weight to all the considerations, the Amendment ought to be accepted. The hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. Hailwood) and the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) have strong views on this question and, as is their habit, they have belaboured those who disagree with them in a very doughty manner, but I think the dust of the battle is really rather obscuring what is the very narrow issue, which I want to put to the Committee. There is a Sale of Bread Bill proposed by the Government, on the recommendation of a Committee. It turned out to be more controversial than was expected when it was introduced. The part of the Bill applying particularly to Scotland, indeed, has caused a great deal of controversy. The merits or demerits of the Scotch Clause, or any other part of the Bill, are not really relevant to the issue which is before us at the moment, but I mention it because there are two facts I want the Committee to keep in mind. In the first place there is the Bill. The hon. Members for Ardwick and Whitechapel say it is an unnecessary, vexatious and bad Bill. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Waterson) says it does not go far enough. I refrain from expressing any opinion about the Bill, by way of advocacy or condemnation, but I draw attention to the fact that there is a Bill. In the second place there is at present an Order dealing with the sale of bread by weight. It. has been in force for five years and it expires on 31st August next. It is clear that if a Bill on the subject be proceeded with during the Autumn Session it cannot reasonably be expected to operate before 1st January at the earliest. There will therefore be a gap between 31st August and 1st January in which we shall be reverting to the status quo. The hon. Member for Kettering sees this Order which is in operation and says, "It is better than nothing. Continue it until you pass a Sale of Bread Bill, which, I hope, will be in a form more acceptable than the present Order." The hon. Member for Ardwick says this Order is vexatious and repressive, and the sooner it dies a natural death the sooner I shall be happy. On the balance of administrative convenience, I think it is desirable to accept the Amendment and prolong the Order until such time as the House may have an opportunity of giving further consideration to the Sale of Bread Bill, because if you do not do that, assuming that a Sale of Bread Bill passes in the Autumn Session, you will then have this ridiculous situation. Up to 31st. August, local authorities will be administering the present Order. Between the 31st August and, say, the 1st January, they will be administering the old Order, and after the 1st January they will be administering the new Sale of Bread Act. That is a state of administrative confusion which is clearly obnoxious to local authorities, and which I should have thought would be troublesome to the trade. Taking all these considerations into account, I think it is desirable to accept the Amendment.

Mr. KILEY

Will the hon. Member consider the advisability of testing whether it is advisable or not to continue? If he finds that it is inadvisable, then he has his Bill in Draft, and he can put it into force.

Mr. HAILWOOD

This opens up a new situation. Up to the last moment we were under the impression that the Government intended to carry out the Expiring Laws Bill as printed on the Paper. Is it fair at the last moment that a new line of this sort should be taken because the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Waterson) has moved an Amendment? Is it fair, when this gap is not a gap at all, but is simply reverting to the pre-War practice? This style of selling bread by pounds and multiples of pounds has never been debated in this House, and there is no Bill relating to it which has passed a Second Reading. It simply means this, that officials in Whitehall have an idea that this is the right way to go about the business, and because of these officials this proposed Bill is brought in. Now, in spite of the recommendations of the Committee which have been investigating expiring laws, the Government representative wants to make his position secure by being in a better position, when he brings in his Bill, for inflicting this legislation on the trade. It is a preposterous line to take, and I hope the Committee will divide against the Government if they intend to take this line, and that they will support the Select Committee which has investigated the expiring laws. I hope the Bill will be passed as it stands.

Mr. HANNON

I entirely support the contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick (Mr. Hailwood). It is an unprecedented thing that the Government should at the last moment accept an Amendment of this character. In this House we have evidence brought forward frequently showing the desire of the country to get rid of the anomalies arising out of the War, and now the Government, having brought in a Bill which they were unable to pass on account of lack of time, accept an Amendment which keeps this anomalous restriction operative until, perchance, they have an opportunity of passing their Bill. If my hon. Friend divides against the Amendment, I shall support him.

Mr. WATERSON

I regret that the hon. Member for Ardwick should attempt to belittle the opportunity that is afforded to a private Member to bring forward Amendments and to endeavour to persuade the Government to accept them. That opportunity will be maintained in future by private Members. I have taken the proper method of dealing with what I consider to be an anomaly, and I cannot in any way be responsible for the apathy of other hon. Members. If other hon. Members have failed to take advantage of the opportunity presented to them, the responsibility is theirs. The hon. Member ought to give me some congratulation for taking a step which I consider to be justified. The restrictions which have been in operation have been unanimously decided upon as being the best in the interests of the consuming public. That decision was arrived at by the Committee set up by the Government to investigate the sale of bread, and the Government Committee which reported on the question of short weight was conclusive evidence of the need for some alteration in the position in which we found ourselves before these restrictions were brought in.

Mr. HAILWOOD

is the hon. Member referring to the Select Committee of 1914 or the Rathcreedan Committee?

Mr. WATERSON

I am referring to the Committee, before which my hon. Friend gave evidence, and to which I had the privilege of listening, presided over by Lord Rathcreedan. I hope, at any rate, that the Government will not alter their decision, and I thank them for accepting the Amendment.

Mr. HAILWOOD

The Rathcreedan Committee was specially arranged to suit the officials in Whitehall, so as to continue this Order. The recommendations of the Select Committee of 1914 are diametrically opposed to the legislation which the hon. Member proposes. That was a Committee of Members of this House, representative of all parties. It made certain recommendations with regard to tea and bread. The Government brought in a Tea Bill applying the recommendations with regard to tea, but they brought in a Bread Bill which was contrary to the recommendations with regard to bread. The Rathcreedan Committee was the biggest fraud of a Committee ever set up.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN

Is the hon. Member in order in describing a Committee set up by Members of this House as a fraud?

Mr. HAILWOOD

It was not set up by this House.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I did not hear the hon. Member make use of the observation referred to.

Mr. HAILWOOD

The Committee of 1914 was appointed by Members of this House and made a report which was not suitable to the officials in Whitehall, and they, through the instrumentality of the Ministry of Food, set up the Rathcreedan Committee. The Select Committee in 1914 heard evidence in public, and all the evidence was published afterwards, while the Rathcreedan Committee never published evidence and excluded the public form its sittings. In addition, it was packed with officials, and, though one half of this House consists of Coalition Unionists, there was not a single Coalition

Division No. 262.	AYES.	[5.13 p.m.
Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Windsor, Viscount
Hallwood, Augustine	Raffan, Peter Wilson
Kiley, James Daniel	Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J.(Westminster)	Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud	Viscount Curzon and Mr. Hannon.

NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. William	Blake, Sir Francis Douglas	Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte	Boscawen, Rt. Hon. sir A. Griffith-	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm, W)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.	Coats, Sir Stuart
Ammon, Charles George	Breese, Major Charles E.	Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Armstrong, Henry Bruce	Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Cope, Major William
Balfour, George (Hampstead}	Broad, Thomas Tucker	Davidson, Major-Genera! Sir J. H.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)	Brown, Major D. C.	Doyle, N. Grattan
Barnes. Major H. (Newcastle, E.)	Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)	Evans, Ernest
Barnett, Major Richard W.	Bruton, Sir James	Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Barnston, Major Harry	Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.	Galbraith, Samuel
Barrand, A. R.	Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James	Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Cape, Thomas	Gillis, William

Unionist on that Committee. The whole thing was a specially cooked affair.

Mr. LORDEN

Baked!

Mr. HAILWOOD

And it was to carry out the wishes of certain officials. I protest against this method of legislation.

Mr. MACLEAN

I wish to protest against the attitude adopted by the hon. Member. He had the opportunity of being summoned to give evidence before that Committee and uttering his protest against the composition of the Committee at that time. But he waits until now when he finds the Report of the Committee adverse to his idea, and, because its decision is opposed to his idea, he holds up the Committee as a fraud, whereas if its decision had been in the opposite direction he would have held it up as one of the best Committees ever appointed. I hope that the Government will stand by their pledge and accept the Amendment. The special pleading, by the hon. Member, for the master bakers of this country whom he represents—

Mr. HAILWOOD

On a point of Order. I do not represent the master bakers of this country. I represent my constituents. There is no benefit in any way to me from this.

Mr. MACLEAN

The hon. Member read out references from the master bakers, of whose association he is a member.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is entitled to explain his position.

Question put, "That the word 'Part' stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 9; Noes, 105.

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John	Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm	Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Greig, Colonel Sir James William	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Sutherland, Sir William
Grundy, T. W.	Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.	Swan, J. E.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.	Macquisten, F. A.	Taylor, J.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)	Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz	Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Morden, Col. W. Grant	Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Maryhill)
Hirst, G. H.	Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert	Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor
Hogge, James Myles	Murchison, C. K.	Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
Hopkins, John W. W.	Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)	Waterson, A. E.
Hudson, R. M.	Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)	Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)	Neal, Arthur	Wedgwood, Colonel Joslah C.
Irving, Dan	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Whitla, Sir William
Jodrell, Neville Paul	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Wignall, James
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George	Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry	Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
Kennedy, Thomas	Pinkham, Lieut-Colonel Charles	Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.
King, Captain Henry Douglas	Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray	Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton	Pratt, John William	Wise, Frederick
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.	Roundell, Colonel R. F.	Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Lorden, John William	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward
Lort-williams, J.	Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur	Young, E. H. (Norwich)
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)	Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Young, Robert {Lancaster, Newton)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander	Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)	Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on T.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander	Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Parker.

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Schedule," put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments.

As amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Major-General SEELY

May I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will get the Government to instruct the Treasury to carry out the fifteenth paragraph of the Report of the Committee, which will, we think, prevent an undue accumulation of Acts under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I hope the hon. Gentleman can give that assurance as all the Members of the Committee were impressed with the necessity of this step.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young)

It is certainly our opinion that a periodical revision would be of great advantage. It has been of great advantage this year, and I should like to express in a few words my recognition of the efficient and prompt labours of the Select Committee and its Chairman, which enabled us to present the Bill in a much more reasonable shape than it could have been otherwise.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.